Daven Laure explains interstellar civilization:
"'We give a person freedom, within a loose framework of common-sense prohibitions. And then we protect his social aspect by frowning on greed, selfishness, callousness.'" (p. 770)
According to Laure, economic planning breaks down even for a single continent:
"'So we rely on the market, which operates as automatically as gravitation. Also as efficiently, as impersonally, and sometimes as ruthlessly - but we didn't make this universe. We only live in it.'" (p. 771)
Are markets efficient? They involve duplication, overproduction, waste and booms but also slumps. Defenders of markets reply: "They are more efficient than any alternative!" That still does not make them efficient. We not only live but also act in this universe. An economy is a very large number of human actions. As such, it is notoriously unpredictable, the precise opposite of mathematically predictable gravitation. Need an interstellar economy be ruthless? Technology should prevent starvation, at least.
Earlier in the Technic History, greed, selfishness and callousness, even if frowned on by governments and social institutions, wrecked the interstellar economy of the Polesotechnic League. How can the later civilizations prevent this from happening again?
16 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The problem with failed ideas like socialism is that no gang of politicians and bureaucrats can possibly make or plan for all the millions and billions of decisions that happens in a real economy. No boneheaded politician can anticipate what I might or not buy on any particular day. So I dismiss socialism.
The way to handle "waste" or "overproduction" is precisely thru slumps, because recessions forces a more efficient reallocation of resources of all kinds. The best way to handle them is to let it proceed as quickly as possible. Attempts by gov'ts to prevent slumps will fail and needlessly prolong the pain.
Humans being what they are there will never be any permanent end to all kinds of troubled times coming to every human society. I will always regard Utopian dreams of somehow preventing such things with the deepest skepticism, suspicion, and distrust.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And "socialism" is not about boneheaded (or even genius-level) politicians trying to anticipate what you will buy on any particular day! But you can easily refute someone else's position if you define the position! The word "buy" assumes the continued existence of a money economy which admittedly cannot be abolished overnight or by the wave of a wand but, equally, need not endure forever after the technological production of abundance. If more than enough is produced to satisfy everyone's material needs, then no one need predict what any individual will consume on any given day. Automation, AI, communications technology, democracy and a culture of public decision-making and accountability can surely go a long way toward planning for basic needs with individuals, groups and organizations free to engage in activities going way beyond the satisfaction of basic needs. We are no way near this right now - in fact, powerful forces are taking us backwards - but what will the human race be capable of in the future if it somehow survives its current self-made problems?
Anyway, I question whether this post about interstellar economics in the Commonalty period really warrants this return to well-worn themes? (But we can return to well-worn themes if we want.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Wrong, because every time socialism has been tried that is exactly what has happened, politicians and bureaucrats mucking things up as they incompetently try to run a "planned" economy. With incompetence rapidly morphing into tyranny. The chaos in Venezuela under the despotism of the Chavista regime is the latest example!
Again, you are assuming something that does not exist and is not likely to exist any time soon, a post-scarcity economy. And any chance of that happening requires getting off Earth and into space. Here and now, in the real world, the only type of economy that works is free enterprise.
I also remain skeptical of the kind of political system you desire, a giant, global old timey New England style small town meeting. Impractical because most human beings don't care that much about politics.
I could point out it goes both ways, we keep coming back to well-worn topics because somebody brings them up.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, in the present case, we are talking about a remote future, not the immediate future.
And I have explained that "socialism" means something other than a familiar kind of economy continuing to operate, the only difference being that politicians and bureaucrats try to control and plan it. But that really was not the issue when discussing possibilities in the period of the Commonalty.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I can only stress that what I have to consider a hopelessly unrealistic definition of socialism contradicts the facts of real history. Every time socialism has been tried we have seen politicians and bureaucrats behaving exactly as described above.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Socialism has not been tried. Professional politicians and bureaucrats are not is what is meant by socialism. The facts of real history do not rule out what might be achieved in future with better use of more advanced technology. I can only stress that I completely disagree with such arguments.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, socialism has been tried over and over and over, and bloodily failed. Human beings have shown you can't have socialism without a centralized bureaucratic autocracy.
If you don't want such a system the only realistic alternative is free enterprise and the limited state, in whatever form.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Socialism has not been tried over and over. I don't understand how you can use that word as if it had one clear undisputed meaning.
If I say what it is, then you will continue to think that it is unrealistic but you will have to see that it is not what you call socialism that has been tried over and over.
An economy based on cooperation for need instead of competition for profit. This can only come about when a lot of people, dissatisfied with the present system, want an alternative and take collective action to bring it about. Of course you continue to think that that is impossible and we really need not go through all that again. But- socialism in this sense cannot be legislated, cannot be imposed by force by a minority on the majority, cannot be the policy of a military or political dictator and cannot be implemented by full-time politicians and bureaucrats trying to regulate and control an already existing market economy.
What I am trying to do at the very least is get us beyond endless repetition of words that we have been using without definition and clearly also using with utterly different meanings.
With some clarity (maybe), we can identify the real basis of disagreement and then leave it there for the time being at least because there is really nothing else to do. I am clearly at this stage not trying to convince anyone, just to make things a bit clearer.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, there is no single clear undisputed definition of socialism. Socialism, as actually done or seen has been this: a command economy in which the State--meaning, like it or not, politicians and bureaucrats--control the means of producing/distributing goods and services. I believe that definition is true to the actual facts while the one you favor is not.
Exactly how is an economy "based on cooperation" supposed to work???? How would anyone know how much grain to grow, cattle to breed/slaughter, iron to mine or smelt, shoes to make, etc., unless the people concerned get the information they need? Demand, supply, the profit motive, etc., gives producers and managers of all kinds the signals they need for going ahead. How would this undefined "cooperative economy" provide the needed information?
You say "collective action" will answer such questions. But that inevitably means using politics and the coercive powers of the State to determine how to answer these questions. Iow, a centralized bureaucratic autocracy trying to run a command economy.
But, at least for now, I'll discontinue this discussion.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That definition is true to the facts of what has been done in the name of "socialism." I know of truly appalling things that have been done in the name of Christianity. There are organizations that campaign for socialism and that denounce all that command economy stuff, like it or not.
We cannot describe in advance how a different kind of economy will work. Lots of people will learn by doing it. As I said, you will continue to argue against that. All that I was trying to do here was to show that it is completely inadequate to tell socialists that "Socialism has been tried over and over..." without first asking them whether you fully understand what they mean when they talk about socialism. (And I don't think that I have succeeded in doing that.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Iow, you only have hope and no facts and evidence for what you believe. I do not believe the kind of "socialism" you hope for is ever going to exist. Since we cannot agree it's best to ed this particular discussion.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't have to show that something has happened in the past in order to argue that it can happen with technological advances in the future. If it were true that nothing can ever happen that has not already happened, then nothing would ever have happened.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It still boils down to you only having hope that what you long for will come to pass. A hope which I believe is chimerical, dangerous, and unrealistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not just a hope. I see and experience what people can do when they are motivated and act together in large numbers. They can make a difference and there is always the potential to go further. I think that defending the present status quo is dangerous.
There are two sides to this: the human (above paragraph) and the technological. The latter certainly holds the potential of producing so much that both markets and money become redundant.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we can't agree. I simply don't believe merely technological advances and wealth will somehow make human beings less prone to being quarrelsome, aggressive, competitive, and prone to folly.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sea
Sean,
We disagree on something basic about human psychology but can technological advances not at least make money and markets redundant?
Paul.
Post a Comment