|
On February 22 2025 09:44 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2025 08:38 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2025 08:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Thoughts on the thread, it is (obviously) not true that Americans have chosen racism. They're being faced with a choice between not racism and racism, and every four years they keep changing their pick. If racism was the important factor in their pick, they would either always pick Democrats (because of antiracism) or Republicans (because of racism). Clearly the fact that they keep changing their vote demonstrates that this isn't very important to them and they are dissatisfied with something else, perhaps the one thing that both parties have complete agreement on, which is gross, open neoliberal elitism? Wanted to harp on this a little because it's such an important point. For some reason the Georgia town hall didn't make it to the main thread, here are a bunch of republicans who aren't satisfied with their elected officials even though they still promise them that they'll hurt Mexicans and trans people. Now I understand that around october 2023 Kwark's brain broke a little and on some topics he can't think straight anymore, and that's a shame, but for everyone else it is seriously insane that you think what happened in that election is the US public agreed with republicans on social issues. First of all, the US public isn't a thing, people will vote for one candidate or the other for absolutely different reasons, most of them very bad. That's every election. The idea that there is a direct correlation between candidates' platforms and the will of the voters is childish. Second, the american public ISN'T VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS, why is this discussion even happening am I going crazy? You elect a guy from the other party every four years, and even then you need serious levels of gerrymandering and voter suppression for Republicans to be competitive. What was happening in 2020, was the american public suddenly protrans and antiracist, but in the last four years they changed their mind? The theory doesn't even match the facts. What is actually happening is that both parties are offering a governance that the public isn't satisfied with, so every time they get an opportunity to tell them that, they do. Obviously. Isn't it absolutely amazing to you guys that the Democrats are willing to give up on immigrants and trans people before they are willing to try any populist policy? Doesn't it tell you that what they care about above all is maintaining capitalism, as opposed to making sure that the capitalist system we are under espouses liberal values? I largely agree, I think you underestimate quite how effective things like trans scaremongering have been over the years though, and quite deliberately injected. Quite serious flips can happen, quite bloody quickly. One obvious example would be Muslims in the Western world pre and post 9/11, and we’re still feeling those effects to this day. Many an average Joe is still tolerant of our Muslim brothers and sisters, but for others well, 9/11 opened up a gate of prejudice that’s never been closed.
I think it's a bit different with muslims cause there's a large milestone event there, which obviously it was wrong to blame "muslims" for but we all knew that would happen. Similarly I'm sure there's more hatred of Russians as a people in Europe today.
I'm willing to say that trans messaging isn't as effective for two reasons, one because in 2022 the same messaging was there and Republicans lost an election that they were supposed to win, and two because of the way trans messaging is used in conversations, unless you're talking to Joanne it's always basically a way of dismissing someone. You think what you said makes sense, but lol you can't even define woman, lol. I'm fairly convinced that if someone was running on, like, minecrafting the US healthcare system, and the other guy was running on transphobia, you would even get some transphobes voting for the Minecraft guy. Even within transphobes, there's only a minority that cares a lot about transphobia.
|
Northern Ireland24887 Posts
On February 22 2025 10:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2025 09:44 WombaT wrote:On February 22 2025 08:38 Nebuchad wrote:On February 05 2025 08:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Thoughts on the thread, it is (obviously) not true that Americans have chosen racism. They're being faced with a choice between not racism and racism, and every four years they keep changing their pick. If racism was the important factor in their pick, they would either always pick Democrats (because of antiracism) or Republicans (because of racism). Clearly the fact that they keep changing their vote demonstrates that this isn't very important to them and they are dissatisfied with something else, perhaps the one thing that both parties have complete agreement on, which is gross, open neoliberal elitism? Wanted to harp on this a little because it's such an important point. For some reason the Georgia town hall didn't make it to the main thread, here are a bunch of republicans who aren't satisfied with their elected officials even though they still promise them that they'll hurt Mexicans and trans people. Now I understand that around october 2023 Kwark's brain broke a little and on some topics he can't think straight anymore, and that's a shame, but for everyone else it is seriously insane that you think what happened in that election is the US public agreed with republicans on social issues. First of all, the US public isn't a thing, people will vote for one candidate or the other for absolutely different reasons, most of them very bad. That's every election. The idea that there is a direct correlation between candidates' platforms and the will of the voters is childish. Second, the american public ISN'T VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS, why is this discussion even happening am I going crazy? You elect a guy from the other party every four years, and even then you need serious levels of gerrymandering and voter suppression for Republicans to be competitive. What was happening in 2020, was the american public suddenly protrans and antiracist, but in the last four years they changed their mind? The theory doesn't even match the facts. What is actually happening is that both parties are offering a governance that the public isn't satisfied with, so every time they get an opportunity to tell them that, they do. Obviously. Isn't it absolutely amazing to you guys that the Democrats are willing to give up on immigrants and trans people before they are willing to try any populist policy? Doesn't it tell you that what they care about above all is maintaining capitalism, as opposed to making sure that the capitalist system we are under espouses liberal values? I largely agree, I think you underestimate quite how effective things like trans scaremongering have been over the years though, and quite deliberately injected. Quite serious flips can happen, quite bloody quickly. One obvious example would be Muslims in the Western world pre and post 9/11, and we’re still feeling those effects to this day. Many an average Joe is still tolerant of our Muslim brothers and sisters, but for others well, 9/11 opened up a gate of prejudice that’s never been closed. I think it's a bit different with muslims cause there's a large milestone event there, which obviously it was wrong to blame "muslims" for but we all knew that would happen. Similarly I'm sure there's more hatred of Russians as a people in Europe today. I'm willing to say that trans messaging isn't as effective for two reasons, one because in 2022 the same messaging was there and Republicans lost an election that they were supposed to win, and two because of the way trans messaging is used in conversations, unless you're talking to Joanne it's always basically a way of dismissing someone. You think what you said makes sense, but lol you can't even define woman, lol. I'm fairly convinced that if someone was running on, like, minecrafting the US healthcare system, and the other guy was running on transphobia, you would even get some transphobes voting for the Minecraft guy. Even within transphobes, there's only a minority that cares a lot about transphobia.
