|
On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant?
Remove the incentive to TRADE? Are you dense?
Resources aren't free. And neither are they abudant. There is a limited amount of gold, platinum and uranium on this planet. There's a limited amount of silicon and oil on this planet. This isn't man-made, nor controlled man-made supply induced by evil capitalism.
There's two ways of making these resources abundant. Either head out into space and mine stuff there, towing it back to earth while using a ton of resources to get another resource back to earth. Or, a much easier plan, kill nigh everyone on the planet so there is less people to share with. Neither of these scenarios are realistic.
What if people don't want to share? Who is going to stop them from denying you stuff?
On May 07 2012 05:04 DeliCiousVP wrote:
our Economy is an anti economy its about manufacturaing resources unevenly distrubute them and create waste oh so much waste all the waste.
a RBE is a true economy that has one focus to create abundance for all recquired resources in demand and make everything recyclable so we create the least waste possible.
Fact there is a thousand reasons why our monetary system is shit. and as someone as someone say its to expansive they continue proving how shitty the system is. When i show my students i take a piece of papper shred the corner of the page
and say guess which one represents the resources and which one the money we have to attain the resources?
You are a teacher? In what subject exactly?
|
On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that.
Right, "this time" it will work. "This time" we have the technology to make it happen.
PROVE IT!
Spewing out theories on how it will work is not proof! People keep saying that they can manage production without a market system. But they can't show how that will be done.
For example, how will you calculate batch or order size without price?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_order_quantity
What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas?
|
Would be cool, I would even go along with it... Doubt it's gonna happen though.
|
Manufacturing & distribution are not disparate processes they are in fact one in the same. Workers are paid their marginal revenue product. What you contribute to the production process is what you get paid.
|
On May 07 2012 05:06 Chaosvuistje wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant? Remove the incentive to TRADE? Are you dense? Resources aren't free. And neither are they abudant. There is a limited amount of gold, platinum and uranium on this planet. There's a limited amount of silicon and oil on this planet. This isn't man-made, nor controlled man-made supply induced by evil capitalism. There's two ways of making these resources abundant. Either head out into space and mine stuff there, towing it back to earth while using a ton of resources to get another resource back to earth. Or, a much easier plan, kill nigh everyone on the planet so there is less people to share with. Neither of these scenarios are realistic. What if people don't want to share? Who is going to stop them from denying you stuff?
Its true we do have finite resources but the general goods we use today can be made abundant. obviously a person cant request 5 tons of gold to make a statue off himself. Synthetic substitues will be an important part of future economies RBE.
and there will be supervision over where resources are allocated that is just part of the system. many of the kinks like this will be discovered as we move along this transition period.
And people will share people will do nothing but share they just wont trade.
|
On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. Right, "this time" it will work. "This time" we have the technology to make it happen. PROVE IT! Spewing out theories on how it will work is not proof! People keep saying that they can manage production without a market system. But they can't show how that will be done. For example, how will you calculate batch or order size without price? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_order_quantityWhat will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas?
Um...
What sort of "proof" do you have in mind? Can you prove that there is no alternative? That would require a rather elaborate proof by induction. This is not the sort of thing that one "proves."
It is not "this time." All actually-existing communisms have been based on fundamentally flawed readings of Marx and some other really silly ideas to boot. The information economy will look nothing like 20th century industrial communisms, so there is no "this time."
Criticizing "communism" because of Mao, Stalin et al. is like criticizing democracy because of the "Democratic Republic of the Congo."
Please note that I am not advocating the abolition of currency. I am also not advocating the complete abolition of market systems. Some other people in this thread might be but that is naive.
For the most part you won't need nearly as elaborate supply chains because mode of production in an information age is locally distributed and doesn't rely on global supply chains to nearly the extent that we do today in late capitalism.
|
On May 07 2012 05:13 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
Manufacturing & distribution are not disparate processes they are in fact one in the same. Workers are paid their marginal revenue product. What you contribute to the production process is what you get paid.
What? No! Then nobody would ever get hired.
