No.101972
Did Cockshott solve the Economic Calculation Problem? He says you can just use computers to handle distribution.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101973
>"Technology will fix it"
t. every socialist big brain who grew up watching Star Trek
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101977
>>101972
>amazon is already existing socialism
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101978
>>101973
Thanks to technology you are shitposting at midnight instead of dying of disentery in your 20s because the berries you picked up were poisonous, faggot
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101980
Imagine being presented with this problem: you must perform arithmetic without numbers. You cannot use symbols of any kind, nor can you use physical "counters" (rods, rocks, fingers, etc.), nor anything else that amounts to representing numerical quantities. You rack your brain over this, but you cannot come up with a plausible solution. You present this problem to an acquaintance. He furrows his brows and gives you a bewildered look. "Couldn't you just use a calculator?"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101983
If you consider representing every economic factor within matrix equations as plausible and the resulting high standard deviation from actual market results acceptable, then yes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101985
>>101978
I'm not some primitivist fag, but the idea that somehow socialism becomes viable when we reach some end point of technological advancement is the kind of stuff MovieBlob and his ilk come out with.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102037
>>101985
It's pretty much on par with the notion that the ECP has anything to do with socialism.
The name for the system where the CEO plans all the little serfs is capitalism. Making the argument one of epic self-pwnage.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102040
>>101972
No, he didn't. To put this as concise as I can, you require a market in capital goods to have the very numbers you would put into a computer to calculate with. If you only have prices for consumer goods, you cannot calculate back from them to the price of capital goods. After all, a toothbrush fetches the same price the same whether you use a straightforward production method (like using plain water) or a roundabout one (like using hydrogen electrolysis to create it), but in one case, production costs will be much higher. That they will be higher can only be said because we have a rough idea of the market price of the capital involved, it's not a constant that electrolysis is always a more roundabout production process. When you're in space, for example, it's not so obviously a worse idea than bringing your own water. We can make a thousand such Nor can you calculate the production costs of capital goods and set the price a little higher, because for that, you also need prices for capital goods to begin with.
This nigger >>101980 said it as it is, and unlike me, he doesn't get carried way when trying to be concise. You can trust him, anon.
>>102037
Unlike stereotypical serfs, you don't owe your CEO military service, and you can freely leave him whenever you want.
I say "stereotypical" because not a single one of you gay ass niggas has ever read a heavy ass textbook on medieval economics, or else you'd know that "feudalism" was hardly a homogenous institution and probably wasn't an institution at all. Pussy nigger.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102052
>>102040
>Unlike stereotypical serfs, you don't owe your CEO military service
Huh? What do you fucking mean by that? My child soldiers will protect the company's heroin farm with their lives if they have to.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102068
>>101985
>somehow socialism becomes viable when we reach some end point of technological advancement
Isn't that the premise of the Federation in Star Trek?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102072
>>102068
So it is, with S1-S2 of TNG being the peak of Roddenberry's autism. Later installments, particularly DS9, like to emphasize that all is not in fact well with paradise.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102073
>>102072
>>102068
Not really. It's just post-scarcity social democracy; people still own things, but work isn't necessary
But you can't say really understand it unless you've read a lot of golden age sci-fi; it's based on a very warped vision of human nature
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102084
>>102073
>It's just post-scarcity social democracy; people still own things, but work isn't necessary
That doesn't preclude it from being socialist, as socialists make that retarded distinction between private property and personal property.
>But you can't say really understand it unless you've read a lot of golden age sci-fi; it's based on a very warped vision of human nature
You don't need to read golden-age sci-fi to understand that although there are plenty of other very good reasons to read golden-age sci-fi as Asimov, Heinlein, and Clare are talented authors Roddenberry had a peculiar brand of autism which made him believe humanity would "evolve" to a point where crime, poverty, and all intra-human conflict were eliminated from existence.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102085
>>102084
>a peculiar brand of autism which made him believe humanity would "evolve" to a point where crime, poverty, and all intra-human conflict were eliminated from existence.
This is a notion shared by many great thinkers. That society, Humanity, will become so powerful and so great that those stop being relevant issues. Not necessarily that there would be absolutely no conflict (indeed, I think you simply overspoke here) but that anything of that nature would be small and irrelevant.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102099
>>101985
I am collapse cult incarnate so…
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102101
>>102085
random violent crime is already solved
not globally of course, but in a first world country you can generally go outside and live your whole life and never get mugged or assaulted or anything like that
big crimes that involve moving numbers around still dictate your day to day life, and orginized crime like taxes and whatnot are still a reality, but I wouldnt be on this board if I didnt think it was possible to leave that behind
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102107
>>102085
>that there would be absolutely no conflict (indeed, I think you simply overspoke here)
Nono, I was actually paraphrasing what Roddenberry thought. He repeatedly refused all attempts by scriptwriters to include any kind of inter-character drama or conflict, because he thought that humanity would have evolved beyond that sort of thing, and the only sources of conflict should be external. Roddenberry didn't always get his wish as he didn't have absolute power on the show, but he always pushed in that direction.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102116
seriously related to this topic, i'm mildly concerned that the future invention of biological immortality, designer genetic modification, advanced cybernetics or artificial intelligence could render existing political systems obsolete and replace them with something we can't yet comprehend. we of course believe that libertarianism is the best form of government for archetypical modern humans, but what about a majority of humans fused together with a single telepathic consciousness, or a society of intelligent non-human entities? i think for these examples i might really have to say - i don't think locke or jefferson were thinking of this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102118
>>102116
>we of course believe that libertarianism is the best form of government for archetypical modern humans, but what about a majority of humans fused together with a single telepathic consciousness, or a society of intelligent non-human entities?
