Libertarijanizam - srpske varijacije

[onamonamo]

Pa dobro, reč "zadužbina" sama po sebi ima versku implikaciju (radiš nešto "za dušu" tj. čime bi se oprao pred nekom "višom instancom"), ali da li to onda implicira da nereligiozni ljudi ne mogu biti humani (ili nehumani) isto koliko i religiozni? 

za dusu ili za dug? mislim da je pre rec o dugu (prema drustvu i sl.)

[Miralem]

A ovo sad što su kompanije uplatile silne pare za poplave i donirale gomilu robe nije charity? To što su pojedinci i kompanije preuzeli ulogu države?

 

Daj molim te, ako je neko naivan, to su ljudi koji veruju da država može i treba da reši sve probleme. Nemoj navoditi 3 čoveka kojima je država pomogla da se obogate kao primere benevolentnih kapitalista, pored toliko drugih. 

 

I Voren Bafet je naivan, jel da?

pa ako drzava ne moze da resi sve probleme, tek ih benevolentni pojedinci nece resavati. a ove poplave su dobar primer- prevencija i saniranje ovakvih katastrofa je posao drzave. to sto se ona ovde iskazala jedino u vidu vucicevog budalesanja ne znaci da poplave treba da zaustavljaju horde bezglavih dobrovoljaca. vlast treba da obezbedi i odrzava nasipe, brane, adekvatno reaguje na alarmantne situacije i drzi dovoljan broj neohodnih vozila i materijala u pripravnosti. jedino ona to moze efikasno da cini i spreci sranje, poluorganizovane grupe dobrovoljaca jednostavno nisu dorasle tom zadatku. eto zato, izmedju ostalog, moras da placas porez.

 

a sada mi navedi srpske benevolentne kapitaliste kojima drzava nije pomogla. da vidimo koliko ih je i sta su sve za nas siromahe ucinili.

[Agni]

Nema pozitivne ni negativne diskriminacije u zapošljavanju, svako se zapošljava isključivo na osnovu sposobnosti. 

 

Ovaj, kako bi to postigao negde gde je vecina poslodavaca sklona diskriminaciji prema nekim grupama, recimo Romima, Albancima ili homoseksualcima?

[Utvara]

Ovaj, kako bi to postigao negde gde je vecina poslodavaca sklona diskriminaciji prema nekim grupama, recimo Romima, Albancima ili homoseksualcima?

Ili ženama, trudnicama, udatim ženama sa decom...

 

Imali smo već libertarijanske izlive u vidu gazde Bureka, koji tvrdi da bi ga zapošljavanje žena uništilo!

[Lord Protector]

Libertarijanizam mi liči na neku vrstu selektivnog ekonomskog darvinizma koji je izronio iz protestantske fobije prema državi kao Levijatanu koji je spaljivao protestantske vernike u vreme Reformacije. Kao neki odbrambeni psihološki mehanizam koji je ugrađen radi zaštite od uvek preteće vartolomejske noći koja čeka tu odmah iza prikrajka. Protestanti su kao progonjena manjina uvek imali problema sa neprijateljskom državom i sa neprijateljski naklonjenom državnom crkvom, tako da su svoj svetovni i religiozni život organizovali van zvaničnih institucija. 

Što se pravoslavaca i katolika tiče to je kao Bog i šeširdžija, oni na to gledaju sasvim drugačije.

