Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
True Socialism and Modern Technology
Options
-
14-12-2008 6:42pm#1Anyone who knows a little bit about history and economics can see that the biggest problems that centrally planned economies had was information. They simply couldn't organise capital and labour as efficiently as a free-market could, and hence produced too many tractors, while not enough shoes, etc. Given that society is becoming more and more interconnected through advancements in technology, these information difficulties could be solved. Do you think it would be possible to attempt such a system in the future, and for it to be successful?
I have thought about it, and came to the conclusion that it would probably still run into the same difficulties (dictatorship, civil liberties lost, lack of incentives), but thought I would throw it out there for discussion.0
Comments
-
The head of SAP came out with some comment in the 90's that if the soviets had SAP the system would have survived.
Although central planning may have been aided by better information I'd have to disagree with the assertion that the problem with Communism was that it was ahead of its time.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »Anyone who knows a little bit about history and economics can see that the biggest problems that centrally planned economies had was information. They simply couldn't organise capital and labour as efficiently as a free-market could, and hence produced too many tractors, while not enough shoes, etc. Given that society is becoming more and more interconnected through advancements in technology, these information difficulties could be solved. Do you think it would be possible to attempt such a system in the future, and for it to be successful?
I have thought about it, and came to the conclusion that it would probably still run into the same difficulties (dictatorship, civil liberties lost, lack of incentives), but thought I would throw it out there for discussion.
As far as these difficulties go, the last one is not credible, the second one is happening now anyways, the first one just depends on your definition and isn't limited to communism.
With regard to technology, conventional marxism is a stagist view of history, that everything is moving progressively towards a certain goal, eventually leading to communism. I think alternative theories of socialism are being made that oppose development (that are post or anti development theory) and which call for non linear means of measuring progress. As such the integration of technology will be seen as superfluous unless it can be used to help people directly (eg in a hospital).0 -
brianthebard wrote: »As far as these difficulties go, the last one is not credible
There is a wealth of literature, with empirical evidence to the contrary. Once you give the people the fruits of their own labour, they become more prodictive, in general. This is especially so when one looks at the transition from communist farming to semi-private/private land rights in China/Vietnam, for example. I would thought this point to have been blindingly obvious by now. Whats the point in working your arse off on a farm commune when you get the same pay regardless? Could you provide empirical literature that shows this to be 'not credible'?brianthebard wrote: »The second one is happening now anyways...
Where? Could you please point me towards current Western countries that are on a par with Stalin, Mao, et al? Or at least are obviously heading in this direction? Just saying things doesn't make it so. Where is the evidence?brianthebard wrote: »The first one just depends on your definition and isn't limited to communism...
A dictator. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al. Of course this isn't limited to communism, but it does have a 'proud' history when it comes to dictators, it has to be said. I don't think communism is possible on a grand scale without dictatorship, unless some kind of decentralised system can aid the decision-making process, which is where technology might be useful. A kind of 'Wisdom of the Crowds' style integrated system. Of course, this is just fantasy, but so is real socialism, when you think about it.brianthebard wrote: »With regard to technology, conventional marxism is a stagist view of history, that everything is moving progressively towards a certain goal, eventually leading to communism.
It hasn't really worked out that way, has it? I think the notion that history has a direction, and hence can be predicted is nonsense. But thats just my opinion.brianthebard wrote: »I think alternative theories of socialism are being made that oppose development (that are post or anti development theory) and which call for non linear means of measuring progress. As such the integration of technology will be seen as superfluous unless it can be used to help people directly (eg in a hospital).
I don't quite get what is being said here.0 -
Well the first problem is assuming everyone must be paid the same, the second is that there would be no other reward, the third is that not all needs can be met with a simple wage..should I go on? You have heard of Maslow right?Flamed Diving wrote: »There is a wealth of literature, with empirical evidence to the contrary. Once you give the people the fruits of their own labour, they become more prodictive, in general. This is especially so when one looks at the transition from communist farming to semi-private/private land rights in China/Vietnam, for example. I would thought this point to have been blindingly obvious by now. Whats the point in working your arse off on a farm commune when you get the same pay regardless? Could you provide empirical literature that shows this to be 'not credible'?
Well Stalin isn't of this time either, but there were plenty of dictators before now. They aren't restricted to any one ideology. To connect communism with dictatorship is to ignore everything communism is about.Where? Could you please point me towards current Western countries that are on a par with Stalin, Mao, et al? Or at least are obviously heading in this direction? Just saying things doesn't make it so. Where is the evidence?
