Regarding Communism

[Ikki]

Okay so the statement is then so vague as to be completely meaningless. If this is the standard of "people created something" then I could be completely absurd and say that some bloke in a cave who realised that rubbing two sticks together made sparks about fifty thousand years ago or whatever created the 747.

The internet is an information sharing network. What exactly is the point of an information sharing network without a method of sharing information?

It's not vague mate, I was clear regarding the context for why that distinction matters. I will quote it below again:

But this is getting away from the overarching point. We as a species have only gotten ahead because we have managed to make mistakes, learn from them and share this information with others. The freer this exchange the increase in innovation and the faster it happens.

Time is just meaningless, we are not becoming advanced just because there is a passage of time and people just 'know' more. We are getting there because we continue to become more connected and the fountain of collective knowledge is increasing. When you have authoritarian governments, you are essentially limiting this pool of knowledge because you are controlling what is good or bad, what will benefit or not, because you are subject to a smaller pool of intellect.

We are where we are because people were allowed to experiment without the a government officer telling them how they should experiment. From the maths that was involved in calculating code and programming, to those that designed the wires and infrastructure that connect us on this internet. You are looking at 1% of the picture and discredit the other 99% of why it happened and why it succeeded - and it is especially worse because government was a non-essential element.

This is more or less the 'pencil story' but adapted to the internet.

 

[Spark]

It's not vague mate, I was clear regarding the context for why that distinction matters. I will quote it below again:



We are where we are because people were allowed to experiment without the a government officer telling them how they should experiment. From the maths that was involved in calculating code and programming, to those that designed the wires and infrastructure that connect us on this internet. You are looking at 1% of the picture and discredit the other 99% of why it happened and why it succeeded - and it is especially worse because government was a non-essential element.

This is more or less the 'pencil story' but adapted to the internet.

Well no the thing about DARPA - and why it is so remarkably successful - is because the government basically goes "you guys do whatever the hell you want to do". But what it also had was a virtual blank cheque, and I'm not really aware of research organisations outside of government (except maybe Skunk Works, which being part of Lockheed Martin may as well be part of the USG) that had that.

This handwaving is all very strange. The internet was developed at a government agency. That's just like... fact, on any reasonable meanings of the words "internet", "developed" and "government agency". This is all weird because I agree with the rest of your post, I just don't see the point of sticking to this very-clearly-wrong point. I don't like the fact that the modern computer evolved from systems constructed to do calculations for nuclear bombs, but that's what happened, for another example.

 

[Ikki]

Well no the thing about DARPA - and why it is so remarkably successful - is because the government basically goes "you guys do whatever the hell you want to do". But what it also had was a virtual blank cheque, and I'm not really aware of research organisations outside of government (except maybe Skunk Works, which being part of Lockheed Martin may as well be part of the USG) that had that.

This handwaving is all very strange. The internet was developed at a government agency. That's just like... fact, on any reasonable meanings of the words "internet", "developed" and "government agency". This is all weird because I agree with the rest of your post, I just don't see the point of sticking to this very-clearly-wrong point. I don't like the fact that the modern computer evolved from systems constructed to do calculations for nuclear bombs, but that's what happened, for another example.

A blank cheque =/= creation of an invention. If I give you a billion dollars to create something, I didn't create it. You can argue that an essential element was the capital but it is not essential that the government provide it. The invention comes about because of human ingenuity and cooperation. Saying the government created it is giving credit in a delusional sense where all the other technologies existed because of government. And yes, these technologies and innovations are all connected and it is important to recognise that because history didn't start and stop just because a bureaucrat said so. It is particularly important to make that distinction because we are in a thread discussing communism

Also, saying the internet was created at a government agency is like saying it was created on Hay Street, like, so what? Even you are conceding it occurred inadvertently without government planning. If it makes sense to credit it for that contribution, then how can you scoff at looking at the rest of the technologies that may have also inadvertently went into creating the internet? In fact, that makes far more sense because you're trying to capture reality; not just an arbitrary timeline.

