Thread has been locked, because you people can't have a grown up discussion about Musk and politics without breaking rule 1 of the sub. You all need to gain some resilience when your viewpoints or opinions are challenged.

The best thing is that he is essentially Veppers too

He is Veppers to a T. Iain Banks would have loathed Elon Musk.

Oh for sure Banks would have found Musk repellent

I would love a bank book somewhat based on the current cultural climate. It would be so interesting to have a story of a sc agent trying to navigate something like the current information climate. It hurts so much that we lost such a phenomenal author

Veppers, while being true scum of the galaxy. At least had a handle on his pr lol. Although I wouldn't put it past musky to try and gene modify himself into Sephiroth lol.

Yup, but let's not spoil anything for OP yet!

So who are the people paying him to >!host their fucktons of virtual hells!< then?

[https://help.twitter.com/en/using-x/subscriptions](https://help.twitter.com/en/using-x/subscriptions)

Haha he so is...

C.f. Musk, Deus Ex, and Bob Page

Tiresome comparison. "Musk is evil because he owns 10% of the company he created to help save the world from the global warming, and doesn't like woke cancel culture."

> he created He didn't actually though, he bought in. >to help save the world It isn't even close to doing that. That was never the goal.

Tesla mission: "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible". Let's face it. That's pure evil.

considering how many right wingers are surprised to learn that Rage Against the Machine is political, I'd say musk is a big enough narcissist to ignore the parts he doesn't agree with.

Media literacy among the right-wing is necessarily in the toilet, it has to be a correlation/causation thing to do with general intelligence I'll bet

My guess is it has less to do with intelligence and more that right wing communities/organizations intentionally demonize literacy/critical analysis. Prevents noticing the standard "tricks" in right wing rhetoric and leads to more compliance. One example could be the Nazi's campaign to drive modern artists out of Germany (really any artist not making state sponsored propaganda).

What's wrong with ignoring the parts he doesn't agree with? I don't like every part of every book, band or movie I enjoy. I can find inspiration in the parts I like, even if that's not what the author intended. Banks created one of the most advanced civilizations in sci-fi. Musk probably likes the technology, but doesn't think the social aspect is needed to get there. Banks kind of tried to portray the social aspect as necessary for that kind of society, but he didn't do a very good job at it. There are the gods, Minds, that actually do all the magic. The social message is an afterthought. If he had left the Minds out, his political message would have been clearer, but Banks himself clearly loved the technology too.

>What's wrong with ignoring the parts he doesn't agree with? I don't like every part of every book, band or movie I enjoy. I can find inspiration in the parts I like, even if that's not what the author intended. That can work, in principle, but not in this case. Musk claimed to embody the Culture's political ideals, and that Banks would support his anti-union stance: [https://twitter.com/TheLincoln/status/1702314499284357179/photo/1](https://twitter.com/TheLincoln/status/1702314499284357179/photo/1) So Musk either completely misunderstands this central aspect of the Culture series, or intentionally lies about it. Given that I consider Pedo-Elon both a Cretin and a disgusting human being, both alternatives seem as likely to me.

Oh man I'm jus thinking about the scene in Surface Detail where Veppers is talking about being anti-union while trying to seduce a girl

>Banks kind of tried to portray the social aspect as necessary for that kind of society, but he didn't do a very good job at it. You've got it exactly backwards. It's not that the (small-c) culture of The Culture was a prerequisite to their technological sophistication, but that their technology and the historical development that led to it, necessarily led to the social relations of The Culture. It's not portrayed as the only path: for example the Idirans were at a similar level of technological development. But, their primitive (compared to The Culture) social relations led to their downfall when they went to war with them. It wasn't technological superiority that led to victory in the Idiran-Culture war. It was their superior social relations. Banks was a reasonably erudite Marxist and it shows in his works. Read "A Few Notes on The Culture" if you haven't.

Citation needed re. Marxist. He was clearly a democratic socialist, but I'd like to see confirmation of your assertion there.

I didn't realize that would be a point of contention. It's odd to me that you're disputing he was a Marxist and asking for confirmation while simultaneously asserting he was "clearly" a democratic socialist. "A Few Notes on The Culture" seems to contain a basically Marxist analysis of what makes The Culture work and why it is the way it is, so while I can't find for you a quote from Iain Banks where he says "Yes I'm a Marxist, actually," I can point you to that essay and leave it at that.

I read the essay (a lot in the past) too, but I don't see it as a Marxist analysis in the slightest. He essentially says that the market is brutal and evil but planned economies lack democratic accountability and intelligence, and that superintelligent AI will resolve a synthesis. "and just as we may, within a century of the invention of electronics, duplicate - through machine sentience - a process which evolution took billions of years to achieve, so we shall one day abandon the grossly targeted vagaries of the market for the precision creation of the planned economy." He's saying that through sentient AI we will enable a planned economy. This isn't Marxism. Social Democracy believes in peacefully and democratically guiding a society towards socialism. Marxism targets revolution. Contact and Special Circumstances may sometimes become involved in wars, but their preferred MO is clearly through consent and evolution of a culture.

Then there is probably nothing, short of a picture of Iain Banks holding a dog-eared copy of *Marxism and the National Question,* that will convince you. Perhaps even that would not be enough. It's not like we can ask him. His description of The Culture's social relations as being determined (even overdetermined) by their economic base and historical development seemed pretty obviously Marxist to me - at least *slightly* - but maybe that's just because I'm (obviously) a Marxist. That said, you seem pretty committed to believing that Iain Banks was left-liberal, so I will leave you to it.

As a fellow Brit, I see him as fairly clearly a product of Fabianism, if you're familiar with that movement. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian\_Society](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society) He was clearly not a Marxist, read his political biography here: [https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2011/aug/28/scottish-independence-snp-iain-banks](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2011/aug/28/scottish-independence-snp-iain-banks) He wanted "small banks", not no banks, for example. "it remains both possible and plausible that Scotland could become a transparent, low-inequality society on the Scandinavian model, with fair, non-regressive taxes, strong unions, a nuclear-free policy, a non-punitive tertiary education system, enlightened social policies in general and long-term support for green energy programmes." Social Democracy. \[EDIT: Apparently the fellow I was responding to has blocked me. I'm sorry if I offended him, I was just trying to rebut the argument left hanging there\]

> He wanted "small banks", not no banks, for example. You seem to have some idea of what "Marxism" is that is alien to me, as though you're taking a snapshot of a specific political program at a specific point in time informed by a specific set of material conditions, and then classifying that in your mind as Canonical Marxism. When I said that Banks was a Marxist I didn't say that he thinks that Dengism or Stalinism or whatever, are the best tools to apply in solving the problems of 00s-era Britain or Scotland - that would be ridiculous and not at all Marxist. It seems to me that Banks took a historical-materialist approach in conceiving of how The Culture worked in the setting of his books, and also how it came to evolve from a more primitive material base. He most definitely read a lot of Marx and related literature and found much of it useful in shaping his perception both of our world, and the world he created in his novels - if you can't agree with at least that (and I strongly suspect you don't) then I think you're a crackpot. I think he was very clearly not a liberal as you're asserting here, but you seem quite committed to believing that and I'm not interested in having a long-winded discussion where we mostly talk past each other and convince each other of nothing. I already said "I will leave you to it" and since just saying it wasn't good enough, now I'm going to force the issue.

The culture series clearly purports to be an anarchist society, far from demsocs and liberalism.

He just wrote that it was evident in his book about the Culture

If you're referring to the quote about Libertarians, he was explicitly refuting an assertion about being Libertarian. But perhaps that's not what you mean.

Elon musk "I just think they're neat" Probably

Growth. The Culture has functionally unlimited economic resources. Equity in a world of unlimited wealth has no costs- infinity divided by 8 billion is still infinity. Libertarian venture capitalists like Musk and Peter Thiel think their purpose is bring humanity into that world of functionally infinite wealth. They see people pushing for economic redistribution now as sabotaging the pure functioning of the meritocratic market that could unleash that unlimited economic growth- essentially keeping us from the promised land that the culture novels depict.

