I’m such a nonconformist that I don’t conform to your nonconformity. If you destroy the system a new system will take its place since people still need food, water, waste management and the like. Also people getting together, organizing to destroy the system is itself a system.
Actually, centralization of management creates a lot of benefits in communication flow, resource allocation and operating efficiency. Lack of centralization results in confusion and task duplication.
Lack of centralization results in confusion and task duplication.
This sounds a communication problem, not a system problem. Decentralized systems are good at adapting to changing environments and are typically harder to destroy.
If the complex systems theory side of organisation interests you i would recommend you to check out the desktop regulatory state..
This sounds a communication problem, not a system problem.
Huh? Communication is a system problem? Why would they be separate issues?
Decentralized systems are good at adapting to changing environments and are typically harder to destroy.
But slower and prone to error, because the same information has to be conveyed to all members of the system, and if the individual members are not coordinated they take individual action leading to duplication of effort and waste of resources, or worse take the wrong action because they only got part of the information or because they are not restricted to follow orders from other members of the system because no one has any authority over anyone else.
This decentralized system requires that every member is acting in good faith for the benefit of other members with no self-interest. That is not practical, it will never happen.
But slower and prone to error, because the same information has to be conveyed to all members of the system,
That may have been an issue back when we used telegraphy. Nowadays information can spread rapidly thanks to the internet.
This decentralized system requires that every member is acting in good faith for the benefit of other members with no self-interest.
No? If a member starts acting maliciously then they can be easily just cut out by its peers. In contrast to hierarchical systems where you have to blindly trust those at the top.
Any cyberneticist would tell you that networks are superior to vertical hierarchies. Dont take my word for it, read up on complex systems theory and see for yourself.
I mean, my political interest tends more towards “what’s the best tangible next step forward” rather than “what’s the ideal way to organize society in theory”. But generally speaking, I’d suggest it be organized from the bottom up through confederations of directly democratic bodies like workers’ councils and municipalities, making decisions via consensus and recallable delegates.
All i’m saying is there’s still going to be a system, value, value creation, value distribution and so on. How will we motivate people to do work that is needed that people simply do not want to do? How do we manage supply and demand? Capitalism or any other system still had to manage real world value, labor, and demand as well as human behavior.
Generally people are well mannered when they are taken care of aka have necessities like shelter, food, water, waste management, electricity, internet, healthcare, education, and so on. That said people generally care for themselves and their loved ones first and foremost. That is if anyone has an advantage they will use it for themselves and their loved ones essentially every single time. Also people will always be looking to create an advantage for themselves and their loved ones. This culminates in corruption of systems. Typically systems designed to mitigate this become corrupt themselves aka people get paid in some form or fashion to look the other way or for insider information as to dodge raids and arrest.
We can change systems all day long but we’re not changing human behavior anytime soon. I guess short of mass forced genetic engineering which would be horrifically unethical.
Yeah but how do we encourage people to do work that’s needed that they do not want to do? Also how do we actually mitigate corruption aka people perpetually gaming the system for their personal benefit and paying off anyone intended to stop corruption. Like socialism alone doesn’t really directly solve either of those problems. It also doesn’t directly solve supply and demand.
Like I’m all for creative solutions but socialism as it is isn’t an ultimate philosophy about how to mitigate and manage humans irl. To be fair absolutely no one has solved these problems so far like ever. It’s the P=NP of humanity.
You can pay people for labor in socialism, and by the time of communism productive forces will be incredibly advanced, with polytechnical education for all, resulting in easy ability to transfer workers from one industry to another as needed and desired by the workers themselves.
Corruption can be accounted for via mechanisms like recall elections, and working towards elimination of the profit motive. Socialist countries often feature both mechanisms, and involve approval-based voting and bottom-up policy propositions combined with top-down implementation.
I don’t know what you mean by “solving” supply and demand. You can plan production and distribution in socialism based on economic inputs, Paul Cockshott’s Towards a New Socialism shows an example of how a cybernetically planned economy could work (though he’s a massive transphobe and a poor Marxist in many areas).
Socialism is just the first step towards communism, one that can and is implemented already today.
No. Just that if one’s intent is to escape systems all together it’s not possible. Similarly if one wants to destroy a system just because it is a system that itself is a system and the ultimate outcome is another system. Maybe a third one that I didn’t bring up is whether or not the new system is actually better than the old one won’t be known until there is proof, until then it’s just on faith that it will be better which is fine.
It’s a latent thing. The people who are good at revolutions typically aren’t good at running a country. In a lot of circumstances they are purged because a new power doesn’t need a whole bunch of trained and practiced revolutionaries around who aren’t well suited for civic duties. Maybe put another way, the people thinking about revolution aren’t typically thinking about waste management, roads, crops, and so on.
I’m such a nonconformist that I don’t conform to your nonconformity. If you destroy the system a new system will take its place since people still need food, water, waste management and the like. Also people getting together, organizing to destroy the system is itself a system.
Yes? We are not anti-system lol.
But you are anti-authority?
