Communism - Just like Star Trek

Commodore · 2005-06-27 20:07:02

And who watches the independant watchdogs? :;):

Space settlements are inevatably going to be more socialist than anything seen on Earth today, or is at least functional today, simply because the survival bar is set that much higher.

But there still must be strong capitalist sectors to drive progress.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-28 05:13:10

Quote
The Levels won't depends on how much education the person has and if they are doing a job that will benifit the society
It was meant to be will depend not won't depends.

So by what criteria does one determine if a given job "benefits society"? Does an artist benefit society more or less than a construction worker?

How does education factor in to the scale? Does a frycook with a Masters make more than a frycook that dropped out of high school? If so, why?

There can be an independent watchdog that can take emergency power if the government is suspect of foul play in it's core.

Then I'd like to offer my services in that capacity.

Space settlements are inevatably going to be more socialist than anything seen on Earth today, or is at least functional today, simply because the survival bar is set that much higher.

Depending on what one defines as "socialist." Certainly space colonies will be more rigidly structured and restrictive, though the makeup of the population will have a strong effect on how it's perceived. It in no way requires a "socialist" arrangement in the sense that the term is usually used. For example, one could argue that a worker who is unable to provide for his own needs should be assisted by the colony as they all depend on the work he does. Conversely it could be argued that the worker is unable to meet the capacity expected of him, is a detriment to the entire colony and no further resources should be wasted on him. Either viewpoint is valid within itself.

For my part and all the baggage the term brings in notwithstanding, I'd expect something of a "national socialist" Mars, a vaguely collectivist economic and social policy with free markets, a tendency to exalt behaviors and characteristics beneficial to the group while harshly stigmatizing those that are harmful and a sense of almost arrogant pride permeating the culture. The Martians will have vision and they'll achieve astounding things, but they'll develop a cold and calculating streak that most Earth-bound socialists would shudder at.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1119969864

Fledi · 2005-06-29 05:48:14

or my part and all the baggage the term brings in notwithstanding, I'd expect something of a "national socialist" Mars, a vaguely collectivist economic and social policy with free markets, a tendency to exalt behaviors and characteristics

Better not mix these two things, it hasn't proven to be a good society historically.
But by the describtion you are referring to a system called "social market economy", which is in widespread use throughout European countries.

I agree the Martian colonies will be more restrictive in some areas (you can't take chances with the maintenance of life support systems for example), but these will likely be more comprehensible than most laws on Earth.
It should also be said that socialism works well in a small group where everybody knows each other, like in small villages or tribes in former times.
At one point the colony will grow too big. though and there will have to be a reform in the early frontier economy when this happens.
But it will be a long time in the future when we will face issues of this kind.

reddragon · 2005-06-29 09:15:19

At one point the colony will grow too big. though and there will have to be a reform in the early frontier economy when this happens.

If you keep building more domes, tunnels, etc. coming off the same main base. Alternatively, when a base gets crouded, a group of people can leave and found a new base. A base could also decide that it would build only within a certain land area and then when this is all built up it will grow no more. Growth in many modern developed countries comes mainly from immigration; due to smaller family sizes the birth and death rates are fairly close to equilibrium. (World population growth of course continues exponentially.) In the US for example population would actually be declining slightly if it were not for immmigration. Since Martian cities will be very modern, similar trends can be expected. Thus when the city becomes large enough they can decrease immigration.

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-29 13:33:13

reddragon,

To protect the rights of the people.

Who defines those rights? The government or the people? If the people, why do they need the government to protect those rights? They ought to be able to form associations that allow them to protect their own rights. I don't see why they need a government, or at least, a significant government for their rights to be protected.

Certainly if we could all live happily and peacefully without any government I'd want to move away from government too.

I think it's definitely possible to move away from government, perhaps not all the way (as I think people do have compelling reasons to have their own governments), but certainly far greater than we ever have before. Consider for a moment on Mars, we have several basic needs, air, food, water, clothing and a habitat pressurized to about one bar (which would require electricity).

Most of those things can be provided by a greenhouse with waste recycling. Clothing can be grown (indeed, cotton is probably being worn in some fasion by most who are reading this right now). Food, obviously, can be grown, air can be provided by the greenhouse, and water would be recycled as the waste is ("waste" merely being the chemicals that the plants require for food, only in a rather smelly form). This just requires a simple (by "simple" I mean constituting no more than a few dozen key components) closed ecosystem. We now have the basis for Martian agrarian society (if I was a billionare that's what I'd be doing!). Have some really durable space suits and you can spend the rest of your life on Mars exploring and building and doing whatever you want.