 

Ono što je meni čudno i kontradiktorno u celom tom sistemu je prenaglašen značaj ekonomske strane ljudskog delovanja, tačnije glorifikacija novca i bogatstva kao jedinog merila ljudske uspešnosti. To je čisto materijalističko viđenje stvarnosti kojim se negira duhovna dimenzija čoveka, tačnije ona se ovim faktički baca u zapećak. Ako je lično bogatstvo koje je stečeno u znoju lica svog presudno merilo ljudske vrednosti onda o čemu mi pričamo? Zašto onda ne primeniti socijalni darvinizam na sve sfere ljudskog delovanja a ne samo na ekonomsku? Zašto udeliti prosjaku kada je on parazit koji ioanako neće dobiti spasenje, jer ko nije bogat nije u Božjoj milosti po defaultu? Znači kad se udeli prosjaku narušava se Božji poredak u kome se samo bogati spašavaju, dakle činim greh. Paradoks, ništa drugo. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by slow

[Lord Protector]

Mislim da u vrednosnom sistemu ceo ovaj pogled na svet ima nepremostive teškoće i da to ljudi instinktivno osećaju. Nije dovoljno da ja budem dobrotvor i da sve ostavim fondaciji i siromašnima ako sam se celog života kao biznismen u korporativnim ratovanjima  držao po uputstvima '' Umeća ratovanja'' Sun Cua. Ja nisam pravednik, ja sam licemer. Moj život je korporativno ratovanje a ne dobročinstvo. Ovim samo pokušavam da se iskupim dobrim delima, a to gore ne funkcioniše, jer nema oproštaja grehova bez pokajanja. A svako pokajanje je preumljenje, dakle promena svesti, dok ovde nikakvog preumljenja nema, mindset je ostao isti, darvinistički do samog kraja.

Edited June 3, 2014 by slow

[Filipenko]

Ovaj, kako bi to postigao negde gde je vecina poslodavaca sklona diskriminaciji prema nekim grupama, recimo Romima, Albancima ili homoseksualcima?

 

 

Obaška što se to nigde ne dešava, jer se ni u Americi sposobnosti ne cene koliko preporuka i dobra reč™, ne samo prilikom zapošljavanja, već čak i prilikom upisa na fakultet.

[kobni zelaya]

 

 

Ono što je meni čudno i kontradiktorno u celom tom sistemu je prenaglašen značaj ekonomske strane ljudskog delovanja, tačnije glorifikacija novca i bogatstva kao jedinog merila ljudske uspešnosti. To je čisto materijalističko viđenje stvarnosti kojim se negira duhovna dimenzija čoveka, tačnije ona se ovim faktički baca u zapećak. Ako je lično bogatstvo koje je stečeno u znoju lica svog presudno merilo ljudske vrednosti onda o čemu mi pričamo? Zašto onda ne primeniti socijalni darvinizam na sve sfere ljudskog delovanja a ne samo na ekonomsku? Zašto udeliti prosjaku kada je on parazit koji ioanako neće dobiti spasenje, jer ko nije bogat nije u Božjoj milosti po defaultu? Znači kad se udeli prosjaku narušava se Božji poredak u kome se samo bogati spašavaju, dakle činim greh. Paradoks, ništa drugo. 

 

 

Tačno. Ekonomski sistem kapitalizma, slobodno tržište i sve što uz njega ide je sistem sam za sebe, ima svoje vrednosti, koje nisu ni u kakvoj vezi , ili su čak suprotni  onim vrednostima koje obično shvatamo kao civilizacijske.  Meni kod kritike libertarijanizma najviše smeta što se ne kaže "kritika kapitalizma". To prosto svedoči u koliko se slaboj poziciji nalaze javnost i misleći ljudi, pa je potrebno da se selektivno kritikuju pobornici ovog pljačkaškog sistema.

Jedan prijatelj mi kaže - neće da ide na one kase u Merkatoru, gde nema kasirki, nego ti sam ukucavaš proizvode i ubacuješ pare u mašinu. Kaže, to je automatizacija, oni otpuštaju radnike, koji bi mogli da žive od toga, da bi sebi smanjili troškove. A ja mu kažem - a šta ćeš da radiš kada skroz izbace kasirke i ostanu samo automati? - Pa ići ću u drugu prodavnicu gde nemaju automate. Ali drugih neće biti, kažem ja, neće biti konkurentni, jer će morati da plaćaju radnike......

