/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain’t driving twenty minutes to riot"

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/

(631.69 KB 1121x969 cockshottfutureleft.png)
Anonymous 04/30/2020 (Thu) 20:10:52 No. 474510
Starting a new /cybersocialism/ general since the old one is dead MANDATORY READING http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/ For a complete reading list, see: https://web.archive.org/web/20190806121249/http://reality.gn.apc.org/Readinglist.htm cockshott's website reading list is down, the only place you can see it now is on archive.org Cockshott's Patreon https://www.patreon.com/williamCockshott/ Cockshott's youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ Cockshott's Blogs https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/ http://paulcockshott.co.uk/ This thread is for the discussion of cybersocialism, the planning of the socialist economy by computerized means, including discussions of related topics and of course the great immortal scientist himself, WILLIAM PAUL COCKSHOTT Prev thread >>290148 Archive of thread http://archive.is/ZSznk
Edited last time by zulveta on 06/30/2020 (Tue) 18:48:33.
(401.09 KB hayek.pdf)
(320.82 KB hayek2.pdf)
(906.15 KB infoworkmeaning.pdf)
(914.25 KB new_socialism.pdf)
(82.53 KB soviet_planning.pdf)
>>474510 This shit is dumb and gay , stop posting this thread.
>>474526 lurk more newfag
>>474526 t.wants to be a central planner
Cockshott's Arguments for Socialism should be in mandatory reading. It's his only book besides TANS and How the World works
>>474510 actually you can also see cockshott's reading list linked in /r/cybersocialism
>>474546 uhh.. what about all those CS books, not to mention classical econophysics?
https://leftypol.org/viewtopic.php?p=1024#p1024 on hegelian vs marxist dialectics via cockshott
>>474569 Oh leftypol.org is back up is it? >>474562 pssst you can also find it here http://archive.is/zk3KU
>>474546 arguments for socialism is arguably a better intro to cockshott's though than TANS
>>474590 It's a great intro to leftism altogether. Should be on any beginner's reading list.
Not sure if this one is already uploaded so just in case
A nice article by Cockshott I haven't seen posted here yet: Crisis of Socialism and Effects of Capitalist Restoration https://monthlyreview.org/2020/04/01/crisis-of-socialism-and-effects-of-capitalist-restoration/
>>474541 t. wants to program the central planner
My biggest fear is that in 2120 no one knows of Cockshott
>>475503 My biggest fear is that in 2120 humanity will be dead
>>475503 >>475512 What's the difference?
didnt cockshott post a follow up to his anti hegel argument?
(38.95 KB 1037x522 garh34e.png)
nice work guys
I don't know if this is the right thread, but is quantum computing a meme? or is it actually worth it?
>>477991 Meme but worth it theoretically for certain applications.
>>477991 it's worth is for special applications that benefit from it, for example computational chemistry
>>477920 What thread did you link him to?
Posted this in the old thread since I didn't notice it was bumplocked, so I'll repost it here: >>473801 Hegel wasn't attempting to construct an axiomatic philosophical system or logic of that sort. Structuring a philosophical system upon axioms wasn't unknown, as Spinoza tried something similar after the model of Euclid, so he should have assumed Hegel was trying to do something else. Although he poo-poos away the difference somewhere on his website, dialectic has been considered separate from demonstrative logic (and formal logic, although this condenses the original distinction between deductive and demonstrative logic). From the beginning of Aristotle's Topics: >Now a deduction is an argument in which, certain things being laid down, something other than these necessarily comes about through them. It is a demonstration, when the premisses from which the deduction starts are true and primitive, or are such that our knowledge of them has originally come through premisses which are primitive and true; and it is a dialectical deduction, if it reasons from reputable opinions. Things are true and primitive which are convincing on the strength not of anything else but of themselves; for in regard to the first principles of science it is improper to ask any further for the why and wherefore of them; each of the first principles should command belief in and by itself. On the other hand, those opinions are reputable which are accepted by everyone or by the majority or by the wise—i.e. by all, or by the majority, or by the most notable and reputable of them. Again, a deduction is contentious if it starts from opinions that seem to be reputable, but are not really such, or again if it merely seems to reason from opinions that are or seem to be reputable. For not every opinion that seems to be reputable actually is reputable. For none of the opinions which we call reputable show their character entirely on the surface, as happens in the case of the principles of contentious arguments; for the nature of the falsity in these is obvious immediately, and for the most part even to persons with little power of comprehension. So then, of the contentious deductions mentioned, the former really deserves to be called deduction, but the other should be called contentious deduction, but not deduction, since it appears to deduce, but does not really do so. In other words, a dialectical inquiry doesn't need to assume first principles for a science, instead consisting of whether one does or doesn't accept a principle provided by prior experience and then assuming a principle that seems likely yet can't be demonstrated through other means, unlike a demonstrative which assumes something to be true beforehand for its inquiry, like a particular proposition (e.g. "Socrates is a man"), or an axiom (e.g. the parallel postulate). Neither is certain except through their ability to command belief beforehand, assuming in turn a dialectical inquiry to reach such principles. His general confusion about Hegel, or desire to reduce dialectic to demonstrative or formal logic (and do away with Hegel), results in odd mistakes elsewhere on his blog, like his analysis of Hegel's discussion of force and expression as referring to force and its Newtonian mathematical expression, F=ma, when his discussion was about its expression as manifestation, like being zapped (by static electricity). From a later passage in the same section he cites: >The claim, repeated so often, that only the expression of forces, not forces themselves, are to be known, must be rejected as unfounded since the force is precisely this alone, to express itself, and we accordingly recognize at the same time the force itself in the totality of the appearance, construed as law. Nevertheless, it must not be overlooked thereby that a correct intimation of the finitude of this relationship is contained in this claim about the unknowability of the forces in themselves. The individual expressions of a force initially confront us in an indeterminate multiplicity and in their instantiation [Vereinzelung] as contingent. We then reduce this multiplicity to its inner unity which we designate as force and become aware of the seemingly contingent as something necessary, in that we recognize the law reigning therein. But, now, the diverse forces themselves are in turn a manifold and appear, merely next to one another, as contingent. One speaks accordingly in empirical physics of forces of weight, magnetism, electricity, and so forth; so, too, in empirical psychology one speaks of the power of memory, the power of imagining, the power of the will, and all sorts of other powers of the soul. For Hegel, this passage is actually fairly clear. He's talking about a force being posited as the "inner unity" of the "multiplicity" of expressions. He's obviously not talking about the mathematics of forces. The Gegenstandpunkt thing doesn't present it as mathematics, which makes me wonder whether he read the article (or, if he read it, understood it). I do very much dislike the article's presentation of science as "anti-dialectical," as it gives the misleading impression that Hegel is "anti-science" in general. That's likely another reason why Cockshott was sidetracked on irrelevant math formulas. Whether you waste any time with Hegel is up to you. No girl will love you for it, and it won't help you one iota in real life unless you simply enjoy this sort of material (or you're majoring in philosophy). Speaking personally, though, I gained a lot from reading Hegel. Reading Turing, Boole, or about formal logic in general wouldn't hurt you, but you're not getting a "new and improved" version of what Hegel says. If he understood Hegel to be doing the same thing, though, he misunderstood Hegel.
Cockshott: >The Hegelian school of Marxist economists produce no innovation, produce no new knowledge using this method, because the method is incapable of producing new knowledge. It can only cast into rhetorical form things which are already known. Where is the lie? You also see the Hegeldorks right here in the SOCIALIST CYBERNETICS thread do not contribute anything to the actual topic. Indeed, they are unable to do so because the modern Hegel fans are a completely distinct group from people with an interest in economics.
Does anyone have the Lambda flags?
>>478588 The quote is ludicrous. There's no "Hegelian school of Marxist economists," which even you seem to intuit in some basic sense by excluding "modern Hegel fans" (nice use of "modern" there) from "those with an interest in economics." It's a nonsense phrase. The method isn't supposed to produce "new knowledge" in the sense of predictions; philosophy in general is recasting the "already known" world. You might as well inveigh against the topic as a whole. Constructing economic castles in the sky is about as "useful" as constructing philosophical castles in the sky, when there isn't any significant action based on either in a real political movement. Functionally, both are just hobbies. I'm not pretending to usefulness anyway, although one would think that not misunderstanding terms and concepts used by Marx might be intellectually "useful" to a Marxist. Regardless, I wouldn't have posted anything if Cockshott hadn't decided to weigh in on something he evidently didn't understand. Beyond that, I have nothing against him, and I wouldn't have bothered with this thread.
>>479035 >Constructing economic castles in the sky is about as "useful" as constructing philosophical castles in the sky the difference is one is based on speculative logic and the other is based on empirical and econometric data of the real world
>>479035 >There's no "Hegelian school of Marxist economists," Exactly, Dunning-Kruger-kun. >excluding "modern Hegel fans" (nice use of "modern" there) All Hegel fans would include Marx and Engels. >I'm not pretending to usefulness anyway Thanks for your contribution.
>>479212 >the difference is one is based on speculative logic and the other is based on empirical and econometric data of the real world Being based on empirical and econometric data doesn't mean that his recommendations would work in reality any more than trying (somehow) to use Hegel directly for economics. For the economy should socialists take power, sure, I might agree that it's potentially more "useful" then (depending on how we're assessing "useful" at least), but, until that point, it's just as much a hobby as reading Hegel. >>479216 >Exactly, Dunning-Kruger-kun. So his point there is just that Hegel isn't economics? If so, it's only grumbling that everything isn't "science!" in line with the "spirit of the times." There was some guy on /leftypol/, months ago, who kept on insisting "Marx was wrong" because of "empiricism" or some shit who was never able to justify this "empiricism," and this unwillingness to engage with philosophy beyond a mere insistence on "science," "economics," or the like is another species of the same. >All Hegel fans would include Marx and Engels. >>using "Dunning-Kruger-kun" when that was my obvious point >Thanks for your contribution. It's great how you can make a virtue of crass anti-philosophy while not being able to argue anything. People like yourself shit up the Hegel threads anyway, and at least I'm arguing my points and trying to explain them rather than just shitposting about how he's "stupid" and "wrong" or whatever. What I'm writing is related to Cockshott's recent articles, at any rate. If you want to complain about how it's all unrelated to what you're interested in, you should try complaining to him.
>>479375 >So his point there is just that Hegel isn't economics? Cockshott's point is that a person who is, among other things, a "modern Hegel fan" (let's make the cut at 1960) is for whatever reason virtually never interested in scientific developments after 1831 or economics (old and new). This is particularly striking with people who are fans of both Hegel and Marx, since Marx wrote a ton about economics. What is a Marxism without interest in economics. >There was some guy on /leftypol/, months ago … We aren't getting any closer to socialist cybernetics here. If you think this is worth more discussion, make a separate thread.
>>479414 >Cockshott's point is that a person who is, among other things, a "modern Hegel fan" (let's make the cut at 1960) is for whatever reason virtually never interested in scientific developments after 1831 or economics (old and new). This is particularly striking with people who are fans of both Hegel and Marx, since Marx wrote a ton about economics. What is a Marxism without interest in economics. That sort of Marxism would be an interest mainly in the philosophical basis for his project, with economics seen as a kind of efflorescence thereof. I imagine it reflects the overall powerlessness of the left, however, without much that can be called a socialist economy in the West, and every other "socialist economy" being subject to debate as to its status as such. Insofar as we exist at all, we're mainly focused on constituting a form of politics outside liberalism through various strategies and defending ourselves from ideological attacks, so the reading tends to be more related to politics or philosophy. >… We aren't getting any closer to socialist cybernetics here. If you think this is worth more discussion, make a separate thread. Since this is a Cockshott thread, it seemed relevant, and I was only here because I wanted to respond to those posts. I don't hate Cockshott, and I have no desire to create a thread devoted purely (or mainly) to attacking him for bad takes on Hegel. I obviously don't mind making a few comments in that regard, just not a whole "let's hate Cockshott" thread.
>>479482 >That sort of Marxism would be an interest mainly in the philosophical basis for his project, with economics seen as a kind of efflorescence thereof. The real basis of his project was his lived experience and the stories of people he came in contact with, his oscillations between more reformist and more radical stances, more hopeful and more pessimist, being mostly a reflection of the variable oppression he and them faced in different countries at different points in time. >I imagine it reflects the overall powerlessness of the left It reflects a specific minority within the left that loves to write a lot and has little lived experience to write about. Imagine telling an Amazon worker that what you do is important for the left.
>>479517 >The real basis of his project was his lived experience and the stories of people he came in contact with, his oscillations between more reformist and more radical stances, more hopeful and more pessimist, being mostly a reflection of the variable oppression he and them faced in different countries at different points in time. It's not as if these things had no influence, but it's obvious from his writings that Hegel was a centrally important figure in his thinking. Experience doesn't mean anything in and of itself regardless, without some organizing schema by which the experience is made to mean something beyond the mere bundle of senses in memory for the one who experiences it. >It reflects a specific minority within the left that loves to write a lot and has little lived experience to write about. Imagine telling an Amazon worker that what you do is important for the left. I would only tell someone that if I were doing something that was helping them concretely. Or, really, I would almost certainly never tell someone that; if I were doing something important for them, they would very likely know already. If they don't, then it would feel presumptuous on my part to tell them that. I frankly can't imagine someone going up to a worker of any sort and saying, "What I'm doing is important for the left, and for you as a worker, because I'm studying cybernetic socialism." That isn't to say it is and forever will be unimportant, but that neither matters currently to the vast majority of workers.
Hegelian economics is called marxism
>>479655 Thanks for the laugh.
>>462878 >>465112 More thoughts about the harmony algorithm. First, we are only considering a scenario with only one process with fixed coefficients for each product. We can do something even more simple than the harmony algorithm by having a more simple scoring rule (this goal would just be a first result, to be taken as input for more sophisticated procedures tweaking it). We also simplify by pretending every resource and output to be like a liquid, so we can split it up in whatever way. We correct that sin later. The most simple scoring rule is that for each process there is a wish amount and the score for the overall allocation is equal to the worst score of a process within it. This means we can just look at the ingredient list for 1 % wish amount of product A and the ingredient list for 1 % wish amount of product B and add these ingredient lists together, and we can do that for all products to get the ingredient list for 1 % of the wish amount for all products and for how the ingredients are to be distributed between the processes. And we can double these ingredient amounts and then we have the list for 2 % of the wish amount of everything and so on. In this scenario (without multiple processes to choose from) it's easy to tell what the most scarce resource and the second-most scare resource etc. are: Just for every ingredient, look at the quantity needed of it to produce 1 % of everything and look at the ratio between that and the quantity actually available. Now let's get a bit more realistic by admitting that for some products there are multiple processes available. We can still use the single-process model for the things that don't have that choice. And we can use the scarcity information from the single-process side to choose between processes. We are still following the simple scoring rule here, so it's clear that the single-process side needs resources in particular and fixed ratios. The resources given up from the multi-process side have to add up to this ingredient bundle. We can add the requirements from the "core processes"* to this bundle and delete them on the multi-process side. *A term coined in the older thread. The ingredient list of a core process is the intersection of ingredient lists of alternative processes for making the same product.
(16.28 KB 592x331 IMG_8696.PNG)
What did he mean by this?
>>479735 (me) And an upper bound for what the multi-process side will take can be seen by using "indecisive processes" (see older thread). Once we have established the highest possible general wish percentage and resource distribution pattern to processes with virtual liquid resources, we can round it down to the actual nearest integers for each resource in each process, round down again by considering the fixed coefficients, look at the pool of not allocated resources we now have and the wish percentages for the processes and iterate on the result while using a use-value classification that takes similarity into account. … Perhaps I should have put the end of what I said at the beginning. I was thinking about two aspects of marginal-utility reasoning: 1. additional units of the same thing bringing diminishing additional utility usually 2. having a higher amount of some things makes up somewhat for having a lower amount of other things The first aspect is more simple to describe. Presentations about marginal-utility reasoning usually put this quantity-of-thing-in-itself utility before the substitution aspect (or don't go into substitution at all!) as if there were a logical priority (first things, then relations between them). One might be tempted to say that both aspects are equally important and so both should be pillars of a proper planning algorithm. But I think the second one is more important, and I'll go further than just saying that. I think the first one is the shadow of the second one – meaning, that if you only go for implementing the second aspect, you will automatically also obtain the first. The harmony algorithm presented in TANS implements the first aspect, assuming a generic formula of diminished utility that applies the same way to all things in relation to their wish quantities and from that something emerges that strikes me as a rather artificial toy-utility substitution relationship since it applies in the same way to wish-quantity pairs of whatever the actual things are. A classification of use-values by similarity makes for a long text. But let's not confuse the length of a description with complexity of computation. For things that are classified as extremely dissimilar to each other shifting resources between the processes that make them can follow the goal of maximizing the worst percentage. For things that are classified as extremely similar to each other we can shift resources between the processes that make them in a way that maximizes the average. For sets of things classified between these two extremes we can look to maximize the harmonic mean of wish quantities. For things that are classified as strictly more important than others we don't shift any resources to other processes if it means decreasing the wish amount of the strictly more important stuff. This drastically reduces the amount of possible configurations to score, meaning easier computation.
I compiled all the pdfs I could find in the study guide in a word doc for my personal use a few weeks ago. Imma go ahead and just paste the that mess in here for y'all to hopefully save yall some time in your studies.