These are absolute requirements for existing on Mars for any extended period of time. These are requirements for colonization. If these little greenhouses could be built, they could also be shared, as you could derive polymers from biomass, in order to make another greenhouse. What I envision is everyone having their own little greenhouses and habs, living without much government intervention (none at all, initally, actually).

Stormrage

I just happy that people are in my thread and taking some of the things seriously.

The Mars Society forums have some of the most respectable posters on any space related forum I know, I'm glad you found your way here, your ideas aren't going to be bashed.

We will have a 5 level system. [...] The Levels will depend on how much education the person has and if they are doing a job that will benifit the society.

I thought communism wished to abolish class? Societial value is a subjective metric, in an elegartarian society it is a meaningless concept. What you are really suggesting here is a state-owned capitalism. It's capitalism, but property inclines toward the state, not the individuals.

We can derive our energy source by mining Asteroid making sure we won't pollute our world like we did on Earth.

There isn't much energy in asteroids that can benefit Mars locally. Asteroid energies (fissionable metals) are best kept in their high energy orbits (as soon as you land it on Mars its value, theoretically, decreases), to be used in intersteller operations. Same goes with their ores. In general, it costs more to take an object into a planetary gravity well than it's worth.

We can also research into quick DNA scanners installed on Front doors of houses (it won't record the DNA of people living there).

Why? To monitor the comings and goings of people? So that people can set up white lists as to who is invited into their houses? This would not be very hard to circumvent. Watch the movie Gattica.

The DNA scanners can also be fitted into other areas of the City to make sure that tourists who visit us won't stay longer then they are allowed.

Hmm, I think that's getting a bit strict, myself. Tourists are going to be a very small minority of people coming to Mars (most would come to colonize, look at the American frontieer for an example). And on top of that, they would be quite ready to leave once their stay is complete, and even if not, there should be more than enough room for them.

In my kinda society everyone is equal.

Then why do you have 5 economic classes?

Honestly, your version of society looks like corporate capitalism to me, just imagine what capitalism would look like if one big corporation owned every facet of its economy (consider the labor factories in China where everyone works, eats, and sleeps at the same place).

Cobra Commander,

This is "Nice Try Utopian Scheme" number what now?

Heheh, my utopian scheme is the only one that would work. :;):

But it has the one redeeming virtue of being better overall than any other system tried.

That's entirely subjective. Given that the work day has increased over time, one could easily argue that it has gotten "worse overall." But I don't really care one way or another, I accept that it's what we have and I have a very narrow conception of how it can be rid of.

Because I (and the vast majority of the world) "accept" it doesn't mean it cannot be criticized.

Lock them into a rigid scale and why will anyone bust their butt?

Oh, I disagree completely. What he is suggesting is just an extension of the minimum wage. The minimum wage has allowed businesses to get away with relatively cheap labor, while convincing the masses that they're getting a "fair share" of things. His scale would be perfect (and you should note that it changes nothing as far as class is concerned, it still obviously exists).

Essentially it comes down to under capitalism some people lose, under communism everyone loses.

And under any highly technological society, no one loses.

"Corporate communism"

That is precisely what I think he is advocating.

reddragon,

Everyone's entitled to their opinion and it's always good to consider alternatives, but I think that some form of Capitalism is probably the best economic system we can have.

Why have economic systems at all? There are a lot of assumptions that economic systems make (the most appropriate being that markets collapse in the absence of scarcity) and I think they fall completely apart in a highly technological world. One that would be inherently necessary to survive on Mars for any extended period of time.

Sometimes people just nead a chance to start over. So let's give them that chance in the New World of Mars.

Agreed! The possibilities are endless!

Cause this idea is Half Capitalism and Half Communism. This won't make people poorer beacuse the harder they work the more credits they will get.

Yeah, that's how I interpreted what you were saying. It's really capitalism with a nice corporation standing there "Doing no Evil" or whatnot. Question is what happens when dissentors want to move away from the corporation. What will the masters do? You suggested deporting them, didn't you? Or was that someone else?

Kind of a costly business, that.

But the it is controlled by the government.

In other words, the corporations board of directors.

Cobra Commander,

Depending on what one defines as "socialist." Certainly space colonies will be more rigidly structured and restrictive, though the makeup of the population will have a strong effect on how it's perceived.

I think you have a slightly skewed version of what is "socialist." I mean, the first thing that comes to mind is "ridigly structured and restrictive." Socialist doesn't mean that any more than capitalism means fascist depotism. They're both economic theories. I'd wager that they both have had their share in depostism.