Nove tehnologije još više ogoljavaju ono što je odavno shvaćeno, a potom anatemisano od strane bogatih uz pomoć njihovogo bogatstva - moramo se vratiti Marksu i društvenoj svojini nad novim tehnologijama, simple as that. Proći će još dosta vremena dok te ideje opet uđu u opticaj, ali ipak će se i to desiti.

[maximus]

mozda radnik marxista ukapira da treba da radi nesto smislenije od kase? sto bi pokojni marx rekao .....parafraziram...."da se malo uzdigne"

[beatakeshi]

Naravno, tehnologija melje sve što jo se nađe na putu. Možeš koliko god da se solidarišeš sa slovoslagačima ali od toga nema vajde. (Ima lepa priča o Rupertu Mardoku tim povodom)

[kobni zelaya]

mozda radnik marxista ukapira da treba da radi nesto smislenije od kase? sto bi pokojni marx rekao .....parafraziram...."da se malo uzdigne"

 

Možda. Možda je potrebno stvarno besplatno školstvo, obrazovanje. Lak, besplatan pristup konzumiranju umetnosti, da obrazovanje i intelaktualci imaju veliki pristup medijima, da ne budu odsečeni sistemski od običnog sveta. Tome privatna svojina nad medijima, privatni fakulteti i škole svakako ne pogoduju. Pre bi se reklo da je kapitalistički sistem tako namešten da se taj radnik nikada ne uzdigne. Niti je rad sam po sebi neka vrednost u kapitalizmu. Tako da su tom radniku prilično slabe perspektive.

 

Naravno, tehnologija melje sve što jo se nađe na putu. Možeš koliko god da se solidarišeš sa slovoslagačima ali od toga nema vajde. (Ima lepa priča o Rupertu Mardoku tim povodom)

Ne. Tehnologija je sama po sebi dobra, samo je pitanje kome će da pripadne. To je pitanje koje niko ne sme da postavi, kapitalistička dogma.

Edited June 3, 2014 by kobni zelaya

[Prospero]

...

Nove tehnologije još više ogoljavaju ono što je odavno shvaćeno, a potom anatemisano od strane bogatih uz pomoć njihovogo bogatstva - moramo se vratiti Marksu i društvenoj svojini nad novim tehnologijama, simple as that. Proći će još dosta vremena dok te ideje opet uđu u opticaj, ali ipak će se i to desiti.

 

 

To ti je vrlo "ukočeno" rešenje, a pokazalo se belodano da komunizam takođe debelo "štuca" kada treba da primeni tehnologiju koja bi masovnije zamenila rad.

 

InterNyet: why the Soviet Union did not build a nationwide computer network

 

Slava Gerovitch

December 2008

slava@MIT.edu

 

This article examines several Soviet initiatives to develop a national computer network as the technological basis for an automated information system for the management of the national economy in the 1960s–1970s. It explores the mechanism by which these proposals were circulated, debated, and revised in the maze of Party and government agencies. The article examines the role of different groups – cybernetics enthusiasts,

mathematical economists, computer specialists, government bureaucrats, and liberal economists – in promoting, criticizing, and reshaping the concept of a national computer network. The author focuses on the political dimension of seemingly technical proposals, the relationship between information and power, and the transformative role of users of computer technology.

Keywords:computers; networks; economics; management; cybernetics; Soviet Union

 

 

 

In October 1961, just in time for the opening of the Twenty-Second Congress of the Communist Party, the Cybernetics Council of the Soviet Academy of Sciences published a volume appropriately entitled, Cybernetics in the Service of Communism. This book outlined the great potential benefits of applying computers and cybernetic models in a wide range of fields, from biology and medicine to production control, transportation, and economics. In particular, the entire Soviet economy was interpreted as ‘a complex cybernetic system, which incorporates an enormous number of various interconnected control loops.’ Soviet cyberneticians proposed to optimize the functioning of this system by creating a large number of regional computer centers to collect, process, and redistribute economic data for efficient planning and management. Connecting all these centers into a nationwide network would lead to the creation of ‘a single automated system of control of the national economy.’