1/2 Program for Study of Cybernetic Socialism Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Two(A)-Three(B) Weeks per section I: The Party (B) Lenin "What is to be Done?" https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf Lenin: "Left-Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder" Sections 1 and 10. 1 http://ciml.250x.com/archive/lenin/english/lenin_1920_left_wing_communism-an_infantile_disorder-1940-.pdf Stalin: "On the Problems of Leninism" Section 5 http://ciml.250x.com/archive/stalin/english/stalin_problems%20of_leninism_1954_english.pdf Stalin: "The Foundations of' Leninism'' Section 8, http://collections.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/FoundationsOfLeninismV18.pdf II: Relation between Levels of Struggle (B) Lenin: "What is to be Done?" https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf Lenin: "On Slogans" https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/15.htm III: Parliamentary and Extra-Parliamentary Struggle IV: Deviations (B) Lenin: "Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution" http://revolutionary-socialism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Lenin-2tactics-en.pdf Lenin: "Left-wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder" http://ciml.250x.com/archive/lenin/english/lenin_1920_left_wing_communism-an_infantile_disorder-1940-.pdf Engels: Introduction to Marx: "Class Struggles in France" (1895). https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Class_Struggles_in_France.pdf IV: Deviations (A) Marx: "The Critique of the Gotha Programme" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf Mao: "On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party" https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_5.htm V: The State and it's Forms (B) Engels : Introduction (1891) to Marx "The Civil War in France". https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf Lenin: "The State and Revolution" https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf Marx: "The Civil War in France" https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf VI: Insurrection (B) Lenin: "The, Dual Power" https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/pdf/lenin-cw-vol-24.pdf#page=42 Lenin: "Marxism, and Insurrection" https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/13.htm Lenin "On Slogans" https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/15.htm VII: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (B) Lenin: 'The State and Revolution' https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf Marx: 'Tic Civil War in France' (with Engels' 1891 Introduction) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf Stalin: 'The Foundations of Leninism Sect 4 http://collections.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/FoundationsOfLeninismV18.pdf VIII: Political and Economic Tasks in the Construction of Socialism (B) Lenin: 'Left-Wing Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm Lenin: 'Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm Lenin: 'The Tax in Kind' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm Lenin: 'On Co-operation' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm Stalin: 'On the Problems of Leninism' Sections 6 7 http://ciml.250x.com/archive/stalin/english/stalin_problems%20of_leninism_1954_english.pdf IX: Cultural Revolution and the Mass Line (B) The Mode of Struggle among the People Mao: 'On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People' + https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm ldeological struggle and the; construction of socialism.: Mao: ' Speech at the CCP's National Conference on Propaganda Work' + https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_59.htm Mao: 'Combat Liberalism' https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm Lenin: 'Speech at the All-Russian Conference of Political Education Workers ' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/nov/03.htm The Socialist Stage, Proletarian Democracy and the Class Struggle: Lenin: 'Better Fewer but Better' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm Mao : 'Bombard the Headquarters' + https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_63.htm X: Imperialism (A) Lenin: Imperialism the: Highest Stage of Capitalism' https://www.readingfromtheleft.com/Books/Classics/LeninImperialism.pdf Lenin: Imperialism and the Split in Socialism' + https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm Lenin: War and Russian Social Democracy' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/sep/28.htm Lenin: 'Socialism and War' + http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SW15.html XI: Proletarian Internationalism (B) Lenin: 'The Right of Nations to Self-determination http://ciml.250x.com/archive/lenin/english/lenin_1947_the_right_of_nations_to_self-determination.pdf Lenin: 'Socialism and War' + http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SW15.html Stalin: 'The Foundations of Leninism http://ciml.250x.com/archive/stalin/english/stalin_problems%20of_leninism_1954_english.pdf XII People's War (B) Mao: On Protracted War https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_09.htm Vo Nguyen Giap: People's War, People' Army https://www.marxists.org/archive/giap/1961-pwpa.pdf Sun Tzu: on the Art of War https://sites.ualberta.ca/~enoch/Readings/The_Art_Of_War.pdf
2/2 Materialism ? Engels : Ludwig Fuerbach http://ciml.250x.com/archive/marx_engels/english/mecwsh/mecwsh-26_382.pdf ? Darwin: The Origins of the Species. http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf ? Plekanov: The Materialist Conception of History https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1897/history/part1.htm ? Lenin: Materialism and Empiro-Criticism https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ff50/507dc6c1b322a7edbe505e5a5406353dee2b.pdf ? Kautsky : Origins of Christianity https://rowlandpasaribu.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/karl-kautsky-foundations-of-christianity.pdf ? Turing: Can a Machine Think https://phil415.pbworks.com/f/TuringComputing.pdf ? Althusser : Lenin and Philosophy https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1968/lenin-philosophy.htm ? Dennet: Consciousness Explained ? Dennet: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Dennett-Darwin%27sDangerousIdea.pdf Cockshott: How the World Works Political Economy Capitalist economy: ? Marx: Values Prices and Profit https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf ? Marx, Capital Volume 1 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf ? Marx, Capital Volume 2 https://libcom.org/files/Capital-Volume-II.pdf ? Marx, Capital Volume 3 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-III.pdf ? Farjoun and Machover - The Laws of Chaos ? Sraffa - Production of Commodities by means of Commodities https://www.nuevatribuna.es/media/nuevatribuna/files/2013/04/15/production_of_commodities_by_means_of_commodities.pdf ? Kalecki - Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, 1933-1970,1971 https://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf Pre-capitalist Economy ? Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies , https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b01c/b68ee68de34784712cd6fdef9411752c242d.pdf ? Engels : Origin of the Family https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf ? Aristotle: The Politics, book 1 http://www.bard.edu/library/arendt/pdfs/Aristotle-Politics.pdf Socialist Economy ? Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf ? Stalin: Economic Problems of Socialism http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.pdf ? Nove: Economics of feasible socialism http://digamo.free.fr/nove91.pdf The following 3 texts have independently arrived at a common conception of 21st century socialism based on the labour theory of value, cybernetic technology and direct democracy. ? Cockshott and Cottrell: Towards a new Socialism http://digamo.free.fr/nove91.pdf ? Arno Peters:, Computer Sozialismus: Gespr鋍he mit Konrad Zuse, Berlin, 2001 ? Dietrich: Fin del Capitalismo global. El Nuevo Proyecto Hist髍ico Available in many languages. https://www.rebelion.org/docs/121968.pdf Politics and the State ? Marx: Communist Manifesto, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf ? Draper: Karl Marx磗 Theory of Revolution https://monthlyreview.org/press-category/karl-marxs-theory-of-revolution-series/ ? Lenin: What is to be Done, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf The State and Revolution, https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm 稭ao: Analysis of the classes in Chinese Society http://collections.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/AnalysisoftheClassesinChineseSociety.pdf On Contradiction ? Moses Finlay: Democracy Ancient and Modern ? Aristotle: The Politics, books 4,5,6 http://www.bard.edu/library/arendt/pdfs/Aristotle-Politics.pdf Further Writings Cockshott and Cottrell: Does Marx Need to Transform? http://gesd.free.fr/cockcot98.pdf -- Hope you guys good luck on your studies!
(16.34 KB 364x323 3e4rtgzh.jpeg)
>>480618 You kinda have to take into account the desire manufacturing that is done by capitalism these days, if you abolish advertisement, do you replace it with product-tests and consumer reviews ? I.e. attempt to advocate for rational consumption instead of fashionable consumption ? What this boils down to is that do you attempt to direct consumption and if you do in what direction ? And do you take this into account in planning ? Or do you invent a ideological subject ?, the current neo-liberal market fundamentalists have as ideological subject the "chooser" that buys and sells in the market. And you could have the "planner" that submits consumption plans to the economic planner. Basically asking people to do pre-orders. So that the ideological motion of choosing in the market is replaced with trying to make predictions about your future needs that the economic planning system tries to fulfil. I know this is sort of tangential to your post but your do have to take these things into account ideological reproduction does have influence.
(28.09 KB 300x180 please-notice-this.png)
Since this thread has the highest percentage of STEM comrades, I humbly shill this thread, which was made with you in mind: >>483815
>>481801 Gespräche mit Konrad Zuse by Arno Peters isn't very useful. It's just a tiny book without any proposals more concrete than using computers for planning. All it is good for is that you can point to this as proof the respected Konrad Zuse supported socialism. But since it was published after Zuse's death, porky media can claim that to be a fabrication by Peters.
Check this out: Open Loop In Natura Economic Planning by Spyridon Samothrakis. Preprint from 4th of May 2020. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.01539.pdf >Working within the tradition of Marx, Leontief, Kantarovich, Beers and Cockshott, we propose what we deem an automated planning system that aims to operate on unit level (e.g., factories and citizens), rather than on aggregate demand and sectors (…) Our experiments show that it would be trivial to plan for up to 50K industrial goods and 5K final goods in commodity hardware. Kantorovich. Tsk, tsk. There are a few more typos I found: "ammend", "the the", "mulltiple". >Our method (Open Loop In Natura Economic Planning - OLIN-EP) builds upon the basic input-output framework. It creates a fundamentally different planning landscape then IO tables and is heavily inspired by current game playing / RL agents. The planning “tick” is no longer a year, but a day, and we expect the plan to be re-calculated based on observations and predictions every night. What's RL? Wikipedia: "Reinforcement learning (RL) is an area of machine learning concerned with how software agents ought to take actions in an environment in order to maximize the notion of cumulative reward." >Given that our goal is to provide necessities to sustain humans, we set all “external” demand to zero, and, instead we introduce a set of profiles combined with the the number of citizens attached to each profile. So there are different care packages for different demographics. >The difference between the way we measure the unwanted side-effects we get versus the goals we achieve is by design. In terms of production goals, a plan is as good as its worst performance. In terms of damage, we are measuring the cumulative effect (…) We will try to achieve certain goals every day for a year by following a set of actions that correspond to increasing production, without reference to future states - this is known as open loop planning - and is basically a vector x per day. The fact that we re-plan on a daily basis means that we execute the plan in a closed loop setting - so overall we do open loop planning, closed loop execution
>>474510 >the planning of the socialist economy by computerized means tell me, why the hell would I read a whole book when this little sentence expolain the whole thing?
(148.97 KB 480x640 SAMOTHRAKIS.jpeg)
>>489842 is this guy the next cockshott?
>>489874 if you don't care about the details go ahead and not read.
>>490650 >>489842 is he still a socialist?
>2015+10 >still making cockshott threads >Paul "Ricardo had the same theory as Marx" Cockshott >Paul "Okishio was right" Cockshott >Paul "Dialectics are useless" Cockshott >Paul "The law of value applies in socialism" Cockshott >Paul "Tranies get the wall" Cockshott
>>489874 Explains a lot about the Soviet economy and its consequent political failures. Only 200 pages, too. I consider it worth reading if you want a different perspective on the relationship between Marx and the USSR, and how to improve upon existing socialism. Alternatively, try his YT, which mentions many of the ideas (not all) in the book.
>>490650 Who's he?
>>489842 I don't understand how these profiles are generated Or whether there is a risk for producing stratification in society with these.
>>492256 >>2015+10 nigga who can't even do basic arithmetics or know what year we're in doesn't like dickblast. color me surprised!
>>492256 show me someone who has better or more flesh out answers against the calculation problem or socialist planning in general. hint: you literally can't. The only ones are people who continued in the cockshottist tradition like this guy: >>490650
>>492256 >shitting on cockshott found the innumerate hegelian who literally can't do math sage
new video "Towards a New Democracy2": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtJA13QOWI
I read three books about behavioral econ for lay people. All three are written by Americans and there is a lot of overlap in what topics they discuss, jargon, examples, sources (all three mention the hunt for Osama and Kahnemann's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow", I skipped that one because another anon found the prose unbearable and there are replication problems with the studies). All three are much longer than they need to be, so here's the gist. "Superforecasting" (2015) by Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner has a simple message: To improve forecasts, you have to measure how well you are doing, and for that you need precision in the forecast formulation and a date. If I forecast that a comet will hit Australia and I don't attach a date to it, you can't show that I'm wrong. Forget about even trying to use what self-styled experts in the media are forecasting to score and compare them, the statements are too murky. What can be done, and this is what Tetlock did, is formulating crisp yes-no questions with a date and ask people to guess the answer with a percentage: 100 % means you are certain it will happen, 0 % means you are certain it won't, and you can choose any integer in between if you are not so certain. You get scored and answering with high certainty gives you a bigger score bonus or penalty (mostly bragging rights, the financial rewards are very modest). Tetlock found that ten-year forecasts are pretty much useless (expert or non-expert, doesn't matter), but one to three years worked quite a bit better than flipping a coin when aggregating several opinions. He also played with rounding the reported certainty percentages and found that the forecast accuracy got markedly worse, even with 5 % steps! I think the intelligence agencies in Cuba and North Korea should copy this idea if they haven't already. The other two books also refer to Tetlock's book. "Thinking in bets : making smarter decisions when you don’t have all the facts" (2018) is by Annie Duke, a professional Poker player who believes Poker is a better metaphor for general decision-making than Chess is because Chess lacks in randomness and hidden information (I agree). She also brings up examples from sports. OK book, except for her positive reference to Alcoholics Anonymous, which are not a very effective group. The third book is "Farsighted : how we make the decisions that matter the most" (2018) by Steven Johnson. This is the most tedious of the bunch. He likes to read novels a lot and he claims that reading novels is key to get better at predicting things, citing a dubious study (sounds more like sunk-cost fallacy on his part tbh). Mathematically, he doesn't propose anything deeper than doing a weighted average of the pros and cons of choice, referring to a letter by Benjamin Franklin of doing "what may be called Moral or Prudential Algebra" (Franklin's words), and I somewhat doubt that he fully understood Franklin's point. Johnson writes: >Just as Franklin suggested in his original description of the pros-vs.-cons list, a values model requires that you give each of those values a weight, a measure of their relative importance to you. The way Franklin wrote it's clear that he granted it can be hard to come up with weights for each point on an absolute scale, which is why he proposed you strike out a combination of pros and cons (not necessarily the same number) whenever you feel you have found a selection with the same weight on both sides, which does not imply that you have in your mind weights for each point on an absolute scale or even for each point within the selection. And reading his words (Franklin's) meant for an individual made me think about refining a decision process for a group. The original version: Prototypes of tools and machines can be graded in various aspects, some of these objectively given (energy usage and noise measurements), for some we ask for input from people about handling and aesthetics etc. and we can see which proposal got the best score. But precise ratings take brain work (or somebody rates it in a careless way which for an outsider can be indistinguishable from earnest input). The modified version: Every person asked about a proposal can give two estimates for each aspect, the pessimistic lower one and the optimistic higher one, with the potential to make a more precise estimate within these limits later (they can also directly make just one estimate). For each proposal we can then make an aggregated optimistic score using the optimistic ends of estimates from various people and an aggregated pessimistic score using the pessimistic ends. Suppose we just want to find one winning proposal. Any proposal that has a worse optimistic aggregate score than some other proposal's pessimistic aggregated score cannot win in the end, so we can delete these and there is no need to waste brain-work on making more precise estimates about their qualities. For those proposals still on the table, users can get feedback where precision in rating is likely to help most with making the decision.
(216.08 KB 1700x1490 economicplan.png)
posting for use
What's Cockshott's contemporary take on Trotsky/Trotskyism?
>>498179 And by this I mean his take from the 90s-and-forward.
>>498197 >>498197 try asking on one of his vids or blogs >>495988 nice will watch
>>474510 Just finished reading Towards a New Socialism, and am wondering how certain nonstandard professions would work. For example, self employed musicians and artists. How do we keep track of their labor time? We surely cannot rely on them to faithfully record their labor hours "writing and practicing" can we?
>>498590 I'd imagine they'd do it as a hobby Particularly good ones could teach as their day job
(12.56 KB 220x220 trumpet2.gif)
>>498590 >While it's possible to collect granular data, by for example attaching a tech-gizmo to the training-instrument and collect data for how much time it's being played, it's not really necessary. Lets say we just rely on people to self-report their work hours they spend practising. We'd still could ask them to play music and then compare their skill level with the hours they indicate for praxis. And people that falsely report practice hours would then show up as an outlier in terms of having indicated a lot of practice hours while still sucking at playing their musical instrument in a demonstration. One would then just conclude that they are not really suited to be a musician. Consider that it doesn't really matter if they lied about practice or if they just lack talent, because it's essentially the same since you can count the ability to follow through with musical-instrument-training as talent as well.
(128.65 KB 620x400 contracter.jpg)
>>498590 musicians and artists would be contracted like plumbers and handymen. If you hire someone to paint a wall red and they paint it blue, they didn't do their job and get no compensation. Same principle applies with musical and other artists. See pic related.
(486.48 KB 557x900 soviet-prolekult2.jpg)
>>498419 >try asking on one of his vids or blogs So he's never made a statement of it? Anyone familiar with Cockshott's works know whether he mentioned Trotsky's views like he did with many others like Bordiga, councilcoms and De Leon?
>>498590 OK. So let's say I'm in a Satanic Death Metal band which creates music many find objectionable but a niche appreciates, do I get evaluated for my musical ability by a local artists council? Does what kind of music I make not matter as long as I can pass their tests? Would albums be considered products that the harmony algorithm would manage the production of, or since copyright no longer exists, does the idea of music as product cease to exist?
>>498590 In socialist economy you should get paid for social labor, and here you pretty much asking for society to remunerate you for shit you do alone in your basement when nobody asked you to. People that want to get paid for being musicians/artists/writers will have to join an organization.
>>498598 ^This was probably the view of Marx as well. >The exclusive concentration of artistic talent in some individuals and its suppression in the grand mass which springs from this, is a consequence of the division of labor... In a communist society, there are no painters, but men who among other things do painting https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php >>499330 >Would albums be considered products Hopefully not.
(813.20 KB C5KZwXgsfoeaeSu1.mp4)
I've seen more orthodox Marxists mocking Cockshott for saying use value still exists in socialism, can you guys explain or debunk this?
>>499745 >use value still exists Of course use value still exists as things continue to be useful; water continues to quench thirst
>>499745 Link to an example?
Roosterlauncher has a critique of Trotskyism on his blog page butt it's from his 70's 'era'. Don't know of any statements in or after Towards a New Socialism.
>>499830 Makes sense as that was the last time Trotskyism was relevant. It's essentially as moribund as Anarcho-Syndicalism now
Still halfway into the new socialism book, but i want to ask: How relevant those algorithms are in the modern Cockshott theory considering rapid developments in computation and infrastructure like 5G? Are there some new algorithms? Also, economies got more complex too, but are we able to theoretically plan them without use of expensive supercomputers as of now? Or?
>>501494 Talking about the I/O problem? I think it's a more a mathmatical matter than one of infrastructure. The inputs and outputs of an economy form a large matrix, too large to solve through brute force. Cockshott showed it was feasable to compute these mega matrices through iterative solving. From my maths days i seem to remember iterative solves on matrices being pretty simple just very long. Can't imagine there's allot of room for optimisation. So, uh, yeah they're still relevant i think. Yes, computing power has gone through the roof since TANS. Macro scale labour time planning a nations economy is now pretty trival in terms of computing resources. Opens up allot of possibilites for more micro level planning too that has been taken advantage of by your amazon's etc. I think Cockshott himself released a tool to play around with.
>>499796 https://twitter.com/borealmatriz/status/1256049476269232131 Not an actual academic but this guy complains that Cockshott: >Thinks value exists in socialism >Thinks value exists in all societies with a social division of labor >that value equals social work
(sorry if this is an FAQ) has anyone used cockshott's math from the beginning of TANS to work out the average USD value of an hour of american labor? as he correctly points out, it would have a very powerful rhetorical effect if used properly. also, can someone explain to me the distinction between productive/unproductive labor? the service sector would undoubtedly be skinned to the bone under socialism (cheap, idle reserve armies in burgerstan are the only reason they exist at all anyway) but what do you do with the remainder? are they paid for by a labor voucher tax?
(2.83 KB 240x280 PaulCpixelated.png)
>>501864 >has anyone used cockshott's math from the beginning of TANS to work out the average USD value of an hour of american labor? Bump would like to know this too
>>501864 >>502804 Have you got an equivilent of the blue book for the US? https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/compendium/unitedkingdomnationalaccountsthebluebook/previousReleases If I knew where the data was i'd have a crack for you.
Could it be possible to derive laws of accumulation of capital from statistical treatment of microeconomics, much like thermodynamics can be derived from statistical treatment of particles?
>>502804 i thought that was elizabeth warren
>>502804 Here ya go bud: USA Net National Product: $18.529 trillion Average Hours Worked per Week: 34.4 Weeks in a Year: 48 Employed workforce: 131 million Value generated in one hour $84. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, this number seems too high to be correct
>>502984 Bit sketchy on all of this but: I think you need to take out rent / interest sectors of the economy before divvieing it. Since this isn't value created by labour? I think if you want know how much the average private sector worker get robbed by you need the gross operating surplus of the capitlist sector (revenue after wages, employee contributions and intermediate good cost) minus gross capital formation (reinvestment) then divide it between the private sector workforce.
>>503034 Fair enough, I only took a NNP figure I found online, and I'm not sure how it was calculated. Did Cockshott take this into account in his calculation in TANS?
>>502984 >GNI / (Labor Force * Average Work hours) >~20,837,347,000,000 / (~163,000,000 * ~1800) >~$71 <GNI source: World Bank 2018 <Labor source: OECD 2019 You're not too far off. Imperialism and exploitation is really that bad.
>>503092 Obviously you need to deduct foreign capital flows imperialism from the total. But even then, the dollar value of labor is several times the minimum wage.
