From ffcd249b6508839dfd4f3a2947cad706402ba71e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lucian Mogosanu Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:32:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] posts: 017, 018 --- posts/y00/017-the-mechanics-of-socialism.markdown | 112 ++++++++++++++++++ posts/y00/018-on-post-religion.markdown | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 240 insertions(+) create mode 100644 posts/y00/017-the-mechanics-of-socialism.markdown create mode 100644 posts/y00/018-on-post-religion.markdown diff --git a/posts/y00/017-the-mechanics-of-socialism.markdown b/posts/y00/017-the-mechanics-of-socialism.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..32e37c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y00/017-the-mechanics-of-socialism.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,112 @@ +--- +postid: 017 +title: The mechanics of socialism +excerpt: Socialism analyzed from the point of view of an engineer. +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +date: January 19, 2014 +tags: cogitatio +--- + +This is one of those posts where I talk about things which I understand more or +less intuitively, in terms of things on which I have an educated view. To be +more specific, I have no formal background in politics or economics, although I +understand *agents* as well as your average computer scientist and *systems* at +least as well as your average systems engineer. + +So, what is socialism? While I won't attempt to give a proper definition here, +I can very well state that it must somehow relate to social welfare or social +utility. In other words, we cannot speak of socialism unless we try to abstract +society as a singular entity. In even more words, the idea of socialism bases +itself upon the fact that a society is more than the sum of its parts, i.e. +more than just a group of individuals, and that the well-being of the whole +must be quantified one way or another. + +Of course, well-being is, generally speaking, a rather vague term, but it can +be quantified using economics, which deals with resources; and resources can be +reduced to money for the sake of simplicity. So if we were more naïve, we would +say that social welfare can be represented as the sum of money owned by "the +society", which is false, as some pigs are by definition more equal than +others, and besides, there's that entity called "the state" which in the +socialist view is more equal than individuals. Let alone the fact that "the +state" is made up by individuals. + +The sudden insertion of the "state" variable in this model is not coincidental: +some might say that socialism is founded on the belief that, at least in some +cases, the state as a ruling body can make better decisions than the +individuals it governs, which of course, may or may not be true, depending +on the decisions to be made, or on the individuals governed, or finally, on the +state itself, e.g. the way in which it is organized. + +So let's assume for now that the state can indeed make *some* proper decisions, +such as for example those pertaining to individual property, safety, freedom of +expression and so on. Also, let's assume that citizens are in some respects +completely incompetent: for example most of them don't own weapons and can't +establish education curricula individually. Finally, let's assume that the +subset of citizens actively running the state are interested in maximizing +social utility. + +As you might have already noticed, there are problems regarding **a.** the +limitations of the model itself and **b.** the application of the model in real +life scenarios, that is, its validity. + +Regarding its limitations, it's clear that we can't, for example, rigorously +specify the set of decisions makeable by the state. A small or empty set would +lead to something close to anarchism. A large set would lead to communism. +Besides, there are still unsolved ethical problems such as drugs, genetically +modified food or prostitution, which are considered horrendous in an Orthodox +Christian society, while being perfectly fine from the point of view of +atheists and/or rationalists. This is where the "quality" of individuals, i.e. +of having certain values, certain education, certain income etc., clashes with +the power of the state and this is how civil wars are started and so on and so +forth. + +Besides all that, there is a hard limitation on the quantity of individuals a +socialist state can manage. I'm no complexity theorist[^1], so I won't go into +the mathematics, but I can use common sense as a basis when saying that this +applies to each and every centralized system in nature. It's actually pretty +simple: the overhead of (centrally) making decisions grows with the population; +as that happens, the state grows and thus becomes an unmaintainable +bureaucratic machine, leading to dysfunctions not dissimilar in nature to +cancer. This problem is usually solved by changing the structure of the state +to a multiple-level hierarchy, e.g. by adding so-called regions or smaller +states, which brings about changes in the set of decisions made centrally. But +again, there is no general rule as to what is the optimal implementation, let +alone the best. + +Regarding the validity of the model, well, we have plenty of historical +examples of socialist states that made really bad decisions. The classical +example is that of attempting to raise budget income by increasing fiscality +instead of reducing it, which may work on the short term, but is incredibly +stupid on the long term, for various reasons in which I won't go here. Of +course, the masses will easily yield to propaganda such as that involving +raising the minimum salary, but they seldom think of how this will affect +prices in six months or so, which is why people shouldn't be allowed to +practice any profession involving thinking until they've studied basic +mathematics[^2] and economics. Unless, of course, they live in North Korea, +where being poor is the norm anyway. Besides, it's naïve to assume that most +statemen will choose the good of the state over their own. Sure, it might +happen, but then again, it often does not, and that's when the phenomenon known +as corruption arises. + +There exists however an issue which underlies all of the aforementioned, and +that is, as [Arrow's paradox][3] suggests, that there is in fact no general +social welfare function. The concept itself is flawed, as societies themselves +are built upon the common interests of their individuals. Trying to quantify +exactly that would lead to a partial, and therefore unusable function[^3]. +Trying to quantify more than that would increase the gap between various groups +of interest[^4], with the risk of alienation or even dissolution. + +Take from that what you will. + +[^1]: Smart guys such as [Barabási][1] are more involved in the field. + +[^2]: That, by the way, includes [integral calculus][2]. + +[^3]: Maybe "unusable" is too harsh here. Its usability would be however very +limited indeed. + +[^4]: Or "social classes", as social scientists like to call them. + +[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert-L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Barab%C3%A1si +[2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSGWoXDFM64 +[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem diff --git a/posts/y00/018-on-post-religion.markdown b/posts/y00/018-on-post-religion.