It’s been 24 years and there’s still a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment that didn’t exist before, outside of regular ‘I don’t like brown people’ racism
As per your other points, I think over time the backlash has intensified, so 2022 and the cultural lay of the land isn’t necessary 2025.
To put myself in the boots of a transphobe, it’s the difference between thinking they’re weird, I don’t like them but it’s kinda niche, I don’t encounter many versus they’re running around sexually assaulting our women in bathrooms. And I think attitudes have shifted with this deliberately cultivated attack vector.
I think you are correct in that head-to-head, however that dichotomy isn’t going to come up any time soon. Transphobia will be either mask on or off a part of the right’s general platform, and minecrafting the US healthcare system doesn’t seem likely to be a big Dem staple anytime soon.
Gun to the head, yeah I think people maybe go that way, but nobody’s going to be forced into that binary choice anytime soon.
|
On February 22 2025 10:15 Nebuchad wrote:
You think what you said makes sense, but lol you can't even define woman, lol. I'm fairly convinced that if someone was running on, like, minecrafting the US healthcare system, and the other guy was running on transphobia, you would even get some transphobes voting for the Minecraft guy. Even within transphobes, there's only a minority that cares a lot about transphobia.
According to the LBGT community a biological woman is someone who doesn't buy poppers. Of course, this is a necessary but insufficient condition; so, it is not a complete definition. Lots of transwomen buy poppers.
What is transphobia any way? The security guys working at the Adult Store Retail Chain contracting my software services get called transphobes every night.
|
On February 24 2025 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2025 10:15 Nebuchad wrote:
You think what you said makes sense, but lol you can't even define woman, lol. I'm fairly convinced that if someone was running on, like, minecrafting the US healthcare system, and the other guy was running on transphobia, you would even get some transphobes voting for the Minecraft guy. Even within transphobes, there's only a minority that cares a lot about transphobia. According to the LBGT community a biological woman is someone who doesn't buy poppers. Of course, this is a necessary but insufficient condition; so, it is not a complete definition. Lots of transwomen buy poppers. What is transphobia any way? The security guys working at the Adult Store Retail Chain contracting my software services get called transphobes every night.
Obviously we won't get baited by this weak-ass post. I guess we could have a little laugh at objectivism instead?
"Objectivism's main tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (see direct and indirect realism), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (see rational egoism), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally."
"reality exists independently of consciousness" => True!
"human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception" => True!
"that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic" => True!
"that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness" => wait what? Lol? That's like a complete 180? Suddenly we don't care about the real world and how it exists, we don't care about logic, we only care about our own perceptions and we're establishing moral goals for others? So what was the point of saying all those other things earlier? Clearly the real world, concept formation and inductive logic are going to get in the way of the pursuit of our own happiness.
"that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism" => loooooooool that's such a comically silly thing to believe  If we use the fact that we have direct contact with reality through sense perception, we can observe very easily that
1) capitalism isn't consistent with this morality at all, it constantly attacks the human rights of individuals for profit.
2) capitalism is obviously not the only social system consistent with this morality as there is no connexion between a capitalist class existing and the following of this morality. Let's pretend that capitalism was following that morality, if we kept the system exactly the same but removed the capitalist class, that morality would still be followed.
3) laissez-faire capitalism is obviously worse at respecting individual rights than regulated capitalism. The whole point of the regulations is to make it so that it's harder for the capitalists to behave in a way that is harmful to humans.
"and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally."
=> Completely random thing to throw in, sounds like this whole thing was thought of after a few drinks and Ayn just went on a tangent there.
I like this paragraph a lot because it portrays the comically large contradiction that is at the root of objectivism. First, a stated belief that reality matters and that logic is important. And then, seemingly with no trigger at all, we're abandoning all of this talk about logic and reality and we're veering off entirely into idealism and whatever dumb shit Ayn Rand believes about morals and capitalism, both of which have absolutely no connexion with reality or logic.