Here we go https://www.bea.gov/data/economic-accounts/national National accounts for the US if you want to play. Gonna calc how much the average private sector worker is getting jipped for. Removed finance and rent cos it confuses me. In billions of dollars for 2018 Private value added: 18,035.6 Of which finance and rent: 4,310.6 Private valued added less finance: 13,725 Total private worker compensation: 8,929 Of which finance and rent: 957 Comp minus fin sector: 7,972 Gross operating surplus of non-finacial private sector: 13,725 - 7,972 = 5,753 Cobbled together Gross capital formation calc cos i can't find the figure: Private investment in fixed assets in the economy: 3,537.9 Of which real-estate and finance: 971.3 + 231.5 = 1,202.8 Non finance fixed asset investment: 2335.1 (I've still got intellectual property in here which seems like bollocks to me) Dodgy ass private sector capitalist robbery total = 5,753 - 2,335 = 3,418 Total US workforce size (millions) = 161,037 Fed gov: 2,762 State and local gov: 19,747 Finance: 8,206 Non-finacnce private sector total: 161,037 - 19,747 - 8,206 - 2,762 = 130,322 3,418,000,000,000 / 130,222,000 = 26,247.49 By my dumbass calcuation the average american private sector worker got fucked to the tune of $26,247.49 in 2018.
>>503092 >>503100 I recalculated. Removed the FIRE sector (20%) from GNI and deducted the trade deficit. It's still around ~$55 an hour. >>503105 Getting similar figures here. I'm surprised because it looks even worse than I expected. Even if you remove all the parasitic sectors and investment, workers are still getting fucked for ten-thousands of dollars each.
>>503105 Workforce units are thousands not millions whoops >>503109 The scale of it really is shocking. Like the another anon said it's probably one of our best weapons. Considering making it into some infographic/meme but i'm not 100% on my maths. Never stopped the right i spose.
Bro let's just have the computer do socialism
>>503328 >>503333 *insert 'nordic yes' meme but with cockshotts face*
Just wondering, is there someway to get carbon production by industry per country? I wanna try jury rigging some carbon consumption vs carbon production chart. Too see what effect outsourcing and importing industry has. Any help apprieciated.
>>503109 >>503105 >>503092 >>502984 can anyone message cockshott with the parameters used and see if we're missing anything? the US economy might be different from the UK in the 90s.
>>503333 Based. Anti dickbangs BTFOOO
>>503333 quads = cybernetic socialism in the mid-to-late 21st century confirmed
>>504159 please god
Is there any interest here in alternative procedures for allocating consumer items? (I know TANS recommends labor vouchers.)
>>514739 Well, there is literally just 2 ways you can really allocate, maybe 3: Purely labour input based rational currency, can be called labour vouchers if you want. Most important feature for it is to not be able to circulate aside from exchange, basically only act as tickets instead of real money. Market based currency (what we have now) (Possibly) Some sortt of ultraleft barrack communist direct distribution of products. You get no choice for consumption, everything is directly allocated with no regard to consumer desires.
>>477991 We dont need quantum computing. All already have enough processing power on the macro level. We just need more on the micro level. A smartphone in every hand and a cheap disposable RFID tag on every unit of commodity
>>515226 False. The question wasn't even whether alternative procedures exist. Here is an example: http://www.spliddit.org/apps/goods The question was whether there is interest in alternative procedures.
>>515239 “We don’t need the tractor, we already have enough power with the horse” To answer your question it isn’t a meme, but it will take years before it reaches its full potential, I predict 10 years beforehand big impacts start occurring.
I haven't read TANS (go easy on me, I plan to eventually) so idk if Cockshott talks about this but I get the gist of cybernetic socialism however what I don't understand yet is how these calculations are brought up. Like how do they know what needs to be produced. Do some party bureaucrats interact with the masses through direct democracy to find out their needs? And then they ran their demands through the computers? Sorry if I got it completely wrong but just guessing at this point.
Cockshott has released a blog-post on Historical materialism subjectivism that appears to not have been posted https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/04/historical-materialism-and-the-repudiation-of-subjectivism/
(39.55 KB 1000x625 1495710059933.jpg)
>>515851 >read 25 years ago < oh so sometime in the 70s < wait a minute dennet was after that >realize 1995 was 25 years ago
Cockshott sometimes uses the frase "monastic communism". Is this just another word for Nechayevist barrack communism (it sounds kind of similar in context)? I tried looking the term up but nothing comes up.
>>516215 Google says its christian communism
>>516226 Well he uses it to reffer to a hypothetical socialist society that completely abolishes personal property, communalizes the household and distributes goods directly.
>>515541 Your question is pretty much the central question of TANS, or at least the one that, in its multiple possible answers, takes up a decent chunk of text. But in general the answer would involve some combination of: - automated supply/demand hacking by raising and lowering the time price of goods, seeing how they sell, and then producing less or more of them accordingly - various algorithms such as the "harmony" algorithm intended to optimize human leisure or other benefits - surplus production (the stuff that goes to your boss in capitalism) allocated to general welfare - pensions, the disabled, etc - and reproducing the means of production and other infrastructure - everything from schools and roads to new factory equipment - by direct democracy I really would recommend reading the text, as it's rather short. Other anons can correct me on any of these details
>>503617 Alright lads, spent a few hours poking at this so now i'm gonna use leftypol as my personal blog and post thoughts so i dont forget all this shit in the morning. First thing, i found the actual use tables for the US economy. Would have made that exploitation calculation a damn site easier even if they only go up to 2012. They’re here if you want to fiddle: https://www.bea.gov/industry/input-output-accounts-data So I’ve decided to try and minimise carbon in a cyber socialist economy to satisfy my autism. Looking through some carbon footprint research it seems the use of I/O tables is extremely common. Like i was reading some of them and holy shit i could have of being reading towards a new environment. Well almost. They’re used to calculate how much carbon is used in commodity production but that’s where it stops. No real idea of how to use this information for any kind of change. Here’s one saying that not targetting supply chain carbon is silly and... just kinda hoping companies take this on board, calculate their carbon footprint and act on it. Pure cyber liberalism. https://iioa.org/conferences/intermediate-2008/pdf/1c1_Matthews.pdf Before moving on to trying to integrate this into cyber-socialism the thing bugging me about all this was how raw carbon data was collected/calculated. Digging around on this site: https://www.eiolca.net/ I found this: http://www.eiolca.net/docs/full-document-2002-042310.pdf Turns out it’s a massive pain in the ass, pulling data from all the over place to produce an estimate. I suppose it would be, but i was hoping someone had cooked up a nice little table at the end of it but seems no luck. Ran out of time tonight but this looks like a decent bet to go digging in for it: www.sci-hub.ren/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.150 So i reckon i can calculate carbon per labour hour for each commodity. Ez pz solve if you you use Cockshott’s method for calcing labour time and have carbon outputs per commodity, right? So assuming i get off my ass and do it at some point, how to use it? Idea 1) I’ll just add carbon as a commodity to the harmony equation, invert the fucker, and bingo! Optimised carbon reduction! Doesn’t work. The harmony equation would just smash it to zero(negatives?) instantly. It’s not a commodity and it’s not used by anything. Idea 2) OK but what if we didn’t let the harmony equation reduce it! We could just calculate the harmony of it! Nope can’t do that. If your not modifiable your not part of the harmony equation. Dunno why i even had this thought tbh. Idea 3) The first one i had and the one i keep coming back to. Just set a maximum carbon tonnage as a production constraint. Which would work i suppose. Just not very cyber. Could be cooking the planet faster than i need to, just to produce excess shit i don’t really need. I’d rather have a system where carbon production itself was a harmony that balances against production output. So that’s where I’m at right now. Gonna play around some more at some point. Kinda fun even when you don’t really know what your doing.
>>515397 unlikely, real quantum computing probably wont take place until the end of 21st century or even the beginning of the 22nd
(3.54 KB 275x183 co2.jpeg)
>>524262 >how to add carbon to the cyber-planning Consider the following if you send people out to plant trees for the purpose of sequestering CO2 the inputs are: tree-seeds human-labour forestry-equipment,... the outputs are: carbon-budget and wood If you look at an industry that has CO2 emissions then the inputs are : regular industry inputs and carbon-budget the outputs are regular-industry-outputs meaning the CO2 emission go in the inputs not the outputs of you IO table consider that you would need to fill it into CO2-gas-bottles for it to be able to function as output if you let it in the environment it's gone and no longer as manipulable object in you IO table. All the environmental constraints can be added in a similar a way.
>>524262 1. let scientists come up with an aggregate emission cap 2. pretend it's a resource 3. treat the emissions from a process like an input requirement for it
>>522644 Has Cockshott ever considered statistical optimisation (or even just outright machine learning considering problems like this are right up this alley) as a solution? It doesn't seem very far off the mark, with the understanding that the algorithm will not be very accurate for the first couple of arbitrary time units as the system learns the necessary patterns, but when it starts to adjust it will do so quickly, and eventually be able to predict a baseline for the current level of development. It's worth also I think to introduce caveats for new technologies (temporary surplus?), whereas a certain level of risk has to be absorbed by the system while people make up their minds on the usefulness of a particular product. That should ensure continuous innovation at least.
>>526941 TANS mentions neural nets.
>>526842 Yeah that’s idea 3. It’s fine and all, but i want to harmonise carbon with production. Let’s the plan flex the cap lower if we can and raise it higher if it’s gonna push production of essential commities (food) too low. >>526589 Greets comrade and thanks for the thoughts. So I’ve gone round the Wrekin on this first thinking you were wrong, then right, then getting confused and finally thinking you’re sorta right and being drowned by the implications of this. The first thing to clarify is that in an I/O table everything is both an input and output. We can’t have just an input for reasons of solving of simultaneous equations or dot multiplication depending on how you like to think about things. Doesn’t matter though because we can just zero the output’s for your carbon budget and hey presto we’ve got a de facto input only commodity. I’m gonna skip right to optimisation but first quick go over of harmony equation optimisation because it helps me think and i know there’s some lurker reading this who still hasn’t read tans. Feel free to skip the next section otherwise. We’re trying to maximise production given a set resources/constraints (obvious one being available labour) . Not only that but we want to make sure our production is well spread and we’re not just making 10 billion shoes. So how to measure how well spread production is? We assign each production area a target we want to hit, we can then assign a score to each production area based on the target. The important thing here is we can use a simple quadratic function to make scores go down allot quicker he further below the target they are, and go up much slower the further above the target they are. Hence hitting production targets across the board is preferable to the shoepocalypse. The actual process starts by assigning a random amount of the limiting resources to each sector of the economy we’re modelling. We than calculate the score for each of our desired production outputs. The harmonisation process tries to make each of these scores the same number, a mean. It does this by taking some resources from production outputs above the mean and giving them to production outputs below the mean. Recalculate scores and then go again. Keep iterating until the mean settles. Cockshott suggests a tweak in tans that makes this process give the highest possible mean achievable, by weighting the process toward high numbers. So why bother typing all that out? Well if we whack our carbon budget into it, what’s gonna happen? First problem is we’re trying to maximise carbon budget. Whoops. No matter we just invert our score calculating method for this commodity alone and we’re now minimising. So is it working? Sort of but we’ve got a second problem. Carbon is being minimised here effectively by stealing constraining resources from production. So we’re deliberately not using labour in order to keep carbon down. Not ideal. Surely we could make solar panels or something right? I think with a slight tweak a possible answer arises. Planting a tree doesn’t output carbon budget and it doesn’t output no carbon budget either, it output’s negative carbon budget. Same for installing a solar panel. We add in the figure to our I/O for how much and suddenly output of solar panels and all intermediate goods going into producing that panel now have an effect on carbon. I think this works. Carbon doesn’t have to be treated as a constraint, it can now be a commodity to be harmonised. If that’s right then your not limited to just environmental stuff, you could pull this off with anything human labour has the power to both increase and decrease. And all in any balance with literally anything else you wanted. Provided you could collect the data, or can at least guess it to an accurate degree.
(3.54 KB 275x183 co2.jpeg)
>>526976 I'm somewhat concerned about you using negative numbers for quantities, that seems like it might produce problems elsewhere because that doesn't really exist in reality. First of all we have to try to look more closely about what carbon_budget is: consider that trees split off the Oxygen from CO2 and sequester the Carbon atoms by using it to make wood. When you burn fuel than Carbon atoms are oxidized into CO2 molecules (if your combustion process is clean otherwise it might produce a bunch of other molecules as well, you might want to take that level of specificity into account in real-world application but for our thought-case we are going to omit that detail). Meaning we now have our exact material reality we can measure here, Our carbon-budget is increased by unbinding carbon from oxygen and decreased by oxidising carbon. We sort of also would need to take into account that planting trees doesn't actually instantaneously increase our carbon_budget-number, I'm not sure how to take into account delays in production processes. You know because the input for planting trees more or less all happen at a point in time and the carbon sequestering happens gradually over decades. (I'm going to omit the complication of the wood output resulting from planting trees as well as harvesting, because wood production is tangential to our thought-case) Now for your complaint about having to use a special commodity that has an output set to zero, you can just output CO2 emission as oxidized carbon to a atmosphere_environment-number. You know since the carbon-budget input is now a positive number that represents how much oxidized carbon was subtracted from the atmosphere_environment-number. This way of looking at it also means that we do not need to treat fossil fuels as special case because that effectively represents sequestered Carbon or Carbon that is not oxidized. So that you can now trace the movement of carbon from sequestered Carbon in the carbon_budget-number to the atmospheric_environment-number. And you can set planning targets for how much sequestered carbon is in your carbon_budget-number and how much is oxidised carbon in your atmospheric_environment-number. There is one further complication namely that you also need to take into account that you can sequester CO2 without splitting off the oxygen, for example there's compressed CO2 underground storage, and for this you just invent a second carbon_budget-number carbon_budget2. Given that this type of storage could potentially leak CO2 over time back into your atmospheric-environment it's wise to pre-emptively treat this as a separate case.
>>522644 Damn this stuff sounds so cool. I plan to read this book hopefully very soon, feels like it will give me a lot of insight on cybernetic planning which interests me a fuckton.
>>528094 Thinking about this further I’ve completely changed my mind and i don’t you can model carbon straight as a commidity at all. I’m back to being confused. Some thoughts on your post: I think what your trying to do is use carbon budget as a production contraint here. In fact i think if you have an entry in a use table that cannot produced by other entries then it’s only use can be as a production contraint. I’ll go into what i think the problems with this are in a minute but first let me see if were on the same page here and explain why i think your carbon budget is a production contraint. Carbon budget is taken as an input by certain commodities, steel say. Ergo the more steel is produced the more carbon budget needs to be produced to go into it. Carbon budget itself has no input and therefore cannot be produced. If carbon budget cannot be produced then no steel gets produced. Right? So we can only make steel if you treat carbon as a resource and hand it out industries at the start of harmonisation. That’s a production contraint. You can’t set a target for it. It’d be like setting a target for labour. It’s a fixed number throughout the harmonisation process. The set it as a contraint method probably isn’t a problem if we were just looking at contraining carbon. We take a look a the result of the harmonisation, notice were hitting well in excess of targets and simply lower the cap and run it again until we get down to an acceptable level. But consider what happens if you’ve got thousands of waste products you wish to minimise. Fiddling them all individually up and down in an attempt to produce an undefined best result is dancing in the dark. The atmosphere enviroment number seems like a step in right direction. It’s a target we can set and can optimise relative to other production. Think it comes with it’s own set of limitations and problems though: First problem: it doesn’t interact with carbon budget. Consider a couple of edge cases to illistrate why this is a bit fucky: 1)The only end target that consumes carbon is AEN. AEN requires more carbon than it sinks. In this scenario the aglorithm will counter productively pump AEN to until we run out carbon budget. 2)AEN has trivially low non-carbon budget requirements, very high carbon-budget requirements, but still sinks more carbon than it requires. In this case your production is getting needlessly clogged by carbon budget when we could easily produce more AEN. Since AEN is harmonised with other production, this won’t happen. Like i said, edge cases, but it’s picking at something deeper. What’s underlying this is there is no way to use labour and resources to decrease carbon inputs. It’s the solar panels argument again. If I’m out of carbon budget and can’t try using labour to make solar panels to give me more carbon to play with, then something is going very wrong. I don’t think it even matters that carbon may not be sunk immediaelty, you could use an estimate of how much carbon would be sunk over any time frame you wished to plan for (needn’t even be the same amount of time that your planning production for). The second problem is none of the intermediate inputs to atmosphere enviroment number can themselves be end products if you want an accurate account of carbon being sunk to optimise. Consider trees. Maybe you’re setting a target for trees planting that is entirly seperate from carbon, just for mental health reasons or something. The carbon captured by those trees your producing is not going to be represented in your atmosphere environment number. You could tot this all up at the end, but the atmosphere environment number is not accurate during optimisation and therefore not being optimised properly. Final problem: How do you set up an AEN in a use table? Like how many units of inputs do we require for one unit output of AEN and what are these inputs? Does one unit AEN require half a unit of trees and a quarter units of plants? Think this is a fundamental flaw. The model we’re using only really works for commodities that are made from multiple things, not something that can be made by multiple things. What I want to do is, given a set of constraints, minimise our waste products, maximise our production, then score and harmonise all minimises and maximises relative to targets we set. And because this calculation is so large i want to tell our computer friend how to do this. It really seems like there should be a way too. Production and waste outputs are intimately linked. Still have no fucking idea how though. Think it’s time to try knocking up a small model to have something to fuck around with. These thought experiments are getting complicated.
"A transition to a socialist economy has to go through an intermediate stage of a transition to a cooperative based economy where the very first issue is the issue of democracy[...]" -Cockshott So, how could do we transition to a cooperative based economy exactly? Does he ever touch the issue of gaining power on the first place? Does he believe in vanguard parties? Can anyone help me here?
>>522644 >automated supply/demand hacking by raising and lowering the time price of goods, seeing how they sell, and then producing less or more of them accordingly isn't this basically what a market does tho?
>>549864 Ngl you don't read Cockshott for the revolution phase. Due let's have a referendum lmao. It'll like totally have moral imperative. >>549869 Beauty of Cokshott m8. Combines the enternal growth of capitalism with an an eglitarian society, all while basing it on inherently more efficent labour value.
>>528094 >I'm somewhat concerned about you using negative numbers for quantities, that seems like it might produce problems elsewhere because that doesn't really exist in reality. That reminds me of shenanigans with counting "eco-friendly" things that way. Suppose a new production method for some thing uses X less of some resource per unit produced than the established method. Some have proposed to count X times the number of units produced with the new method as "savings" in X. So the higher the number you produce, the more of the resource you have "saved". The way I see it, you can't save more than 100 % of a resource unless you are actually increasing the resource.
