Iain Banks and the American Empire
Patrick Powers
civilization called "The Culture" that is threatened by an empire.
The idea is that The Culture is the most powerful of all but too
liberal to form an empire, and wants to get rid of the threat with as
little fuss and bother as possible. The empire is a meritocracy where
government positions go to those who do well in an enormous game, and
the winner becomes emperor. The best games player of The Culture goes
to play.
I won't give away all that happens (I tried other Banks books and was
disappointed, so it may be one of his best) but a striking thing is
that it reads like a thinly disguised metaphor for the Bush empire.
Torture, constant propaganda with inhabitants of invaded countries
show as inferiour, street violence, poverty, praise of the military.
Class system, cruelty, and self-interest rules. The Culture's man
gets to watch himself depicted on TV as an evil alien menace and a
cheater. In each match the opponent may demand that body parts be
wagered. I'll stop there.
It was so close that I took a look at the copyright date. 1988. I
guess empires are always like this. Once you decide to base society
on self-interest, this is what you get.
Brandon
Patrick Powers wrote:
>
> I won't give away all that happens (I tried other Banks books and was
> disappointed, so it may be one of his best) but a striking thing is
> that it reads like a thinly disguised metaphor for the Bush empire.
> Torture, constant propaganda with inhabitants of invaded countries
> show as inferiour, street violence, poverty, praise of the military.
> Class system, cruelty, and self-interest rules.
Interesting. Who was president before Bush in your timeline?
>
> It was so close that I took a look at the copyright date. 1988. I
> guess empires are always like this. Once you decide to base society
> on self-interest, this is what you get.
Actually, Western Europe is what you get.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Patrick Powers <frisbie...@yahoo.com> said
<snip>
>It was so close that I took a look at the copyright date. 1988. I
>guess empires are always like this. Once you decide to base society
>on self-interest, this is what you get.
? Has there =ever= been a society, or even a fragment thereof, based on
anything =except= self interest?? Sometimes, enlightened, sometimes less
so. I mean without getting too technical, the 'hey, you have all the
money, wives and kids then' is not a real winner in the genetic
marathon..
Even in allegedly idealistic organizations self interest is driving 90%
of the membership 90% of the time, IMO.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Craig Richardson
Powers) wrote:
> I'll stop there.
Permanently, I trust.
--Craig
--
But what I'm saying about the extreme age of the outdated nonsense in
Strunk & White can perhaps best be put like this ... [it] was so long
ago that _the Red Sox had just won the World Series the year before_
-- Geoffrey K. Pullum in "Language Log", 2004/10/28
us...@domain.invalid
> ? Has there =ever= been a society, or even a fragment thereof, based on
> anything =except= self interest?? Sometimes, enlightened, sometimes less
> so. I mean without getting too technical, the 'hey, you have all the
> money, wives and kids then' is not a real winner in the genetic marathon..
> Even in allegedly idealistic organizations self interest is driving 90%
> of the membership 90% of the time, IMO.
From http://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?id=2747&l=1
[21] A former populist Premier of NSW, Jack Lang, gave future Prime
Minister Paul Keating what he once told me was a formative piece of
advice: “In any horse race, son, always back the one called Self
Interest. He’ll be the only one trying.”
comments
Dave O'Neill
Brandon
Dave O'Neill wrote:
*shrug*
If there is a subsegment of the human race that is more
self-absorbed, self-indulgent, short-sighted and downright
LAZY than modern Europeans, I have yet to hear about it.
Remember that these are the people who in the 20th Century
nearly destroyed western civilization not once but TWICE, in
the space of less than 50 years, largely because they were
too provincial and selfish to work out their disagreements
ina civilized manner.
Dave Shipley
As insightful as your historical perspective on the 1914-1918, and 1939-45
conflicts is, well, it's crap basically. Beyond that, look around the world
now and look at where the highest standards of living are found, and look at
a continent which is now united, democratic and free from the Atlantic to
the edge of the Med, and to the borders of Russia.
Dave O'Neill
>
>
> Dave O'Neill wrote:
>
> > "Brandon" <jch...@avalon.net> wrote in message
> > news:coa6us$teb$4...@narsil.avalon.net...
> >
> >>
> >>Patrick Powers wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>>It was so close that I took a look at the copyright date. 1988. I
> >>>guess empires are always like this. Once you decide to base society
> >>>on self-interest, this is what you get.
> >>
> >>Actually, Western Europe is what you get.
> >
> >
> > <boggle>
>
> *shrug*
>
> If there is a subsegment of the human race that is more
> self-absorbed, self-indulgent, short-sighted and downright
> LAZY than modern Europeans, I have yet to hear about it.
Define "modern" - post WW2? 20th century? Last 300 years?
> Remember that these are the people who in the 20th Century
> nearly destroyed western civilization not once but TWICE, in
> the space of less than 50 years, largely because they were
> too provincial and selfish to work out their disagreements
> ina civilized manner.
No, largely because at the time Europe was a small land area with a lot of
countries full of people who didn't have a lot in common.
That is not the case at the moment.
Although, I'm sure an American, of all people, could understand that it's
terribly easy to go to war with people you don't like.
Dave
lal_truckee
>
>
> Patrick Powers wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I won't give away all that happens (I tried other Banks books and was
>> disappointed, so it may be one of his best) but a striking thing is
>> that it reads like a thinly disguised metaphor for the Bush empire.
>> Torture, constant propaganda with inhabitants of invaded countries
>> show as inferiour, street violence, poverty, praise of the military.
>> Class system, cruelty, and self-interest rules.
>
>
> Interesting. Who was president before Bush in your timeline?
Reagan
Fits the timing, also.
But just to throw out a semi on-topic consideration; many comments I've
read try to compare The Culture itself with the American Pseudo-empire
and Special Circumstances with the CIA/ETC. For What It's Worth = Nothing.
Scott Robinson
<G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Bitstring <9511688f.04112...@posting.google.com>, from the
>wonderful person Patrick Powers <frisbie...@yahoo.com> said
><snip>
>>It was so close that I took a look at the copyright date. 1988. I
>>guess empires are always like this. Once you decide to base society
>>on self-interest, this is what you get.
>
>? Has there =ever= been a society, or even a fragment thereof, based on
>anything =except= self interest?? Sometimes, enlightened, sometimes less
>so. I mean without getting too technical, the 'hey, you have all the
>money, wives and kids then' is not a real winner in the genetic
>marathon..
>Even in allegedly idealistic organizations self interest is driving 90%
>of the membership 90% of the time, IMO.
Virtually all of them. The society is based on the King's (or other
PTB) interest. The King (and his courtiers) act in their own
interest, but most of the population isn't able to act in their own
interest (i.e. keep the food that they grow, protect the family,
etc.). Feudal society is similar, and each rank forces those lower to
act in their lord's interest.
Somehow I don't think that's what you meant. I suppose that monks and
other abbeys have sufficient histories to claim otherwise, but they
rarely seem to be driving history.
Scott
Andrew Maizels
> Brandon wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Who was president before Bush in your timeline?
>
> Reagan
Well, true ;)
> Fits the timing, also.
>
> But just to throw out a semi on-topic consideration; many comments I've
> read try to compare The Culture itself with the American Pseudo-empire
> and Special Circumstances with the CIA/ETC. For What It's Worth = Nothing.
Seems like a better fit to me. America, like the Culture, isn't
interested in building an empire; they just want other people to stop
bothering them.
Now, cultural imperialism, that's another thing, but if you don't want
McDonalds and Reeboks and knife-missiles, don't buy them.
Andrew.
--
Visit mu.nu! It's crunchy and full of goodness!
http://mu.nu/
John Bauman
"Scott Robinson" <dsc...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:85qkq01h3ntu9h8m6...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:28:28 +0000, GSV Three Minds in a Can
> <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Bitstring <9511688f.04112...@posting.google.com>, from the
>>wonderful person Patrick Powers <frisbie...@yahoo.com> said
>><snip>
>>>It was so close that I took a look at the copyright date. 1988. I
>>>guess empires are always like this. Once you decide to base society
>>>on self-interest, this is what you get.
>>
>>? Has there =ever= been a society, or even a fragment thereof, based on
>>anything =except= self interest?? Sometimes, enlightened, sometimes less
>>so. I mean without getting too technical, the 'hey, you have all the
>>money, wives and kids then' is not a real winner in the genetic
>>marathon..
>>Even in allegedly idealistic organizations self interest is driving 90%
>>of the membership 90% of the time, IMO.
>
> Virtually all of them. The society is based on the King's (or other
> PTB) interest. The King (and his courtiers) act in their own
> interest, but most of the population isn't able to act in their own
> interest (i.e. keep the food that they grow, protect the family,
> etc.). Feudal society is similar, and each rank forces those lower to
> act in their lord's interest.
self-interests. Disobeyeing and then getting killed by your lord isn't
normally in your own self-interest.
Michael Grosberg
<The Player of Games> a striking thing is
> that it reads like a thinly disguised metaphor for the Bush empire.
> Torture, constant propaganda with inhabitants of invaded countries
> show as inferiour, street violence, poverty, praise of the military.
> Class system, cruelty, and self-interest rules.
You don't really know what poverty is do you? I'm not sure the average
afghanistan/rwanda/siera leone citizen would consider the U.S. to be
poverty stricken. The US is the richest country on earth, even if you
yourself feel like bush took away some of your perks. Rising prices of
gas? can't get financing for that new Toyota? try living without food
or housing, in a warzone ruled by warlords and full of land mines.
As for praise of the military, street violence, class system... well,
the US is still far better off in all those things than most of the
world. Why isn't the Empire = Iran, for example? Better yet,
pre-glasnost russia? Cuba? Lybia? Iraq? The list is long, and all
would fit better than the US.