And anyway, space fairing society isn't any more restrictive than any other kind of society that has real limitations to it (consider living in an arctic region on Earth, leaving the house without clothes would be a pretty obvious "restriction," but it's second nature, and simply accepted as something you don't do).

It in no way requires a "socialist" arrangement in the sense that the term is usually used.

How do you precieve it to be "usually used?" Socialism, no matter how it is used, basically speaks of the public owning the resources rather than corporations or private individuals owning signifcant (hoarding-levels) resources. In no way would a habitat not be a public owned good, even if the habitat (like I envision) is composed of seperate, individual, privately owned parts. If each part does not work together, then the whole system fails (or at least, functions less than adequately). This is why I find it unlikey that a corporation could exist on Mars, because revolution would just be so easy to attain.

For example, one could argue that a worker who is unable to provide for his own needs should be assisted by the colony as they all depend on the work he does.

If a worker cannot provide for his own needs, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the design of the habitat. Food, water, and air, are all things that can come without much effort. In any case, capitalists can and will "provide the needs" of their workers, especially in space, so it would not be hard to imagine workers feeding out of chloroplast machines and living in tight nit quarters. You'd have Hong Kong style corporate capitalism right there. It would function "socialist" but it would not be socialist by the commonly used definition (because the corporation owns everything and the people have little say). Until the workers got tired of the BS and overthrew the masters.

In conclusion, the system itself is "socialist," by nature, as far as the distribution of goods goes. The question is who gets to have control.

[...] no further resources should be wasted on him.

Death? Now that does sound like Hong Kong style corporate capitalism.

Earthfirst · 2005-06-29 21:40:05

We do not want reds communist any where! The evil empire is dead lets not bring it back for free health care. Slaude!

Mace · 2005-07-17 18:16:08

If we don't have a communism, we will need some massive controls anyways. After all, on a small little Mars colony, where there is only one store, prices will be deadly. Democracy works well with many millions of people. Thus many thousands supply most goods. On a starting colony, we need something to maintain order at least until the colony grows very large and can support many producers and suppliers. Also, what do we do about the unemployed people, they still take away valuable air and yet contribute nothing to the empire..errrr..I mean colony.

Stormrage · 2005-07-18 08:06:32

I can see it now. Huge Mega cities in Mars. The Capital is Qo'nos (Kronos). Everyone wearingin red and Hailing me.

People could be divided into sections has i said earlier. Everyone has a work qoute to do. If they get lazy and don't do shit. Starve there F...ng ass. No idiots to drain our society.

Communism would have worked for Russia if The Cold War didn't happen. That way they would have spent more of there resources into the people rather then the competing with USA. So don't use Russia has a case study.

reddragon · 2005-07-18 09:20:46

Also, what do we do about the unemployed people, they still take away valuable air and yet contribute nothing to the empire..errrr..I mean colony.

Perhaps something where if people remain unemployed for a certain amount of time, the government can assign them to a job that they must work at until they can find something better on there own. The downside is that it tends toward corruption. For example, a business owner needs low wage workers, and a politician arranges to get them for him in return for campaign contributions.

Of course, if there are enough jobs most people will be employed. The most important thing is making sure that there are enough jobs for everyone in the colony. Otherwise there may be people who are unemployed through no fault of their own.

Mace · 2005-07-18 16:12:00

Perhaps something where if people remain unemployed for a certain amount of time, the government can assign them to a job that they must work at until they can find something better on there own

Interesting idea, no one will be unemployed (even those lazy people that want to be). Sounds like communism to me or maybe it is just democracy without freedoms? both ways, waste and corruption must be destroyed from the colonies in order to assure their success. Any ideas? Robot leaders? Big brother? A giant propaganda project? or maybe we should just turn our backs to all this and take a bribe.

I think our colony's motto should be "you can do what you want to do as long as you do what we want you to do at all times."

idiom · 2005-07-19 02:03:07

send only monks. No corruption no unemployment.

clark · 2005-07-19 07:10:25

... and no children.

reddragon · 2005-07-19 08:20:02

Perhaps something where if people remain unemployed for a certain amount of time, the government can assign them to a job that they must work at until they can find something better on there own
Interesting idea, no one will be unemployed (even those lazy people that want to be). Sounds like communism to me or maybe it is just democracy without freedoms? both ways, waste and corruption must be destroyed from the colonies in order to assure their success. Any ideas? Robot leaders? Big brother? A giant propaganda project? or maybe we should just turn our backs to all this and take a bribe.
I think our colony's motto should be "you can do what you want to do as long as you do what we want you to do at all times."

