Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

frostybeard · 2001-10-05 03:44:40

At least in the beginning, communism is what will naturally occur. The structure of society will be such that groups of people will be sharing an air-habitat and everything in in it, and they will engage in trade with other such habitats. Habitats will take on their own culture, know-how, etc. Trade will be done using the products they produce. This is the way it will have to be at least in the beginning. Religious or conscience oppression, Soviet style, will not exist. Strong,
beaurocratic central government, Soviet style, will also not exist. Everyone will need to work for what they have and share it. The person who makes air will share with the person who makes food, and so on. No useless beaurocrats will exist. No useless monarchs will exist either.

I would, at least, refuse to recognize a "king". The planet
as a whole, should be governed by a board of elected members from each of the habitats.

William Smith

andres02 · 2001-10-14 19:34:32

One of the most unbelieveable part of communism is that Marx called for the retirement of government. Why would you need it in the perfect society communism creates? With the harsh conditions of early settlers it is likely someone must be calling the shots (i.e. a board or king).

But, with that minor detail said I highly believe that their will be some kind of socialism on Mars. The bulk of citizens early on will be labors depending on each other and this will create a society of brotherhood with a government "by the people and for the people." This will certainly set back any attemps at monarchs or rich moguls trying to call rank.

I agree that there will be no kings and would like to state that there will most likely be a democracy governing the colony as it did the first American colonies.

SCFalken · 2001-10-17 02:35:13

Not to fire a cheap shot, but:
By early American-style Democracy, do you mean "Rich Landowners-only"? Cause thats what it was....

Adrian · 2001-10-17 06:06:32

I'm not sure if this has much relevance to the discussion of Communism here, but I think on Mars we will at least have a much more participative democracy instead of what most countries have now, of electing representatives every few years and doing nothing in between that time.

Why? Improved education and improved communication; a Martian colony should not, hopefully, develop the sort of black spots for schooling and education and as always, an informed electorate is the best type you can get. Also, due to both the small size of colonies at first and computing facilities, wireless communication and so on, it will be possible for people to have a greater say in the affairs of the colony and also allow for electronic voting.

For example, right now conducting a referendum costs astronomical amounts of money - but imagine how easy it would be to implement on Mars if everyone had a computer terminal and proper PGP-style security measures?

clark · 2001-10-17 09:08:57

" For example, right now conducting a referendum costs astronomical amounts of money - but imagine how easy it would be to implement on Mars if everyone had a computer terminal and proper PGP-style security measures?"

Wouldn't it cost astronimical amounts to put a computer terminal on mars for everyone there (assuming a colony)?

Are they going to make it themselves? How? Who will make it? How will they buy them? Where will they get money for the computers? Who will support the people making the computers, since they more than likely will be making computers and not helping with the maintenance of development of the colony...

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-21 17:43:52

?The Sun.? -Sax

Cobra Commander · 2002-04-09 17:39:34

Communism is likely on Mars in two circumstances. First, if the people on Mars financed themselves; if a government or corporation foots the bill they will have a strong say in what happens and expect a return.
Second, communism only works in small groups. The population of a Mars base may well develop a communist system but when it develops into a true colony it just won't work. Communism with a modern industrialised population invariably leads to massive bereaucracy, corruption, and likely collapse. Martian communism is likely to be an interesting footnote in the history of Mars colonization, nothing more.

Josh Cryer · 2002-04-13 22:57:28

Communism with a modern industrialised population invariably leads to massive bereaucracy, corruption, and likely collapse. Martian communism is likely to be an interesting footnote in the history of Mars colonization, nothing more.

I don't think so, while I agree with your comments about communism being likely in the beginning (small science groups are quite communistic, there's no question about that), I feel this comment is a little off.

I mean, we could say consumerism leads to massive corruption, oppression, poverty, and so on...

...but that's beside the point.

Cobra Commander · 2002-04-20 22:06:50

I mean, we could say consumerism leads to massive corruption, oppression, poverty, and so on...

No argument here. Either way we get screwed, but if given the choice I'd pick a large number of corporations competing for the chance rather than centralizing that power as tends to happen with communist governments. Betting on the goodwill, civil responsibility and honesty of one's fellow man is usually a losing wager.