And anyway, it is pretty clear the US is the Culture, not the Empire
of Azad. You should read _Look To Windward_, which has a special
relevance to the post- 9/11 world.
martin...@gmail.com
> > But just to throw out a semi on-topic consideration; many comments I've
> > read try to compare The Culture itself with the American Pseudo-empire
> > and Special Circumstances with the CIA/ETC. For What It's Worth = Nothing.
>
> Seems like a better fit to me. America, like the Culture, isn't
> interested in building an empire; they just want other people to stop
> bothering them.
That's not true: they both actively intervene in other cultures for
political reasons. I don't know what Culture books you have read where
they just want to be left alone. Gurgeh travels vast distances in PoG
specifically to topple the Azad empire which has no interaction with
the Culture.
Martin
Krijn Mossel
Just out of curiosity: Are you an American?
Krijn
how...@brazee.net
On 28-Nov-2004, lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Interesting. Who was president before Bush in your timeline?
>
> Reagan
He was president before Bush in my timeline too, as were Lincoln and both
Harrisons.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> And anyway, it is pretty clear the US is the Culture, not the Empire
> of Azad. You should read _Look To Windward_, which has a special
> relevance to the post- 9/11 world.
I think Banks is on record somewhere saying it's not. Anyway, I heard
him with my own ears saying that he created the Culture because he was
sick and tired of American space operas in which capitalist militarist
agressive GI joes win the day and wanted a setting in which there is a
civilization that is a bunch of pinko bleeding hearts free-loving
perverts, and that _keep winning_. Having read, among other things,
Canal Dreams, Complicity and Raw Spirit, I would suggest that Mr. Banks
is no great admirer of the US. The Culture is pretty clearly a planned
economy with no individual ownership. See:
http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~stefan/culture.html
And in particular:
"The theory here is that the property and social relations of long-term
space-dwelling (especially over generations) would be of a fundamentally
different type compared to the norm on a planet; the mutuality of
dependence involved in an environment which is inherently hostile would
necessitate an internal social coherence which would contrast with the
external casualness typifying the relations between such ships/habitats.
Succinctly; socialism within, anarchy without. This broad result is - in
the long run - independent of the initial social and economic conditions
which give rise to it.
Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be
profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more
productive - and more morally desirable - than one left to market
forces. The market is a good example of evolution in action; the
try-everything-and-see-what-works approach. This might provide a
perfectly morally satisfactory resource-management system so long as
there was absolutely no question of any sentient creature ever being
treated purely as one of those resources. The market, for all its
(profoundly inelegant) complexities, remains a crude and essentially
blind system, and is - without the sort of drastic amendments liable to
cripple the economic efficacy which is its greatest claimed asset -
intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between simple non-use of
matter resulting from processal superfluity and the acute, prolonged and
wide-spread suffering of conscious beings.
It is, arguably, in the elevation of this profoundly mechanistic (and
in that sense perversely innocent) system to a position above all other
moral, philosophical and political values and considerations that
humankind displays most convincingly both its present intellectual
[immaturity and] - through grossly pursued selfishness rather than the
applied hatred of others - a kind of synthetic evil."
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@spamcop.net - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/annafdd/
Damien R. Sullivan
>Michael Grosberg <preac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And anyway, it is pretty clear the US is the Culture, not the Empire
>> of Azad. You should read _Look To Windward_, which has a special
>> relevance to the post- 9/11 world.
>
>I think Banks is on record somewhere saying it's not. Anyway, I heard
I believe that.
I think aspects of the Culture -- individual freedom, idealistic
interventionism -- match aspects of how many (especially Americans) perceive
the US. Many others don't see the US that way, or pay more attention to the
socialist aspects, or the discouraging of immigration.
All in what you're paying attention to. And what the other side is paying
attention to.
Banks:
> Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be
>profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more
>productive - and more morally desirable - than one left to market
>forces. The market is a good example of evolution in action; the
Yeah, that's unfashionable, since both theory and practice contradict his
conviction...
Well, some planning works; small scale, like families and corporations --
though many corporations could do better with more market like mechanisms --
and central funding of positive externalities such as research.
But I note _Look to Windward_ had the Culturniks re-inventing barter in their
competition for seats at the Concert, and the local Mind sniffed at how
inelegant that all was, *without providing an alternative*.
I suspect many of the "Culture is the US" types edit things in their head so
that every Culturnik is effectively a trust fund baby and go on from there.
-xx- Damien X-)
Dave O'Neill
"Michael Grosberg" <preac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c21d3ba0.04112...@posting.google.com...
> frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message
news:<9511688f.04112...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <The Player of Games> a striking thing is
> > that it reads like a thinly disguised metaphor for the Bush empire.
> > Torture, constant propaganda with inhabitants of invaded countries
> > show as inferiour, street violence, poverty, praise of the military.
> > Class system, cruelty, and self-interest rules.
> And anyway, it is pretty clear the US is the Culture, not the Empire
> of Azad.
Ummm... Iain Banks is pretty damn clear that this is not the case.
Dave
Steve Brooks
> Michael Grosberg <preac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And anyway, it is pretty clear the US is the Culture, not the Empire
>> of Azad. You should read _Look To Windward_, which has a special
>> relevance to the post- 9/11 world.
>
> I think Banks is on record somewhere saying it's not. Anyway, I heard
> him with my own ears saying that he created the Culture because he was
> sick and tired of American space operas in which capitalist militarist
> agressive GI joes win the day and wanted a setting in which there is a
> civilization that is a bunch of pinko bleeding hearts free-loving
> perverts, and that _keep winning_.
'Hippies with nukes' was the phrase he is quoted as using in an interview in
SFX a couple of years ago.
--
SB
Dave O'Neill
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dcfd7246.04112...@posting.google.com...
Plus the Drone deliberately points out the "human" rights abuses and poverty
of Azad to persuade him to destroy the empire.
Iain Banks is hardly a right wing free-market capitalist. I think he was
equating Azad with free markets gone mad. He does view the Culture as a
socialist utopia.
Dave
Alseyn
> frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message news:<9511688f.04112...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <The Player of Games> a striking thing is
> > that it reads like a thinly disguised metaphor for the Bush empire.
> > Torture, constant propaganda with inhabitants of invaded countries
> > show as inferiour, street violence, poverty, praise of the military.
> > Class system, cruelty, and self-interest rules.
>
> And anyway, it is pretty clear the US is the Culture, not the Empire
> of Azad. You should read _Look To Windward_, which has a special
> relevance to the post- 9/11 world.
This is the type of thinking that fans of US style right wing SF use
to stomach Banks' writing. It is clear from interviews with Banks
that the Culture is definitely not intended to be a metaphor for the
US.
-A
David Bilek
>Michael Grosberg <preac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And anyway, it is pretty clear the US is the Culture, not the Empire
>> of Azad. You should read _Look To Windward_, which has a special
>> relevance to the post- 9/11 world.
>
>I think Banks is on record somewhere saying it's not. Anyway, I heard
>him with my own ears saying that he created the Culture because he was
>sick and tired of American space operas in which capitalist militarist
>agressive GI joes win the day and wanted a setting in which there is a
>civilization that is a bunch of pinko bleeding hearts free-loving
>perverts, and that _keep winning_.
Iain Banks clearly believes that it is not. However, he is not the
authority on what is present in the text, only on what was *intended*
to be in the text. If enough people see a resonance between the
Culture and America, then such a resonance exists whether or not Banks
intended it.
I think it clearly does exist. Not so much in terms of the economics
of the Culture as in the other stuff. Even in terms of economics you
run into the fact the the Culture is post-scarcity. Once you get to
that point, different economic systems start becoming
indistinguishable. Note that the Culture does have market elements,
as shown in _Look to Windward_.
Anyway, clearly lots of people see such an equivalence, whether or not
it makes Banks or various Italian SF writer/translators tear their
hair out is immaterial.
-David
David Bilek
I humbly submit that you're ignoring the most important word you
wrote, which is "intended".
-David
David Bilek
Iain Banks doesn't get to decide. He gets to decide what he tries to
put in the books; we get to decide what actually ends up there.
I suppose you'll assert that the rules of Quidditch actually make
sense because Rowling, the author, put them there.
-David
Brandon
Alseyn wrote:
I've never gotten around to reading the Culture books,
although I keep meaning to.
However, Asimov used to tell a story on himself where he
attended a lit class that was discussing one of his works.
Towards the end of the class, Asimov rose, and without
identifying himself, told the lecturer he was wrong in his
interpretation. The lecturer asked him how he knew. Asimov
said, "I'm the author." The lecturer's response was
something like, "Why do you assume that means you're the
best judge of what the work means?" After some thought,
Asimov concluded that the lecturer had a point.
Point being, author's intent and reader's perception don't
always match, and it's not a given that the author is the
one who is correct.
Andrew Maizels
> That's not true: they both actively intervene in other cultures for
> political reasons. I don't know what Culture books you have read where
> they just want to be left alone. Gurgeh travels vast distances in PoG
> specifically to topple the Azad empire which has no interaction with
> the Culture.
SC does not the Culture make. Or rather, it is worth considering to
what degree the aims and methods of SC coincide with those of the larger
Culture.
And intervening in other cultures is not empire-building. *Everyone*
intervenes in other cultures; you can hardly avoid doing so.
Dave O'Neill
"David Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9efnq095sn73r1d2i...@4ax.com...
> "Dave O'Neill" <dav...@atomic.raz.spam.or.com> wrote:
> >"Michael Grosberg" <preac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c21d3ba0.04112...@posting.google.com...
> >> frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message
> >news:<9511688f.04112...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >> <The Player of Games> a striking thing is
> >> > that it reads like a thinly disguised metaphor for the Bush empire.
> >> > Torture, constant propaganda with inhabitants of invaded countries
> >> > show as inferiour, street violence, poverty, praise of the military.
> >> > Class system, cruelty, and self-interest rules.
> ><snip>
> >
> >> And anyway, it is pretty clear the US is the Culture, not the Empire
> >> of Azad.