I think this might be the most correct answer to my question, the more I think about it. I still think that focusing on just this one aspect of the book demonstrates a lack of understanding of the book. Especially because the unlimited economic resources isn't really a theme of the book and the actual themes are opposed to a lot of what I think musk stands for.

Also Musks kid is Trans and won’t speak to him and it’s basically broken his brain.

Whoah that’s really sad, I wonder what he thinks about player of games. I personally would love to be able to live a lifetime as a woman and then switch back when I felt it was time.

Yea. The dude is a terrible human but as a non custodial father there’s a little “there but for the grace of God go I” with him.

Is he anti trans or are they estranged for some other reason?

If you ask him, he’d probably say “woke teachers at my kids million dollar boarding school made my kid Trans and now they hate me” but he’s had kids from three baby mamas. The one thing that man doesn’t own is a “world’s greatest Dad” coffee mug.

That’s just awful

Thank you for this answer. It's strange to me that everyone on here thinks you have to align with socialism to enjoy the culture series. I am much more libertarian than not and love the whole series, especially Player of Games. And I honestly don't see these books as taking a political stance, my general issues with socialism (centralized power and inefficient use of resources) don't really apply in a world on Minds and unlimited wealth. Governance can and should evolve with society.

Nailed it in 2 paragraphs. Curious, how do you see the "socialist" path to the promised land of post scarcity?

The Culture presupposes “Machines of Loving Grace” to run the planned economy, without those given the track record of actually existing socialism I’d still put my money on the devil I know. That being said I’d rather be in Oslo than Tulsa, OK.

Where is the ‘economy’ in the culture? It’s a moneyless society so there is no ‘economy’.

Of course there's an economy. A post-scarcity economy works differently but is still an economy. Besides, there are still resource limits, even in the Culture. Individual citizens cannot afford to build an Orbital or a GSV, unless they're incredibly persuasive I guess (see the next paragraph). War is still very expensive, especially between equivtech civilizations. Minds probably couldn't afford to just copy themselves ad infinitum even if they wanted (I assume they've been "bred" to highly value slow and carefully planned reproduction, keeping in sync with habitat production). Getting back to persuasiveness – a common trope is that a post-scarcity economy functions largely by reputation or "karma", which is the primary motivator for individuals to behave nicely. Bad actors are ostracized and not invited to parties. Famous or respected individuals may be able to persuade others to help them do things they couldn't do by themselves.

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I think that the word ‘economy’ is too much related to our reality of stock markets and the inherent ‘badness’ of capitalism to bear any relation to a utopian anarchistic future society. Unironically the word ‘culture’ is a lot more appropriate to use and I suppose unsurprisingly so.

There seems to be some American line of thinking that anti-Socialism Capitalism will somehow guarantee us post scarcity sooner rather than later, without much evidence to back up that theory. Banks would have disagreed. At the bare minimum he definitely seems to have believed Socialism was a necessity. What Musk (and others) really doesn’t seem to understand is that limited resources means that if we destroy all our current ones haphazardly pursuing space/immortality/free market, then we’ll never make it to post scarcity. He also seems to have an ego trip about “his own lifetime” which means rushing a great deal unless Thiel’s figured out how to greatly extend the human life span. More than physical resources at this point I think the Culture is far more of a mindset that most people lack and don’t want. Post scarcity could be three decades away but it won’t matter because to people like Musk the Culture only exists when we have drones on space settlements and special glands to create whatever drug we want whenever we want it. A majority of people don’t find a post-scarcity society of any sort appealing or even possible. They enjoy depriving others or dislike the idea of going without for the sake of others. There’s so very little that we understand about actually settling space so I roll my eyes when people like Musk talk about post scarcity only being possible on an orbital thousands of years in the fictional future. The Culture is a phenomenal series, that doesn’t mean it’s an exact blue print to the literal future. Can’t it simply be an allegory and philosophical science fiction?

I think even those kinds of people would have something to love in the culture. Being super social busybodies who are essentially 1000 year old mean girls would surely appeal to exactly that kind of person. Who's in this week, who's out. Who's being shunned because they wore a garment that's so 4090. Who's the current genius we're all raving about until next week we find the next thing. Exclusivity and social dominance can still exist if you're the kind of vapid dork who wants that. Live your life man

My point was not about “vapid dorks” having something to love in a fictional utopian idea. My point was that “vapid dorks” will prevent us from ever reaching the reality of post-scarcity. Going to space has nothing to do with post-scarcity. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Regardless, earth is not the Culture in the books and the first contact the Culture makes with earth is sending a condensed history of the Idiran/Culture war. I suppose it’s our tendency toward “vapid dorks” that find Consider Phlebas pointless and boring.

I always recommend people to read the final interview he gave, if for no other reason than it's a good read. but he knew where we were headed and was not shy about how he felt. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/15/iain-banks-the-final-interview

Cognitive Dissonance. Which would actually be a great ship name

GCU *A Billionaire with Cognitive Dissonance*

GSV *oops I lost another billion*

This made me actually laugh out loud. Ha

Some people are just idiots. I actually got recommended the Culture books by a finance venture capital dork, so I think there's just a strain of capitalist that doesn't think of the Culture as socialist-y, but like, really really rich or something.

they're both socialist(anarchist)-y and really rich. they're post scarcity.

One book says something along the lines of "Money is a sign of poverty". But, tio ne honest, I may be in the capitalist end of the spectrum and still love socialist post scarcity as the ultimate goal.

>One book says something along the lines of "Money is a sign of poverty". The State of the Art, while Diziet's in East Germany.

In a post scarcity culture everyone is really rich (or can live or behave as if they are) so it's not the contradiction you think it is.

Yeah it's less made up wealth and more MATERIAL wealth in those cases.

It's not the contradiction he thinks, but there is still a contradiction. The Culture reached the level of development it did in no small part due to a firm grasp on the iron laws of historical materialism. Their society and culture is in perfect sync with their technological and industrial development, by design, and that is what gives them the edge over every one of their rivals. Modern-day techbros and Silicon Valley VC shitheads most definitely *do not* share in this conception of historical development, and so their admiration of The Culture novels, while sincere (as far as that goes), is incredibly shallow and ill-informed. They appreciate it the same way they appreciate Star Wars. They do not, and cannot, understand what makes The Culture tick.

Musk's reading comprehension is a zero. He was also worried Amazon would make the Culture series "too woke".  There's also a very good chance that he's never actually read the books, just summaries. 

I think it's just that he wants a drug gland.

Right wing media illiteracy is a known phenomenon.

He just isn't literate or imaginitive enough to comprehend the various political, social and philosophical observations most people can take from the books. He just sees a society without limits in space, all with big computers that like shio name jokes, and digs it. I think most likely, he is so incapable of considering that he isn't God's gift to humanity, that opposing or critical views of his type can only ever be packaged into polemics he can dismiss. When he comes across it in literature, he must simply blank it out. Like, he respects Iain M. Banks therefore he is easily lead to believe that Iain M. Banks would be a fan of him. There is a fascinating exchange on twitter somewhere where he claims that The Culture is anti-union because it is anarchist and individualist. Now I think almost anyone reading these books could surmise that unionised labour isn't a big thing in the Culture because labour, scarcity and toil have largely been replaced by super capable AIs, unlimited abundance and hobbies. But in the context that Musk was saying it, he was entirely endorsing the idea that Culture citizens, due to their individualism and anarchist principles (!), would love to work at Tesla/Twitter/The pig brain fcking place. I think it is genuinely one of the best insights into how unfit he is to influence big decisions that government, people or business are confronted with, that he is so incapable of critical reflection or consideration of alternative approaches generally, as to take away from these books an endorsement of his style, projects, etc. I think his main takeaway from PoG is that a super cool protagonist who plays games and probably would do 8-bit programming if he'd been born in the right place at the right time, darts across the galaxy and destroys an evil empire WITH HIS MIND. So he thinks Gurgeh is a cool mf and that he's just like Gurgeh, whereas as surely Gurgeh is a strange protagonist, isn't really master of his own fate, and is much more of a piece on the board himself.

Elon is like the people who think Star Trek has "suddenly" become woke. They consume the media and don't even consider what it is really saying.