The capitalist has to extract surplus value from the laborer, otherwise there's no point. The laborer gets paid PART of what he contributes to the production process, the rest goes to the capitalist.
|
On May 07 2012 05:18 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. Right, "this time" it will work. "This time" we have the technology to make it happen. PROVE IT! Spewing out theories on how it will work is not proof! People keep saying that they can manage production without a market system. But they can't show how that will be done. For example, how will you calculate batch or order size without price? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_order_quantityWhat will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? Um... What sort of "proof" do you have in mind? Can you prove that there is no alternative? That would require a rather elaborate proof by induction. This is not the sort of thing that one "proves." It is not "this time." All actually-existing communisms have been based on fundamentally flawed readings of Marx and some other really silly ideas to boot. The information economy will look nothing like 20th century industrial communisms, so there is no "this time." Criticizing "communism" because of Mao, Stalin et al. is like criticizing democracy because of the "Democratic Republic of the Congo." Please note that I am not advocating the abolition of currency. I am also not advocating the complete abolition of market systems. Some other people in this thread might be but that is naive. For the most part you won't need nearly as elaborate supply chains because mode of production in an information age is locally distributed and doesn't rely on global supply chains to nearly the extent that we do today in late capitalism.
By "proof" I mean take you ideas and use them and then show us the results. Then compare the results to what the current system does.
|
On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas?
a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected.
The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use.
|
On May 07 2012 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:18 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. Right, "this time" it will work. "This time" we have the technology to make it happen. PROVE IT! Spewing out theories on how it will work is not proof! People keep saying that they can manage production without a market system. But they can't show how that will be done. For example, how will you calculate batch or order size without price? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_order_quantityWhat will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? Um... What sort of "proof" do you have in mind? Can you prove that there is no alternative? That would require a rather elaborate proof by induction. This is not the sort of thing that one "proves." It is not "this time." All actually-existing communisms have been based on fundamentally flawed readings of Marx and some other really silly ideas to boot. The information economy will look nothing like 20th century industrial communisms, so there is no "this time." Criticizing "communism" because of Mao, Stalin et al. is like criticizing democracy because of the "Democratic Republic of the Congo." Please note that I am not advocating the abolition of currency. I am also not advocating the complete abolition of market systems. Some other people in this thread might be but that is naive. For the most part you won't need nearly as elaborate supply chains because mode of production in an information age is locally distributed and doesn't rely on global supply chains to nearly the extent that we do today in late capitalism. By "proof" I mean take you ideas and use them and then show us the results. Then compare the results to what the current system does.
Ok, give me a country.
How is it you imagine I am going to get these results? You're allowed to do theory before you implement things. In fact, that's often a fairly good idea.
|
On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use.
If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around.
If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that.
|
I think you guys are missing the point, the OP talks about a society that is almost completely automated. At that point, our society would have moved toward a less labour and more thinking level society. The question of tommorow is how we will quantify Intellectual Property and predict their usefullness in society. It'll be more trading of labour machines and IP than anything else. Trading IP at that point will be pretty hard so a destruction of a monetary system makes sense.
|
On May 07 2012 05:23 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:18 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. Right, "this time" it will work. "This time" we have the technology to make it happen. PROVE IT! Spewing out theories on how it will work is not proof! People keep saying that they can manage production without a market system. But they can't show how that will be done. For example, how will you calculate batch or order size without price? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_order_quantityWhat will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? Um... What sort of "proof" do you have in mind? Can you prove that there is no alternative? That would require a rather elaborate proof by induction. This is not the sort of thing that one "proves." It is not "this time." All actually-existing communisms have been based on fundamentally flawed readings of Marx and some other really silly ideas to boot. The information economy will look nothing like 20th century industrial communisms, so there is no "this time." Criticizing "communism" because of Mao, Stalin et al. is like criticizing democracy because of the "Democratic Republic of the Congo." Please note that I am not advocating the abolition of currency. I am also not advocating the complete abolition of market systems. Some other people in this thread might be but that is naive. For the most part you won't need nearly as elaborate supply chains because mode of production in an information age is locally distributed and doesn't rely on global supply chains to nearly the extent that we do today in late capitalism. By "proof" I mean take you ideas and use them and then show us the results. Then compare the results to what the current system does. Ok, give me a country. How is it you imagine I am going to get these results? You're allowed to do theory before you implement things. In fact, that's often a fairly good idea.