> >
> >Ummm... Iain Banks is pretty damn clear that this is not the case.
> >
>
> Iain Banks doesn't get to decide. He gets to decide what he tries to
> put in the books; we get to decide what actually ends up there.
And I decide the Culture is a socialist liberal utopia nothing like the US.
So, in the case of a disagreement of this we should ask the author. I have,
I'm satisfied that his answer was pretty clear and then we had another
drink.
> I suppose you'll assert that the rules of Quidditch actually make
> sense because Rowling, the author, put them there.
Sue Townsend of Adrian Mole fame took an English O level exam in the 80s as
part of a newspaper investigation. The paper was on her character. It was
blind marked by a teacher. She failed her on the grounds of "clearly having
no understanding of the character nor their motivations..."
Readers "read things" in that were not intended and in many cases were not
written.
Dave
Dave O'Neill
And he can't control if people read things he didn't write.
:-/
Dave O'Neill
I'm not entirely sure I agree with that perspective. You can end up with
readers and reviewers "creating" their own meanings for novels and writing
which were never put in their.
You will end up with multiple meanings depending on the learnings, leanings
and interests of the reader. You need to arbitrate between them.
Dave
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Point being, author's intent and reader's perception don't
> always match, and it's not a given that the author is the
> one who is correct.
OK yes, if you want to see a self-identifying pacifist, communistic,
gender-swapping, happily-drug-using, non-ownership, planned-economy,
atheistic, extremistically-permissive society in which nobody has to
work or does very much as a transparent portrait of the US, be my guest.
David Bilek
>
>> Point being, author's intent and reader's perception don't
>> always match, and it's not a given that the author is the
>> one who is correct.
>
>OK yes, if you want to see a self-identifying pacifist, communistic,
>gender-swapping, happily-drug-using, non-ownership, planned-economy,
>atheistic, extremistically-permissive society in which nobody has to
>work or does very much as a transparent portrait of the US, be my guest.
Communistic, non-ownership, and planned-economy lose their meaning
post-scarcity. Plus they are rather inaccurate given the market
forces we see at work in _LtW_. Pacifist is also rather inaccurate.
Remember, the Culture were the aggressors in almost every conflict we
see them in. Some of their citizens are pacifists, but they don't
make the decisions.
I'd say the Culture looks a lot like coastal California. Not so much
like rural Wyoming.
-David
Dave O'Neill
> ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> >Brandon <jch...@avalon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Point being, author's intent and reader's perception don't
> >> always match, and it's not a given that the author is the
> >> one who is correct.
> >
> >OK yes, if you want to see a self-identifying pacifist, communistic,
> >gender-swapping, happily-drug-using, non-ownership, planned-economy,
> >atheistic, extremistically-permissive society in which nobody has to
> >work or does very much as a transparent portrait of the US, be my guest.
>
> Communistic, non-ownership, and planned-economy lose their meaning
> post-scarcity. Plus they are rather inaccurate given the market
> forces we see at work in _LtW_.
It's been a while but _LtW_ involved Culture and non-Culture elements. The
effects were due to the need of the Culture to deal with others. Maybe I
need ro re-read.
Pacifist is also rather inaccurate.
> Remember, the Culture were the aggressors in almost every conflict we
> see them in. Some of their citizens are pacifists, but they don't
> make the decisions.
But there is no "Central" Culture planning. If Minds want to go things,
they go off and do them, like Excession - it's not a civilisation wide
decision or even remotely similar to one. As it stands the humans are
little more than interesting diversions for the Minds.
> I'd say the Culture looks a lot like coastal California. Not so much
> like rural Wyoming.
It looks much more like Sweden crossed with some Celts.
Jim Battista
news:qOWqd.52795$38.3...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>> Iain Banks doesn't get to decide. He gets to decide what he
>> tries to put in the books; we get to decide what actually ends
>> up there.
>
> And I decide the Culture is a socialist liberal utopia nothing
> like the US.
>
> So, in the case of a disagreement of this we should ask the
> author. I have, I'm satisfied that his answer was pretty clear
> and then we had another drink.
I'd say we should consult the book and see whose theory has better
textual evidence; the author's intentions aren't relevant.
> Sue Townsend of Adrian Mole fame took an English O level exam in
> the 80s as part of a newspaper investigation. The paper was on
> her character. It was blind marked by a teacher. She failed her
> on the grounds of "clearly having no understanding of the
> character nor their motivations..."
>
> Readers "read things" in that were not intended and in many cases
> were not written.
What was intended isn't relevant; what matters is the words on the
page. If you can support a theory or meaning with the text, it's
true to that extent.
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
Justin Bacon
> disappointed, so it may be one of his best) but a striking thing is
> that it reads like a thinly disguised metaphor for the Bush empire.
> Torture, constant propaganda with inhabitants of invaded countries
> show as inferiour, street violence, poverty, praise of the military.
> gets to watch himself depicted on TV as an evil alien menace and a
> cheater. In each match the opponent may demand that body parts be
> wagered. I'll stop there.
Personally, I find Bush and his administration to be dismal failures.
Whether you're looking for effective execution of foreign policy;
effective reform of the educational system; fiscal conservatism;
environmental conservation; or an economic plan that works for the
majority of Americans, the Bush Administration can only be ranked as a
failure. Not an unmitigated failure, mind you, but a definite and
resounding failure.
Despite this, my reaction to this paragraph can only be described as:
Huh? What? Street violence? Wagering of body parts? Howzat?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
> afghanistan/rwanda/siera leone citizen would consider the U.S. to be
> poverty stricken. The US is the richest country on earth, even if you
> yourself feel like bush took away some of your perks. Rising prices of
> gas? can't get financing for that new Toyota? try living without food
> or housing, in a warzone ruled by warlords and full of land mines.
The United States: Still Better Than The Worst Places on Earth!
As a slogan, that lacks some punch. And if that's truly what the
majority of Americans have come to believe is a worthy goal, then I
weep for this once great nation.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
> I'm not entirely sure I agree with that perspective. You can end up with
> readers and reviewers "creating" their own meanings for novels and writing
> which were never put in their.
And why is that a bad thing?
> You will end up with multiple meanings depending on the learnings, leanings
> and interests of the reader. You need to arbitrate between them.
Why do you need to arbitrate between them?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Dave O'Neill
"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ead87502.04113...@posting.google.com...
> "Dave O'Neill" <dav...@atomic.raz.spam.or.com> wrote in message
news:<rRWqd.52808$38.3...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > I'm not entirely sure I agree with that perspective. You can end up
with
> > readers and reviewers "creating" their own meanings for novels and
writing
> > which were never put in their.
>
> And why is that a bad thing?
Because some of the mistakes you make can be pretty serious. An author
writing a satire, for example, having people take the idea serious will get
annoyed. I've had some stuff published and have found it annoying when
people have made assumptions which aren't supported by the story but have
filled in what they consider blanks with their own position which doesn't
match what the story meant.
> > You will end up with multiple meanings depending on the learnings,
leanings
> > and interests of the reader. You need to arbitrate between them.
>
> Why do you need to arbitrate between them?
If a story is being taken seriously and it's a satire or similar, then
somebody needs to set the record straight.
Next thing we'll be thinking that Heinlein actually _meant_ all that
Libertarian stuff he wrote in the 50s.
;)
Dave
Dave O'Neill
"Jim Battista" <batt...@unt.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns95B14E30BD56...@69.28.186.121...
It's generally possible to support many, sometimes conflicting positions
from the same bunch of text.
To allow that to happen when you can clarify the position with the author
and what they intended seems rather odd to me. Like Fundementailist
Christians ignoring the 2nd coming because he is, in their opinion, a
dangerous left winger with some weird hippy ideas.
Dave
Dave O'Neill
I did see an American recently say online "...because let's face it, even on
a bad day the United States is still better than anywhere else on Earth..."
While I am glad they are happy, they are also wrong.
It is *still* much better than many places on Earth, but not all of them.
Dave
lal_truckee
>
> Next thing we'll be thinking that Heinlein actually _meant_ all that
> Libertarian stuff he wrote in the 50s.
Naw, that Libertarian nonsense was tossed into a lessor work just for
fun (also, it was the 60s, BTW.)
Heinlein actually _meant_ the Monarchical/Parliamentarian stuff he wrote
in the 50s.
lal_truckee
>
> I did see an American recently say online "...because let's face it, even on
> a bad day the United States is still better than anywhere else on Earth..."
>
> While I am glad they are happy, they are also wrong.
Comes with the typically poor education, no foreign travel, and limited
language skills.
>
> It is *still* much better than many places on Earth, but not all of them.
But Mercans will never learn that in school, very few Mercans will
travel and learn it for themself, and those Mercans who do travel can't
speak the local language.
Best of all, WE'RE PROUD OF OUR IGNORANCE. And by the way, most Mercans
believe in Creation, not Evolution - saw some statistics just this
morning. What a world.
Aaron Davies
A lot of that depends on your standards for judging. I know gun owners
who literally could not live anywhere else in the manner they prefer.
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Dave O'Neill <dav...@atomic.raz.spam.or.com> said
<snip>
>I'm not entirely sure I agree with that perspective. You can end up with
>readers and reviewers "creating" their own meanings for novels and writing
>which were never put in their.
>
>You will end up with multiple meanings depending on the learnings, leanings
>and interests of the reader.
Which is what has kept Shakespeare 'in play' as an English Lit subject
(all the way to PhD a D Phil level) for several hundred years. The poor
lad was just churning out money spinners to keep the plebs amused and
pay for his beer (and Shakespeare was much the same too).
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
James Nicoll
lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Heinlein actually _meant_ the Monarchical/Parliamentarian stuff he wrote
>in the 50s.
What's wrong with a parliament as a democratic tool?
Now, the _ Canadian senate_ needed to be reformed with
a flamethrower but that's a peculiarity of one version of Parliamentary
democracy.
