Central planners in the Soviet Union didn’t even have computers and they lacked the level of scientific understanding we have today of the environment, of our resources, and of the limits to growth. We’ve all heard about Mao killing the sparrows in China.
This isn’t a reason to never try central planning again.
They had computers towards the end, of course, but they were extremely primitive. The kinds of disaster predictions you can do on a machine built to run Tetris are nothing compared to what can be done with today’s technology.
Also, it’s not like markets can actually deal with disasters. Without at least some central planning disaster response and relief is impossible.
We largely have stuck with market based economies because they currently are much more responsive to changes.
No, we still have market based economies because they make a few people very very rich.
We needed markets before computers and instant mass communication. Things are different now
While computers have gotten more powerful there is zero evidence to support that we have gotten to the point where they could run a planned economy in any fashion.
What about the fact that market-based responses to COVID were universally worse than centrally planned responses?
Non market economies are never going to work, because you’ll be essentially creating one giant monopoly and leaving people without the possibility of doing things differently
What happens when you don’t like the product the state offers?
What if you discover a way of doing things more efficiently?
What about independent artists and creators?
And that’s not getting into how unpredictable people are, products that have been predicted to fail end up becoming very successful, and the opposite also happens
How old are you? Did you go through COVID? Capitalism doesn’t do disasters well at all. Every cost is minimized. So emergency supplies go unmaintained. If it doesn’t help the stock price annually it doesn’t get done.
I don’t disagree with that. Why leave that to the market which doesn’t optimize for anything other than more money and whos actions are opaque? Happy, healthy, and productive societies cost money, money that can be spent elsewhere. Slavery is efficient and profitable.
If some organization is going to have the power to make or break me, I want them to be transparent and democratic. Not a rich person who has never worked in their life trying to make more money using whatever means they can get away with.
Industrialization to make money is encouraged by capitalism. Why do you think big oil was lying about global warming? It’s not a few bad apples it is a systemic drive to make more money even if it hurts people or the planet.
There’s a difference between industrialization for people and trade versus industrialization for money and power. One helps everyone, The other only helps capitalists.
I wouldn’t necessarily look at China and USSR and say they are a good alternative. I prefer a more democratic socialism. My problem with capitalism is specifically the lack of choice of the people. We spend 8 out of 12 hours on average working for a company that we don’t get a vote in.
What? Yes, the environment can tell because there would be less pollution. The motivations are different. Do you think worker controlled industries would use the same tactics to over produce and polute the areas the workers live in? No one would benefit from that.
I’m not saying we would reach zero pollution but there would be a lot less pollution.
I have no problem with running water and electricity, most reasonable socialist would agree.
They don’t disappear if capitalism disappears. I agree with you capitalism needs to end in order to deal with them but there are hard issues that we have to deal with even with capitalism gone.
Even if the causes ceased we would still be left with residual emissions and degraded natural systems to try and deal with and a lower EROI society to do it.
They’re “hard issues” because we don’t have a centrally planned economy, we have to rely on the market to provide solutions.
Through a combination of marshaling the forces of production to build a renewable infrastructure and strict fossil fuel rationing during the build-up phase I think we could get the crisis under control within 5 years.
Some of the issues stem from material and energy limitations regardless of human organisation structures. Fossil Fuels are stored sunlight over a long period of time that means that burning them has a high yield and that’s given us a very high EROI society (one where there’s an abundance of energy for purposes that aren’t basic functioning).
I recommend reading The Collapse of Complex Societies by Tainter who discussing the energy limitations of society. Its before our understanding of energy limitations of technology and he’s by no means a leftist but it is still a good introductory text to it.
I’ve read Limits to Growth. I understand there are physical limits and that we can’t just grow our way through this crisis. Industrial civilization can not continue as it is.
But central planning would allow for us to transition to a lower energy society.
I agree but there’s a lot of detail about what activities a lower energy society precludes and my point is that energy intensive “AI” (mostly thinking about LLMs rather than targets applications of ML) probably aren’t part of it.