>>549991 >Ngl you don't read Cockshott for the revolution phase. Due let's have a referendum lmao. It'll like totally have moral imperative. this seems to be based in his distrust of a centralized political system like an ML party in favor of setting a precedent for radical democratism. also, he's a bong who just witnessed the political efficacy and impact of two separate referenda on getting the public involved. his strategy might not work but the lessons, I think, are valuable. >>549869 yes, but with hours instead of dollars. you get closer to real demand instead of bullshit "more wealth = higher demand" capitalist logic. (You can't accumulate hours, they expire and don't circulate)
(2.74 MB 1112x6073 Economist_Article_Part1.png)
(1.92 MB 1112x6367 Economist_Article_Part2.png)
(1.37 MB 1112x5483 Economist_Article_Part3.png)
(33.97 KB 624x416 time to plan.png)
>>592505 This is crap, the socialists won the calculation debate decisively markets are worse at economic optimizing than planning. Lets look for example at the statement that businesses fail because of planning errors this is extremely disingenuous because businesses do monetary calculation not actual socialist material planning. The claim that computers lack computational power to replace the market, this false assumption is based on the claim that in a input-output-table for all the goods and services every cell would be filled, this assumes that every product had hundreds of millions of inputs, no product is that complex, most products have between tens and hundreds of inputs with a few products that range into the thousands or tens of thousands of inputs, which means the actually computational requirements are orders of magnitude lower that this article makes it out to be. We also have to take into account a tendency for technological advancement to result in technological integration greatly reducing the economic complexity of goods. A very simple audio-amplifier for example had hundreds of parts 30 years ago, today it's down to less than 10. Another aspect that is being ignored is the software stack faster computers can't just calculate faster they can run software with higher mathematical complexity. For example a computer 30 years ago could not render video it could only load bitmaps (uncompressed images) sequentially, which is very inefficient in terms of memory usage, If you had made a prediction for video based on this limitation, you would have considered 4K video at 60fps to be utterly impossible. The same holds true for calculating an economy we can use much more sophisticated data structures now, like graphs. Consider that the videos you watch aren't actually rendered on the main cpu, you use a dedicated video-chip, which can't do every type of calculation but it's extremely efficient at the type of calculations that are used during video decoding, the efficiency gain of this is so great that even very small very crude computers can now do video decoding. Given all the computational optimizations that are possible it's conceivable that the world economy calculator could fit into a server-rack at some point. And since the world economy can afford much more than one server rack, you would not just calculate a single economic plan but a hole bunch of plans with some variations in terms of priorities, that would give you options to select from, but also more crucially the ability to run multiple simulated plans, which lets you do error correction so that you can add buffer plans that account for unforeseen variations. We also ditch the argument that markets are in any way efficient, there's more empty houses than homeless people, that's a calculation problem the Soviets managed to solve with slide-rulers... And markets do not scale up with complexity, they are definitely worse than socialist planners in that regard, you see that markets advocates cheat in their premises, they assume that individual persons are actually capable of surveying all the products that exist and then choose the most rational ones, So that they end up claiming that a single individual person can assess the entire economy while a giant team of researchers and planners can't. They also ignore that socialist economic planning actually don't intend to do away with the end-user-feedback mechanism of markets, we want to replace the capitalists with a computer, not any body else. There is no intention to prevent anybody from trying to define them selves by consumption-choices, it's just not going to be forced upon people. The parts about democracy in this article are even worse, democracy does not have a big data crunching problem, You see democracy is about control flows and consensus points. All the super rich people that see politics as a complex information problem to try to understand what it is that people want, are delusional, people want to have the surplus they collectively produce directed towards them self and society, not a bunch of super rich people. The project of democracy is to replace individual super-rich people making decisions about the allocation of surplus, with collective consensus decisions about the allocation of surplus. Most of the problems that you have to solve is not actually about democratic decisions making, but rather about preventing democracy to be subverted or sabotaged by people with concentrated wealth, that seek to maintain or increase their ability to siphon surplus from society. Pay attention to the use of the word "totalitarian" that's not caused by "socialist dictators", that's the result of steep wealth-gradients. As soon as wealth concentrations increase, it creates the situation where private capital represents a battle-chest that is going to be used to increase surplus extraction from society, resulting in hierarchical political society until wealth distribution has been levelled again.
>>592505 This is a very poor article. It reads like something stitched together from third-hand accounts. >The Operations Room of “Project Cybersyn” (short for “cybernetics synergy”) was created by Chile’s president Salvador Allende (…) To build it, Allende had hired Stafford Beer… That's like saying the pharaohs created pyramids. Allende didn't have some epic idea about an operations room. Finance minister Fernando Flores had the idea to contact Beer after reading a book by him and the room was part of Beer's vision. See Eden Medina's Cybernetic Revolutionaries (or just about any other text about it except this crap article). The author even refers to that book later. God, what a hack. >The control room has given way to the cloud as the side where decisions are made. This reads like a parody of the drivel Thomas Friedman puts out. This is from the book "Algorithms to Live By" (Brian Christian and Tom Griffith, 2016): <We often think of the Internet as a flat, independent, and loosely connected network. In fact, it’s none of those things. A quarter of all Internet traffic at present is handled by a single corporation, one that manages to stay almost entirely out of the headlines. This Massachusetts-based company is called Akamai, and they’re in the caching business. <We also think of the Internet as abstract, dematerial, post-geographic. We’re told our data is “in the cloud,” which is meant to suggest a diffuse, distant place. Again, none of these are true. The reality is that the Internet is all about bundles of physical wires and racks of metal. And it’s much more closely tied to geography than you might expect. The nameless author refers to a statement by Jack Ma: >“Over the past 100 years, we have always felt that the market economy is excellent, but in my opinion, in the next three decades will be a significant change, the planned economy will become increasingly large. Because we have access to all kinds of data, we may be able to find the invisible hand of the market.” The nameless author asks: >Find it and help it? Anticipate it? Disable it? That was not clear. I think it's pretty clear that it was an assertion of the superiority of planning. However, the part that I put in bold above was omitted by the author. >muh liberal democracy muh totalitarian Borg in Star Trek 🥴 The article is now hovering just slightly above the level of political analysis with Harry Potter on Twitter. (The Economist also supported the Putsch against Evo Morales btw.) >muh oriental despots reee Kinda funny when you compare the numbers of protesters arrested in HK over the course of several months with the numbers arrested in the US over just a few days. The burger police has shown a much more brutal approach as well. >muh blockchain crypto currency Yes, let's end the article with such a turd of an idea. Great. >Mr [Glen] Weyl has a geeky new voting system Bonus turd! That's probably a reference to quadratic voting. Weyl is NOT the first to come up with that. Aanund Hylland and Richard Zeckhauser wrote about it in the 70s. People vote on allocating a budget to various topics. To undermine exaggeration strategy, the points you allocate with your ballot to this or that topic are not counted directly, instead we take the square root of each amount. The method is extremely vulnerable to category spam (divide a topic into subtopics, and more budget ends up going to that topic). Why did you even post this? Otto Neurath, Oskar Lange, Hayek, Cosma Shalizi, Francis Spufford's Red Plenty – all of these references in the article have been already in the threads we have had (and before that on RevLeft), and they are treated by the author in such a superficial manner that you learn more by skimming Wikipedia about them. Curiously absent is Cockshott, even though he pops up again and again when you search for the other names and socialism. So I strongly suspect that's a deliberate omission by the nameless author (according to the author of Moneyball Michael Lewis, The Economist is "written by young people pretending to be old people" and if American readers "got a look at the pimply complexions of their economic gurus, they would cancel their subscriptions").
>>593150 >>595225 I posted this article so it can be picked apart.
(722.26 KB 517x585 disgusting.PNG)
>>474510 hey guyz did TANS ever got translated in french ? couldnt find shit online so I guess not ?
>>474526 you're dumb and gay bitch
>>603242 where does he post these ?
Man, I love Cockshotts style of writting sometimes. One moment he is talking about how rationing under socialism shoild work, then he mentions how NHS is good, because the doctors decision process prevents wasteful benis / breast enlargement surgeries.
>>603934 pornhub
>>603951 lmao source?
>>603997 It's in how the world works, chapter right before the one called crisis of socialism or something like that.
>>605422 Oh shid wrong thread
>>604023 speaking of which, does anyone have that PDF? I didn't see it in the thread dump.
>>605488 I've uploaded an epub of it to the pinned book thread yesterday. If you need pdf, it can be converted online, or perhaps some anon has it.
In the ParEcon ("Participatory Economics") model that Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel propose, one idea is to have "balanced job complexes", balanced task bundles of dreadful and empowering work for everybody. Is something like that feasible? Suppose the tasks simply get each an annoyance rating and we try to give everybody the same sum of total annoyance by that standard. Suppose that each activity we concern ourselves with here is not "chunky", but can be split up between people in any way we want (one person might do 20 % of it or 15.5 % etc.) Suppose also that the tasks here are simple enough that anyone can learn them. Still, if it takes more than a few minutes to learn a task, doesn't this mean that this obsession with balancing leads to a massive amount of additional training? Imagine the introduction of this balancing idea at your workplace means you have to learn 27 tasks instead of one… But actually, if there are N people and N tasks (non-chunky and learnable), it is always possible to assign them in a annoyance-balanced way with nobody having to do more than two tasks. See: https://datagenetics.com/blog/november52019/index.html This article has nothing to do with ParEcon intentionally, but the section "Alias Algorithm" contains the proof of what I'm claiming here.
>>603242 Fuck tree fungus. All my homies hate tree fungus.
(14.43 KB 345x257 brain.jpg)
>crack open my fresh copy of How The World Works, first serious crack at Dicksniper >40 pages in and my brain is a swirling cataclysm of facts and logic Help me comrades, I'm becoming too powerful
(17.91 KB 306x302 1589831762332.jpg)
>>607024 Use your power wisely
(80.64 KB 955x960 really.jpg)
>>607024 >Dicksniper kek
>>606997 Looks like when one adds more equalizing constraints the number of different tasks a person has to do doubles with each constraint.
>>605499 I think I found it: >>474517
>>606997 That's a roundabout and liberal idealist way to try to abolish the division of labor. Look at GPCR era China. They sent intellectuals to work in the fields and factories, and sent peasants into the colleges. This had tangible benefits not only for social life, but for production. Intellectual workers were able to come up with better solutions for production when they actually had to engage in the practice of production. Likewise, the "manual workers" ended up learning a great deal and being able to contribute their own solutions and insights. Portraying this necessary process, fundamental to communism, as "dreadful and empowering work" COMPLETELY misses the point.
>>611548 (different anon) Any sources on the GPCR and its benefits etc?
>>611548 Calling random things you don't like "liberal" isn't a serious criticism. What you said about Mao's China sending students to work in the fields, teaching rural people etc. is something I find agreeable, I don't see how it is incompatible with the "liberal" proposal, and if the incompatibility isn't there, why are you against it?
>>593150 thank you for the effort-post anon also bump
(554.07 KB 700x408 alunyaspace.png)
Would like to request everyone to join the leftypol matrix as we are speculating seriously about a cockshott app and could use everyone's thoughts and ideas.
>Back in 2010 the materialist historian Turchin predicted in an article in Nature that 2020 would see a major outbreak of social disorder in the USA. >His work distinguished between the long term stress that a society experiences and short term triggers. The long term stress predisposes a state to social breakdown, riot, insurrection or civil war. Once the society is in a highly stressed state, then some otherwise common event – the killing of an innocent man by the police in this case – can trigger the breakdown. >What was remarkable about Turchin is that he took historical materialist ideas, dressed in a language to make them acceptable to US academia, and gave them precise quantitative numerical form. He gave social stress a formula. https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/06/18/the-us-crisis/
(153.40 KB 698x688 MSP (5).png)
(423.82 KB 2875x2935 MSP (2).png)
(47.48 KB 579x565 MSP (18).png)
>>623003 Freemanism
>>623003 Why the lambda? Isn't work / labour marked as "A" in physics? Or is it just my country being special?
>>623003 It's W where I live
>>621406 What is leftypol matrix?
>>623029 Isnt work labeled as "W"? Also arent you from eastern europe?
>>623003 >>623029 >>623044 Ohhh isnt it because lambda is symbol for wavelength (transmition of information = cyberspace)?
>>623177 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus Lambda calculus is very important for computational science. CS nerds understand lambda calculus as foundational in a certain sense.
>>623199 Well I didnt get that far with my IT stuff, but I guess then it makes sense
>>623165 Yea I'm from Eastern Europe. I'm pretty sure we use the same symbols as in the Soviet days (at least our current ones line up with the older equipment (on a sidenote, it is a very wierd feeling doin educational experiments with 30+ y/o Geiger counters)). We use W for electrical energy, A for work and both P and N for power (depending if its electric or mechanical). I allways just assumed A is an abreviation for Arbeit, though that doesn't make much sense for Eastern Europe.
>>623264 Yeah that what I tought. I think only soviet had their own symbols because of cyrillic but im not sure. We for example use western symbol, even when we are in eastern europe
(1018.12 KB 1180x668 cockshott-stfu-liberal.png)
>>621406 >Would like to request everyone to join the leftypol matrix as we are speculating seriously about a cockshott app and could use everyone's thoughts and ideas. We can't even run a site, why would we be able to make a 'Cockshott app'? In any case we would need dedicated hardware that isn't backdoored by Intel or AMD and we would need computer scientists and engineers (skill-level wise) comfortable with competence in the various layers of the OSI model. It would definitely need a security system able to log, scan, detect hostile actor interference (which would in this case be an imperial power utilizing its military and signals divisions). That being said hypothetically this could be done with the leveraging of strong encryption (before quantum computing) and networking via an open, collaboratively maintained wireless mesh network for P2P signaling, traffic E2EE and anonymized (instead of the Internet/ARPANET). Storage would be shared over the devices in the network, making it pointless to target the devices individually, as they wouldn't contain incriminating data to extract individually (they'd also be hardware encrypted anyways). If what you're having in mind isn't even close to this and is instead some meme-y Apple Store / Play Store app with HTTPS and some stupid quick-hack gimmick created by a 16 year old last Thursday after a big bong hit then stop shitting on Cockshott's contributions and potentially putting people in danger. If you're gonna make a thread about it (I suggest you do) - make it on >>>/tech/ instead, as we do have programmers at least.
>>625220 What you linked was unrelated to the specificities of what I was referring to. You linked one of Cockshotts videos going over physics and its theory, I was referring to a problem in economics/computer science that involves entities with large capital investment (Google, the NSA) being able to acquire quantum computers with the aim of bruteforcing all previous binary (instead of quantum) encryption standards known to man and the problem this presents for a project like a 'Cybercommunist app'.
>>625633 the NSA is far away from building a quantum computer anon. Their techniques rely on more advanced versions of elliptic key crypto which is standard. They hire mathematicians, if they were serious about making a quantum computer they'd be hiring physicists not hackers and math nerds
>>624633 >dedicated hardware that isn't backdoored by Intel or AMD there's always ARM
>>624633 >In any case we would need dedicated hardware that isn't backdoored by Intel or AMD libreboot thinkpad t60
>>630247 IDK really, I will leave it to more experienced marxists to decide. If she provided some alternative planning lit so I could compare I wouldnt be mad
(3.66 KB 273x210 rule110.png)
>>630247 Yes HTML5 and CSS3 are proven to be touring complete. A guy called Eli Fox-Epstein demonstrated it by encoding a Rule-110-machine (Universal Cellular Automaton) in it. https://invidio.us/watch?v=Ak_sWZyHi3E Here is a video explaining what a Rule-110-mashine is: https://invidio.us/watch?v=Ubc7iNZ7MV8
Requesting PDF copy of How The World Works
(3.50 KB 220x168 blind.jpeg)
>>630441 Are you blind ? it's in this thread, in the third post just click here: https://bunkerchan.xyz/.media/30a4d8c484da6c39da6da5ec5bb51b0d-applicationpdf.pdf
>>630247 >besides the fact that his work is wholly ignorant of most past planning lit, besides the fact he believes himself to have discovered linear algebra and walrasian economics This is just a plain smear, Cockshott cites all this stuff in his lectures. >imo he represents what is basically a reactionary productivism Cockshott regularly gives climate change as a problem to be solved by communism, by placing artificial restraints on production to reduce CO2 output.
>>631143 >besides the fact that his work is wholly ignorant of most past planning lit This shit got me scraching my head, does that bitch know some kind of socialist planning that im not aware of?
>>630247 Twitter power-users are functionally illiterate. That is, they can't follow arguments in books and in general they don't read books. You probably know some students who are constantly on Twitter and so, naturally, you think these at least read some books. In fact, they don't. They just go through life bullshitting like this. They also can't actually process threads like the one you are in right now. Seriously. <he believes himself to have discovered linear algebra Normally I would call the statement quoted above a lie, but these people don't have a good grasp on reality like a liar usually does. The liar knows what's right and wrong and cares about reality. The bullshitter doesn't care. The Twitter power-user doesn't care and lacks the skills to figure it out and instead hedges by hiding behind a sarcastic persona which enables them to retcon any bs they get called out on into a joke. Prolonged exposure to Twitter will fry your brain. Stop using Twitter. >>631143 >Cockshott cites all this stuff in his lectures. And in his books, too. "The mathematics of the problem have been well-understood since the pioneering work of Wassily Leontief and John von Neumann in the 1930s and ’40s…" This is from TANS, chapter 6 (page 77 in the edition I have). In Arguments for Socialism, in the chapter called 21st Century Marxism based on an article he wrote for the newspaper junge Welt, he mentions "the method of linear programming pioneered by Kantorovich". The book also contains his review of Red Plenty, where he brings up Kantorovich again. Kantorovich also pops up in the German version of TANS (as Kantorowitsch) and in the Spanish book he did With Maxi Nieto: Ciber-comunismo (as Kantoróvich). And, once more, in How the World Works: "Contra the claims of the Austrian school, techniques have been known since the 1930s [Kantorovich, 1960; Panne and Rahnama, 1985] that allow efficiency calculations independent of prices. The branch of math used, linear optimization, was pioneered in the USSR as a means of maximizing industrial output in the planned economy."
>>624633 The latter one, the idea was to create something that could plan a small economy on the scale of a few city blocks/hundred people. Someone already raised the point about central planning but the problem is that requires the state which isn't captured. Meanwhile having a demo of a different mode of production would go a long way towards showing people socialism is possible in ways that a simple gift economy wouldn't(since most people know intuitively that those don't scale up). Yet, since no one is currently in the position of being able to organize a few city blocks, having it also be able to work for small jobs, like a commune but extended to online. Start small to put it succinctly. Where things left off was thinking about how to have things interface with the capitalist economy: >Well if you want to plan a mini commune then you need to at some point allow an interface between the capitalist economy and the socialist one since you can't make everything else. Keeping track of labour time internally is easy and receiving goods made by people are part of it is easy, but how do you handle it if people want to use their labour time to buy a graphics card. It's possible but it will require some thought and clever accounting and a centralised body or whatever.
>>479216 >>There's no "Hegelian school of Marxist economists," >Exactly, Dunning-Kruger-kun. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
>>632340 So something that is a spliddit clone (among other things)?
>>632379 haven't heard of it, does it work by labor time?
>>632399 No. It's a website you can use to allocate a fixed and given pile of things or chores in one go without using money. Suppose you live in a group and there is a pile of chores everyone in the group can do and that each chore in the list can be easily split up in any way (like Bob doing 40 % of task X and 25 % of task Y; if the tasks within a week are too "lumpy" for that, allocate the chores for a whole month instead), then people can individually give weights to the tasks and use one of the procedures offered on the site to allocate the chores in a way that everybody gets a burden of the same weight. (Trivially, this also happens when everybody gets the same task mix; but this uses subjective differences to reduce the subjectively felt burden. That is, Alice gets a mix with P % of her weight estimations and Bob gets a mix with P % of his weight estimations, and this individual weight is almost always lower than with the trivial solution.) While the code isn't open source, they do tell what algorithms they use and what criteria these satisfy.
>>632134 Searching cockshott on twitter it looks like a lot of them are mad because he said something "transphobic" and also due to his views on prostitution. That woman seems to be one of those neomarxists with a disdain for hard sciences that he wrote about.
>>632445 then making something like that but open source seems a good start towards communism
>>636433 im so fucking sick of talking about cockshotts gender takes its like if you brought up marx and the only thing people wanted to talk about was 'on the jewish question' and that time he called Lasalle a jewish niggger
(16.74 KB 610x458 labour-voucher.png)
>>639540 Yeah identity reductionism sucks Anyway, is there a way to implement a beta version of cybernetics. Right now we sort of lack control over means of production to be able to try out most of the things Cockshott has proposed. But Service work frequently doesn't have any need for capital goods and it would be very easy to try out the labour vouchers aspect with that. You know for testing purposes, and theory refinement. Like for example if you made a sort of service barter platform that operates with labour time as unit of account. We could test various methods of measuring time, test out various problem scenario solutions like when there's disagreement about the measurement of actually rendered labour time. There other aspects like how to deal with varying intensities of various type of labour, and how to figure out how to measure that objectively. Basically there's lots of detail Minutia that we could work out ahead of time.
>>639634 Some cities have Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). These are groups that use complementary currencies to trade goods and services. It's usually local people trading handicrafts, haircuts and babysitting, but there's no reason it couldn't scale up. Not all use labour vouchers, but some do. Also some are using online labour vouchers. Rather than starting from scratch, I think LETS systems will be receptive to Cockshottian ideas.
