Holographic Guilds and Compunism


problem 1 - helplessness as economic individuals


TTC - Economics

02. Division of Labor

Robert Heilbroner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heilbroner

The Making of Economic Society
Chapter 1 - The Economic Problem:

Short of a catastrophic war, it is highly unlikely that most of us ever will know the full meaning of the struggle for existence. Nonetheless, even in our prosperous and secure society, there remains, however unnoticed, an aspect of life’s precariousness, a reminder of the underlying problem of survival. This is our helplessness as economic individuals.

For it is a curious fact that as we leave the most primitive peoples of the world, we find the economic insecurity of the individual many times multiplied. The solitary Eskimo, Bushman, Indonesian, or Nigerian peasant, left to his or her own devices, will survive a considerable time. Living close to the soil or to his or her animal prey, such an individual can sustain his own— more rarely, her own—life, at least for a while, single-handedly. Communities numbering only a few hundred can live indefinitely. Indeed, a considerable percentage of the human race today lives in precisely such fashion—in small, virtually self-contained peasant communities that provide for their own survival with a minimum of contact with the outside world. This portion of humankind may suffer great poverty, but it also knows a certain economic independence. If it did not, it would have been wiped out centuries ago.

When we turn to the New Yorker or the Chicagoan, on the other hand, we are struck by exactly the opposite condition—by a prevailing ease of material life coupled with an extreme dependence on others. We can no longer envisage the solitary individual or the small community surviving unaided in the great metropolitan areas where most Americans live, unless they loot warehouses or stores for food and necessities. The overwhelming majority of Americans has never grown food, caught game, raised meat, ground grain into flour, or even fashioned flour into bread. Faced with the challenge of clothing themselves or building their own homes, they would be hopelessly untrained and unprepared. Even to make minor repairs in the machines that surround them, they must call on other members of the community whose business it is to fix cars or repair plumbing, for example. Paradoxically, perhaps, the richer the nation, the more apparent is this inability of its average inhabitant to survive unaided and alone.


solution 1 - holographic guilds

in addition to any person's education and job, we should train certain groups of the population in various skills necessary for a country to survive.

the cheapest way to do this is to set workshops with virtual reality simulations that teach specific skills. we should make it mandatory by law for people to practice those skills every so often in the simulations, to keep the knowledge fresh and alive.

i think broadening their practical horizons like this can be interesting for people, just like the "How It's Made" series on Discovery Science, or "How Do They Do It?" on Discovery. but of course more "hands on" in the virtual simulations.

i think in addition to survival it's more interesting and human. in hunter gatherer tribes each person knew infinitely more. humans are not designed to function as a tiny cog in an "assembly line" like in the movie "Modern Times" by Charlie Chaplin.

so:

ALL people will train in basic survival skills like basic food production (agriculture and farming), basic first aid, basic energy production, rescue and protection.

MOST people will train in groups of professions that are secondary to survival like building (shelters), plumbing (sanitation), electronics (communication), making tools clothes and furniture etc. and also more advanced levels of the sets of skills of the previous group. like some of the knowledge of a physician (doctor), some of the knowledge of an electric engineer, etc.

FEW of the people will be trained to a high degree in professions that require a lot of knowledge like scientists.

at  the end we should have in each community a core of people in each specialty that can help sustain their community in their secondary field. like a preson can be an office clerk for a living, but also have the knowledge of a seamstress, a nurse, and a welder, in addition to the core training of immediate survival skills that everybody will have.

this means that in a case of a catastrophe this community even if half the people are dead and there is no contact with the outside world can sustain itself for a long period given the necessary raw materials.

we should keep a reasonable stock of raw materials, the most multi-purpose machines, and replacement parts for any emergency. since most of them have long shelf life it doesn't even cost us much to put some aside, and when we need more we use the spare one from our stockpile and resupply our emergency stock ASAP.

since machines will also be in short supply then a lot of emphasis should go into teaching how to repair and build engines, tools, cars and all sorts of production machines, in order to rebuild industries that were lost.

the whole thing should be like a hologram that if you take a small piece of it (like only one city from the whole country survived) it contains the necessary elements to complete the whole image (like restoring the industrial knowledge and tools for the country)