Deepseek showed that these chatbots can be run much more cheaply than they have been and it isn’t really necessary to build giga warehouses of servers. It might be possible to run them on even tighter hardware specifications too.
Of course, chatbots aren’t AI and the fact that they’re trying to use them as AI isn’t going to work out anyway lol
Yes its clear that the path of throwing more and more resource at LLMS to improve quality has been a lazy growth focused approach that we could do better if we actually try a design focussed approach.
For me though it comes back to the fact we are facing a polycrisis and most of our resource should be focused on looking for solutions to that and I’m not sure what problem* this technology solves yet alone what problem relating to the polycrisis.
*I realise what they are designed to solve is a capitalist problem. How can we avoid paying staff for service and creative type jobs to increase profit.
They’re trying to strip the wiring from the walls. They’re not even running like a business, they’re running it like VC.
Let’s not pretend they’re trying to centrally plan anything. The doggy department hates central planning. They just tell ChatGPT to come up with things to cut
What happens when you don’t like the product that the state is offering?
Petition the central planners to offer something else. Central planning can still be democratic.
What about independent artists and creators?
Well without the need to sell their art they could create whatever they want without fear of it being unmarketable. An artist could just create without needing to sell it to anyone.
Figuring out what things people will like is next to impossible.
Businesses do this all the time! They do market research to find out what people want, they monitor current events and customer demands and social media. There’s no reason a central planner can’t do the same.
Not going to work unless the government has somehow unlimited resources. Otherwise why would they spend money and resources on something they don’t know how popular would it be?
What reward do those independent creators receive in exchange of doing their art? Do they just work for free?
And sometimes they succeed and other times they don’t. In a planned economy you’d essentially be stuck with whatever the government monopoly has decided to manufacture and you won’t have any other choice.
Not going to work unless the government has somehow unlimited resources. Otherwise why would they spend money and resources on something they don’t know how popular would it be?
Why wouldn’t they know how popular it would be? They can see popular demand and social media and trends, the same as any privately owned company does when they do market research.
They can still do test products to see if new products are popular too, just like private companies do today.
What reward do those independent creators receive in exchange of doing their art? Do they just work for free?
Do you think people only create art when they can get paid for it? It’s the exact opposite! Without the need to be paid, they can make whatever art they want. Creating art is its own reward, they can still express themselves and share it with the public.
And sometimes they succeed and other times they don’t. In a planned economy you’d essentially be stuck with whatever the government monopoly has decided to manufacture and you won’t have any other choice.
That’s only the case if the central planners need to ration. Surely you can imagine a planned economy that offers choices.
It’s not like everyone needs to wear burlap and drinks Soylent.
This is a strawman. Centrally planned does not mean immutable, and markets are no more able to predict the future than anyone else. What it does allow is the disregard of the only quantity markets are capable of maximizing, profit.
Markets respond only to profit changes, and even then they are far from perfect. It’s simply an economist fiction that they are uniquely good at adaptation, one proof being the utter failure of markets to handle the global catastrophe climate change is going to cause.
Markets find the need of a market and respond to it only when there is profit. It is completely uninterested in other needs, this is why externalities are a problem.
I don’t hold it to the standard of perfect, but markets are simply not effectively dealing with the realities of climate change.
Industrialization is definitely an issue, the larger issue is that with economies exclusively driven by markets, even when every knowledgeable person on the matter is aware of an issue like climate change, markets need to be fought and bent against their very nature to deal with the fact that it’s less profitable to take care of the environment.
(the energy and emissions crisis are also byproducts of capitalism)
deleted by creator
Central planners in the Soviet Union didn’t even have computers and they lacked the level of scientific understanding we have today of the environment, of our resources, and of the limits to growth. We’ve all heard about Mao killing the sparrows in China.