I think that my idea (which by the way I am not completely sure if I like; it has some pros and cons) would work in a regular democracy, albeit a more socialist one than the US as would probably be necessitated by the nature of life in the harsh environment of Mars. It would not require the end of the democratic or republican system of government, nor would it be communism since it does not require government ownership of all property. It would also not take away any freedoms except the freedom to remain unemployed through only your own refusal to find work while using for free the resources of the colony. This is not usually counted among peoples' inalienable rights. People would still have the right to choose their own jobs as well as rights such as freedom of religion, speech, the press, etc., or the freedom to vote however you wish.

As an addition to the plan in my previous post, students and minors(obviously) would be exempt from forced employment.

srmeaney · 2005-07-21 09:14:36

Startrek isnt communist. It is a Millitary rulingclass -like Space command...with their own space ships. They dominate all federation activity off world. Kind of like a Space Commonwealth-but with the sort of people you would space out an airlock first chance you had. Kirk was little more than a Starfleet Warlord, ravaging wenches at every planetfall and space station pitstop.

In the later series, we have Section 31. who were honest about what they represented. A superficial idology run from the Shadows of something ruled by Admirals. Each with their own agenda and Ethical standards.

Who defines those rights? The government or the people? If the people, why do they need the government to protect those rights? They ought to be able to form associations that allow them to protect their own rights. I don't see why they need a government, or at least, a significant government for their rights to be protected.

Careful Josh, You are condoning Commonwealth. The Opressive Administration might here you.

srmeaney · 2005-07-21 09:26:59

You are obviously all looking for Commonwealth. The right of the individual to an equal share of the Benifits and responsibilities of citizenship and the right and responsibility to self government.

Logic must therefor concur with the philosophy that the individual's rights are absolute. To violate the right of one is to condone that tresspass on everyone. - That is the only crime in a Commonwealth. The Charge is Treason and the Penalty is loss of citizenship. The rule of law must be as absolute as the rights of the individual to an Equal share of the Benifits and responsibilities.

reddragon · 2005-07-22 09:03:40

You are obviously all looking for Commonwealth.

I know I'm not. I'm looking for something more based on the American system of government but with some modifications.

srmeaney · 2005-08-07 20:48:51

Violating some rights is worse than violating others; the punishment should reflect this. How can you punish theft and murder, for example, the same way

Violating any right is the same crime ergo the same penalty. When you voilate a right who determines whether one violation was worse than another. Only the victim can determine the occurence of the crime. Only the Victim can find you guilty.
As a criminal you disrespect the right of the individual to freedom from you. Therefore, you cannot ever be trusted with anyone elses right to freedom from you, therefore your citizenship is revoked. Life was your chance, you blew it.

Therefore Antartic Gulag in your future.

Crime>treason
Penalty>life confinement
Location>somewhere south of penguin country

idiom · 2005-08-09 00:59:32

You sound like Dueteronomy. Except they figure you violated your right to life.

Martian Republic · 2005-08-09 10:01:49

It go deeper than that Reddragon,

We have to determine what are rights are both public or a common wealth and private right and what they should be and everybody has a different opinion as to what it is and that important if we are going to have a common standards to work with. Or otherwise you all over the field and we have nothing to base our space economy on. Speaking of economy, there are different economic concept and banking system and that affect the mex too.

We know that Communism doesn't work.
Government Corporate farms don't work.

We know that Capitalism doesn't work either.
Private Corporate farming doesn't work very good either. Besides a non regulated doesn't work either, these Private Coal mining companies are strip mining the Mountains of West Virginia and making the land useless and they have destroyed or will destroy an area the size of Rhode Island over the three or four year and over the past few years or so. There stripping the top dirt off those mountains and throwing it into the valley making them useless for farming or any other use.

So we are going to have to set down some rules and we are going to have people on both sides saying that they don't like the rules, but the rule we do make will have to be rules that work or other wise we waiting our time making the effort.

For example: We will need public transportation for our colony or city on the moon or Mars like we need public transportation for our city down here. We will need private companies building the private transportation system. We will need government owned and operated water system and power plants, but with privately construction contractor’s and manufacturers of pipes and power plants and other such things.

