Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Zero]

parents arent leaders. If thats how your family works that must suck

[Kuciwalker]

It's like central vs. distributed intelligence/processing. For immensely fewer resources, you can have an equally/more powerful system that is more adaptable, resilient, and error-resistant. Like the supercomputer made out of PS2's

[Sava]

Communism only works in small tribes of humans. It's not really condusive to a macro-societal level. Family is an example of Communism, per se. It would be nice if all of humanity could be nice to each other and stuff, but it's not realistic or practical at all.

[Nubclear]

[alva]

Granted, capitalism has had it's failures too, however, right now, *today* we can point to thriving capitalist-oriented nations as proof positive that it works.

But what will happen when the whorld world is rich (read: level with western standard).
It will never happen under capitalism, because capitalism thrives on poverty.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Granted, capitalism has had it's failures too, however, right now, *today* we can point to thriving capitalist-oriented nations as proof positive that it works.

Yes, but only under fairly specific political conditions. This shows that capitalism is at best one side of the equation.

As I understand it, communism needs (and is all about) centralized control. That is at odds with co-equal branches of government.

Communism is about a centrally planed economy, not a central government dominated by a single branch.

One of the chief benefits of capitalism is its nimbleness. The market reacts swiftly to changing conditions.

Works on paper, but not always in real life. Moreover, sometimes when this works, it screws people over. In the mid 90s, for instance, the invisible hand was pushing for IT training. Lot of people invested in IT training. Now the invisible hand is pushing for something else. Leaving all those IT people out in the cold. This is not to say a centrally planned economy might not be harsh - just that nimbleness is not always a virtue.

On paper, so does a centrally planned economy, but only IF there is one overpowering branch of the government to control it. You introduce co-equal branches of the government to check each other, you destroy what little speed the command economy can muster, thanks to debate! (and let's face it, if you assign control of the economy to one specific branch of government in the system you outline, it will be the dominant power, with the rest being a shallow veneer, not having sufficient power to truly challenge those who whole the keys to the economic engine).

You are conflating two separate issues. Debate is usually about second order questions of values. Namely, what does society want and what are acceptable pathways for getting there? Do we invade Afghanistan or offer free college to poor children in Latin America (the Soviet Union actually did both)? Once we make these decisions, we leave the point A to point B nitty gritty to experts like engineers, social workers, economists, etc. This is essentially what the US gov does in the public sector.

BUt I don't buy the whole invisible hand of the market. It seems to me to be more dogmatic and religious than reasonable. Most things we create are created better the more reflectively we approach their creation. The more we engage in engineering. An engineered economy in this respect should be more able to deliver prosperity than an economy based on the faith of the invisible hand. In other words, I'll trust a shelter to not fall on me more if it was reflectively engineered over one that the invisible hand of the wind pushes together.

If you want the system to work, and to be popularly accepted, there's gotta be a better way than banishment and mass murder to get the ball rolling, no?

-=Vel=-

All you really need is acquiecence in a system. Most low income people feel this way about capitalism. They don't like the status quo, but figure its better than the alternative. But yes, no system will work if everyone is constantly rising up against it.

[Kuciwalker]

Communism is about a centrally planned economy, not a central government dominated by a single branch.

Would you care to enlighten us as to how ELSE it could be centrally planned?

Yes, nimbleness is a virtue. It is ALWAYS good to be able to adapt to a situation. What you described was a FAILURE to properly adapt to a situation.

The "invisible hand of the market" is a simple tautology (and therefore true) "those that are most effective at achieving success will succeed". By very light regulation of the market, those who are more talented, efficient, etc. will succeed, thus preserving good ideas and strategies, whereas those who aren't talented or efficient will not succeed, thus getting rid of bad ideas and strategies. The market is sort of like a giant genetic algorithm - and genetic algorithms can even give better answers than those thought up specifically by someone trying to solve a problem. Distributed processing coupled with genetic algorithms gives efficient results with minimal overhead (i.e. worrying about government).

Would you trust a shelter more to follow you if a) it was specifically engineered by a person or b) it's design had been poor at first, but gradually all the kinks and flaws had been worked out?

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Sava
Communism only works in small tribes of humans. It's not really condusive to a macro-societal level. Family is an example of Communism, per se. It would be nice if all of humanity could be nice to each other and stuff, but it's not realistic or practical at all.

I believe this 100%.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar
Works on paper, but not always in real life. Moreover, sometimes when this works, it screws people over. In the mid 90s, for instance, the invisible hand was pushing for IT training. Lot of people invested in IT training. Now the invisible hand is pushing for something else. Leaving all those IT people out in the cold. This is not to say a centrally planned economy might not be harsh - just that nimbleness is not always a virtue.

