The communists

[ledpup]

you see all around the world that communism has failed.
so why should it still be around?

I think that's a little myopic. Bear in mind that it took hundreds of years for capitalism to be established throughout most of the world. Russia and China (some of the biggest countries in the world) only really became capitalist last century. Capitalism arrived in America only 500 years ago. Before that it was only kicking around England, Holland, France and Germany in minor ways.

Just think what serfs, artisans, clergy, yeomen and the aristocracy could have been talking about before then?

"Ha! This waged labour thing, it'll never take off! Why would I want to work for someone else? I have my own land that gives me life."

or "Why would I rent you? I own these guys."

or "My sole purpose is to serve my master."

Fast-forward 500-700 years, you get America and African slavery, the enclosures, Dutch->English->French revolution, the colonies, massive militarisation and world wars, etc. etc. It's totally hip to be a waged worker these days. Almost everyone's doing it. It's the first fully world religion.

In comparison, how long has been communism been kicking around? 200 years, more or less. Sure, the trend is downwards, but history isn't a progressive line. I wouldn't write it off just yet. I think it is wise of FD to retain it, even if it's only in the form that we've seen established last century.

 

[Slythe]

...Capitalist societies are defined by the existence of free labour. I.e., people that are free from the "terrible burden" of owning land and the tools needed to survive. They need to sell their ability to work instead. ...

I'm probably going to regret posting this, but anyway...

I don't recognize your definition of a Capitalist society. My understanding is that the difference between Capitalist and Communist is property rights. Capitalist societies (of various types) recognize and guarantee individual private property under law, whereas Communist societies operate under the slogan "property is theft", as well as "from each according to his ability/to each according to his need". Fascist societies fall somewhere in between; they usually recognize private property, but believe that the state or society has the right to dictate what you can and can't do with your property by law, or who can and can't own particular things.

 

[Titus Balls]

Personally I'd love to see a Anarcho-syndicalist commune.

 

[ledpup]

My understanding is that the difference between Capitalist and Communist is property rights. Capitalist societies (of various types) recognize and guarantee individual private property under law, whereas Communist societies operate under the slogan "property is theft", as well as "from each according to his ability/to each according to his need". Fascist societies fall somewhere in between; they usually recognize private property, but believe that the state or society has the right to dictate what you can and can't do with your property by law, or who can and can't own particular things.

Well, sort of. I think you have the definition of capitalism spot on, just looking at it from a different angle than I am. You're talking about law, I'm talking about everyday life and our social relationships.

However, I don't think any communist state has ever even paid lip-service to the slogan "property is theft". That was coined by Proudhon, an early anarchist. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft! The term and its meaning has remained almost entirely with that movement.

As for, "from each according to his ability/to each according to his need", that is most famously attributable to Marx. I'd be surprised if you could dig up any evidence that a single communist country has ever operated under that principle. It was part of the propaganda, sure, but actual everyday reality? I don't think so.

What the communist countries did, however, was shift land and capital ownership from peasants, aristocrats and capitalists to the state bureaucracy. The state became the single owner of land and capital. The state had the sole legal right to property. It became the employer (capitalist). It competed on the world market with other capitalist companies and governments. The citizens were collectivised, purged, imprisoned, murdered and forced into huge (waged) labour camps. (I only supplied Russian examples, but the pattern is the same with all communist countries.) All of that stuff is very well documented and very few people question it, except hard-line Stalinists.

Anyway, this is off topic now. I was mostly interested in discussing how much the political side of the game could affect the game model.

 

[ZenSpider]

I thought we were an autonomous collective?

 

[NoirWolf]

I thought we were an autonomous collective?

-gets out water vaporizer- NO! BAD BORG! STOP ASSIMILATING THAT COUCH!! (had to sorry)

 

[VR jefranklin18]

Well, sort of. I think you have the definition of capitalism spot on, just looking at it from a different angle than I am. You're talking about law, I'm talking about everyday life and our social relationships.

However, I don't think any communist state has ever even paid lip-service to the slogan "property is theft". That was coined by Proudhon, an early anarchist. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft! The term and it's meaning has remained almost entirely with that movement.

As for, "from each according to his ability/to each according to his need", that is most famously attributable to Marx. I'd be surprised if you could dig up any evidence that a single communist country has ever operated under that principle. It was part of the propaganda, sure, but actual everyday reality? I don't think so.

What the communist countries did, however, was shift land and capital ownership from peasants, aristocrats and capitalists to the state bureaucracy. The state became the single owner of land and capital. The state had the sole legal right to property. It became the employer (capitalist). It competed on the world market with other capitalist companies and governments. The citizens were collectivised, purged, imprisoned, murdered and forced into huge (waged) labour camps. (I only supplied Russian examples, but the pattern is the same with all communist countries.) All of that stuff is very well documented and very few people question it, except hard-line Stalinists.

