I saw this but forgot to respond to it earlier.

IMO an IoT infrastructure is more conducive to a network of self-sustaining nodes governed communally, rather than a centralized, top-down regime.

This is because such infrastructure scales laterally, like any other network.

Take 3D printers, for instance- they're seen as a modern mechanism for manufacturing since they're reliant on an Internet-based, open source model for the accumulation/refinement of designs.

Hierarchizing the network of 3D printers (placing them under the control of a centralized system) would be less efficient and fruitful, since we would replace realtime, open source collaboration with designs that are slowly passed along a chain of command.

That's just one example.

It's actually interesting that you use the example of Amazon, because the entire point that many people are making is that open source non-profits could outcompete a company like Amazon at tasks like the gathering and organization of knowledge (Wikipedia). Thus, it doesn't make that much sense to employ Amazon's model in this hypothetical, highly modernized State.

When I mean central planning, I don't mean it literally. Of course it's going to be communal-based. What I mean is that it isn't market-based.

How Amazon compares to open source doesn't matter for the viability of socialism lol

Towards A New Socialism by Paul Cockshott goes into this in detail. Recommend reading it if you're into computer science.

Amazon is a***ogous to a centrally planned economy because it involves instructions requiring the allocation of goods that stem from the highest levels of leadership, and trend downward.

You said that you wanted a similar system in America i.e. a planned economy coupled to an IoT infrastructure.

Not sure how to take that any other way lol

Because there are ways to have numerous plans with a bottom-up approach instead of a single ministry doing a top-down plan.

Do you not understand how Amazon is structured? It's not reliant on "numerous plans" devised by crate workers and scaled upward, it's reliant on a top-down chain of command like any other major corporation.

What a random ass thing to nitpick over. You said "the government could learn a thing or two from Amazon", I disagreed. That's all there is to it.

idk but I'm glad we in here balancing this forum out because there way too many trumpers on this s***.

I didn't you moron. Where the f*** did I say it should work like Amazon? Learn how to read.

"If we are talking about an advanced economy with an industrial base, then central planning using computerized and cybernetical planning, the internet of things, blockchain technologies and big data solutions would be the way forward in this century. Not very different than what corporations like Amazon are doing internally, just on a national scale."

My guess is you're making the assumption that I'm speaking about Amazon's economic structure.

I was talking about the structure of command. Any random person can tell you that there is a marked distinction between a centrally planned, top down regime (the USSR) and a decentralized network of communes.

Lmao. Are you trying to school me on planning? Who said it would have to be the Soviet GOSPLAN all over again? There is so much scientific working being done over economic planning and socialist planning. Maybe read one of those papers or books before strawmanning me into saying I want AmazonLand

I'm not trying to school you on anything. I think I'm qualified to talk about technology, and I made a statement about why a networked system better captures its benefits.

You used certain language that I took as you saying you wanted a system of planning similar to the Soviet Union ... that's literally how this discussion started (me asking you if you genuinely wanted a similar system).

If that's not what you meant, sure. Not rly sure why you started spazzing out over a trivial ass disagreement

You seem to have some kind of weird delusion that you are the reigning authority on all things, telling me to "read more" and s***.

I would be genuinely shocked if you could even explain how something like blockchain works, or what the IoT even entails.

But wever, this is a pointless ass discussion and I'm gonna keep it moving

You are the guy who can't imagine any planning mechanisms besides GOSPLAN and probably has never read anything about economic planning ever.

It's not that I can't imagine any other planning mechanisms, I just assumed that we were using the USSR as a frame of reference because that's what I asked you.

You clearly meant something else so it's whatever.

As a side note, it's funny to me that you genuinely believe economic planning is some highly relevant, contentious ass issue with respect to technology.

The default assumption of a futurist is that a modernized society is one of abundance through APM, renewable energy, etc. ... the question of planning becomes TRIVIAL and can easily be left up to supercomputers, since it's meant to be a solution to scarcity.

What's far more important is the question of how a modernized government would be structured, which is what I was thinking about.

But you can f*** off and think whatever, because it's clear that you head into every discussion w the assumption that you're right about everything.

No s*** the computers are good enough. No s*** we have the technology. There are papers showing that you could effectively calculate the labor and energy inputs of a year worth of the entire Chinese economy within 1.6 seconds. The question obviously is how this planning mechanism would allocate scarce goods, how it would be democratically controlled the best, how the labor would be measured and so on.

