Iain Banks's "The Culture" - Utopia or Dystopia?

[khad]

Iain Banks's Culture series is perhaps the most comprehensively imagined technocratic "anarcho-socialist" society in Western speculative fiction. I've heard it garner praise from all over the left, so I'll pose the question here. What do you folks think?

Bullet point version

-Exists concurrently with earth time, an alien civilization that spans nearly the entire galaxy
-Post-scarcity society where essential tasks are automated so people are free to do whatever they want; there is no money
-No laws, social shunning via slap-droning is the heaviest punishment
-Direct democracy on a massive scale, where every one of the quadrillions of Culture citizens can vote in national referendums on anything
-Extensive genetic engineering and biotechnology which allows Culture citizens to modify their appearance, height, weight, and even sex at will, just by thinking about it
-The same biotech also ensures that citizens are well adjusted and happy because they can tweak their own neurochemistry at will through secretions from their drug glands

From the author:

CNN: Would you like to live in the Culture?
Iain M. Banks: Good grief yes, heck, yeah, oh it’s my secular heaven....Yes, I would, absolutely. Again it comes down to wish fulfillment. I haven’t done a study and taken lots of replies across a cross-section of humanity to find out what would be their personal utopia. It’s mine, I thought of it, and I’m going home with it—absolutely, it’s great.


For more reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture


In this fictional universe, the Culture exists concurrently with human society on Earth. The time frame for the published Culture stories is from roughly AD 1300 to AD 2800, with Earth being contacted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_%28The_Culture%29) around AD 2100, though the Culture had covertly visited the planet in the 1970s in The State of the Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_of_the_Art). The Culture itself is described as having been created when several humanoid species and machine sentiences reached a certain social level, and took not only their physical, but also their civilizational evolution into their own hands. In The Player of Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games), the Culture is described as having existed as a space-faring society for eleven thousand years.
The Culture is a symbiotic society of artificial intelligences (AIs) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI) (Minds and drones) and humanoids who all share equal status. As mentioned above, all essential work is performed (as far as possible) by non-sentient devices, freeing sentients to do only things that they enjoy (administrative work requiring sentience is undertaken by the AIs using a bare fraction of their mental power, or by people who take on the work out of free choice). As such, the Culture is also a post-scarcity society, where technological advances ensure that no one lacks any material goods or services. As a consequence, the Culture has no need of economic constructs such as money (as is apparent when it deals with civilizations in which money is still important).
There are no laws as such in the Culture. Social norms are enforced by convention (personal reputation, 'good manners' and by, as described in The Player of Games, possible ostracism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism) for more serious crimes). Minds generally refrain from using their all-seeing capabilities to influence people's reputations, though they are not necessarily themselves above judging people based on such observations, as described in Excession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession). Minds also judge each other, with one of the more relevant criteria being the quality of their treatment of sentients in their care. Hub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_%28The_Culture%29) Minds for example are generally nominated from well-regarded GSV (the largest class of ships) Minds, and then upgraded to care for the billions living on the artificial habitats.

The only serious prohibitions that seem to exist are against harming sentient beings, or forcing them into undertaking any act (another concept that seems unnatural to and is, in fact, almost unheard of by almost all Culture citizens). As mentioned in The Player of Games, the Culture does have the occasional "crime of passion" (as described by an Azadian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_species_%28The_Culture%29)) and the punishment was to be "slap-droned", or to have a drone assigned to follow the offender and "make sure [they] don't do it again".
Techniques in genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics) have advanced in the Culture to the point where bodies can be freed from built-in limitations. Citizens of the Culture refer to a normal human as "human-basic" and the vast majority opt for significant enhancements; severed limbs grow back, sexual physiology can be voluntarily changed from male to female and back (though the process itself takes time), sexual stimulation and endurance are strongly heightened in both sexes (something that is often subject of envious debate among other species), pain can be switched off, toxins can be bypassed away from the digestive system, automatic functions such as breathing or heart rate can be switched to conscious control, and bones and muscles adapt quickly to changes in gravity without the need to exercise. The degree of enhancement found in Culture individuals varies to taste, with certain of the more exotic enhancements limited to Special Circumstances personnel (for example, weapons systems embedded in various parts of the body).