Anyway, this is off topic now. I was mostly interested in discussing how much the political side of the game could affect the game model.

This is an interesting discussion

The only country that I am aware of that truly embraced Communism in its purest form (communes of people working for the good of society, no personal ownership) was Cambodia under Pol Pot. Everybody was stripped of their personal possessions and lived in communal huts, tilled the land, etc. However the materialism that permeates human nature meant that people in communes would hide personal possessions (at great risk to themselves) to ensure that they had something. This is why communism can be deemed to be a failure: it takes no account of human nature, and can only be enforced through hard line treatment.

Back on topic, I'm not sure that there would be many differences between a regular star port and a Commie one. Potentially the market range will be limited and (playing to the hard line stereotype) very tough law enforcement if you attempt to engage in trading illegal goods.

 

[Barking_Mad]

(I'm french, so it's rather complicated for me to discuss such subjects in english, I apologise for that in advance.)

That's an open debate, and will remain pure speculation for as long as actual anarchism (and communism, for that matter) doctrin has not been applied. You rely too much on the word etymology, and not on the actual philosophy. Anarchism and communism are both doctrins of true social order. They take different path for that matter. To be (very) crude, communism emphasis the victory of the majority class, its legitimate take over on every kind of production means and facility, and thus prophetize the end of history as a mean to evolve. Anarchism is more economic-centered. There were many thinkers but the Marx of anarchism is Proudhon. He defined property (in its current, out of nowhere divinish right nature) as illegitimate and misused. The social doctrin that follow that statement is a result of it, not the goal. Therefore, the lack of government in a anarchist society is not by will to get rid of it, but simply because it has no purpose.

Both philosophies have in common that they are indeed perceived as confronting straight ahead human individualism. Truth is, they confront capitalism. Which, despite not being anything close to a philosophy, has become our ruler by fact. And, as any good dictator out there, it invaded every aspect of our lives, including education. Education that makes us say, today, that communism and anarchism are not viable. While proving more and more everyday that it is itself (capitalism) an utter failure, on social level.

I find this would be fascinating to experiment in a place such as Elite. The ways to do so are still blurry, but there is the ideal terrain, I believe.

Excellent post.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Good thread. I'd really like Anarchism in the game. It would make a really good game dynamic. If we're playing thousands of years in the future, it makes sense to have political ideas that don't currently exist as recognised alternatives.

 

[Beermachine]

I don't think there's any real distinctions in game between a communist station, dictatorship, etc, other than a few delivery missions / different illegal goods. Still, the fact that they're there and a searchable function in the galaxy map suggests that FD do have plans to expand on the system in the future.

 

[Ytheleus]

Marx made a clear distinction between commerce and capitalism in the first couple of chapters of Capital. When capitalism was beginning to catch on in Venice, (in a footnote) he reports that several proto-capitalists were drowned in canals by members of long-standing traditional trade guilds who were being displaced by them, for example.

It's a common misconception that capitalism is the same as trade, or that communism/socialism precludes trade or private property. Neither is, in theory, true. Ownership of the means of production is a different matter.
I can go on about this for hours if necessary, with diagrams.

 

[Speedbird]

Living in China, I can tell you that it is rampant, yes RAMPANTLY capitalism here.

make a dollar and devil take the hindmost!

people don't believe this until they have been here and seen it!

 

[OnePercent]

Communism never works sustainable, the money tap is always coming from somewhere.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Living in China, I can tell you that it is rampant, yes RAMPANTLY capitalism here.

make a dollar and devil take the hindmost!

people don't believe this until they have been here and seen it!

Ofcource, No one believes that China is economically a Communist State, it is a capitalist country ( an extreme example of a capitalist at that) But their "governing body" is communist)

Basically, China is a totalitarian dictator ship that is capitalist and more or less is ethical for its people.

 

[Speedbird]

Argue with you on the ethical for the people.

trust me.

 

[Phier]

Hi all,

Anyone know how the communist societies work in the game? Are they the same as all the others (i.e., like (pre-)existing communist countries) or are they like a potential, future communist society?

Gameplay-wise, the big difference is the market economy (or lack of) at the communist stations. It would be very cool if:

* the commodity market does not exist at a communist station

It should exist, and they should normally be important food and basic needs being communism is really bad at that sort of thing

* fuel and other necessities are free (and rationed)

Only if you were part of the party, and not some freebooter space cowboy.

* the black market is run by federal/imperial infiltrators and corrupt communists trying to re-instate wage labour and the free market

Haha no the blackmarket would be run by the local officials and criminals. The USSR's black market wasn't run by the CIA

* players can donate/gift cargo to the communists in exchange for reputation and/or ship repairs

You mean like pay for it?

Anyways, it probably won't be like that, but I reckon that would be fairly awesome to mix-up gameplay significantly at some star systems. I'd love to arrive somewhere that is genuinely different, rather than just a change in name and numbers.

I agree with this, government types means nothing right now.