I think its imminently possible, it just hasn't been put in place in this form yet, except perhaps in some South American nations.A dictator. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al. Of course this isn't limited to communism, but it does have a 'proud' history when it comes to dictators, it has to be said. I don't think communism is possible on a grand scale without dictatorship, unless some kind of decentralised system can aid the decision-making process, which is where technology might be useful. A kind of 'Wisdom of the Crowds' style integrated system. Of course, this is just fantasy, but so is real socialism, when you think about it.
Well I didn't say Marxism predicted the future, only that they were suggesting a teleological pattern of time. Personally I don't exactly agree with this either.It hasn't really worked out that way, has it? I think the notion that history has a direction, and hence can be predicted is nonsense. But thats just my opinion.
What don't you get?I don't quite get what is being said here.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Well the first problem is assuming everyone must be paid the same, the second is that there would be no other reward, the third is that not all needs can be met with a simple wage..should I go on? You have heard of Maslow right?
https://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/mcmillan/personal_page/documents/What%20Can%20North%20Korea%20Learn%201.pdf
Go to page 7, read the section entitled '3. China's Reform Path', and see how private ownership can create the incentives necessary to efficient productivity, far above any previous attempts at wishy-washy 'incentives'.brianthebard wrote: »Well Stalin isn't of this time either, but there were plenty of dictators before now. They aren't restricted to any one ideology. To connect communism with dictatorship is to ignore everything communism is about.
Central planning, whenever attempted, has led to dictatorship, given enough time. Mr Chavez will be the next. My assertion is that it is impossible to have a total centralised economy, without it inevitably leading to dictatorship. This has be seen time and again ad nauseum.brianthebard wrote: »I think its imminently possible, it just hasn't been put in place in this form yet, except perhaps in some South American nations.
But only if the inevitability of dictatorship can be removed. Perhaps via technology removing the need for such a huge centralization of power.brianthebard wrote: »What don't you get?
The entire paragraph, I didn't get what you were saying. Could you rephrase it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Will do that and come back to it.Flamed Diving wrote: »https://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/mcmillan/personal_page/documents/What%20Can%20North%20Korea%20Learn%201.pdf
Go to page 7, read the section entitled '3. China's Reform Path', and see how private ownership can create the incentives necessary to efficient productivity, far above any previous attempts at wishy-washy 'incentives'.
Central planning is anathema to socialism/communism.Central planning, whenever attempted, has led to dictatorship, given enough time. Mr Chavez will be the next. My assertion is that it is impossible to have a total centralised economy, without it inevitably leading to dictatorship. This has be seen time and again ad nauseum.The entire paragraph, I didn't get what you were saying. Could you rephrase it?
Development theory is a theory of modernisation, of how countries modernise, how some are "modern" and some are not, how some are "developed" and some are not. The theory of development follows a linear progression; I have a sail boat. I put a steam engine in it. I have progressed, I can travel faster, further, carry more. I'm now more modern. It is linear because of this, and it imposes a model that says such and such is developed, it has this, such and such is not, it doesn't have this.
To measure progress/development in a different way is to not be linear in terms of cash, or property or technology, but to measure benefits to the people, education, health, etc. Thus a country like Cuba might be more developed than Ireland because of a vastly better health and education system, for instance. Hope that makes sense.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Central planning is anathema to socialism/communism.
So you mean socialism as a 'revolution of the consciousness'? Something that people will just inevitably all come to agree on? I can see no other way how such a system could be implemented, other than dictatorship.brianthebard wrote: »Development theory is a theory of modernisation, of how countries modernise, how some are "modern" and some are not, how some are "developed" and some are not. The theory of development follows a linear progression; I have a sail boat. I put a steam engine in it. I have progressed, I can travel faster, further, carry more. I'm now more modern. It is linear because of this, and it imposes a model that says such and such is developed, it has this, such and such is not, it doesn't have this.
To measure progress/development in a different way is to not be linear in terms of cash, or property or technology, but to measure benefits to the people, education, health, etc. Thus a country like Cuba might be more developed than Ireland because of a vastly better health and education system, for instance. Hope that makes sense.
