Matthew on 11/7/2006 at 20:45
heywood, I'm interested in your definition of the Denton/Helios model as 'Communism', when the characters clearly believed that they were setting up the ultimate democracy. Why do you feel that?
heywood on 12/7/2006 at 01:18
OK, but first it's important to differentiate true communism as envisioned by Marx and others from 20th century Soviet and Maoist "communism" which was really totalitarian socialism. A true communist society is classless. Every member of society is a worker whose stake and share in the economy is equal. The means of economic production are under common ownership by all the people. The society is also stateless, and decision making is implemented through democratic centralism. That means discussion and debate is free and open, decisions are made democratically, but once a decision is made, all members of society are expected to support and implement it.
Marx believed that before communism could be established, a transitional non-democratic stage he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (ie. party rule) would be necessary. In this stage, state power would be seized by proletariat revolutionaries and used to actively suppress the bourgeoisie, establish control over the means of production, break down trade union loyalties, and more or less pave the way for a transition to communism. But the 20th century "communist" revolutions never got beyond this intermediate stage, partly because party rule became entrenched (party members became the new bourgeoisie) and partly because nobody could envision a way to organize production and decision making on a large scale without the apparatus of the state. Thus communism has never been achieved except on a very small scale.
The "great advance" envisioned by JC/Helios in DX:IW had two key elements: the emergency of a classless society made possible through universal nano-augmentation and stateless democratic centralism through Helios.
Universal augmentation would equalize physical abilities almost immediately. Through the neural interface it would also equalize access to information and education, which would presumably lead to equal mental abilities over time. The hope would be that equal abilities would make citizens equal contributors to economic production, thus allowing a classless society to emerge without social tension.
One of the main reasons why a communist society has not emerged before is that an apparatus of power (the state) is currently required to centralize decision making and administration. History shows that the ruling class or ruling party will seek to maintain its power and not necessarily serve the common interest of the workers. That's where Helios comes in. By directly linking each individual with a theoretically impartial and universally aware AI, decision making and administration can be centralized without creating a new ruling class. It would be democratic in the model of a small time commune or Greek city-state except on a worldwide scale. Helios would also provide the enforcement necessary to ensure that individuals support and do not subvert collective decisions.
Another practical downside of socialism in general (not just communism) is the economic inefficiency of central planning on a large scale. This is in turn due to the inherent inefficiency of beuracracy. Helios succeeded Daedalus, which was designed to monitor and administer the entire net at a macro and micro level, so presumably the monitoring and administration of all economic production would be a logical extension of Helios' capabilities.
So, I believe the "great advance" in DX:IW is really the transition to true communism as envisioned by Marx. The game proposes solutions for the problems which make communism unachievable in the real world such as the inequality of invididual abilities, economic inefficiency, and the corrupting influence of state power.
Personally though, I think the Denton/Helios model in IW is the most flawed in the game and it was also the least desirable ending for me.
Rogue Keeper on 12/7/2006 at 08:03
Central planning can be very efficient if it's done right. Again, we may learn much from the nature - ants or bees. It may be seen inefficient from the aspect of currently prevailent (neo)liberal capitalism, because people are hungry for wealth, but I am sure that the future will show us that capitalist society has prospered at the cost of future generations. Planned economy means rational use of natural resources as well al management of human labor. But again, it has to be done right, in accordance with people's needs. Capitalism dictates us to behave like predators with little social empathy and solidarity, and to feast today on inferior prey as if there wasn't any tomorrow.
I agree though that Communism may be not the most fitting system for individual and erratic creatures as humans are today, but then, any massive social advance in the history from slavery through feudalism came hand in hand with advance in consensus of humanity's general opinions on how the world should look and work. Perhaps the truly efficient Communism will be possible only when the humanity reaches some post-human state. If we get a chance to reach that state, right.
SD on 12/7/2006 at 20:08
Quote Posted by AxTng1
Doesn't this belong in CommChat now anyway, where it can get the attention it deserves? :ebil:
Yes! Somehow I've managed to miss the best thread of the year because it was squirreled away in this dead little forum :(
Matthew on 12/7/2006 at 20:24
I did think of calling you, but it was nice not to have to scavenge for the good posts just this once. ;)
TheGreatGodPan on 13/7/2006 at 05:49
How can you have democracy without a state?
Regarding central planning, I think Mises and Hayek both nailed the coffin shut on that one a long time ago. Imagining a centrally planned economy that really serves the people efficiently goes beyond wishing everyone had a pony; it's like wishing everyone had a unicorn.
Capitalism doesn't disregard the future. It just discounts it as a function of time-preference (which makes sense given uncertainty). When you take out a loan, the lender is looking toward the future. Same with all sorts of investments, insurance and so on. Capitalism can't tell the future perfectly, because that's basically impossible, but actors within it take rough guesses that are continually improved upon as new information becomes available.
Rogue Keeper on 13/7/2006 at 08:34
Oh those reactionaries... You can't imagine any better and more efficient system because you think - and probably hope - that Capitalism will be here forever.
How can you have democracy without a state? Of course you can, if it's direct democracy, not a participatory democracy which just creates opportunities for corruption and bureaucracy.
In fact, democracy in capitalism has became a farce. The real power doesn't come from people, but from private sector. Who rules the world? Corporations.
Hayek has nailed only his neoliberal prejudices, because like most neoliberals, when he hears "freedom", he primitivizes it into "opportunity for money making". Are Hayek and Mises some gods who should have final word on how the global economic order should work for eternity? There are some interesting critics on accunt of Mises and Hayek, f.e. from William P. Cockshott and Allin Cottrell.
It's Neliberalism and it's almost religious faith in "market uber alles" what is true poison of democracy and efficient civic societies today and in foreseenable future. (
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/chmsky99.htm) Chomsky understands...
Pyrian on 13/7/2006 at 22:53
Modern capitalism's relation to the future on a large scale is inherently unsound, thanks to current risk management strategies.
There have been some great ideas: pay some insurance, get as much profit as you can now. The insurance company worries about the risks, and many frankly do great jobs of making sure their customers take appropriate precautions. And all that works really well for handling small-scale risk.
But large-scale risk is handled differently. The fundamental goal of grabbing as much loot as possible remains, but once the scale of possible disaster gets big enough, insurance schemes don't suffice. Insurance companies can go bankrupt! And the problem there is... Well, what exactly? The insurance company went bankrupt, their customer went bankrupt, but the people in charge are shielded by the corporations, so they get to take their prior profits - er, salary, bonuses, and perks - and run.
It's no accident that CEO compensation has spiraled out of control.
EDIT:
The worst sin of unbridled capitalism in terms of future costs is what I call a public subsidy of private profit. When the public is paying part of the cost of production of a widget, that widget retains its full utility while losing its full cost, and thus is inherently more desirable. I.e., it can be sold more cheaply and create more profit than if it had to be sold above its real cost.
What am I talking about, there? Pollution. Pollution is a public cost of private profit. Since neither the buyer nor the seller pays the cost of pollution as part of the price of a given widget (oil, metal, all sorts of things), the price is artificially low. This is basically guaranteed to be disastrous in the long term...