Most Culture individuals opt to have drug glands that allow for hormonal levels and other chemical secretions to be consciously monitored, released and controlled. These allow owners to secrete on command any of a wide selection of synthetic drugs, from the merely relaxing to the mind-altering: 'Snap' is described in Use of Weapons and The Player of Games as "The Culture's favourite breakfast drug". "Sharp Blue" is described as a utility drug, as opposed to a sensory enhancer or a sexual stimulant, that helps in problem solving. "Quicken", mentioned in Excession, speeds up the user's neural processes so that time seems to slow down, allowing them to think and have mental conversation (for example with artificial intelligences) in far less time than it appears to take to the outside observer. "Sperk", as described in Matter, is a mood- and energy-enhancing drug, while other such self-produced drugs include "Calm", "Gain", "Charge", "Recall", "Diffuse", "Somnabsolute", "Softnow", "Focus", and "Crystal Fugue State". The glanded substances have no permanent side-effects and are non-habit-forming.
The Culture has a relatively relaxed attitude towards death. Genetic manipulation and the continual benevolent surveillance of the Minds make natural or accidental death almost unknown. Advanced technology allows citizens to make backup copies of their personalities, allowing them to be resurrected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection) in case of death, although as these are merely copies, consciousness is not continued, and the original individual is not truly reborn, just replaced. The form of that resurrection can be specified by the citizen, with personalities returning either in the same biological form, in an artificial form (see below), or even just within virtual reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality). Some citizens choose to go into "storage" (a form of suspended animation) for long periods of time, out of boredom or curiosity about the future.

Attitudes individual citizens have towards death are very varied (and have varied throughout the Culture's history). While many, if not most, citizens make some use of backup technology, many others do not, preferring instead to risk death without the possibility of recovery (for example when engaging in extreme sports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_sports)). These citizens are sometimes called "disposables", and are described in Look to Windward. Taking into account such accidents, voluntary euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia) for emotional reasons, or choices like sublimation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sublimed), the average lifespan of humans is described in Excession as being around 350 to 400 years, but can be longer. Some citizens choose to forgo death altogether, although this is rarely done and is viewed as an eccentricity. Other options instead of death include conversion of an individual's consciousness into an AI, joining of a group mind (which can include biological and non biological consciousnesses), or subliming (usually in association with a group mind).

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Its been a while since I've read his books. On the surface Ian Bank's "Culture" seems like a cool socialist society. Some people have questioned the role of the huge AIs, giant intelligent starships which seem to be really running the show in his society. At heart the society portrayed is deeply authoritarian, but that's not readily apparent.

The socialist culture of the "garuda" briefly introduced in China Mielville's Perdido Street Station (a great read if you like political-steam punk-goth-vampire-science fiction set in an early capitalist police state) is more compelling for me. Bank's 'Culture" is basically super hedonistic pseudo-socialism.

[Chimurenga.]

At heart the society portrayed is deeply authoritarian

:confused:

How do you figure? From this article alone, the Culture seems incredibly libertarian and anarchist.

[Dunk]

Don't know. I'm assuming it's author's intent to make us question this. I'm sure the way we answer reveals something of ourselves in the process.

Sounds as if exploited sentient producers have been completely replaced by automation or non-sentient machines, with important questions remaining. Such as whether the Minds control production, whether Hub Minds or the like are simply a sentient medium through which society is equally controlled by all, or whether Hub Minds or the like are an unimaginably oppressive overlord which couldn't possibly be overthrown by other minds. If Hub Minds are merely a means through which direct democracy on a massive scale is made possible, the described society might not be made up of a "New Class" of producers, but a single new collective bourgeois class.

But I'm just going off your post, as I haven't read any of the Culture series. I'll add them to my reading list and perhaps post on it at a later time.

Also subscribed to the thread because it's already apparent there's going to be some great recommendations for reading.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

On the surface it seems like a libertarian-anarchist utopia, lots of fun, you can change your body any way you want, live to be 400 or so etc.On closer look though the class of gigantic AIs are really calling the shots and aren't accountable to anyone.They weld a huge amount of power in the Culture. No one besides them knows what they are thinking.