"Academic philosophers have generally paid little attention to or dismissed Rand's philosophy" => well yeah because only an idiot would pay a lot of attention to it, that makes sense :o)
|
On February 24 2025 08:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2025 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 22 2025 10:15 Nebuchad wrote:
You think what you said makes sense, but lol you can't even define woman, lol. I'm fairly convinced that if someone was running on, like, minecrafting the US healthcare system, and the other guy was running on transphobia, you would even get some transphobes voting for the Minecraft guy. Even within transphobes, there's only a minority that cares a lot about transphobia. According to the LBGT community a biological woman is someone who doesn't buy poppers. Of course, this is a necessary but insufficient condition; so, it is not a complete definition. Lots of transwomen buy poppers. What is transphobia any way? The security guys working at the Adult Store Retail Chain contracting my software services get called transphobes every night. Obviously we won't get baited by this weak-ass post. I guess we could have a little laugh at objectivism instead? + Show Spoiler +"Objectivism's main tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (see direct and indirect realism), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (see rational egoism), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally." "reality exists independently of consciousness" => True! "human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception" => True! "that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic" => True! "that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness" => wait what? Lol? That's like a complete 180? Suddenly we don't care about the real world and how it exists, we don't care about logic, we only care about our own perceptions and we're establishing moral goals for others? So what was the point of saying all those other things earlier? Clearly the real world, concept formation and inductive logic are going to get in the way of the pursuit of our own happiness. "that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism" => loooooooool that's such a comically silly thing to believe If we use the fact that we have direct contact with reality through sense perception, we can observe very easily that 1) capitalism isn't consistent with this morality at all, it constantly attacks the human rights of individuals for profit. 2) capitalism is obviously not the only social system consistent with this morality as there is no connexion between a capitalist class existing and the following of this morality. Let's pretend that capitalism was following that morality, if we kept the system exactly the same but removed the capitalist class, that morality would still be followed. 3) laissez-faire capitalism is obviously worse at respecting individual rights than regulated capitalism. The whole point of the regulations is to make it so that it's harder for the capitalists to behave in a way that is harmful to humans. "and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally." => Completely random thing to throw in, sounds like this whole thing was thought of after a few drinks and Ayn just went on a tangent there. I like this paragraph a lot because it portrays the comically large contradiction that is at the root of objectivism. First, a stated belief that reality matters and that logic is important. And then, seemingly with no trigger at all, we're abandoning all of this talk about logic and reality and we're veering off entirely into idealism and whatever dumb shit Ayn Rand believes about morals and capitalism, both of which have absolutely no connexion with reality or logic. "Academic philosophers have generally paid little attention to or dismissed Rand's philosophy" => well yeah because only an idiot would pay a lot of attention to it, that makes sense :o) Well said and lol.
You read/reading anything good lately?
|
Eh, not that recently I'm afraid. Last I read was probably The Shock Doctrine, which I've had for a while but hadn't taken the time to finish. But that must have been at least a year ago.
|
On February 25 2025 02:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Eh, not that recently I'm afraid. Last I read was probably The Shock Doctrine, which I've had for a while but hadn't taken the time to finish. But that must have been at least a year ago.
You read the bit on Project Cybersyn by chance? Or have a preexisting familiarity with the project generally?
|
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out
|
On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out
Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?"
|
Northern Ireland24887 Posts
On February 27 2025 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?"
One of a rather long list, albeit a blooming depressing one. Pretty fascinating, first I’d heard of this one!
|
On February 27 2025 09:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?" One of a rather long list, albeit a blooming depressing one. Pretty fascinating, first I’d heard of this one! I'm okay with reading it ~1 minute at a time, then sharing some thoughts. I think we can all manage that?
In 1970 Chilean voters opted to pursue a democratic road to socialist change under the guidance of Salvador Allende. As Chile’s first democratically elected Socialist president, Allende proposed a political third way, something different from the politics and ideology of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Allende wanted to make Chile a socialist nation, but he also wanted change to occur peacefully and in a way that respected the nation’s existing democratic processes and institutions. Moving property ownership from foreign multinationals and the Chilean oligarchy to the state, redistributing income, and creating mechanisms for worker participation were among the top priorities of the Allende government. Among the democratic institutions that Allende wished to preserve were respect for election results, individual freedoms (such as the freedom of thought, speech, press, and assembly), and the rule of law. His commitment to socialist change through constitutional means set Chile’s socialism apart from that of Cuba or the Soviet Union. His platform became known as the “Chilean road to socialism.”
Chile was an exceptional nation within Latin America. From 1932 to 1973 Chile boasted the longest period of uninterrupted democratic rule in Latin America. Allende’s outward commitment to peaceful socialist change and the free expression of ideas stood in sharp contrast to the political situation in neighboring countries such as Argentina and Brazil. In 1970 these two nations had repressive military governments that had seized control, ostensibly to stop the threat of communism. Chile was also a battleground in the global cold war and a focus of U.S. attention. From 1962 to 1969 Chile received more than a billion dollars in U.S. aid, more than any other nation in Latin America, as part of the Alliance for Progress. The United States believed such levels of aid would help raise living standards for Chileans and thus stop members of the poor and working classes from turning to communism.
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
The first thing that leaps out to me is just how few people have heard of it or the context it existed in.
Poll: Familiar with Project Cybersyn/Allende before reading about them here?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes, Both
☐ No, Neither
☐ Yes Cybersyn
☐ Yes Allende
|
Northern Ireland24887 Posts
Yeah I’m broadly familiar with Allende, not this specific program. Interesting read
One has to ask the question that if socialism is doomed to fail, why not leave it to fail?
If there’s a genuinely socialist nation that wanted socialism, was left to implement it and that tanked without outside interference, I’ve yet to encounter it.
Maybe there is one, as I say, I just haven’t encountered it.
It’s like saying ‘being a nice guy’ can’t work based on a school where ruthless bullies beat the shit out of every nice guy in the playground.
In an alternative universe where being a nice guy had failed millions of times with no such beatings, then yeah maybe you can parse that data in a certain way.
|
On February 28 2025 23:46 WombaT wrote:Yeah I’m broadly familiar with Allende, not this specific program. Interesting read One has to ask the question that if socialism is doomed to fail, why not leave it to fail? + Show Spoiler +If there’s a genuinely socialist nation that wanted socialism, was left to implement it and that tanked without outside interference, I’ve yet to encounter it.