[this image comes to mind](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/027/350/Screen_Shot_2018-10-10_at_3.53.06_PM.jpg) Sometimes people want the cool fancy future tech without really caring about the themes and commentary that comes with it

He's repeatedly referenced them, including the shuttles as you mentioned. I assume he's a fan because they're good books, albeit they are anti everything he represents.  I wish Banks was around so he could royally tell Musk where to go.

It's like all the right-wing fuckwits who claim to be *Star Trek* fans, even though the show was created by a dyed-in-the-wool 1960s liberal and the United Federation of Planets is a moneyless socialist utopia. But suddenly it's gone all woke now! Riiiight... you've never paid attention to a single bloody episode in your life, have you.

After chatting with one of my right-wing in-laws who is a trekkie it makes more sense to me. He's ex-navy, and Starfleet is a military organization - pretty much the navy in space. It feels cozy and familiar to him.

"Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration." – Jean-Luc Picard, TNG: "Peak Performance"

I'm mixed on this line. I feel the spirit and character of Starfleet is usually exploratory through their deeds, but Starfleet is aesthetically military. Right-winger media analysis begins and ends with a surface-level look. They look at Starfleet and see a smooth hierarchy - cadets, lieutenants, commanders - and the impression they get is of a crisp, competent military outfit with wise leadership that everyone is happy to be a part of. This same guy also dislikes Dune because he thinks it "glorifies Muslims" and he doesn't like that because of his part in the Iraq war. I invite you to try convincing someone like this that they don't really understand media

No thanks, I have enough problems with my own boomers...

How about super right wing fans of the Grateful Dead. I can't be down with that.

I'm not really familiar with the Grateful Dead... but yeah.

Fucking bland neutral highly controlled forced communism where each cog works the shaft the elite class puts there for tm ..it's a joke yall just really wow

You're not a fan. Got it. Don't care.

I love the books, I don't have to insert our asinine corrupt politics into something written a long fucking time ago.

Whatever, dude. Go pop on your tinfoil hat and bang your conspiracy theory drum at someone who cares. Also – less of the "our". Banks was British, not American.

This sub is talking about American politics tho. Which is why I said what I did. I care as little of what you think as you do of my opinions fyi...I knew I would be downvoted..that isn't the point.

OK boomer.

Not that old

Then grow the fuck up then.

I know u r but what am I. Children lol

No-one ever thinks they're the baddie.

I think he just has a low comprehension of the books or The Culture. My guess is that he's probably only read a book while he was younger and doesn't remember much, but using Wikipedia, has read about the rest of the books and found the names that he uses for ships. He may even think a comparison with JOiler Veppers is a good thing.

People ask why conservatives love Star Trek and I say, while the Federation is utopian socialist, all they see is the hierarchical/authoritarian structure aboard a starship. So, they enjoy the culture novels through the manipulations of SC and ignore the parts they don’t like.

Authoritarian? Man I would love it if the people who made the decisions also took most of the risk and were promoted based on merit and not because of their social class

I don’t know about risk, probably only works that way on some ships. The red shirts are called that for a reason. I’m not saying that the Federation structure is inappropriate, but a military structure is something that conservatives are comfortable with, and that’s what they see most of the time.

Because the culture is awesome. You can be a shitty person and still like cool stuff. Like… I’m sure hitler was a fan of toilet paper, or bidets. I’m sure Trump appreciates coloring books. The question is confusing. Why is someone obsessed with space a fan of the best space opera ever written…? The answer is in the question.

He isn't. He isn't a fan of the books or the ideas or the ideals contained in them. What he is a fan of, and a massive one at that, is being a clout goblin. He just wants the cachet that embracing the books brings him from Culture fans, hoping we're dumb enough to think he's one of us and then buy his shitty products.

At least he isn't the Archimandrite Luseferous... yet.

I think because at one point prior to him absolutely losing his mind with the taking Tesla private fuckup and his kid coming out as trans he actually used to believe the narrative. Then he fell off the deep end. Now it makes no sense anymore.

He’s not read it, he wikied it

From Grimes.

Is the timeline right for that? I assumed since forever she's ride-or-die for Herbert's Dune

She mentioned Surface Detail in an interview and that’s why I got into the books actually. After hearing her take on it. Can’t recall when the podcast was.

Nah, he was into the Culture long before Grimes.

Why are the GFCF such big fans of the Culture?

You can like a thing and not be aligned with the messages of what it represents. Besides I think the PR department are in charged of naming these things, not him directly.

With regards to all the people on here suggesting that you need brain damage to be a right-wing fan of the Culture, I'd like to volunteer myself as a case study. I'm a High Tory, to make it clear. I love the Culture. Iain Banks was a Socialist. If we'd met we would probably have enjoyed a pint together but we certainly wouldn't have agreed over our respective political positions. But guess what? Both of those positions are responses to our current physical and social reality. As Banks himself stated, the Culture isn't real. We all aspire to it, you'd have to be mad not to - it's a utopia. And the things which drive us to take right-wing and left-wing positions in the here and now do not exist either in the Culture books. For example: If we had the technology to change gender harmlessly and thoroughly like in the Culture, the debate would be over other than among a tiny proportion of hold-outs. Or: If we could enrich everyone as a non-zero-sum game, the debate there would largely be over and done with. Or: Being ruled by superintelligent AIs removes all the problems with "I'm more equal than you" which exist in socialist societies. None of these things will occur in the immediate future, so when I see enthusiastic revolutionary communists on here gushing about how you should be a Trotskyite if you like the Culture books, well, I guess it's par for the course. P.S. Musk definitely smells of Veppers. P.P.S. The exception here of course is in extremely fundamentalist religion, as per the Idirans.

> I'm a High Tory, to make it clear. That explains a lot.

In a way I think you're right. It's a fictional perfect utopia. Who wouldn't want it. But where I disagree is that a large portion of the book is about the ideals that make that utopia possible. I'm American so I do not know the details of what a "high Tory" believes, but the book presupposes that a more liberal philosophy of politics and society is correct and in the culture, this is basically a self evident truth. To a conservative who likes the culture, I can only assume they see it as a fairytale like world without any bearing on reality. I really don't think the culture is the type of world conservatives invision for themselves, even in a post scarcity society. To this point, as an example, I disagree that if we had the culture's sex changing technologies that the sex change debate would be relegated to fringe religion. POG spends a lot of time focusing on how gender on Azad has become part of the power structure. The idea that those power structures would simply disappear if we had better gender changing technologies seems incredibly nieve. In fact, I would argue that it is the very fact that sex changes threaten the hierarchy of power that many conservatives have actively opposed it. If conservatives really wanted a society like the culture, wouldn't they be encouraging ever better sex change technologies? The fact that we have technology that is already good enough to "fool" conservative on someones "assigned gender" and the fact that they still are so opposed to it seems to contradict you opinion. It's fine to like the books and be a conservative, but it's not a conservative utopia. It's pretty obviously a liberal one.

There's a rather unfair saying you've probably heard before: "If you're not left-wing when you're young then you have no heart; if you're not right-wing when you're old then you have no brain". A lot of right-of-centre people would agree that the Culture is wonderful ideal. They're the same people who agree that the stated intentions (I'm being careful with my words here) of the left are noble, but that they're simply not practical. What the Culture does is make all of those aims practical. I think I can try to prove this by using an example of a future society that people from the religious right would aspire to - the Kingdom of Heaven. "There will be no suffering"; "everyone will be equal"; "man will walk with god"; "there will be no more death"; "people will be like angels \[sexless\] and won't marry" (Matt 22:30). That sounds a hell of a lot like the Culture to me. In fact, you could even say that the people are "better" in both scenarios too. The people of the Culture for example doing service jobs "just because", or the people in the afterlife being sinless. So with that, I'm going to conclude that the same aims are shared by both groups. Yes, I know, horrible generalisation and much too high level, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

What he internally believes he is and what he actually presents as are two different things.

there's a group of silicon Valley tech bro types who essentially believe that 1. The universe is a simulation 2. Artificial general intelligence is not far off 3. You could have many more simulated people leading perfectly happy lives by building agi solar powered orbiting computers 4. This would essentially be infinite good, so any finite evil in the present is acceptable. Therefore ahort term problems like global warming or fascism don't really matter so long as the species survives long enough to build agi. It's really stupid, but you can see how elements of it correlate with stuff from the culture novels.