Ok, I get it. This is a new theme in economic literature, finding ways of measuring 'well being' that moves beyond monetary/capital measurements. Thats a tough one to measure, and will take years, if not decades.0 -
Sorry to clarify are you talking about centralised government after a revolution or centralised planning of a revolution? I assumed the first.Flamed Diving wrote: »So you mean socialism as a 'revolution of the consciousness'? Something that people will just inevitably all come to agree on? I can see no other way how such a system could be implemented, other than dictatorship.Ok, I get it. This is a new theme in economic literature, finding ways of measuring 'well being' that moves beyond monetary/capital measurements. Thats a tough one to measure, and will take years, if not decades.
Well it involves abandoning measuring to an extent, or at least the same conventional means of measurement, which suggest linear progress. Its harder to do, but better results imo. its something that has been involved in sociology for a while, using post-structuralism to critique development, but I imagine its only hit economics recently.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Sorry to clarify are you talking about centralised government after a revolution or centralised planning of a revolution? I assumed the first.
Well, I take it you are saying that Marxist teachings would assert that a socialist world is inevitable, given time. (if im wrong, read no further!) So I take it that this would mean some kind of revolution (evolution?) of the consciousness in order for people to accept this new social paradigm, without it being forced onto them.
My suggestion is that, irrespective of how such a world comes to be, it is close to impossible to implement this without a highly centralised (and hence all-powerful) government, which is highly likely to tend towards dictatorship, over time. The revolution of the consciousness, in my view, would be the only way that such a society could be built, without the need for such central planners but only if some kind of super-technology that links everyones actions together to a non-human system which carries out the distribution of production and the economy's productive needs accordingly. Hence, eliminating the need for centralisation of power. As I said, this is pure fantasy, but so is the idea that 'the people' will all come to this communal zeitgeist, by necessity or whatever means.brianthebard wrote: »Well it involves abandoning measuring to an extent, or at least the same conventional means of measurement, which suggest linear progress. Its harder to do, but better results imo. its something that has been involved in sociology for a while, using post-structuralism to critique development, but I imagine its only hit economics recently.
I wonder whether the tools even exist to create meaningful analysis for such questions.0 -
Yes that is what conventional marxist teachings on development/progress would be, but there are many many more ways of looking at the situation using marxist ideologies, that we shouldn't discount it as meaning one thing.Flamed Diving wrote: »Well, I take it you are saying that Marxist teachings would assert that a socialist world is inevitable, given time. (if im wrong, read no further!)
I'm quite the fan of Friere these days, so lets talk about what he suggests is needed; a liberation praxis. That is, a teaching that involves the implementation of theory, the combining of theory and action into a praxis. This would involve conscientisation amongst the people, spreading the message and gathering a popular following. Once this is achieved revolution would be possible with or without totally centralised power. For examples, Cuba comes close.So I take it that this would mean some kind of revolution (evolution?) of the consciousness in order for people to accept this new social paradigm, without it being forced onto them.
My suggestion is that, irrespective of how such a world comes to be, it is close to impossible to implement this without a highly centralised (and hence all-powerful) government, which is highly likely to tend towards dictatorship, over time. The revolution of the consciousness, in my view, would be the only way that such a society could be built, without the need for such central planners but only if some kind of super-technology that links everyones actions together to a non-human system which carries out the distribution of production and the economy's productive needs accordingly. Hence, eliminating the need for centralisation of power. As I said, this is pure fantasy, but so is the idea that 'the people' will all come to this communal zeitgeist, by necessity or whatever means.
Click the link in my sig below the picture, semanalysis offers such a tool imo.I wonder whether the tools even exist to create meaningful analysis for such questions.0 -
Advertisement
-
How would such a system determine societies needs even if given sufficient information? Would there be a distinction between needs and wants? Should people get what they want or just what it has been determined by experts they need?Flamed Diving wrote: »The revolution of the consciousness, in my view, would be the only way that such a society could be built, without the need for such central planners but only if some kind of super-technology that links everyones actions together to a non-human system which carries out the distribution of production and the economy's productive needs accordingly.
The Soviet Union was trying to implement some sort of system when it collapsed. The Allende regime in Chile also attempted something along those lines much earlier. Although these systems never had a chance to be completed, you still have the problem of incentives in a centrally planned economy. Significant reward is expensive but severe punishment is cheap. How do you avoid a system dominated by punishments like the Soviet Union?
It seems to me that the basic problems of a centrally planned economy run deeper than what can be solved by data processing.0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »Anyone who knows a little bit about history and economics can see that the biggest problems that centrally planned economies had was information. They simply couldn't organise capital and labour as efficiently as a free-market could, and hence produced too many tractors, while not enough shoes, etc. Given that society is becoming more and more interconnected through advancements in technology, these information difficulties could be solved. Do you think it would be possible to attempt such a system in the future, and for it to be successful?
