You cannot create a tiny "socialist" society in miniature, cut off from the global technology and population. 

Arbitrary. The reason socialism wants to be global instead of local is so that the system is closed and therefore all feedbacks are internal. (Which is also required for planning, of course).

If the system is closed, it is arbitrary whether it is global or local. Easter Island, again, was a closed system for centuries. (I'm not saying it was socialist; it was not. I'm using it as an example of a closed system) So was Madagascar. So was Aotearoa. Tasmania was for thousands of years, not mere hundreds. For a while, historians believed so were the Americas, Australia, and even inner New Guinea -- in all these cases it looks the systems weren't as closed as originally presumed, but still.

You need access to all the advanced technology and mass worker cooperation to produce an abundance for all. 

Arbitrary. Why this level of technology and not another? (Lower OR higher) Why this level of population and not another? (If a virus instantly killed 90% of humans, at random, would the surviving 10% be enough or not? What % is enough?)

There would be no incentive to horde things,

Forget about Mongolia joining your utopia.

There are numerous ways to use computer technology to send out algorithms and census letters to help determine this. Mistakes will be made, yes, but every mistake will be learned from and things improved upon from there. 

No external agent can know more about the preferences of all agents than all agents combined do. It's simply a physical impossibility.

An obvious problem with your programming is time delay. Preferences change. Another is that they are generally unpredictable, because they are irrational.

Distribution would be carefully planned, 

Again the perfect knowledge problem.

There are myriad ways our information technology of today could be used to tally what products are most wanted and consumed, and what resources would be required to supply them.

I wonder why they didn't work for AOL, MySpace, Yahoo, BlackBerry...

This would be a bad thing under capitalism, 

If it is, then why is it happening?

Automation happens right when it's cheaper than an orga worker. This hasn't been the case often before, but it's more and more the case as robotics advance. By itself. Under non socialist systems.

And this would be more true in a capitalist society if so many dangerous and unpleasant jobs truly were lucrative, 

High seas fishing, offshore oil platforms.

The first of these class-divided systems, ancient slavery, eventually advanced production to the point (around the end of the Roman Empire) that a more advanced system, feudalism, was possible; the latter eventually ceased being progressive and made another more advanced system, capitalism, possible, which was possible by the time the mid-18th century came around. 

The Marxian / Engelsian idea of history has never been proven by historical evidence, oops, though.

From Paleolithic equality, to Neolithic early agricultural and pastoral tribes, to villages, to cities, eventually to kingdoms and empires... slavery was rare. Sure it existed. It still was rare. Most peasants were free and either owning, co-owning or day laborers. Not slaves. More so in higher sector activities. Slavery was prevalent only for overly harsh or dangerous jobs nobody was going to do otherwise (rowing in boats) and in more advanced places, as direct servants of elite owners whose slave status guaranteed their faithfulness. Roman slavery in particular was distributed all across the social spectrum, from the disposable miners and gladiators to the high class household managers for the noble families.

Feudalism really only ever existed in a part of Europe. Indentured service is more common, but still not too widespread. The system of pyramidal hierarchies only existed in Europe; Chinese and Japanese "feudalism" were far more fluid networks of land property, both had a much greater role for artisans and professionals than European feudal societies ever did, and the union between this order and religious hierarchies (in this case, Catholicism with its system of parishes, bishops, cardinals, up to the Pope, and of monasteries and abbeys) is uniquely European.

But don't let these details ruin a good story.

Money existed in all of these systems because they were all class-divided systems. 

Spartans had class divisions and didn't have money. (Indeed, they were a rare society where production really was done by slaves rather than freemen.)

No one, however, has ever attempted to establish Marxian socialism, because it is not technologically possible to establish

Glad we can agree!








Cuteness is to die for
Cuteness cannot fail
Cuteness knows no limit
Cuteness will prevail