Joe Spencer · 2002-05-01 00:47:47

...I guess that this is all in the assumption that the first people to colonize Mars will be given a choice....I don't mean that in a negative way, but think about this...it takes alot of support and funding to start a colony from scratch. Private interest groups? A nice thought, but highly unlikely. A government, or a group of governments? Most likely...I see the communistic 'at first' approach likely, as that will be a necessity (living on what you have to start off, everyone will be severely dependent on everyone else...commonality will prevail until quality of life is increased)....don't think of this as being a negative statement, I'm just looking at the wide spectrum of thoughts cruising around in my head...but the idea that, say a group of American/British/whatever colonists would want to accept a long term style of government not of their original background is a bit...well...idealistic...it's a nice thought, but not exactly 'in the cards'...

Please correct me if I'm offbase here.

Respectfully,

Joe Spencer
Member
The Mars Society- San Diego Chapter

clark · 2002-05-01 08:34:13

but the idea that, say a group of American/British/whatever colonists would want to accept a long term style of government not of their original background is a bit...well...idealistic...it's a nice thought, but not exactly 'in the cards'...
Please correct me if I'm offbase here.

The irony....

You are way offbase with your assumption, and I'm surprised that the irony of your statement wasn't self-evident.

Little American History

Prior to 1776 America was a bunch of colonies of England, which then had a King, or, a Monarchy.

After 1776, America became a confederated group of independent States, no longer beholden to a Monarch, or a Monarchy.

After 1786, the artiles of confederation were replaced with the US Constution, which established a Republic.

I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with your premise, just your analogies and reasons (you shoot yourself in the foot)

All governments are the same, they only differ in execution.

Nate Lipscomb · 2002-05-09 23:00:29

Second, communism only works in small groups. The population of a Mars base may well develop a communist system but when it develops into a true colony it just won't work.

Agreed that communism has only really been demonstrated to work in small groups.

However, to me, one of the most different (and promising) aspect of creating a human settlement on Mars is that the numbers of a colony could be very limited. Advances in AI and robotics will likely eliminate many normal "human" tasks and thus a self-sustaining colony, also pursuing scientific progress such as terraforming, could feasibly exist on Mars with 50 or so people. Explain to me why that number would have to increase.

Not only could communistic ownership of property exist (and perhaps flourish) in a Martian settlement of a limited number of people, but I think a consensus-based governing process could really succeed as well. While collective ownership provides a foundation for a settlement, a process by which decisions are made - from which scientific areas to explore to what to eat for dinner - is going to be necessary.

Consensus based decision making - where a group collaborates to make decisions that everyone in the group can agree to and support - has proven to be very powerful and successful in small to medium sized groups (up to 200 or so) in community groups, organizations, and businesses. Consensus-based decisions are often much more accepted and implementable - and rarely lead to group splintering. A group as small as 50 could use consensus decision making for many decisions, and create a committee system to handle smaller decisions (committees would use consensus methods as well). Meetings could be facilitated by AI or rotating facilitators from the settler population as well.

As consensus decision making has proven to be the most solid, sustainable and successful method of making group decisions, I think the small settlement size of Martian colonies could really be a great chance to leverage this new form of self-governance.

Bill White · 2002-05-10 08:49:55

<< However, to me, one of the most different (and promising) aspect of creating a human settlement on Mars is that the numbers of a colony could be very limited. Advances in AI and robotics will likely eliminate many normal "human" tasks and thus a self-sustaining colony, also pursuing scientific progress such as terraforming, could feasibly exist on Mars with 50 or so people. Explain to me why that number would have to increase. >>

If humanity intends to limit population on Mars, why terraform at all?

Also, if only one settlement were ever built, then I agree they could easily agree to limit population, if they were so inclined.

However, if two or more settlements were built and if these various settlements ever came to disagree about the future course of Martian history, then increasing the numbers living in one's own settlement is an obvious source of increasing that settlement's political power and influence.

Suppose someone establishes a colony that adopts Nate's suggestion of essentially zero population growth over time. Now suppose someone else establishes a colony 500 kilometers away, but adopts the goal of making babies as fast as posible.

Fast forward 100 years (Terran or Martian) - which colony will have more to say about the subsequent future of Mars?