Its been a while and I can't give a good review.

[khad]

Banks resolves that seeming contradiction with the power of convoluted logic. The AIs always behave democratically because that's the way they behave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiran-Culture_War


According to Banks' appendices to Consider Phlebas, the war began in 1327 AD, and continued for 48 years and one month, resulting in an eventual but total victory for the Culture.

The conflict was one of principles; the Culture went to war because the Idirans' fanatical imperial expansion, justified on religious grounds, threatened the Culture's "moral right to exist". As the Culture saw it, the Idirans' extending sphere of influence would prevent them from improving the lives of those in less-advanced societies, and thus would greatly curtail the Culture's sense of purpose. As is the case with all major decisions, the decision on the part of the Culture to go to war was through direct vote of the entire population. Academics who have analysed Bank's universe in comparison with real-world political thought have remarked that the decision of the Culture to go to war was a moral choice, rather than one of necessity, as the Culture could have easily avoided war.[2]

[Jazzratt]

Banks resolves that seeming contradiction with the power of convoluted logic. The AIs always behave democratically because that's the way they behave. I think it's more that Minds behave democratically because they decided, or reasoned, that it is the best way to behave. Some of them do seem to stray a bit from this thinking IIRC (I think the behaviour of some Special Circumstances Minds can come pretty close to being outright anti-democratic).

I, personally, fucking love the Culture. I think it's damn close to a utopia but I do find some of the criticisms raised by its members meritorious. By and large, though, if I lived in a society one tenth as fair and agreeable (not to mention ultra-teched to the nuts) as the Culture I would be a singularly happy chappy, as it were.

[Red Commissar]

I wouldn't really call it either a utopia or a dystopia, but it leans much more towards utopia than dystopia. There are some "bad" aspects of the Culture, mostly in the sense that its rather "intrusive" in the affairs of other planets. They actively manipulate events, causing wars and other problems with a long-term goal in mind that everything will come out right in the end. Sort of an end justifies the means. Special Circumstances and its operations to that end show that well (I had just read Use of Weapons which explores that).

But again it leans more towards "Utopia" than "Dystopia". Not grimdark enough to be dystopia, to put it simply. Banks makes the Culture out to be a society than is governed on a socialist basis and in a post-scarcity society, and the AI don't show signs of going on a human extermination drive. It seems to maintain a nice living for people involved.

[The_Outernationalist]

There are no laws as such in the Culture. Social norms are enforced by convention (personal reputation, 'good manners' and by, as described in The Player of Games, possible ostracism for more serious crimes).
:laugh:

I'm amazed that they think they wouldn't get invaded and colonized by a bunch of capitalist huckster opportunists who see the society as inherently weak: hell, I certainly do.

Also what about the insane? how exactly are you supposed to shun those who want to blow up New York city because of an obsession with Jodie Foster?

[Nanatsu Yoru]

:laugh:

I'm amazed that they think they wouldn't get invaded and colonized by a bunch of capitalist huckster opportunists who see the society as inherently weak: hell, I certainly do.

Also what about the insane? how exactly are you supposed to shun those who want to blow up New York city because of an obsession with Jodie Foster?
Sup, troll?

But I'm with Jazzratt on this one. "The Culture" sounds like one hell of a place to live. Some might say it's totalitarian, I certainly wouldn't. The Minds don't interfere with everyday life, as perhaps they could.

Maybe a seperate poll for people who have actually read the books? OP's article is okay, but only that. The Cultureverse is masterfully crafted and one has to read the books to see it that way.

[The_Outernationalist]

Sup, troll?

I'm a troll because I see this world as an impossible-to-execute pipe-dream? I mean, if technocracy is truly legitimate, why don't the humans off themselves in favor of the vastly superior AI that controls the world? for at the advent of such AI, humans would have rendered themselves to obsolescence.

Also, how do you deal with psychopaths who think only of their own motives? how do you deal with those who end up forming criminal subcultures where being "shunned" is seen as desirable (think Yakuza or Mafiya Krasnya)


But I'm with Jazzratt on this one. "The Culture" sounds like one hell of a place to live. [/QUOTE]

This sounds more like trolling than anything I ever said.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Just to double check, you have read the books, right?