Maybe there is one, as I say, I just haven’t encountered it.
It’s like saying ‘being a nice guy’ can’t work based on a school where ruthless bullies beat the shit out of every nice guy in the playground.
In an alternative universe where being a nice guy had failed millions of times with no such beatings, then yeah maybe you can parse that data in a certain way.
The simple answer seems to be "Because it isn't". That anyone working from that narrative is either too oblivious or operating in bad faith.
Not sure how much you read, but there's plenty in there that can help us think about the issues that we're dealing with today.
EDIT: Just from the first minute there, it is an example of how the US explicitly opposes socialism/communism more than authoritarianism. It also opposes socialism/communism more than than it supports democracy. Given the choice (or by insisting on taking it) between democratic socialism and fascistic capitalism, it repeatedly and unambiguously chooses the latter in a bipartisan fashion. It can help us recognize that the US is probably the biggest threat to human rights on the planet right now.
|
On February 27 2025 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 09:40 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?" One of a rather long list, albeit a blooming depressing one. Pretty fascinating, first I’d heard of this one! I'm okay with reading it ~1 minute at a time, then sharing some thoughts. I think we can all manage that? Show nested quote +In 1970 Chilean voters opted to pursue a democratic road to socialist change under the guidance of Salvador Allende. As Chile’s first democratically elected Socialist president, Allende proposed a political third way, something different from the politics and ideology of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Allende wanted to make Chile a socialist nation, but he also wanted change to occur peacefully and in a way that respected the nation’s existing democratic processes and institutions. Moving property ownership from foreign multinationals and the Chilean oligarchy to the state, redistributing income, and creating mechanisms for worker participation were among the top priorities of the Allende government. Among the democratic institutions that Allende wished to preserve were respect for election results, individual freedoms (such as the freedom of thought, speech, press, and assembly), and the rule of law. His commitment to socialist change through constitutional means set Chile’s socialism apart from that of Cuba or the Soviet Union. His platform became known as the “Chilean road to socialism.”
Chile was an exceptional nation within Latin America. From 1932 to 1973 Chile boasted the longest period of uninterrupted democratic rule in Latin America. Allende’s outward commitment to peaceful socialist change and the free expression of ideas stood in sharp contrast to the political situation in neighboring countries such as Argentina and Brazil. In 1970 these two nations had repressive military governments that had seized control, ostensibly to stop the threat of communism. Chile was also a battleground in the global cold war and a focus of U.S. attention. From 1962 to 1969 Chile received more than a billion dollars in U.S. aid, more than any other nation in Latin America, as part of the Alliance for Progress. The United States believed such levels of aid would help raise living standards for Chileans and thus stop members of the poor and working classes from turning to communism.
thereader.mitpress.mit.eduThe first thing that leaps out to me is just how few people have heard of it or the context it existed in. Poll: Familiar with Project Cybersyn/Allende before reading about them here?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes, Both
☐ No, Neither
☐ Yes Cybersyn
☐ Yes Allende
People are welcome to share their thoughts about the previous minute but I'm also going to move on to the next minute. The first bit is something that came to my mind while people were talking about Russia influencing US elections. The second bit is our introduction to the thinking behind starting Cybersyn
The United States responded to Allende’s election by adopting a “non-overt course” to prevent Chile from turning socialist. This included funding government opposition parties and opposition-owned media outlets and sabotaging the Chilean economy. For example, the United States established an invisible financial blockade and significantly reduced its aid to Chile. It also used its substantial influence to cut international and bilateral aid and private bank credit to Chile, prevented Allende from renegotiating the national debt he had inherited from his predecessor, and decreased the value of U.S. exports to Chile. Allende’s commitment to changing Chile’s long-standing social and economic structures also met with strong opposition from members of Chile’s privileged classes. Nevertheless, Chile’s long and solid commitment to its democratic institutions led Chileans and onlookers from around the world to wonder whether Allende and his government might succeed in pioneering a new political model.
This political experiment set the stage for an innovative and ambitious technological experiment, known as Project Cybersyn. Bringing Chile’s most important industries under state control constituted a key plank in Allende’s political platform, and it soon challenged the management capabilities of the Allende government. Members of the Chilean government thought that electronic computers and the interdisciplinary science of cybernetics might help the government gain control over the country’s economic transition.
An Unexpected Invitation
In July 1971, the British cybernetician Stafford Beer received an unexpected letter from Chile. Its contents would dramatically change Beer’s life. The writer was a young Chilean engineer named Fernando Flores, who was working for the government of newly elected Socialist president Salvador Allende. Flores worked for the Chilean State Development Corporation, the agency responsible for leading the nationalization effort. Although Flores was only 28 when he wrote Beer, he held the third-highest position in the development agency and a leadership role in the Chilean nationalization process. Flores wrote that he was familiar with Beer’s work in management cybernetics and was “now in a position from which it is possible to implement on a national scale — at which cybernetic thinking becomes a necessity — scientific views on management and organization.” Flores asked Beer for advice on how to apply cybernetics to the management of the Chilean economy, which was expanding quickly because of Allende’s aggressive nationalization policy.
