4 ms·

No way, we were field testing two alternate societal modalities, fascism and communism. Didn't work out, for different reasons. Governments, yeah, they come a

by warcher 10y ago

No way, we were field testing two alternate societal modalities, fascism and communism. Didn't work out, for different reasons. Governments, yeah, they come and go, but the modern republic, rule of law, checks and balances, regulated capitalist, civil society state is currently the world champ, and is in the process of consolidating its place as the default structure for social organization. It takes generations for societies to iterate. The current alternate modality is the tightly regulated non-democratic socialist/capitalist hybrid, a la China, which has done well but I think isn't going to go the distance, as they don't really have their failure mode worked out. When they hit a recession, as they inevitably will, how are they going to handle it? The real advantage of capitalism is reallocation of resources from ideas that have played out to the next set of ideas. You just can't manage that with a government-- stakeholders in old, bad ideas hold too much political influence and do not go gently into that good night.

CPLX 10y ago
> When they hit a recession, as they inevitably will Ignoring your other points, it's interesting to notice that the boom/bust business cycle of a market economy is something you are taking for granted as an attribute of all systems.
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  In this respect, as long as China is a part of the world economy they'll be a part of its boom/bust cycles.
- warcher 10y ago
  Neither nature, nor the market, tolerates exponential growth.
disantlor 10y ago
i'm wondering if the tighter control of information (i.e. the firewall) makes this alternate modality uniquely resilient to some types of failure. it may not have the same upside potential but perhaps it can lumber along under its own momentum. maybe even create enough illusion of momentum to weather dips that might otherwise be more detrimental. to the extent it might need to evolve to be more democratic it could do so in a way to give the illusion of choice but the freedom to choose between false options isn't much of a choice. clearly i'm feeling a bit cynical after this election cycle. yikes. anyway i thought your comment was interesting and it got me thinking.
- warcher 10y ago
  I'm old enough to remember when Japan was gonna take over the whole world. They did great, by the by, but hit some real cultural problems and stalled. Still doing fine, but definitely plateaued. I'd expect China to do something like that, although I question whether their totalitarian state is going to be able to hold together if growth peters out. When a bad year is 4% growth, people are remarkably tolerant of the government doing whatever. In lean years, not so much. And honestly, as bitchy and entitled as the American middle class is, they're the folks that demand progress and reform. Lacking a group of people with that level on initiative I think would be self-limiting in terms of what you could get out of your economy. They need to move up the value chain to keep going, and the kinds of people that do that are kind of pushy as a rule.
aninhumer 10y ago
>is in the process of consolidating its place as the default structure for social organization. It takes generations for societies to iterate. Yes, and perhaps this will be the perfectly stable system that will stand the test of time. Or maybe we're due a few more iterations yet. Your previous comment suggested that modern society had demonstrated some kind of evolutionary fitness that means it's not worth trying anything else. My point is that I don't see much to support that.
- warcher 10y ago
  Uh, you live at the absolute pinnacle of human civilization. There has never been a period more peaceful, informed, just, or prosperous than right here, right now, today. Quantifiably so. There's no close second either. The fifties and sixties were unbelievably fucked up (the current American faux-nostaligic high water mark). We could always do better though. And there's no reason to believe we won't. People are working on making a better world all the time. It's built into the system. Let's try your idea next, and if it fails, it goes in the trash with the others.

by warcher 10y ago

CPLX 10y ago

> When they hit a recession, as they inevitably will Ignoring your other points, it's interesting to notice that the boom/bust business cycle of a market economy is something you are taking for granted as an attribute of all systems.

stagbeetle 10y ago
In this respect, as long as China is a part of the world economy they'll be a part of its boom/bust cycles.
warcher 10y ago
Neither nature, nor the market, tolerates exponential growth.

disantlor 10y ago

i'm wondering if the tighter control of information (i.e. the firewall) makes this alternate modality uniquely resilient to some types of failure. it may not have the same upside potential but perhaps it can lumber along under its own momentum. maybe even create enough illusion of momentum to weather dips that might otherwise be more detrimental. to the extent it might need to evolve to be more democratic it could do so in a way to give the illusion of choice but the freedom to choose between false options isn't much of a choice. clearly i'm feeling a bit cynical after this election cycle. yikes. anyway i thought your comment was interesting and it got me thinking.

warcher 10y ago
I'm old enough to remember when Japan was gonna take over the whole world. They did great, by the by, but hit some real cultural problems and stalled. Still doing fine, but definitely plateaued. I'd expect China to do something like that, although I question whether their totalitarian state is going to be able to hold together if growth peters out. When a bad year is 4% growth, people are remarkably tolerant of the government doing whatever. In lean years, not so much. And honestly, as bitchy and entitled as the American middle class is, they're the folks that demand progress and reform. Lacking a group of people with that level on initiative I think would be self-limiting in terms of what you could get out of your economy. They need to move up the value chain to keep going, and the kinds of people that do that are kind of pushy as a rule.

aninhumer 10y ago

>is in the process of consolidating its place as the default structure for social organization. It takes generations for societies to iterate. Yes, and perhaps this will be the perfectly stable system that will stand the test of time. Or maybe we're due a few more iterations yet. Your previous comment suggested that modern society had demonstrated some kind of evolutionary fitness that means it's not worth trying anything else. My point is that I don't see much to support that.

warcher 10y ago
Uh, you live at the absolute pinnacle of human civilization. There has never been a period more peaceful, informed, just, or prosperous than right here, right now, today. Quantifiably so. There's no close second either. The fifties and sixties were unbelievably fucked up (the current American faux-nostaligic high water mark). We could always do better though. And there's no reason to believe we won't. People are working on making a better world all the time. It's built into the system. Let's try your idea next, and if it fails, it goes in the trash with the others.