The theoretical basis for the triumph of communism

[rmsharpe]

One problem is that non-market systems are slow to adapt to new ideas and new technology. I guess it's debatable as to whether this is the result of underperformance in planned and non-market economies in general or if it is specific to resistance or risk-aversion in those systems.

For example, there's a good (but long) article from Fortune magazine from 1985 about the failures of Soviet computing, not necessarily from a technical standpoint but the failure of bureaucratic administration in the country as a whole.

That said, I'm not inclined to believe that any form of collective economics is going to be at all useful simply because the technology improves.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
One problem is that non-market systems are slow to adapt to new ideas and new technology. I guess it's debatable as to whether this is the result of underperformance in planned and non-market economies in general or if it is specific to resistance or risk-aversion in those systems.

For example, there's a good (but long) article from Fortune magazine from 1985 about the failures of Soviet computing, not necessarily from a technical standpoint but the failure of bureaucratic administration in the country as a whole.

That said, I'm not inclined to believe that any form of collective economics is going to be at all useful simply because the technology improves.

That's funny. You state a lack of willingness to take risk as a reason why you think central planners will not implement technology, but your source states the reason the soviet managers didn't successfully implement IT was a will to deceive their superiors and thier population.

Check this for successfull IT implementation in Cuba.

A Case Analysis of INFOMED: The Cuban National Health Care Telecommunications Network and Portal

[rmsharpe]

And just how many of those computers were manufactured in Cuba or another state with a similar ideology? Over 400 of those computers were donated by U.S. NGOs, not some success of Cuban central planning.

So maybe I should correct myself; non-market economies will adapt to new technology, they just don't have to be at all responsible for creating any of it.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
And just how many of those computers were manufactured in Cuba or another state with a similar ideology? Over 400 of those computers were donated by U.S. NGOs, not some success of Cuban central planning.

So maybe I should correct myself; non-market economies will adapt to new technology, they just don't have to be at all responsible for creating any of it.

Well since when does desert matter? Even Marx gladly gave capitalism its props for bringing the means of production to new heights of industrialized efficiency, which socialism would then inherit to use for its own purposes. I don't see why the same couldn't be said for information technology.

The real question is how long should capitalism be allowed to develop all these new goodies before we pull the plug? With each passing decade Horgan's theorized "End of Science" seems closer and closer, so maybe just set an arbitrary deadline of 2050. Or maybe set the threshold at market-induced development of a 100% renewable energy infrastructure, or viable AI, or both. One way or another, it's definitely too early now. 1918 was sure as hell too early.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
And just how many of those computers were manufactured in Cuba or another state with a similar ideology? Over 400 of those computers were donated by U.S. NGOs, not some success of Cuban central planning.

So maybe I should correct myself; non-market economies will adapt to new technology, they just don't have to be at all responsible for creating any of it.

Central planning probably isn't as good at what is called creative destruction. What it is good at is crisis management. The Cuban society had to deal with the collapse of the USSR and the US embargo, and it's been able to succeed at the goals that it's set for itself fairly well, especially in the healthcare sector.

As far as making computers I don't see any reason to believe that a Cuban style economy couldn't build computers if they set that as a goal. The Cubans haven't set that goal for themselves.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Darius871
The real question is how long should capitalism be allowed to develop all these new goodies before we pull the plug?

What then would be the incentive to develop anything knowing that the potential profit from it is going to be expropriated? Would you buy a farm in Zimbabwe?

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Central planning probably isn't as good at what is called creative destruction. What it is good at is crisis management. The Cuban society had to deal with the collapse of the USSR and the US embargo, and it's been able to succeed at the goals that it's set for itself fairly well, especially in the healthcare sector.

Well, they've been meeting the state goals; I doubt the general public is all too happy about the direction that Cuba is going in, considering they've gone from one of the most prosperous to being one of the least prosperous countries in the Western hemisphere.

Originally posted by Kidicious
As far as making computers I don't see any reason to believe that a Cuban style economy couldn't build computers if they set that as a goal. The Cubans haven't set that goal for themselves.

I've bolded the operative word; I know that you can't see it because you don't acknowledge the failures of central planning.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Well, they've been meeting the state goals; I doubt the general public is all too happy about the direction that Cuba is going in, considering they've gone from one of the most prosperous to being one of the least prosperous countries in the Western hemisphere.

What is so special about making computers?

---

You might want to be more carefull about making statements if you want to make your points more effectively.

I've bolded the operative word; I know that you can't see it because you don't acknowledge the failures of central planning.

Originally posted by a me
Central planning probably isn't as good at what is called creative destruction.

[chequita guevara]

Re: The theoretical basis for the triumph of communism

Originally posted by Heraclitus
What are the major theoretical advantages of a planned economy and power structure that is not held accountable via classical elections?

None, but that isn't communism, and I'm under no obligation to defend your mischaracterization.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Well, they've been meeting the state goals; I doubt the general public is all too happy about the direction that Cuba is going in, considering they've gone from one of the most prosperous to being one of the least prosperous countries in the Western hemisphere.

Define prosperous in the context of Cuba.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Darius871
The real question is how long should capitalism be allowed to develop all these new goodies before we pull the plug?

No mode of production passes from the scene until all possibilities for it's continuation have been exhausted. In other words, capitalism will continue until it either collapses once and for all because of its own internal contradictions (such as environmental collapse) or it is overthrown by the worker class. The point at which it should be overthrown is when we can do it.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles Define prosperous in the context of Cuba.

Personal income and access to consumer goods.

[Dinner]

Is this like The theoretical basis for the triumph of Fascism? Or Absolute Monarchism?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Personal income and access to consumer goods.

They have that now. So you're saying they are prosperous now?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Personal income and access to consumer goods.

And not access to health care? What a strange opinion.