Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Hygro]

There's an expression we communists use: No Investigation, No Right to Speak. It means that if you don't know what you're talking about then you shut up and listen those who do.

How does this figure into the power crowd wisdom and how diverse ignorant opinions of the many well aggregated (like via a price system) can frequently outperform experts of the few?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Luxembourgian BS.

 

[Ajidica]

There's an expression we communists use: No Investigation, No Right to Speak. It means that if you don't know what you're talking about then you shut up and listen those who do.

That just seems like a dangerous way to approach disagreement.

Link to video.

Who decides when a person "knows what they are talking about"? You?


Non-political question!
What is your opinion on the Warren Beatty film Reds, and John Reed in particular?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

That just seems like a dangerous way to approach disagreement.

Au contraire! A brain surgeon has an.upper hand discussing a difference in medical opinion with an attorney.

Non-political question!
What is your opinion on the Warren Beatty film Reds, and John Reed in particular?

Reds is an excellent film, especially from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. I use it, with framing, as a teaching aid in teaching about the American movement.

There are historical inaccuracies, but they are minor.

Jack Reed is one of the greatest leaders this country ever produced; he was one of the best journalists and a great revolutionary. Mike Gold wrote 20th year perspective on Reed in The New Masses in 1941 (Reed died in 1921) that I cannot find on line, but that pointed out he had no personal material reason to fight for the working class, as he came from a wealthy family, but rather chose sides.

 

[Hygro]

Luxembourgian BS.

Wait, are you saying communism isn't people self-governing together? Or are you saying that it is, but that that's Luxembourgian BS and therefore bad?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Luxembourg said that the mistakes of the movement are more valuable.than the machinations of the cleverest central committee.

The bourgeoisie leads and has rigged the game for its own interest; the working class needs its own leadership. Socialism is introduced from the outside because of this.

 

[Hygro]

That's saying that crowd-wisdom means learning from mob-failures, which is a different but interesting topic. What I'm asking specifically is about making room for crowd success: experts frequently underperform crowds in fields requiring conception and estimation. Obviously you want a concentrated expert performing the task, but what task? The one decided by the wisest "leader", which can be the diverse crowd in aggregate when it's not herded by various propagandas or social shaming/ridicule singularities into a mob of likemindedness.

From my vantage point it's one of the strongest arguments for a left-wing post-capitalist society outperforming a capitalist one. (It's also a strong argument for a little-l libertarian society as well.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That just seems like a dangerous way to approach disagreement.

Who decides when a person "knows what they are talking about"? You?

This kind of red-baiting question doesn't make me want to answer the question. But in the interest of good faith I'll answer it.

Other experts in the subject decide it, as they always do. It is quite apparent when someone is talking out their ass and when someone holds an informed, but wrong, opinion. And to be quite honest, while you have the right to your own opinion, you do not have the right to your own facts. That's a basic principle of science and of any trade. Those who know, speak. Those who don't, learn. All else is pretension and arrogance.

Non-political question!
What is your opinion on the Warren Beatty film Reds, and John Reed in particular?

Wonderful film, great man.

T
From my vantage point it's one of the strongest arguments for a left-wing post-capitalist society outperforming a capitalist one.

We have little interest in "outperforming" capitalist society. The sanctification of Progress Onward As Fast As Possible is born out of the capitalist mode of production.

We'll improve the lives of people, and proceed with social and technological development at a pace that the human race can tolerate together. Personally, I think that people will be better workers when work is not their sole purpose of life and does heartlessly destroy that life, and that once the full potential of humanity is actually made available to all of humanity (meaning we don't have future Einsteins starving to death in slums or getting murdered in drug wars) then our pace of technological development will increase in both quality and quantity, but really, there's no great rush.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

99% of Cubans I have met -- whether living in Cuba or not -- are the happiest and most stimulating people I have come across.

And Cuba has a frickin' lung cancer vaccine and tens of thousands of medical professionals working internationally.

watch this:

Link to video.

 

[Agent327]

That fact doesn't disprove what I said.

Obviously. But it puts your curious claim in a realistic perspective.

I literally explained why he has hesitations. Try to read what you're responding to.

I prefer not to take a dictator's 'hesitations' too seriously. Especially considering the effect these 'hesitated' purges had on the people of the USSR.

There's an expression we communists use: No Investigation, No Right to Speak. It means that if you don't know what you're talking about then you shut up and listen those who do.

I usually do. The point is, I'm not getting the impression you are someone who belongs into that category. The same holds true for the previous poster.

Which is one of the reasons I occasionally post on this thread.

 

[Daw]

Could I ask the reds here to please go back a page and address that Tovergieter's question on culture?

Any reds who consider themsel their support of Communism to constitute belonging a separate Communist ethnicity?

Communism seems to be more than just an ideology and more a unique lifestyle distinct from established ethnic groups based on ancestral kinship and religion.

Some other things that make me ask this question is that Communist promote international workers solidarity as opposed to civic and ethnic nationalism. Basically, Communists consider the world to be their homeland and view territorial and ethnic nationalists to be oppressors against whom they seek liberation. There is also a distinct Communist culture: There are Communist songs, paintings and more.

I insist that my answer does not count for an official one, and as I ran no prior investigation whatsoever I'm also afraid I had no right to speak

So would you, please?

After all it's an "Ask a Red" thread, so any poster here is supposed to either ask or be a red. Everything else is just invalid.

 

[aelf]

So any alternative to nationalism becomes an ethnicity? Any form of identification with a group has to be ethnic identification? I have no idea how all that makes sense.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Obviously. But it puts your curious claim in a realistic perspective.

No it doesn't. It's not beyond the capacity of an organization to target part of itself too. Yezhov was removed due to his corruption, and part of that was using the Purge to cleanse his own organization of challengers.

