But you are not talking about a planned economy planned with human needs
in mind when you are talking about the system in the Soviet Union fifty
years later. You are talking about a planned economy planned with the
interests of a bureaucratic caste in mind. You are talking about Stalinism.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after
death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst
out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how
wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous
something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/15/2018 6:16 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Okay, so the former Soviet Union started out at a disadvantage. But fifty years later, they still couldn't make central planning work. It could not create the material standard of living that the capitalist West had.
No group of people in a centralized location, such as Moscow, is smart enough to make the millions of decisions that are involved in the distribution of resources.
Now if you want to talk about some superintelligence in the future doing the central planning, then that might be a different matter. But people are just not smart enough to plan an economy that would work for everyone. It might work for a few, like the Nomenklatura elite of course. But not for everyone.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:07 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Again, the Soviet Union started out at a disadvantage. That was an
immature capitalist economy mixed with feudalism and two devastating
wars. When there is not enough to go around no matter how much planning
you implement there is still not enough to go around. And then came the
Stalinist perversion. Economic planning was done, but human needs were
not the first priority.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/9/2018 9:26 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
I wonder whether conscious economic planning really can distribute resources more efficiently.
Now you say the former Soviet Union did not implement true Communism. But it appears that they did indeed try to implement some form of central planning of their economy. It didn't work out so well there.
I would imagine you've heard about the common practice of storming that was so prevalent there because supplies did not reach the factories in a predictable way, but the workers still had to meet their quotas.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 9:10 PM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
I like a lot of things about modern civilization too, but don't make the
mistake of confusing the level of technology with the economic system.
It is true that the division of labor that was brought about by class
society did have a lot to do with the development of technology, but
conscious economic planning can do the same thing more efficiently. As
for the question of how disabled people were treated in primitive
communist societies, well, that depended a lot on the available
resources. I already said that if someone just refused to work then he
would likely be excluded from being able to consume the product of those
who did work. Actually, if someone just refused to work alongside
everyone else then that person would be trying to put himself into the
position of a ruler. That is likely one way that class society came
about, but the would be ruler would have had to have had some way to
enforce it. Without some kind of force it is really hard to get others
to support you while you don't contribute. But, still, some people are
going to contribute less anyway and it won't be because they don't want
to. If it can be seen clearly that the low contributors can't help it
then they are allowed to consume just like anyone else does. In most
cases if someone does try to contribute then it might not even be
noticed that some don't contribute quite as much as others because
everyone is working for the benefit of the community as a whole and
there is no point in measuring just how much any individual contributes.
But some people contribute significantly less and can't help it. That
would be the disabled. If there are plenty of resources the disabled
would get to share just as much as anyone else. Remember that the
guiding principle of the economic system is from each his ability and to
each his needs. Someone who cannot produce is not the same as someone
who will not produce and need not be punished. Anyway, punishment will
not increase such a person's productive capacity. But what if resources
are scarce? The more meager the resources the greater must be the labor
to produce the community's needs and then there might still be not
enough to go around. In situations like that some pretty hard choices
have to be made and ethicists are always discussing those choices. The
lifeboat with three occupants and only enough water for two, The dog
sled being pulled by dogs and being chased by wolves and the dogs can
get enough of a burst of speed to save the sled and occupants only if
someone is thrown to the wolves and so forth. The reasonable thing to do
when there is not enough collective capacity to provide for all is to
eliminate the low producers so that the production of the higher
producers can provide for the ones who are left. I expect you have heard
of examples like the elderly or disabled person who is left on the ice
flow by the Inuit for example. But one thing has to be noted. Both
primitive communism and advanced class systems like capitalism do not
have planned economies. A more advanced communism would involve much
planning, not just to determine how much of some commodity need to be
produced and to efficiently distribute it, but to avoid severe shortages.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/4/2018 4:21 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, interesting.
I'll be perfectly honest. I like a lot of things about modern civilization. I like stuff like radios and computers, and medicine. And, one thing I like most of all is being treated at least reasonably well most of the time and having had an opportunity for education.