It seems to me that ZPG requires essentially unanimous consent among all Martian settlers and all potential Terran emigrants. But, if only 10% (or 5% or 1%) of Martian settlers favor a high birthrate then a demographic arms race may become unavoidable, unless a ZPG regime is imposed by force.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-10 19:01:08

If we don't terraform at all, and all we ever have is a multitude of domed, tented, or buried colonies, say with populations of around 100 to 1000, could each colony remain culturally independent if it wanted to?
I don't mean isolated from a trade or technology point of view, but socially?
For instance, isn't this a great opportunity for some people to live as communists, others as Amish, some as nudists, others as a free-loving hippies, or .... whatever?! Individuals from one colony couldn't easily interfere in the life-style of another colony several kilometres away across a barren, freezing, airless, wilderness, could they?!
Might this not be a golden opportunity for a substantial fraction of humanity to finally live the life they really want? Or am I only dreaming?
:0

Cobra Commander · 2002-05-10 22:37:47

Might this not be a golden opportunity for a substantial fraction of humanity to finally live the life they really want?

I'm not too optimistic about the prospects of such a diverse grouping surviving long term, but the relative isolation of each individual colony could be a major factor helping in the development of the planet. The colony is established by individuals seeking to follow their particular ideals whether they be communists, islamic fundamentalists, anarchists, neo-fascists or anything else. While they each attempt to build their own ideal societies they will also build the infrastructure required for larger populations. Things will be very interesting for a while, but within two or three generations I'd expect that the individual colonies will begin to blend together for reasons of trade, increasing pragmatism on all sides, immigration and the simple need to keep the gene pool stirred.

Palomar · 2002-06-06 11:04:59

I think it's best to keep in mind what the word "communism" is intended to mean: Commune-ism. To my USA-grown brain, the word has acquired, via media/social factors, a negative connotation. It needn't be a negative thing.

The first Marsian explorers and colonists will be totally dependent upon governmental and/or corporate and/or private funding. All will have to share and cooperate. In the strictest sense, they will indeed be commune-ists.

If colonization proves successful, eventually (hopefully!) the colonists will become more and more self-sufficient. I presume trading and bartering will be the thing to do, i.e. I want a dozen of your carrots for a dozen of my apples.

What I know about economics you could put in a thimble, and shove an elephant in besides. However, I do know that there has to be some valuable/precious commodity in existence upon which to base and start generating paper money, bank notes, etc. It will probably be a while before that can occur...and then politics will really come into play.

Because of the hardships, challenges, and unique rewards of being Marsian, especially for the first handful of generations, I anticipate there will be high levels of cooperation, sharing, and equitable exchange. In that respect, there will be commune-ism on Mars; it's unavoidable for a while, at least, and will most likely be a very good and rewarding thing for those colonists.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-06 11:16:13

To my USA-grown brain, the word has acquired, via media/social factors, a negative connotation. It needn't be a negative thing (however, this isn't to say I myself am in favor of commune-ism; rather, I'm neutral about it).

Tee hee. Americans do have a disdane for communism. I did at one time, actually.

Which is ?worse,? though?

Capitalism*, in which the people practice consumerism and corporate ownership is the focal point of society? Or socialism, in which the people practice communism and public ownership if the focal point of society?

Either way, resources are controlled by a single source. But in the later situation, resources are controlled by everyone, and the former, resources are controlled by a select few.

Anyway, like I said in the other thead, if you're dependent, I don't consider you a colonist.

*Note: Many argue that capitalism leads to individual ownership. If that were so, why do corporations own everything?

Palomar · 2002-06-06 11:22:14

Shaun wrote: "For instance, isn't this a great opportunity for some people to live as communists, others as Amish, some as nudists,"

Now that is an interesting idea; nudist camps/colonies on Mars. I prefer to keep my clothes on, but what the hey.

"others as a free-loving hippies, or .... whatever?! Individuals from one colony couldn't easily interfere in the life-style of another colony several kilometres away across a barren, freezing, airless, wilderness, could they?! Might this not be a golden opportunity for a substantial fraction of humanity to finally live the life they really want? Or am I only dreaming?"

No, I don't think you're dreaming. I think the colonists would do themselves well to 1) become as quickly self-dependent as possible, 2) cast off as many old Earth prejudices and stupidities as possible, 3) to maintain level of social conscience, respect, and considerateness toward others, and 4) to have "life, liberty, and the pursuit on happiness" framed in every habitat.

Of course, maybe I'm dreaming...

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Aetius · 2002-06-07 17:07:05

The problem is that human nature favors hierarchy. Public ownership of most things is a nice idea, but the reality will eventually become what is ALWAYS found in Communist societies.

A small group of self-appointed guardians of the state, like the pigs of Orwell's "Animal Farm", will eventually become a hereditary ruling class intent on preserving its own power.

