Did Vinay Gupta predict the‬ fork? Extended Version

[pollen_bit]

[Extended Version] - [Bitcoin] Cannot be divorced from pre-existing political theory


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

[Delek]

Omg!

[Carlton Banks]

Depends on how you define your political theory.

Gupta refers to the initial network ownership as "anarchic", but it was and still is a co-operative. That model is socialist, however you try to spin it ("OMG Carlton likes socialism!"). And it works, at least it has for the 6 years up to now.

He runs into a common fallacy when describing political dynamics; an assumption that a single ideology is what makes it work.

The fact is that successful human cultures are ALWAYS a hybrid of capitalist and communist ideology. The success depends on what aspects of the system you apply capitalism to, and to where you apply communism.

The overriding wisdom, communicated to us through history, is that communes must be small scale and voluntary. If not, you run an enormous risk: you may get a dictator like Fidel Castro. He was cool. He practiced what he preached more or less, and created a successful system (not necessarily to everyone's taste, but it succeeded on it's own terms). You might get Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. They were not cool.

[BldSwtTrs]

Depends on how you define your political theory.

Gupta refers to the initial network ownership as "anarchic", but it was and still is a co-operative. That model is socialist, however you try to spin it ("OMG Carlton likes socialism!"). And it works, at least it has for the 6 years up to now.

He runs into a common fallacy when describing political dynamics; an assumption that a single ideology is what makes it work.

The fact is that successful human cultures are ALWAYS a hybrid of capitalist and communist ideology. The success depends on what aspects of the system you apply capitalism to, and to where you apply communism.

The overriding wisdom, communicated to us through history, is that communes must be small scale and voluntary. If not, you run an enormous risk: you may get a dictator like Fidel Castro. He was cool. He practiced what he preached more or less, and created a successful system (not necessarily to everyone's taste, but it succeeded on it's own terms). You might get Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. They were not cool.

How Cuba is a succesful system?

I don't think it a matter of taste, I think your definition of succesful is problematic.

[Carlton Banks]

How Cuba is a succesful system?

I don't think it a matter of taste, I think your definition of succesful is problematic.

Success is subjective. I'm not a fan of top-down socialism, so I wouldn't choose to live in that kind of society. But the Cuban socialist system did succeed as defined by Castro's objectives, the healthcare system has a good reputation for treating patients well, despite a lack of resources or new technology to do so. Their stock of automobiles is impressive for similar reasons.

[BldSwtTrs]

How Cuba is a succesful system?

I don't think it a matter of taste, I think your definition of succesful is problematic.

Success is subjective. I'm not a fan of top-down socialism, so I wouldn't choose to live in that kind of society. But the Cuban socialist system did succeed as defined by Castro's objectives, the healthcare system has a good reputation for treating patients well, despite a lack of resources or new technology to do so. Their stock of automobiles is impressive for similar reasons.

So Stalin was succesful because he took control of half the Europe, Hitler was succesful because he killed a lot of Jews, and Pol Pot was succesful because he killed a lot of intellectuals. Don't be so restrictive with your praise, all dictators are cool and succesful in their way.

[Carlton Banks]

How Cuba is a succesful system?

I don't think it a matter of taste, I think your definition of succesful is problematic.

Success is subjective. I'm not a fan of top-down socialism, so I wouldn't choose to live in that kind of society. But the Cuban socialist system did succeed as defined by Castro's objectives, the healthcare system has a good reputation for treating patients well, despite a lack of resources or new technology to do so. Their stock of automobiles is impressive for similar reasons.

So Stalin was succesful because he took control of half the Europe, Hitler was succesful because he killed a lot of Jews, and Pol Pot was succesful because he killed a lot of intellectuals. Don't be so restrictive with your praise, all dictators are cool and succesful in their way.

Successful genocidal maniacs, yes. I won't praise that sort of behaviour though, because it's heinously immoral.

Even Castro or Chavez were/are somewhat immoral in my eyes, as the population were given little choice in how they lived their lives. Moral values are not universal.

[BldSwtTrs]

How Cuba is a succesful system?

I don't think it a matter of taste, I think your definition of succesful is problematic.

Success is subjective. I'm not a fan of top-down socialism, so I wouldn't choose to live in that kind of society. But the Cuban socialist system did succeed as defined by Castro's objectives, the healthcare system has a good reputation for treating patients well, despite a lack of resources or new technology to do so. Their stock of automobiles is impressive for similar reasons.