What M/P stuff, anyway? What was there, one book with an
M/P set up? Let me check.
1950s RAH Novels Government Type
Farmer in the Sky (1950) Not clear. Some Worldgov
Between Planets (1951) Not clear. Corrupt worldgov
The Puppet Masters (1951) Good Old American Democracy
The Rolling Stones (1952) Was it even mentioned?
Starman Jones (1953) Corrupt Imperial State
The Star Beast (1954) Democracy, being undermined by
Kiku and pals
Tunnel in the Sky (1955) Not clear. Worldgov.
Double Star (1956) Parliamentary Democracy, with majority
party undermining democracy for the
greater good.
Time for the Stars (1956) Not clear. Worldgov.
The Door Into Summer (1957) Good Old American Democracy. I think
France went back to monarchy, though.
Citizen of the Galaxy (1957) It's a big galaxy so pick a flavour and
it probably shows up somewhere. The
most autocractic government is the
one portrayed most negatively.
Methuselah's Children (1958) "Adult" Democracy that fails its
first serious challenge. Also an
geezerocracy.
Have Space Suit, Will Travel (1958) Representitive democracy?
Starship Troopers (1959) Limited franchise Republic.
Am I missing one? I see one clear M/P in there.
Now, if you wanted to argue that RAH tended to towards books
where open franchises were criticised or where cabals manuevered to
give the public what the cabal thought they needed rather than what
the great unwashed wanted, I wouldn't argue.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.marryanamerican.ca
Jim Battista
> It's generally possible to support many, sometimes conflicting
> positions from the same bunch of text.
Yup. Why is that a problem? Part of what makes a book interesting
to me is if there are conflicting reasonable interpretations to play
with.
Works of fiction are there to be fun and interesting. Not, IMHO, to
be purely didactic treatises on something or legal contracts, such
that there should be only one possible interpretation.
> To allow that to happen
Again, you say that like it's a bad thing for a book to support
multiple interpretations. Why is it at all bad?
> when you can clarify the position with the
> author and what they intended seems rather odd to me.
You can certainly find what the author intended that way. You can't
find the one true interpretation of the book, because there isn't
one. The book is data, and interpretations are theories. Any theory
that can be borne out by the data is a good theory to that extent.
Most good books will be sufficiently nuanced that no theory will
explain everything, but lots of theories will explain bits and
pieces.
If you as an author want to limit the theories that will do a good
job explaining the data of your book, you need to build that dataset
appropriately to exclude the interpretations you don't want.
Robert Sneddon
<dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>Iain Banks doesn't get to decide. He gets to decide what he tries to
>put in the books; we get to decide what actually ends up there.
Banksie gets to decide what ends up in the books, the reader gets to
choose what they want to take from the text, their own personal Good
Parts version. The two are often quite different, amazingly enough.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
Jim Battista
>> And why is that a bad thing?
>
> Because some of the mistakes you make can be pretty serious. An
> author writing a satire, for example, having people take the idea
> serious will get annoyed.
How is the author getting annoyed anywhere within a parsec of a
serious consequence?
> I've had some stuff published and have
> found it annoying when people have made assumptions which aren't
> supported by the story but have filled in what they consider
> blanks with their own position which doesn't match what the story
> meant.
Then you should write the stuff more carefully to explicitly exclude
those interpretations, if that's what you want. That's not meant to
be snarky. Just that if you don't want people filling blanks, don't
leave them, and if you don't want people thinking X about your work,
make it impossible to support X as an interpretation.
>> Why do you need to arbitrate between them?
>
> If a story is being taken seriously and it's a satire or similar,
> then somebody needs to set the record straight.
Why? The worst reasonable thing that might happen is that people
would think the author is an oddball.
Besides, that's not the same thing as the case in question of whether
the Culture is supposed to be Space!! AMERICA!!! or not.
Irrespective of what Banks says, it's awfully hard to support that
notion since the only American thing about the Culture is its
interventionism, often in shady ways, and often with blowback.
Beeblebear
He has written about a communist utopia with the infinite resources required
for it to work.
Considering american politics is generally much further to the right than
any european country has been since the nineteen forties, a communist
utpoian state cannot bear any resemblance to the USA at all.
--
--
Chris Lyth (clyt...@ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)
Age before beauty; and pearls before swine. -- Dorothy Parker
Steve Brooks
> "David Bilek" wrote
<snip>
>> I humbly submit that you're ignoring the most important word you
>> wrote, which is "intended".
>>
>
> He has written about a communist utopia with the infinite resources
> required for it to work.
> Considering american politics is generally much further to the right
> than any european country has been since the nineteen forties, a
> communist utpoian state cannot bear any resemblance to the USA at all.
<Jumping in where maybe I shouldn't>
How can an entity with no central control like The Culture be communist?
The workers do not control the means of production - there are no workers.
There is no work except that which people choose to do.
ISTM That the thing which is truly utopian about The Culture is the state of
mind of its citizens. They seem to have lost (or never had) all the petty
prejudices and interests in status that bedevil real human societies. I
don't really believe that humans would create anything like The Culture even
if they/we had all the knowledge and technology and resources that The
Culture has in Banks' books.
In many ways The Matrix is a load of enjoyable nonsense. But Agent Smith
saying that they had initially created a perfect virtual world for the
humans to live in- and that it had driven them mad - made a lot of sense to
me.
--
SB
Michael S. Schiffer
in news:coihd1$pta$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
>...
> Considering american politics is generally much further to the
> right than any european country has been since the nineteen
> forties,
Just out of curiosity, who was in charge of Spain, Portugal, and
Greece circa 1970 in your timeline?
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> How can an entity with no central control like The Culture be communist?
> The workers do not control the means of production - there are no workers.
> There is no work except that which people choose to do.
That is communism. The centralized control of the collectively held
means of production is socialism, the initial stage of communism. The
Soviet Union was a _socialist_ state. Communism was supposed to follow
as an ultimate development from the socialist state.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:coicof$ir9$1...@panix3.panix.com:
>...
> The Rolling Stones (1952) Was it even mentioned?
You could use the later continuity with _The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress_ to infer the UN seen there, but I don't recall Earth
politics being mentioned. Luna is a Republic, I think, since
Hazel's role in the revolution is referenced.
>...
> Double Star (1956) Parliamentary Democracy, with
> majority
> party undermining democracy for the
> greater good.
To be fair, *both* parties were undermining democracy, since that
usually doesn't properly include kidnapping and killing the head of
the other party. I guess you could say that the antagonists were
acting out of clear self-interest rather than with any
justifications about the good of the people. (Though we don't
really know what they told themselves IIRC.)
>...
> Methuselah's Children (1958) "Adult" Democracy that
> fails its
> first serious challenge. Also an
> geezerocracy.
The Howards let the Senior chair the meetings, where he can use
procedural rules to grab power as skill and inclination allow, but
do they otherwise give formal increased power to the older members?
(On board the ship in flight, you have standard Navy-style absolute
authority on the part of the Captain, as usual for Heinlein.)
James Nicoll
Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in
>news:coicof$ir9$1...@panix3.panix.com:
>>...
>> The Rolling Stones (1952) Was it even mentioned?
>
>You could use the later continuity with _The Moon is a Harsh
>Mistress_ to infer the UN seen there, but I don't recall Earth
>politics being mentioned. Luna is a Republic, I think, since
>Hazel's role in the revolution is referenced.
Lah lah lah I can't hear.
I will admit both books have a Hazel. That's where I stop.
Was it the UN in Moon? Not a Federation?
google. Look at wrong entry.
Oh. Crap. It's been optioned.
Phoenix Pictures. Hmmm. I liked Holes. Lake Placid had the best
giant gator eating people in a lake that has gators plot that you could
get, which is to say, pretty bad. Dick had its moments. 6th Day had
moments but wimped out. Never saw Apt Pupil: how was it, judged as an
adaptation?
The Last Voyage of the Demeter looks interesting. The Demeter is
the ship that took Dracula to the UK.
>> Double Star (1956) Parliamentary Democracy, with
>> majority
>> party undermining democracy for the
>> greater good.
>
>To be fair, *both* parties were undermining democracy, since that
>usually doesn't properly include kidnapping and killing the head of
>the other party. I guess you could say that the antagonists were
>acting out of clear self-interest rather than with any
>justifications about the good of the people. (Though we don't
>really know what they told themselves IIRC.)
OK, point. Possibly influenced by RAH's encounter with electoral
politics, where the other side did not quite follow Marquis of Queensbury
rules.
>>...
>
>> Methuselah's Children (1958) "Adult" Democracy that
>> fails its
>> first serious challenge. Also an
>> geezerocracy.
>
>The Howards let the Senior chair the meetings, where he can use
>procedural rules to grab power as skill and inclination allow, but
>do they otherwise give formal increased power to the older members?
>(On board the ship in flight, you have standard Navy-style absolute
>authority on the part of the Captain, as usual for Heinlein.)
And I am not sure it's fair to incluse this because 1: it support
my implied claim that M/P governments weren't that common in 1950s RAH
books and 2: It's a reprint of a 1940s book, isn't it?
lal_truckee
>
>>Double Star (1956) Parliamentary Democracy, with
>>majority
>> party undermining democracy for the
>> greater good.
>
>
> To be fair, *both* parties were undermining democracy, since that
> usually doesn't properly include kidnapping and killing the head of
> the other party. I guess you could say that the antagonists were
> acting out of clear self-interest rather than with any
> justifications about the good of the people. (Though we don't
> really know what they told themselves IIRC.)
Well, Heinlein went to great lengths that Bonforte's party were the good
guys, acting out of idealism rather than self-interest; doesn't seem to
be any indication that they were undermining the state. Of course we
only see it from it's warm and fuzzy interior; and the point is made
that the head of the opposition possibly (probably?) didn't know of the
kidnapping, so I suppose the reverse could apply to Bonforte's interior
circle not knowing what the strongarms are doing, but I find no such
indication in the text.