How 3D holograms work by Physics Girl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ics3RVSn9w


Introduction to Holography - Types of Holograms by Educational Video Library

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVzk7bbQOA8



problem 2 - synchronization of supply and demand

quote of Frédéric Bastiat

from his "There Are No Absolute Principles"


But if exchange does not possess a character that is peculiar to it; if it is not governed by any natural law; if, capriciously, it be sometimes useful and sometimes detrimental; if it does not find its motive force in the good it accomplishes, its limit in the good
it ceases to accomplish; if its consequences cannot be estimated by those who effect exchanges—in a word, if there be no absolute principles, then we must proceed to weigh, balance, and regulate transactions, we must equalize the conditions of labor, and try to
find out the average rate of profits—a colossal task, well deserving the large emoluments and powerful influence awarded to those who undertake it.

On entering Paris, which I had come to visit, I said to myself— here are a million human beings who would all die in a short time if provisions of every kind ceased to flow toward this great metropolis. Imagination is baffled when it tries to appreciate the vast multiplicity of commodities that must enter tomorrow through the barriers in order to preserve the inhabitants from falling a prey to the convulsions of famine, rebellion and pillage.

And yet all sleep at this moment, and their peaceful slumbers are not disturbed for a single instant by the prospect of such a frightful catastrophe. On the other hand, eighty departments have been laboring today, without concert, without any mutual understanding, for the provisioning of Paris. How does each succeeding day bring what is wanted, nothing more, nothing less, to so gigantic a market? What, then, is the ingenious and secret power that governs the astonishing regularity of movements so complicated, a regularity in which everybody has implicit faith, although happiness and life itself are at stake? That power is an absolute principle, the principle of freedom in transactions. We have faith in that inward light that Providence has placed in the heart of all men, and to which He has confided the preservation and indefinite amelioration of our species, namely, a regard to personal interest—since we must give it its right name—a principle so active, so vigilant, so foreseeing, when it is free in its action. In what situation, I would ask, would the inhabitants of Paris be if a minister should take it into his head to substitute for this power the combinations of his own genius, however superior we might suppose them to be—if he thought to subject to his supreme direction this prodigious mechanism, to hold the springs of it in his hands, to decide by whom, or in what manner, or on what conditions, everything needed should be produced, transported, exchanged and consumed? Truly, there may be much suffering within the walls of Paris—poverty, despair, perhaps starvation, causing more tears to flow than ardent charity is able to dry up; but I affirm that it is probable, nay, that it is certain, that the arbitrary intervention of government would multiply infinitely those sufferings, and spread over all our fellow-citizens those evils
which at present affect only a small number of them.

This faith, then, which we repose in a principle, when the question relates only to our home transactions, why should we not retain when the same principle is applied to our international transactions, which are undoubtedly less numerous, less delicate, and less complicated? And if it is not necessary that the municipality should regulate our Parisian industries, weigh our chances, balance our profits and losses, see that our circulating medium is not exhausted, and equalize the conditions of our home labor, why should it be necessary that the customhouse, departing from its fiscal duties, should pretend to exercise a protective action over our external commerce?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

false reports to the leadership because of fear from the leadership, are not unique to communism. this is unique to dictatorships, and we can imagine Hitler's generals giving false positive reports of success because they are afraid from their leader.


solution 2 - communism based on open algorithms


i think we should use a supercomputer, in fact a group of supercomputers in different locations that backup each other, since the whole economy relies on them. (like the USA defends the back bone of the Internet).

IMPORTANT NOTE: WE MUST USE ALGORITHMS THAT CAN BE READ BY HUMANS. I MEAN GOOD OLD FASHIONED AI (EXPERT SYSTEMS). WE MUST NOT USE THE AI WE DEVELOP TODAY (NEURAL NETWORKS) !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_artificial_intelligence

so like Bastiat said, not minister, not even a very smart one, can do this. because he's only human. but a super-computer can. factories have precise amounts of how much of this and that raw materials is needed. how many hours it takes to do this or that. at the beginning if we don't have this data we can copy it from a capitalistic country. after a while we will have enough data in our "compu-nist" (a word i invented for my new suggested system, an amalgamation of computer and communist) country to run the factories and farms without external feedback.


