Talk:Communism/Archive 5

message: Mikkalai, you have put the following paragraph in the article, "Before the advent of computers, a popular argument against planned economy, i.e., in fact against communism, was human impossibility to keep precise tally of everything, necessary for correct planning." This sounds good, but besides lacking any cited authority for the use of the argument in the past, it fails to establish that under even the most highly computerized control mechanism, adequate information could be developed or adequately utilized to conduct adequate planning, expecially with respect to innovation. In other words, you leap to a conclusion. Fred Bauder 02:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
:Good point, Fred. As far as I can tell, computers are no more pertinent than an abacus. If we decide to let HAL make decisions, we can call that digitocracy. (I suspect that link will be red!) But if people are going to continue to make decisions then it is people who have to absorb and use information, and the fact of human bounded rationality counts. By way of illustration, can anybody name me one thinker of any importance whose mind has been changed on the issue of the plausibility of a planned economy by the improvements is computers?  Saying "that objection might have once had weight" isn't enough.' I'm curious whether anyone actually said, in year X (pick the year!) that a planned economy is impossible, and then said, in year X plus 5, "oh, NOW we have the needed capacity, NOW its possible!" Can anybody link me to the article about anyone who made both those statements? Hmmmm. The tree fell in the forest, but nobody heard it? --Christofurio
:I work in a big capitalist enterprise now. I can assure you, the amount of planning and detail of planning done here probably exceeds the amount of planning in the whole, say, Byelorussian SSR. 
:But now I think it is a good idea to keep the argument/counterargument bickering out of the article.It can be endless. Mikkalai 21:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, the argument is more relevamt to the article Centrally planned economy, and probably must be repeated there, rather than to Communism. The ideology of communism doesn't go into such details of implementation. Mikkalai 21:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, the culprit is not planning per se, but, as Christofurio pointed out, the basis of this planning. Under capitalist planning the goals are based on actual economical processes, while under communism most often it is vice versa: the state sets the goals, and the planning engine makes economy to fit this goal. The quality of life was always a secondary goal in the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 21:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical limitations

message: "In fact most opinion polls even in the USA show workers want more control over their work, which would indicate that human nature was that workers are against capitalist social structures, and prefer socialist and communist social structures where workers control the means of production."
Does this sound like as much of a leap to anyone else as it does to me?  For all we can tell from the opening clause, the polls in question only show that workers would prefer, say, more flex time, especially if they could get it without lowering wage levels or making any other sacrifice. Hardly a surprise. Yet from a vaguely worded poll result we get a sweeping conclusion about preference for "communist social structures."  Gee, I would like more flexible hours, too, so it follows I must favor the nationalization of banks.  Not. I'm going to delete. --Christofurio 20:07, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree. There is vast difference between "control of thier work" and "control over the ownership of the enterprise". Mikkalai 21:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite a Leap!