I do not want to live in a primitive society. One good question would be, how are people with disabilities treated in such societies? Now a modern Communist society might treat persons with disabilities very well, but that would be as a result of more enlightened attitudes, which came about, I might point out, in the most advanced capitalist countries. Marx was a product of that enlightenment.
As I mentioned, if technological progress really ever does get to a point where production is possible without human labor, then that might bring something like a modern form of Communism about. If I understand him correctly, Marx believed that while a person is working for what he needs to live, he is not free. So if people can have the goods and services they need without any labor, or very little, then I would assume Marx would consider that a high degree of freedom.
That is one thing about primitive communism that I don't think was so great, people had to spend a lot of time working for their food. During that time, they were not free.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2018 4:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
I think most, if not all, primitive communist communities have now been
destroyed or assimilated, but if any are left the Amazon rain forest
would be a good place to look. I have heard that there are still some
small uncontacted communities left, but the government is trying to
protect them by not allowing contact. That means keeping the
anthropologists away from them too. However, there have been some
primitive communist communities that did survive long enough to be
studied by anthropologists. Some of note are the Effay of the Ituri rain
forest. I am guessing at that spelling. That's the problem with using
audio books. Not all the important words get spelled. But they are more
commonly known as the pygmies. I am one of those rare people who reads
textbooks as recreational reading and I remember reading about them in
more than one anthropology textbook from Learning Ally. About the
closest they come to a hierarchy is something of the reverse of what
kinds of hierarchies there usually are. It is the young people who make
the political decisions. The word political is used rather loosely here
because it mostly means just dealing with interpersonal relations or the
question of which way the band should take through the forest. These
young leaders are of about teenage age. The older people are normally
glad to turn over such things to the youth and be followers. But the
fact that the word political has to be used so loosely shows that there
are no real politics and so no hierarchy or formal system is even
needed. The production is mostly food gathering and if it isn't food
gathering it is making implements to facilitate food gathering. Another
example was Australia when the Europeans first got there. That was
pretty much an entire content of primitive communists. The interesting
thing about the Australians was that there were no clear cut
communities. It was extremely unlikely that a person on one side of the
continent would meet a person on the other side of the continent and if
they did meet they would not have understood each other, but they were
still in indirect contact through overlapping semicommunities. The
language issue was very interesting. It seemed that people of a few
miles away would talk slightly differently, but still be able to be
understood and a few miles from them the people would diverge in their
speech just a little more, but still be able to be understood by the
people in near regions. But the variations piled up the further away
they were, meaning that people who were distant from one another had
effectively different languages, but a message transmitted from one
person hundreds of miles away through one person after another could
make it through the chain and be understood. So where did one language
end and another begin? But that is aside from the economic system. The
economic system was one in which everyone produced and shared the
product with everyone else, including in the immediate community and if
in contact with them, with the adjacent community. That effectively
meant a whole continent of primitive communism except that there was no
continentwide coordination, nor any coordination except in local areas.
The anthropologists did not get to them immediately after contact, but
it was still possible to study them before their entire society was
transformed and some of their history could be surmised or still be
related by elders still living. Others that have been discovered have
been found in places like New Guinea or Borneo. The ones in Borneo are
usually held up as the epitome of primitive humanity, but for that
tradition to have formed it meant that advanced cultures had known of
them for centuries and had at least intermittent contact with them.
Nevertheless, they did retain that primitive communist economic model.