 

[Spark]

A blank cheque =/= creation of an invention. If I give you a billion dollars to create something, I didn't create it. You can argue that an essential element was the capital but it is not essential that the government provide it. The invention comes about because of human ingenuity and cooperation. Saying the government created it is giving credit in a delusional sense where all the other technologies existed because of government. And yes, these technologies and innovations are all connected and it is important to recognise that because history didn't start and stop just because a bureaucrat said so. It is particularly important to make that distinction because we are in a thread discussing communism

Also, saying the internet was created at a government agency is like saying it was created on Hay Street, like, so what? Even you are conceding it occurred inadvertently without government planning. If it makes sense to credit it for that contribution, then how can you scoff at looking at the rest of the technologies that went into creating the internet?

Indeed "so what". I'm not trying to draw out any broader life lesson here beyond pointing out that the Internet is structurally based on ARPANET, which was developed for DARPA by DARPA. Also I've worded my post badly if what you took out of it is that it occured inadvertently without government planning; ARPANET was most definitely built with specific (DoD-related) tasks in mind that needed to be solved.

In fact—and this is a disturbingly common theme for technologies which date from the 1960s in the US—the "task that needed to be solved" was almost certainly making sure that Strategic Air Command et al had communications systems capable of surviving a nuclear first strike. It is kind of depressing just how much of the modern world owes its existence to the feverish efforts of thousands of extremely smart people, both in capitalist and communist nations, dedicated to finding ever more efficient ways to turn the entire planet to glass.

 

[Uppercut]

I understand it perfectly, this is just a poor place to make that distinction for the real fact that the communists killed about 100 million people around the world. So it's not simply a matter of framing, although I can agree with your point re centralised powers looking worse than decentralised ones.

And the reality is that when people judge things on such a superficial level, it's always a poor argument. Imagine someone defending Nazis because 'optics'.

TBF my next post elaborated that my argument had nothing to do with 'optics'. It was that the question being asked was framed in such a way that it was impossible to get any answer other than the one desired. I still don't think you've understood it.

The reason that defending the Nazis based on optics would be so bizarre is that their system of violence had specific, ethically horrific features that a decentralised system couldn't have. Turning killing into an industrialised process was sickening on a level that a simple 'body count' can't do justice to. But that's a different (and probably better) argument than the one I was pointing out the flaw in.

 

[Spark]

TBF my next post elaborated that my argument had nothing to do with 'optics'. It was that the question being asked was framed in such a way that it was impossible to get any answer other than the one desired. I still don't think you've understood it.

The reason that defending the Nazis based on optics would be so bizarre is that their system of violence had specific, ethically horrific features that a decentralised system couldn't have. Turning killing into an industrialised process was sickening on a level that a simple 'body count' can't do justice to. But that's a different (and probably better) argument than the one I was pointing out the flaw in.

It was more than that too; the Nazis deliberately prioritised extermination to the exclusion of everything else, including attending to (very dire) military needs.

And in fairness, the body count argument wrt the Nazis has to include much more than merely those sent to the camps: all the people who died in the Eastern Front in Leningrad etc

 

[Ausage]

Yeah I don't really see what's wrong with doing this as long as there is no ad hominem tone involved (i.e. ala Benchmark00 - "you only hold that view because of blah blah" etc.).

Why would even this be infractable? I agree it's generally poor form but we have names, avatars and posting histories. If the charge is unjustified the poster looks like an ass.

Besides if we're going to start banning people for mischaracterising other people's positions we could just as easily start with things like Burgey's "just another viewpoint" shtick or the "Watson = David Duke" crap.

 

[Ausage]

The reason that defending the Nazis based on optics would be so bizarre is that their system of violence had specific, ethically horrific features that a decentralised system couldn't have. Turning killing into an industrialised process was sickening on a level that a simple 'body count' can't do justice to. But that's a different (and probably better) argument than the one I was pointing out the flaw in.

That was pretty much my entire point though (I think that post was a response to me?). A decentralised system simply can't be as brutal as a centralised one for a variety of reasons.

 

[Spark]

Why would even this be infractable? I agree it's generally poor form but we have names, avatars and posting histories. If the charge is unjustified the poster looks like an ass.