This isn’t a reason to never try central planning again.
deleted by creator
They had computers towards the end, of course, but they were extremely primitive. The kinds of disaster predictions you can do on a machine built to run Tetris are nothing compared to what can be done with today’s technology.
Also, it’s not like markets can actually deal with disasters. Without at least some central planning disaster response and relief is impossible.
deleted by creator
No, we still have market based economies because they make a few people very very rich.
We needed markets before computers and instant mass communication. Things are different now
What about the fact that market-based responses to COVID were universally worse than centrally planned responses?
deleted by creator
You called me poorly educated. Was I supposed to be nice after that?
Non market economies are never going to work, because you’ll be essentially creating one giant monopoly and leaving people without the possibility of doing things differently
What happens when you don’t like the product the state offers?
What if you discover a way of doing things more efficiently?
What about independent artists and creators?
And that’s not getting into how unpredictable people are, products that have been predicted to fail end up becoming very successful, and the opposite also happens
How old are you? Did you go through COVID? Capitalism doesn’t do disasters well at all. Every cost is minimized. So emergency supplies go unmaintained. If it doesn’t help the stock price annually it doesn’t get done.
deleted by creator
American healthcare is capitalist. It’s insurance companies and for profit hospitals. That’s why it’s bad. Healthcare is an inelastic demand.
China isn’t a Democratic State. I’m not arguing that just having one guy handling all the economic planning is a good idea.
deleted by creator
I don’t disagree with that. Why leave that to the market which doesn’t optimize for anything other than more money and whos actions are opaque? Happy, healthy, and productive societies cost money, money that can be spent elsewhere. Slavery is efficient and profitable.
If some organization is going to have the power to make or break me, I want them to be transparent and democratic. Not a rich person who has never worked in their life trying to make more money using whatever means they can get away with.
Industrialization to make money is encouraged by capitalism. Why do you think big oil was lying about global warming? It’s not a few bad apples it is a systemic drive to make more money even if it hurts people or the planet.
deleted by creator
There’s a difference between industrialization for people and trade versus industrialization for money and power. One helps everyone, The other only helps capitalists.
I wouldn’t necessarily look at China and USSR and say they are a good alternative. I prefer a more democratic socialism. My problem with capitalism is specifically the lack of choice of the people. We spend 8 out of 12 hours on average working for a company that we don’t get a vote in.
deleted by creator
What? Yes, the environment can tell because there would be less pollution. The motivations are different. Do you think worker controlled industries would use the same tactics to over produce and polute the areas the workers live in? No one would benefit from that.
I’m not saying we would reach zero pollution but there would be a lot less pollution.
I have no problem with running water and electricity, most reasonable socialist would agree.
Okay Tyler Durden
They don’t disappear if capitalism disappears. I agree with you capitalism needs to end in order to deal with them but there are hard issues that we have to deal with even with capitalism gone.
Even if the causes ceased we would still be left with residual emissions and degraded natural systems to try and deal with and a lower EROI society to do it.
They’re “hard issues” because we don’t have a centrally planned economy, we have to rely on the market to provide solutions.
Through a combination of marshaling the forces of production to build a renewable infrastructure and strict fossil fuel rationing during the build-up phase I think we could get the crisis under control within 5 years.
… I’ll admit that’s just vibes, though.
I get the sentiment and I wish it were true.
Some of the issues stem from material and energy limitations regardless of human organisation structures. Fossil Fuels are stored sunlight over a long period of time that means that burning them has a high yield and that’s given us a very high EROI society (one where there’s an abundance of energy for purposes that aren’t basic functioning).
I recommend reading The Collapse of Complex Societies by Tainter who discussing the energy limitations of society. Its before our understanding of energy limitations of technology and he’s by no means a leftist but it is still a good introductory text to it.
I’ve read Limits to Growth. I understand there are physical limits and that we can’t just grow our way through this crisis. Industrial civilization can not continue as it is.
But central planning would allow for us to transition to a lower energy society.