I mean, if technocracy is truly legitimate, why don't the humans off themselves in favor of the vastly superior AI that controls the world? for at the advent of such AI, humans would have rendered themselves to obsolescence.
The AIs are managers, and in that civilisation they have very little to do with everyday life. What motive is there for the humans to "off" themselves? Not sure if you've read them, but the Culture is an enjoyable place. And if you don't like it, then you can go somewhere else. It really is that simple.

Also, how do you deal with psychopaths who think only of their own motives? how do you deal with those who end up forming criminal subcultures where being "shunned" is seen as desirable (think Yakuza or Mafiya Krasnya)
Just let me point out here - these would be problems in our own communist societies as well. In the context of the Culture, human beings (and the various other denizens) have been improved to such an extent that psychopathy is no longer a condition. Moreover, there are places in the Cultureverse where selfishness is seen as "desirable" (if I recall correctly, the AhForgetIt Tendency from Excession). As for your criminal organisations, in a society so well defended by its citizens (AI, human, and alien) there is very little it's possible to do in the way of breaking the law.

I ask again - have you read the books?

[Jazzratt]

I'm amazed that they think they wouldn't get invaded and colonized by a bunch of capitalist huckster opportunists who see the society as inherently weak: hell, I certainly do. It's not like it hasn't been tried. It's also funny you call them "soft" because it affords me the opportunity to quote one of my favourite parts from Zakalwe's speech to the Ethnarch in chapter XIII of Use of Weapons:

You might call them soft, because they are very reluctant to kill, and they might agree with you, but they're soft in the way the ocean is soft, and, well; ask any sea captain how harmless and puny the ocean can be.
When you finally get round to reading the books rather than trying to piss on an idea you don't really understand I heartily recommend starting with that one. Although, in total fairness, nearly all of the books show you quite how well the Culture deal with civilisations that think they're "soft."


Also what about the insane? how exactly are you supposed to shun those who want to blow up New York city because of an obsession with Jodie Foster? Insanity is a lot less prevalent in posthumans that can edit their brain chemistry at will, for starters. Even then the culture have a range of options, including things like slap-drones (drones that physically prevent others from harming each other).


This sounds more like trolling than anything I ever said. Not really. It sounds like Dennis expressing an opinion. You on the other hand are bringing up utter non-criticisms based, pretty much, on your poor understanding of the Culture.

It should be pointed out by the way that the Culture isn't "our" future, it's not humans from earth that were the proto-culture (we do eventually get inducted into it, if memory serves) but they are built from an alien (albeit totally identical looking) race.


I mean, if technocracy is truly legitimate, why don't the humans off themselves in favor of the vastly superior AI that controls the world? for at the advent of such AI, humans would have rendered themselves to obsolescence.
Firstly, what demented leap of logic is it that you have made to bring technocracy into this discussion at all? Secondly, this has all been dealt with before - Banks touched on it in his notes on the Culture (http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm) which you might at least want to glance at - and it is one of the (many) subthemes in the book Surface Detail.

[The_Outernationalist]

When you finally get round to reading the books rather than trying to piss on an idea you don't really understand I heartily recommend starting with that one. Although, in total fairness, nearly all of the books show you quite how well the Culture deal with civilisations that think they're "soft."

I don't understand that, eh? well I never want to hear you in your capacity as a leftist knock atlas shrugged or anything by Mises until you read it...afterall, if only you read it :cool: (tl;dr: don't be hypocritical...unless you have read those books, of which case I stand corrected)


Insanity is a lot less prevalent in posthumans that can edit their brain chemistry at will, for starters. Even then the culture have a range of options, including things like slap-drones (drones that physically prevent others from harming each other).

Not really. It sounds like Dennis expressing an opinion. You on the other hand are bringing up utter non-criticisms based, pretty much, on your poor understanding of the Culture.

It should be pointed out by the way that the Culture isn't "our" future, it's not humans from earth that were the proto-culture (we do eventually get inducted into it, if memory serves) but they are built from an alien (albeit totally identical looking) race.