Besides if we're going to start banning people for mischaracterising other people's positions we could just as easily start with things like Burgey's "just another viewpoint" shtick or the "Watson = David Duke" crap.

How do you even argue with "lol you don't actually believe that, you're just saying it to look popular" though? It's a debate-killer.

 

[Ausage]

How do you even argue with "lol you don't actually believe that, you're just saying it to look popular" though? It's a debate-killer.

You don't. You ignore it like any other stupid mischaracterisation of your position. Most people will draw the same conclusion you did.

 

[Daemon]

You don't. You ignore it like any other stupid mischaracterisation of your position. Most people will draw the same conclusion you did.

Gotta agree with this libertarian policy. James and his band of cronies are oppressing the people.

 

[Ikki]

Indeed "so what". I'm not trying to draw out any broader life lesson here beyond pointing out that the Internet is structurally based on ARPANET, which was developed for DARPA by DARPA. Also I've worded my post badly if what you took out of it is that it occured inadvertently without government planning; ARPANET was most definitely built with specific (DoD-related) tasks in mind that needed to be solved.

I think the problem is (and my point tries to address) correctly defining reality. The internet as it exists was not made by the government. No more than the government creating all businesses because it built the roads. I don't have a problem with you stating "x was invented at a government agency" - not just because, as you agree, "who cares?" - but if you state "government invented x" it no longer becomes a fact and it starts being something people care about enough to start promoting it.

When someone states government invented xyz, they are giving credit to something that cannot actually have that credit. Government 20 years ago is not the same thing as government today, different people, different values, technology and influences. If you credit the government for creating the internet, you are essentially encouraging people to look at the creation with the view that it is an actor that can create prosperity. That is why people start confusing reality and their own human prowess whereby the solution is to funnel money and power towards government.

Saying the government invented the internet is like saying we all invented it because we were all taxed for the money that went into constructing these technologies. It's not accurate and is not even of utility for us to repeat the successes. Reality: smart people came together with a sense of urgency (threat of war or opposition) and that was the catalyst for the evolution of the internet. You can more or less say that for any technology and it will be true and it also defines the reality whereby we actually recognise the actors that were involved.

In fact—and this is a disturbingly common theme for technologies which date from the 1960s in the US—the "task that needed to be solved" was almost certainly making sure that Strategic Air Command et al had communications systems capable of surviving a nuclear first strike. It is kind of depressing just how much of the modern world owes its existence to the feverish efforts of thousands of extremely smart people, both in capitalist and communist nations, dedicated to finding ever more efficient ways to turn the entire planet to glass.

For me, that is because war, like life, conditions us to see reality more akin to how it really is: a struggle to stay alive. War, or perceived threats, act as a motivating factor for people to come together. Wars increase the capacity of the economy and also the activity. In terms of defence, it is not about controlling people in your economy/society to act the way you wish - ergo, it is not about political systems in this sense.

But that is why it important to define reality properly. The urgency is always there, on an individual and societal level. It is just that we connect our own chances of survival with a government and unfortunately that has the impact of taking out personal responsibility to create something to benefit yourself and the rest of man. We become dependent and desire life without the reality of the struggle and concoct all kinds of delusions and flawed reasoning to cling to this utopia. It is those people that recognise that this is just a mirage that go on to do great things and who often become threats to a government.

 

[Spark]

I think the problem is (and my point tries to address) correctly defining reality. The internet as it exists was not made by the government. No more than the government creating all businesses because it built the roads. I don't have a problem with you stating "x was invented at a government agency" - not just because, as you agree, "who cares?" - but if you state "government invented x" it no longer becomes a fact and it starts being something people care about enough to start promoting it.

When someone states government invented xyz, they are giving credit to something that cannot actually have that credit. Government 20 years ago is not the same thing as government today, different people, different values, technology and influences. If you credit the government for creating the internet, you are essentially encouraging people to look at the creation with the view that it is an actor that can create prosperity. That is why people start confusing reality and their own human prowess whereby the solution is to funnel money and power towards government.