Because it's useless discussing with you if you have some cold war propaganda image of communism in your mind and don't know the first thing about economics, like the calculation debate that Austrian economists had and so on.

Dunning Kruger is in full effect I see ...

The question of allocating scarce goods and the calculation debate are both irrelevant in a post scarcity economy, which is a given when you talk about a futurist State. Maybe YOU should do some reading before you start spouting buzzwords like Internet of Things.

As you yourself said, the question of who "controls" the mechanism of planning and allocation is far more salient, which was literally what I was originally talking about.

But I'm done here. Do yourself a favor and read a book that was published sometime in this century dumbass

Lmao you f***ing retärd. Communism doesn't depend on your sci-fi post-scarcity s***. The climate is f***ing collapsing so good luck waiting on that post-scarcity economy.

You can absolutely have planned economies right f***ing now, smoothbrain. That's why I brought up corporate planning in the first place.

Mfer really implying "economics is irrelevant because we're gonna have a post-scarcity economy soon" while climate change is killing us and our resources are draining

You are a f***ing ingrate. The reason a post scarcity economy is relevant is because it is the ONLY solution to climate collapse.

An economic model predicated on resource extraction, even if optimized through technology-mediated central planning, would still eventually push us past the planet's biocapacity.

Maybe talk to someone like Plants if you don't understand the inevitable nature of collapse under an economy of scarcity.

And I never made a single claim about what will happen "soon" or what is likely. You pulled the issue of climate change out of your ass to gain some kind of emotional high ground ... it had nothing to do with the discussion.

Never mind the fact that you're STILL wrong about this weird tangent you've pulled us into.

You have no idea what you're talking about if you think humanity is close to a post-scarcity economy. Learn what the term actually means before you use it.

Yes, any planning system will look at resources spent and pollution emission. No, you're not gonna have an economic system that forgoes all resource extraction unless you want us to become anarcho-primitivists. That's why you have to plan.

i thought you were done? That's what you've been saying the entire page?

No, you imply that somehow I am talking about a future were there is no scarcity of resources because our technology is so f***ing advanced that economic planning doesn't matter because everyone has everything. I am telling you that I am talking about 2020, which is why I said that even capitalist corporations incorporate planning mechanisms in this very day and age, showing you that planning is possible in even the current year and not only in whatever Star Trek utopia you are dreaming of, you dookiebrained f***

1. Idiot, it's not about how close we are to abundance. Abundance is the only tenable future, no amount of optimization will turn an economy reliant on resource extraction into a sustainable one. This is EROI 101.

2. The technologies necessary for abundance are already in place, which you would know if you read a f***ing book that was published past the year 1990. But this is an entirely diff discussion.

3. Yes, some amount of extraction is inevitable, we aren't speaking in absolutes here. There is a marked distinction between a food production system that rears a cow and breaks it down for meat, and one that synthesizes cow meat in a lab.

Your whole f***ing premise is absurd. A futurist society is the only possible solution, it's not a question of ifs and whens.

If it's NOT possible, then you might as well pack your bags for Alaska because it's a wrap the biosphere.

You're an egomaniacal dusthead who has no idea what he's talking about. I'm not wasting another second on this bullshit

Tell me how abundance will be achieved under capitalism when private companies have no interest in investing in f***ing fusion energy or any other technology that takes decades to pan out.

The Tokamak design was made in the Soviet Union in the 50s and ITER was started on behest of the Soviet Union

And no, the technologies for abundance are not in f***ing place and will need massive investments for them to be viable. Shipping is still dependent on oil and propeller designs haven't made a serious dent yet, liquid hydrogen is barely viable for airplanes, most countries still depend on petroleum for automobiles, we depend on lithium for batteries should we decide to electrify our vehicles, our buildings are mostly from concrete and steel which isn't exactly CO2-friendly, our agriculture is unsustainable, our soil is degrading, we haven't figured out any carbon capture and storage mechanisms, we still can't desalinate ocean water on a massive scale and so on. If you're gonna wait for private firms to start innovating here using market mechanisms and NOT planning mechanisms we'll all be dead by then

You have some bullshit utopian vision that from today to tomorrow, somehow all of the bourgeois powers will decide that climate change is an urgent issue and massively invest into these technologies because it will be "futurist".

Keep crying about Marxists, because I'm sure the capitalists will help you with post-scarcity