Firstly, what demented leap of logic is it that you have made to bring technocracy into this discussion at all? Secondly, this has all been dealt with before - Banks touched on it in his notes on the Culture (http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm) which you might at least want to glance at - and it is one of the (many) subthemes in the book Surface Detail.

you take children's science fiction too seriously buddy.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

I don't understand that, eh? well I never want to hear you in your capacity as a leftist knock atlas shrugged or anything by Mises until you read it...afterall, if only you read it :cool: (tl;dr: don't be hypocritical...unless you have read those books, of which case I stand corrected)
Comrade, isn't it us on the revolutionary left who tell people to read the Manifesto before they label us crazy, authoritarian Big-Brother-ists?


you take children's science fiction too seriously buddy.
Comrade, your ignorance and lack of having even read the OP's article are showing again. The Culture is ultra-hedonistic. Read: devoted to pleasure, any and all kinds. It is really not children's fiction. Sure, it's not too graphic, but the content is undeniably there.

Moreover, I can't help but notice that your arguments seem to have disappeared in favour of "tl;dr" and "you take [this] too seriously." Wonder why that is?

[Queercommie Girl]

One thing I like about the Culture is the possibility of completely changing one's biological sex - down to the most basic level. But the society in general seems to be too hedonistic.

[#FF0000]

you take children's science fiction too seriously buddy.

This is really funny because you are the one in this thread who actually seems worked up about stuff.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

One thing I like about the Culture is the possibility of completely changing one's biological sex - down to the most basic level. But the society in general seems to be too hedonistic.

By what standard?

[Mather]

How many Culture novels are there and do you have to read the books in a certain order so as to get the wider story or is each novel a separate story from the other?

Also, what do people make of Iain Bank's non-Culture novels, are they as good (or better) as the Culture novels?

[Queercommie Girl]

By what standard?

By the standards of present-day socialism.

You might say: I'm biased. Actually you would be right. I am biased. But in matters of ethics bias is completely unavoidable. There is simply no such thing as an "universal ethical standard" that is applicable to all socio-economic contexts. By definition any kind of value judgement in ethics or aesthetics must be fundamentally biased at all times.

Hypothetically standards could change. Maybe by the standards of the 29th century, it would no longer seem like ultra-hedonism. Perhaps. But we can never know for sure. It's science fiction. There can never be any empirical evidence for what might happen in the future strictly speaking. So one should take the more scientific approach and apply today's known standards of behaviour.

[Mather]

By what standard?

How hedonistic is the Culture society and what does this hedonism entail?

Some of the stuff like drug use and sex changes are around today, in large quantities in the case of the former. So is the hedonism of the Culture really all that different to that of today?

My issue with the Culture is on the social relations of it's society. If Marx were around today and were he to read the Culture novels, I'm sure it would leave him both confused and with one big theoretical headache.

[Queercommie Girl]

Some of the stuff like drug use and sex changes are around today, in large quantities in the case of the former. So is the hedonism of the Culture really all that different to that of today?


Since when are sex changes "hedonistic"?

Even drug use isn't necessarily hedonistic. Hedonism by definition implies something excessive.

Have you read the Culture novels? The people in the Culture basically live like pets taken care of by an almost all-powerful AI. Few people actually spend a lot of time doing any kind of serious work. They just "play" all day long. That's why it's hedonistic by today's standards, or even by the standards of a realistic socialist society in the foreseeable future.

[Mather]

Since when are sex changes "hedonistic"?

There not. Sorry if I didn't make my point well.

Earlier you mentioned sex changes and I was simply pointing out that many things in the Culture such as that are around today, along with hedonistic pursuits such as sex, drugs etc... Of course for all these similarities I can gather that there is a lot in the Culture that is very different to our world today.


Even drug use isn't necessarily hedonistic.

Not all the times no, especially in our time.

However in the Culture death has more or less been abolished and any damage that a body sustains can be healed with ease. So I would imagine that drug use in the Culture is a lot more hedonistic and carefree than that of today, where drug use can leave you with health risks.


Hedonism by definition implies something excessive.