I'm in the process of making tons of money in IT. There are two types of failures in capitalist economies wrt IT. First, there's a shakedown period for new technologies and groups of technologies before they really stick (or wither into obscurity) - PC's themselves, CAD/CAM, Java, COM, .NET, etc. all hype and buzzwords, then everyone has to build something with them, then people who first move into those skills get way overpaid due to shortage of skilled labor. Then either the technology dies off, or a flood of people go into the field, driving wages down. It wasn't too long ago people were yammering about $100.00 per hour contracts for Java programmers, 130k a year plus bennies out the wazoo, because Java was the Next Big Thing^TM

The second one relates to the first (since the labor shortage, then high labor cost, then glut of inexperienced developers contributes to the mess) - the general failure of IT to deliver all the productivity gains it claims. The cost doesn't justify the investment.

The "get rich quick" crowd tends to get hurt, but the more careful crowd who looks around a bit to see if the technology is going to mature and have a lasting presence in the marketplace do better for themselves overall, whether they're workers or entrepreneurs.

The other side is you have to critically appraise whether or not you're really going to deliver value to the end user. Fantasies about new business models are cool, but in the market, you have to put up or shut up.

Central planning for that type of situation would be abysmal - you don't have the disinterested expertise, and you don't have the responsiveness to changing conditions. We'd still be in a text world, doing COBOL programming for IBM System 34's in a centrally planned IT world. It would work, but is it really what you want?

[Kidlicious]

Glade to see new participants.

Originally posted by Velociryx
To get the ball rolling good, here's a couple of questions for the communist crowd:

1) What's up with the whole "group before individual" thing?

It's common practice to talk about SOCIAL science in regard to SOCIETY. Arguing that a system is beneficial to individuals is not really social science. It's just a group of individuals high jacking the govt to exploit the masses.

Originally posted by Velociryx
2) How will you prevent a dictatorial a$$ from siezing power when the "glorious revolution" comes. Isn't that what's happened in every other communist experiment that's been tried. So, if you're going to try it again, what will you do differently to ensure that it doesn't happen? Or, do you not really care that it'll happen?

I'll let others comment here. I believe in a strong central govt when there are enemies at the gates. No enemies, no dictator.

Originally posted by Velociryx
3) Are the party bosses in the new communist regieme gonna have all the perks they had in the old one? If so, isn't that just a shade umm....contradictory. Workin' man's party and all that?

I'm genuinely curious, although I don't see you guys changing my mind on it, I do love the debate!

-=Vel=-

No

My focus is on capitalism though. It simply won't last. I enjoy talking about how a better communist system would be implemented, especially if people have ideas about economic planning. Really, in the future I don't see capitalism as an option. So I pick communism by default. Oh, and I hate those pigdog capitalists .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Central planning for that type of situation would be abysmal - you don't have the disinterested expertise, and you don't have the responsiveness to changing conditions. We'd still be in a text world, doing COBOL programming for IBM System 34's in a centrally planned IT world. It would work, but is it really what you want?

And change is much slower with central planning. So slow change is really the only problem, and I wouldn't really consider it a problem.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Glade to see new participants.


It's common practice to talk about SOCIAL science in regard to SOCIETY. Arguing that a system is beneficial to individuals is not really social science. It's just a group of individuals high jacking the govt to exploit the masses.

Guys like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Dzherzhinski, Beria, yadda yadda... somehow, those dedicated servants of the Party always come out ahead.

I'll let others comment here. I believe in a strong central govt when there are enemies at the gates. No enemies, no dictator.

There are always enemies, comrade - counterrevolutionaries are everywhere.

My focus is on capitalism though. It simply won't last.

You're right. Then again, the human species and the solar system won't last either. Capitalism will make it about that long.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You're right. Then again, the human species and the solar system won't last either. Capitalism will make it about that long.

Well communism will save humanity so don't worry about that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


And change is much slower with central planning. So slow change is really the only problem, and I wouldn't really consider it a problem.

Inertia, not slow change, and if you want to wind back the IT clock, then you can kiss things like the Human Genome Project and most other new technology, including internet, goodbye for decades. We wouldn't be talking to each other in a communist system, unless we had some evil capitalists and their innovations to sponge off of.

One of the most fun times I've had with toys was touring Soviet navy ships in San Diego. An Udaloy and a Sovremenny, pride of the Soviet navy, newest ship classes, and 20-25 years behind US technology.

Keep up the good work, comrades.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well communism will save humanity so don't worry about that.

Tell that to the sun and the laws of physics.