And don't forget the Monarchy, which seems to have had more power than a
mere figurehead.
Is this any way to run a (model) railroad?
lal_truckee
>
> And I am not sure it's fair to incluse this because 1: it support
> my implied claim that M/P governments weren't that common in 1950s RAH
> books and 2: It's a reprint of a 1940s book, isn't it?
Ah, but he only wrote 2 books that are directly about politics and
government - Double Star and MoonIaHM, and only DS is 50s - so 100% of
his books about politics in the 50s are about M/P; and it is positive
toward M/P.
Politics/Government is backdrop to the action in the rest of his works.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:3147aoF...@individual.net:
> Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
>>
>>>Double Star (1956) Parliamentary Democracy, with
>>>majority
>>> party undermining democracy for the
>>> greater good.
>> To be fair, *both* parties were undermining democracy, since
>> that usually doesn't properly include kidnapping and killing
>> the head of the other party. I guess you could say that the
>> antagonists were acting out of clear self-interest rather than
>> with any justifications about the good of the people. (Though
>> we don't really know what they told themselves IIRC.)
> Well, Heinlein went to great lengths that Bonforte's party were
> the good guys, acting out of idealism rather than self-interest;
> doesn't seem to be any indication that they were undermining the
> state.
They weren't undermining the state, but they did ensure that the guy
who became Prime Minister (or whatever the office was) wasn't the
person the voters (or their representatives, for the most part)
thought he was. The good guys basically justified this on the
grounds that Lorenzo was doing what Bonforte would have done if he
were compos mentis/alive, and anyway government is about an
organization rather than a figurehead. Which sounds good, but it
seems noteworthy that they didn't make that argument to the people
they were supposedly representing. (Admittedly, it would have been
interesting if they'd gone to the electorate and said "John Joseph
Bonforte has been foully murdered, here's Lorenzo Smythe to play him
on TV, and we promise his policies will continue.") They basically
felt that the democratic process would only work properly if they
lied outright to the voters and to most of their own party, and got
a dead man (or, alternatively, a new-minted politician with zero
political or executive experience whose entire life history and
background was carefully hidden from the electorate) made head of
government.
Barry Cotter
> In article <313oshF...@uni-berlin.de>,
> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >Heinlein actually _meant_ the Monarchical/Parliamentarian stuff he wrote
> >in the 50s.
>
> What's wrong with a parliament as a democratic tool?
>
> Now, the _ Canadian senate_ needed to be reformed with
> a flamethrower but that's a peculiarity of one version of Parliamentary
> democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate
Yeah, seems pretty bad. But a question, are you looking for a second
chamber with real power, or a chamber of review?
The Irish Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_ Éireann
is an excellent example of the second.
IMHO, in a parliamentary system, the _point_ of having a second
chamber is the review, and it really should have a crippling lack of
popular legitimacy, so it can't block serious stuff.
Making some of themn appointed by the PM of the moment also helps
since in a Parliamentary system, the PM is theoretically holder of
dictatorial power so long as they retain a majority of the Parliament,
an excellent feature when combined with the less than fixed term
option which means that if you screw up horribly, you're going back to
the polls.
Damien R. Sullivan
>SC does not the Culture make. Or rather, it is worth considering to
>what degree the aims and methods of SC coincide with those of the larger
>Culture.
Horza thought SC was the very soul of the Culture, but that was Horza. Still,
SC is part of Contact, and Banks says Contact is seen as the moral
justification for the Culture's existence.
SC makes average Culturniks squeamish, but I think this is the same spoiled
and ignorant squeamishness of a First Worlder who doesn't like to think about
where his supermarket steaks come from -- or more strongly, says "don't kill
the fluffy bunny!" then goes to the pub for a burger.
(Are SC the realpolitic neocons of the Culture? I'd hate to argue myself into
believing that, since I like SC and not the neocons... SC seems smarter and
more reality-based than my perception of the current US administration,
though. Success and competence are strong practical arguments.)
>And intervening in other cultures is not empire-building. *Everyone*
>intervenes in other cultures; you can hardly avoid doing so.
The Federation tries... within-universe, the Peace Faction and the Zetetic
Elench probably try to intervene less, not to mention differently, than
Contact/SC.
-xx- Damien X-)
James Nicoll
Barry Cotter <maycont...@yahoo.ie> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in message news:<coicof$ir9$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>> In article <313oshF...@uni-berlin.de>,
>> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Heinlein actually _meant_ the Monarchical/Parliamentarian stuff he wrote
>> >in the 50s.
>>
>> What's wrong with a parliament as a democratic tool?
>>
>> Now, the _ Canadian senate_ needed to be reformed with
>> a flamethrower but that's a peculiarity of one version of Parliamentary
>> democracy.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate
>
>Yeah, seems pretty bad. But a question, are you looking for a second
>chamber with real power, or a chamber of review?
Not seeing my tax money go to pay guys to walk their dogs on
Mexican beaches, to begin with.
It would be interesting to try an appointed Senate where they
were appointed by Provincial Premiers, not the PM. I'm not saying it
would necessarily be _good_ but it would be interesting.
Damien R. Sullivan
>> It is *still* much better than many places on Earth, but not all of them.
>
>But Mercans will never learn that in school, very few Mercans will
>travel and learn it for themself, and those Mercans who do travel can't
>speak the local language.
How many Europeans think that to step on our city streets is to risk death by
gunfire on a daily basis? The occasional poster seems to have leaned that
way.
>Best of all, WE'RE PROUD OF OUR IGNORANCE. And by the way, most Mercans
>believe in Creation, not Evolution - saw some statistics just this
>morning. What a world.
Most? What were the actual statistics? I thought it was in the 30s or 40s?
With many if not most of the rest having a vague belief in God guiding
evolution somehow, and yes, only a small % backing pure natural selection.
But then, my pessimism suspect that most people, American or European, who do
say they believe in evolution or Darwinism don't actually know much about such
things, as opposed to conforming to the belief sanctioned by the secularist
tribe.
-xx- Damien X-)
lal_truckee
> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>It is *still* much better than many places on Earth, but not all of them.
>>
>>But Mercans will never learn that in school, very few Mercans will
>>travel and learn it for themself, and those Mercans who do travel can't
>>speak the local language.
>
>
> How many Europeans think that to step on our city streets is to risk death by
> gunfire on a daily basis? The occasional poster seems to have leaned that
> way.
>
>
>>Best of all, WE'RE PROUD OF OUR IGNORANCE. And by the way, most Mercans
>>believe in Creation, not Evolution - saw some statistics just this
>>morning. What a world.
>
>
> Most? What were the actual statistics? I thought it was in the 30s or 40s?
> With many if not most of the rest having a vague belief in God guiding
> evolution somehow, and yes, only a small % backing pure natural selection.
From this morning's San Francisco Chronicle:
Which best describes your views of the origin of life?
Man developed with God guiding, 38%
Man developed with no help from God, 13%
God created man in present form, 45%
Looks to me like 38%+45%=82% have god creating humans, directly or
guided ( - same thing to me.) I am frightened by the mass insanity that
surrounds me.
(Chronicle says the data comes from "National polls on the issue" which
says nothing to me. I wish they'd source their data, but hell, it's
America!)
Jim Battista
news:3141n6F...@individual.net:
> How can an entity with no central control like The Culture be
> communist? The workers do not control the means of production -
> there are no workers.
Sure there are workers -- GSV's and robo-factories and so on.
The workers don't need to own the means of production. The workers
*are* the means of production. The means of production own themselves.
Justin Bacon
> > It is *still* much better than many places on Earth, but not all of them.
>
> But Mercans will never learn that in school, very few Mercans will
> travel and learn it for themself, and those Mercans who do travel can't
> speak the local language.
Americans are actually some of the most widely traveled people in the
world when it comes to distance and frequency. They just don't cross
international borders to do it.
The United States is *big*. Really big.
> Best of all, WE'RE PROUD OF OUR IGNORANCE. And by the way, most Mercans
> believe in Creation, not Evolution - saw some statistics just this
> morning. What a world.
The methodology I've seen on polls like that always seem suspect: They
don't seem to distinguish between "the Universe was created 10,000
years ago and the dinosaurs are God's hoax"; "evolution is God's way
of creating man"; "God created the universe and then evolution took
over"; and "there is no God". As a result, I find their conclusions
highly questionable.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
James
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
James Bodi
--- Sorry for null post. Stupid NewsFeeds.
The only Senate reform I'd favour is one where voting strength is determined
by net contribution to the Federal budget. Which means these days there'd
be precisely two voting provinces in it.
Scott Robinson
wrote:
>In article <313oshF...@uni-berlin.de>,
>lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Heinlein actually _meant_ the Monarchical/Parliamentarian stuff he wrote
>>in the 50s.
>
> What's wrong with a parliament as a democratic tool?
>
> Now, the _ Canadian senate_ needed to be reformed with
>a flamethrower but that's a peculiarity of one version of Parliamentary
>democracy.
>
> What M/P stuff, anyway? What was there, one book with an
>M/P set up? Let me check.
>
>
>1950s RAH Novels Government Type
>Citizen of the Galaxy (1957) It's a big galaxy so pick a flavour and
> it probably shows up somewhere. The
> most autocractic government is the
> one portrayed most negatively.
>
I seem to remember that the family owned political seats, much like
19th (and before) century british parliament, but it could have been
owned by (relatively) old-fashioned american political machinery. It
implied M/P to me. On the other hand, its been a long time since I
read that one.
> Now, if you wanted to argue that RAH tended to towards books
>where open franchises were criticised or where cabals manuevered to
>give the public what the cabal thought they needed rather than what
>the great unwashed wanted, I wouldn't argue.
Scott
Bruce Murphy
> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<313patF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > It is *still* much better than many places on Earth, but not all of them.