So Stalin was succesful because he took control of half the Europe, Hitler was succesful because he killed a lot of Jews, and Pol Pot was succesful because he killed a lot of intellectuals. Don't be so restrictive with your praise, all dictators are cool and succesful in their way.

Successful genocidal maniacs, yes. I won't praise that sort of behaviour though, because it's heinously immoral.

Even Castro or Chavez were/are somewhat immoral in my eyes, as the population were given little choice in how they lived their lives. Moral values are not universal.

It's not because something isn't universal that the relativism should prevail. Even if values are not universal we still can make a hierarchy between different values.

Incest, excision and cannabalism are a cultural reality in some tribes even nowadays. We can judge this kind of pratices as inferior regarding the criterion of the potential to build an advanced civilization.

And it's not because some people think communist is cool and help the human race to move forward that we cannot say that they are utterly wrong and forget the empirical data that shows that the communism do the exact opposite of its intended goals.

[Carlton Banks]

How Cuba is a succesful system?

I don't think it a matter of taste, I think your definition of succesful is problematic.

Success is subjective. I'm not a fan of top-down socialism, so I wouldn't choose to live in that kind of society. But the Cuban socialist system did succeed as defined by Castro's objectives, the healthcare system has a good reputation for treating patients well, despite a lack of resources or new technology to do so. Their stock of automobiles is impressive for similar reasons.

So Stalin was succesful because he took control of half the Europe, Hitler was succesful because he killed a lot of Jews, and Pol Pot was succesful because he killed a lot of intellectuals. Don't be so restrictive with your praise, all dictators are cool and succesful in their way.

Successful genocidal maniacs, yes. I won't praise that sort of behaviour though, because it's heinously immoral.

Even Castro or Chavez were/are somewhat immoral in my eyes, as the population were given little choice in how they lived their lives. Moral values are not universal.

It's not because something isn't universal that the relativism should prevail. Even if values are not universal we still can make a hierarchy between different values.

Incest, excision and cannabalism are a cultural reality in some tribes even nowadays. We can judge this kind of pratices as inferior regarding the criterion of the potential to build an advanced civilization.

Yes. I concede that moral values are rooted in the self-preservation/self-improvement instinct in social animals, and that some moral values are universal. Would you concede that Chavez or Castro largely observed basic morality in respect of their own citizenry?

And it's not because some people think communist is cool and help the human race to move forward that we cannot say that they are utterly wrong and forget the empirical data that shows that the communism do the exact opposite of its intended goals.

Except in Cuba and Venezuela! It might not have been the promised idyll, but they were dealt some difficult hands by the international community also.

At the end of the day, Stalin and Mao were unapologetically evil tyrants, they would sacrifice any number of their subjects' lives in order to preserve "the system" (which was really just a euphemism for their continued unchallenged rule). Chavez and Castro, for any and all their faults, were no murderers mass slaughterers. (they likely did murder on a small scale, I don't know the details well enough)

I can understand your perspective on socialism and communism if you are a French citizen (thankfully you are not a subject of the state, yet). It looks from the outside as if France has long ago "run out of other peoples money", as I believe to be the classic Margaret Thatcher socialism quote.

[BldSwtTrs]

How Cuba is a succesful system?

I don't think it a matter of taste, I think your definition of succesful is problematic.

Success is subjective. I'm not a fan of top-down socialism, so I wouldn't choose to live in that kind of society. But the Cuban socialist system did succeed as defined by Castro's objectives, the healthcare system has a good reputation for treating patients well, despite a lack of resources or new technology to do so. Their stock of automobiles is impressive for similar reasons.

So Stalin was succesful because he took control of half the Europe, Hitler was succesful because he killed a lot of Jews, and Pol Pot was succesful because he killed a lot of intellectuals. Don't be so restrictive with your praise, all dictators are cool and succesful in their way.

Successful genocidal maniacs, yes. I won't praise that sort of behaviour though, because it's heinously immoral.

Even Castro or Chavez were/are somewhat immoral in my eyes, as the population were given little choice in how they lived their lives. Moral values are not universal.

It's not because something isn't universal that the relativism should prevail. Even if values are not universal we still can make a hierarchy between different values.

Incest, excision and cannabalism are a cultural reality in some tribes even nowadays. We can judge this kind of pratices as inferior regarding the criterion of the potential to build an advanced civilization.

Yes. I concede that moral values are rooted in the self-preservation/self-improvement instinct in social animals, and that some moral values are universal. Would you concede that Chavez or Castro largely observed basic morality in respect of their own citizenry?

Killing their own citizens, putting them in jail and to have imposed on their country an economic system which keeps the citizens poor doesn't fit into what I would define as basic morality.