These are genuine concerns. However, I think they can all be addressed by taking each one and asking individually: does this solve the calculation problem? I think the answer is "maybe" for a telepathic gestalt consciousness and "no" for non-human entities. As long as the answer is something other than yes, free markets, and by extension liberty, will have a place in the discourse. You might even argue that the accelerating pace of technology will be enough to finally leave the government in the dust permanently, and would make the path to liberty smoother.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102120
>>102116
If by singular consciousness you truly mean just one big mind, then there would only be one market actor to value things. Technically, this would be the same as if things had an objective value, so economic calculation would be easy.
If, on the other hand, you just mean that people communicate telepathically across the entire world, then no. Subjective valuations would still exist and there would still be no means of calculation. If anything, it would just speed up the operation of the price system the way the internet did.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102121
A piece of a system cannot be more complex than the system itself.
Computers are part of the economy. For a computer to calculate and predict the actions of 7 billion people, plus the entire resources of the planet plus outside interference, that computers probably gonna need a lot of power. That power consumption also has to be factored into calculating the economy. Along with that, it is likely that other computers in the world exist of equal or close complexity, so these also need to be factored in. If you somehow eventually manage to calculate the economy along with the impact your computer and all the other computers in the world, you have to ask yourself, was it even worth wasting all of these economic resources just so you can justify central planning?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102127
>>102121
>piece of a system cannot be more complex than the system itself.
>Computers are part of the economy. For a computer to calculate and predict the actions of 7 billion people, plus the entire resources of the planet plus outside interference, that computers probably gonna need a lot of power.
I'm not Socialist nor have I read Cockbutt, but I did see one guy claim that there would be a computer in every community handling the distribution of resources. It's almost dystopian when you think about it because a computer decides what materials you get and what you get to eat.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102129
>>102127
>there would be a computer in every community handling the distribution of resources
For that to work they would need to create laws preventing all others in a community from having a computer or limiting it to people having very weak computers. The way that's written (as an alternative to having a central supercomputer) implies that each computer would only calculate its own communities economics, which implies trade and travel would have to be entirely cut off between communities, which can only create stagnation. And ALL OF THIS (including my previous post) is built on the assumption human behavior can be predicted; humans are illogical and each unique. Trying to predict them is impossible.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102137
>>102129
>And ALL OF THIS (including my previous post) is built on the assumption human behavior can be predicted; humans are illogical and each unique. Trying to predict them is impossible.
I think the biggest argument against "computers can do the calculation" is the butterfly effect. Human societies are extremely dynamic systems. Just on principle you would have to collect a massive amount of data on every aspect of life (which is what the Soviets tried to do), from the individual attitudes and needs of the humans inhabiting the society to external factors such as resource availability, willingness of other societies to trade–and often, unseen factors have the greatest impact on human society. For example, innovation can severely disrupt the labor/resource needs of society and yet it is impossible to predict the invention of "the next big thing", whether it be plastic, smartphones, or learning-capable AIs. If these things were easy to predict, we would already have them. The only way to keep this aspect of society predictable would be to suppress innovation. Similarly, if everyone knew the Black Plague was coming, it probably wouldn't have "happened".
Furthermore, at the end of the day it is a human designing the computer system to be used, or at least evaluating its effectiveness in satisfying the needs of a society. So your computer system is only going to be as effective at this task as the person designing it, and because of the aforementioned factors, it can be very hard defining "success" for a society. Is it okay if "success" only lasts for five years? Is the definition of "success" full employment? (You know damn well whoever's designing such a system to manage human societies might have retarded beliefs like this). Is the definition of "success" when everyone feels happy? How is this going to be measured? Surveys?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102141
>>102137
you lobotomize the people with soy
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102142
>>102084
>That doesn't preclude it from being socialist, as socialists make that retarded distinction between private property and personal property.
Yeah but the thing is nothing's explicitly preventing anyone from owning what a socialist would call "private property".
It's just that people aren't driven to own it because it's a fantasy world where humans don't have unlimited desires and holy shit you're right it IS socialism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102156
>>102129
Remarkably ignorant of communism and socialism, that image.