That the way we do it down here and we can assume that that the way we will have to do it in space too. So all private right and commonwealth ideas or argument will have to revolve around this and not revolve around the different people world view or concept or dogma that people on this board have or otherwise we are wasting our time discussing this issue. If you defending a non working system and you won't come off of it, then space colonization is a dead issue. So we need to decide what we need and who needs to own and on what terms that they own it and how they can use it or how it can be used. That will pretty much dictate what our are rights are going to be and the individual dogma from the those different will have to take a back seat or the may even have to change there view point altogether.

Larry,

srmeaney · 2005-08-11 05:06:25

We know that Communism doesn't work.

Dont see how you can reach that conclusion. There still hasnt been a communist "state" on this planet.

Bureacracy is the enemy of Commonwealth, no matter what flag you wave. I prefer to govern myself, and not be governed by others.

reddragon · 2005-08-11 09:20:06

I prefer to govern myself, and not be governed by others.

That sounds more like Anarchism than Communism. Certainly it would be nice if we needed no government, but human nature won't allow it to work. And it can be argued that it is good to have a government to look out for its people rather than making it everyone for themselves. The ideal, I think, would be a government that protected the people's rights and, to a limited degree, looked out for their well-being but did not intrude very much into their lives. It's a tough balance to get right, and we won't all agree on what the perfect balance is. Honestly, I'm not sure what the perfect government would be, but I'm sure it will never exist.

idiom · 2005-08-11 14:14:02

I prefer to govern myself, and not be governed by others.

You also probably prefer that other behaved in alike manner and not like right idiots.

The book of Judges records the Isreali experiment with such self-government. Leaders were not elected, they were naturally charasmatic people who just got followed. The book records that 'Everyone did what was right in their own eyes'. Which is not so bad, until you consider that right in your eyes may be helpin g the pretty lady understand that she really didn't mean no.

Oh and they kept getting invaded.

srmeaney · 2005-08-11 19:22:34

I prefer to govern myself, and not be governed by others.

That sounds more like Anarchism than Communism

Actually its called freedom...
Anarchy would be where I didnt respect your right to the same. In which case, as you licked my boots, you would call me Warlord (or in the other case high priest).

Martian Republic · 2005-08-12 10:56:51

I prefer to govern myself, and not be governed by others.
That sounds more like Anarchism than Communism
Actually its called freedom...
Anarchy would be where I didnt respect your right to the same. In which case, as you licked my boots, you would call me Warlord (or in the other case high priest).

Well, George Bush attack a country that did not attack us and bombed there cities and has killed there people. George Bush as signed an executive order that states it all right to torture people and we even tortured children who were twelve years old and in front of there father or there mother and George Bush calls this freedom.

Is this really freedom?

George Bush thinks it is.

But, how many Iraqis think this is freedom?

There free to be murdered.

There free to be tortured.

There free to be unemployed.

There free to not have any electricity or clean water or hospital care if they need it.

But, George Bush insist that there free.

Everybody may have a different opinion, but George Bush opinion is and he still believe the Iraqi are free and that freedom is on the march.

We are going to have to come to a conclusion as to what freedom is or we are just howling in the air our particular idea of what freedom is and it not necessarily what someone else think freedom is.

Dictators and banking interest like Adolph Hitler, George Bush, Joseph Stalin, Napoleon, Rothschilds, Rockefellows and such have an opinion of freedom and there are just as good as your opinion of what freedom is.

So what freedom anyway?

Larry,

srmeaney · 2005-08-13 06:29:57

Freedom is my right to govern myself and enjoy an equal share of the benifits and responsibilities of citizenship. I think that covers everything.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-06-27 20:07:02

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#27 2005-06-28 05:13:10

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#28 2005-06-29 05:48:14

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#29 2005-06-29 09:15:19

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#30 2005-06-29 13:33:13

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#31 2005-06-29 21:40:05

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#32 2005-07-17 18:16:08

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#33 2005-07-18 08:06:32

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#34 2005-07-18 09:20:46

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#35 2005-07-18 16:12:00

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#36 2005-07-19 02:03:07

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#37 2005-07-19 07:10:25

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#38 2005-07-19 08:20:02

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#39 2005-07-21 09:14:36

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#40 2005-07-21 09:26:59

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#41 2005-07-22 09:03:40

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#42 2005-08-07 20:48:51

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#43 2005-08-09 00:59:32

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#44 2005-08-09 10:01:49

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#45 2005-08-11 05:06:25

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#46 2005-08-11 09:20:06

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#47 2005-08-11 14:14:02

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#48 2005-08-11 19:22:34

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#49 2005-08-12 10:56:51

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#50 2005-08-13 06:29:57

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

Board footer