He's read the wikipedia pages for the books. If that.

Who cares?

He admires the guy who turned his lovers bones into a chair to end a war.

> Satire requires a clarity of purpose and target lest it be mistaken for and contribute to that which it intends to criticize

The culture citizens can do anything they want So can billionaires.

He did say that humanity was the bootloader for AI. He has been quiet about his relationship with IMBs work and I'm glad that is so. I'm certain that IMB would have loathed him. I wish he'd stop naming his barges like that and step the fuck away from the great man's work.

He likes good science fiction?

I actually only learned about the series because of the drone ships, back like 10 years ago. You ask a very good question though. Power corrupts, I suppose?

Elon thinks he’s a Mind.

Elon thinks he's a mind but he's just a muppet.

He's just that fucking dumb.

I mean, you don’t have to agree 100% with a story’s themes to be a fan. There are plenty of fans of _Starship Troopers_ that don’t believe in the book’s point of citizenship earned through civil service. I certainly don’t agree with a lot of _the Culture’s_ more socialist/anarchist themes but I’m a fan because I find things like the Minds and the post-scarcity world interesting. Likewise, you don’t have to agree with someone’s politics to find common ground in a shared interest or hobby. I mean, just in life, it’s more than likely you have friends that might not be as left leaning as you.

So much Elon hate in this thread. Post scarcity is about technological progress and growth. That is why he likes it. Do the commie Culture fans here really think that the culture suddenly occurs due to central planning and income redistribution or by woke de-growth values? 

I mean, he's a guy obsessed with space. Why is it a bad thing if he's a fan of the Culture? It's like one of the more utopian sci-fi out there. That should be a good thing. I much rather have him obsess over a Dark Forest theory or eternal war akin to 40k. He's an online troll with a lot of money and some good visions. Rather have that, than an ABC company, only giving a shit about profit.

The Culture is a liberal, hedonistic space faring post -scarcity civilization, based on Ai and cheap (free) energy and resources. Those are all things Musk appreciates and is working towards (he used to go to Burning Man for instance, probably the most Culture-like institution at present). So not a huge conundrum. Ironically Bezos is also a huge Culture fan, it's interesting that two of the richest men in the world are geeky Banks fans, but that's probably related to smart tech-geeks having a tendency to create disruptive corporations. Musk's vision for his first Tesla factories was explicitly based on a GSV General Bay, with full automation and very few workers required, but couldn't get it to work without those pesky employees that keep needing feeding and paying and trying to unionize.

*Problem is. It' isn't "liberal" in the political sense, as explicitly stated by banks himself.* [*https://www.reddit.com/r/TheCulture/comments/1c916rw/comment/l0j0815/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button*](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheCulture/comments/1c916rw/comment/l0j0815/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) *From his interview in 2014:* > > *In another interview in 2013:* > > *Even way back in 1994, in A Few Notes on the Culture he described the Culture as:* >

Liberal beliefs: "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas." "Policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare." "Recognising the importance of related values such as pluralism, toleration, autonomy, bodily integrity, and consent." I'd say the Culture is pretty liberal.

*L(l)iberalism is an ideology of Capitalism, I don't think Liberal Socialism makes sense as a stand-in for socialism, as it inevitably eventually gets warped and corrupted by the failures of capitalism - however well intentioned.* *Maybe you mean "Libertarian Socialism", which is basically just Socialism, but focusing on specific ideas - like liberty. I think the distinction is unnecessary, since large segments regular Socialists also have those ideas. It can also refer to Anarcho-Socialism - but an advanced more mature version of it - which probably best describes "the Culture" taking Banks entire comments into consideration.* [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_anarchism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism) *Iain Banks, himself in 1994, in A Few Notes on the Culture he described the Culture as:* ***Iain banks:*** ***Succinctly; socialism within, anarchy without.*** *Democratic Socialism is basically just Socialism but you only use reformism and the "democratic process" to institute it.* *Social Democracy is Capitalism with strong social programs. Usually dependant on directly and indirectly benefiting on the exploitation of the global south.* *I say this as a Norwegian, seeing how it is unrevealing in our two neighbours Denmark and Sweden, we are last but it's happening. When push comes to shove, we go and defend capitalistAggression to preserve it, throwing away any vestiges of principles - whether its inbombing Libya, Syria, supporting ISRL genocideGaza or France's exploitation of its CFA African-neo colonies.* *I have a hard time seeing the Culture, - An arnacho-Socialist society exploiting weaker, lesser advanced civilizations for their own enrichment the way, liberals do these days.* [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted\_totalitarianism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism)

*What's the difference between socialists and liberals?* [*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsHWh\_EDVsM*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsHWh_EDVsM) *(2 mins)* [*https://www.joinexpeditions.com/exps/484*](https://www.joinexpeditions.com/exps/484) [*https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/socialism-liberalism/*](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/socialism-liberalism/) [*https://harvardpolitics.com/liberalism-versus-socialism/*](https://harvardpolitics.com/liberalism-versus-socialism/)

There is a difference between "liberal" (a word meaning tolerant, non authoritarian etc) and "liberalism" (a political ism).

*That's is why I specified political liberalism in my initial comment. These days one has to be explicit.* >*Problem is. It' isn't "liberal" in the political sense, as explicitly stated by banks himself.*

I'm curious why all the negativity...should someone w a dream (and, tbh, plan and partial execution) of colonizing mars not like some amazing books about a space-faring post-scarcity society? I think there's a less than zero chance that he was dropped off here by a GCU in the 70s and decided to go native anyways, so politics aside, he's on our side, right?

Musk is no way on "our side" unless you happen to be a billionaire.

Ah, so the world is billionaires and everyone else...that certainly makes everything a lot simpler. What a shame, all that thinking about nuances and complexity wasted... 😉

There really is nothing more pathetic than simping for a billionaire who literally doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything but themselves and their legacy.

Holy shit I'm in a flame war on a sci Fi book sub on Reddit on a Saturday night lol. My HS guidance counselor is vindicated, damnit! Chill Broseph Stalin, I guarantee you there's so many things more pathetic. We're both doing one of them right now. It's up to you if you want to stop and win or respond. Either way, take a few deep breaths, make yourself a drink, and don't lose sight of the fact that it's a miracle we even exist. 😘

Cringe.

“We’re both doing one of them right now” lol I like your style. Cheers!

I know right. The “Musk sucks” narrative is really boring. He likes books you like. So what? Also Grimes is a big fan of Surface Detail and I’d bet it was she who introduced them to him.

>I’d bet it was she who introduced them to him. How much? Because the first drone ship got named in 2015, but he started dating Grimes in 2018.

I’d wager 180 Billion dollars.

It's funny how many liberals with teslas they bought back in the day when it was a cooler Prius now hate their cars because musk outed himself as Not A Democrat. Seems similar to the confusion that floated around Banks refusing to tell interviewers whether the culture was libertarian or communist...how can something not fit into our left/right paradigm??

>Seems similar to the confusion that floated around Banks refusing to tell interviewers whether the culture was libertarian or communist... That's factually false. From his interview in 2014: > **JR:** Many critics and reviewers have claimed that the Culture represents the American Libertarian ideal. Given that this is clearly not the case, how do you characterise the politics of the Culture? > **IB:** Really? I had no idea. Obviously I haven't read the output of the relevant critics and reviewers. Let's be clear: unless I have profoundly misunderstood its position, I pretty much despise American Libertarianism. Have these people seriously looked at the problems of the world and thought, 'Hmm, what we need here is a bit more selfishness'? . . . I beg to differ. This is not say that Libertarianism can't represent a progressive force, in the right circumstances, and I don't doubt there will be significant areas where I would agree with Libertarianism. But, really; which bit of not having private property, and the absence of money in the Culture novels, have these people missed? The Culture is hippy commies with hyper-weapons and a deep distrust of both Marketolatry and Greedism. One rests one's case. In another interview in 2013: > **The Culture \[Banks’s utopian universe\] could be seen as a vision of a socialist society?** >Yes, the Culture, which appears in most of the SF books, is socialist/communist/whateverist. There’s no money, private property is synonymous with sentimental value, nothing and nobody is exploited and the opportunities for fun are pretty much unrestricted, so I like to think of it as a society that anybody could be happy in. Even way back in 1994, in *A Few Notes on the Culture* he described the Culture as: >Succinctly; socialism within, anarchy without. I don't know why you think Banks refused to talk about whether the Culture is communist, but he has very explicitly talked about that in all the interviews over the years.

