|
non-communist consciouness shall be erased
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Kurtofan posted:non-communist consciouness shall be erased I loved Helios, so sign me up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fr4aAu_Ryc Edit: replaced with a higher quality version Mierenneuker fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jun 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Maybe the Gosplan was bad wrt consumer goods and services because it didn't have the processing power to handle consumers goods and services. Nah, come on, you gotta do better than that. What concrete part of central planning was limited by computation costs? If anything, Gosplan was probably limited by the availability of reliable quality data for their models. My father worked in a factory back then and took part in some experimental setups where they tried to force workers to enter production data through personal terminals directly because the management was so loving useless and unreliable at reporting. Truth is that top-down is not inherently better than bottom-up. They are different tools for different problems. I wouldn't want my rail network to be organized bottom-up and I definitely wouldn't want the book market organized top down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
Communists are bad at the computer
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
Succesfull communism will only work when most people actually care about other people enough to not actually need a state to order them to not be poo poo. You'd need a massive reeducation effort to make this happen, which means its never happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
In euro news, in a move to attract attention to their situation, Italia said they're tired of foreign taxi NGOs dumping thousand of migrants on them, and might start closing their ports. Which is probably illegal but who cares at this point. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/italy-considers-closing-its-ports-to-ships-from-libya
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Arguing about the efficiency of communist planned economies seems weird to me as from a marxist point of view the point of having a planned economy in the first place is restricting efficiency and the need for efficiency. Production according to need is not just shifting what you produce, it's also producing less, because a ton of capitalist production is either unnecessary adult toys or pointless surplus that is the product of competition. And by producing less, work can be organized less efficiently so that it will be more fulfilling to the people who have to do the work. Gearing a planned economy for maximum growth like the soviets wanted to was, while certainly the right thing to do from a pragmatic point of view, not something to emulate. You might as well just create an improved social democracy if that is the aim, at least your economy will be time-tested instead of experimental.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
nimby posted:Succesfull communism will only work when most people actually care about other people enough to not actually need a state to order them to not be poo poo. You'd need a massive reeducation effort to make this happen, which means its never happening. I think you misspelled "capitalism" there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Why are you assuming that the planning systems would be connected to the internet? And besides that, a lot of planning goes on in every government in every country across the world, and somehow society hasn't collapsed due to script kiddies as of yet. A script kiddie managed to put all the landings and take-offs at Brussels airport on hold for 2 hours because he DDOSed Belgocontrol's radar system or something, and they had to get off-duty IT guys back pronto to get it running again. Hardly the end of the world but with the proliferation of the Internet of Things and general human mistakes left and right, no system is 100% secured. More likely is another country loving with your system, admittedly. (Maybe I'm making a mistake by comparing other countries' incompetence to Belgium.) EDIT: as for why I'm assuming the planning systems will be connected to the internet, that's a good question. Probably because some smart manager will think "internet = faster! more efficient!" and it's only a matter of time before an idiot ignores warnings and lets civil servants insert data while working at home. Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Jun 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
obviously the planning system will be running in the cloud. It needs to scale! And be elastic! Also cloud!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:obviously the planning system will be running in the cloud. It needs to scale! And be elastic! Also cloud! Bugfixes: * added some sanity checks for possible pants sizes; mega tent pants shouldn't show up in stores anymore
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Bugfixes: But what's Sigmar Gabriel going to wear now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Except that the country did splinter post-revolution and much of it had to be reconquered by the Red Army? And then it splintered again when the USSR broke up? Like I don't even know where you're going with this, obviously Tsarist Russia was unstable, I haven't argued against that at all, but the entity of Russia is overall solid and powerful notwithstanding whatever idiot is in charge, and at the very least the Tsarist government took a role in trying to build up infrastructure and attract foreign investment. What is the alternate scenario you're envisioning? Do you think that the country would have been would have been permanently split for some reason without the Bolsheviks? Why? quote:No, it wasn't. I suggest you watch this, and then read the book. Economic planning isn't intrinsically the problem, the problem is that the Soviet economy was badly balanced and, like I said, had become overly dependent on commodities like Oil and Gas while devoting way too many resources to military expenditure and being unable to meet the demands of a modern consumer, service based economy. These are the kinds of problems people talk about that ultimately tanked the entire country and why the Soviet is not a very good model to use for the future. But reading your other posts you agree? Ok well I guess that's sorted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:
Define "mature" in objective terms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I think you misspelled "capitalism" there. Eh, it works for every government type or any kind of power structure, really. Overall humans are poo poo and the ones that are the most poo poo have a knack to float to the top.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:In euro news, in a move to attract attention to their situation, Italia said they're tired of foreign taxi NGOs dumping thousand of migrants on them, and might start closing their ports. Which is probably illegal but who cares at this point. I've read they received 17 000 migrants in 3 days. This is the result of years of neglect and apathetic mismanagement by the EU. It allowed the situation to grow on its own, over the years, to incredible proportion with no end in sight to the trend. Old news, but it illustrate how entrenched the phenomenon was allowed to become: NGOs and charities are now taking a cut of money from smuglers and profiting from all the human trafficking too. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39686239