I prefer not to take a dictator's 'hesitations' too seriously. Especially considering the effect these 'hesitated' purges had on the people of the USSR.

It's a good thing he wasn't a dictator then. But then I am sure you are suspicious of all Reds no matter where they derive their power from.

I usually do. The point is, I'm not getting the impression you are someone who belongs into that category. The same holds true for the previous poster.

Which is one of the reasons I occasionally post on this thread.

Then there is little to be gained by you continuing to post here.

Could I ask the reds here to please go back a page and address that Tovergieter's question on culture?

I'll have to think on it.

 

[Hygro]

We have little interest in "outperforming" capitalist society. The sanctification of Progress Onward As Fast As Possible is born out of the capitalist mode of production.

We'll improve the lives of people, and proceed with social and technological development at a pace that the human race can tolerate together. Personally, I think that people will be better workers when work is not their sole purpose of life and does heartlessly destroy that life, and that once the full potential of humanity is actually made available to all of humanity (meaning we don't have future Einsteins starving to death in slums or getting murdered in drug wars) then our pace of technological development will increase in both quality and quantity, but really, there's no great rush.

That's saying it will outperform capitalism. In one of the two main endogenous growth models in macroeconomics, this one by Paul Romer, it shows that if you take people off production and put them into ideas, you have a drop in production but an increase in the rate of growth. As you get more capital, you replace that drop in production. If you phase people out and phase capital in, you get no real loss in current output but increasing gains in the rate of growth. Eventually when all labor is emancipated and capital is serving all material needs, you get infinite growth at time.

Even in the current liberal economic model, "true" communism is an economic super-miracle. It is the same thing as the singularity. Honestly using economics to disprove economic dogma is so, so satisfying.


But all of that is a bit beside the point. The concern is that "everyone shut up but the experts" is pretty different than "let the professionals carry out the task". The former is technocratic authoritarianism, and doesn't harness the collective intelligence of the people, which comes out of a lot of wrong people saying a lot of dumb things.

So that's why I was asking how does that saying you wrote above make room for the more important feature of crowd wisdom and people not shutting up and deferring to title.

 

[Flying Pig]

There's an expression we communists use: No Investigation, No Right to Speak. It means that if you don't know what you're talking about then you shut up and listen those who do.

Who decides if you've done enough investigation? Do you have to come to the right answers before you're allowed an opinion?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's saying it will outperform capitalism. In one of the two main endogenous growth models in macroeconomics, this one by Paul Romer, it shows that if you take people off production and put them into ideas, you have a drop in production but an increase in the rate of growth. As you get more capital, you replace that drop in production. If you phase people out and phase capital in, you get no real loss in current output but increasing gains in the rate of growth. Eventually when all labor is emancipated and capital is serving all material needs, you get infinite growth at time.

I'm not talking about taking people off production. I'm talking about empowering producers so that producing is not all that they do.

Even in the current liberal economic model, "true" communism is an economic super-miracle. It is the same thing as the singularity. Honestly using economics to disprove economic dogma is so, so satisfying.

I'm not talking about "true communism" I'm talking about the proletarian dictatorship. This is immediately achievable, it's not some golden land beyond the horizon. Hell, it was achievable since the moment capitalism began, because it's about how society is organized, not what is used to produce.

But all of that is a bit beside the point. The concern is that "everyone shut up but the experts" is pretty different than "let the professionals carry out the task". The former is technocratic authoritarianism, and doesn't harness the collective intelligence of the people, which comes out of a lot of wrong people saying a lot of dumb things.

I have no idea what this "collective intelligence of the people" is. Nor do I particularly care if you think expertise is authoritarian: experts should be authorities in their specialization.

There's a bit of technocracy in that, yes, but that is not incompatible with democratic functions at all. People are different levels of experts in many things, you don't have to have a title or an office to be an officially-sanctioned "expert."

Who decides if you've done enough investigation? Do you have to come to the right answers before you're allowed an opinion?

As I said, it's quite apparent when someone is knowledgeable but wrong, and when someone is talking out their ass.

I mean the speech is literally linked to in my signature. Go read it and see.

 

[Agent327]

You're quoting a speech as proof of Stalin's hesitation? A speech is something written for the public. It should occur to you that if there's 'hesitation' in a speech, it's there for a purpose.

I'm not talking about "true communism" I'm talking about the proletarian dictatorship. This is immediately achievable, it's not some golden land beyond the horizon. Hell, it was achievable since the moment capitalism began, because it's about how society is organized, not what is used to produce.

So when will we see an example of this proletarian dictatorship?

 

[Flying Pig]

As I said, it's quite apparent when someone is knowledgeable but wrong, and when someone is talking out their ass.

It's also common for people to dismiss arguments that they don't like as ill-informed (witness climate change scepticism!), and for people saying uncomfortable things in front of hostile audiences to be laughed at, on the grounds that they 'obviously don't know anything'. It seems like you're institutionalising that.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

To rephrase what I said: in a difference of opinion over a medical matter, one would trust the medical doctor's judgement over the PhD in History.

I have been an active labor activist since 1992, which is also the year I became a practicing Marxist-Leninist. Workers generally trust my position around an issue of labor than they do, say, an intellectual who has never walked a picket line in his life.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's usually fair, but that doesn't give the intellectual no right to be heard - often what happens in situations like that is that you end up with a group taking on conventional wisdom ('everyone knows that this is right'), and it's blindingly obvious to anyone not actually in the group (which often has a charismatic figure at the centre) that there are other, better ways to do things. We come to good decisions when we hear everyone's opinion and work out which is the best course of action, not when we start deciding who has a right to be heard - especially in politics!