(19.69 KB 266x220 thank-you.gif)
>>640346 This is a really good hint, thanks for pointing this out.
>>640346 Do these exist in the US?
>>640346 It's too insular. We will use LETS as a practical example, perhaps even documenting / analyzing it, but ultimately what needs to be advanced is an effort from within the labor movement to establish a cybernetization of revolutionary organizing.
>>640346 >>641768 The problem with LETS is that it's only a payment system, there is no economic calculation. That's what limits it to handicrafts and services. It's easy to offer your services for sale on a LETS exchange; one hour of your time one hour of labour voucher. There is no economic calculation beyond that, hence complex products are not offered for sale through LETS. LETS exchanges are not in opposition to cybernetics, they are two different things. Cybernetics can offer LETS a means of calculating prices for complex products in a better way than capitalism and LETS can offer cybernetics an already existing base of consumers and producers.
(78.51 KB 1280x720 Cockshott profit 1.jpg)
(81.33 KB 1280x720 cockshott profit 2.jpg)
Watching Cockshott's video on Okishio's theorem I've notced that he brings some innovation to the analysis of profit rate, mainly with a focus on demographics (see picrel 1 e 2). My question at this point is: are those insights part of a general theory of profit rates made by Cockshott expanding upon Marx? And if so, where could I find some readings about it?
>>645297 Why do increases in depreciation lead to increases in the rate of profit?
>>645587 Maybe because the stock of existing capital drops faster than the rise of the population idk I'm waiting for some insights on it too
>>645587 Haven't even watched the video in question, but I think I can answer it. If your assumption is that aggregate profit comes from fresh labor only, it follows that a big amount of fresh labor relative to the labor already stored up in the things the fresh labor is working with means a big profit rate. Marx thought of the means of production getting worn out and becoming inoperable at some point during the process of producing items as transferring labor-value to these items. So, when it comes to estimating the labor in a machine that has already seen some use, you do that based on the life still left in it, so to speak. So how much the means of production are already worn out affects what the ratio of fresh to old stored up labor is as Marx conceptualized those terms.
>>640346 >I think LETS systems will be receptive to Cockshottian ideas I doubt that. As far as I know many of the initiatives for local currencies in Europe are rather inspired by Silvio Gesell's concept of money with expiration date. And Gesell's vision wasn't communism, but some eclectic mix of bankers and landlords bad, small business and matriarchy good.
>>645587 because if machinery is broken porky hires people to keep up the same rate of production
>>645587 >>652177 >Prole sabotages machinery >Gets written off as a depreciation expense >That makes profit lower, not higher
>>645297 Yes, I was having this question as well and over time realized that Cockshott's theory on FRoP is different from the classical take (which I still fully don't understand, and which seems to be independent from Cockshott's analysis). His argument is more of a tendency for rate of economic growth to fall, rather than profit, and it is something that all economic systems will have to deal with. Simply put, the human population is finite, and tends to stagnate at around replacement rate or lower in modern economies. This means that labour available also stagnates. Labour is always needed to maintain existing capital, thus at some point new capital can't be created, as the workforce is dedicated to maintaining the old capital. This means that apart from rises in productivity, which Paul argues stagnate as well, at least in a capitalist economy (last chapter of How the World Works), the growth rate of an economy tends towards zero. In a capitalist economy this relates to the profit rate. If you want the full details, then How the World Works provides them in both the chapters about capitalist and socialist economics.
Just pledged 10 bucks to Groinboom's Patreon page. Registered just for him too. That's like a pack of cigs in some countries. If you aren't backing him while backing entertainment platforms like Chapo, what's your excuse? https://www.patreon.com/williamCockshott/
>>655575 Also: mods should add his patreon to OP.
>>655575 >That profile pick I... must ..n-not ..toast
>>654456 >Cockshott's theory on FRoP is different from the classical take Profits come from workers, fewer workers means lower profits. Looks like a pretty classical take to me. I don't think classical economists and Marx would have a hard time wrapping their heads around his argument. I suppose by the classical take you mean specifically FRoP falling due to technical changes shifting the organic composition of capital so that more and more dead labor is used relative to living labor. These two takes are not incompatible, you can claim both effects happening together. However, it's not a fact that every technical advance must change the organic composition of capital in the direction that the second take assumes, so the usefulness of the second take really depends on whether there is at least an overwhelming trend in the direction take two takes for granted. Article about that question with a counter-example about how innovation can change organic composition: https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/884/saving-labour-or-capital/
(1.16 MB 960x960 1593544015576.png)
>>655759 I'll toast to that
>>630247 That this person is insanely annoying because of how disingenuous and pretentious they are behaving. For one, Cockshott doesn't pretend he discovered Walras or that he invented Linear Algebra when he always points to the historical thinkers that originally used/created whatever models or methods he is talking about. But this person and her twitter clique seem to relentlessly make fun of Cockshott or anybody who seems to like him for having "CS brain". It all just seems cliquish and disinterested in real engagement. I'd be happy to learn who she thinks is better on economic planning, or what critiques of the neoclassical model she prefers, or whatever, but all you get here and in some other twitter posts about Cockshott are snide remarks and jokes about how he is just a Soviet-boo old man brain poisoned by his specializing in CS. She at least mentions some book recommendations for other things in her curiouscat, but those tweets are from May, she also has some other Cockshott tweets from previous months, and she has promised some kind of write up on how he is an idiot without apparently ever posting it. She also said she had already written some essay on why he was dumb, but I couldn't find a link to it, so as it is she just keeps preening that she has obliterated Cockshott and has a reading list of much better sources, but I can't find it anywhere.
>>655844 my man's the black kingpen
>>639108 Speaking of open-source versions of spliddit, this thing is in the works: https://acritch.com/rent >Robust Rental Harmony >Existing tools for calculating envy free rent division are suboptimal (e.g., spliddit.org), in that they tend to return price assignments that are “on the boundary of envy”: if someone’s preferences changes by an infinitesimal amount, the solution can cease to be envy free. And in real life, people’s preferences do tend to drift a little as time passes, so I prefer to assign rooms and prices in such a way that is “as far from envy as possible” to mitigate the risk of future envy as well. In its current state, I couldn't get the widget on the site to work in my browser (probably due to my autistic security settings).
(39.83 KB 750x750 cute 2.jpg)
Brainlet here,there are three points in Dickblast thought that seem obscure to me: 1) Why the rotating parliament has a 1-year mandate? Isn't it too short to dictate policies? 2)How and by whom referenda would be called in his vision? 3)With his theory laid down as a blueprint for future socialism, the "building the party" and "waging revolution" parts still follow Lenin blueprint, don't they?
>>669481 >1) Why the rotating parliament has a 1-year mandate? No particular reason as far as I know. The Chartists fought for annual elections, maybe that's where it's from. >2)How and by whom referenda would be called in his vision? I think he assumes a few of the topics as hard-wired, so to speak. Just like many countries have preset election dates, some of the topics would come up again and again, like min and max salary. As for other topics, a procedure that starts with a high threshold for collecting signatures among the masses is very vulnerable to media campaigns, so it's probably better to start with population samples discussing and coming up with topics and answer options. >3)With his theory laid down as a blueprint for future socialism, the "building the party" and "waging revolution" parts still follow Lenin blueprint, don't they? He has some ideas, but isn't really strongly and permanently committed to a very specific sequence of steps irrespective of decade or country I think.
>>669590 So from what i understand those aspects are left "free" to the eventual reader to theorize about? Also, is there some other theorists pushing /ourguy/'s vision out there or is it up to us anons to build on his basis?
(321.83 KB 2048x2048 EcL1KFAXkAA9bHB.jpg)
>>669598 >So from what i understand those aspects are left "free" to the eventual reader to theorize about? Yes. I mean, these questions are kinda open-ended, let's not pretend there are timeless correct answers here. Does it really bother you that national elections of the country you are in are set in some interval like four or five years and that there is no scientific objective basis for the length of the interval handed down to us plebs by the STEMlords, really? There are probably all sorts of formal and informal customs in place that changing the interval is a pain in the arse, but what is chicken and egg here, it doesn't prove that there is something special about the status quo. There is a rhythm to nature that is connected with the solar year, so I guess it makes sense to have intervals that have the length of a year or an integer-multiple of that, but aside from that anything goes. The opportunities and risks for a region going hard socialist depend on a a lot of factors (how developed it is, how much of its energy and food requirements can be met internally, other things). >is it up to us anons Pushing in the sense of pushing his popularity: I think people here really overestimate how much of his popularity is due to us. When you go to websites that have heavily customized content, you don't get independent samples. So, if you hang out with a crowd in online place A and you hang out with a strongly overlapping crowd in online place B, you tend to talk about the same topics and people. If you hang out on Twitter on Reddit with people who also hang out here, you can't take a repetitive exposure to a topic or person as good evidence of broad popularity. It's not like he's a recent convert to the left. Check this out: https://libcom.org/library/chapter-2-protest-or-resistance >Real resistance to the Poll Tax began after 'The Community Charge Bill for Scotland' received the royal assent in May 1987. Ironically, it didn't come from any of the major organisations who were to play key roles in the non-payment campaign. A small political grouping — The Workers Party of Scotland — organised a series of meetings in Glasgow. They set up an organisation called 'The Anti-Poll Tax Union'. Its aim was to co-ordinate resistance to the Poll Tax across Scotland. Two of its key activists, Paul Cockshott and Matt Lygate, organised a march from Glasgow to Aberdeen. They visited people throughout Scotland and handed out a pamphlet they had written in April called 'The Poll Tax Nightmare'. >The programme set out by the Anti-Poll Tax Union in early 1987 was very similar to that later adopted by the movement as a whole in early 1988 (and 1989 in England and Wales). (The Lygate guy was a member of another tiny hard-left party and had robbed banks in the early 70s to help with funding it, but that's another story.) Pushing in the sense of developing his or similar ideas: There's cibcom.org (Spanish) and designing-history.world (German) for groups that explicitly refer to his stuff. People who have had similar ideas independently: There is Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel's Participatory Economics (ParEcon for short), which has more emphasis on a federal structure. They also talk a lot about the PMC issue. Their texts on it are longer yet the vision is more vague than TANS actually, and they as well as the people they have attracted over the years aren't really the type that thinks up algorithms, sadly. More recent work is by Daniel Saros, but what he thought up in terms of formal mathematical procedures is not really good. He projects a cardinal reading into what is basically ordinal data about consumer wishes and comes up with really arbitrary weightings in the process. There was a review of a book by him last year in one of the Cybernetics threads (I haven't seen an archived version of it, it was the one with a PS1 game in the OP).
how does the state wither away under cockshott's idea of communism? does he talk about this aspect of marxism anywhere? i naively see a contradiction between the apparatuses of cockshott's society and a true withering away of the state
>>670212 The idea is that more and more material abundance simply the need for a state ceases to exist, and that a non centralized military based on the Jugoslav model of People's militias could be less of hinder to the process avoiding the creation of alternative centers of power (at least limiting them). Also the rotating composition of Parliament can avoid ossification in the Party structure or at least reduce it to a degree. (Caveat: What said for the military is to be held true for relatively homogenous states: for plurinational states /ourguy/ seems to push a hybrid model to avoid separatist power grabs as in post Tito Jugoslavia).
(14.84 KB 959x839 powerdrill-lazor.png)
>>670360 >military in the communist phase The material reason why dedicated military goes away is not because of muh decentralised militia. The reason quite simply is that advanced technology is powerfull enough that dedicated means of destruction become redundant. If you have a 50KW laser in your shed instead of a power-drill for making holes in the wall or doing arts and crafts, you don't need guns any-more Consider that a bunch of people can combine the power of their laser drills, if a hole city full of people does that it will take out even really heavily armoured military vehicles in that sense lasers or other forms of directed energy beams are sort of democratic weaponry.
IMPORTANT https://www.youtube.com/post/UgzIXUhOAx9x_eDuwYt4AaABCQ IMPORTANT Viki1999 has made a community post asking for help for a comrade's project with regards to AI and food production. What you should do if you can now is: 1)Namedrop /ourguy/ A LOT in the comments 2) Aid that comrade by filling the forms in the links LET'S FUCKING SPREAD CYBERSOCIALISM
>>670638 work and war become one in the same destruction followed by construction, all with the same tools, the same workers adversaries paved over
>>670360 Material abundance won't remove hostile capitalist powers or make reactionaries go away.
Nobody cares you retarded technophiles. Sage
>>671432 Kill yourself
>>671432 Can't even sage properly.
There's a German podcast about possible future societies that has been going for a year with barely an audience: https://www.futurehistories.today/ Talks about Neurath, Cybersyn, Cockshott etc. Recently, they (or is it just one guy?) have put out an interview in German with Jan Philipp Dapprich who is a student in Glasgow working with Cockshott and an interview in English with Daniel Saros.
daily reminder that cybernetics is the very essence of contemporary capitalism
>>672377 >Tiqqun A philosophy journal >Deleuze An idealist philosopher ... Why should I ever take a humanityfag seriously? All you are going to do is make shitty culture analysis takes, complain about "vulgar" materialism and get some retarded metaphysical concept like the demiurge mixed in.
>>672583 >bookz r 4 nerdz!!1 suit yourself
>>672377 >systems science cannot be repurposed to serve any pre-abundancy economic system including future socialism >implying
>>671432 >communism will fall out of the sky and does not need any technological solutions to planning >it doesn't need planning >everybody will have everything instantly
>>672595 Books in general are for everyone. Science books are for people who like to know how the world works. History books are for people who want to know how the world was. Fictional books are for our escapist needs. Recipe books and student books are for learning. But humanityfag books, well, these are special. They are for massive faggots who wasted their mental bigbrain potential that could have been used for something good like research in order to study retarded, obscurantist and pretentious shit written by their predecessors who all were the same type of slobs as well, since the last time anything truly new was being discussed in their field was 2 centuries ago. Then they act all proud when they discover such profound stuff as "yes, culture is definitely a thing that exists". And this is the "good" stuff. Leave them fermenting in their shit for a while, maybe accidentally introduce them to leftism, and soon enough, like mushrooms out of the rain, a whole new batch of Pol Pots, Nick Lands and other wife killing schizos arises to once again fuck over leftism in the ass, while the state department laughs their asses off.
>>671432 Go out and plan economy with paper and pencil faggot
>>672620 >>672615 What is it about Cockshott that makes these fags seethe so much? Is it because he uses numbers and shit? Because he shows that Marxism and science are not incompatible? This has been going ITT since it started.
>>672628 (i specifically mean the hegel-autists)
>>672377 >Tiqqun https://archive.fo/Twr2c >>672630 If you mean the twitter weirdos who call themselves Hegelian: they got nothing to do with Hegel. I don't think Hegel of all people would be opposed to centralized data processing.
(35.98 KB 500x737 commerical funnel.png)
>>672628 >>672630 porkies want the left to be anti-technology so that they can blackmail techies into doing their bidding as in "if you want to create technology capitalism is the only option" Submit to your god, the investor ! Consider that techies had a lot more social respect in the Socialist countries because there was no marketing to obfuscate the origins of tech, in current ruling ideology the technologies you use comes from brand-name-corporation, don't look behind the curtain of who designs it. People love fruit-company gadgets but also shit on "nerds", "geeks", "eggheads", "boffins" and so on... despite that being the people that design the gadgets they like. Quite a lot of people that have an affinity for technology, science and so on, don't give a shit about getting rich or being an entrepreneur and they get the hole business-stuff & money-calculation forced upon them, causing them great deal of stress, increasing rates of somatic health issues, there's even the term of "imposter syndrome" where people working for tech-corporations get mental distress because they feel like they are betraying their community. Also there quite a elevated suicide rate among techies because neo-liberalism blocks the social relation of using technology for helping people. Despite the technology hype we currently have going on in the media, basically around 70% of tech-talent is suppressed, and especially the really brilliant tech-minds are being destroyed because the more a brain is tuned for understanding the material reality (of technology) the worse it becomes at dealing with the neo-liberal social environment. This is the reason why technological advancements are currently slowing down so much. Basically they have frustrated so many people with their commercial funnel that gets narrower and narrower the longer neo-liberalism continuous. The result is that no new low level foundational stuff for new technologies are invented, and hence the tech-pipeline is drying up, which is why the new revolutionary technology is now the same as it was 10 years ago just upgraded to be slightly better.
>>672724 Yeah. A lot of the bright minds are being used to "engineer 3% more ad engagement" instead of technologies that are useful.
>>672601 ah, the old people's stick
>>672822 >quoting bakunin/chomsky to shit on cockshott go back to reddit
>>672822 >thinking cybernetics is inherently repressive are you mentally retarded? is the human body repressive because it can be described cybernetically?
>>672822 Kys faggot
>>673654 I don't click on YT links without description (I also don't click on YT links with a description). Can't you make a .webm or just write what the point is?
>>673681 It's the YT channel for the General Intellect Unit, cybernetic Marxist podcast. They examine "the intersection of Technology, (Left) Politics, and Philosophy". Just found out these guys. They seem interesting. http://generalintellectunit.net/
Not sure what TORposting looks like at the moment, but I somehow managed to get through, meaning I can finally post my version of the Cockshott Readlist with PDFs and HTML links. This one is more complete than last thread's, but I did draw from that post in a couple areas. This list is only missing one single book, namely Finley's. If anyone has this PDF let me know, but I am currently in the process of obtaining a PDF copy. Happy studying anons.