At least Capitalistic societies founded on democratic principles offer more opportunities to reward hard work and ingenuity.

I wish future Martian Commies (Double Reds?) well. But they would have to avoid the pitfalls that doomed every other Communist experiment here on Earth...without becoming a hellish dystopia.

Tough gig.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-03-10 14:56:48

Mars is the red planet, time to change the flag

Mars future soviet state LOL

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-10 16:02:15

And here I was all set to go to get away from the communists.

ruski_canuk · 2004-03-10 18:08:01

side note to the communist: In Russia, where I lived for several years, noone owned any land - everything was state owned or the 'peoples' land. In capitalism, full of its own weaknesses, an unprecedented amount of people do own their own land.

That aside, I believe that Martian Government will primarily depend upon the country (or countries) which colonize it. The same ideology will be passed along. Furthermore, planet Earth will have an enormous influence and will even likely lead the planet for hundreds of years before it truly becomes independent. With the kind of advantage that Earth has, mars would never attempt to defy its commands. At least not for a very long time.

It will in no wise be communism just because people are working together for the greater good. By the way, people work together for the greater good in Democracy too. I think the greatest problem with this discussion is the ambiguous definition of communism - first define what you mean by communism and then discuss.

I just hope they don't build a statue of Lenin...

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-10 18:26:48

side note to the communist: In Russia, where I lived for several years, noone owned any land - everything was state owned or the 'peoples' land. In capitalism, full of its own weaknesses, an unprecedented amount of people do own their own land.

That's debatable. We do have property taxes, which if we don't pay result in having our land taken from us. So we in essence rent our land from the government. I don't doubt it's far better than residing on the 'People's Collective #whatever' but land ownership doesn't really exist anymore.

That aside, I believe that Martian Government will primarily depend upon the country (or countries) which colonize it. The same ideology will be passed along.

Absolutely right. Which is why I keep saying we should get our butts in gear and go!

I just hope they don't build a statue of Lenin...

I'll tear it down.

ruski_canuk · 2004-03-10 19:08:47

True - the idea of 'owning property' is as ancient as when bears first started pissing on trees. Sure its the governments, or in an anarchy, who's ever got the biggest guns. Fact is that in this country we enjoy a near correct balance of personal ownership with some government still in the doorway (Else you would have people bunkering off their homes and refusing to pay taxes in Montana )

I fully agree with the whole lets get our butts in gear thing. It is our time to sieze the moment or are we stupid enough to think a country like America will stand forever?

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-10 19:23:58

True - the idea of 'owning property' is as ancient as when bears first started pissing on trees. Sure its the governments, or in an anarchy, who's ever got the biggest guns.

it's always whoever has the bigger guns. governments have alot of guns. in some places, all the guns.

Fact is that in this country we enjoy a near correct balance of personal ownership with some government still in the doorway (Else you would have people bunkering off their homes and refusing to pay taxes in Montana )

Well, I'd dispute that correct balance statement, but I suppose it depends largely on your frame of reference. Personally, I don't have a problem with people bunkering in their homes. As long as they're not bothering anyone else, bunker off.

I fully agree with the whole lets get our butts in gear thing. It is our time to sieze the moment or are we stupid enough to think a country like America will stand forever?

If we get moving on this, among other things, a country like America can stand far into the future. But I'm a proud cultural imperialist. Particularly of late.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2001-10-05 03:44:40

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#2 2001-10-14 19:34:32

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#3 2001-10-17 02:35:13

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#4 2001-10-17 06:06:32

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#5 2001-10-17 09:08:57

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#6 2002-01-21 17:43:52

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#7 2002-04-09 17:39:34

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#8 2002-04-13 22:57:28

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#9 2002-04-20 22:06:50

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#10 2002-05-01 00:47:47

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#11 2002-05-01 08:34:13

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#12 2002-05-09 23:00:29

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#13 2002-05-10 08:49:55

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#14 2002-05-10 19:01:08

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#15 2002-05-10 22:37:47

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#16 2002-06-06 11:04:59

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#17 2002-06-06 11:16:13

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#18 2002-06-06 11:22:14

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#19 2002-06-07 17:07:05

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#20 2004-03-10 14:56:48

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#21 2004-03-10 16:02:15

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#22 2004-03-10 18:08:01

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#23 2004-03-10 18:26:48

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#24 2004-03-10 19:08:47

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

#25 2004-03-10 19:23:58

Re: Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.)

Board footer