I agree but there’s a lot of detail about what activities a lower energy society precludes and my point is that energy intensive “AI” (mostly thinking about LLMs rather than targets applications of ML) probably aren’t part of it.
Deepseek showed that these chatbots can be run much more cheaply than they have been and it isn’t really necessary to build giga warehouses of servers. It might be possible to run them on even tighter hardware specifications too.
Of course, chatbots aren’t AI and the fact that they’re trying to use them as AI isn’t going to work out anyway lol
Yes its clear that the path of throwing more and more resource at LLMS to improve quality has been a lazy growth focused approach that we could do better if we actually try a design focussed approach.
For me though it comes back to the fact we are facing a polycrisis and most of our resource should be focused on looking for solutions to that and I’m not sure what problem* this technology solves yet alone what problem relating to the polycrisis.
*I realise what they are designed to solve is a capitalist problem. How can we avoid paying staff for service and creative type jobs to increase profit.
deleted by creator
Every corporation is centrally planned.
I recommend reading The People’s Republic of Walmart. Businesses have figured out central planning, there’s no reason it can’t be done for nations.
deleted by creator
Walmart isn’t a federation, it’s very centrally planned. It’s also larger than a lot of nations.
The only thing missing is a military.
deleted by creator
Last I checked, businesses and nations exist in the same reality and follow the same physical laws.
Central planning works and you have been lied to by those same businesses that don’t want to be nationalized.
Yes, because it’s so great that they’re trying to run the nation like a business right now.
They’re trying to strip the wiring from the walls. They’re not even running like a business, they’re running it like VC.
Let’s not pretend they’re trying to centrally plan anything. The doggy department hates central planning. They just tell ChatGPT to come up with things to cut
Corporations are run very differently from countries.
What happens when you don’t like the product that the state is offering?
What about independent artists and creators?
Figuring out what things people will like is next to impossible.
Petition the central planners to offer something else. Central planning can still be democratic.
Well without the need to sell their art they could create whatever they want without fear of it being unmarketable. An artist could just create without needing to sell it to anyone.
Businesses do this all the time! They do market research to find out what people want, they monitor current events and customer demands and social media. There’s no reason a central planner can’t do the same.
Not going to work unless the government has somehow unlimited resources. Otherwise why would they spend money and resources on something they don’t know how popular would it be?
What reward do those independent creators receive in exchange of doing their art? Do they just work for free?
And sometimes they succeed and other times they don’t. In a planned economy you’d essentially be stuck with whatever the government monopoly has decided to manufacture and you won’t have any other choice.
Why wouldn’t they know how popular it would be? They can see popular demand and social media and trends, the same as any privately owned company does when they do market research.
They can still do test products to see if new products are popular too, just like private companies do today.
Do you think people only create art when they can get paid for it? It’s the exact opposite! Without the need to be paid, they can make whatever art they want. Creating art is its own reward, they can still express themselves and share it with the public.
That’s only the case if the central planners need to ration. Surely you can imagine a planned economy that offers choices.
It’s not like everyone needs to wear burlap and drinks Soylent.
This is a strawman. Centrally planned does not mean immutable, and markets are no more able to predict the future than anyone else. What it does allow is the disregard of the only quantity markets are capable of maximizing, profit.
deleted by creator
Markets respond only to profit changes, and even then they are far from perfect. It’s simply an economist fiction that they are uniquely good at adaptation, one proof being the utter failure of markets to handle the global catastrophe climate change is going to cause.
deleted by creator
Markets find the need of a market and respond to it only when there is profit. It is completely uninterested in other needs, this is why externalities are a problem.
I don’t hold it to the standard of perfect, but markets are simply not effectively dealing with the realities of climate change.
Industrialization is definitely an issue, the larger issue is that with economies exclusively driven by markets, even when every knowledgeable person on the matter is aware of an issue like climate change, markets need to be fought and bent against their very nature to deal with the fact that it’s less profitable to take care of the environment.