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
|
|
|
As someone who listens more than speaks, just chiming in to say thank you for taking the time to put this together, and thanks to those who have contributed so far.
|
Northern Ireland24887 Posts
On March 02 2025 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2025 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 09:40 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?" One of a rather long list, albeit a blooming depressing one. Pretty fascinating, first I’d heard of this one! I'm okay with reading it ~1 minute at a time, then sharing some thoughts. I think we can all manage that? In 1970 Chilean voters opted to pursue a democratic road to socialist change under the guidance of Salvador Allende. As Chile’s first democratically elected Socialist president, Allende proposed a political third way, something different from the politics and ideology of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Allende wanted to make Chile a socialist nation, but he also wanted change to occur peacefully and in a way that respected the nation’s existing democratic processes and institutions. Moving property ownership from foreign multinationals and the Chilean oligarchy to the state, redistributing income, and creating mechanisms for worker participation were among the top priorities of the Allende government. Among the democratic institutions that Allende wished to preserve were respect for election results, individual freedoms (such as the freedom of thought, speech, press, and assembly), and the rule of law. His commitment to socialist change through constitutional means set Chile’s socialism apart from that of Cuba or the Soviet Union. His platform became known as the “Chilean road to socialism.”
Chile was an exceptional nation within Latin America. From 1932 to 1973 Chile boasted the longest period of uninterrupted democratic rule in Latin America. Allende’s outward commitment to peaceful socialist change and the free expression of ideas stood in sharp contrast to the political situation in neighboring countries such as Argentina and Brazil. In 1970 these two nations had repressive military governments that had seized control, ostensibly to stop the threat of communism. Chile was also a battleground in the global cold war and a focus of U.S. attention. From 1962 to 1969 Chile received more than a billion dollars in U.S. aid, more than any other nation in Latin America, as part of the Alliance for Progress. The United States believed such levels of aid would help raise living standards for Chileans and thus stop members of the poor and working classes from turning to communism.
thereader.mitpress.mit.eduThe first thing that leaps out to me is just how few people have heard of it or the context it existed in. Poll: Familiar with Project Cybersyn/Allende before reading about them here?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes, Both
☐ No, Neither
☐ Yes Cybersyn
☐ Yes Allende
People are welcome to share their thoughts about the previous minute but I'm also going to move on to the next minute. The first bit is something that came to my mind while people were talking about Russia influencing US elections. The second bit is our introduction to the thinking behind starting Cybersyn Show nested quote +The United States responded to Allende’s election by adopting a “non-overt course” to prevent Chile from turning socialist. This included funding government opposition parties and opposition-owned media outlets and sabotaging the Chilean economy. For example, the United States established an invisible financial blockade and significantly reduced its aid to Chile. It also used its substantial influence to cut international and bilateral aid and private bank credit to Chile, prevented Allende from renegotiating the national debt he had inherited from his predecessor, and decreased the value of U.S. exports to Chile. Allende’s commitment to changing Chile’s long-standing social and economic structures also met with strong opposition from members of Chile’s privileged classes. Nevertheless, Chile’s long and solid commitment to its democratic institutions led Chileans and onlookers from around the world to wonder whether Allende and his government might succeed in pioneering a new political model.
This political experiment set the stage for an innovative and ambitious technological experiment, known as Project Cybersyn. Bringing Chile’s most important industries under state control constituted a key plank in Allende’s political platform, and it soon challenged the management capabilities of the Allende government. Members of the Chilean government thought that electronic computers and the interdisciplinary science of cybernetics might help the government gain control over the country’s economic transition.
An Unexpected Invitation
In July 1971, the British cybernetician Stafford Beer received an unexpected letter from Chile. Its contents would dramatically change Beer’s life. The writer was a young Chilean engineer named Fernando Flores, who was working for the government of newly elected Socialist president Salvador Allende. Flores worked for the Chilean State Development Corporation, the agency responsible for leading the nationalization effort. Although Flores was only 28 when he wrote Beer, he held the third-highest position in the development agency and a leadership role in the Chilean nationalization process. Flores wrote that he was familiar with Beer’s work in management cybernetics and was “now in a position from which it is possible to implement on a national scale — at which cybernetic thinking becomes a necessity — scientific views on management and organization.” Flores asked Beer for advice on how to apply cybernetics to the management of the Chilean economy, which was expanding quickly because of Allende’s aggressive nationalization policy. thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
I find this especially interesting as I’ve pondered ‘with modern tools, specifically IT solutionsare some of the issues in trying to plan elements of the economy, more resolvable’?
But apparently folks were trying this half a century ago, it’s extremely interesting. Thanks for pushing me onto it.
The thing I find somewhat lacking in this article is how successful these efforts were, but also I guess the whole deposition of Allende saw to that overall.
I feel we’re almost in a paradoxical time. It feels to me there’s never been a better time to give it a proper shot, but yet we’re seemingly as far from it as ever. A shame if you ask me.
And I really must say I don’t fully understand why. I grasp many elements of why, but in totality less so
|
On March 02 2025 07:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2025 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 09:40 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?" One of a rather long list, albeit a blooming depressing one. Pretty fascinating, first I’d heard of this one! I'm okay with reading it ~1 minute at a time, then sharing some thoughts. I think we can all manage that? In 1970 Chilean voters opted to pursue a democratic road to socialist change under the guidance of Salvador Allende. As Chile’s first democratically elected Socialist president, Allende proposed a political third way, something different from the politics and ideology of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Allende wanted to make Chile a socialist nation, but he also wanted change to occur peacefully and in a way that respected the nation’s existing democratic processes and institutions. Moving property ownership from foreign multinationals and the Chilean oligarchy to the state, redistributing income, and creating mechanisms for worker participation were among the top priorities of the Allende government. Among the democratic institutions that Allende wished to preserve were respect for election results, individual freedoms (such as the freedom of thought, speech, press, and assembly), and the rule of law. His commitment to socialist change through constitutional means set Chile’s socialism apart from that of Cuba or the Soviet Union. His platform became known as the “Chilean road to socialism.”
