1. Intelligibility of social relations is a precondition for the unconstrained development of socialist self-government. A social information system, which presupposes the existence of a system of social indicators (where “social indicators” are understood in the widest sense to include so-called “economic indicators” as well), is naturally a part of the material basis necessary for the concept of intelligibility to attain reality. Furthermore, a system of social indicators presupposes a social theory, which also provides a basis for its further systematic development. More importantly, social theory provides a basis for the interpretation of social objectives, for the monitoring of social development, and for the governing of the social system (via policy instruments acting upon the social phenomena represented by social indicators). Unreflected, these social processes remain blind, and to that extent potentially destructive.

2. Now it is obvious that the information necessary for self-government is not “legible” in an aggregate of social indicators, but only via a social theory that interconnects these indicators into a system. This is true regardless of whether the social theory embedded in the information system is explicit or implicit.

An interpretation of the social information system as a collection of facts is ideological, since it eo ipso interprets society as an immediately “legible” system, as an “open book.” That which is hidden remains hidden, and the attempts to expose it are, paradoxically, branded as ideological.

3. The critical link between social theory and social praxis presupposes social discourse, that is, communication. A social information system is necessary, but not sufficient, for this communication to take place. It is repeated over and over again that information is a basis for self-government, but information is often conceived vulgarly, as data, as numbers, and not as an aspect of communication. Information can be interpreted only via communication. Social action in the context of self-government can follow only on the basis of social discourse and consensus.

4. A social information system otherwise threatens to be interpreted and then deployed as a means of manipulation, as an instrument of planning that corresponds to a technocratic definition of management of social affairs, with its hermetic institutions and procedures.