I read with interest, Olav’s article last month on ST:CCG and Communism so I thought I would give my 2 cents on the issue.  It is fairly well known that Olav is a communist.  It is also fairly well known (if you have met me) that I am a bloodthirsty capitalist.  It is funny then that I read Olav’s ideas about local players pooling resources and thought it was a great idea.  It would seem then that Olav is right, communism is the way forward and I am in fact a misguided individual who has seen the light and swung over to the political left, right?  Wrong!  The problem with this analysis is that the initial assumptions are flawed as will be explained.

First of all, we must define our terms, so lets ask ourselves what is communism?  Olav uses the following definition.

‘Communism is about the equal distribution of resources among a national population.’

Now obviously, in an ST: CCG context, the ‘national population’ could be considered to be all the players within any given area.  It would be impractical to try and share on any larger scale than that and Olav’s example does indeed use the playing community of one area to base his model.

However, Olav’s definition is a bit limited.  Although it defines in basic terms what communism is, it says nothing of how it is to be achieved and what exactly defines ‘equal distribution’.  The only real resource we have to consult on this matter is the inventor of communism Mr Karl Marx and those who implemented it, specifically Lenin and Stalin.  The first thing that becomes apparent is that this sharing of resources is not voluntary.  Even Karl Marx recognised that communism could only really operate in a state where it was enforced from above and realised that the rich elements of society would not voluntarily share all their wealth with the sausage-eating peons that dwelt in the villages of the Second Reich.  Lenin and Stalin later implemented this policy.  The revolution of October 1917 was carried out on behalf of the people, not by the people and communism in the form of collective farms, grain requisition and nationalisation was carried out by the state, not by a unilateral decision by the peasants.  Secondly, communism was never about equal distribution of resources in the strictest sense, it was about the pooling of resources for the good of the state.  Basically, the state owned everything and distributed it as they saw fit.  The ‘good of the state’ generally consisted of expanding the influence the USSR and communism in general.

So lets see how this definition would work in the big wide world of Star Trek CCG.  One or two revolutionary players in an area would take control of the cards of every player in the area whether they wanted to join or not.  They would then be placed in a big pool where the people in charge of the collective could determine what to do with them.  Players would be allowed to use cards from the pool to play in tournaments but the people in charge would dictate what cards they could use and what decks they had to use.  The pool would be used to try to get a player from said region to win the world championships and to try and entice players from other regions to start their own forced collective.  Therefore, the best players in the region would have access to all the best cards and decks while lesser players would be forced to play with decks specifically designed to test them against.

So there we go, that would be communism in action in the ST: CCG world.  Lets see how Olav’s ‘collective’ shapes up.  Although there are some small similarities, there are also some major differences.

1) Sharing of resources is voluntary
2) Only a small number of players are in the collective, not the whole region
3) All players have equal access to the pool
4) I assume entry is controlled.  For example could I come and join the collective if I had no cards?  I doubt it.  Although people might lend me decks I doubt I would have ‘equal access’

Therefore it can be seen that Olav’s card sharing group is hardly a communist style collective.  Here is an interesting oddity though.  It does bear a remarkable resemblance to another economic model.  Lets review:

1) A limited group of individuals becoming more efficient by pooling resources.
2) Resources are used by various sections of the group in order to advance their particular role (and through that the value and credibility of the organisation).
3) Entry to the group is possibly but only if they have something of value to bring to the collective (in Olav’s case, probably Dividian Doors).

Hey this sounds familiar.  Olav has created a limited company, the ultimate capitalist economic unit.  Olav is not a communist after all but in fact a staunch right winger.  Welcome to the fold Olav, long live capitalism!!

Ian
iptaylor@dialstart.net