> >
> > But Mercans will never learn that in school, very few Mercans will
> > travel and learn it for themself, and those Mercans who do travel can't
> > speak the local language.
>
> Americans are actually some of the most widely traveled people in the
> world when it comes to distance and frequency. They just don't cross
> international borders to do it.
>
> The United States is *big*. Really big.
Oh bollocks, it's a piddly little parochial country where remote
medevacs are done with *helicopters* for god's sake. You can't go 50
feet without running over a hick town or a trailer park.
Now, take a machine with genuine empty space.
B>
Matt Hughes
> It would be interesting to try an appointed Senate where they
> were appointed by Provincial Premiers, not the PM. I'm not saying it
> would necessarily be _good_ but it would be interesting.
Having spent some time in federal politics, I've known some Canadian
senators -- even ghosted the memoirs of Len Marchand, the first
"status Indian" elected to the House of Commons. There are some who
make you scratch your head at the system, but there are others who
take the job seriously and put in a real effort at being the chamber
of sober second thought. When you consider that most of the hard
workers could get way more money as emeritus consultants, it's not
that bad a deal for the taxpayer.
But allowing the sitting PM to appoint all the members is too much of
a favour to the PM. Maybe we should have something like "The Greatest
Canadian" contest that just happened on CBC, except it would be done
in the province that has a vacant seat to be filled. The candidates
for "Greatest Albertan" or Greatest New Brunswicker" wouldn't be
allowed to campaign for themselves, but would have champions to argue
for them, and it would all come down to the final two being decided by
walk-in balloting, just like a real election.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/
Current book: Black Brillion (Tor)
Next Book: The Gist Hunter & Other Stories (Night Shade, 2005)
Next story: "Inner Huff" F&SF, (Feb 2005)
Mark Atwood
> (Are SC the realpolitic neocons of the Culture? I'd hate to argue myself into
> believing that, since I like SC and not the neocons... SC seems smarter and
> more reality-based than my perception of the current US administration,
> though. Success and competence are strong practical arguments.)
Success and competence are born of experience, and experience is born
of attempts and failures.
And SC has had some *spectacular* screwups, born of mixing not wanting
to committ too many resources to an operation with not understanding
the culture of the, ahem, "clients" that they were trying to reform.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
ma...@atwood.name | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
John S. Novak, III
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
> OK yes, if you want to see a self-identifying pacifist, communistic,
> gender-swapping, happily-drug-using, non-ownership, planned-economy,
> atheistic, extremistically-permissive society in which nobody has to
> work or does very much as a transparent portrait of the US, be my guest.
The Culture books-- or more specifically, some peoples' reactions to
them-- never fail to crack me up.
They're powerful, so they represent the United States! But they're
Communist, so they can't! But they're interventionist, so they must!
But they're godless drug users, so they can't! But they're the good
guys, so they must! But they're the good guys, so they can't!
I don't care what Banks really believes about economics, he must find
these sorts of discussions hilariously funny. Not to mention highly
gratifying.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
David Bilek
>In article <9efnq095sn73r1d2i...@4ax.com>, David Bilek
><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>
>>Iain Banks doesn't get to decide. He gets to decide what he tries to
>>put in the books; we get to decide what actually ends up there.
>
> Banksie gets to decide what ends up in the books, the reader gets to
>choose what they want to take from the text, their own personal Good
>Parts version. The two are often quite different, amazingly enough.
Disagree vehemently. For your position to be correct, authors would
have to be omniscient. They aren't.
-David
David Bilek
>Steve Brooks <ste...@postmaster.invalid> wrote:
>
>> How can an entity with no central control like The Culture be communist?
>> The workers do not control the means of production - there are no workers.
>> There is no work except that which people choose to do.
>
>That is communism. The centralized control of the collectively held
>means of production is socialism, the initial stage of communism. The
>Soviet Union was a _socialist_ state. Communism was supposed to follow
>as an ultimate development from the socialist state.
But the Culture is post scarcity. You keep completely ignoring that
fact. Communism, capitalism, etc lose their meaning when resources no
longer need to be allocated because they are no longer scarce!
Those resources which *are* still scarce, such as tickets to a
desireable concert, are allocated capitalistically. I know you have
serious problems with _Look to Windward_, but I thought those had to
do with the ending. Is the capitalist bit part of it?
-David
Aaron Davies
> Are SC the realpolitic neocons of the Culture?
While I've never read any Banks (I keep meaning to, but I can't afford
the .co.uk route, and he's not in any libraries 'round here), I must
object to your association of neocons with "realpolitic" (not to mention
your misspelling it :-p). Realpolitik is the *rejection* of ideology as
a basis for foreign policy, as exemplified by the Kissinger "our
bastard" style of foreign relations. The neocon movement is, by
contrast, one of the most ideologically driven to arise in decades.
Remember, the ultimate goal of neocons is to spread American democratic
ideals around the world, bringing peace and freedom to all peoples. If
they have to bomb some peoples into submission pour encourager les
autres, eh bien, quelle dommage (pardon my French). Whether you think
they're doing a good job of advancing this goal (or whether you even
agree with it) is another matter, but that *is* their goal.
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
John S. Novak, III
>>That is communism. The centralized control of the collectively held
>>means of production is socialism, the initial stage of communism. The
>>Soviet Union was a _socialist_ state. Communism was supposed to follow
>>as an ultimate development from the socialist state.
> But the Culture is post scarcity. You keep completely ignoring that
> fact. Communism, capitalism, etc lose their meaning when resources no
> longer need to be allocated because they are no longer scarce!
What resources in the Culture are actually infinite?
Alseyn
> Beeblebear wrote:
> > "David Bilek" wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I humbly submit that you're ignoring the most important word you
> >> wrote, which is "intended".
> >>
> >
> > He has written about a communist utopia with the infinite resources
> > required for it to work.
> > Considering american politics is generally much further to the right
> > communist utpoian state cannot bear any resemblance to the USA at all.
>
> <Jumping in where maybe I shouldn't>
>
> How can an entity with no central control like The Culture be communist?
> The workers do not control the means of production - there are no workers.
> There is no work except that which people choose to do.
>
> mind of its citizens. They seem to have lost (or never had) all the petty
> prejudices and interests in status that bedevil real human societies. I
> don't really believe that humans would create anything like The Culture even
> if they/we had all the knowledge and technology and resources that The
> Culture has in Banks' books.
Banks has stated that The Culture is something that most likely cannot
spring from humanity given all our faults you mention above.
> In many ways The Matrix is a load of enjoyable nonsense. But Agent Smith
> saying that they had initially created a perfect virtual world for the
> humans to live in- and that it had driven them mad - made a lot of sense to
> me.
This is a revealing thought. That it makes sense a perfect world,
real or virtual, could be destructive to its denizens and therefore
undesirable and not a worthy goal to strive for. No wonder we could
never form The Culture.
-A
John Schilling
>ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
>>Brandon <jch...@avalon.net> wrote:
>>> Point being, author's intent and reader's perception don't
>>> always match, and it's not a given that the author is the
>>> one who is correct.
>>OK yes, if you want to see a self-identifying pacifist, communistic,
>>gender-swapping, happily-drug-using, non-ownership, planned-economy,
>>atheistic, extremistically-permissive society in which nobody has to
>>work or does very much as a transparent portrait of the US, be my guest.
>Communistic, non-ownership, and planned-economy lose their meaning
>post-scarcity.
Post-scarcity is impossible without nigh universal prior adoption of
communism, non-ownership, and planned economy.
As an extreme counterexample, there by definition can only be one
Biggest Personally And Absolutely Controlled Real Empire in the
Culture. If everyone in the culture hasn't already agreed to give
up on ownership and embrace planned-economy communism or the like,
there will be many people who want to own such a thing, and so there
will be a scarcity of huge empires.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Justin Bacon
You're either being incredibly ignorant or sarcastic in a medium
ill-suited for it. It's hard to tell which. Care to clarify?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
David Bilek
>In article <81jqq0db17vgk1afo...@4ax.com>, David Bilek wrote:
>
>>>That is communism. The centralized control of the collectively held
>>>means of production is socialism, the initial stage of communism. The
>>>Soviet Union was a _socialist_ state. Communism was supposed to follow
>>>as an ultimate development from the socialist state.
>
>> But the Culture is post scarcity. You keep completely ignoring that
>> fact. Communism, capitalism, etc lose their meaning when resources no
>> longer need to be allocated because they are no longer scarce!
>
>What resources in the Culture are actually infinite?
Sarcastic humor, for one.
Resources don't have to be infinite, they just have to be larger than
the demand. We're explicitly told that people can have pretty much
whatever they want as long as they don't kill other people.
Immortality, their own orbital, a planet, whatever.
As far as I can tell, the only decision made by the Minds is "does
this harm another sentient being?". That's not resource allocation.
-David
Bruce Murphy
Sheeeit, boy, we've got native reservations bigger than all y'all's
largest state.
B>
Robert Sneddon
>Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <9efnq095sn73r1d2i...@4ax.com>, David Bilek
>><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>> Banksie gets to decide what ends up in the books, the reader gets to
>>choose what they want to take from the text, their own personal Good
>>Parts version. The two are often quite different, amazingly enough.
>
>Disagree vehemently. For your position to be correct, authors would
>have to be omniscient. They aren't.
In terms of the fiction on the page they are omniscient. They can make
the characters do things that are miraculous or impossible in "real
life". The reader can go along with this (WSOD) or toss the book against
the wall (the Deadly Eight Words) but that does not change the words on
the page put there by the Author. Whether you as a Reader gets out of
the words on the page what the Author intended is an entirely different
matter.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Jim Battista <batt...@unt.edu> said
>"Steve Brooks" <ste...@postmaster.invalid> wrote in
>news:3141n6F...@individual.net:
>
>> How can an entity with no central control like The Culture be
>> communist? The workers do not control the means of production -
>> there are no workers.
