Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 113 posts

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#61

Post by shrubble »

wazoox wrote: post #36
shrubble wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China basically promised the people who are now in their 40s and 50s benefits that they will not get. This also happened in former Soviet countries. China has destroyed some of their environment, trading off building up industry for pollution. This also happened in former Soviet countries.

You mean like lifting more than 300 millions people out of dire poverty? Chinese in their 40s and 50s rabidly defend their government, because it delivered. I bemoan lack of democracy, Xinjiang repression, pollution and all the rest; but the fact is that the past 30 years have been a success of unseen proportions for China.

After the Cultural Revolution and after the Four Pests Campaign, there wasn't any other direction to go than up, for those who were still alive, that is.

The Chinese were made poor by the Communist party and only rescued by moving away from the doctrine to something else.

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#62

Post by tsimionescu »

chr1 wrote: post #53
tsimionescu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialism is essentially only an extension of democracy to the economic system. Since democracy seems to work relatively decently (warts and all) for most prosperous societies, I don't see why human nature is a good argument for saying it's impossible.

Capitalism is also an extension of democracy, the difference is that with capitalism you get to choose how to vote, by giving part of your vote to someone who have created a better product, and get someone elses vote by doing something useful. With socialism you get the same amount of votes whether you do something useful or not, and can spend that vote on the only type of product whether you like it or not. This is…

Buying is an extremely indirect form of voting. What socialism means is that workers inside a corporation would democratically decide how to run that corporation, instead of being handed down directions from an absolute ruler (the CEO/Board of directors).

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#63

Post by monocasa »

iudqnolq wrote: post #57
nullstyle wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> my comment merely argued that the implementation of the Nobel Prize in Economics is such that the prize is awarded in the exact same way as all the other Nobel Prizes; in other words, it's no less reputable than the originals. Naw, IMO the reputability of a prize owes to whole lot more than just shared selection principles. I was just linking to some work in which others question the reputation of the prize as wel…

Care to provide anything beyond "naw" to support your claim that the same people deciding doesn't means decisions are equally reputable?

There isn't one committee; each prize has it's own committee. The economics one is pretty much entirely staffed out of one branch of economics as a propaganda mechanism.

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#64

Post by iudqnolq »

monocasa wrote: post #63
iudqnolq wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to provide anything beyond "naw" to support your claim that the same people deciding doesn't means decisions are equally reputable?

There isn't one committee; each prize has it's own committee. The economics one is pretty much entirely staffed out of one branch of economics as a propaganda mechanism.

Isn't the economics committee selected by the Nobel foundation?

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#65

Post by analog31 »

pram wrote: post #4

I always thought ERP is basically applied “cybernetics” Also a big problem with a system like this, in the 20th century socialist states, is that the input data would have been complete bullshit. That was one of the issues the soviet gosplan ran up against during the final days. Everyone was lying about their production numbers so the data was useless, whether in a fancy computer system or not.

As I've observed, ERP systems also require factories talking to one another on the phone, to work out production plans and schedules. I worked for a company that supplied parts to customers with ERP systems, and their systems generated boom-bust cycles. We took care of them by making our own estimate of how much each customer needed per month, and keeping a bit of inventory cushion.

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#66

Post by chr1 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #62
chr1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is also an extension of democracy, the difference is that with capitalism you get to choose how to vote, by giving part of your vote to someone who have created a better product, and get someone elses vote by doing something useful. With socialism you get the same amount of votes whether you do something useful or not, and can spend that vote on the only type of product whether you like it or not. This is…

Buying is an extremely indirect form of voting. What socialism means is that workers inside a corporation would democratically decide how to run that corporation, instead of being handed down directions from an absolute ruler (the CEO/Board of directors).

That's only the first half of what socialism means, the second half is that if they make poor choices, and their corporation goes bankrupt, the other corporation has to employ them and give the same amount of voting power, as to the old workers who had made better choices, and kept their corporation working.

The first half is pretty much uncontroversial, and would work under capitalism too. The problematic part is the second half which resets the board, giving the same voting power to qualified and unqualified worker, and removing the incentive to work well.

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#67

Post by kspacewalk2 »

eirini1 wrote: post #52
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not everyone . Some people were allowed to live so that an unprecedented era of prosperity unmatched by any other country in Latin America could be ushered in.

unprecedented prosperity for like, 20 people. The millions of other people definitely haven't enjoyed anything but immense poverty and misery since the Pinochet coup the implementation of the neoliberal wet dream.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you haven't traveled around Latin America much and have never been to Chile, and seen the dramatic difference?

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#68

Post by monocasa »

iudqnolq wrote: post #64
monocasa wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't one committee; each prize has it's own committee. The economics one is pretty much entirely staffed out of one branch of economics as a propaganda mechanism.

Isn't the economics committee selected by the Nobel foundation?

Practically they're selected by existing economics committee members.

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#69

Post by kspacewalk2 »

sudosysgen wrote: post #51
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not everyone . Some people were allowed to live so that an unprecedented era of prosperity unmatched by any other country in Latin America could be ushered in.

So prosperous that raising the price of public transit by a few dollars has led to widespread protests.

Are we comparing it to Canada or something? Then you're right, it's not that close. Or are we comparing it to the lands of triumphant Salvador Allendes, like Venezuela? No successful coup took place there, and I hear the transit is downright free in Caracas these days.

Re: Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism

#70

Post by iudqnolq »

monocasa wrote: post #68
iudqnolq wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the economics committee selected by the Nobel foundation?

Practically they're selected by existing economics committee members.

That would make me incorrect, if true. Source?
Post reply on HN