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Iggore posted:Old news, but it illustrate how entrenched the phenomenon was allowed to become: NGOs and charities are now taking a cut of money from smuglers and profiting from all the human trafficking too. it's a wild accusation, not a fact. Carmelo Zuccaro, the man making this accusation has conceded, he has no proof for his charges, and was only 'expressing a hypothesis'. The Italian Justice minister has said that the notion of NGOs taking money from smugglers is a lie (Another story on this from the Daily Beast). Pluskut Tukker fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jun 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:Define "mature" in objective terms. You first, buddy. khwarezm posted:gently caress me, at this point I have to wonder if you are bothering to read what I say. Long period of time, that's what I said because even considering the civil war we're only talking about the period from the end of 1917 to the end of 1922 when central authority was restored under the Soviets. By comparison the American Civil war only a year shorter, while the Congo has been in a state that could be politely described as 'precarious' for two decades at least, I won't even get into the shitshow that was China in the same period. Finally Russia does not equal USSR, Russia has not fallen apart at any point since the civil war, the Soviet Union has, and Chechnya blew up, but the integrity of the Russian nation has never been in question. Where I'm going with this is that your objections are inane. You started this whole thread of conversation by implying that industrualization somehow comes naturally if you have a gigantic population, vast natural resources and a huge amount of land to work with. I pointed out the Congo as a quick example of where this has not been the case, and then you started bringing in the additional qualifiers of being "a coherent country", which I pointed out doesn't really apply to Tsarist Russia, and now here we are. So what are you even getting at? khwarezm posted:I don't disagree with a lot of what Allen Robert says here, but he doesn't rule out the possibility that Russia had the capabilities of massive industrialization and was trying to meet that through state investment, and is mostly concerned with the fact that the economy was still too reliant on grain production and what industrialization had occurred had not filtered down to the general populace. I think that he overemphasizes the barriers to industrialization under the Tsar, supposing that grain prices collapse that could have redirected the economy to things like fossil fuel exploitation and further industrialization. In any event Russia's advantages in this regard would still exist, it had a gigantic population with rock bottom wages and absolutely vast reserves of natural resources with a government willing to butter up to any foreign investors. The two decades before the war had seen Russia become the fourth largest producer of Steel in the world and the second largest producer of Petroleum, that's worth considering. All the historical and economic data shows that you're wrong on this one, pal. Every other resource-rich and unindustrialized state in the late 19th and early 20th century (with the exception of Japan) ended up as a mere exporter of raw materials. So why are you assuming that a capitalist Russia wouldn't have ended up even more dependant on oil and gas exports than the USSR (and which it indeed ended up as after the breakup of the USSR) and instead posit some hitherto unseen break with historical trends? This is a pretty incredible claim, so you need a lot more than your say-so to shore up your argument. Whether the Soviet model is a good model to adapt in modern western economies (and as mentioned I don't think it is) isn't exactly relevant to the question whether it was a good model to adapt in the early USSR, which, as the data shows, is clearly was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:The Soviet Union only failed because there was not enough computing power to model a perfect distribution of goods and services. While there was certainly a lack of computing power due to missteps in the early years that led to being behind in computing (the ban of cybernetics because someone didn't like it certainly didn't help) it didn't have that much to do with a lack of computing power. The primary problem was falsified data all through the system largely due to the way the central authorities attempted to enforce their central planning quotas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:it's a wild accusation, not a fact. Carmelo Zuccaro, the man making this accusation has conceded, he has no proof for his charges, and was only 'expressing a hypothesis'. The Italian Justice minister has said that the notion of NGOs taking money from smugglers is a lie (Another story on this from the Daily Beast). Thank for that! I never followed up on this item, but saw it distributed a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Where I'm going with this is that your objections are inane. You started this whole thread of conversation by implying that industrualization somehow comes naturally if you have a gigantic population, vast natural resources and a huge amount of land to work with. I pointed out the Congo as a quick example of where this has not been the case, and then you started bringing in the additional qualifiers of being "a coherent country", which I pointed out doesn't really apply to Tsarist Russia, and now here we are. So what are you even getting at? quote:All the historical and economic data shows that you're wrong on this one, pal. Every other resource-rich and unindustrialized state in the late 19th and early 20th century (with the exception of Japan) ended up as a mere exporter of raw materials. So why are you assuming that a capitalist Russia wouldn't have ended up even more dependant on oil and gas exports than the USSR (and which it indeed ended up as after the breakup of the USSR) and instead posit some hitherto unseen break with historical trends? This is a pretty incredible claim, so you need a lot more than your say-so to shore up your argument. Whether the Soviet model is a good model to adapt in modern western economies (and as mentioned I don't think it is) isn't exactly relevant to the question whether it was a good model to adapt in the early USSR, which, as the data shows, is clearly was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:A good summary of the French election as a whole. Of europe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