Bourgeois anthropologists are loathe to use the phrase primitive
communism, of course. They prefer to name their economic system by the
specific work they do and call it a hunter gatherer economy. Well, okay,
they hunt and gather, but hunting and gathering is productive labor. And
when they produce food or implements by hunting and gathering they come
together and share it without keeping accounts of how much wealth each
and every one produced. They just share and share alike and the ones who
happened to produce less than others still get as much of the product
that they need. Of course, if one person got particularly lazy and did
not produce even though it could be seen that he didn't really have an
excuse for being lazy then he would be likely to be excluded. That is
pretty good incentive to make some contribution though. That is one
criticism I often hear about the communist economic model. There is no
incentive. I would say that not being allowed to eat is a pretty good
incentive. But we live in a time of class society and we are surrounded
by a class system and class systems have now existed for thousands of
years. That contributes to political myopia, the tendency to assume that
the way things are is the only way things can possibly be. But just give
it some thought and you will see that the way things are had to have had
a beginning and before that beginning there was something else and it
would just about have had to have been an economy in which everyone
produced and shared the product of that production.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/2/2018 12:04 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
I wonder. I would be curious to learn of such a community. If it existed, or exists today, I haven't heard of it.
I think it's pretty certain that no nonhierarchical society ever existed in recorded history. Maybe there's a tribe in the Amazon rainforest, or there was an ancient hunter gatherer tribe that was communistic. I'm doubtful though.
Maybe when there were no resources to share, when people were living at the subsistence level, then no questions would arise as to the equitable distribution of resources. Even so, other apes and mammals have dominance and submission, so even then I am doubtful that any human community would be free of hierarchy.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 5:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
When I attended college, I majored in Anthropology/Sociology. Somehow, I paid more attention to the Sociology part. But if I'd paid more attention to Anthropology, I could remember if there was at least one small primitive society with a cooperative culture, no hierarchy, no war, no need to acquire and hoard for the sake of acquisition. If such a society existed, we could say that those unpleasant tendencies now apparent in late stage Capitalism, aren't wired into human nature. The Communist countries that we've known, were all responses to capitalist injustices, and they were surrounded by capitalist countries that wanted to destroy them. So their authoritarian qualities may not have been intrinsic to Communism, but rather, a response to external pressures. We don't know.
It's really difficult to step outside of ourselves, our own frame of reference, our history, and imagine something different.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 5:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Well, I guess I would have to agree with you that I would be in favor of replacing our current economic system with a better one. But perhaps we might disagree in that I do not believe that better economic system has been invented yet. And, I am doubtful that any economic system could work any better than one similar to what we have now, given the nature of people.
I am thinking that perhaps a better economic system is out there, but not for humans as we are currently constituted, given, as I said, that hierarchy seems to be wired into us at the genetic level. I am open to being proved wrong about this, but it would have to be a new economic theory, not one that has failed every single time it has been tried, as Communism has.
Now if technology ever advances to the point where material scarcity is eliminated, then people would not have to work to obtain food and shelter, and as much entertainment and information as they can shake a stick at.
There are people who believe that that is actually coming. If that ever does happen, then perhaps a better economic system will replace the one we have now. Who knows? It might even look something like Communism. Until that time, I think we have to work toward improving the system we have.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 4:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
That's because you don't know what I really think. You and Evan make assumptions about what I think by contrasting the words I write with your point of view. But I would absolutely be in favor of replacing our current economic system with a better one. I'm not sure that State Socialism would be the one I'd choose, but then, I don't claim to have expertise in that sort of thing. But what you are sensing is that I think that we have to be realistic and work with what we have toward a complete change. If you listen to Alan Nearn on today's Democracy Now, he's describing what I think we need to do right now. We can't ignore the political system we have, no matter how bad the corporate Democrats are, they are not the outlaw gangster party that the Republicans have become. So yes, I think that people need to do what Bernie Sanders is trying to do. At the same time, I think there needs to be organizing outside of the system and building of movements. The difference between you and me is that you have studied Marxism and you see history and change necessarily through a Marxist framework. My ideas of cooperation and socialism are unschooled and much less doctrinaire. But I do listen to Richard Wolfe each week who's a Marxist economist and is attempting to teach his version of Marxism to the masses, and when I listen to Brian Becker on Loud and Cleare, I'm being influenced by him. He's clearly a socialist organizer. I don't know which socialist sect, but he's interpreting facts according to socialist theory. And I don't have any problem with either of them. I'm liberal, in the old fashioned sense, being willing to learn and read various points of view, well, some points of view. But as I've mentioned numerous times, I'm rebellious, and I don't fit neatly into foxes, not the Jewish box or the Caucasian box, (I did racially integrate my family), or the suburban box, (I love nature but I hate the suburbs and I'm now living in a place that I despise), or the old woman box.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 3:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Evan Reese <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
I don't think I ever used the phrase true leftist. When I mention liberalism I usually call it bourgeois liberalism and contrast it to radicalism. I call it bourgeois liberalism because it is a bourgeois ideology. That is, it defends or assumes the permanence of the current class system, capitalism.