>>676568 Cockshott's Contemporary Reading List The aim of this list is to provide students, either individually or as groups with a systematic study list that will prepare them to be Marxist thinkers in the 21st century. It is always necessary to train new generations of Marxist intellectuals. They are needed both to propagandise against the dominant ideology, and to scientifically analyse the political and economic problems of the day to benefit the oppressed. Their training has, as ever, to be carried out largely beyond the official structure of the educational system. The education system does not intend to produce Marxists, but it does provide critical students with time and access to books which they can use to educate themselves. Such education should ideally be a collective process. Study circles should be set up who will meet weekly to discuss works that they read collectively. The groups can then go on to the stages of propaganda and conjunctural analysis. MATERALIST PHILOSOPHY Here we give a collection both of Marxist and non-Marxist materialist writers. The aim is to provide a philosophical background to the materialist thesis of the primacy of matter over ideas. The classical Marxist position is set out by Lenin, Plekhanov and Engels. Althusser provides a relatively modern philosophical commentary on this position. His work is also relevant for its concept of ideological state apparatuses and their role in the constitution of the subject. The main ideological state apparatus has historically been religion, and Kautsky’s work provides an excellent analysis of the economic and political conditions giving rise to Christian ideology. Turing’s work is central to understanding the relationship between human thought and computation. It provides some philosophical background to the ideas investigated in the section on socialist economy. This same philosophical school of materialism is continued in Dennet’s work. [estimated page counts are counted at 450 words/page. -anon] Engels – Ludwig Feuerbach 37 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/index.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Ludwig_Feurbach_and_the_End_of_German_Classical_Philosop.pdf Darwin – Origin of the Species 272 pages https://darwin.amnh.org/files/images/pdfs/e83461.pdf Plekhanov – The Materialist Conception of History about 29 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1897/history/part1.htm Lenin – Materialism and Empirio-Criticism 346 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/pdf/lenin-cw-vol-14.pdf Kautsky – Foundations of Christianity 493 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm https://rowlandpasaribu.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/karl-kautsky-foundations-of-christianity.pdf Turing – Computing Machinery and Intelligence ("Can Machines Think?") 22 pages https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf Althusser – Lenin and Philosophy about 30 pages https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1968/lenin-philosophy.htm Dennet, Consciousness Explained 455 pages [PDF ATTACHED] Dennet, Darwin's Dangerous Idea 262 pages http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Dennett-Darwin%27sDangerousIdea.pdf HISTORICAL MATERIALISM / POLITICAL ECONOMY Capitalist Economy Marx – Wages, Price and Profit 30 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf Marx – Capital Volume I 549 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf Marx – Capital Volume III 645 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-III.pdf Farjoun and Machover – The Laws of Chaos 224 pages [PDF ATTACHED] A modern explanation of why the labour theory of value operates using concepts from statistical physics. Sraffa – Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities 112 pages [PDF ATTACHED] A very systematic attempt to extend the mathematical basis of Marx’s transformation technique in Volume 3 of Capital to a generalised system of commodity production. Also introduces key concepts of input/output analysis that have to be understood from the standpoint of analysis of socialist planning. This book is very important, but a number of revisionist interpretations have been put forward based on it. One should read it critically in the context of the work of Farjoun and Machover. Kalecki – Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, 1933-1970 203 pages https://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf A collection of essays that extends Marx’s analysis of reproduction in Capital Volume 3 to handle dynamics. A particularly important point here is to get an understanding of the difference between the dynamic determination of profit levels by Kalecki’s equations and Marx’s analysis of the conditions of existence of profit. Pre-Capitalist Economy Jared Diamond – Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies 457 pages https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b01c/b68ee68de34784712cd6fdef9411752c242d.pdf Engels – Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State 99 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf Aristotle – The Politics, Book I 26 pages [selected purely based on completeness. other translations likely exist online. -anon] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D1 [HTML, Rackham translation. -anon] https://oll-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/579/0033-01_Bk_SM.pdf [PDF, Jowett translation. -anon] Socialist Economy Marx - Critique of the Gotha Programme 25 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf Provides a seminal account of the principles of production and distribution under socialism. Stalin - Economic Problems of Socialism 100 pages https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.pdf To be read critically as a presentation of the orthodox Soviet account of the relationship between plan and market in previously existing socialism. Nove - Economics of Feasible Socialism, Revisited 226 pages http://digamo.free.fr/nove91.pdf To be read critically as an attack on socialist planning from a non-Marxian socialist position along with an advocacy of market socialism The following 3 texts have independently arrived at a common conception of 21st century socialism based on the labour theory of value, cybernetic technology and direct democracy. Cockshott and Cottrell - Towards a New Socialism 198 pages http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf Arno Peters - Computer Sozialismus: Gespräche mit Konrad Zuse 156 pages https://www.amazon.de/Computer-Sozialismus-Gespr%C3%A4che-mit-Konrad-Zuse/dp/3355015105 [please do not pay 73 euros for this -anon] Dietrich - Fin del capitalismo global: El nuevo proyecto histórico 42 pages https://www.scribd.com/doc/104317043/El-Fin-Del-Capitalismo
>>676579 POLITICS AND THE STATE Marx Communist Manifesto 21 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf The Civil War in France 40 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/civil_war_france.pdf Draper Karl Marx´s Theory of Revolution Volume I 542 pages [PDF ATTACHED] Volume II 573 pages [PDF ATTACHED] Volume III 326 pages [PDF ATTACHED] Volume IV 238 pages [PDF ATTACHED] Volume V 189 pages [PDF ATTACHED] Lenin What is to be Done 115 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf The State and Revolution 64 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It 42 pages https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/ Mao Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society 17 pages https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm http://collections.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/AnalysisoftheClassesinChineseSociety.pdf On Contradiction 24 pages https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm http://www.marxistphilosophy.org/oncontrad.pdf Moses Finley Democracy Ancient and Modern [stay tuned for this one. -anon] Aristotle The Politics, Books IV, V, VI 99 pages [selected purely based on completeness. other translations likely exist online. -anon] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D4 [HTML, Rackham translation. -anon] https://oll-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/579/0033-01_Bk_SM.pdf [PDF, Jowett translation. -anon] This is to be read as backup to Finlay. He provides a clear conception of the relationship between wealth and power in democracies and aristocracies. END OF LIST
>>676580 >TOR users are not allowed to post files Mother fucker. Has this always been a thing? Will someone please bitch at the admins so I can upload this shit? Failing that, you can go to libgen yourself and DL them to reupload here I guess I'm out until the TOR gods allow me to post like this again. Good luck
>>676586 Did you try posting with a block bypass?
>>676586 you need a bunkerchan gold account to post here
>>676579 >Lenin – Materialism and Empirio-Criticism considered by most the worst of his works, btw
>>676579 >Dennet just... why?
>>676619 >>676618 Cockshott is a literal ignoramus when it comes to philosophy.
>>676619 >>676618 What's wrong with these?
has anyone read this this guy writes about economic planning and quotes but also criticizes cockshott here he is on a podcast too: https://www.futurehistories.today/#episoden-rp
>>676580 >>676579 good post
>>490650 this guy has a twitter too: https://twitter.com/spysamot
>>676837 holy fuck this guy has a github repo based on cockshott: https://github.com/ssamot/socialist_planning
based samothrakis
>>676579 >Plekhanov >Materialism and Empirio-Criticism "no"
>>676919 ive read plekhanov, seemed reasonable to me, not that he said anything original. Why is plekhanov bad again?
>>676829 See: >>670202 The book was reviewed in an old cyber-socialism thread. I think it was the same thread that had a proposal for a tripartite central mind inspired by Francis E. Dec.
>>676971 his conception of materialism is very mechanistic similar to the one marx critiqued in feuerbach. >The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. this holds for lenin's book as well.
>>677093 >mechanistic i hear this word alot but it seems to be a term of abuse thrown around by hegelfags,etc. around overly quantitative approaches to marxism eg. shaikh's/econophyiscs. just seems to be a catch all term for "not woo enough", without being more specific. its what "problematic" is to radlibs
>>677104 >i never seriously engaged with your point but you're a radlib well then. in case anyone else is interested go read these https://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1923/marxism-philosophy.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/
>>677093 >>677172 And you have read Lenin's 400-page book? And you believe that Lenin somehow didn't know that humans don't just react passively to their surroundings, but that they change it, and that they change it collectively? And you believe it is important to remind people of this here and that if people don't write that in every other post it must meant that they don't not know it or maybe that they have forgotten this banality?
>>677172 >Pannekoek >pancake man literally a meme not taken seriously outside idiotic ultra circles >Korsch literally an anti-soviet "Western" Marxist not taken seriously by anyone who isn't a masturbating intellectual or was liberated by Marxism-Leninism, which would mean around 1/3rd of the total human population
>>677104 >i hear this word alot but it seems to be a term of abuse nigger, just read Lenin, lmao
>>676649 >Dennet <"new atheist" <(((analytic))) "philosopher" <literal brainlet when it comes to understanding consciousness >Lenin – Materialism and Empirio-Criticism <loved by Popper <a politician tries to into philosophy <pushes Engels' "dialectics of nature" while it's a bunk approach I mean, honestly, just read Lenin's notes on Hegel if you want to into philo. It's at least honest. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/
>>677326 ><"new atheist" fuck vols fix your god damn site you absolute assholes
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Jared Diamond yet. All I've heard about him and his book is that they're both meme-tier, and that he's not even a real historian, etc etc. So is there a better alternative for answering his question on the development of the New World vs. the Old World? Also, which authors on the readlist have you guys read, and are they credible / worth reading? (Sraffa, Kalecki, etc) >>677326 >a politician tries to into philosophy I don't get it. Isn't Marxism a form of philosophy? What's the difference? What the fuck does the word 'philosophy' even mean?
>>677212 yes, yes and yes >>677310 >judging the truth of a theory based on whether your ML circlejerk likes the author as expected
(9.57 KB 181x279 dennett.jpeg)
>>676649 >What's wrong with these? nothing, Dennett's book on consciousness is a decent thrust into a materialist explanation of consciousness. There's a few anti-communist lines about "Stalinism" in there, that is unfortunate, but it's not really damaging his materialist explanations on consciousness. It obviously is not a complete explanation of consciousness because the brain isn't anywhere near fully understood, but it's very clearly formulated (which is very rare with a topic like consciousness) and well structured book. It's definitely worth reading.
>>677494 Yours are legit questions. >Isn't Marxism a form of philosophy? It isn't merely a "form of" philosophy, but it is philosophy proper. Moreover, it is economic science. It is, moreover, a legit historiography. (We could go on and on, there's even Marxist aesthetics and architecture, etc.) >What's the difference? What differentiates Marxism from everything else is what I've just written above. It is, in itself, so many things at once. >What the fuck does the word 'philosophy' even mean? If I have to be blunt and go the TL;DR route, philosophy (currently) has one "advantage" over all kinds of disciplines: it's the only discipline that has a long standing history of trying to connect all other disciplines (including sciences) and trying to order them into a hierarchy. Mind you, in this sense philosophy is so "meta", that my previous sentence is itself only but one position you can take inside philosophy. I hope I wasn't too indecipherable.
>>677093 >his conception of materialism is very mechanistic similar to the one marx critiqued in feuerbach. >>677212 >And you have read Lenin's 400-page book? >>677703 >Yes. Lenin mentions three barriers in the understanding of what he views as an outdated Materialismus, what are these?
>>677790 So philosophy is the historical well from which all hard and soft sciences spring, a box that contains any of them that you feel like including, and a kernel that attempts to unite them all into a single world-conception or ideology? Why haven't we stopped using the damn word already?
>>677326 >>677761 who do i trust bros
>>679215 sounds like a standard leftcom take but im not sure what it has to do with cybersocialism
>>678158 read it yourself and make your own decision dude
>>679215 wrong thread?
Has anybody seen this video/does Cockshott have a response to some of the arguments made in it? Does it even apply to Cockshott's theories? Please ignore if FAQ. "Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea" - "Tom Scott" https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs
>>677928 he calls french materialism mechanical, metaphysical and idealist, if that's what you mean. using german words doesn't make you seem smart, especially considering we are talking about a russian text here.
>>677928 >using german words doesn't make you seem smart The purpose of that (as with saying "barrier" instead of "limitation") was to make it harder to cheat by doing ctrl-f for a quick answer. It's moot since the answer took way too long.
>>679677 yeah dude i was up all night googling what you mean, that's why i didn't reply
>>679622 Idealist materialism?? Sign me up!
>>679222 >just read something on a topic you're not familiar with, and then decide afterwards if it's right I assumed you guys were smarter than me if you dared to have opinions on something I knew nothing about
>>679688 Yeah I know. >>679922 Well, >>677761 has read it and the other has not.
>>474510 What if Cockshott's model of a society voted, by referendum, to restore capitalism? Does it happen?
>>684810 I think that's a silly question, akin to asking what would happen if a generation of mental BDSM freaks were born who all want to reintroduce slavery. Society is made of people. There is no mechanism in TANS for dealing with such a scenario. A working mechanism would be to permanently hand over power to an AI tasked with preventing such a change, an AI with direct control over weapon systems.
>>684844 Cockshott didn't say hand decision making to an AI though. The use of computers is just so that there won't be shortages in the absence of money.
>>684844 I'm more asking about such an event occurring in the early stages after a revolution - I'm guessing that assumption is questionable. It's not really a critique of Cockshott as it is (in my view) an avenue of failure of direct democracy to stabilise in the long term.
>>684851 >Cockshott didn't say hand decision making to an AI That's what I said about him. >>684860 I think the real problem is local versus system-wide. Some regions have better natural resources and infrastructure and the people lucky to live there tend to be against more centralized decision-making, cloaking narrow and short-sighted self-interest in the most lofty language about freedom and fighting bureaucracy.
>>684860 >It's not really a critique of Cockshott as it is (in my view) an avenue of failure of direct democracy to stabilise in the long term. I beg to differ, the only direct democracy that exists today is probably Switzerland, and it's very stable. To what degree you can attribute this to it's direct democracy features is questionable, but at the very least you can say that it doesn't harm stability. >>684810 >>684844 This is a question about locking in the mode of production, and if history is any indication that's going to end up sabotaging societies, like in the west the neoliberal-order has clearly changed the material conditions to such an extend that it's no longer viable, but the ruling class that created all the mechanisms to lock in the neoliberal-order is now destroying these societies just by re-enforcing this variant of the capitalist mode of production. And this could also happen to a socialist mode of production. So the tricky bit is to make sure there is no slide backwards in slavery (by a BSDM generation lol seriously ?) or a capitalist mode of production, while at the same time not preventing society from moving on to a mode of production more advanced than socialism. Cockshott's variant of a socialist mode of production is far more flexible than for example the soviet-model, and will not be vulnerable to that kind of rupture. He is proposing a very extensive polling system that will not allow an administrative strata to diverge from the masses like in the late Soviet Union. The sortition selection he proposes will not be vulnerable to procedural-degradation of representative democracies that discards democracy for a factional fight to get "our guy" into power, and it fixes the issues with sectarianism that bogs down quite a lot of democratic-centralism. The topic that often gets neglected when talking about democracy is how people get their information, the neo-liberals clearly have decided that they will censor everything that the people paying for marketing don't like and that is probably going to end up the most censorious system imaginable. The Soviet system operated with a black-list where criticism of the government was censored, but pretty much everything else was fair game, at least in the later periods. The neo-liberal-system is now creating a white-list where only pro-neoliberal information is not censored that's significantly more restrictive than any 20th century socialist system. Then there is the Chinese system which differs in terms that it doesn't use pre-text for censorship, but is upfront about it which means that they need to justify what they are doing, at least on the surface this seems like this would lead to different results, it might be that it curbs some excess if the ministry for censorship isn't misclassified in double-speak. if you think about the information people get as a building block for democratic decision making, there might be a way out that improves upon any previous system, maybe it's possible to create a news-landscape that is statistically representative mirroring the sortition aspect.
>>685078 >if you think about the information people get as a building block for democratic decision making, there might be a way out that improves upon any previous system, maybe it's possible to create a news-landscape that is statistically representative mirroring the sortition aspect. Sure it's possible to make a BBC on roids and fix some quotas based on sex, age, and the regions people are from. More important than these things is that top decision makers don't have extra-ordinary salaries, since this fucks with your perspective.
>>685134 Sortition is better than quotas, which will never account for everything.
>>685208 You can have sortition with quotas. For quota-free sortition to work its magic, you need a big number of people.
>>685078 >I beg to differ, the only direct democracy that exists today is probably Switzerland, and it's very stable. The degree to which Switzerland has retained direct democracy has gradually weakened over time. It's still a representative democracy at its core. A few referenda won't change that.
>>685492 Quotas serve no purpose with sortition. Random samplings will eventually draw a representative body of the population, that's basic statistics.
>>685823 >Quotas serve no purpose with sortition. They can fix and make sure proportions that otherwise would only establish themselves in the long run. >Random samplings will eventually draw a representative body Think about the decisions. A series of small bodies that each make decisions is different from a big representative body. There are decisions today that don't restrict us much in the future, and for those, the fuzziness of a very small randomly-selected body wouldn't cause big problems. Example: the short-term usage of a building or stadium for various cultural events. The destruction of a building or stadium on the other hand…
>>686125 that's pretty dumb shit just do srs so nobody complains about muh nigs or muh whities. that's how you get the breakup of Yugoslavia tier shit
>>686125 (me) Here is an example: Two Islands, Meep and Zoop, form a country. The country has various bodies for national issues that represent people from both islands proportionally. Their populations are in exactly the proportions 3:2. That means 3/5 of the group should come from Meep and 2/5 from Zoop. Now it's clear that this proportion can be accurately represented in a body of 10 or 25. But almost always, proportions between regional populations and seats don't work out that way. Suppose the body has 11 seats. Then we can guarantee Meep at least 6 seats and Zoop at least 4. Having some rounding rule for definitely giving the seat to only one of the two islands would introduce a distortion. Giving instead the seat to Meep 3/5 of the time and to Zoop the other 2/5 makes it proportional in the long run, just like with quota-free sortition, but with reduced short-term distortion. It is possible to guarantee proportionality over the course of 5 consecutive bodies here, but that's just an artifact of the example using very low integers for exact proportions between the regions, which is not very realistic. The general procedure for giving away the rounding seat is a lottery with tickets given out in the necessary proportions so that the average expectation of the seat distribution is exactly like with the quota-free system, while there are also guarantees for minimum representation that the quota-free system doesn't have. >>686131 Sortition is an exotic idea to most people. Reducing the fuzziness of results will increase the acceptance.
>>685078 sorry, by direct democracy i mean direct democracy under a socialist system - i didn't mean direct democracy in general and i didn't mean "direct democracy collapsing in on itself", rather "direct democracy causing a socialism to collapse"
>>685829 >>686125 >>686131 >>686187 Quotas are often re-interpreted by managers as excuse to do favouritism and give career positions to friends, which is nepotism with extra steps, and that's why most people dislike it, but is there actually a system for doing quotas accurately ? like for sortition that has randomized statistically representative sampling that is also used by scientists because it eliminates bias.
>>686762 >is there actually a system for doing quotas accurately ? >>686187 The most simple case of that is what >>686187 describes. If the quota requirement is such that each person is in exactly one category, it is easy: You look at what number of seats corresponds proportionally to the size of that group. If a group is 17.455 % of the population, that percentage of seats in the body would be their perfect proportional share. So you look at how many seats are 17.455 % of the seats. Almost always the result isn't a proper integer. This number rounded down is the number of seats the group is guaranteed to get. We do that for every group and this leaves us with one seat that isn't assigned yet. For that seat we remember the fractional stuff that we rounded off. This fractional stuff is the number of tickets in the lottery for that seat. So, if some group deserves 7.14 seats according to proportional share, they get first the 7 seats and a probability of 14 % to also get the last seat. It's more convoluted when a person can be in several quota-regulated groups at once, but it's doable.
New Cockshott Against Nationalism https://youtu.be/PSkpk3PFmqM
>>630247 >>630424 Is this bitch straight-up lying when she says Cockshott argues "HTML alone" is Turing-complete, in Classical Econophysics? I can only find one mention of HTML, on page 101.
>>687028 Probably, she lied about Cockshot claiming to invent linear algebra or whatever.
>>686927 anti idpol too?!
Ok, which one of you tried to invite him to an AMA? Anyway, if he agrees, I think the mods should be notified to take care of any spergs while it is happening.
>>632134 Her account is from April meaning that she has on average tweeted about 250 times per day, about 10 tweets every hour of the day for 3.5 months straight
>>687986 wtf thats nuts
>>687986 fucking insane. kill all social media and kick these people off for their own good. twitter is making a whole generation into zombies
>>686927 Based
>>686927 Based
(468.92 KB 1042x711 92387489237498723948.png)
>>686927 Oh shit
>>688066 >>688050 It's no wonder that a schizo like that feels as if she can instantly refute the well-research Cockshott books and papers spanning several decades within 280 characters. I hate it when people act like these arguments have zero merits to them. I would describe my tendency as a 21st century Marxist-Leninist, but I can definitely understand where anarchists, post-leftists, Maoists, Trotskyists, demsocs and so on are coming from. I don't instantly think 100% of their arguments are crap, even if I may in the end disagree with some or several approaches. It's just intellectually dishonest on her part. (Not that her tweets matter at all...)
>>688349 actually seems insane to me that she can write: >his theory is in sum an attempt to create capitalism without capitalists incoherent even in its own terms like that's definitely her not reading TNAS properly right? i struggle to believe she actually thinks that and is not just making it up based off "le old man = funny scifi computer economy = bad capitalism"
What happens if a solar flare strikes my cybercommunist utopia?
>>688591 What will you think happens when a solar flare strikes in the current economy you retard?
>>688591 >implying capitalism wouldn't suffer a giant economic depression in this scenario too >implying capitalism does not use electronics or telecommunications to function are you a time traveler from 1900?
>>688594 >>688605 Capitalism predates electricity and radio communications. Cybercommunism cannot exist without both however.
