RomeoStevens comments on Stupid Questions Thread - January 2014 - Less Wrong

10 Post author: RomeoStevens 13 January 2014 02:31AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (293)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 13 January 2014 09:13:39AM 3 points [-]

We should be wary of ideologies that involve one massive failure point....crap.

Comment author: Curiouskid 13 January 2014 08:46:59PM *  0 points [-]

Could you elaborate/give-some-examples?

What are some ideologies that do/don't have (one massive failure point)/(Lots of small failure points)?

Comment author: RomeoStevens 13 January 2014 10:44:22PM 1 point [-]

The one I was thinking of was capitalism vs communism. I have had many communists tell me that communism only works if we make the whole world do it. A single point of failure.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 15 January 2014 02:23:18PM 0 points [-]

I wouldn't call that a single point of failure, I'd call that a refusal to test it and an admission of extreme fragility.

Comment author: Nornagest 13 January 2014 11:37:13PM 0 points [-]

That's kind of surprising to me. A lot of systems have proportional tipping points, where a change is unstable up to a certain proportion of the sample but suddenly turns stable after that point. Herd immunity, traffic congestion, that sort of thing. If the assumptions of communism hold, that seems like a natural way of looking at it.

A structurally unstable social system just seems so obviously bad to me that I can't imagine it being modeled as such by its proponents. Suppose Marx didn't have access to dynamical systems theory, though.

Comment author: Lalartu 14 January 2014 07:07:52PM 1 point [-]

This is what some modern communists say, and it is just an excuse (and in fact wrong, it will not work even in that case). Early communists actually believed the opposite thing: an example of one communitst nation would be enough to convert the whole world.

Comment author: Nornagest 14 January 2014 08:42:16PM *  2 points [-]

It's been a while since I read Marx and Engels, but I'm not sure they would have been speaking in terms of conversion by example. IIRC, they thought of communism as a more-or-less inevitable development from capitalism, and that it would develop somewhat orthogonally to nation-state boundaries but establish itself first in those nations that were most industrialized (and therefore had progressed the furthest in Marx's future-historical timeline). At the time they were writing, that would probably have meant Britain.

The idea of socialism in one country was a development of the Russian Revolution, and is something of a departure from Marxism as originally formulated.