ok now i will take a shortcut because i did download lectures about economy and but it will take ages to watch them, so instead i will assume that the much more equal and fair in theory communism is better, and will try to solve its disadvantages.

my way to learn the bad things of communism will be to read jokes in Wikipedia. each Russian political joke represents a widely recognized failure in the system. otherwise the joke will not be funny to many people. then i will group them into categories and trying to come up with effective solutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes


killings and imprisonments of anyone that the leaders don't like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression_in_the_Soviet_Union


The KGB, the GIGN (or in some versions of the joke, the FBI) and the CIA are all trying to prove they are the best at catching criminals. The Secretary General of the UN decides to set them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest, and each of them has to catch it. The CIA people go in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations, they conclude that the rabbit does not exist. The GIGN (or FBI) goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and make no apologies: the rabbit had it coming. The KGB goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"


for example: The Great Purge (also called the Great Terror), when Joseph Stalin anyone who was a political threat, about 1.5 million people were arrested. out of a country of 150 million people, which means 1 percent which is a lot. half of these people were killed!

the includes most of the political leaders, army leaders including many generals, many intellectuals like authors, artists, scientists, and groups that Stalin didn't like such as Polish and Jews.


here i would like to mention a story which i like very much (not related to Russians). the real life Dracula had a cup made of gold in the entrance to his territory, so that if a traveler is thirsty he or she can drink. it goes without saying that no one stole the cup, because the horrific reputation of Vlad Țepeș made it clear that the gold is not worth the risk of being tortured to death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler#Slavic_stories

the Skazanie writes of a golden cup that nobody dared to steal at a fountain because Vlad "hated stealing so violently ... that anybody who caused any evil or robbery ... did not live long", thereby promoting public order...

Stalin also has very impressive achievements, like the Battle of Stalingrad which basically was the turning point in World War 2, so it was Stalin who defeated Hitler and not the West despite the myth that the West created of D-Day etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

how can we break this vicious circle: in order to get the best of people (deter crime, defeat mighty enemy) we first have to do the worst things to them (establish control by causing great suffering and fear) ?

i think the answer lies in starting small literally. any notorious gangster started as a boy who wasn't punished and saw it's worth it to break the law. the vast majority of people are rational.

there are very few crazy criminals who will perform the crime in spite of 100% chances of getting caught and quick and severe punishment. almost all the career criminals do it because it's profitable. the chances of getting caught are slim. the punishment can be delayed a long time until the authorities investigate and prosecute and convict, and the punishment is not that bad. so for almost all criminals the crime is their "job".

so we need to treat crime right from the root. if a boy steals a candy and get a mild electric shock, he will remember this and we won't have to put him in the electric chair twenty years later after he did something much more severe.

for this we need to bring back the religious practice known as the weekly confession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(religion)

but we need to make sure we are not remaking the Spanish Inquisition by forcing out of people false confessions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

here new technology comes to our aid in using techniques like fMRI and EEG for lie detection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_detection#FMRI

what we need is to recognize patterns which is something that you can program a computer to do very well, and also we have the advantage of calibrating the computer on the each person's responses from early childhood onward.

what if the algorithm made a mistake?

the computer can check the person simultaneously with many techniques. the computer cross references the different methods results so the chances of mistake are very small.

the rare case that the computer got it wrong, and blamed an innocent boy for a crime, is a risk we must take. over the course of a life time, the criminal would accumulate a lot of punishment, and will have to change his ways. the innocent person will rarely suffer a punishment which accumulates to almost nothing. this is the price we must pay for a society where there is no crime.

isn't this like "thoughtcrime" in the book 1984?

no. the government knows everything that you think, but it's not considered a crime to think or talk against the government. by the way thanks to the whistle-blower hero Edward Snowden, we know that the U.S. government spies on your e-mails, phone calls, search engine, etc. so in reality they already know everything about you already. we are just making it formal and legal and use it for a good cause.


what prevents the ruler from setting up Gulags camps and KGB assassins in this new proposed "compu-nism"?

what prevents it is the basic laws of the system (which are unchangeable like a constitution). this laws don't talk about specific technology but about the transparency and fairness of it's operation.