>>686927 >>688224 D E L E O N G A N G R E A D M O R E , B O O K L E T G A N G
>>688615 Is this the best "gotcha" you could come up with? >heh stupid cybersocialism can't work without technology that is the basis for the world economy the past 70 years >heh capitalism couldn't work if you didn't have steam machines >heh feudalism couldn't work if you didn't have cavalry projecting the lord's force throughout his lands >heh slavery couldn't work if you didn't have slaveships to transport the human cargo
hi fellas, i created a WP article for TNAS (hopefully raising some awareness of the book), feel free to edit parts if i'm misconstruing any part of it. reception section might need some work if i have misinterpreted Cockshott's reply to Brewster's review of TNAS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towards_a_New_Socialism
>>688746 *TANS
>>688668 Capitalism could remain in place if electricity stopped working tomorrow but cybercommunism could not. That's my point.
>>688759 >Not having auxiliary power? >Not having a non-cybernetic mode of operation as a backup.
>>686814 >We do that for every group two groups and this leaves us with on seat that isn't assigned yet. D'oh. Doing that for more groups can leave us with several unassigeed seats at the end of the deterministic part. From the perspective of a group, the lottery part adds one more seat at most though.
>>688759 >Capitalism could remain in place if electricity stopped working tomorrow, after 90% of the worlds populations dies off and we return to 1850 levels of productive forces.
>>688813 Those consequences are precisely why capitalism wouldn't crumble.
>>688746 I love it
>>688746 I don't have a Wikipedia account :P but I can tell you a few things. First of all, the SZ article by Adrian Lobe is absolutely atrocious. And on top of that, it isn't even in English (I'm pretty sure you haven't read it lol). Remove it ASAP. The SZ article starts with the claim that Venezuela's hyper-inflation is yet another demonstration of the failure of central planning. Venezuela doesn't do central planning. Then it says Cybersyn in Chile was an attempt at controlling the economy centrally and that is failed due to technical issues (WTF). What actually happened was a military coup. It claims that Arno Peters in Dialogues with Zuse wrote A FICTIONAL DIALOGUE with Zuse where Zuse hypes up computers as a tool for socialism and that it was likely dishonest of Peters to present Zuse like that. Actually, the book is a monologue by Peters based on his chats with Zuse over the decades. (Lobe probably hasn't read more than its title.) And then comes page 2. The article states that it's an irony of history that Uber is some sort of computer command economy because its drivers are commanded by it, hurr. Then it says that Uber charged a lot of money during a festival and that this has NUFFIN to do with demand being high, but only with greed for profit. Then he quotes a translation from British "intellectual" Paul Mason. I don't have the book, but I can give you the English original, since exactly this snippet has made the rounds on /leftypol/ for years–as a shitpost: >In order for the plan to work, society in this project has to go back to being ‘plannable’. Workers interface with every aspect of Cockshott and Cottrell’s plan via ‘their’ workplace – so what happens to the precarious worker with three jobs; or the single mum doing sex work on a web cam? They can’t exist. The final paragraph warns of a world where we are ruled over by a small programmer elite that spies on us 24/7. As you can see, my disagreement isn't just ideological, the article contains blatant falsehoods. I'd rather have more from the Austrians or some socdem or maybe even an an-syn critique if it exists. Cosma Shalizi has criticized TANS for simply assuming certain planning parameters exist without explaining where these come from and for having a too simplistic model of production (fixed co-efficients).
>>689061 i think i have to keep the SZ article in, because you need 2 non-trivial published (independent) sources discussing the book to keep the article at all. ill have another go at looking for another source if you think we should remove SZ
>>689061 here's the criteria
>>688746 >>689073 It's not strictly speaking one of the criteria, but telling about the translations of TANS will help with making it look relevant. There was an abbreviated German version published by PapyRossa: "Alternativen aus dem Rechner. Für sozialistische Planung und direkte Demokratie". The full translation is called "Sozialismus ist machbar" and available for free on the translator's homepage: https://helmutdunkhase.de/haupt.pdf According to that book, there is a Swedish version ("Planhushallning och direct-democrati") and a Czech one ("Směrem k novému socialismu") as well. And you can also download a Chinese translation here: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/TNS_chinese.pdf
>>691779 thanks, ill definitely include it. feel free to give any other secondary sources on TNAS, it'll help flesh the article out. was thinking of doing an article on how the world works but it looks like there's only one review online.
>>686927 Cockshott-Bookchinism
>>474515 very interested to read the article on Ambedkar, but annoyed that he spells his name wrong
Should I read Capital before TANS to get a good idea of how a socialist economy would work?
>>692964 nah you don't have to. tans is stand-alone
>>686927 >On ritual occasions people will wave these pieces of cloth in the air or tie them onto poles or buildings >Sometimes on such occasions, they will sing a special song which says how great and good their nation is >Whenever they hear this song people are supposed to stand up straight LMAO I like this "outsider" perspective. It really makes nationalism look dumb
Tried to have a thread but it died hyper quickly so I'll say it here: Cockshott's work has a great deal of value for the socialist movement (planning stuff, upholding LTV, offering critical insights on the fall of Ussr),but that is only like half of what we currently need to have a cohesive theory fitting to our present circumstances. So what i think what we REALLY need right now is an analysis of:1)Class composition of Western economies, highlighting the interests at play of both the various strata of the working class and the bourgeoisie in the current years 2)A new model of material praxis and basebuiliding, drawing from Lenin but also innovating as much as possible. Given those two necessities, is there someone who has already embarked with those subjects in its analysis or have we to start from scratch in regards to that?
>>686927 >New He wrote that in 1991.
In the USSR, to make the data and calculate the economic forecast for the 5-year plan someone had to sit with a piece of paper, collect this data and count the linear functions, but the economy has billions of products and counting it would take millennia. So we need 2 things: 1) Big data 2) Awesome high speed computers We have both, so you can do the Cockshott method: We take the input/output array, we take his github's algorithm to calculate it for us based on the 5-year plan function and we have it done in 5 to 10 seconds, not in thousands of years. The thing is simple: we collect the data in big data and calculate it, because the efficiency of the method may make continuous but small production more profitable than adhoc, but huge - there may be a hypothetical surplus, which can be eliminated or allocated to external sales in real time calculations A few seconds is an awesome pace, the market effects are often matters of at least minutes, and usually days or months, so to sum up: 1) We have tools for a centrally controlled economy 2) We can manage the economy more efficiently than the market 3) By collecting data in big data we have the opportunity to observe in real time the allocation of resources and manage the allocation in a democratised way, which capitalism simply cannot offer technologically. Link to github: https://github.com/wc22m/5yearplan
>>697159 >someone had to sit with a piece of paper, collect this data and count the linear functions, but the economy has billions of products and counting it would take millennia Not really, by the 80s they automated much of the data gathering and could calculate the whole plan in a day
>>697205 I thought the cybernetic proposal was ultimately rejected, or at least not accepted enough to Cockshott's liking. What did they use instead? Where can I read about the planning history of the USSR?
>>687809 AMA where?
(324.05 KB 1020x1396 1.png)
(299.59 KB 1144x1356 2.png)
I was reading this passage from Surveillance Valley by Yasha Levine, and this struck me as something which could possibly happen under a cyber-socialist state. While I'm convinced that overall, Cockshott's model of cybernetic planning presents the best possible way of socialist organisation, I also think that the extent to which economic control is given to the planning body could possibly lead to the creation of something like the American military-industrial complex. This in turn could lead to a capitalist restoration – if not something worse. I'm curious to see if there are any ways to avert this.
>>699600 Well Cockshott also presents his own program for direct democracy specifically to counter that. There would be no real full-time government jobs, rather sortition-elected officials with a set term limit who would most likely never see the office after their time is up. Also, even without that, I do believe that USSR shows that even without extensive democratization the plan would still keep to workers interests, as labour definitely had it way better before capitalist restoration. Also I do believe that no matter the command economy existing, there would still be workplace autonomy in form of unions, as it seems that this element is becoming way more important to the left these days. Just some quick thoughts.
>>698068 Glushkov's proposal to build a complete system and switch to it overnight was rejected and that's the only side of the story westerners got to hear, remaining Gosplan people kept automating labor intensive parts of the process with the goal being gradual shift to fully automated planning. All sources are in Russian, if I find a short enough summary I'll try to translate it.
>>676829 I did listen to part one of the Saros interview. We can probably get a consensus on the following: 1. Socialism entails a shift to less trial and error and more planning. 2. To reduce waste by producing unwanted consumer goods, there should be a generalized system for pre-ordering. 3. Since people don't have perfect foresight, there should be a way to reject things you pre-ordered and consume things you did not pre-order. 4. To get people to take pre-ordering seriously, there should be penalties for contradicting your own pre-ordering. Let's call that the Saros Consensus(TM). I'll criticize the specifics of what he proposes after listening to the second part.
>>699600 Non renewable contracts for top planning managers (and for the other top manager of the State ca va sans dire), with a mandate between 3 to 5 years, so to avoid the formation of a top bureaucracy. From what i know there are already similar laws in place for some public entities in Europe
>>699722 This is like 100% compatible with planning, hell this is what Amazon does RIGHT NOW to an extent, idon' t really see a problem implementing this
>>699743 Pretty much this. While leaning a bit of topic, I do think a good half of all "muh guman nadur" arguments can be btfo by simple review of legal systems that existed since the antic times.
>>699711 >All sources are in Russian Could you post them?
Would Cockshott's version of Marxism (which needless to say at this point, includes cybernetic direct democracy) still fall within the theoretical paradigm he identified with in the 70s (De Leonism-Maoism)? The reason I'm asking this is because after doing some searching I cannot find a single page of his that mentions Maoism today. This leaves me to believe that, the theory he's known for, cyber-communism, promulgated through his 90s work TANS and the subsequent developments thereof, is in the most likely case a break from his previous convictions (he's no longer part of any political party, also. He's become a Marxian economist and Marxist theorist primarily). Is he breaking out a new branch entirely? Marxism-Cockshottism?
>>702224 What I'm trying to convey here partly is that maybe we shouldn't force the 'Cockshott is Maoist gang' meme too hard then, since that doesn't seem to have been solidly the case for ~50 years.
>>702224 >>702239 I don't mean to be flippant and rude but does it really matter what specific group he's in? Doesn't his ideas stand on their own, why categorize him as a De Leonist- Maoist or w/e, just call him a Marxist or something equally broad. I think the term cybersocialist is perfectly sufficient tbh, as it can appropriately categorize him (something which is a bit of a pathology on the left) without needlessly subdividing tendencies of tendencies to the point of superfluousness.
>>702243 Well since Marxism is a science yes it does matter, but more to-the-point - >Doesn't his ideas stand on their own [...] just call him a Marxist Did you even read what I wrote? That's exactly what I'm getting at. I'm arguing against people trying to box him in as a 'Maoist' specifically, in the hopes that they'd at least demonstrate their mental gymnastics required to make that statement for a theorist this path-breaking. I do not think he fits into the narrow confines of Maoism, or even De Leonist-Maoism, for an array of reason rooted in the arguments he's presenting in present time.
Any reason why Cockshott wrote his 5yplan program using pascal? Isn't that literally just an inferior c++ designed to teach babies the logic of coding better?
>>702648 He's nearly 70, maybe he found itself more comfy by doing that with a language he knew better idk
>>702224 Unironically yes, /Ourguy/'s thought can be seen as a simple evolution of Ml for the 21st century: he oftentimes cites Lenin and when he analyses USSR problems starts from the premise that they indeed were socialist. So we could say that 21t century ML really SHOULD read Cockshott for insights on planning and direct democracy (as they should read Debord for insights on culture/the media/etc), for his work is a sizable chunk of what we need to innovate our analysis. If we accept all this than instead of building completely from scratch we will be capable of focusing our analysis on 1)Class composition of Western economies, highlighting the interests at play of both the various strata of the working class and the bourgeoisie in the current years 2)A new model of material praxis and basebuiliding, drawing from Lenin but also innovating as much as possible. Those are the challenges for Ml and in general socialists in the 21st century
>>702224 he cites mao in a few of his blogposts actually
>>702648 he is very familiar with pascal, he literally invented a version of pascal since his specialization area of CS research is actually programming languages
>>702927 >as they should read Debord for insights on culture/the media/etc Is there a reason why you're suggesting Debord's theory of the spectacle (I agree that it's very useful), but not Althusser's theory of ISAs and RSAs? If so, could you please elaborate on that a little bit? I'd find it very engaging to what I'm researching right now (Indeed, Cockshott has a video where he ruthlessly critiques Althusser's conception of specifically ISA's (Ideological State Apparatuses) for containing idealist elements left over via Althusser's Christian faith. He also critiques the subject-object distinction therein. Debord's theory of the 'integrated spectacle' could be of great aid today). >>703000 >he cites mao in a few of his blogposts actually I cannot seem to find them, could you please provide a link or two? I would really like to contextualize Cockshott's perspective with how they originated from within a Maoist context of democratic deepening of ML and how he continued this trend onward with the advances in material development (his theory).
The recent nationalism video is actually just an old essay by him (Against Nationalism, in: Arguments for Socialism).
>>703556 >I cannot seem to find them, could you please provide a link or two? I'm another anon, and I'm having trouble finding them, but he did have some blog posts a while back commenting favorably on Mao's dialectics (like in On Contradiction) before he moved on to discussing Althusser.
>>704624 On contradiction for me is run of the mill Ml thought, it has nothing inherently maoist, hell even Luna Oi (that closely follows Ho Chi Minh thought and is highly critical of Maoist China politics for obvious reasons) closely adheres to it
>>706853 Cockshott gives us 50% of what we need, we need a new analysis of class structure in the present circumstances and new models of praxis
>>69972 (me) Done with part two of the interview and I also read half of Daniel Saros' paper at https://works.bepress.com/daniel-saros/19/ First, consumers in Saros' model individually rate use values based on how important they are to them. The points of the ratings are then transformed in a way so that each consumer's wish list has the same pull, or so Saros believes, and the way Saros tries to do that is by pulling up the point ratings so that the highest rating of everybody has the same point value. His method looks arbitrary. If I make a statement that use value A is twice as important to me as use value B, I want these proportions to remain that way; and it's certainly possible to give this proportion guarantee by scaling up each rating on somebody's wish list by the same factor (the factor that makes your highest rating equal to the highest rating anybody submitted), but Saros just adds the same point value to every rating on your list (that point value being whatever makes your highest rating equal to the highest rating anybody submitted). I don't know why he does that. Perhaps he just loves integers. Making your top wish equal in point value to that of everybody else is just one approach of equalizing the power of the wish lists. Another approach to equalizing, and I think more sensible, would be to equalize the number of points on each list (once again, I prefer scaling instead of adding the same number of points to each of your ratings, so that the proportions are preserved). Saros doesn't do that. Because of this, it looks like you have a strong incentive to cram your wishes together near the top instead of honestly saying that you only mildly like some things. A strange calculation follows where people get an income bonus for not putting too much stuff into their needs profile, Saros calls it conservation bonus. The details of how he does the calculation are super arbitrary, but instead of improving it I'll just say this: He has to do such a calculation only because people have very different amounts of points in their wish lists even after the transformation. Transform the points on the wish lists in a different way and you don't need this step (see above paragraph). Saros also mentions some penalty for not following up on your orders with actually buying, calling that the non-realization penalty – the rough idea makes sense, though again his particular implementation looks arbitrary. For both conservation bonus and this penalty Saros uses the simple number of different use-values, which looks utterly perverse to me. Whether a person asks for much or fails to follow through with the purchase of much is absolutely not something I would ever count in number of different objects to estimate. I rather think of the amount of human effort that goes into the stuff plus some measure of natural resources, and also how much space it takes up in the warehouse. Let's do the ratio-clones test: Think about two situations that are only different in that in the first one a set of things is offered as one use value in the catalog and in the second situation the set is broken down into components which are separately offered and everybody wishing for the set in the first situation now just asks for the components (and nobody else does), everybody dividing the points they committed to the set in the first situation between the components in a fixed ratio. A sensible method should tend to work out in a similar way in both situations. Saros' proposal in its current form does not. Likewise, the proposal isn't robust with respect to resolution changes (how something is offered, I mean the size of the minimum amount offered to order). In addition to the pre-order system, people in Saros' proposal still have personal budgets to actually buy the things which limits this silliness somewhat, but you really should fix the issue inside the pre-order system.
>>707066 Do you have an answer to this?: >>703556
>>707050 *on contradiction* is an explict break with traditionaldialectics as Mao repudiates the negation of the negation.
In Daniel Saros' proposal, the production process for a given use-value gets the power to pull resources towards it based on the sum of pre-order points it received. Shenanigans with corruption and black markets are limited because technical production co-efficients are supposed to be known as well as the actual quantity requested of that use-value (not the same as the number of points), and this data directly regulates the resource requests instead of managers negotiating over resource prices and quantities and buying and hording and reselling resources. Still, the logic here seems very capitalism-like in that how separated the process is, you got the consumers giving pre-order points, then you forget about the consumers and look only at what the production units do with these points. This approach doesn't track individual consumer frustration. When little of your individual request list got realized, what solace is there in knowing that on average people are doing well? Of course, you can compare the outcome of a production round with individual wish lists and give an income bonus to the unlucky ones for the next round, but why not directly deal with the issue before production and minimize the worst discrepancy between an individual's request list and what's going to be produced for that individual?
Guevara was Cockshott crew ?
>>715747 Of course he was
>>716262 cockshott is anti immigrant The radlibs are definitely gonna cancel him now!!-
>>716559 Don't worry, radlibs won't be able to comprehend what Cockshott is saying due to poor audio quality. They also lack the attention span to listen to a 20 minute video.
>>716262 >0:10 >8:04 >20:29 I think he is fucking with us
The cybernetic revolution is here guyz: >algorithmically powered >scalable >natural processing https://www.shitbowl.com/ That site unironically got me thinking. Getting the public to accept what the Computer God says and taking that as an instruction requires that people trust the programs' outputs. So the public large needs to have at least a rough understanding how the system works. And for that, it would be great if simple mechanical or hydraulic gadgets could show the gist of these ideas.
>>720882 >Getting the public to accept what the Computer God says Are you sure you grasp the concept of cybernetics? We are not going to give all executive power to a machine AI (a thing that arguably is impossible to create). All we'd do is cut the bloated bureaucracy to a minimum, as most of the calculations would be calculated. Also, the goals of what should the economy do are to be decided democratically, with the plan being reasonably adjusted to the public will.
>>721302 >We are not going to give all executive power to a machine AI Didn't claim it to have power. >most of the calculations would be calculated What you meant to write: Many of the decisions that are now done by managers and bureaucrats would now be calculated in computers – which leads to my point. The "decisions" of the programs are not like decisions made by human overlords who have prestige and shout orders, they are just suggestions on screens. How do you get people to follow them? People need to have rough general insight into how the system works and they must have ways to probe that it works without being programmers.
I'm half way thru his new book. Can't say I learned that many new things so far, but it does help me organize my thinking. Looking forward to the socialist & future econ. chapters. Also, I recommend everyone read the Notes section when pushing through. Some are kinda unnecessary, others very important/informative. Did anyone else go thru the Bibliography section and picked&chose books for future reading? I see him recommend Badiou's The Concept of Model (he also referenced in one of his vids) that I'm def gonna read, among other books on USSR.
>>716262 >dat live chat feed about beans kek
>>474510 Hey what do people think of energy accounting, and are there any materials on it other than technocratic stuff? I think its prbably still compatible w/ planning in labour time since (at least compared to machines) humans exert the same order of magnitude of energy when doing tasks, so any measurement of power would be based predominantly on time spent working.
>>724384 Energy as currency doesn't really work, you can only pay humans to do stuff. That's how you end up with human-time as basis for economic calculation. If you are fixated on energy for some reason it might be possible for intellectual curiosity's sake to compare human metabolism, (i think that's measured with exhaled carbon dioxide), with economic data.