Chile was an exceptional nation within Latin America. From 1932 to 1973 Chile boasted the longest period of uninterrupted democratic rule in Latin America. Allende’s outward commitment to peaceful socialist change and the free expression of ideas stood in sharp contrast to the political situation in neighboring countries such as Argentina and Brazil. In 1970 these two nations had repressive military governments that had seized control, ostensibly to stop the threat of communism. Chile was also a battleground in the global cold war and a focus of U.S. attention. From 1962 to 1969 Chile received more than a billion dollars in U.S. aid, more than any other nation in Latin America, as part of the Alliance for Progress. The United States believed such levels of aid would help raise living standards for Chileans and thus stop members of the poor and working classes from turning to communism.
thereader.mitpress.mit.eduThe first thing that leaps out to me is just how few people have heard of it or the context it existed in. Poll: Familiar with Project Cybersyn/Allende before reading about them here?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes, Both
☐ No, Neither
☐ Yes Cybersyn
☐ Yes Allende
People are welcome to share their thoughts about the previous minute but I'm also going to move on to the next minute. The first bit is something that came to my mind while people were talking about Russia influencing US elections. The second bit is our introduction to the thinking behind starting Cybersyn The United States responded to Allende’s election by adopting a “non-overt course” to prevent Chile from turning socialist. This included funding government opposition parties and opposition-owned media outlets and sabotaging the Chilean economy. For example, the United States established an invisible financial blockade and significantly reduced its aid to Chile. It also used its substantial influence to cut international and bilateral aid and private bank credit to Chile, prevented Allende from renegotiating the national debt he had inherited from his predecessor, and decreased the value of U.S. exports to Chile. Allende’s commitment to changing Chile’s long-standing social and economic structures also met with strong opposition from members of Chile’s privileged classes. Nevertheless, Chile’s long and solid commitment to its democratic institutions led Chileans and onlookers from around the world to wonder whether Allende and his government might succeed in pioneering a new political model.
This political experiment set the stage for an innovative and ambitious technological experiment, known as Project Cybersyn. Bringing Chile’s most important industries under state control constituted a key plank in Allende’s political platform, and it soon challenged the management capabilities of the Allende government. Members of the Chilean government thought that electronic computers and the interdisciplinary science of cybernetics might help the government gain control over the country’s economic transition.
An Unexpected Invitation
In July 1971, the British cybernetician Stafford Beer received an unexpected letter from Chile. Its contents would dramatically change Beer’s life. The writer was a young Chilean engineer named Fernando Flores, who was working for the government of newly elected Socialist president Salvador Allende. Flores worked for the Chilean State Development Corporation, the agency responsible for leading the nationalization effort. Although Flores was only 28 when he wrote Beer, he held the third-highest position in the development agency and a leadership role in the Chilean nationalization process. Flores wrote that he was familiar with Beer’s work in management cybernetics and was “now in a position from which it is possible to implement on a national scale — at which cybernetic thinking becomes a necessity — scientific views on management and organization.” Flores asked Beer for advice on how to apply cybernetics to the management of the Chilean economy, which was expanding quickly because of Allende’s aggressive nationalization policy. thereader.mitpress.mit.edu I find this especially interesting as I’ve pondered ‘with modern tools, specifically IT solutionsare some of the issues in trying to plan elements of the economy, more resolvable’? But apparently folks were trying this half a century ago, it’s extremely interesting. Thanks for pushing me onto it. The thing I find somewhat lacking in this article is how successful these efforts were, but also I guess the whole deposition of Allende saw to that overall. I feel we’re almost in a paradoxical time. It feels to me there’s never been a better time to give it a proper shot, but yet we’re seemingly as far from it as ever. A shame if you ask me. And I really must say I don’t fully understand why. I grasp many elements of why, but in totality less so
In some ways it is as simple as people just not stopping to consider how all of the data social media, online shopping, google, etc. could be used to better provide what we actually want/need as humans instead of being used to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars of systemic professional psychological warfare to convince us we're bad humans if we aren't constantly consuming. We're failing as individuals if we don't have the latest models of the latest useless things that identify us as part of the right group under capitalism. That we're failing society if we don't spend every spare moment measuring and judging everyone around us by those metrics.
I feel like the Dodge Ram Super Bowl commercial
+ Show Spoiler +
Juxtaposed to what MLK Jr actually thought about something like the commercial is a good example of what I'm talking about.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Northern Ireland24887 Posts
On March 04 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2025 07:01 WombaT wrote:On March 02 2025 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 09:40 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?" One of a rather long list, albeit a blooming depressing one. Pretty fascinating, first I’d heard of this one! I'm okay with reading it ~1 minute at a time, then sharing some thoughts. I think we can all manage that? In 1970 Chilean voters opted to pursue a democratic road to socialist change under the guidance of Salvador Allende. As Chile’s first democratically elected Socialist president, Allende proposed a political third way, something different from the politics and ideology of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Allende wanted to make Chile a socialist nation, but he also wanted change to occur peacefully and in a way that respected the nation’s existing democratic processes and institutions. Moving property ownership from foreign multinationals and the Chilean oligarchy to the state, redistributing income, and creating mechanisms for worker participation were among the top priorities of the Allende government. Among the democratic institutions that Allende wished to preserve were respect for election results, individual freedoms (such as the freedom of thought, speech, press, and assembly), and the rule of law. His commitment to socialist change through constitutional means set Chile’s socialism apart from that of Cuba or the Soviet Union. His platform became known as the “Chilean road to socialism.”