Actually it is a school of thought that sees pleasure as an intrinsic good. That can be excessive or not depending on the individual in question.


Have you read the Culture novels?

Not yet. I have skimmed bits and also read up on what it is all about on the net.


The people in the Culture basically live like pets taken care of by an almost all-powerful AI. Few people actually spend a lot of time doing any kind of serious work. They just "play" all day long. That's why it's hedonistic by today's standards, or even by the standards of a realistic socialist society in the foreseeable future.

Yes, this is were I have issues/questions as well.

From what I know so far, I'd imagine that life in the Culture is very much like that of the Topkapi Palace in the 19th century. The Minds (AIs) playing the role of the Sultans and the Pashas and the other Culture citizens being 'kept', much like the concubines and eunuchs that lived within the walls of the Topkapi Palace.

[Queercommie Girl]

However in the Culture death has more or less been abolished and any damage that a body sustains can be healed with ease. So I would imagine that drug use in the Culture is a lot more hedonistic and carefree than that of today, where drug use can leave you with health risks.


Yes, like I said, there is no such thing like an "universal ethical standard" anywhere in space-time. Ethical standards always change depending on the socio-economic situation. But we can't really predict what will really happen in the future.



Actually it is a school of thought that sees pleasure as an intrinsic good. That can be excessive or not depending on the individual in question.
Personally I'm largely only critical of excessive hedonism. To see pleasure as an intrinsic good in a philosophical sense isn't really wrong at all. It's a valid position. Communists believe work itself should become pleasurable. Of course this position isn't the only valid one.



From what I know so far, I'd imagine that life in the Culture is very much like that of the Topkapi Palace in the 19th century. The Minds (AIs) playing the role of the Sultans and the Pashas and the other Culture citizens being 'kept', much like the concubines and eunuchs that lived within the walls of the Topkapi Palace.
Actually this critique of the Culture is going too far. From a historical materialist perspective it's not an accurate criticism. The Sultans are members of the feudal landlord class, in other words, members of an exploiting class. The Minds in the Culture are not members of an exploiting class. The fact that there may be some superficial similarities in terms of "lifestyle" is irrelevant. Socialist analysis is based on socio-economic conditions, not culture or lifestyle. Just because one lives like a concubine doesn't mean one is a concubine in the technical Marxist sense.

[Mather]

Yes, like I said, there is no such thing like an "universal ethical standard" anywhere in space-time. Ethical standards always change depending on the socio-economic situation.

Agreed.


But we can't really predict what will really happen in the future.

We can't but we can make educated guesses and conjecture. This is a sci-fi novel we are talking about after all.


Personally I'm largely only critical of excessive hedonism.

My view is that as long as someones hedonism does not infringe upon other people in an oppressive way, then people can be as excessive with their hedonism as they want, it's their choice to decide what constitutes excessive hedonism.


Actually this critique of the Culture is going too far. From a historical materialistic perspective it's not an accurate criticism. The Sultans are members of the feudal landlord class, in other words, members of an exploiting class. The Minds in the Culture are not members of an exploiting class. The fact that there may be some superficial similarities in terms of "lifestyle" is irrelevant. Socialist analysis is based on socio-economic conditions, not culture or lifestyle. Just because one lives like a concubine doesn't mean one is a concubine in the technical Marxist sense.

I meant more in the sense of the social relations that existed within the walls of the Topkapi Palace, not the feudal social relations of the wider Ottoman Empire.

Anyway, I simply used the Topkapi Palace as a metaphore for the Culture.

Most of the Culture's humanoid citizens (robots, androids, post-humans and normal humans) live within the many large ships and space stations (as opposed to planets) and these ships are living sentient beings in themselves, they are the Minds/AI of the Culture. In todays world, the means of production are to be found in the factories, workplaces, buildings, industrial and energy plants, national infastructure and services. In the Culture, how can it's citizens collectively own their own environment and the means of production when these two things are in themselves part of a living body of a living thinking being? Hence my point about the Topkapi Palace as the citizens of the Culture are in effect guests (well catered for) inside the body of the Mind, much like the people who lived within the walls of the Topkapi Palace were guests at the pleasure of the Sultan.