I have thought about it, and came to the conclusion that it would probably still run into the same difficulties (dictatorship, civil liberties lost, lack of incentives), but thought I would throw it out there for discussion.
Personally, I think that true equality could only be achieved if humans were not in charge/had no input into governing themselves. Something totally inhuman would have to attend to the needs of all people, thus cutting out all chance of any one human or society of people controlling the means of production.0 -
Why? Why can't a society own its own means of production? http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/698/36281 According to this Cuba has eliminated poverty. While I think that's probably a little bit of exaggeration, its not too far from the truth.0
-
brianthebard wrote: »Why? Why can't a society own its own means of production?
Cause, while I think people may in theory agree with doling out equality, and yes, logically it makes sense for everyone to be provided for, I don't think it would last for long ( a society where means of production are controlled and the fruits shared out equally along with all that goes with that). Social hierarchy is important in humans, and this is tied who you are, what you are, what you can do, what you can achieve, social currency-a whole host of stuff that is important in human relations, and imo, is pre-programmed into us. Such things don't seem to any way related to the parts of the brain that go,
"Hmmmm...equality-that makes sense!"
I'm rambling and tired-I'll just summarise and say that I take a dim view of humans in this regard.0 -
I think you're taking a far too narrow view of humanity. Science is not a good basis for examining society. I see you dismissed the Cuban example, any particular reason for that? It may not be possible to achieve 100% equality, but the system in place at the minute is working against equality, and the Cuban system is working towards it. If humans were pre programmed then neither would be possible.0
-
I think commuism is perhaps possible on a small scale, such as Cuba, although I know very little about Cuba. But seeing as Cuba is such a small country and economy I wouldn't think it to be impossible. Although I think for large economies it is easy to see how the obvious problems would arise. However, Cuba still fell to the issues of dictatorship, as communism is always doomed to.0
-
Flamed Diving wrote: »I think commuism is perhaps possible on a small scale, such as Cuba, although I know very little about Cuba. But seeing as Cuba is such a small country and economy I wouldn't think it to be impossible. Although I think for large economies it is easy to see how the obvious problems would arise. However, Cuba still fell to the issues of dictatorship, as communism is always doomed to.
Its not a dictatorship.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »I think you're taking a far too narrow view of humanity. Science is not a good basis for examining society.
Maybe not, but biology is more grounded than the higher social science branches (which are the most complex and least understood imo)
Cause, even if I thought that that link was totally factual and unbiased, I don't think such a system will last that long. Conciously/unconciously, some people will strive for more-money/social status/social currency/mates..some fulcrum that will allow them a greater advantage. How long has Cuba been socialist? Revolution in '59, so all these improvements take place over 50 years-that's a blip in "civilisation", and an eyeblink in as regards our specie's history. Someone will have to cream some off for themselves...I see you dismissed the Cuban example, any particular reason for that?
It may not be possible to achieve 100% equality, but the system in place at the minute is working against equality, and the Cuban system is working towards it. If humans were pre programmed then neither would be possible.
We are pre-programmed for language. Likewise, I believe we are preprogramed with certain drives-to learn, acquire, defend etc. All in different amounts for different people as there is a certain amount of variety in us. There are certain varieties in conjunction with environment that will produce dictators/business leaders/politicians/power seekers.
You can never be sure of someone's motives for doing something, concious or unconcious (or more likely a mixture of both)0 -
JI would like to get back to using technology for politics and people. I feel some sort of online voting could be set up in the near future where people can vote on issue of the country. Like a referendum once a week or maybe on going votes on subject where maybe even a boards.ie system to talk about the issue before hand. Estonia will be voting using mobile phones next year. Internet & mobile security is improving weekly. People spend millions online ever day so I am sure a tamper proof system could be invented if needed. Pin numbers, codes, password or maybe even finger print scanner. Maybe not full on socialism but a more involved way of the masses running the country. I for one feel the power is been taken from the normal people more & more. Lisbon etc leave to much power in too few hands. I don’t want 1 person looking out for all my interest or the countries interests. I want to be involved and have a say in what happens. Look at the USA where you can for the right or the almost right parties. I say give the power back to the people but lets do it slowly bit by bit.
P>S> I am not talking about them s&*t electronic voting machines some one with half a brain in the government got.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
brianthebard wrote: »Its not a dictatorship.