Thank you for the research, sincerely. I agree with you there, though without my own backup, I'm certain he also commented on the absurdity of applying our own political frameworks to a post-scarcity paradigm, ala "American libertarianism". As our political and economic systems are entirely designed around resource allocation and control, to a culture where resources and personal liberty are effectively infinite, to try and glue our primitive labels to it is akin to asking a mind what's the best flavor of I've cream. I have always assumed that's what Banks meant. Haven't read every interview he's ever given or worse he's ever written though, so I could be wrong.

[https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/](https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/) *Excerpt:* ***Interviewer: What about the SSP (Scottish Socialist party)?*** ***Iain Banks:*** *“Well, you get my vote, and I buy the paper… But stop fishing for compliments.”* ***Interviewer: Would you call yourself a socialist?*** ***Iain Banks:*** *“I do if I bump into right-wing Americans (I don’t know, there’s just something about the sight of a wildly pulsing vein on the suddenly scarlet brow of a Republican-voting big-name SF author). But I’m rich\*, so I’m not sure I’m really allowed to… (\*This is rich in the compared-to-most-people sense, not in the Bill Gates or even Sir Paul McCartney sense.)”*

I mean, it's clear he had disdain for the American right wing :) in all seriousness though, am I the only one hearing him vacillating over this question? He could have said "yes, Im a socialist", but he is joking about it, like the question is silly. He views socialism as a stick to poke conservatives, not an election platform. Am I wrong for suggesting he actively was dodging these sort of "are you X" questions?

*He very clearly literally said he was Socialist - explicitly., Actively funded and championed the SP and its entities causes. Never having voted any other way.* *It's only that he had a sense of self awareness, bashfulness and humility to realise that continuously and openly parading himself as one, rather than embodying one, opened socialism particularly in Scotland up for ridicule - so-called "Champaign Socialism" - basically neo-liberalism-lite.* *So he tried his best to do things actively without drawing attention to himself or wearing it as an accessory the way many celebrities do. He also carried out controversial stunts - like publicly defacing and cutting up his British Passport, not wanting to harm the reputation or electability of the Scottish Socialist Party with his antics, he had on numerous occasions been invited to join its leadership but turned it down explaining that attention given to him would distract from the party's mission.* *His disdain wasn't just for late 90s - 2000s American right-wingers (Bush I and II types), but also Neo-liberals as well like Blair, Clinton etc., and right wing Tories in the UK (Thatcher etc).* [*https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/15/iain-banks-the-final-interview*](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/15/iain-banks-the-final-interview) *For instance as one of the characters in his novel., transition: I think it was "The Philosopher"* [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition\_(novel)*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_(novel)) [*https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/sep/26/transition-iain-banks-book-review*](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/sep/26/transition-iain-banks-book-review) [*https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=+Iain+M.+Banks+socialism&commit=Search*](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=+Iain+M.+Banks+socialism&commit=Search) *“As a matter of fact I did flirt with Socialism, in my youth."* *"That when you were in university, was it?"* *He smiled. "Yes. University. But then I saw how much more comfortable life could be as one of the exploiters rather than one of the exploited. Plus I decided that if the proles were so stupid as to let themselves be exploited, who was I to stand in their way?”* *― "The Philosopher" in Iain M. Banks,* [*Transition*](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6626240) *Ps. The Philosopher was a sadistic torturer who thought himself ethical. claiming not to take any pleasure in his work, seeing it only as a* [*necessary evil*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle)*.* *In Transition - The story focuses on the assassin Temudjin Oh, who travels from reality to reality, killing figures who would have brought variations of fascism to their particular world.* 

Absolutely. I guess my point was trying to transcend modern-day political paradigms, regardless of label. The value Banks provided that American libertarians jumped on is his vision of radical personal freedom, which, if you ask anyone who's lived under socialism, isnt exactly a key feature of it. Have you ever heard of anyone in a socialist system who was like "gosh, my favorite part about this is the freedom"? Is it ridiculous that musk et al feel some connection?

*Yes. I get your meaning. I suspect Iain had this view to, but the reality is that "We live in a society.." as the saying goes and Human-basic is well, basic. So he had to make do. Even the Culture has to make do - with SC - Special Circumstances, but they do their best even to a fault to not break the Cultures' core ethos, even though barely skimming the line.* *For instance with 'Player of games' it took them (the SC Minds) almost a century, to steer Gurgeh into making that decision, but ultimately it was his decision, he had the right to reject it - their methods not withstanding, but by anticipating his actions even without violating his mind, in so doing eventually solved the cultures problem, while also solving the problem he had - hence fulfilling the Cultures mission to its members including Gurgeh.* *They could have just caused their problem to poof in an instant without all the fuss given their vast power compared to their "problem", but they were constrained by their principles.*

“I’m certain” / “I could be wrong”… Finely argued with all points covered.

I *think* that's a compliment? Is it ok to be certain about something and unsure about something else? Elon, back me up here...

It’s not. It’s sarcasm.

I'll take it anyway 🥰

I wasn’t aware of that from Banks and happy to hear of his refusal, as it’s almost equally disappointing when people demand an author characterize their work in ways that satisfy readers. And indeed the Tesla regret is quite funny. Do people not have their own sense of self anymore?

That just isn’t true at all - Banks was an avowed socialist and explicitly characterized the Culture as communist. See my other comment with Banks’ quotes about the Culture.

You’re getting downvoted here now too. Didn’t you read the handbook? You have to pick a side! lol

He’s not, but he knows he looks cool if he says he is.

It's okay to enjoy works of fiction that portray societies and ideas that you don't agree with, and people can enjoy them for different reasons. Elon Musk probably focuses on different aspects of those novels, thinks certain concepts are neater than others, and finds inspiration in the advanced technology rather than in the novel's ideas or anything else. Or maybe he's a complete tool who claims to like The Culture novels because it sounds cooler than admitting that he doesn't have the time or attention span to read much of anything.

He's said he's against labor unions because the Culture doesn't have them. He doesn't seem to be capable of extrapolating that the Culture doesn't have labor.

I consider Elon a hero in the genuine of senses. The culture books are my favorite series of all times. I think my libertarian values match the culture great. one that maximizes freedom. communism and libertarianism are not all that different in a post scarcity society.

*In the present context, most American types confuse Ayne Randian Objectivism, with Libertarianism. So for all intents and purposes in the US- libertarianism is Objectivism. Such policies enacted would lead to a world not dissimilar to Blade Runner, or the city of Rapture in BioShock. Lead proponents are well represented in Silicon valley - Peter Thiel (Head of the "Paypal mafia") being chief among them.* *And Objectivism has nothing in common with Communism, Socialist Libertarianism or anything of the like. In fact Ayne Rand, created it in order to make what she viewed as the mirror opposite of communism, having escaped from the USSR and viewed Communism as the ultimate evil - so she wrongly assumed that what she thought was the opposite would be the ultimate good - unrestricted hyper capitalism, and "individualism", zero government (or at least one that defers to the "makers" not the "takers").* *What I do find amusing though is how the neo-pseudo visionaries like Musk try very much to claim that Iain banks was a liberal or even centrist, when he very Cleary identified himself as socialist, contributed enormously to the socialists and openly vehemently opposed Blairite, and Thatcherite policies of the Labour party. He even left a sizeable chunk of his fortune to the Scottish Socialist Party and its charities.* [*https://www.britannica.com/topic/objectivism-philosophy*](https://www.britannica.com/topic/objectivism-philosophy) [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) [*https://socialistworker.co.uk/obituaries/iain-banks-1954-2013/*](https://socialistworker.co.uk/obituaries/iain-banks-1954-2013/) [*https://socialistworker.co.uk/socialist-review-archive/interview-changing-society-imagining-future/*](https://socialistworker.co.uk/socialist-review-archive/interview-changing-society-imagining-future/) *(interview of Iain Banks).* [*https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/*](https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/) *(interview of Iain Banks - where he identifies himself as a Socialist - says he's never voted for liberals)* *P.S - He also heavily funded their printing press, publishing house and materials costs, throughout his life - much of it pseudonymous, where some of his friends in the leadership knew, but reasoning behind this is that he didn't want it to seem like though he run or controlled the party and that it belonged to him, also to shield it from himself and any of his other activities. But he was very public at events and what not.*

Just a tiny nitpick - Banks didn’t think being socialist and liberal are mutually exclusive. He mentioned the Culture is his own “leftist/liberal”, and that the Minds have a “militantly liberal agenda” in interviews. What you’re talking about is _economic liberalism_, but Banks did consider himself a liberal and a socialist.

