Communism in space
- Thread starter Hanson's Roughriders
- Start date
- Status
State capitalism seems to me to be an oxymoron because capitalism means private ownership of the means of production, not state ownership.
State/public ownership of the means of production is the basic definition of socialism.
I'm not insisting anyone use these definitions; I'm referring to them for clarity.
I do think an AI 'angel' running a government or economic system is good game fodder, for sure.
As I understand it command economies in the 20th Century didn't fail merely because of corruption but because the planning and information requirements were beyond human capabilities to meet effectively and competitively.
Would hyper-advanced computing be better at allocating resources and setting production levels and all that? Maybe so.
EDIT- I removed a historical remark about the dubious origins of the term 'state capitalism.' Quite true, but off-topic.
Last edited:
Cab Kroner Honing
SOC-7
Question: with regards 'communism in space,' has anyone considered and can share ideas about the economics. Theories of market structure, which the dynamics of supply and demand, is accepted by a range of economists holding opposing theories of value, particularly the metaphysical question what is the 'stuff' that money represents (utilitarianism/needs vs. cost of production/production coefficients/Leontief technology vs. abstract labor/socially necessary labor time). In a communist scenario, with markets replaced by planning mechanisms on both the production and consumption sides, it seems the physical cost theory is assumed. It explains relative prices between two or more goods. However, true communism would have no prices and so the cost issue is recast in terms of human need. Of course, this assumes an advanced level of technological knowledge to support the free time communism by its political advocates is intended to allow. But since communist societies have to interact with non-communist beings, then it seems then the supply and demand dynamic with the cost of production limitation regulating it would be operative. I am open to further thoughts on this because the economics of the Traveller universe seems to me to be somewhat neglected but also very interesting in itself. If anything it raises the question what our rules are simplifying in the real world. And it challenges us to pursue that right mix of mechanics and role-playing.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Ideally, a closed, internal self sufficient economy, with possibly an Orwellian social credit score.
External trade could be handled by government agencies, or semi public private enterprises, preferring barter to actual currency.
External trade could be handled by government agencies, or semi public private enterprises, preferring barter to actual currency.
Cab Kroner Honing
SOC-7
Social standing and communism in space
Has anyone considered how Social Standing would need to be revised? Or reinvented? Democratic centralism allows for debate but when consensus is reached everyone has to follow the policy.
Has anyone considered how Social Standing would need to be revised? Or reinvented? Democratic centralism allows for debate but when consensus is reached everyone has to follow the policy.
Changes to social standing could depend on the law level and or govt type. In a high law level or bureaucratic govt type, ss could be used to represent composite of influence, connections, networking pull, and level of bureaucratic responsibility (department head, regional administrator, director of energy, etc)
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Allow me to quote a famous passage from a famous allegorical novel-
"All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal then others."
There will always be a hierarchy, if nothing else the people who persuade, determine what is to be voted on and carry out the determined policy, more especially if they are the same for two or all three functions.
And with a hierarchy of persuaders agendamakers and enforcers, there will be a pecking order with those in and those out.
The difference between Duke of Regina and Senior Servant of Regina Subsector People's Affairs is one of style and tropes built into the belief structure of the human org, and I would argue not different in functionality.
Cab Kroner Honing
SOC-7
The novel, Animal Farm, allegorizes the Soviet Union from Orwell's conclusions, and not communism the concept. But, as I indicated, a coherent society entails corrective mechanisms for behavior such as law and given the division of labor is likely to still exist, in spite of technical change, there will be roles hence inequality.
Cab Kroner Honing
SOC-7
Thanks. Seems insightful.
Np.
This is the other half of that idea:
In a low law level or non-bureaucratic government type, Social Standing could represent the character's persuasive influence among the population or other leaders. Social Standing would represent how highly regarded the character is by people and groups. A low Social Standing could mean that a character is a nobody or is looked down on, and nobody listens to him or cares about his ideas, needs, or wants. A high Social Standing could mean that the character is known and respected for solving problems and managing operations within the society so that most people feel that his plans produce socially desirable results.
