Slashdot Mirror
The Personal Computer Revolution Behind the Iron Curtain
szczys writes Obviously the personal computer revolution was world-wide, but the Eastern Bloc countries had a story of PC evolution all their own. Martin Malý tells first hand of his experiences seeing black market imports, locally built clones of popular western machines, and all kinds of home-built equipment. From the article: "The biggest problem was a lack of modern technologies. There were a lot of skilled and clever people in eastern countries, but they had a lot of problems with the elementary technical things. Manufacturing of electronics parts was divided into diverse countries of Comecon – The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. In reality, it led to an absurd situation: You could buy the eastern copy of Z80 (made in Eastern Germany as U880D), but you couldn’t buy 74LS00 at the same time. Yes, a lot of manufacturers made it, but 'it is out of stock now; try to ask next year.' So 'make a computer' meant 50 percent of electronics skills and 50 percent of unofficial social network and knowledge like 'I know a guy who knows a guy and his neighbor works in a factory, where they maybe have a material for PCBs' at those times."
And sometimes the chips are even genuine!
They didn't actually. For example, Soyuz-U still has analog control computers. So you didn't get advanced computers as spin-offs of the space program, because the space program didn't have advanced computers in the first place.
Ezekiel 23:20
Most academic leftists I know understand that true Communism can't function because of the human desire to rise above one's peers. True leaderless Communism would have to shoot for the lowest-common-denominator and be more like the Borg Collective as it was originally portrayed in Star Trek: The Next Generation, as it could not tolerate anyone think that they are better than anyone else or trying to be better than anyone else.
Most leftist academics believe that the argument of what should be government-provided versus what should be laissez-faire is the crux, and it's finding a balance. Anyone so leftist as to seek true communism is as unrealistic as anyone thinking that complete capitalism without government moderation of the market would work. Both are fantasies. Both get subsumed into oligarchies or dictatorships in some fashion or another without counter-forces to keep them in check.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It wasn't Communism or Socialism that collapsed, it was Sovietism.
Communism as a means of where workers own the firm and means of production hasn't failed. Look at manufacturing and worker coops. Some succeed, some fail. I'm guessing around the same rate that private and publicly owned firms do. Given that though, I'm willing to say that the idea isn't a failure.
John Green said it best. "Truth resists simplicity."
If you have a system where worker owned firms are exchanging goods and services on an open market using currency and capital as means of trade, is that a communist or capitalist society? What about when state governments establish rules that govern trade?
I'm a descriptivist when it comes to language. However, when the use of language is twisted as a way to paint people and ideas as "other" I have a massive problem with it. Don't get me wrong. I do understand that when we talk about "Capitalism" we're talking about western style capitalism where production and markets are more or less handled privately(Government regulations not withstanding). Conversely and by "Communism" we're talking about Soviet style communism where the state controls the means and focus of production. It's been a few years since I've read Marx and Engels, but I don't think this was the point of the mid 19th century communist movement.
So it becomes important to remember when we talk about things like Communism and Capitalism, things are pretty complex when you start to get serious into the terminology.
Did communism fail? Probably not. Has capitalism failed? Probably not either. It's likely that these are mutually exclusive ideas that can coexist.
Furthermore, how a state governs itself and interacts with it's markets complicate things further.
One thing i'm willing to bet on being pretty simple is that state planned production systems probably won't work. Not unless you got really lucky and the Government wasn't corrupt and somehow manages to provide for everyone.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Worker-owned companies, often Employee Stock-Option Programs or ESOPs are still a form of captialism, but with the ownership of capital more specially distributed than normal. It's more like a partnership where everyone working there is a partner to a certain degree. The company is owned by the partners, the workers or former workers in this case, and they benefit directly from the company's success.
If I understand the principal intent of Communism, the individual is to be provided for without question, and the individual is supposed to work to the best of their abilities without question. The problem with this is that lots of people won't work if they're provided for without having to do so, and if the system attempts to impose metrics on individuals to compel them to work, they'll look for ways to skirt the rules. In manufacturing that means poor quality goods as various stages do the minimum needed to pass, which compounds as the products go through multiple stages of production.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Hitler took a nation of Germans and made a poor country out of it.