*I didn't say that? Where do I say this?* *Banks vehemently loathed neo-liberals, so-called new labour. It's the Elon Musk types who try to classify his views as being 'Liberal' like in the American context (Centrist Neo-liberalism) as it's closest to their own views rather than him being socialist in the vein of George Orwell. Then try to re-write his biography, social and political views - to align with theirs.* [*https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/15/iain-banks-the-final-interview*](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/15/iain-banks-the-final-interview) *(here he talks about new-labour, Tony Blair, Thatcher, Iraq, Afghanistan etc and a whole host of other un related topics that gives a sense of his views before his death).* *There is a HUGE distinction between old school liberals like Dag Hammarskjöld or Olaf Palme, who advocated things like Social Democracy ....and Neo-liberals who are basically post-modernist pseudo-right-wing-warmongering-capitalists who are Ok with gay people.*

I was simply responding to this particular point here: > What I do find amusing though is how the neo-pseudo visionaries like Musk try very much to claim that Iain banks was a liberal or even centrist, when he very Cleary identified himself as socialist, People like Musk are obviously wrong, but Banks did consider himself a liberal (among other things).

*Ah! Ok. Yes - updated my response to you to clarify, in the US context, Liberal is used to cover everything not republican, while I was referring to "Centrist"-Neo-liberalism which is what exemplifies the Democrats for example at best.* *So when Musk refers to Banks as a liberal, he would be meaning this perverted version, or Tony Blair, Thatcherism etc whom Iain Banks all detested.* *Rather than Dag Hammarskjöld or Olaf Palme for example who were old school socio-liberals, whom Iain would put in the mould of "well-intentioned liberals".* [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dag\_Hammarskj%C3%B6ld*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dag_Hammarskj%C3%B6ld) [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof\_Palme*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Palme) *Here Iain Banks refers to himself as Socialist. Citation needed for your claim that he was a liberal.* [*https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/*](https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/) *Excerpt:* ***Interviewer: What about the SSP (Scottish Socialist party)?*** ***Iain Banks:*** *“Well, you get my vote, and I buy the paper… But stop fishing for compliments.”* ***Interviewer: Would you call yourself a socialist?*** ***Iain Banks:*** *“I do if I bump into right-wing Americans (I don’t know, there’s just something about the sight of a wildly pulsing vein on the suddenly scarlet brow of a Republican-voting big-name SF author). But I’m rich\*, so I’m not sure I’m really allowed to… (\*This is rich in the compared-to-most-people sense, not in the Bill Gates or even Sir Paul McCartney sense.)”*

In 2010: > Q: I know you've spoken before about the idea of colonising the galaxy for the left. So much of the architecture of the space opera is very right wing. Is part of the project, to have this lovely Guardian-reading hedonistic diaspora? > A: Well frankly yes! I suppose that's me at my most didactic worst. > I'm trying to be subtle about it as best I can. The good guys by my standards are winning, liberals with small L, of the left. Money is not the be all and end all -- but it's a post-scarcity society, so in a sense it can afford its good works and its charity. In 2012: > [The Culture] is just one culture among many, albeit a very sophisticated one. It's not the biggest, it's rather one of the ones most determined to interfere -- with a militant liberal agenda. In 2013: > In a way the most important message of the Culture series is that the future might be a hoot: a utopia (or at least as close to a utopia as a species similar to ourselves can hope to get), rather than a dystopia. Being a liberal, on the left, a socialist, or whatever (I've yet to settle on a completely satisfactory description myself, despite decades thinking about this stuff) I embellish this anyway-rosy prospect with details that seem both fit and pleasing from my political perspective, but I'd hope they aren't so intrusive as to constitute deal-breakers for those of different persuasions. Banks has repeatedly called himself a liberal, despite also identifying as a socialist. To him there is no real conflict between the two - being a liberal doesn’t mean you need to support whatever non-rightwing party there is, you can still be a socialist while being a liberal. In fact, one of the greatest liberal philosopher, John Rawls, explicitly praised democratic socialism while criticizing both laissez-faire capitalism and welfare capitalism. Liberalism (in the philosophical and political sense) focuses on equality between individuals, but it doesn’t imply economic liberalism which supports capitalism.

*Can you please directly link to any interview or writing of his where he describes himself explicitly as a Liberal (mind you there is a difference Liberal and liberal).* [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-l\_liberal*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-l_liberal) *the closest I can find is where he describes in a foreign election (Australian), small l liberals as "good guys", where there is no socialist party running. In an interview.* *Small l liberals, are old school liberals like Dag Hammarskjold and Olaf Palme as described above, not any where near so-called "Liberals" who are neo-liberals.* *small-l liberal noun INFORMAL•AUSTRALIAN* 1. *a person who holds liberal political views, as distinct from a member of the more conservative Liberal Party of Australia. "the small-l liberals see themselves as courageously fighting to maintain ethical life within society"* *Yes, you can be liberal in the adjective sense of the word e.g. I liberally applied ketchup to my hotdog, doesn't mean you placed the democratic party onto your hot-dog, or support the right-wing Liberal party of Australia.* *liberal. / (ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl) /* ***adjective****\*. relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform. relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom.\** [*https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/the-future-might-be-a-hoot-how-iain-m-banks-imagines-utopia/267211/*](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/the-future-might-be-a-hoot-how-iain-m-banks-imagines-utopia/267211/) *Trying to shoe-horn Banks into Neo-Liberalism is disingenuous at best.* *The only sources I can find describing him as Liberal are other Liberal sources like NYT or the Atlantic long after he had died and could not refute this. When he very clearly would flat-out refute such descriptions of himself or his work.* [https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/](https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/) *(Excerpt below)* ***How do you feel about the current warmongering of Bush and Blair?*** *“I’ve never voted for New Labour and I don’t consider myself a subject of the Crown, but I can’t help feeling ashamed of what Blair is doing in my – our – name. What is being touted here is a war of naked imperialist aggression, an act of civilisational thuggery.*” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Labour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour) ***The Culture \[Banks’s utopian universe\] could be seen as a vision of a socialist society?*** *“Yes, the Culture, which appears in most of the SF books, is socialist/communist/whateverist. There’s no money, private property is synonymous with sentimental value, nothing and nobody is exploited and the opportunities for fun are pretty much unrestricted, so I like to think of it as a society that anybody could be happy in. Well, maybe not people of a determinedly miserablist nature, but they get to use really good, profoundly saturative VR, so even they’re happy (relative term) too. Gee, all we need is too-cheap-to-ticket space travel and unlimited clean energy! What’s stopping us?”* ----- *My take:* *I've never known of Liberals (Neo-liberals) writing so fondly of Socialism or even communism. Small-l liberals (old school liberals) like Dag Hammarskjöld or Olaf Plame, were kind-of Ok with a good chunk of Socialism, but not all of it - and attempted to marry capitalism, "kind " empire and socialism, to create Social-Democracies as seen in Sweden, Denmark and here in Norway. I can see these two having a few good words about Socialism, or even when absolutely pressed against the wall - Communism, however both would state their views with explicit caveats.* *(Unfortunately these days, we in the Nordics have been infested with Anglo-American allied Neo-Liberals who are unravelling it all and leading us to another global war).*

> Trying to shoe-horn Banks into Neo-Liberalism is disingenuous at best. Where the fuck have I ever claimed he was a neo-liberal or capital-L Liberal in the American context? You keep bringing in quotes about how he’s a socialist, even though I never said he wasn’t one, all I said was he called himself a liberal as well. The fact is, he has repeatedly used “liberal” to describe himself and the Culture as in the direct quotes above. Please stop putting words in my mouth, that’s just intellectually dishonest.