Authority figures get into the way of organizing more efficiently
Actually, centralization of management creates a lot of benefits in communication flow, resource allocation and operating efficiency. Lack of centralization results in confusion and task duplication.
Haven’t spent much time in the corporate world, have you?
This sounds a communication problem, not a system problem. Decentralized systems are good at adapting to changing environments and are typically harder to destroy. If the complex systems theory side of organisation interests you i would recommend you to check out the desktop regulatory state..
Huh? Communication is a system problem? Why would they be separate issues?
But slower and prone to error, because the same information has to be conveyed to all members of the system, and if the individual members are not coordinated they take individual action leading to duplication of effort and waste of resources, or worse take the wrong action because they only got part of the information or because they are not restricted to follow orders from other members of the system because no one has any authority over anyone else.
This decentralized system requires that every member is acting in good faith for the benefit of other members with no self-interest. That is not practical, it will never happen.
No? If a member starts acting maliciously then they can be easily just cut out by its peers. In contrast to hierarchical systems where you have to blindly trust those at the top.
Any cyberneticist would tell you that networks are superior to vertical hierarchies. Dont take my word for it, read up on complex systems theory and see for yourself.
Anti-unjustified hierarchy. Not anti-organized society.
OK. How is this society organized?
I mean, my political interest tends more towards “what’s the best tangible next step forward” rather than “what’s the ideal way to organize society in theory”. But generally speaking, I’d suggest it be organized from the bottom up through confederations of directly democratic bodies like workers’ councils and municipalities, making decisions via consensus and recallable delegates.
Wow very creative, never seen the “conflate multiple distinct usages of the same word” tactic before /s
You’re whale cum?
We don’t oppose society, but capitalism.
All i’m saying is there’s still going to be a system, value, value creation, value distribution and so on. How will we motivate people to do work that is needed that people simply do not want to do? How do we manage supply and demand? Capitalism or any other system still had to manage real world value, labor, and demand as well as human behavior.
Generally people are well mannered when they are taken care of aka have necessities like shelter, food, water, waste management, electricity, internet, healthcare, education, and so on. That said people generally care for themselves and their loved ones first and foremost. That is if anyone has an advantage they will use it for themselves and their loved ones essentially every single time. Also people will always be looking to create an advantage for themselves and their loved ones. This culminates in corruption of systems. Typically systems designed to mitigate this become corrupt themselves aka people get paid in some form or fashion to look the other way or for insider information as to dodge raids and arrest.
We can change systems all day long but we’re not changing human behavior anytime soon. I guess short of mass forced genetic engineering which would be horrifically unethical.
I’m a supporter of socialism, that’s how we should allocate labor and distribute resources and production.
Yeah but how do we encourage people to do work that’s needed that they do not want to do? Also how do we actually mitigate corruption aka people perpetually gaming the system for their personal benefit and paying off anyone intended to stop corruption. Like socialism alone doesn’t really directly solve either of those problems. It also doesn’t directly solve supply and demand.
Like I’m all for creative solutions but socialism as it is isn’t an ultimate philosophy about how to mitigate and manage humans irl. To be fair absolutely no one has solved these problems so far like ever. It’s the P=NP of humanity.
You can pay people for labor in socialism, and by the time of communism productive forces will be incredibly advanced, with polytechnical education for all, resulting in easy ability to transfer workers from one industry to another as needed and desired by the workers themselves.
Corruption can be accounted for via mechanisms like recall elections, and working towards elimination of the profit motive. Socialist countries often feature both mechanisms, and involve approval-based voting and bottom-up policy propositions combined with top-down implementation.
I don’t know what you mean by “solving” supply and demand. You can plan production and distribution in socialism based on economic inputs, Paul Cockshott’s Towards a New Socialism shows an example of how a cybernetically planned economy could work (though he’s a massive transphobe and a poor Marxist in many areas).
Socialism is just the first step towards communism, one that can and is implemented already today.
You never heard about egalitarianism have you? 😐
we can do waste management by kicking you out.
That’s not nice. I do find most prefer echo chambers where all statements and posts are in agreement with views they already hold.
you’re confusing primitivism for self governance.
i follow Tom Lerher advice, ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
So… a conformist.
Its sarcasm ( ˘_˘)
As in, don’t bother destroying the system for a better one, because people will get water either way?
No. Just that if one’s intent is to escape systems all together it’s not possible. Similarly if one wants to destroy a system just because it is a system that itself is a system and the ultimate outcome is another system. Maybe a third one that I didn’t bring up is whether or not the new system is actually better than the old one won’t be known until there is proof, until then it’s just on faith that it will be better which is fine.
Makes sense. I didn’t see anyone suggesting either A or B though.
It’s a latent thing. The people who are good at revolutions typically aren’t good at running a country. In a lot of circumstances they are purged because a new power doesn’t need a whole bunch of trained and practiced revolutionaries around who aren’t well suited for civic duties. Maybe put another way, the people thinking about revolution aren’t typically thinking about waste management, roads, crops, and so on.