From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Nov 16 2002 - 14:39:45 MST
On Sat, 15 Nov 2002 Dehede011@aol.com, commenting on my comments, wrote:
> The problem has two components:
> 1. Learning to maximise the outputs giving limited inputs.
> 2. Deciding what the end goals are to be.
>
> According to the theoretical work I have seen the problem is that while
> the stated goals of socialism are simple to state in broad sweeping
> statements they are impossible to define in concrete terms. What is the
> common good? What do we mean by maximise output.
I'll go beyond "classical" socialism and try to define an extropic
perspective for "goals" and "common good".
I'd sum it up in one word -- "sustainability". Ideally as self-interested
and selfish individuals we would all like to have the bills come due
for our lifetime expenditures the day after we die. But an extropic
perspective where one might live hundreds or thousands of years sticks
a pin in that balloon.
If one might live hundreds or thousands of years one begins to worry
about whether the behavior patterns in the economy may be creating
a mess that sooner or later you personally will be responsible for
cleaning up? [This is seen quite well with the endless American
struggle with urban/suburban growth, automobiles and the need for
more highways.]
Now, in "classical" socialism (or communism) of the form I've seen
in Russia, the "goal" seems to be to give everyone an equal share
of the pie. That doesn't work. The really talented people will
become lazy and the less talented people will develop schemes to
milk the "system". It is a good recipe for driving the productivity
of an economy towards its lowest common denominator.
Now, that is *not* to say that socialistic/communistic principles
are not useful in uplifting people. I will cite: (a) the overall
literacy and education of the Russian population [who 100 years
ago were essentially serfs]; (b) the Moscow subway system [which
puts the New York or London subway systems to shame]; (c) the
Russian Space program [which in the early '60s was soundly
upstaging the U.S. efforts.]
The development of Russia in the 20th century clearly shows what
socialism/communism can accomplish -- unfortunately it is tainted
by Stalinism which makes it difficult to determine whether the
benefits were worth the costs.
I'll note that neither western capitalism nor socialism or
communism have worked out the "sustainibility" problem at
this time. A quick look at recent articles published on the
decline of global fisheries is testimony to this fact.
> It is terrible but eventually we find those things too difficult define
> and too difficult to decide politically so we turn to a strong leader to make
> those decisions for us.
They aren't difficult to define -- most people are very simply
motivated -- security, survivability, happiness, self-worth.
Power gets delegated to undesirable leaders when we collectively
feel insufficient to attain these goals.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:11 MST