>
>Sure there are workers -- GSV's and robo-factories and so on.
>
>The workers don't need to own the means of production. The workers
>*are* the means of production. The means of production own themselves.
There are no =really sentient= workers .... the actual grunt work
appears to get done by low order AI drones. You won't catch any GSVs (or
Minds in general) messing with getting their hands dirty building stuff,
or mining stuff, and no =high level= AI would want to play mass
production games either as far as I can tell.
Look at the end of _Excession_ where a rather large set of objects
(being opaque here to avoid spoilers) were whomped up rather quickly ..
and what was the (sentient) GSV in question doing at the time .. not
sitting in a factory, not even a virtual factory IIRC.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Gerry Quinn
als...@hotmail.com says...
> "Steve Brooks" <ste...@postmaster.invalid> wrote in message news:<3141n6F...@individual.net>...
> > In many ways The Matrix is a load of enjoyable nonsense. But Agent Smith
> > saying that they had initially created a perfect virtual world for the
> > humans to live in- and that it had driven them mad - made a lot of sense to
> > me.
>
> This is a revealing thought. That it makes sense a perfect world,
> real or virtual, could be destructive to its denizens and therefore
> undesirable and not a worthy goal to strive for. No wonder we could
> never form The Culture.
Must remember that for the next time the problem of Evil comes up...
- Gerry Quinn
David Bilek
>In article <ttiqq011mie8uncp8...@4ax.com>, David Bilek
><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>>Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <9efnq095sn73r1d2i...@4ax.com>, David Bilek
>>><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>
>>> Banksie gets to decide what ends up in the books, the reader gets to
>>>choose what they want to take from the text, their own personal Good
>>>Parts version. The two are often quite different, amazingly enough.
>>
>>Disagree vehemently. For your position to be correct, authors would
>>have to be omniscient. They aren't.
>
> In terms of the fiction on the page they are omniscient. They can make
>the characters do things that are miraculous or impossible in "real
>life". The reader can go along with this (WSOD) or toss the book against
>the wall (the Deadly Eight Words) but that does not change the words on
>the page put there by the Author. Whether you as a Reader gets out of
>the words on the page what the Author intended is an entirely different
>matter.
No, what the author got on the page and what the author intended are
entirely different matters.
-David
Gerry Quinn
> David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
> >Communistic, non-ownership, and planned-economy lose their meaning
> >post-scarcity.
>
> Post-scarcity is impossible without nigh universal prior adoption of
> communism, non-ownership, and planned economy.
Leaving out empires, however, we can visualise a situation in which
automated factories can cater for all wants up to a reasonable degree of
extravagance. (You can't have the Biggest Real Empire, but you can have
the Palace of Versailles x 10.) That's how the Culture reads to me,
whatever Banks thinks.
Of course there will still be 'exclusive' items, events, and circles,
and likely these will be 'traded' in some form, though maybe not the
free market.
It's probably worth noting that the market *does* militate against
'post-scarcity' in one way, because it continually creates more
needs/wants to balance its continually increasing production. Maybe
that will stop working when everybody has a planet.
- Gerry Quinn
Robert Sneddon
<G...@quik.clara.co.uk> writes
>There are no =really sentient= workers .... the actual grunt work
>appears to get done by low order AI drones.
I'm blanking here but ISTR a Culture book or story that at one point
showed the construction of a (Ship?) Mind with Culture humans being
involved.
>Look at the end of _Excession_ where a rather large set of objects
>(being opaque here to avoid spoilers) were whomped up rather quickly ..
I think that "quickly" in this case means several decades. Certainly
the necessary engine upgrades took longer than a few weeks -- our friend
Sleeper Service was involved in a long-term project to prepare for an
Out Of Context situation, whatever it turned out to be and whenever it
turned up. It had been very reclusive for that long, remember, as an
Eccentric ship.
> and what was the (sentient) GSV in question doing at the time .. not
>sitting in a factory, not even a virtual factory IIRC.
It's a virtual planet, almost, highly compressed and very mobile but
with massive construction resources available to it -- it can use more
energy than the Earth's population has today, by a factor of a thousand
or more.
Lee Ratner
> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> It is *still* much better than many places on Earth, but not all of them.
> >
> >But Mercans will never learn that in school, very few Mercans will
> >travel and learn it for themself, and those Mercans who do travel can't
> >speak the local language.
>
> gunfire on a daily basis? The occasional poster seems to have leaned that
> way.
Hell, I've met American private school students who honestly
believed that all American public schools are gang ridden hell holes
and would not believe me when I said my public school was a very nice
place.
> >Best of all, WE'RE PROUD OF OUR IGNORANCE. And by the way, most Mercans
> >believe in Creation, not Evolution - saw some statistics just this
> >morning. What a world.
>
> Most? What were the actual statistics? I thought it was in the 30s or 40s?
> With many if not most of the rest having a vague belief in God guiding
> evolution somehow, and yes, only a small % backing pure natural selection.
>
> But then, my pessimism suspect that most people, American or European, who do
> say they believe in evolution or Darwinism don't actually know much about such
> things, as opposed to conforming to the belief sanctioned by the secularist
> tribe.
>
I think we have reached a point in history where being an athiest
does not automatically make one a freethinker. I have met many
athiests who were just as slavish in their atheism as any religious
fundamentalist is in their religion.
James Nicoll
>In article <81jqq0db17vgk1afo...@4ax.com>, David Bilek wrote:
>
>>>That is communism. The centralized control of the collectively held
>>>means of production is socialism, the initial stage of communism. The
>>>Soviet Union was a _socialist_ state. Communism was supposed to follow
>>>as an ultimate development from the socialist state.
>
>> But the Culture is post scarcity. You keep completely ignoring that
>> fact. Communism, capitalism, etc lose their meaning when resources no
>> longer need to be allocated because they are no longer scarce!
>
>What resources in the Culture are actually infinite?
Self-congratulatory smugness.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:24:13 GMT:
> I think it clearly does exist. Not so much in terms of the economics
> of the Culture as in the other stuff. Even in terms of economics you
> run into the fact the the Culture is post-scarcity. Once you get to
> that point, different economic systems start becoming
> indistinguishable. Note that the Culture does have market elements,
> as shown in _Look to Windward_.
Well, the main parallel to the U.S. from the Culture is Contact and
Special Circumstances. The notion that we're totally free to do what we
want, and go to other countries and tell them about our lifestyle and
sell them our products and way of life, that is so American it's
laughable to even try to claim they're not us. That's what we do.
That's why non-American inbred religious fanatics hate us so much; we
keep going to their countries and showing them Dallas and Baywatch, and
telling their women to vote and get jobs and drive and pose for Playboy,
and their kids to use the Internet to download porn and play Quake and
listen to hip-hop music. Of course they're going to hate us, we're a
giant flesh-eating bacteria to their "cultures". And this is all good.
Make no mistake about it, I want everyone else's cultures to be
destroyed and the entire planet to be assimilated by America. And no, I
don't care how they feel about that, because there's nothing they can do
to stop it.
As for the post-scarcity, the U.S. is in some areas very close to
that. Our idea of "poverty" is not having two television sets, or a car
less than 10 years old. Take the absolute worst possible case:
somewhere around .1-.2% of our population are homeless, which is maybe
equivalent to a third-world standard of living. Those people are in
that state almost solely because they're addicted to alcohol or other
drugs, or because they're insane, and our criminal^Wpolitical caste
aren't interested in dealing with the problem. Even so, people toss
them useless pocket change worth more than a third-world worker makes in
a week of back-breaking labor.
The other 99.8+% live at a level of luxury unimaginable to all but the
tiniest upper echelons throughout history. Capitalism helps us buy more
and better luxury goods relative to each other, and people feel bad if
they're "poor", but at this point it's more a game than anything else.
It is a really good game, though.
However, true "post-scarcity" is impossible, even with the Culture's
tech level. You can be materially very low-scarcity, but some elements
will be rare enough that not everyone can make an infinite amount of
materials; not everyone can make a house out of gold and diamonds,
unless you have matter conversion, and then it's just a matter of
picking a big enough goal. A gold planet of your own. Eventually
someone says "no, you've had your fair share"; if it's a Mind, then you
have a socialist dictatorship, and the scarcity is imposed from above;
if it's the market saying "you don't have enough money", you can still
work towards the goal of having enough money to do what you want.
Real estate is and always will be scarce; even if you can make new
planetoids and orbitals at will, most people want to be around other
people, they want to be gathered into the coolest cities, and as close
as possible to the coolest areas of those cities. They all want to go
to opening night of a new concert or play or movie. It is not
physically possible to fit everyone who wants to be there a block off
Broadway in New York City. It is a pure failure of logic to imagine
that "post-scarcity" will remove a market for real estate.
Services and fame are scarce. <Look to Windward> shows Banks
realizing that himself, and unable to come up with any better mechanism
for dealing with it than a free market. It is a mathematical certainty
that some people will have whatever it takes to be more popular than
others (skills, looks, better sex, personality, better PR, blind luck,
whatever). Talent and fame will not be evenly distributed, because as
soon as someone randomly happens to have more local popularity, their
fans will tell non-fans about their idol, their popularity will spread,
and you end up with superstars and armies of devoted fans. If each
person gives one "token" to whoever they idolize, some people will be
instantly wealthy, while most others will not. And here you have a
market again.
The reason I have so much contempt for socialism isn't its historical
record (piles of skulls), though that's bad enough, but because it's
just plain ignorant. It's like trying to claim that pi=3, or that the
Earth is flat, or that humans did not evolve from primates, or that you
have an immortal soul. Obvious nonsense and lies that require an
astounding show of self-delusion to maintain in the face of reality.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"Gibson and I dueled among blazing stacks of books for a while. [...] The
streets were crowded with his black-suited minions and I had to turn into a
swarm of locusts and fly back to Seattle." -Neal Stephenson, /. interview
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
wrote on Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:46:09 +0100:
> Steve Brooks <ste...@postmaster.invalid> wrote:
>> How can an entity with no central control like The Culture be communist?