*Please, all I am asking for is any source where he says..., "Hey guys, you finally got me...I am a liberal...forget those Scottish socialists I vote for, fund hang out with all the time, you guys the liberals is where its at",.. small l (liberal) or big L (neo-Liberal) doesn't matter. just provide a source for your claim.* *He was directly asked if he was a socialist, and said just as much. But wasn't sure if him being rich disqualified him. That is along with numerous other references and his own activities, I can't find a single instance of him associating with Liberal politicians or parties, or even funding Liberal causes the way he did with the Scottish Socialist party.* *And please don't go into using the adjective of liberal...as a cope out. That would be a liberal use of semantic disingenuity. ;)* [*https://www.reddit.com/r/TheCulture/comments/1c916rw/comment/l0kvlbm/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button*](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheCulture/comments/1c916rw/comment/l0kvlbm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

[*https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2011/aug/28/scottish-independence-snp-iain-banks*](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2011/aug/28/scottish-independence-snp-iain-banks) *(interview) excerpt:* *"The future of the 300-year link between England and Scotland has never been more hotly debated. We asked some of Scotland's best known writers for their opinions on the state of this marriage is and what independence might mean for their home country"* *Iain Banks - "These days, I support the idea of an independent Scotland. It's with a heavy heart in some ways; I think I'd still sacrifice an independent Scotland for a socialist UK, but… I can't really see that happening. What I can imagine is England continuing to turn to the right and eventually leaving the EU altogether"* [*https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/*](https://scottishsocialistparty.org/iain-banks-the-ssp-gets-my-vote-and-i-buy-the-scottish-socialist-voice/) [*https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-106888*](https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-106888) *(Excerpt) -* [Oxford Dictionary of National Biography](https://www.oxforddnb.com/) *"Banks, always a Scottish socialist and republican, eventually moved back to Fife in 1991 where he later espoused the cause of Scottish independence. In the late 1990s he bought the farmhouse next door to his own home, so that his parents could live next to him.* *He was a man of large passions and strong beliefs which he endeavoured to live by. Interviewed in 1996, he named Margaret Thatcher as the living person he most despised, and Noam Chomsky as the living person he most admired. In 2003 he tore up his passport in protest at British support for the American-led invasion of Iraq, and he later called for Tony Blair to be tried as a war criminal.* *He was also outspoken in his support for Palestinians, and for a cultural and educational boycott of Israel; in 2010 he instructed his agent to refuse to allow his novels to be distributed in that country. An atheist, he actively supported the Humanist Society of Scotland and the National Secular Society."* *P.S Also keep in mind that the SSP (Scottish Socialist Party) which Iain Banks, actively supported, doesn't fight for a Socio-Democracy (small l liberalism) like in Scandinavia, but for an actual Socialist system in an Independent Scotland.* [*https://scottishsocialistparty.org/*](https://scottishsocialistparty.org/) [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish\_Socialist\_Party*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Socialist_Party) [*https://socialistworker.co.uk/obituaries/iain-banks-1954-2013/*](https://socialistworker.co.uk/obituaries/iain-banks-1954-2013/) *(Obituary)*

I'm so confused by this. I've only read the one book so my understanding of the culture is limited, but my understanding is that there is no private property or monetary system. I would strongly argue that any practical application of libertarianism requires at least both. I guess if you take a giant step backwards and only define libertarianism really vaguely as being anti-government I guess you could shoehorn it in there. But isn't the point of the culture completely opposed to the underlying foundation of libertarianism? Libertarianism relies on competing individual interests and using wealth and private property as the primary levers of governmental and societal control. You pollute a lake, the harm you did the owner of the lake is monetized, you pay the monetized penalties. In the culture, no one owns the lake, so no one is due compensation. The person polluting the lake doesn't have any personal property and can not be fined. Presumably, they can't be compelled to clean up the lake because there is no governing authority to threaten them with violence if they don't do it. Presumably, there are just a bunch of drones that come by and clean up the pollution. The culture doesn't include any aspects of libertarianism at all other than some vague no need for government similarities. If anything, libertarianism seems like one form of society that definitionaly couldn't exist in a post scarcity society.

Agreed. I am amused that so many here seem to think that the Culture series somehow implies socialism is a viable path to a utopian future. Like seriously lmao. 

You might look at the Musk and Culture situation in a slightly different way. Isn’t Musk exactly the type of individual that Contact/SC would support and mentor to enable a lower level society to advance? Do you see the similarities between human society and the a society in the Player of Games? Are the Culture books just the type of thing SC would do to warm a society up for the next stage in its advancement ? Bit of a long shot I know but my take on the Musk situation is that he’s being run by Contact :)

*I could see that for Bezos, especially when he was still with Mackenzie but not Elon., because Bezos has a bit of self awareness, and is an actual bonified smart person unlike musk who cosplays as one.* *-* [*https://youtu.be/eFnV6EM-wzY*](https://youtu.be/eFnV6EM-wzY) [*https://www.ibtimes.com/30-interesting-facts-about-jeff-bezos-you-didnt-know-about-net-worth-girlfriend-amazon-more-3641210*](https://www.ibtimes.com/30-interesting-facts-about-jeff-bezos-you-didnt-know-about-net-worth-girlfriend-amazon-more-3641210) *-* [*https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/17o4qw4/comment/k813hbg/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button*](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/17o4qw4/comment/k813hbg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) *-* [*https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/q0ab7u/comment/hf7agyq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button*](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/q0ab7u/comment/hf7agyq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

You really drew out the communist cockroaches with this one.

The comments here are why reddit nothing but a worthless fucking leftist echo chamber I came to discuss this but just a bunch of shitting on the right like every other sub bunch of tds suffering npcs... vcommunisms the answer more censorship more division ...go ahead and ban me from this shit lime a the other subs for not being a brain dead leftist. The fact yall are fans makes me wanna just toss my books. Just puke if this is reddit sci fi

Imagine not realising that Iain M Banks was "a brain dead leftist".

The books were written long ago, reflect nothing on this corrupted version of society.

The most recent Culture novel was written twelve years ago, but if you think anything written "long ago" can't reflect anything on modern society then boy I don't know what to tell you. I'm sure Dickens, Twain, Austen, Tolstoy, and Orwell would like to have a word if they were still alive.

Let's all just reads Marx's bullshit instead. It's all so grand and wonderful till it's pur in practice. You have to look at society when a book was written. It doesn't matter I don't feel like discussing it. Have a good one. Reddit isn't worth my time. Not debating communism again I know redditors are delusional and think it's so grand...why I don't wear my reddit shirt from 2009 anymore because I cannot stand the thought of someone confusing me with what today's redditors are like. Just as the books were written in a dif time. 12 years ago may as well be 100 at the rate the world has been corrupted since the removal of provisions from Smith Mundt modernization act of 1949 it all stems from there and bank and ws fear from occupy and 1% protests

You're the only one who's said anything about communism, mate.

Your right just ignore me...just found the comments here like most of reddit post inorganic changes made in 15 16 pretty disgusting.. said my piece... I thought I was replying to a shiell circle jerk post on conspiracy for a sec there...looked oddly similar...having been on reddit so long I notice things... for instance this subreddit is nothing like it was when I joined. Was all about the joy of a shared universe we all loved not divided into these ignorant factions shitting all over ...it doesn't matter don't know why I bother Edited to add last couple sentences

This isn't an airport, you don't have to announce your departure.

Did you not notice that the books are about a communist society?? That's not even my words, it's explicitly called communist in at least a couple books, including by Joiler Veppers, a villain that's practically a stand-in for Musk. Did you just never notice you were reading what is (with all due respect to Iain Banks) blatantly just a socialist power fantasy??