Even in a communist economy where everyone has all they need and plenty of leisure time, social hierarchies will still form as they do in every human group. The people who are for lack of a better word 'liked' or feared by others will have greater influence in the workers' councils that somebody who is boring, or socially awkward, or can't communicate his ideas effectively. The beautiful woman, and charming manipulator, the fast talking thug, all the archetypes that have gained power playing on the flaws in human nature, they will be present. Whichever one of these people implement solutions that successfully address problems will be highly regarded and thus have a higher social standing.
As for interacting with non-communist societies, the central planners could always allocate some labor toward producing goods for sale to outsiders. Since everyone get enough according to his need, it shouldn't matter what work is done. So, the communist society produces some goods, like ore or something, sells it, and makes hard currency for the society.
Cab Kroner Honing
SOC-7
Good stuff! Right mix of quality and quantification when the communist setting is explicitly incorporated. Much appreciated and will digest, apply, experiment, and report back.
Anither cooment.
I think such societies, even if not oppressive, would be difficult to leave. Everything belongs to the community. A person cant 'save up' to make a new start somewhere else. The person would have to ask for passage on a visiting ship, and wouldnt have anything to pay with. Even the clothes on his back belong to the community. These ideas occurred to me after reading an article abput a commune in mexico of maybe ten families. If someone didnt want to live there anymore, they wouldnt even have the money for a bus ticket out of there. Considering all the social politics that happen in any group, it could be ome intolerable for people who become social outcasts or targets of the social group for whatever reason.
I think such societies, even if not oppressive, would be difficult to leave. Everything belongs to the community. A person cant 'save up' to make a new start somewhere else. The person would have to ask for passage on a visiting ship, and wouldnt have anything to pay with. Even the clothes on his back belong to the community. These ideas occurred to me after reading an article abput a commune in mexico of maybe ten families. If someone didnt want to live there anymore, they wouldnt even have the money for a bus ticket out of there. Considering all the social politics that happen in any group, it could be ome intolerable for people who become social outcasts or targets of the social group for whatever reason.
Anyone wanting to leave would be stealing if they left wearing clothes. Any money, supplies, or a vehicle would be even more theft from the society's common property. The society would have a valid case for demanding extradition from any world the person fled to, and that crew of free traders that gave him a ride would be accomplices to that theft.
It could be an adventure seed for a crew trying to deal with a perfectly valid arrest warrant from a communist world which has a 1000 ways the crew's ship would benefit society as a whole instead of a few primitive troglodytes who use it for selfishly grubbing money for themselves. Yeah yeah, local law shmocal law, until other worlds stop doing business with them and possibly take them into custody to await extradition.
Mid-level dudgeon is about the most I can attain these days, assuming I didn't have to get up in the middle of the night the day before (in which case it is low dudgeon, at best).
How can i put this. Its a collective. Individuals are replaceable parts of the collective. Everything belongs to the collective, not to any of the individuals in the collective. Which means, the collective decides how the collective uses its property. In a democratic govt type world, the individuals would vote and the collective decision would go through. Or the local commitees would hold a vote then send an elector to the next higher committee etcetera ad nauseam until the peoples supreme council of workers decides if the collective will spring for a low passage for some loser that no one likes anyway. In a non democratic govt type, the peoples administrators or comptroller of the peoples credits, or a host of apparatchiks decides who gets what, and the peoples guardians of the peoples utopian collective of justice equality and prosperity put the peoples boots to the boat-rocker.
absolutely. individuals are just tools, nothing more.
including the individuals.
precisely. any single or specific subset of the collective are specifically excluded.
which means, the central committee decides. the people decide nothing. the central committee owns everything. the people own nothing. the central committee controls everything. the people control nothing. in practice, in a communist society the only people that count, that matter, that exist, are the central committee. they are The People. by intent and design. everyone else is just a fungible tool used to achieve The People's plans. by intent and design. in every generation.
Theres a lot of adventure potential in a mini campaign in which culturally imperial characters need to work closely with bureaucrats and proletariat who know no other way of life on a task which affects them both.
- Status