for example the judgement is always public, the suspect is checked by the machine in a public place, like today's courtroom. everybody knows everybody's secrets. the investigators are not allowed to ask about sexuality of pry on the person's privacy except where it's relevant to the crime suspected. like if we investigate a case of rape then of course there will be questions about sex. in any case the entire investigation is in the open, and the algorithm of the machine can also be viewed by the public.

another important key law is that the ruler also has to go through a public investigation every short period. in this investigation we don't allow questions that will reveal military secrets but we can ask all the important questions like was the ruler involved in this or that crime, did he have reason to believe that it might be committed etc. the questions need to be refreshed the investigators shouldn't always ask in the same way.

as time goes by the children that were brought up with the system become adults and then we don't have in our potential "pool" leaders who are evil.

another factor is that at least some of these measures of secret police and disappearances in the middle of night in dictatorships are the result of paranoia of the leader. in the new system the leader is less afraid that someone is about to kill him so he might be less cruel and deadly.

by the way if you are worried about the lack of privacy of the "compu-nism", remember that in Israel in the Kibbutz system which was also communism (and which failed not because of dictatorship but because of the problem of "motivation and cheating" that we will discuss soon) people also did not have much privacy, everybody knew everything about you. true they did not "enter your head" in criminal issues like i suggest, but these commune life get into everything with their gossip, and their influence which is almost like a cult. by the way the Kibbutz-style communism is considered a very successful social experiment, it was learned all over the world. basically it's the Kibbutz people that are responsible for Israel's success in Israel's beginning.



errors in planning

Q: How do you deal with mice in the Kremlin?
A: Put up a sign saying "collective farm". Then half the mice will starve, and the rest will run away.

please see: solution 2 - communism based on open algorithms.


motivation and cheating problem (the authorities pretend they are paying wages, workers pretend they are working)

i remember how my father explained to me why communism collapsed.

it was 1990 and i was 12 years old, and every week my primary school "Shalva" in Haifa took all the children by bus to study in "Kfar Galim". we would study there in class "nature" which was i think basic biology and work in a farm like growing lettuce and maybe some other vegetables. so one day they made us pick the lettuce and i thought that if i pick a lot of lettuce i will get all that lettuce, so i picked and picked, and other kids were lazy and didn't work at all. then at the end the teachers took all the lettuce and divided it evenly between all the kids. it didn't matter if you worked a lot or a little. when at the evening i told may father how frustrating it was he told me: "you see? this is why communism collapsed!"


so this is a big problem. the powerful fuel in capitalism is that people work for what is most important for them - they work for themselves. this selfish motive is powerful and gives the person a sense of fairness. if i work a lot i deserve a lot of money.

to solve this we need to look at traditional tribal societies that live in small hunter gatherer groups and share everything they have. why do they share? what incentive do they have? they have respect from the others. the best hunter is respected by his peers and also has more "points" with the girls. even though the meat is divided equally between all the people of the village, this best hunter will eat first, or maybe right after the elders, but anyway before someone who is a less successful hunter. or he will get a better chunk. no one will starve, all these are ways to pay the best hunter with social points of pride and respect, so on the one hand he is motivated to put face the hardship and danger and support the tribe, and on the other hand we can feed everybody equally so they all have food.

i think we need to utilize similar sociological mechanisms in our planned society. we should use TV and social networks to glorify the people that do good for society and not some dumb reality contest celebrities who didn't do anything good for society.

people don't want money for money's sake. they want the thing you buy with it: success with the ladies, admiration of their peers, fame and recognition. if everyone for example will live in identical houses but their social rank reflects their efforts of how good a provider they are, the vast majority of them will work very hard for this social rank, because it's published and it's official and the only way you can improve it is by working harder and smarter and more efficiently. they also have prettier wife, symbolic VIP status like parking closer to work or some different color uniform or insignia. i can tell you from personal experience that when i was in the army we all earned more or less the same but the huge difference in status was are you in a fighter unit, and which one exactly, and what weapons do you guys have, and do you have the "wings" of parachuting course, and so on and so on, and people would make great effort and risk themselves for this respect in the eyes of the girls and in the eyes of their peers.