Pretty sure you can test your theories in a controlled setting first. Economists do it all the time to test theories.
For example:
http://healy.econ.ohio-state.edu/papers/Georganas_Healy_Li-InflationExperiment.pdf
From there you build your model of how things work and allow it to be peer reviewed. As you provide more and more data as to how it works you form a consensus with the academic community and begin to change public policy.
|
how the fuck can anyone here believe this crap? I'm disappointed
edit: rather than believe, not find it absolutely dumb and ridiculous.
|
On May 07 2012 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:23 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:18 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Universal civil service.
And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. Right, "this time" it will work. "This time" we have the technology to make it happen. PROVE IT! Spewing out theories on how it will work is not proof! People keep saying that they can manage production without a market system. But they can't show how that will be done. For example, how will you calculate batch or order size without price? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_order_quantityWhat will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? Um... What sort of "proof" do you have in mind? Can you prove that there is no alternative? That would require a rather elaborate proof by induction. This is not the sort of thing that one "proves." It is not "this time." All actually-existing communisms have been based on fundamentally flawed readings of Marx and some other really silly ideas to boot. The information economy will look nothing like 20th century industrial communisms, so there is no "this time." Criticizing "communism" because of Mao, Stalin et al. is like criticizing democracy because of the "Democratic Republic of the Congo." Please note that I am not advocating the abolition of currency. I am also not advocating the complete abolition of market systems. Some other people in this thread might be but that is naive. For the most part you won't need nearly as elaborate supply chains because mode of production in an information age is locally distributed and doesn't rely on global supply chains to nearly the extent that we do today in late capitalism. By "proof" I mean take you ideas and use them and then show us the results. Then compare the results to what the current system does. Ok, give me a country. How is it you imagine I am going to get these results? You're allowed to do theory before you implement things. In fact, that's often a fairly good idea. Pretty sure you can test your theories in a controlled setting first. Economists do it all the time to test theories. For example: http://healy.econ.ohio-state.edu/papers/Georganas_Healy_Li-InflationExperiment.pdfFrom there you build your model of how things work and allow it to be peer reviewed. As you provide more and more data as to how it works you form a consensus with the academic community and begin to change public policy.
Yes, that sounds like a good idea! Why don't you do that?
I am a cultural theorist, not an mathematician, so that would not be my area of expertise. And you need to do high-level theory before you can start making testable models, and there's still a lot of work to do in that field. I think the hardest problems are cultural and political, not economic and technological.
But as one of my most favorite professors liked to say, "put your model where your mouth is!"
|
On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity
A study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable.
http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-drivers
Car sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other.
I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles.
This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources.
|
On May 07 2012 05:42 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:23 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:18 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:
[quote]
Universal civil service?
And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. Right, "this time" it will work. "This time" we have the technology to make it happen. PROVE IT! Spewing out theories on how it will work is not proof! People keep saying that they can manage production without a market system. But they can't show how that will be done. For example, how will you calculate batch or order size without price? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_order_quantityWhat will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? Um... What sort of "proof" do you have in mind? Can you prove that there is no alternative? That would require a rather elaborate proof by induction. This is not the sort of thing that one "proves." It is not "this time." All actually-existing communisms have been based on fundamentally flawed readings of Marx and some other really silly ideas to boot. The information economy will look nothing like 20th century industrial communisms, so there is no "this time." Criticizing "communism" because of Mao, Stalin et al. is like criticizing democracy because of the "Democratic Republic of the Congo." Please note that I am not advocating the abolition of currency. I am also not advocating the complete abolition of market systems. Some other people in this thread might be but that is naive. For the most part you won't need nearly as elaborate supply chains because mode of production in an information age is locally distributed and doesn't rely on global supply chains to nearly the extent that we do today in late capitalism. By "proof" I mean take you ideas and use them and then show us the results. Then compare the results to what the current system does. Ok, give me a country. How is it you imagine I am going to get these results? You're allowed to do theory before you implement things. In fact, that's often a fairly good idea. Pretty sure you can test your theories in a controlled setting first. Economists do it all the time to test theories. For example: http://healy.econ.ohio-state.edu/papers/Georganas_Healy_Li-InflationExperiment.pdfFrom there you build your model of how things work and allow it to be peer reviewed. As you provide more and more data as to how it works you form a consensus with the academic community and begin to change public policy. Yes, that sounds like a good idea! Why don't you do that? I am a cultural theorist, not an mathematician, so that would not be my area of expertise. And you need to do high-level theory before you can start making testable models, and there's still a lot of work to do in that field. I think the hardest problems are cultural and political, not economic and technological. But as one of my most favorite professors liked to say, "put your model where your mouth is!"