The German Bundestag voted this morning to legalize same-sex marriage. The SPD seems to have succesfully shamed Merkel into allowing a free vote in the Bundestag instead of leaving it until after the elections this fall. Merkel herself voted against marriage equality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:The German Bundestag voted this morning to legalize same-sex marriage. The SPD seems to have succesfully shamed Merkel into allowing a free vote in the Bundestag instead of leaving it until after the elections this fall. Merkel herself voted against marriage equality. I don't think she was shamed into it, she saw that several parties had made it a top priority post-election and decided to get it over with now so it wouldn't come up during the campaign. Otherwise the party would have to take a position on it and either lose centrist voters if they keep blocking the vote or lose conservative voters if she commits to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:It irks me because this Congo comparison is loving terrible, and I think you know that, that country is a colonial construct that was carved out by the Belgian King to vamp the place of its wealth with little to unify the country that wasn't a result of that colonial venture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
sheep-dodger posted:I don't think she was shamed into it, she saw that several parties had made it a top priority post-election and decided to get it over with now so it wouldn't come up during the campaign. Otherwise the party would have to take a position on it and either lose centrist voters if they keep blocking the vote or lose conservative voters if she commits to it. The sequence of events as far as I gathered was that Merkel said that same-sex marriage was a 'decision of conscience' and Schulz then cleverly decided to take her on her word and called for an immediate vote, even though that was in no way Merkel's actual intention. This rather pissed her off: quote:At a parliamentary group meeting on Wednesday, Ms Merkel accused his party of “ambushing” her by bringing forward a vote on an issue that divides her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU). I'm in no way an expert on German politics (or really even all that knowledgeable, to be honest), but it certainly looks like Schulz pulled a fast one over Merkel for once, and in good cause. Pluskut Tukker fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Jun 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Kongo was spread over four modern countries with the biggest connections to what is now Angola, not either Congo. At its maximum it had only a tiny portion of the DRC's current borders. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jun 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:The sequence of events as far as I gathered was that Merkel said that same-sex marriage was a 'decision of conscience' and Schulz then cleverly decided to take her on her word and called for an immediate vote, even though that was in no way Merkel's actual intention. This rather pissed her off: Schulzi couldn't pull a hamstring even if he tried. The issue posed a huge problem for her campaign platform and she wanted it gone before campaigning starts. Schulz lost out big time since he wanted to use this subject as one of his major election promises.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Kongo was spread over four modern countries with the biggest connections to what is now Angola, not either Congo. At its maximum it had only a tiny portion of the DRC's current borders. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jun 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Schulzi couldn't pull a hamstring even if he tried. The issue posed a huge problem for her campaign platform and she wanted it gone before campaigning starts. Schulz lost out big time since he wanted to use this subject as one of his major election promises. he can still campaign on it, she voted no
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Schulzi couldn't pull a hamstring even if he tried. The issue posed a huge problem for her campaign platform and she wanted it gone before campaigning starts. Schulz lost out big time since he wanted to use this subject as one of his major election promises. Or, you know, he actually scored a policy win, which you would hope would might count for something too. There is absolutely no excuse for denying gay people in Germany marriage equality for another year just because it works out better politically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:The sequence of events as far as I gathered was that Merkel said that same-sex marriage was a 'decision of conscience' and Schulz then cleverly decided to take her on her word and called for an immediate vote, even though that was in no way Merkel's actual intention. This rather pissed her off In my view she's not the type who blurts out something like this without calculation. This way she got to take the topic off the board for the election while still appearing conservative by voting against it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Yeah I am sure the whole thing was orchestrated by Merkel. Just look at how pissed the SPD got.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Perhaps you're both right. In any case, the result is what matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Or, you know, he actually scored a policy win, which you would hope would might count for something too. There is absolutely no excuse for denying gay people in Germany marriage equality for another year just because it works out better politically. I dunno, I haven't heard anyone in the media seriously pinning this on Schulz yet. If he really is a genius puppet master that orchestrated equal rights for homosexuals then this is not gonna help him in the election cause nobody knows about it or sees it that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:43
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Yeah I am sure the whole thing was orchestrated by Merkel. Just look at how pissed the SPD got. I'm sure Angela Merkel, who governed this country for the last 12 years, was unaware what would happen when she said that the CDU/CSU would lift the Fraktionszwang on this topic on the Monday of the last Sitzungswoche before the election, after having reached an agreement on the topic in the Parteivorstand and with the CSU. Her goal totally wasn't to demonstrate to the conservative voters the dangers of R2G while at the same time taking away a campaign issue where her position is clearly in the minority. That's totally not Angela Merkel's style and she got played by the strategic masterminds in the Willy-Brandt-Haus. The one person that might deserve more credit than her is Crystal Beck, who started the whole debate when he got the Greens to commit to this issue 2 weeks ago.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Kongo was spread over four modern countries with the biggest connections to what is now Angola, not either Congo. At its maximum it had only a tiny portion of the DRC's current borders. Countries are not their borders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Countries are not their borders. Kongo is not Congo which is also not Congo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Kongo is not Congo which is also not Congo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
khwarezm posted:Kongo is not Congo which is also not Congo. Hey if you wanna go and deny that the Congolese retain a national identity and a state older than their conquest by the colonialist powers, you do you mate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 13:49
|
|