Saying the government invented the internet is like saying we all invented it because we were all taxed for the money that went into constructing these technologies. It's not accurate and is not even of utility for us to repeat the successes. Reality: smart people came together with a sense of urgency (threat of war or opposition) and that was the catalyst for the evolution of the internet. You can more or less say that for any technology and it will be true and it also defines the reality whereby we actually recognise the actors that were involved.



For me, that is because war, like life, conditions us to see reality more akin to how it really is: a struggle to stay alive. War, or perceived threats, act as a motivating factor for people to come together. Wars increase the capacity of the economy and also the activity. In terms of defence, it is not about controlling people in your economy/society to act the way you wish - ergo, it is not about political systems in this sense.

But that is why it important to define reality properly. The urgency is always there, on an individual and societal level. It is just that we connect our own chances of survival with a government and unfortunately that has the impact of taking out personal responsibility to create something to benefit yourself and the rest of man. We become dependent and desire life without the reality of the struggle and concoct all kinds of delusions and flawed reasoning to cling to this utopia. It is those people that recognise that this is just a mirage that go on to do great things and who often become threats to a government.

This is all well and good, but I am very curious what exactly you mean by this coming together thing under the perceived threat of war (or, say, violence against a group w/ shared fate) which doesn't involve something that has at least many of the characteristics of a state.

 

[Uppercut]

Spark's brief expression of official disapproval of benchying was an appropriate use of regulation IMO

 

[Ikki]

This is all well and good, but I am very curious what exactly you mean by this coming together thing under the perceived threat of war (or, say, violence against a group w/ shared fate) which doesn't involve something that has at least many of the characteristics of a state.

It's more a statement that people are motivated into action which tends to bring together likeminded people. Urgency, particularly when you are talking about wars or potential wars, just brings this about faster. In effect, it is similar to capitalism but for obviously different reasons. This is an explanation for why military spending tends to create useful innovations and why wars tend to help economies (well, at least while the war hasn't been decided, and if it has that you have won).

 

[Spark]

It's more a statement that people are motivated into action which tends to bring together likeminded people. Urgency, particularly when you are talking about wars or potential wars, just brings this about faster. In effect, it is similar to capitalism but for obviously different reasons. This is an explanation for why military spending tends to create useful innovations and why wars tend to help economies (well, at least while the war hasn't been decided, and if it has that you have won).

Fair. But again I ask how you get this sense of collective action and, more importantly, collective protection without invoking something that looks like a state.

 

[harsh.ag]

Fair. But again I ask how you get this sense of collective action and, more importantly, collective protection without invoking something that looks like a state.

Are you asking Ikki how private firms can add value and the state can't? Btw, does Ikki think private firms add value? Over and above individuals' actions because of their structure, I mean.

 

[Ikki]

Fair. But again I ask how you get this sense of collective action and, more importantly, collective protection without invoking something that looks like a state.

People are naturally self-interested and left free to pursue those interests they come up with incredible things. The fact that we are animals that are driving around in cars, flying in planes, speaking different languages and instantly communicating with each other through the internet is just incredible, yet it is only a sliver of what we have done.

The collective action needed just to create a pencil is itself a mammoth task:

Are you asking Ikki how private firms can add value and the state can't? Btw, does Ikki think private firms add value? Over and above individuals' actions because of their structure, I mean.

It's not a distinction that makes a difference re private firms and individuals for this discussion. Individuals can get together and create private firms and that's desirable if it is voluntary.

The difference between the state and a private firm is that the latter can only survive long term if it does something that the rest of us want or deem desirable. The former can simply cage us if we don't pony up the dough. That inherent difference and the market signals re cost are important reasons why even if the state can fund certain activities, it is the least desirable way to fund them because of the morally corrupt way it redistributes capital, as well as it being the least efficient way to redistribute capital. It'd be like saying "well, I won a million at the Casino because the government bankrolled me". Sure, you're going to have successes but overall that is a losing scheme. People need to go through the tribulations that predate success as that journey itself builds the character and intellect needed to change the world in any lasting and meaningful way. It is why the cold war was won by the Americans and not the Communists.