This is why I said earlier that Marx himself would find the social relations of the Culture to be confusing at best as the current Marxian view of the means of production, LTV and social relations have a strange bearing vis a vis the social and political forms of the Culture.

[Queercommie Girl]

Hence my point about the Topkapi Palace as the citizens of the Culture are in effect guests (well catered for) inside the body of the Mind, much like the people who lived within the walls of the Topkapi Palace were guests at the pleasure of the Sultan.


But the social relations are not the same. In the Culture there is no equivalent of the Sultan at all. The Palace itself, if you like, is alive and sentient. That's a crucial fundamental difference.



This is why I said earlier that Marx himself would find the social relations of the Culture to be confusing at best as the current Marxian view of the means of production, LTV and social relations have a strange bearing vis a vis the social and political forms of the Culture.
Marxism is not omnipotent. Marxism is a specific theoretical formulation of a specific historical period. It is potentially possible for future developments to make Marxism more or less completely obsolete. In other words, as a viable and practical theory of society and political strategy, the expected effective duration of Marxism's ideological applicability is certainly not infinite.

In the context of the Culture, to talk about "workers owning the means of production" or "capitalists owning the means of production to exploit workers" would be meaningless since the means of production themselves are actually alive, sentient and even more intelligent than the humanoids in the Culture.

What I'd like to point out is simply that such a state of affairs (means of production being sentient and intelligent) isn't necessarily more desirable (from a human point of view) than "classical" communism. But it would also be wrong to speak of the Culture as an "exploitative society", because it is clearly not. (This is why I essentially disagree with your palace comparison) It's an alternative form of "exploitation-less society" that is not communist in the "classical" sense.

By the way, in feudal societies feudal socio-economic relations also permeated in the royal or imperial harem. The harem inside the palace isn't some kind of "social vacuum" into which feudal class society does not touch.

[Mather]

But the social relations are not the same. In the Culture there is no equivalent of the Sultan at all. The Palace itself, if you like, is alive and sentient. That's a crucial fundamental difference.

Well of course given that AI life does not yet exist so the most appropiate metaphore I could come up with was the Topkapi Palace.

However the point to be made is that the Palace is the domain of the Sultan and all else who dwell within the Palace's walls are only there because the Sultan wishes it so. Much like the Minds for they too allow the Culture's citizens to dwell within it's body based upon their own desire. But much like the Sultans the Minds ultimately have control over all who dwell within them because they are wholly dependent on the Minds in terms of the means of production and their respective environments. Because of this one Mind can theoretically overrule the will and wishes of all the citizens who reside within it. Basically from all of this there exists what seems to be a disparity of power between the Minds and the rest of the Culture's population.


Marxism is not omnipotent.

Agreed, it isn't.


Marxism is a specific theoretical formulation of a specific historical period.

Indeed. That historical period started with primitive communism and will apply all the way until we (humankind) finally overturn capitalism and achieve communism.


It is potentially possible for future developments to make Marxism more or less completely obsolete. In other words, as a viable and practical theory of society and political strategy, the expected effective duration of Marxism's ideological applicability is certainly not infinite.

That all depends on the future and no one can predict what the future has in store for us. Saying that Marxism would not become wholly obsolete as a materialist analysis would still be needed when (in the future) studying the past and the pre-revolutionary era.


In the context of the Culture, to talk about "workers owning the means of production" or "capitalists owning the means of production to exploit workers" would be meaningless since the means of production themselves are actually alive, sentient and even more intelligent than the humanoids in the Culture.

What I'd like to point out is simply that such a state of affairs (means of production being sentient and intelligent) isn't necessarily more desirable (from a human point of view) than "classical" communism. But it would also be wrong to speak of the Culture as an "exploitative society", because it is clearly not. (This is why I essentially disagree with your palace comparison) It's an alternative form of "exploitation-less society" that is not communist in the "classical" sense.

I agree, it opens up a whole new can of worms so to speak.


This is why I said earlier that Marx himself would find the social relations of the Culture to be confusing at best as the current Marxian view of the means of production, LTV and social relations have a strange bearing vis a vis the social and political forms of the Culture.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well of course given that AI life does not yet exist so the most appropiate metaphore I could come up with was the Topkapi Palace.