Ok then, a leader that won't quit, until recently. Whatever.0 -
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
I already know why. I'm just putting a question out there for discussion, not for people to make authoritative, one lined statements of 'fact'.0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »Ok then, a leader that won't quit, until recently. Whatever.
They have elections in Cuba, and you don't need to be a party member to be elected either. Plus Castro didn't hold anything near supreme power. But you know, whatever.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »They have elections in Cuba, and you don't need to be a party member to be elected either. Plus Castro didn't hold anything near supreme power. But you know, whatever.
I'm rather suspicious of anyone who holds power for that long. If you wish to direct me to any readings, I would be happy to learn more about why I am wrong.0 -
Well the link I posted on the previous page for a start. Also Castro wasn't president from the beginning, he chose someone else but they weren't up to the task. In fact it was a few years iirc before he actually took political power, despite leading the revolution. And when he did it was with the popular support of the people. I will have a look for sources on how much power he actually held, but considering the popular elections that are held and the council that passes most of the laws, its only really enemies of Cuba that seriously consider Cuba to be a dictatorship. To my mind there's little or no difference between it and the US two party system.0
-
brianthebard wrote: »Well the link I posted on the previous page for a start. Also Castro wasn't president from the beginning, he chose someone else but they weren't up to the task. In fact it was a few years iirc before he actually took political power, despite leading the revolution. And when he did it was with the popular support of the people. I will have a look for sources on how much power he actually held, but considering the popular elections that are held and the council that passes most of the laws, its only really enemies of Cuba that seriously consider Cuba to be a dictatorship. To my mind there's little or no difference between it and the US two party system.
I don't hold the US in very high regard wrt its democratic 'validity' (touche or turd sandwich). But that is well off topic.0 -
Ok well returning to the OP, there is a suggestion that the "free-market" will always self correct, but the notion of a free market is extremely tenuous and as much of a myth as people tell me socialism is. So I would question the assumption that the free market is more or less efficent at organising the economy, especially going on the last ten-fifteen years of it, as speculation became more and more aligned to one particular commodity.
Secondly, if we consider centralisation to be against the tenets of socialism/Communism, then the introduction of more sophicated means of technological management would be moving further away from the ideal rather than closer. Although most people in favour of capitalism will not admit it, there is a growing acceptance in some areas of academia/or by some theorists that capitalism veers towards monopoly at every opportunity (Braudel, Sweezy, Wallerstein). Thus the use of technology as first outlined would bring us closer to the "ideal" or most pure version of capitalism as outlined by these and other theorists. This is not good.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Ok well returning to the OP, there is a suggestion that the "free-market" will always self correct, but the notion of a free market is extremely tenuous and as much of a myth as people tell me socialism is. So I would question the assumption that the free market is more or less efficent at organising the economy, especially going on the last ten-fifteen years of it, as speculation became more and more aligned to one particular commodity.
Secondly, if we consider centralisation to be against the tenets of socialism/Communism, then the introduction of more sophicated means of technological management would be moving further away from the ideal rather than closer. Although most people in favour of capitalism will not admit it, there is a growing acceptance in some areas of academia/or by some theorists that capitalism veers towards monopoly at every opportunity (Braudel, Sweezy, Wallerstein). Thus the use of technology as first outlined would bring us closer to the "ideal" or most pure version of capitalism as outlined by these and other theorists. This is not good.
Unfettered markets do not behave the way the some people would like to think they do, in general. And, yes in practice they do tend towards monopoly and all the problems associated with it. The only place that unfettered markets come to a desirable conclusion are in mathematical models, or in small, narrow markets where most of the axioms of these markets can be met (such as a local farmers market, selling homogeneous produce). Therefore for free markets to reach their best potential they require a little control. This can be partially achieved by organising the rules of the game so as to avoid the issues outlined above. But of course this is easier said than done, and there is no 'perfect' solution, given the sheer complexity of economics in reality. That is why I am an advocate of the balanced approach to economic policy, espoused by the likes of Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. It is possible to mix the better elements of unfettered capitalism and central-planning/socialism to achieve a balanced outcome. Again, this is kinda veering off topic-ish.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
I did.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
I don't consider newspapers to be reliable sources of evidence, hence I don't read them. By definition, all economies are mixed, some lean towards the left more, and some to the right. Unless I'm wrong, these economies are not all 'moving inexorably towards socialism—the power of the state increasing as the power of the free market diminishes', so that little hypothesis doesn't really hold up to whatever journalist's opinion you just regurgitated.
Please try and come up with something more useful, next time.0
Advertisement