I would concede they are not mass murderer though.

And it's not because some people think communist is cool and help the human race to move forward that we cannot say that they are utterly wrong and forget the empirical data that shows that the communism do the exact opposite of its intended goals.

Except in Cuba and Venezuela! It might not have been the promised idyll, but they were dealt some difficult hands by the international community also.

At the end of the day, Stalin and Mao were unapologetically evil tyrants, they would sacrifice any number of their subjects' lives in order to preserve "the system" (which was really just a euphemism for their continued unchallenged rule). Chavez and Castro, for any and all their faults, were no murderers mass slaughterers. (they likely did murder on a small scale, I don't know the details well enough)

I can understand your perspective on socialism and communism if you are a French citizen (thankfully you are not a subject of the state, yet). It looks from the outside as if France has long ago "run out of other peoples money", as I believe to be the classic Margaret Thatcher socialism quote.

When communism failed (that is, every time he has been tried) it's never the fault of the communism, it's alway due to the other countries which are not communist. Ludwig von Mises has written something about that in Nation, State and Economy.

For instance, Allende supporters think the economic meltdown of the Chile was due to the action of the evil CIA whereas anyone who knows the real story understand that he deliberatly introduce suicidal reforms in the sole purpose to ruin his country.
Of course socialists (yes as a French I know them well, basically every body here is socialist with only differences in degree) thinks that if Chavez and Castro have failed to produce other things than poor people it's only because of the evil action of the non-communist countries. That belief prevents them to think about the question further and allows them to preserve their shitty belief system about how the economy works.

[tvbcof]

I like this guy.  Much of what he says are thought patterns that have crossed my mind (which is not a one-to-one with what I 'believe').  He puts them into words reasonably well.

Anyone know if this guy is on bitcointalk and if so, what his handle is?

[Carlton Banks]

You make great points. I will address them.

Killing their own citizens, putting them in jail and to have imposed on their country an economic system which keeps the citizens poor doesn't fit into what I would define as basic morality.

I would concede they are not mass murder though.

  I think all governments are guilty of those crimes, though.

When communism failed (that is, every time he is tried) it's never the fault of the communism, it's alway due to the other countries which are not communist. Ludwig von Mises has writtent something about that in Nation, State and Economy.

For instance, Allende supporters think the economic meltdown of the Chile was due to the evil CIA whereas anyone who know the real storyunderstand that he deliberatly introduce suicidal reform in the sole purpose to ruin his country.
Of course socialists (yes as a French I know them well, every body here is basically socialist at different degree) thinks that if Chavez and Castro have failed to produce other thing than poor people it's only because of the international community. That belief prevent them to think about the question further and allow them to preserve their shitty belief system about how the economy work.

I agree.

Remember what I said originally: the right scale, the right context.

I live in a commune, and I grew up in one too; my childhood household. All households are tiny little microsms of a socialist society. Everyone "subsidises" (aka steals) from one another; socks, food, leaving dirty clothes on the floor, putting empty cartons back in the fridge, shit stains on the toilet bowl etc etc. We could run households like meritocratic capitalist microcosms: sending each other invoices for cleaning up, locking cupboard doors and charging rent by the hour. But that wouldn't work, so we don't do it. Scale, context.

[Dire]

Just a quick point from the peanut gallery, Communism and Socialism are not one of the same thing, although it has to be admitted that communists, socialists and capitalists do seem to assume as such.

The UK has what some consider to be one of the base requirements of socialism in place, i.e Free education (minus further education at present ) and healthcare, yet few would call the UK socialist or communist.

There is also a big problem with ideological communism Vs. Communism as it has been put into practice. These two are also, in effect, different.

[Gleb Gamow]

How Cuba is a succesful system?

I don't think it a matter of taste, I think your definition of succesful is problematic.

Success is subjective. I'm not a fan of top-down socialism, so I wouldn't choose to live in that kind of society. But the Cuban socialist system did succeed as defined by Castro's objectives, the healthcare system has a good reputation for treating patients well, despite a lack of resources or new technology to do so. Their stock of automobiles is impressive for similar reasons.

So Stalin was succesful because he took control of half the Europe, Hitler was succesful because he killed a lot of Jews, and Pol Pot was succesful because he killed a lot of intellectuals. Don't be so restrictive with your praise, all dictators are cool and succesful in their way.

"Pol Pot has died like a ripe papaya. No one killed him, no one poisoned him. Now he's finished, he has no power, he has no rights, he is no more than cow shit. Cow shit is more important than him. We can use it for fertilizer."