I would have thought that if this stuff was real the people behind Zeitgeist, Venus Project, The Free World Charter and all the other communist films out there would have already done some level of real research before making their films.
Otherwise it would just be propaganda.
And no, I have no interest doing it myself. I see no value in staying at university for more years than I already have trying to prove something I don't believe in.
|
On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources.
None of those 3 are being suppressed.
|
On May 07 2012 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:42 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:23 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:18 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc.
Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible.
In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc.
the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. Right, "this time" it will work. "This time" we have the technology to make it happen. PROVE IT! Spewing out theories on how it will work is not proof! People keep saying that they can manage production without a market system. But they can't show how that will be done. For example, how will you calculate batch or order size without price? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_order_quantityWhat will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? Um... What sort of "proof" do you have in mind? Can you prove that there is no alternative? That would require a rather elaborate proof by induction. This is not the sort of thing that one "proves." It is not "this time." All actually-existing communisms have been based on fundamentally flawed readings of Marx and some other really silly ideas to boot. The information economy will look nothing like 20th century industrial communisms, so there is no "this time." Criticizing "communism" because of Mao, Stalin et al. is like criticizing democracy because of the "Democratic Republic of the Congo." Please note that I am not advocating the abolition of currency. I am also not advocating the complete abolition of market systems. Some other people in this thread might be but that is naive. For the most part you won't need nearly as elaborate supply chains because mode of production in an information age is locally distributed and doesn't rely on global supply chains to nearly the extent that we do today in late capitalism. By "proof" I mean take you ideas and use them and then show us the results. Then compare the results to what the current system does. Ok, give me a country. How is it you imagine I am going to get these results? You're allowed to do theory before you implement things. In fact, that's often a fairly good idea. Pretty sure you can test your theories in a controlled setting first. Economists do it all the time to test theories. For example: http://healy.econ.ohio-state.edu/papers/Georganas_Healy_Li-InflationExperiment.pdfFrom there you build your model of how things work and allow it to be peer reviewed. As you provide more and more data as to how it works you form a consensus with the academic community and begin to change public policy. Yes, that sounds like a good idea! Why don't you do that? I am a cultural theorist, not an mathematician, so that would not be my area of expertise. And you need to do high-level theory before you can start making testable models, and there's still a lot of work to do in that field. I think the hardest problems are cultural and political, not economic and technological. But as one of my most favorite professors liked to say, "put your model where your mouth is!" I would have thought that if this stuff was real the people behind Zeitgeist, Venus Project, The Free World Charter and all the other communist films out there would have already done some level of real research before making their films.
Yes, that kind of stuff is just empty rhetoric. But it does show that people are interested in thinking about the future again, which is the kind of revolutionary impulse that neoliberalism has up until now done a pretty good job of suppressing, so I'm very happy to see people talking like this even if it is not a real programme.
edit:
And no, I have no interest doing it myself. I see no value in staying at university for more years than I already have trying to prove something I don't believe in.
But you will spend a lot of time on the internet arguing that the whole thing is impossible and can't be done, and we shouldn't even try and just accept the system we have now without critically considering its limitations and how they might be overcome.
|
On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Universal civil service.
And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed.
They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