Only US provided welfare brought it back!!
Welfare is great!
The principle intent of communism was to end the oppression of the working class by those who had capital and wealth. Not so lazy people could leech off the system. I don't think that I've read anything like that in some of the original communist works.
I think the problem with Soviet style communism was that central planning bureaucracies were trying to balance authoritarian political power and economic production.
It's a pretty Brady Bunch view of the world, but had the Soviet Union not been a paranoid authoritarian bureaucracy, we might have a different view of what "communism" means.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but were there any machines then that had non-western keyboards and layouts?
Just weird seeing QWERTY keyboards on Soviet machines is well.. weird. I was expecting something else. Or is this just the nature of cloning?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Sometimes leaving stuff that works alone is fine. Actually that's a good general engineering practice.
Most engineering failures occur when "outdated" technology gets replaced with new shiny (because, new shiny!), and the new shiny bites you in the ass with the unexpected.
Not to say that things shouldn't be updated if the technology improves, but if you just need a relatively robust low tech computer technology, sticking with what works isn't such a bad thing.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Mr. Pajitnov prototyped Tetris on an Electronica 60, a Soviet clone of a PDP-11. Yet he goes RIAA on anyone who clones his own work.
There were a lot of "enterprise" software written for the C64 in the late 80ies in the communist block because it didn't fell under the import ban.
It also supported a lot of peripherals, like floppy disk, hard drive and mouse. It also had a lot of documentation in German, which was easier to learn in the Eastern block.
Not so lazy people could leech off the system.
Thus the fundamental failure of Marx: ignoring the reality of human nature.
had the Soviet Union not been a paranoid authoritarian bureaucracy
That many people -- in the Russian Empire, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, China, Korea, etc, etc, -- can't just accidentally be paranoid and authoritarian.
Good socio-political theories must take people's baser instincts into account. That's the genius of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand: it presumes that people will be selfish and greedy.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Back in those days, start of the art technology in CPU's were "restricted exports". The USA wanted to show that Communism didn't lead to as many advancements in technology as Capitalism, so they restricted exports on technology such as chip design software, CPU's and other chip logic (remember the A-team trying to block smugglers exporting flip-flop chips? It was that serious). This led to the Eastern European countries doing various work-arounds. They could get gray imports through third-party countries that weren't part of the Western trade block, and weren't part of the USSR either. Or they could set up fake companies in the host country that would export the technology.
Another strategy was to make their own logic chips. However, yields for complex logic such as CPU's, wasn't that good, so they ended up with CPU's with missing instructions. But that wasn't a problem, mathematician/software engineers figured out ways of emulating broken instructions using other instructions. If JMP was broken, then use CLR; BCC. Arithmetic operations like ADD could be replaced by NEG and SUB, and so on... So they ended up with an abstraction layer using assembler macros that provided a set of functioning instructions.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
You seem to have mis-identified my political affiliation. I am not a marxist communist. I have simply read the manifesto, and marx's rhetoric. I was pointing out that the AC above had clearly not done so, having created such a strawman to beat.
Genuine criticisms, such as "You cant cultivate marginal lands as if they were fully arable! It's madness!" are fully fair game, and I apply them with gusto. However, asserting blandly that Marx had not contemplated human nature? That's clearly not supported by his rhetoric, but is rather a consequence of ingesting pre-chewed propaganda pieces.
I value correct, well based arguments. that's why I bothered to read Marx's rhetoric in the first place. It is a necessity to develop and use proper analytic skills.
Does Marxism work? Fuck no.
Did Marx think about the freeloader problem? Definitely.
That latter part is all I was trying to point out. It never ceases to amaze me how such a correction makes people instantly apply "You must be a marxist!" as a reactionary measure.
Please avoid doing so in the future. Thank you.