Chile was an exceptional nation within Latin America. From 1932 to 1973 Chile boasted the longest period of uninterrupted democratic rule in Latin America. Allende’s outward commitment to peaceful socialist change and the free expression of ideas stood in sharp contrast to the political situation in neighboring countries such as Argentina and Brazil. In 1970 these two nations had repressive military governments that had seized control, ostensibly to stop the threat of communism. Chile was also a battleground in the global cold war and a focus of U.S. attention. From 1962 to 1969 Chile received more than a billion dollars in U.S. aid, more than any other nation in Latin America, as part of the Alliance for Progress. The United States believed such levels of aid would help raise living standards for Chileans and thus stop members of the poor and working classes from turning to communism.
thereader.mitpress.mit.eduThe first thing that leaps out to me is just how few people have heard of it or the context it existed in. Poll: Familiar with Project Cybersyn/Allende before reading about them here?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes, Both
☐ No, Neither
☐ Yes Cybersyn
☐ Yes Allende
People are welcome to share their thoughts about the previous minute but I'm also going to move on to the next minute. The first bit is something that came to my mind while people were talking about Russia influencing US elections. The second bit is our introduction to the thinking behind starting Cybersyn The United States responded to Allende’s election by adopting a “non-overt course” to prevent Chile from turning socialist. This included funding government opposition parties and opposition-owned media outlets and sabotaging the Chilean economy. For example, the United States established an invisible financial blockade and significantly reduced its aid to Chile. It also used its substantial influence to cut international and bilateral aid and private bank credit to Chile, prevented Allende from renegotiating the national debt he had inherited from his predecessor, and decreased the value of U.S. exports to Chile. Allende’s commitment to changing Chile’s long-standing social and economic structures also met with strong opposition from members of Chile’s privileged classes. Nevertheless, Chile’s long and solid commitment to its democratic institutions led Chileans and onlookers from around the world to wonder whether Allende and his government might succeed in pioneering a new political model.
This political experiment set the stage for an innovative and ambitious technological experiment, known as Project Cybersyn. Bringing Chile’s most important industries under state control constituted a key plank in Allende’s political platform, and it soon challenged the management capabilities of the Allende government. Members of the Chilean government thought that electronic computers and the interdisciplinary science of cybernetics might help the government gain control over the country’s economic transition.
An Unexpected Invitation
In July 1971, the British cybernetician Stafford Beer received an unexpected letter from Chile. Its contents would dramatically change Beer’s life. The writer was a young Chilean engineer named Fernando Flores, who was working for the government of newly elected Socialist president Salvador Allende. Flores worked for the Chilean State Development Corporation, the agency responsible for leading the nationalization effort. Although Flores was only 28 when he wrote Beer, he held the third-highest position in the development agency and a leadership role in the Chilean nationalization process. Flores wrote that he was familiar with Beer’s work in management cybernetics and was “now in a position from which it is possible to implement on a national scale — at which cybernetic thinking becomes a necessity — scientific views on management and organization.” Flores asked Beer for advice on how to apply cybernetics to the management of the Chilean economy, which was expanding quickly because of Allende’s aggressive nationalization policy. thereader.mitpress.mit.edu I find this especially interesting as I’ve pondered ‘with modern tools, specifically IT solutionsare some of the issues in trying to plan elements of the economy, more resolvable’? But apparently folks were trying this half a century ago, it’s extremely interesting. Thanks for pushing me onto it. The thing I find somewhat lacking in this article is how successful these efforts were, but also I guess the whole deposition of Allende saw to that overall. I feel we’re almost in a paradoxical time. It feels to me there’s never been a better time to give it a proper shot, but yet we’re seemingly as far from it as ever. A shame if you ask me. And I really must say I don’t fully understand why. I grasp many elements of why, but in totality less so In some ways it is as simple as people just not stopping to consider how all of the data social media, online shopping, google, etc. could be used to better provide what we actually want/need as humans instead of being used to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars of systemic professional psychological warfare to convince us we're bad humans if we aren't constantly consuming. We're failing as individuals if we don't have the latest models of the latest useless things that identify us as part of the right group under capitalism. That we're failing society if we don't spend every spare moment measuring and judging everyone around us by those metrics. I feel like the Dodge Ram Super Bowl commercial + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUsz51Ep39U&t=1s Juxtaposed to what MLK Jr actually thought about something like the commercial is a good example of what I'm talking about. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_v1h6Zoi-Q
That’s the odd thing. Ya ask people what they really value, it tends not to be that.