.......

A large number of previously marginalized research trends found a niche for themselves under the aegis of the Academy Council on Cybernetics, including mathematical economics, which was refashioned as ‘economic cybernetics.’Conceptualizing the Soviet economy in cybernetic terms, economic cyberneticians regarded economic planning as ‘a huge feedback system of control (or regulation). If a “signal” is delayed, the system may start to oscillate.’ Economic cyberneticians aspired to turn the Soviet economy into a fully controllable and optimally functioning system by managing its information flows.The Cybernetics Council set up an economics section, regularly published papers on mathematical economics in the annual volumes of Cybernetics in the Service of Communism,and sponsored several conferences, bringing mathematicians, computer scientists, and economists together. In 1958, only a handful of Soviet economists were interested in mathematical models of planning and management. In 1960, the first national conference on the use of mathematical methods and computer in economics and planning was held; the following year, over 40 institutions conducted research on mathematical economics. By 1967, the Council on Cybernetics coordinated cybernetic research in some 500 institutions, and half of them were engaged in applying cybernetic methods to economics

......

’In November 1962, the deputy chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers Aleksei Kosygin called to his office president of the Academy of Sciences Mstislav Keldysh and director of the Institute of Cybernetics in Kiev Viktor Glushkov. Glushkov, who had been familiar with Kitov’s ideas, presented a new proposal to build an automated system for economic planning and management on the basis of a nationwide computer network. Kosygin generally supported the idea and soon appointed Glushkov chairman of the Interagency Scientific Council on Computer Technology and Automated Management Systems.In May 1963 the Party and the government issued a joint resolution, which decreed new drastic measures aimed at accelerating the introduction of computers into the national economy. Numerous central government agencies were ordered to set up their own computer centers and research institutes. Cybernetics turned into a buzzword. Popular press touted computers as a panacea for all problems, and cybernetic concepts were floated everywhere,from philosophy to atheist propaganda. Even Kosygin’s son-in-law privately complained that he had to put ‘cybernetics’ in the title of his book to make it more appealing.

......

In June 1964 Glushkov submitted his formal proposal to the government, but political events soon upset his plans. In October Khrushchev was ousted from power and replaced by Leonid Brezhnev as the Party leader and by Aleksei Kosygin as Prime Minister. In November the presidium of the Council of Ministers discussed Glushkov’s proposal. It faced stern opposition from the same government agencies that were supposed to participate in its implementation. The idea of automated economic management threatened to upset the existing hierarchy of power in the economic sphere: information-collecting through a network of computer centers would challenge the role of the Central Statistical Administration, while automated planning would undermine the monopoly of the State Planning Committee (Gosplan) on top-level economic decisions.

......

In 1965 the Khrushchev-era decentralized system of regional economic management was dismantled, and a centralized managerial structure of industrial branch ministries was restored. In 1966 the Party and the government issued another decree authorizing a large-scale program of introducing computerized management information systems into the economy. The decree was a typical bureaucratic compromise between the camps of the planners and the statisticians: the Central Statistical Administration was placed in charge of the development of a national network of computer centers, while various ministries were authorized to set up their own computer centers and to develop management information systems at the enterprises under their control. The Central Statistical Administration advocated the construction of a network of regional computer centers, but Gosplan insisted on organizing the network according to its own departmental structure, which corresponded to groups of industries. While the dispute continued, no action on the network plan was taken.

......

A new impetus to the idea of a nationwide computer network came in the late 1960s,when the Soviet leadership learned about the development of the ARPANET in the USA. Glushkov came up with a new proposal, even more ambitious than the previous one. He proposed to unite management information systems of all levels – from individual enter-prises through branch-based ministry systems and regional nodes up to the top government level – to create the Statewide Automated Management System for Collection and Processing of Information for the Accounting, Planning, and Management of the National Economy (in Russian, abbreviation, OGAS) (Figure 1). Glushkov argued that the larger was an object controlled by an automated management system, the greater would be its economic effect. Unless the processing of economic information was automated, he warned, by the mid 1980s nearly the entire adult population of the Soviet Union would be engaged in planning, accounting, and management.