However the point to be made is that the Palace is the domain of the Sultan and all else who dwell within the Palace's walls are only there because the Sultan wishes it so. Much like the Minds for they too allow the Culture's citizens to dwell within it's body based upon their own desire. But much like the Sultans the Minds ultimately have control over all who dwell within them because they are wholly dependent on the Minds in terms of the means of production and their respective environments. Because of this one Mind can theoretically overrule the will and wishes of all the citizens who reside within it. Basically from all of this there exists what seems to be a disparity of power between the Minds and the rest of the Culture's population.


One crucial difference is that in the Culture, membership is completely voluntary, whereas feudal kings and emperors often force people into the harem.

In ancient China, sometimes the Emperor literally sends out his Imperial Guard to search the entire country for beautiful women to add to his "collection" in the harem, often against the women's will. It's basically a form of rape, which is why I emphasised that feudal socio-economic relations also permeated inside the royal/imperial harem. The harem is not a "social vacuum" that stands outside and/or above feudal society in general.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How many Culture novels are there and do you have to read the books in a certain order so as to get the wider story or is each novel a separate story from the other?

Each are seperate, but Consider Phlebas was recommended to me first. I would add Excession and The Player of Games to that, since they show how the Culture can deal with an Outside Context Problem (http://everything2.com/title/outside+context+problem) and a more powerful external polity, respectively.


Also, what do people make of Iain Bank's non-Culture novels, are they as good (or better) as the Culture novels?

I've read Against A Dark Background and The Algebraist, both non-Culture novels but still science fiction.

He has also written a number of general fiction books which are highly recommended, but unfortunately I haven't read them so I cannot say for sure.


By the standards of present-day socialism.

I wasn't even aware that "present-day socialism" even had standards for hedonism, what with being centred around economics and all.


You might say: I'm biased. Actually you would be right. I am biased. But in matters of ethics bias is completely unavoidable. There is simply no such thing as an "universal ethical standard" that is applicable to all socio-economic contexts. By definition any kind of value judgement in ethics or aesthetics must be fundamentally biased at all times.

My concern here is not bias, but how the hedonic standards (do we even need any in the first place, beyond the obvious?) of "present-day socialism" have been reached.


Hypothetically standards could change. Maybe by the standards of the 29th century, it would no longer seem like ultra-hedonism. Perhaps. But we can never know for sure. It's science fiction. There can never be any empirical evidence for what might happen in the future strictly speaking. So one should take the more scientific approach and apply today's known standards of behaviour.

You do realise that even today there is no universally-agreed hedonic standard?


However the point to be made is that the Palace is the domain of the Sultan and all else who dwell within the Palace's walls are only there because the Sultan wishes it so. Much like the Minds for they too allow the Culture's citizens to dwell within it's body based upon their own desire. But much like the Sultans the Minds ultimately have control over all who dwell within them because they are wholly dependent on the Minds in terms of the means of production and their respective environments. Because of this one Mind can theoretically overrule the will and wishes of all the citizens who reside within it. Basically from all of this there exists what seems to be a disparity of power between the Minds and the rest of the Culture's population.

There is a difference between having power and exercising it. Sure, a Culture Mind could simply forcibly brainwash every organic and drone it comes across, but that's not something that they would normally want to do, any more than I would normally want to rip my neighbours' eyes out.

Besides, Culture Minds form part of a cohesive community of their fellows - they constantly communicate with each other as well as other Culture citizens. That is bound to result in some of kind of self-reinforcing group dynamic, not to mention that Culture minds police themselves pretty well - breaking the forcible mind-alteration taboo, even when the targets are brutal mass murderers, has resulted in at least one Mind being outcast and getting an unflattering nickname (Meatfucker). This is a big deal in the Culture.


What I'd like to point out is simply that such a state of affairs (means of production being sentient and intelligent) isn't necessarily more desirable (from a human point of view) than "classical" communism.

I can't see any differences that are necessarily negative. It just means that the distinction between "citizen" and "means of production" has pretty much disappeared.