It is an ideology that concentrates on making the system somehow nicer without any perspective at all of replacing it.
Radicalism, on the other hand, proposes the complete replacement of capitalism. By that measure I have never known Miriam to be anything but a bourgeois liberal.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/30/2018 9:10 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Haha, a liberal instead of a true leftist. I like that. It is
certainly easy to get overly concerned about labels.
I've been writing too much here. I need a break.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 9:04 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Evan,
I feel like we are arguing instead of talking. I'm not sure that I've
always said negative things about our country on this list. Of course,
I've been here for at least 11 years and I was on it for a few years
previous to those eleven years. And it's difficult for me to know how
what I write comes across. I've had debates with various folks on the
list before. Roger has often accused me of being a liberal rather than
a true leftist. Carl and I have quibbled over whether or not to use
the term, "middle class", in certain contexts. I use the term. He does
not. I once got into trouble with someone who is no longer on the list
because I said that I didn't think the White House should have a
Christmas tree lighting because I thought that a Christmas tree is a
symbol of a religious holiday and we are supposed to have a separation
between church and state. I've had differences with Richard over a
number of things, specifically, the Koch Brothers about whom his
feelings are more positive than mine. Frank and I have quarreled about
the Green Party and about Bernie Sanders. So certainly, I've had
disagreements with folks. But I don't think that I was accused of
being negative. You've indicated that all of us on the list sound
negative and you do remind me of Ted. Ted was a list member for many
years and he was kind of politically in the center. He'd been farther
right politically previously.
He left the list and accused us all of being, "left wing radicals"
which, to
him was a very negative thing to be. I think that perhaps, you mean
somewhat the same thing when you call me, or us, negative.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 8:09 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Hmmm, if you think I have ever said that people should only say good
things about our country or our economic system, you just aren't
reading what I've said.
There is a huge difference between being critical and being ONLY
critical.
That's the difference between me and most people here.
If you take all my messages together, you will find that I have been
critical, but not only critical. By the same token, if you take all my
messages together, you will find that I have been positive, but not
only positive. Any positive thing you say is grudging at best, and
only after serious prodding. That is a very large difference.
Evan
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 6:31 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
You know, a Democracy requires varying opinions, dissent, give and
take. You are defining criticism as being negative. Paul Jay isn't
negative. He runs a news organization which is attempting to give
balanced, honest reporting of local, national, and international news
to people. He's describing, in part of this Q &A, his view of the real
issues in our country. Being critical of what is happening and trying
to make things better for people is actually what good citizens should
do. I don't want to be insulting, but in a way, you're sounding like
Mr. Trump who thinks that everyone around him, including the press,
should say only positive things about him and what he's doing. You
think that everyone in the US should say only positive things about
our economic system. I note that in your response to Mary's email
before, you mentioned something about how the Scandanavian countries
do more for the, I think you said, "unfortunate people", in their
population.
Maybe
that wasn't the word, but you ad the population divided up. The point
is that we need to have a society where people are treated equally
well and have equal access to goods and services, regardless of their
backgrounds or particular skill sets. We all need good medical care,
adequate housing, nourishing food. There's no reason for one person to
own 5 homes with full staffs in each while some people are homeless
and starving.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 5:27 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: about Real News
Well if you agree with it I'm sure it'll be all negative then.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 4:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] about Real News
I just forwarded a digest. I recommend you listen to the discussion
between Ben Norton and Paul Jay. Paul Jay describes are current
political and economic situation in a way with which I pretty much
agree.
Miriam