We have a period widely known as the industrial revolution wherein a couple centuries as a species we made so many advances. The more we funnel money away from the smart people and more to people who seek power (and who are ultimately corrupted by it) the more brakes we are putting on our progress as a species and our ultimate survival. The IT industry is probably one of the least regulated and in a matter of a few decades it has transformed our world. It's not just because time passed and we got lucky some people were smart - there are tonnes of smart people around the world (and were in the past, regardless of how people judge them when revising history) - and made these inventions; it is because our communication with each other has simply gotten faster and clearer. From horses, to cars, to the internet...we create a global nervous system that is reacting to newer and newer innovations. It is not a coincidence that all the technologies/services that aid us in connecting are those that become hugely profitable/beneficial and era defining - it has happened across all human history.

Money/property is also critical because the exchange of them - what people are actually willing to spend their money/efforts on - is what represents what they truly care for. The market is its' own form of communication. Throughout history there is a trend: the states that have the strongest property rights are the ones that are the most prosperous. Aside from the products and services that come to fruition; it means people have to deal with each other fairly and this creates a culture amongst all whereby we learn to respect each other via the law, one we agree on because it mutually benefits us as we have no other means to force them to our will. And that's what communism, socialism or many far left ideologies try to hide: it is just a cover for some people to rationalise the force they want to use against others to benefit themselves unfairly - people that support them are just good at fooling themselves and trying to re-represent reality so that others can be indoctrinated also.

It is a bit off-topic but at this stage you begin to understand the essence of religion: all of human history is one large lesson to tell you that you're a corruptible being, do not delude yourself from that fact otherwise that is when paradise turns into hell. Understand yourself and your flaws and live in harmony with others. But if you begin lying to yourself and creating your own reality, then you are going to create a society that lies to itself and creates its' own artificial reality.

 

[Spark]

Are you asking Ikki how private firms can add value and the state can't? Btw, does Ikki think private firms add value? Over and above individuals' actions because of their structure, I mean.

I was more thinking along the lines of "I may not like my fellow Hungarians and they may not like me, but when the Wehrmacht rolls in I share the fate". It's worth remembering that the welfare state didn't start as some technocratic social-democratic project, but because it was realised that asking people to be prepared sacrifice their lives in large numbers to protect a country whilst not letting them having any share of the riches of that country was not a recipe for long-term social stability.

EDIT: Though, uh, now that you mention it, Ikki's line of argument about who is responsible (and therefore is the just owner) of human advances is, um, interesting if you look at its implications. Cribb to comment, bc I know we've talked about this. I'm not trying to score points here, but the basic point about "who is responsible for ____" being potentially a collective notion is, at a theoretical level, what Marxist vs liberal-____ conceptions of property and justice are all about, and I'm not sure this has been entirely thought through here. But it's a debate worth having, and I genuinely don't know the answer.

 

[Ikki]

I was more thinking along the lines of "I may not like my fellow Hungarians and they may not like me, but when the Wehrmacht rolls in I share the fate". It's worth remembering that the welfare state didn't start as some technocratic social-democratic project, but because it was realised that asking people to be prepared sacrifice their lives in large numbers to protect a country whilst not letting them having any share of the riches of that country was not a recipe for long-term social stability.

EDIT: Though, uh, now that you mention it, Ikki's line of argument about who is responsible (and therefore is the just owner) of human advances is, um, interesting if you look at its implications. Cribb to comment, bc I know we've talked about this. I'm not trying to score points here, but the basic point about "who is responsible for ____" being potentially a collective notion is, at a theoretical level, what Marxist vs liberal-____ conceptions of property and justice are all about, and I'm not sure this has been entirely thought through here. But it's a debate worth having, and I genuinely don't know the answer.

A lot of welfare programs were not clamoured for and simply came about because many countries - particularly in the West - became wealthy which created a political incentive to acquire votes by divvying up the loot. That's why people should be wary of politicians like Lyndon Johnson or Bernie Sanders as they create a narrative where people lose sense and follow their envy. It's also the great flaw of democracy.