More damningly, using violence against the peaceful to acquire food is… system-independent.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102157
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102194
>>102129
>>102137
There is no convincing argument that human behavior can never be perfectly predicted. Humans are deterministic, their actions carried out through organs which are deterministic in a reality where all things are deterministic. It is theoretically possible to build some sort of god machine which knows exactly how every single person would react to something or exactly how much of something they need, if it was given enough data. That is all irrelevant, of course, to the actual reasons Communists are shit. I just find your lack of faith in Human engineering disturbing. Nothing seems to be truly beyond our understanding and everything we know we can build into our machines. Simply because you fail to see how it could be done today does not mean that it cannot be done - today or otherwise.
>>102157
Just more Communist lies and deceptions. He's seems to be pretending that really, we're the violent monsters for advocating peaceful coexistence and they're the glorious paladins for advocating the impossibly non-violent redistribution of wealth to those poor people who have nothing from those rich fat cats who have too much. At least, that's all I could glean from his vague post.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102195
>>102194
The economic calculation problem still applies even if with the assumption that humans are deterministic. Yes, because we're all atoms, and atoms behave in predictable ways, it is theoretically conceivable that you can create a computerized simulation that predicts human behavior given infinite computational power. However, due to the inherent subjectivity of value, and the prices which are derived from value, this simulation will not be a model. That is to say, it won't be a simplified representation of reality, but what is effectively a one-to-one reproduction of reality in digital form. So even in this extreme scenario, you can't honestly say that you've managed to devise a method of calculation that replaces the free market. You have simply created a second free market which exactly matches up with your market, and are blindly copying the interactions you observe in the free market. This is ultimately a tacit admission that the price system is the only meaningful way to allocate resources, dismissing any socialist aspirations at calculation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102197
>>102194
I literally just came from >>>/x/47509
Your commie god computer has nothing on me, I'll simply jump to the next attractor field before you can guess what I'm doing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102248
>>102194
>It is theoretically possible to build some sort of god machine
And it's "theoretically possible" to build a perfect Carnot engine, which was conceived of in the seventeenth century. If you were God, then maybe. Otherwise, you're stuck on Earth with us, because space travel isn't actually economically viable.
"Theoretically possible" doesn't mean that it'll ever be built. There's "unrealistic" and then there's "theoretically possible". You underestimate the magnitude of "enough". A single gram of DNA can encode 10^21 bytes of information. You could fit the entire current global volume of digital data, including every single one of Google/NSA's data centers in the palm of your hand, if it were encoded in DNA. Now consider that a single human consists of about half that much DNA. Now consider that you want to simulate the interactions of the growing number of seven billion humans (O(n^2)) over time, and DNA isn't the only determining factor to their behavior. Unless you somehow find a way to validate the performance of or construct such a system without data, or manage to increase our data processing capabilities by a factor of a googol or so (when we're already hitting the limits of quantum mechanics with electronic computing and are either going to have to switch to optical, DNA, or quantum computing) as well as our ability to shuffle around data (look at the graphs of RAM speed/bandwidth vs CPU speed over time), you're up shit creek.
>Nothing seems to be truly beyond our understanding
How about fucking everything? Most of what humans have managed to accomplish is the result of "just werks" empirical observations and squeezing all conceivable use of the few things we can do. Actually understanding and exploiting the fundamental nature of physical mechanisms and the universe is a different question altogether. How about an analytical solution to a phenomenon as mundane as the flow of viscous fluids: the Navier-Stokes equations. Nuclear fusion. Wouldn't it be great if we could produce theoretically unlimited energy with none of the hazardous waste of nuclear fission? We've been revising the model of the atom for centuries. We think we have it right this time, but so did everyone else. What about medicine? What does it say about us that our best solution for cancer is bombarding the cancer with radiation/poison and hoping the cancer dies before the patient does?
>I find your lack of faith in X disturbing.
nice meme but unfortunately not an argument.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102251
>>102101
>but in a first world country you can generally go outside and live your whole life and never get mugged or assaulted or anything like that
In ancient times you could too. This has been the case for most of human history outside of war-torn regions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102252
>>102248
>Actually understanding and exploiting the fundamental nature of physical mechanisms and the universe is a different question altogether.
Friendly reminder it would take a particle collider the size of our solar system to even begin to understand the mechanism that is gravity.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102253
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.103060
>>102194
>all things are deterministic. It is theoretically possible to build some sort of god machine which knows exactly how every single person would react to something or exactly how much of something they need
This does not follow.
A six-sided die is deterministic; it follows the same laws of physics as everything else. However, rolled from just a few inches above a sufficiently hard surface, the end position of that die is infinitely sensitive to initial conditions. That means you would have to have a literally infinite amount of information to predict which side will land up. Your computer system is likely far more complex than that die, but that doesn't mean it has the information it needs to make the prediction.
The human mind is far more complex and far more chaotic than the die. It therefore follows that an infinite amount of information would be required to reliably predict every action of an individual.
Since it is impossible to process infinite information, your "god machine" is utterly impossible, even in theory.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.