Why Can't Sci-fi Writers Imagine Alternatives to Capitalist Societies?

Today we investigate why non-capitalist societies aren't frequently seen in science fiction and fantasy universes.

FOLLOW OUR HOSTS

[GenerationFilms]

Can't I get a like for the sheer variety of sci-fi films and shows included in this video? Anyway link to the cool thumbnail art in the description.

[whodatboi]

As you're alluding to, I think the lack of alternatives is due to Sci-Fi writers being generally uninterested in writing stories around economic ideologies. In most instances political ideologies are solely for the purposes of establishing the story's setting.

[maestro-zqgu]

I'm surprised Star Trek isn't mentioned. The Federation is a pretty major sci-fi society.

[joshuachase]

As a science-fiction author myself, there are a couple points I want to make.

1.) It is super easy to create an idealized society that has cured all the ills of current society and write the story with that society prospering. I've done this and been all full of myself thinking how great this nation is, but as I've matured, I've realized that not only is such a society unrealistic, it's also boring. As such, I now put more time and effort into determining how that people's ideology is actually practiced and the history which formed what is currently seen.

2.) A story needs to be relatable. If the world contained therein is too different from the one known by the target audience, they're not going to read or watch it because it's too confusing.

I think that you were spot on in your analysis of the article and its targeted subject matter. Great work!

[HolyknightVader]

Apparently, this article-writer never heard of the Geth or the Protoss.

The Geth are a sapient, hive-mind AI species where all Geth act on consensus; they can all read each other's minds and come to a consensus on any given topic. The Geth have the sort of unity where they exchange thoughts at the speed of light and communicate across star systems, allowing them to share improvements in technology at break-neck speed, making Geth technology far more advanced than most technology in Citadel Space.

The Protoss are a powerful, military theocracy built on a similar hive-mind, except they're organics with the psychic ability to meld minds and read the thoughts of their fellows through a psychic network known as the Khala. Knowing the ways of the Khala allowed the Protoss to recover from the brutality of endless civil wars and tribal conflicts, and it allowed the Protoss to unify and become even more powerful in terms of science and psychic powers, allowing them to combine both into a technology that seems magical to the human eye. It got up to the point where Protoss society as a whole benefited so much from the Khala, that they began to turn against members of their race who didn't want to accept the Way of the Khala, expelling these Nerazim Protoss and hunting them down like dogs if they ever showed their faces in public.

Both of these societies are highly-advanced, space-age civilizations with the power to travel across space and decimate whole worlds, and they don't rely on capitalism or feudalism to survive. The Protoss government is centralized under the Protoss Conclave, a centralized governing body comprised of Protoss elders and clergy, with its military, the Protoss Templar Caste, strictly under the Conclave's control, and the Conclave reserves the right to depose any Templar warlord or Executor from their post if they fail to follow the Conclave's demands. Meanwhile, the Geth act as a unified government with neither businessmen nor warlords governing their hegemony.

[thebighurt]

I think the simple answer is this: most sci-fi authors (that I know of at least) grew up in some flavor of Capitalist society. What they know of, say communism or Fascism (as examples) are based entirely on what they've heard or read about. It's not a thing they really *know* how it works or how it felt to live there. The less relevant something is to someone, the harder it is for them to make a story about it. I mean, take a dude from 1956 Soviet Russia and tell him to write a sci-fi. Betchya the future society in that story uses a command economy of some form. Take a dude from Victorian England, do the same and it would likely be some form of Monarchy. I'm just saying people imagine things in ways they *get." Even if confronted with something totally new, they still try to "translate" it into something they're used to.

[jaketurner]

I would say that often writers of sci-fi aren’t political analysts or political theologians able to come up with complex new political systems for their writing on top of the creativity they already show in the rest of the novel. Capitalism is a flawed system but it is currently the most successful one we have, and it is also easy to picture corporate capitalism being dominant considering the current state of the world of capitalism. It makes sense they would include this in the near future or even distant future as their field of specialty is not politics.

[BeCurieUs]

I feel like Heinlein ALWAYS invents some crazy government structure in his books.

[biocapsule]

*The mistake of the article is confusing governing, economy system in relations to ideology.* First, the economic "theories" & ideology *isn't the economy.* Economy in reality is national resource logistics, it's mostly math, the application of math and there are only so many ways you can run an economy. The argument of the ideology is the argument of the who, the how, the amount in which the same economy gets to be distributed. It's basically like people arguing what method of transporting goods are better (by sea, air or land), forgetting that no matter which method you choose, you are still transporting goods at the end of the day. They are under the impression a dramatically different method will some make it NOT a process of transporting good. The reason why no matter which 'ism' is being shown, it's looks similar, because it's all national logistic at the end of the day. No matter what ideology it is, it's always *someone deciding what goes where.*

Elements like feudalism, mega -corps and authoritarian are common because it is something we still suffer from, and protagonist needs strife and hardship to overcome.

