Communist Organization

[Kuciwalker]

Higher ranks mean lower corruption?

[Cyclotron]

#1 is least corrupt, yes.

What is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, a poll of polls, drawing on corruption-related data from expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent and reputable institutions. The CPI reflects views from around the world, including those of experts who are living in the countries evaluated.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Higher ranks mean lower corruption?

Higher ranks mean lower perception of corruption.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Higher ranks mean lower perception of corruption.

Perception by experts and reputable institutions.

Why is the CPI based only on perceptions?

It is difficult to assess the overall levels of corruption in different countries based on hard empirical data, e.g. by comparing the amount of bribes or the number of prosecutions or court cases. In the latter case, for example, such comparative data does not reflect actual levels of corruption; rather it highlights the quality of prosecutors, courts and/or the media in exposing corruption across countries. One strong method of compiling cross-country data is therefore to draw on the experience and perceptions of those who are most directly confronted with the realities of corruption in a country.

[Colonâ„¢]

That's merely explaining that other methods may be even less accurate (though probably less subjective as well).

[Kidlicious]

I don't agree that they shouldn't be paid, but they are definitely paid less than they are worth.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kidicious

It's true that people are wired a certain way, but that doesn't mean that you can't create a classless society that takes that into consideration.

The idea that people are wired a certain way is usually a cover for some hegemonic ideology. We know that it isn't really true. Anyone who has read Stanley Milgram's books knows that human psychology is situational. An even better example is the plight of indigenous peoples who find it very hard to assimilate into modern capitalist society as it violates many of their identity forming norms. We would find it similarly difficult, were we transported to live in a mediaeval city. People have adapted to live in many forms of society. The idea that modern capitalist society is somehow an expression of a universal human nature is simply ridiculous. It's simply another form of despotism, which has been the characteristic form of human organization since people started living in large groups.

As feminists have been pointing out for years, what counts as "human nature" in our society turns out to be very much to the advantage of a certain class of male citizens. It's not particularly difficult to see through this once you compare ordinary social conceptions of human nature with the scientific view of the human being. It very quickly becomes obvious that these beliefs have very little to do with reality. Rather they are a cultural lens through which people interpret reality. You can even look back to the beginnings of modern philosophy, in particular people like Locke, to see the modern "person" being born.

We are actually in a much better position than Marx was to see what a communist civilization would look like, since many of the required technologies have only recently come into being. For example, the USSR had a tough time organizing production since they simply didn't have access to enough information to do it. Markets are essentially a product of ignorance, since the price system is merely a decentralized information system that tells people what to produce. The increasing size of many corporations actually demonstrates the retreat of the market, since this occurs when it becomes more efficient to plan rather than to leave things up to the market. A corporation is in most cases an entity in which an internal market system has been suspended.

A good example of this is Wal Mart. The success of that company is in large part due to information technology. Wal Mart owns a gigantic private satellite network which enables extremely efficient stock management. This is the primary reason Wal Mart is able to force competitors out of business – it is simply a more efficient company than its competitors. If you had tried to create a company just like Wal Mart 200 years ago, it would have failed in the same way the Soviet Union did.

Capitalists don't actually trust the price system. That is why Wal Mart sought to increase its informational awareness, since it guessed correctly that this would make it more efficient than its competitors. It's also the rationale behind things like Air Miles and other rewards programs. Companies pay them for information about your buying habits so that they can plan their future production accordingly. Competition between corporations drives the further development of IT to this end. Capitalism is the chief force in the expansion of the part of the economy that is planned and not organized by the price system.

So it's a pretty reasonable guess that a communist civilization will rely heavily on IT networks to organize production and manage its costs against things like the environment.

The other feature of a communist civilization will be the replacement of human labour by machine labour. IIRC Marx predicted this in a crude form. So far, machine labour has merely served to free up human labour for other jobs that machines cannot do. However, with the probable development of AI, it is possible to see a future in which a large proportion of the human population simply cannot compete with machine labour (there are many people who simply cannot do anything other than simple jobs). Unfortunately, human beings tend to be produced in a way that doesn't reflect market needs very well. People have children for all sorts of reasons that are only peripherally connected with the job market. At some point, if things continue as they are, human beings will be in massive oversupply and we will simply have to rethink the economy, since it can no longer be predicated on the idea that most people survive by selling their labour. The only other option is to put all these surplus people to death, but it is simply not the case that most capitalists are so consumed by evil that they would even contemplate such a holocaust.

So there you go. My guess is that a communist civilization will be one in which networks make planning on a more radical scale feasible, and one in which most labour is conducted by machines.

[Elok]

And who repairs/maintains the machines? Other machines? Is it turtles all the way down?

[Whoha]

The thing about our economy though is that someone could come out of nowhere and crush Walmart. It does sound quite far fetched, but this did happen to International Business Machines, and it is why Microsoft,Intel,et al are seeking to change US patent laws.

Would the central planning regime foster the same drive to innovate? Would it embrace innovation? Or would it do everything in its power to stifle it?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Elok
And who repairs/maintains the machines? Other machines? Is it turtles all the way down?

People in robot suits that can do the work of 5 gorillas.

[Elok]

You're thinking of robot bodies, not suits. They're two completely different things. Consult Dr. Quinn for more details.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon


The idea that people are wired a certain way is usually a cover for some hegemonic ideology. We know that it isn't really true. Anyone who has read Stanley Milgram's books knows that human psychology is situational. An even better example is the plight of indigenous peoples who find it very hard to assimilate into modern capitalist society as it violates many of their identity forming norms. We would find it similarly difficult, were we transported to live in a mediaeval city. People have adapted to live in many forms of society. The idea that modern capitalist society is somehow an expression of a universal human nature is simply ridiculous. It's simply another form of despotism, which has been the characteristic form of human organization since people started living in large groups.

As feminists have been pointing out for years, what counts as "human nature" in our society turns out to be very much to the advantage of a certain class of male citizens. It's not particularly difficult to see through this once you compare ordinary social conceptions of human nature with the scientific view of the human being. It very quickly becomes obvious that these beliefs have very little to do with reality. Rather they are a cultural lens through which people interpret reality. You can even look back to the beginnings of modern philosophy, in particular people like Locke, to see the modern "person" being born.

Modern scientific studies are coming to the conclusion that rather than a tabla rasa, humans come preprogrammed with many of the features of their personality. Biology matters, and if we are true materialists, this should be unsurprising. There is a point for all those chemicals floating around our bodies and they do push us in certain directions. Biology may not be destiny, but it certainly is a strong motivator.

For example, homosexuality is almost certainly a biologically determined behavior, possibly as a result of genetics, more likely a result of epigenitics. But homosexuality does not mean that men will sleep with other men, just that they want to sleep with other men. Many can and do force themselves to sleep with women, even if they don't like it all that much.

Of course, you are absolutely correct that a great deal of our behavior is socially determined. The "extreme" emotionality of Arab males and the supposedly cold behavior of Arab women is the opposite of how Western men and women are supposed to act. Men are supposed to suppress their emotions and women are supposed to be the ones to let it all hang out. The reality is far richer than the stereotypes, but they illustrate a point.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whoha
Would the central planning regime foster the same drive to innovate? Would it embrace innovation? Or would it do everything in its power to stifle it?

I imagine that if the innovation was worth the cost, they'd embrace it. If it was something that the population at large felt was justified but the central planning board didn't, they board could be replaced via instant recall.

[Kuciwalker]

For example, homosexuality is almost certainly a biologically determined behavior, possibly as a result of genetics, more likely a result of epigenitics.

You have no idea WTF you're talking about.

[chequita guevara]

Yes I do.