......

Some liberal intellectuals began to see in Glushkov’s proposal the specter of an omni-present surveillance system; others dismissed it as a technological utopia. Economists argued that solution was not in processing large amounts of information, but in reducing the amount of information necessary for decision-making: ‘Excess information is not only useless, but it is harmful.’ Management experts asserted that management information systems had ‘simply reinforced outmoded methods of accounting and keeping statistics in American corporations’ and insisted that a management reform must be implemented first,and computerization should come second.

......

Ministry officials realized that there were many ways to skin the cybernetic cat without necessarily losing their grip on power. Each ministry built its own computer centers and developed management information systems for their internal needs. In 1971–75, the number of such systems grew almost sevenfold, but they often used incompatible hardware and software and did not form any cross-agency network.By constructing specialized management information systems, Soviet industrial branch ministries laid a technical foundation for strengthening centralized control over their subordinate enterprises. Now the ministries did not have to share information/power with any rival agency. On the contrary, each ministry could use computer technology to strengthen its control over sensitive information. ‘The Ministry of Metallurgy decides what to produce,and the Ministry of Supplies decides how to distribute it. Neither will yield its powers to anyone,’ explained one official.58‘Having different ministries is like having different governments,’ observed another.

....

Soviet cyberneticians envisioned an organic, self-regulating system, but paradoxically they insisted on building it by decree from above. They argued against gradual growth from below, because individual parts would not function efficiently without a comprehensive nationwide system, and a piecemeal approach would only conserve existing practices.However, a nationwide management system, any individual part of which was not viable,could not be viable itself.On a smaller scale, this vision was implemented in Allende’s Chile, where the British cybernetician Stafford Beer designed Cybersyn, a national system of automated economic management. Cybersyn was supposed to provide maximum autonomy to individual enter-prises within the overall planning system. As with OGAS, however, the actual implementation of Cybersyn effectively subverted its initial goal. The new technology ‘served to entrench further many of the management practices that had disempowered workers prior to Allende’s presidency, rather than to bring about revolutionary change.’

......

Cyberneticians aspired to reform the Soviet government with a technological tool whose uses the government itself defined. This resulted,quite naturally, in a transformation of the tool itself – from a vehicle of reform into a pillar of the status quo.

 

 

[Miralem]

Obaška što se to nigde ne dešava, jer se ni u Americi sposobnosti ne cene koliko preporuka i dobra reč™, ne samo prilikom zapošljavanja, već čak i prilikom upisa na fakultet.

otkud znas? mozda se desava u onih nekoliko zemalja koje zive po libertarijanskim principima. bez zle vlade koja ih oporezuje i pod trzisnim uslovima, tj u somaliji i avganistanu (a kako to funkcionise kada zemlja ime resurse mozemo videti na primeru belgijskog konga)

 

Tačno. Ekonomski sistem kapitalizma, slobodno tržište i sve što uz njega ide je sistem sam za sebe, ima svoje vrednosti, koje nisu ni u kakvoj vezi , ili su čak suprotni  onim vrednostima koje obično shvatamo kao civilizacijske.  Meni kod kritike libertarijanizma najviše smeta što se ne kaže "kritika kapitalizma". To prosto svedoči u koliko se slaboj poziciji nalaze javnost i misleći ljudi, pa je potrebno da se selektivno kritikuju pobornici ovog pljačkaškog sistema.