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7a2f55c --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y00/018-on-post-religion.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +--- +postid: 018 +title: On post-religion +excerpt: In which I coin a new term for popular culture. +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +date: February 9, 2014 +tags: cogitatio +--- + +This article works under the assumption that religions in general have slowly +evolved into mashups of ancient philosophical concepts and cultural habits that +are presented as timeless but which are in fact terribly outdated. The +relevance of the centerpiece of religion (i.e. the all-knowing God) will +largely be ignored here, although I will not fully discard it. Thus we will +take [Merriam-Webster][1] and use the definition of religion as a starting +point: + +> re·li·gion +> +> - the belief in a god or in a group of gods +> - an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god +> or a group of gods +> - an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or +> group + +Note that I lean more on the third definition than on the former two, since I +believe that while a religion may be founded on the belief in a supernatural +being, it is at least as important to consider the cultural and habitual +aspects of religion. In other words, I can personally take the all-powerful and +supernatural out of "God says that X" or "We do Y to please God" without +depriving said sentences of meaning. I admit that I could be wrong in my +assumption, but ignoring it would involve ignoring my own beliefs, something +which no person of integrity would find acceptable. I shall thus proceed to the +subject. + +My previous research on what I call "post-religion" has so far yielded nothing, +or at least nothing that I would find interesting. In any case, I hope that I'm +not reinventing the wheel, or that I'm doing it through an approach that people +will find relevant, to say the least. Either way, my main challenge is to +define post-religion and illustrate it with examples. + +I ended one of my previous posts called "[Religion and the closed world +assumption][2]" on the following note: + +> Then again, in our mystical/spiritualistic conception of religion, we've +> deprived the concept of God of its worship-related semantics, or it's just +> that we're worshipping our own gods without calling them "God". But this is +> another story. + +This idea stems from deep, philosophical questions such as "what is God?" or +"what is it that we are worshipping?". If we consider for example Christianity, +it is intuitively clear that it was the main focus of the cultural and social +life during the fall of the Roman Empire(s) and later during the Dark Ages, +though we might not be able to provide much historical backing on the latter. +Thus books were mainly focused on telling tales of Christ and God and whatnot, +while social activities, e.g. music, were focused on praising some form of God. +I wouldn't go as far as to speculate that secular activities were rare, but +once again, it's pretty clear that *religious* activities were commonplace. + +This is one aspect of religion that has changed during our modern and +post-modern times. Activities are now equivalent to little boxes: when we +pursue something, we take a box, open it, enjoy its contents, then put them +back into the box for later consumption[^1]. Religion becomes thus but a box in +this context, but a brick in the wall, but something people turn to in their +time of need. This doesn't apply at all to fundamentalist religions, which are +very much like Christianity was a millenium ago. It however applies fully to +the Western civilization, the same civilization that in the 20th century +embraced this "box-based" thinking along with something called the pop +culture. This is essentially what I call *post-religion*. + +In other words I define *post-religion* as the worship or religious attachement +to things other than an omniscient, supernatural God. Said things come to +define our (sub-)culture and our habits, defining our selves as post-religious +persons. + +The definition is as simple as it is outrageous. Let us then attempt to apply +it to some real-life examples: + +**Hollywood, TV shows, books and the music industry**: The term "fan" has +become widely used in the last few decades. It's somehow fairly normal to be "a +fan of X", where X is a music band or an author, book, movie, genre or whatever +other product of pop culture. Little do people realize, although they know it, +that the word comes from "fanatic", which fanaticism can be indeed observed +amongst admirers[^2]. + +As an exception, some people have been known to die over their favourite X. As +a common occurence, people gather in groups to worship their X, be it at +conventions, concerts or in smaller gatherings. This is not dissimilar to +Sunday masses, same as christening is not dissimilar to various rites happening +in so-called "fraternities". I don't feel it necessary to expand the example +further. + +**Sports**: Interestingly, what started out as a play on war now ends up as a +kind of adoration. Seen from a distant perspective, it is a strange ritual +where people lazily get fat by eating junk and watching the war instead of +actively participating in it. In reality it's no big deal, as the vulgus were +fed the same "bread and circus" shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire. + +On the opposite extreme, there are those who religiously practice otherwise +innocent hobbies such as skiing, working out or running. + +**Eating habits**: It's one thing to struggle keeping oneself from the clutches +of food corporations, i.e. the post-religion of McDonaldism, and another to be +a "vegetarian", or better, a "raw vegan". Traditionally, people have consumed +whatever food they could, given their geographical position. This would +reinforce the idea that post-religions arise out of modern constructs such as +the free market. + +Special mention: **pseudo-scientism**. + +I note here that the space of post-religions is too big to explore exhaustively +and these examples fulfill their role of illustrative objects very well. +Basically post-religions have become a cornerstone for our contemporary +civilization. In fact we could argue that post-religion itself has become such +a cornerstone. One might wonder whether or not this foundation is not too +shallow and/or fragile to sustain it. Either way, it would seem that we all +need our gods to worship. + +[^1]: This point on how people generally view "activities" could be argued. An +example that stands out in its favour is Facebook, which organizes such +concepts into "life events". Another trivial one is "work" versus "leisure". +There are probably a million others. Either way, I am fully aware that +"activities" might be an oversimplification. + +[^2]: Also called "beliebers" in one particular case. + +[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion +[2]: /posts/y00/008-religion-and-the-closed-world-assumption.html -- 1.7.10.4