>> The workers do not control the means of production - there are no workers.
> means of production is socialism, the initial stage of communism. The
> Soviet Union was a _socialist_ state. Communism was supposed to follow
> as an ultimate development from the socialist state.
False. You're reading the back-cover blurb of the Communist
Manifesto, without having read the contents or looked at how it was
used. The "Final Communist State", where there is no state but somehow
everyone takes exactly what they need and still does all the work
necessary to keep society running, is a fairy tale, and isn't even
psychologically possible for humans. It sounds very good to people who
are impoverished and uneducated (or to fools in academia who've never
had to work for a living), and was created as a lure to trick people
into allowing Socialists to lead them.
Socialism, on the other hand, works pretty good at its intended
purpose, but that purpose isn't the "Final Communist State". It's the
ultimate concentration of political, economic, and military power under
one Party, so the high-ranking members in the Party can have all the
wealth of a society, while everyone suffers and dies. "Something
everybody owns, nobody owns; but someone will have to manage it for
everyone else", after all.
There's an easy way to determine who's right here. Let's look at the
long-running "Communist"/"Socialist" states. Soviet Union: Crashed and
burned, murdered 62 million of their own citizens, most beaten to death
or starved, *by* *their* *own* *government*, under the fiction of
bringing about the "Final Communist State". Cuba: Went from a poor but
upwardly-mobile third-world nation to a hellhole that people make rafts
out of packing crates to try to escape, like rats fleeing a sinking
ship. China: Went from poor to bone-crushingly poor, murdered 35
million of their own citizens, finally switched policies if not rhetoric
to "merely" being a repressive dictatorship, and are getting wealthier
now that they've shed Communism. Korea: North and South Korea started
at the same level, and both got foreign support to build a perfect
example of their political/economic system. Capitalist South Korea is a
first-world nation where just about the greatest danger to your life is
playing videogames too long in an Internet café. Communist North Korea
is a country so backwards and impoverished that its citizens actually
starve to death.
Starvation in the 21st Century. That's an incredible achievement,
made possible by only one political/economic system: Socialism! Workers
of the world, rejoice! Singing the Internationale will surely reduce
your hunger pangs!
Steve Simmons
> The Culture books-- or more specifically, some peoples' reactions to
> them-- never fail to crack me up.
> They're powerful, so they represent the United States! But they're
> Communist, so they can't! But they're interventionist, so they must!
> But they're godless drug users, so they can't! But they're the good
> guys, so they must! But they're the good guys, so they can't!
> I don't care what Banks really believes about economics, he must find
> these sorts of discussions hilariously funny. Not to mention highly
> gratifying.
What he said. The Culture is a bit of this, a bit of that, and a lot
of imagination. Trying to shoehorn it into being a model for this
country or that country just ain't gonna work. Sure, there are
similarities to the US. There are also similarities to other places,
and some things in the Culture that just don't exist anywhere at all.
And I ain't talkin' about the science, bub.
IMHO the whole idea of a post-scarcity economy causing folks to generally
get along better is hooey. Some things can't be replicated (think about
collectors for a minute), some folks want power, and far too many folks
want what somebody else has -- not the same as what somebody, they want
the particular one that somebody else has. Little or none of that seems
to happen in the Culture.
Steve
--
"I always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific."
--Lily Tomlin
Jim Battista
news:uiyMasBz...@from.is.invalid:
> Bitstring <Xns95B1C141686A...@69.28.186.121>, from the
> wonderful person Jim Battista <batt...@unt.edu> said
>>
>>Sure there are workers -- GSV's and robo-factories and so on.
>>
>>The workers don't need to own the means of production. The
>>workers *are* the means of production. The means of production
>>own themselves.
>
> There are no =really sentient= workers .... the actual grunt work
> appears to get done by low order AI drones. You won't catch any
> GSVs (or Minds in general) messing with getting their hands dirty
> building stuff, or mining stuff, and no =high level= AI would want
> to play mass production games either as far as I can tell.
I doubt there's anything firm on it one way or another.
But I'd consider the nonsentient factories and drones that do the
actual physical building of modules and ownskin coats and whatnot to
be parts of the relevant Mind's "body," if generally pretty self-
regulating parts.
> Look at the end of _Excession_ where a rather large set of objects
> (being opaque here to avoid spoilers) were whomped up rather
> quickly .. and what was the (sentient) GSV in question doing at
> the time .. not sitting in a factory, not even a virtual factory
> IIRC.
>
That's what I mean. The GSV in question might not have been sitting
at a factory, but it was using part of its mind to direct part of its
physical self to make them. The GSV is its own means of production
for... objects... just as a normal human is its own means of
production for insulin or adrenalin.
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
Beowulf Bolt
>
> Maybe we should have something like "The Greatest
> Canadian" contest that just happened on CBC, except it would be done
> in the province that has a vacant seat to be filled. The candidates
> for "Greatest Albertan" or Greatest New Brunswicker" wouldn't be
> allowed to campaign for themselves, but would have champions to argue
> for them, and it would all come down to the final two being decided by
> walk-in balloting, just like a real election.
Hrm. Sounds too easy to game wrt indirect campaigning to me. (That
plus making it a popularity-and-name-recognition contest could easily be
a very bad thing. Could you see Avril Lavigne as a Senator-Elect
f'rinstance?)
OTOH James' idea about the Senators being appointed by the Premiers
just means that these guys get to spread the patronage booty, rather
than the PM, which doesn't seem to solve many problems to me.
Not that I expect direct election would be some sort of panacaea
either.
Hrm. Chosen by lot and forced to work via gunpoint. *That's* the way
to go. ;)
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GSV Three Minds in a Can
person Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> said
<snip>
>> and what was the (sentient) GSV in question doing at the time .. not
>>sitting in a factory, not even a virtual factory IIRC.
>
> It's a virtual planet, almost, highly compressed and very mobile but
>with massive construction resources available to it -- it can use more
>energy than the Earth's population has today, by a factor of a thousand
>or more.
Sorry, you missed the point . .the vessel in question has the resources,
and deploys them, but is not 'involved' in the manufacture any more that
GW Bush is 'involved; in turning out stealth bombers. 'Please the order
and sit back and await delivery' is the way it works.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Aaron Davies
> China: Went from poor to bone-crushingly poor, murdered 35 million of
> their own citizens, finally switched policies if not rhetoric to "merely"
> being a repressive dictatorship, and are getting wealthier now that
> they've shed Communism. Korea: North and South Korea started at the same
> level, and both got foreign support to build a perfect example of their
> political/economic system. Capitalist South Korea is a first-world nation
> where just about the greatest danger to your life is playing videogames
> too long in an Internet café. Communist North Korea is a country so
> backwards and impoverished that its citizens actually starve to death.
My favorite point about NoKo: it's the only place in the world where
people try to escape *to* China.
Steve Brooks
:-) Indeed. That's a significant minor theme in the Culture books IMO.
--
SB
Steve Brooks
> "Steve Brooks" wrote
>> How can an entity with no central control like The Culture be
>> communist? The workers do not control the means of production -
>> there are no workers.
>
> Sure there are workers -- GSV's and robo-factories and so on.
I get the impression that what the minds do is more in the nature of a
hobby. With other machine driven systems I suppose it depends how sentient
they are. IIRC drones are produced and then given tasks appropriate to the
personalities they develop. But they also have choice. There situation is
rather different from the way human employees are treated on 21st C Earth.
> The workers don't need to own the means of production. The workers
> *are* the means of production. The means of production own
> themselves.
I suppose they do.
ISTM That in many ways The Culuture resembles the fantasy-sales-pitch final
outcome of both sides of this particular political argument.
--
SB
Steve Brooks
> "Steve Brooks" wrote
<snip>
>> In many ways The Matrix is a load of enjoyable nonsense. But Agent
>> Smith saying that they had initially created a perfect virtual world
>> for the humans to live in- and that it had driven them mad - made a
>> lot of sense to me.
>
> This is a revealing thought. That it makes sense a perfect world,
> real or virtual, could be destructive to its denizens and therefore
> undesirable and not a worthy goal to strive for. No wonder we could
> never form The Culture.
I'm not sure what you're driving at there -
Are you saying that the reason we will never achieve a perfect world is
because cynical people like myself don't believe it possible?
or
Are you saying that what each of us as individuals may dream of as a perfect
world probably isn't because we don't understand ourselves well enough?
Or are you saying something else?
I'd see merit in both the statements above. But I'd also note that just
because I see 'a perfect world' as unachievable doesn't mean I don't think
we should try to achieve it. By trying and failing we may well produce
something far better than what we have now.
--
SB
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
>
> OTOH James' idea about the Senators being appointed by the Premiers
> just means that these guys get to spread the patronage booty, rather
> than the PM, which doesn't seem to solve many problems to me.
>
> Not that I expect direct election would be some sort of panacaea
> either.
Just abolish it. The UK does fine with effectively one
legislative body. If we *must* have an upper house, make
it elected. Not regional, not some anti-democratic nightmare
in which the five people who live in PEI (nice place, and
I know four of them) get the same representation as the ten
million who live in Ontario because some British civil servant
in 18xx decided that PEI would be a separate colony.
If the idea is to weaken the PM (something I would be in
favour of), have the upper house hold elections at regular
intervals, and consider the American idea of electing only
a fraction at a time. Then the upper house will fairly often
be controlled by the opposition, resulting in either happy
gridlock or the kind of cooperation we used to get with
minority governments.
I'm not sure if that is better than simply abolishing it.
But it would be harder to implement, perhaps impossible.
Actually, the main problem I have with the senate is that
nobody's appointed me to it. I even promise live in Ottawa
while it's in session and attend regularly. We need someone
in the senate who knows that the word "Newton" need not always
be preceded by "fig".
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University