Jedan prijatelj mi kaže - neće da ide na one kase u Merkatoru, gde nema kasirki, nego ti sam ukucavaš proizvode i ubacuješ pare u mašinu. Kaže, to je automatizacija, oni otpuštaju radnike, koji bi mogli da žive od toga, da bi sebi smanjili troškove. A ja mu kažem - a šta ćeš da radiš kada skroz izbace kasirke i ostanu samo automati? - Pa ići ću u drugu prodavnicu gde nemaju automate. Ali drugih neće biti, kažem ja, neće biti konkurentni, jer će morati da plaćaju radnike......

Nove tehnologije još više ogoljavaju ono što je odavno shvaćeno, a potom anatemisano od strane bogatih uz pomoć njihovogo bogatstva - moramo se vratiti Marksu i društvenoj svojini nad novim tehnologijama, simple as that. Proći će još dosta vremena dok te ideje opet uđu u opticaj, ali ipak će se i to desiti.

pazi, kapitalizam je negde do kraja osamdesetih sasvim lepo funkcionisao, barem u onoj socijaldemokratskoj varijanti. u zapadnoevropskim zemljama je jaz izmedju bogatih i siromasnih bio relativno mali, sto je znacilo da je postojala siroka baza konzumenata. onda su pocev od 90ih, izmedju ostalog i iz ideoloskih razloga, svi krenuli u sveopstu privatizaciju, i dopustili prvenstveno bankama da divljaju, tj trziste je krenulo da se samoregulise i sad imamo ovo sta imamo. bogatasi su povukli kapital na sejselska ostrva, a sve vecoj grupi ljudi koji zive od minimalca na kraju meseca ostane taman toliko da mogu da kupe kurac i njime izbiju oci. a ako oni ne mogu kupovati sarene perle i ogledalca, onda celokupna ekonomija pocinje da propada uprkos benevolentnim dobrostojecim ljudima koji kupuju boje i platno slikaru.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Miralem

[Miralem]

Naravno, tehnologija melje sve što jo se nađe na putu. Možeš koliko god da se solidarišeš sa slovoslagačima ali od toga nema vajde. (Ima lepa priča o Rupertu Mardoku tim povodom)

hehe, evo jednog neoludiste. pijuk u ruke, pa po kompjuterima!

[Lord Protector]

Postoji ideja Ray Kurzweil-a, glavnog tehnološkog gurua Googla da tehnologiju, čoveka i komunizam treba spojiti u jednu tačku. Barem on tako vidi tehnološki singularitet, tačku u kojoj se spajaju mašine i ljudi i prevazilazi ljudska inteligencija.

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xm7xnn_kurzweil-technology-will-achieve-the-goals-of-communism_news

 

 

He states that with radical life extension will come radical life enhancement. He says he is confident that within 10 years we will have the option to spend some of our time in 3D virtual environments that appear just as real as real reality, but these will not yet be made possible via direct interaction with our nervous system. He claims to know that 20 to 25 years from now, we will have millions of blood-cell sized devices, known as nanobots, inside our bodies fighting against diseases, improving our memory, and cognitive abilities. Kurzweil claims to know that a machine will pass the Turing test by 2029, and that around 2045, "the pace of change will be so astonishingly quick that we won't be able to keep up, unless we enhance our own intelligence by merging with the intelligent machines we are creating". Shortly after, Kurzweil claims to know that humans will be a hybrid of biological and non-biological intelligence that becomes increasingly dominated by its non-biological component. He stresses that "AI is not an intelligent invasion from Mars. These are brain extenders that we have created to expand our own mental reach. They are part of our civilization. They are part of who we are. So over the next few decades our human-machine civilization will become increasingly dominated by its non-biological component."

 

Čika Marks je rekao da će komunizam biti kada radnici budu vlasnici sredstava za proizvodnju u besklasnom društvu ali je Kurtzweil malo modifikovao prvobitnu definiciju: Komunizam će nastati kada radnici postanu hibridne mašine...

 

meni se čini da će ovo biti jedna od najznačajnijih tema u neposrednoj budućnosti:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

 

kao i ovo:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

Edited June 3, 2014 by slow