[casbot]

*Captain Jean-Luc Picard:* The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.

*Lily Sloane:* No money? You mean you don't get paid?

*Captain Jean-Luc Picard:* The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity. Actually, we're rather like yourself and Dr. Cochrane.

[mattlewandowski]

The most basic reason as to why we cannot really imagine new systems is because we do not know any other system. We largely see things through the eyes of our own world. We see other systems other than what we are used to as being fringe elements. In a sense, we write what we know.

My own short stories, I tend to write about extinction level events reducing the world to tribal societies... Each group coming up with its own form of government ranging from tribalism and street gang cultures to dictatorships, to people trying to cling to their past government structures because that is what I predict will happen if the world as we know it suddenly comes to an end. when I write about a SciFi future, I tend to see an authoritarianistic government and mega corporations who are mostly above the law because that is what I see our world (in the US and many other nations we have influenced) heading toward. I also write of cultures forming that imitate ancient history. City states like the time of the Greeks, conquering nomads like the Mongols, feudalism that occurs in many forms (and yes we see it happening in the form of the corporate elite making efforts to ensure that the working class remains so poor they have no choice but work as corporate slaves then saying "well they should work harder") I write about these things because they are what I know.

We can invent wand waving technologies to make our worlds more interesting, but when it comes to actually envisioning the world itself I see very li'l in the way of real creation of something new. It is either caused by authors being unwilling to spend the vast amounts of thought necessary to create a living breathing world, or some flaw in human creativity.

Galindez seems to have written the article largely to promote his own book. It largely seems to me that he was writing "everyone writes cookie cutter stories except for me, so buy my book".

[canis]

There are. You have Star Trek as the biggest example. However the simple answer is, outside of trading currency for goods and services is the only way we have found to create flow of resources. Also people write what they know.

[morlath]

Solid video, despite it being sparked off an article that's basically an rant on the author's idealised social setup and a plut for their book, rather than an actual analysis of various sci-fi/fantasty social structures and the conclusions such IN-DEPTH looks create.

[Dlstufguy]

The main reason I think we don't see a lot of other economical systems is more to do with being relatable. We see the same themes over and over because if you can't relate than you are less likely to enjoy the works.

[Tanymsun]

Voyage from Yesteryear by James P Hogan, I love it. The main society is a post scarcity society. It definitely doesn’t fit the normal mold and the only reason it was able to work is it wasn’t started by people who grew up in our society.

[cpcupcake]

The article was from Salon. Why are you bothering to waste your time with it? If only because I doubt the author has read the genre....or any utopian novels.

Edit: getting further into the video about the author's promotion of their book. Steven Brusts's books Teckla and Phoenix are more or less this story....with a kicker. The "divine right of rule" is real and enforced by the deities to protect the world from alien invaders.

The closest I've seen to stories which I've seen which don't follow the privatization vs collectivization economic systems are post scarcity ones.

David Weber's Out of the Dark gives an interesting economic system which I suppose it could be considered socialist. Its a sequel and in the previous book sees most of human's economic and governmental institutions collapse. After the rebuild, all of production is automated and more than humanity's basic needs.

Note I said basic needs. Sure you can live a life of more-or-less luxury being a coach potato, but if you want anything more than the basics, then you need to work for it.

[shacklock]

Wait so the grand conclusion of his arguement is that he's going to make a scifi with more socialism and anarcho-syndicalism in it.... I hate to break it to this guy but thats not breaking any new ground. Why not make his OWN political system :D

[garyw.feather]

The United Federation of Planets from Star Trek the next generation appeared to not be capitalist. In fact it had the Firengi people as being ultra capitalists.
I liked your video. Interesting points you made.
Wonderful show/books The Expanse.
Ursula k. LeGuin wrote several books on non capitalist societies.

[ewokk]

It is noteworthy that economic systems in the future might be different on different planets... Warhammer 40k is pretty such place, with feudal world's, forge worlds, industrialized republics, and even maybe communist worlds coexisting as long as they pay tithes and raise troops

[cantmossadtheassad]

I think Most Fantasy World's are Monarchist not Capitalist or Feudalist and considering how Pussified the world in Demolition Man is I'd say that that's the ideal that the "Anti Capitalist" Left in the Anglosphere is striving towards