>Michael S Lorrey wrote:
>
> > You are automatically assuming that the original works of the artist
> > were a clear perspective. Orwell never spent any time in a communist
> > nation, he only knew what he heard by hanging out with the Cambridge
> > bred aristo-communists popular in Britain in the 30's. Ask Sasha
> > Chislenko what he thinks...
As my mail agent copied this message into the "Chislenko_cited" folder,
I'd talk a bit around this recommended-to-be-asked question.
I did not have the privilege of hanging out with British aristo-communist
intellectuals or the famous classics of original communist theory
and practice - and neither do I claim the extensiveness of their
theoretical background for that time or their philosophical and
literary talents. However I do have some advantages over them -
of the same kind that a modern professional astronomer has over
most brilliant medieval star-gazers in understanding of the
structure of the Universe, or a developer of cybersex portal
has over late Mother Teresa in understanding the perspectives of
romance-by-correspondence.
There are so many things these brilliant classics could not possibly
see - in social aspects of communism in the rapidly changing
economy where the nature of value, structure of economic processes
and role of innovation changes to the extent obviating current
economic theories; in evolution of technologies creating new
development imperatives for both social control and social
freedoms; in personal, direct, tiny-yet-crucial details of
actual life of all envisioned social roles, and a great number
of all unenvisioned ones - details of different types than what
they could imagine, more boring and mundane, less photogenic
and more fundamental than heroic efforts of brilliant dissidents
and evil persecutors, as well as pictures of orderly economic
development within a crisp and stable (with all difficulties)
social system.
The reality has been so much different. A tired computer
operator using an office printer to copy cake recipes for
his manager's mother-in-law in exchange for a half-liter
of not-well-denatured alcohol may be a more accurate
illustration of subversive socio-economic relations than
any depictions of glorious suffering or synchronized
economic advances.
There were some radical revelations in Orwell's and Lenin's
works that I would consider superior to recent economic
analysis of even relatively clear things like the share of
the Soviet military expenses in GNP or agricultural production -
I used to take part in fudging and inventing of a number
of figures myself - from the muddy ground facts of collective
farms to the Academy of Sciences reports on AI progress -
and can only admire the ruthlessly cynical clarity of
Orwell's stories. But neither Orwell, not his reader
can tell the good insights from cynically distorted metaphors,
mistaken predictions, and literary art of little theoretical
significance.
I used to dream that the small, tired and dying-out group
of theorists who was building their theories on the unique
observations of the actual communist systems, would be
called to share their insights - but it looks like the
most costly social experiments in human history will
not leave much observer analysis. Actually, enough
raw data for it may remain in the public archives and
personal correspondence of millions of people, by some
future AIs. - Not from writings of dissident observers
though - they have been thinking and talking, but not
writing. First - for fear; later - for lack of interest,
and decreasing memory.
I try to keep my understanding of the communist society in
mind when thinking of multi-agent and complex systems in
general. Upsetting things aside, the implementations of
communism provide unique historical examples of systemic
structures - an integration of political and corporate
systems, an intermediate stage between an economy and
a super-organism, a militantly atheistic social religion,
a community of brilliant scientists and sophisticated
writers scared into not seeing the apparent absurdities
and injustices of their immediate environment - an
internalized social schizophrenia - and so much more,
partly repeating other systems' features, partly
distorting them in bizarre ways, partly unprecedented.
It seems quite bizarre that the society that devotes huge
resources to detailed studies of E. Coli, digging up
clay tablets with scarce descriptions of primitive
economic transactions, debating the tiniest details of
old scriptures, and preserving old buildings and cemeteries,
allows these unique hands-on studies to perish without being
recorded. Well, after watching the first formative years of
Usenet traffic disappear in front of all social historians
too busy studying clay tablets, I don't think it's a problem
of with interest in understanding communism. It's a general
problem with understanding the importance of social processes.
What are the surviving theorists to do? Make notes in hope
to sell them to the Global AI in 40 years? Or to use insights
for building new multi-agent systems and speeding-up the
emergence of this Global AI?
Or give up on it, and get some rest?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Chislenko <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:57 MDT