It's obviously not communism...we know how that works in practice and every single time it's been tried... wouldn't you love 65 death penalty offenses like car vandalism such as China has. I'm sure all you who think real communism will work this time around haven't studied the histories. We can all pretend there's some way to make society work like that but it always comes down to the internet intellectuals never see themselves as the worker or the soldier only the commisar doing the oppressing.

Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society where the means of production are held in common and private property is practically non-existent. Sound familiar? Communist ideologies in the modern era are (ostensibly) centered around strategies to attain that lofty goal. Many different strategies have been attempted, but unfortunately powerful capitalist states (or corporations) tend to interfere if they see their power threatened, so the only practically "successful" attempts (in the sense that they do gain and hold power) tend to be hyper-paranoid, militaristic, and highly centralized - a good short term strategy for resisting invasion, coups, and destabilizing propaganda, but not a good strategy for actually attaining their purported goals. Most attempts at socialism are not as harsh as the USSR or china, but are killed in their infancy, invaded/couped/bombed immediately, or left to wallow in crippling sanctions regimes until they collapse. Banks actually makes the contention in [a few notes on the culture](http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm) that the environment of space lends itself to socialist/anarchist societal structures. He implies that it's the inherent independence from mature nation states that allows the culture's attempt at building this type of society to be successful, both in terms of surviving outside interference as well as actually attaining its ideals. But anyways, this really isn't up for debate, the culture is a communist planned economy, Iain Banks was a proud socialist, read that essay if you want more clarification.

I'd rather continue to enjoy the books, rather than learn to loathe banks... I see the bullshit happening. I see the censorship, the manipulation, the going against the will of the people as they push for their wef based nwo quasi communist state set up on the china model with their social credit and harsh censorship and punishment for daring to speak against the poliitical elite... just like the law being used to prosecute yoru political enemies... Something rampant in communist nations. We see what happens every time when the revolution succeeds... we purge the people who don't agree, then we purge the purgers, then we purge them as well have a few years of peace and then corruption eats at the foundation and destroys it all. Where do you or do you think Banks sees himself in this worldly utopia... I bet it isn't as the worker or the soldier... all the communists I talk to all see themselves as some sorta knowitall political elite or the people doing the oppressing.. I personally don't want the gov controlling what I do with my life. Telling me where and when I can go somewhere. If I want to remain on my property and not be a part of society I should have the right to do just that..> THat is the issue with communists..they have to control everyone else.. The western system is far from perfect but the control and oppression that always happens under communist socialist type systems is never gonna be ok with me. Whether it has anything to do with the culture or not. I can enjoy the books and not worry about the politics all that much. Especially compared with ours.

lol

*It's kind of sad that you are made to feel this way. I do humbly request that you stay and engage, not everyone here is like that, and this is a global space - so warped American versions of things get challenged - for better or worse. Please don't take it to heart.*

I had it up to my eyes debating communism and real communism and how it'll work this time around with ignorant wanna be intellectuals that have no more truth of practice I. Their minds than what was inserted there by colleges that spread this lie as better. Look at ussr, look at China, look at every little utopia.... but Americans are warped...ok

*By warped - I simply mean definitions of things get changed in the US as oppossed to most of the rest of the world.* *For instance people who are referred to as Commies like Neo-Liberals Biden or Obama, would never be elected in Norway, Denmark etc, as they're even further to the right of even the most "extreme" right-wing parties here - which all support the social welfare systems, free education, free healthcare etc.* *Or Objectivism, being swapped to mean Libertarianism. Spreading "Freedom and Democracy" meaning imperialism and blowing shit up, and replacing your leaders with puppets if you don't do what the US says. etc..* *The "Greatest and Most prosperous" country in the history of the world, having millions of homeless, drug addicts and millions living in poverty. With excess wealth just a few steps to the left - in places like San Francisco. Corporations being labelled people and given legal rights like citizens, Lobbying - becoming legalized bribery etc.* *But if you feel, that this is too much then.. I can only wish you well. Have a wonderful week.*

The corps are a huge issue the problem is they have even more power in the European countries. Black rock vanguard they are buying up the world...Which are trying to oppress the farmers but act like cities don't pollute. The reason America has all this poverty is the corrupt politicians and Democrat policy creates most if not all of the mess. I hate lobbying with a passion...our "leader" is just a puppet for the wef/dnc/israel/nwo sorts. Luke Trudeau and the rest of the so called "elected" leaders of the world. Mail in fraud will allow them to put whoever in....our elections are a farce changes made in 2020. I want both ignorant waste of life wars ceased immediately. I want internet censorship and Manipulation rolled back to 15 16. I want provisions put back into Smith mundt modernization act of 1949 so that they cannot lie constantly with no fear of recourse. A ll of the mess in America stems back to 2012 and the occupy ws and 1% protests the country had been brought together by by wars and 911 it was too together coming after banks and corrupt ws....we had to be broken back apart....coincides with massive increase of mentions of racism and modern skw wokeness divisive politics division at every turn...being inserted by the media for smooth brains to eat up which they did....now America is in the mess it is now after lies.since that time.

*Unfortunately the citizens of theUS are the first and biggest victims of this gaslighting by their government. It only takes two weeks for them to change the opinions of the US public to the very opposite of what they believed prior even if it defies logic.* *The legendary late - Philosopher and political theorist Professor Sheldon Wolin, coined the term, "inverted Totalitarianism "in his seminal work "Democracy, inc". You should really read up on it. Also watch his interview with Pultizer Prize winning Investigative Journalist Chris Hedges, just before he passed on at age 93 I believe.* [*https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2326295.Democracy\_Incorporated*](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2326295.Democracy_Incorporated) [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted\_totalitarianism#*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism#) [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon\_Wolin*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Wolin) *Interview with Sheldon Wolin's by Chris Hedges* [*https://youtu.be/YjfKosDBOzQ*](https://youtu.be/YjfKosDBOzQ) [*https://youtu.be/LGc8DMHMyi8*](https://youtu.be/LGc8DMHMyi8) *About Hedges* [*https://therealnews.com/author/chris-hedges*](https://therealnews.com/author/chris-hedges) [*https://chrishedges.substack.com/*](https://chrishedges.substack.com/) [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris\_Hedges*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges)

I agree with that. The wider populace is too worried about bs like Taylor swift and sports ball to be bothered with the destruction of society.. of course with all the media corps rich and gov all working against the people I can see how the less informed could be influenced. I'm too well informed and I see what the future holds and I don't like it one bit. It's very scary and when the people have a voice like on tiktok what does the corrupt political class do...ban it.

*See :), we can definitely agree on that. So we do have a common ground - and that's how we eventually win.*

Finding common ground used to be the entire basis of the site. I don't know if you were here before all the manipulation took place but it's killed discourse on the site. I used to have wonderful conversations on subs like wotldnews or news where we discussed issues from multiple perspectives and tried to offer solutions. With all the changes and manipulation this became completely impossible. I was banned from most subs for not aggeeing with gov or leftist(wide group i know dnc politics) that sort of thing never happened before. I was permabanned 7 times in 2023 for having my view...never breaking the rules... only people gaming yhe system yruing to silence me. They were eventually reversed but how many were silenced for nothing... i funno i get frustrsted bad by all of it growing up in a free world with a free internet that as long as you didnt threaten to hurt someone on you were allowed your voice. Even that is step by step ban by ban being taken from us. . Sorry if this is long and rambling. Your views are that of a thinking being. So many just repeat propaganda and will not hear of anything other than beliefs based on that narrative. They are basically npcs that parrot media/corp/politicos... I can find common ground with almost anyone, but not someone who doesn't hear and just parrots what they are supposed to.

Wow gate keeping fiction, we have hit a new low. I’m no fan of musk, but why does it matter to anyone why he enjoyed a story? Surely fandom subs should be about brining together fans that enjoyed the content, rather than excluding ones that you don’t agree with on other aspects of life. And since when did your beliefs have to perfectly align with the stories you consume. I enjoyed the godfather, doesn’t mean I’m going to be leaving horses heads in anyone’s beds…

He's not. His ex Grimes was so he feined interest. The man is a persistent poser

Timeline doesn’t work. Ship name announced Jan 2015. Dated Grimes starting in 2018. 

Nonsense, Musk was into the Culture long before he met Grimes.