But, much behaviour says otherwise.
|
On March 04 2025 06:17 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2025 07:01 WombaT wrote:On March 02 2025 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 09:40 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?" One of a rather long list, albeit a blooming depressing one. Pretty fascinating, first I’d heard of this one! I'm okay with reading it ~1 minute at a time, then sharing some thoughts. I think we can all manage that? In 1970 Chilean voters opted to pursue a democratic road to socialist change under the guidance of Salvador Allende. As Chile’s first democratically elected Socialist president, Allende proposed a political third way, something different from the politics and ideology of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Allende wanted to make Chile a socialist nation, but he also wanted change to occur peacefully and in a way that respected the nation’s existing democratic processes and institutions. Moving property ownership from foreign multinationals and the Chilean oligarchy to the state, redistributing income, and creating mechanisms for worker participation were among the top priorities of the Allende government. Among the democratic institutions that Allende wished to preserve were respect for election results, individual freedoms (such as the freedom of thought, speech, press, and assembly), and the rule of law. His commitment to socialist change through constitutional means set Chile’s socialism apart from that of Cuba or the Soviet Union. His platform became known as the “Chilean road to socialism.”
Chile was an exceptional nation within Latin America. From 1932 to 1973 Chile boasted the longest period of uninterrupted democratic rule in Latin America. Allende’s outward commitment to peaceful socialist change and the free expression of ideas stood in sharp contrast to the political situation in neighboring countries such as Argentina and Brazil. In 1970 these two nations had repressive military governments that had seized control, ostensibly to stop the threat of communism. Chile was also a battleground in the global cold war and a focus of U.S. attention. From 1962 to 1969 Chile received more than a billion dollars in U.S. aid, more than any other nation in Latin America, as part of the Alliance for Progress. The United States believed such levels of aid would help raise living standards for Chileans and thus stop members of the poor and working classes from turning to communism.
thereader.mitpress.mit.eduThe first thing that leaps out to me is just how few people have heard of it or the context it existed in. Poll: Familiar with Project Cybersyn/Allende before reading about them here?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes, Both
☐ No, Neither
☐ Yes Cybersyn
☐ Yes Allende
People are welcome to share their thoughts about the previous minute but I'm also going to move on to the next minute. The first bit is something that came to my mind while people were talking about Russia influencing US elections. The second bit is our introduction to the thinking behind starting Cybersyn The United States responded to Allende’s election by adopting a “non-overt course” to prevent Chile from turning socialist. This included funding government opposition parties and opposition-owned media outlets and sabotaging the Chilean economy. For example, the United States established an invisible financial blockade and significantly reduced its aid to Chile. It also used its substantial influence to cut international and bilateral aid and private bank credit to Chile, prevented Allende from renegotiating the national debt he had inherited from his predecessor, and decreased the value of U.S. exports to Chile. Allende’s commitment to changing Chile’s long-standing social and economic structures also met with strong opposition from members of Chile’s privileged classes. Nevertheless, Chile’s long and solid commitment to its democratic institutions led Chileans and onlookers from around the world to wonder whether Allende and his government might succeed in pioneering a new political model.
This political experiment set the stage for an innovative and ambitious technological experiment, known as Project Cybersyn. Bringing Chile’s most important industries under state control constituted a key plank in Allende’s political platform, and it soon challenged the management capabilities of the Allende government. Members of the Chilean government thought that electronic computers and the interdisciplinary science of cybernetics might help the government gain control over the country’s economic transition.
An Unexpected Invitation
In July 1971, the British cybernetician Stafford Beer received an unexpected letter from Chile. Its contents would dramatically change Beer’s life. The writer was a young Chilean engineer named Fernando Flores, who was working for the government of newly elected Socialist president Salvador Allende. Flores worked for the Chilean State Development Corporation, the agency responsible for leading the nationalization effort. Although Flores was only 28 when he wrote Beer, he held the third-highest position in the development agency and a leadership role in the Chilean nationalization process. Flores wrote that he was familiar with Beer’s work in management cybernetics and was “now in a position from which it is possible to implement on a national scale — at which cybernetic thinking becomes a necessity — scientific views on management and organization.” Flores asked Beer for advice on how to apply cybernetics to the management of the Chilean economy, which was expanding quickly because of Allende’s aggressive nationalization policy. thereader.mitpress.mit.edu I find this especially interesting as I’ve pondered ‘with modern tools, specifically IT solutionsare some of the issues in trying to plan elements of the economy, more resolvable’? But apparently folks were trying this half a century ago, it’s extremely interesting. Thanks for pushing me onto it. The thing I find somewhat lacking in this article is how successful these efforts were, but also I guess the whole deposition of Allende saw to that overall. I feel we’re almost in a paradoxical time. It feels to me there’s never been a better time to give it a proper shot, but yet we’re seemingly as far from it as ever. A shame if you ask me. And I really must say I don’t fully understand why. I grasp many elements of why, but in totality less so In some ways it is as simple as people just not stopping to consider how all of the data social media, online shopping, google, etc. could be used to better provide what we actually want/need as humans instead of being used to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars of systemic professional psychological warfare to convince us we're bad humans if we aren't constantly consuming. We're failing as individuals if we don't have the latest models of the latest useless things that identify us as part of the right group under capitalism. That we're failing society if we don't spend every spare moment measuring and judging everyone around us by those metrics. I feel like the Dodge Ram Super Bowl commercial + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUsz51Ep39U&t=1s Juxtaposed to what MLK Jr actually thought about something like the commercial is a good example of what I'm talking about. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_v1h6Zoi-Q That’s the odd thing. Ya ask people what they really value, it tends not to be that. But, much behaviour says otherwise.
Fighting through decades of ubiquitous, scientifically engineered, psychological/behavioral manipulation reinforced with trillions of dollars in propaganda is unsurprisingly pretty tough both individually and societally.
A lot of people's identity is wrapped up in their perceived value based on the system as it is. Dramatically changing the system threatens their personal identities and self-perception in potentially catastrophic ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