>>722928 thanks anon will watch this, hopefully the audio is better
>>724468 ty for the anwer friend. Ill admit I dont really understand it, but Ill take your word nonetheless On another note, I havent read TANS yet but what does it say about commodities priced in regular currency? Like in the case of international trade, say ciountry A which uses labour time calculations purchases goods from a capitalist neighbour, how will the price of those be evaluated? I ask becasue i wonbder if said method can be applied on a smaller scale. Like a socialist members club or non utopian commune or something. From the outside the organisation would lookt ot be entirley regualar but internally members are doing work valued in labour time, which they can then use to 'purchase' the stuff they made and so on. I imagine that, at least initially, such an organization whould rely heavily on buying near finished goods and reselling whats left (after members take their share) as commodities
>>725586 >On another note, I havent read TANS yet but what does it say about commodities priced in regular currency? Like in the case of international trade, say ciountry A which uses labour time calculations purchases goods from a capitalist neighbour, how will the price of those be evaluated? It's a regular capitalist exchange, I don't understand your question.
>>722928 10/10 strongly advised
>>725586 You shouldn't hoard foreign currency, since it's not a reliable state of affairs what you can do with that. Aside from inflation, it's possible that you get hit by sanctions or your reserves held in foreign accounts of physical caches gets expropriated. The rulers of the capitalist world don't ever play by laissez-faire rules, no matter what they talk like. For example, recently Britain ruled that the gold that Venezuela's government held in Britain actually belongs to the "legitimate leader" Guaido and gang. There is a chapter in TANS about foreign trade. The idea is that you only ever pay foreign entities in your currency / your labour vouchers which they can use to obtain consumer goods made in your country. You can basically conceive of the non-socialist rest of the world as one black box that interacts with you and from that point of view it's not an issue if your labour vouchers can circulate between people within that box even though within the socialist system they are strictly linked to a person. You compare the labour cost of producing a thing X internally with the labour cost of making something that you can exchange for thing X produced abroad and you trade based on that.
(19.31 KB 312x370 Metabolic Gas Analysis.jpeg)
>>725586 >ty for the answer friend. Ill admit I dont really understand it, but Ill take your word nonetheless I haven't been able to come up with a condensed argument that really nails the energy-currency question. There's so many aspects, like for example the reason you can't directly compare humans to machines is because humans are universal robots that can do any task and all other machines including animals are just narrow purpose machines that can do only certain types of tasks. Because humans are the universal machine they are used as reference point or measuring stick against which all economic activity is compared. I could rephrase my previous answer and say that if you use a currency you will only be able to use it to direct human labour, other blobs of matter do not interact with currency tokens (in a way that would grant you a reliable enough way to direct economic activity), and hence your currency tokens can only be derived from aspects of human matter blobs, the reason we use labour time is because it matches empirical data, average prices correspond to 95-99% to human labour time. But it has to be said that in theory it might be possible to measure humans in terms of energy converters, and find that this creates a better match than time measurements. Upper ninety percentile is hard to beat in terms of matching the evidence but it's possible. You'd have to devise a suitable experiment to find out. The current method for figuring out the amount of energy a human body is converting is measuring carbon dioxide of exhaled breath, that is very accurate but it entails sticking tubes in to the mouth and nose holes of people, and nobody will accept this during everyday life. So you'd have to find a different way to measure human energy conversion in a way that can be tolerated by people. The reason you can't compare human-energy-converters to machine-energy-converters is because machines are very restricted, you can get phenomenal amount of energy conversion from a turbine, but the turbine is only going to produce spinning of a turbine shaft. Humans can also function as energy converters for turning a shaft, they even can use the same fuel as a turbine if you don't mind dealing with a bunch drunkards, but you can't do the reversal where a turbine does a task that humans do in exchange for fuel, a turbine is only ever going to spin the shaft. Because of this mismatch, using energy calculation for directing your economy will probably distort your economic decision making. Because in that system it would be economically equivalent to feed a gazillion humans alcohol as sustenance for manually cranking generators to power the electrical grid, compared to a combustion turbine burning alcohol to drive a power-plant generator. >I ask because i wonder if said method can be applied on a smaller scale. Like a socialist members club or non utopian commune or something. From the outside the organisation would look to be entirely regular but internally members are doing work valued in labour time, which they can then use to 'purchase' the stuff they made and so on. That's Socialism in one corporation. It's a complicated endeavour, since you can't create your own state and enforce the internal rules of your system by your self, you would have to look into appropriating enforced capitalist laws for your ends . So for example you make labour vouchers and then somebody starts counter-fitting them, how do you get the capitalist government to enforce your labour vouchers? You would have to frame this in terms a capitalist legal system would recognize as breaking the law. This is creating a translation layer for interacting with capitalism, it's similar to what Cockshott describes in terms of how socialist countries would interact with capitalist countries, but it's much more involved because this is not just trade but significant parts of the state's functionality. You would need a very detailed materialist understanding of capitalist legal systems in order to be able to repurpose them in this way.
>>725590 How does the good get sold inside country A when it wasnt initially valued in labout time >>725711 Thats an interesting approach. Economically its consistent, politically... i wonder if the black box would accept the tokens.Your right about holding forex though. I wonder which is worse, money that may be seized or tokens that may not be accepted? I wasnt imgaining holding money for its own sake, just for the purpose of trade. If good worth a total of X labour hours, are sold to capitalists at Y proft, cant we cancel those hours out? As if we have purchased money as a commodity from the black box. We can then use that money to buy things we want with thte bonius of knowing exactly how many labour hours they are approx. worth. It would also have the effect of valuing labour as 1 hour of labor = x/y dollars Also, doesnt revaluing the good according to how long it would aotherwise take (Country A) to make assume that A & B are roughly equally efficient at producing it? What about comparative advantage? Even if they were both socialist, surely it would take Sweden, for instance, more man hours to produce oranges than Spain. In that case is the value of oranges set according to Swedens hours or Spains? >>725997 >I haven't been able to come up with a condensed argument that really nails the energy-currency question For me you just did, its not perfect put i understand somewhat now >That's Socialism in one corporation. I have no doubt it would be horifficaly complex. However there arent many any lefty organizations anymore. Unions have been destroyed or neutered, people only do mutual aid in times of crisis, not too build long term institutions and I dont think parties are good enough. Even if there were good parties (there arent) I reckon they can only really take the existing left wingers and focus their interests, but they cant (at least not very efficiently) create them. That needs to come from ones relationship to the means of production or other experiences. Coops arent really enough on their own so the new organization remains yet to be born. Im thinking throug wether 'Socialism in one corporation' would be vialble, imo it doesnt need to be perfect, but if it can create proto-socialists who can then be organised then its worth consideration at least.
>>726214 >i wonder if the black box would accept the tokens I think it's very likely that the capitalist world will try some restrictions on what things can get sold to the socialist part of the world, at the very least I expect bans on advanced weapon technology. I'm also worried about the socialist side over-specializing and becoming dependent on some imports and then the capitalist side suddenly cutting that off to cause maximum harm. I think token acceptance isn't unlikely and it's also hard to fully prevent usage if outlawed. The tokens aren't physical objects, but a claim registered with some agency in the socialist part of the world. If we allow token transfers between people outside the socialist system, that won't be implemented by a transfer of physical tokens, but an electronic transfer between accounts. >I wonder which is worse, money that may be seized or tokens that may not be accepted? The tokens are electronic and by themselves cost nothing to produce, the real cost comes only when somebody wants to get something for them. So your tokens not being accepted costs you nothing. Suppose you obtain foreign currency in exchange for your tokens and you hold the foreign currency in an account in a bank outside the socialist part of the world. Then some political bullshit happens and your account gets frozen or expropriated. Think about all the work that you did for getting that money… nothing. You have lost nothing. But consider this: What if you exchange products you made in exchange for currency that you hold in the foreign account, and then the account gets frozen or expropriated? This is a loss. >Also, doesnt revaluing the good according to how long it would aotherwise take (Country A) to make assume that A & B are roughly equally efficient at producing it? Not at all. The difference is why you trade. You do not make estimates of the labor time inside the black box, you just compare 1) your own labour time of producing whatever you can trade to obtain it with 2) your own labour time for directly producing it yourself. >Even if they were both socialist, surely it would take Sweden, for instance, more man hours to produce oranges than Spain. In that case is the value of oranges set according to Swedens hours or Spains? Spain. I'm assuming here that Spain produces enough. The general idea is that the production costs for a thing produced in different places is averaged (weighted by volume) to get the target price point.
>>726214 What you're saying could be viable (see Huawei and Mondragon Corp for that) but you need to reach a critica mass that impedes you from coming down crushing at the first difficulties and that would be measured in the millions of dollars
(48.03 KB 894x773 mmm.png)
>>728314 This is literally the same shitty article they posted which was written in 1993 which I've read and seen linked like 12 times already.
>>728314 It's cope, Mises got btfo during his debates regarding the calculation problem, by market socialists no less, and ever since the Austrian school has had to keep changing the parameters of the "problem" to make their point.
>>728340 >>728339 Any reference I can throw to BTFO them?
>>728408 based, thanks fren
Realistically, there needs to be some transferal mechanisms of labor vouchers in place: 1. How will children have allowances if the LVs are in their parent's name? 2. How will couples share accounts? 3. How will inheritance of LVs be handled, if inheritance is not abolished? 4. How will gifts of LV, or private non-interest lendings to friends, occur? There should be some central registry of these transferrals to detect irregularities.
>>729090 >Realistically, there needs to be some transferal mechanisms of labor vouchers Disagree. You know you can still gift things to others you can buy? >1. How will children have allowances if the LVs are in their parent's name? Parents get some LVs to help with caring for babies and toddlers. Parents obtain things for them. No need for transferring vouchers between people here. Older children could also receive an allowance directly from the state. Again, there's no need for transferring vouchers between parents and kids here. >2. How will couples share accounts? Since people can still just gift each other things I don't see the need. >3. How will inheritance of LVs NEIN. >4. How will gifts of LV, or private non-interest lendings to friends, occur? There could be limits of how much you can give and receive over a year, but I'd rather not have the transfer feature at all because there's always the threat of black markets and the restoration of capitalism. (It's already possible to have payment in black markets by transferring objects, but allowing voucher transfers makes black markets much more attractive.)
>>729090 >Problems with the labor voucher: >1) They aren't money
>>729690 >Parents get some LVs to help with caring for babies and toddlers. Parents obtain things for them. No need for transferring vouchers between people here. Older children could also receive an allowance directly from the state. Again, there's no need for transferring vouchers between parents and kids here. Doesnt Cockshott advocate for labour tokens provided by the parents that children and teenagers could use to buy ice cream and the like? >>2. How will couples share accounts? <Since people can still just gift each other things I don't see the need. >3. How will inheritance of LVs <NEIN. are you retarded? You realize old people are just going to buy gold or something else with a consistent value that their offspring can inherit? Lmao @ couples not having a common pool of labour vouchers. <inb4 inheritence will be abolished wholesale >There could be limits of how much you can give and receive over a year, but I'd rather not have the transfer feature at all because there's always the threat of black markets and the restoration of capitalism. (It's already possible to have payment in black markets by transferring objects, but allowing voucher transfers makes black markets much more attractive.) If a socialist system cant cope with a black market then it has failed.
(20.69 KB 576x578 whatstheplan.png)
>>729090 >Realistically, there needs to be some transferral mechanisms of labour vouchers in place Probably not. >How will children have allowances if the LVs are in their parent's name? Selling stuff to kids was the idea of marketing people, they wanted to use the psychological vulnerabilities of children to have an easier way to get parents to spend money. Basically they invented ways to make kids nag their parents, holding parents hostage where they had to pay for a harmonious family-life (pay or we will induce temper-tantrums in your children and make your family miserable). Breaking this aspect seems like a feature not a bug. Besides Kids could get labour vouchers for completing educational goals, you also could make a lot of stuff free for children. >How will couples share accounts? Would that really be necessary ? Not many couples share accounts any-more. There are no wage differentials in cybernetic socialism, so men wouldn't get more money than women so there would not be a need for a social convention to undo that differential later on. To be fair socialism does have bonus payments for hazardous, stress full, undesirable,...etc occupations, and men would be more likely to pursue those then women. But i don't think those bonus payments would be enough to be able to do stuff like be a rich sugar daddy. Those bonus payments are primarily intended to produce an extra cost to incentivise the system administrators to divert technical development resources to reduce the negative aspects of these occupations. Am i missing something ? I don't think that breaking sugar-daddy-baby relation is a big loss. The non transferability of labour vouchers is sort of an important system feature, and if this creates problems with couples i would rather use some other mechanism to fix the issue. So can you be more specific about the purpose of shared couples accounts. If you are thinking about stay-at-home mothers, they can get labour vouchers for domestic labour. I guess i have to elaborate on this a bit further: conservativism coupling: men buy women liberalism coupling: men rent women socialist coupling: women will be equal to men, men will loose the economic privilege but in exchange will no longer count as sacrificial by society. >How will inheritance of LVs be handled Well inheritance of objects would not be affected by non transferable "currency", so you could still transfer value to your descendants. Also I'm not sure if people would try to save up labour vouchers like they do with money. Labour vouchers are not money, not just in a theoretical sense but also how people experience it. I think the instinct to save for bad times would manifest in terms of people creating material reserves like a better organised version of preppers. The difference here being that preppers only do individual measures and the socialist version would in addition to those individual measures create back-up institutions that have diminished functionality but are very rugged and will continue to function even if all else breaks down. I guess that people that grow up with a materialist outlook will probably spend their LV on that, rather than stuff the mattress with money. The material back-ups and the share in back-up institutions can be inherited just fine. I don't think people will try to save up many LV so that inheritance of LV won't come up. We could force people to make a will to, pre-determine on what their LV should be spend after they die, and have an option where they designate somebody else to decide on their behalf. What breaks is the attempt using this system for creating dynasties via multiple generations accumulation of LV, and that is sort of intended. >How will gifts of LV, or private non-interest lending to friends, occur? Lending between friends won't occur, we'll have decent enough social security that you will not need to sacrifice your friendships, because people stop being friends if money gets between them. And you can still make material gifts but not "currency" gifts. I think you have to understand that a labour voucher system is very future oriented, we won't just have a central planner, that plans for the future, but on the individual level people will be expected to do this too. Basically people will earn LV and are expected to spend them on pre-orders, so that the system doesn't have to guess what people might want, but rather can just look at the pre-order to know what people want. In the current system you can make money in the past and spend it now, or you can via debt spend now the money you hopefully will make in the future: spending money = now making money = past & future In the socialist system with labour vouches you make labour vouchers now, and you spend them on the future: spending LV = future making LV = now This system orientation is derived from the human brain the largest part of the human brain is about planning for the future, since the metabolic cost of brains is extremely high, it must have been really beneficial for the organism, we basically employ bio-mimicry where we copy successful systems, but also we hope that by having the system reflect aspects of human biology it will be more pleasant for humans to interact with it. This system orientation is not totalising, so you will still be able to buy things now without having to pre-order, it's just that pre-order will be cheaper, because pre-order does not produce the availability losses. (stuff that was produced to be available, but no body ended up buying). So availability increases the cost of stuff you buy now. Hence the incentive will be for people to pre-order, which means pre-order will become a bigger part of the economic transactions. We can sort of look at economics like it's a story with a protagonist, the current system only has the chooser as the only protagonist, the chooser can only make reactive choices with regards what capitalist production has on offer. While the socialist economic story still has this kind of chooser but in a less prominent role , and introduces a new economic protagonist that is the planner that plans ahead, and with that can have pro-active influence on production. A pre-order is sort of the opposite of borrowing money. We can look at the human experiential dimension, a pre-order is an expression of a hopeful view on the future, while borrwoing money is a expression of a dreadful view of the future. Because a pre-order means that you do something in the here and now to make your future better, while borrowing money is something that you do to make the here and now better at the expense of the future. The economic structure that we have now is producing a societal sentiment of "après moi le déluge" (which means fuck the future, party now) which is the reason why the future looks so sinister to us which in an ironic twist also ruins the party now. While the Socialist system aims to produce a societal sentiment of "acceptable present with a greater tomorrow".
>>729781 >Doesnt Cockshott advocate for labour tokens provided by the parents that children and teenagers could use to buy ice cream and the like? I don't remember if he did, and what would be the point of that? Parents can get a subsidy and make the buying decisions for very young children and for that they don't need to be able to transfer their tokens to them, and the state can do direct transfers into the accounts of older children. Why would you want parents to have all of that subsidy and then they decide themselves how much of that goes to the children? Do you think that would be somehow less authoritarian? I don't. Look at it from the point of view of the child. It's a common trope among right-wingers that parents abuse welfare intended for children for their own short-sighted interests, and irrespective of how common it really is, it can happen and it does happen. Hotwheels had a story like that to share about his own father. To give all the subsidy to the parents means you put all the eggs in one basket labeled "the parents can't be shitheads". It's less risky to divide the subsidy between parents and children and have the part going to the child increase with age. >old people are just going to buy gold or something else with a consistent value that their offspring can inherit If it is painless to circumvent why does it bother you so much that it's there? >Lmao @ couples not having a common pool of labour vouchers. Lmao is not an argument. >If a socialist system cant cope with a black market then it has failed. You don't cope with it by throwing up your arms, you take measures to minimize it.
>>728340 Can you provide a source on this? Or some reading material.
>>728340 ...But the market socialists were advocating for planning, right? And not "market signals"?
>>733567 nice, watching now (VOD)
In his latest video "3rd migration video The french Workers Party" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2x9WiWEQKg early-on he name-drops Mao in no small manner, but in the context of affirming his theoretical continuity with the writings of Marx himself in matters of political action. I think we can safely assume that he still holds the contributions of Mao in high regard, as a result (it was a somewhat open topic of discussion a few posts up ITT). From the masses, to the masses! The Cybernetic Party!
>>736629 Imagining a little old man like Cockshott writing this prose is so amusing. I love the imagery he uses and can't help think he's trolling the reader.
>>736629 >>736632 Speaking of his writting style, is there a reason why he allways seem to use "she" when giving an example. Its not some PC thing, but I personally don't get why not use "they". Is this some sort of regional Scott thing?
(9.32 KB 205x246 anglo.png)
i have a question for scottish-anons/bongs why does cockshott have an english accent? he's scottish isn't he?
>>736644 He is a radical feminist, so much that he hates trannies.
>>736644 It very much is a PC thing to not always use he in examples with nameless humans.
>>736679 this, cockshott is a radfem/TERF
>>736679 "hates" is a bit silly of you. He critiques it as idealist gender essentialism, not /pol/-posts about extermination.
>>736716 This. Not long ago someone in /IG/ cried about Cockshott wanting to tax gay people like the homophobe he is and linked this cancerous https://medium.com/the-weird-politics-review/marxist-economist-paul-cockshott-is-a-reactionary-1bd594b40526 (warning: cancer) medium article by a typical nuleft type ass (interests: "neurodivergence, market socialism, accelerationism, science fiction, tabletop RPG"). I went "wut" and read the ORIGINAL article by Cockshott on his blog: https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/class-and-the-lgtb-lobby/ He merely called for a Batchelor tax, i.e. people not having kids having to pay a tax that gets used to fund people raising kids. It's fucking nothing, even I support it as an antinatalist. Just adopt kids as a gayfag and you don't have to pay the tax. I'm pretty fucking sure Cockshott wouldn't be against the right for homosexual couples to adpot kids, because it further lifts the burden of women. Idpol is ridden with the ideology of victimhood. Cockshott's opinions (a trans person isn't a woman, bachelors should be taxed, LGBT people are demonstrably better off in society, etc.) doesn't make him an [insert term]phobe.
(601.45 KB 600x404 sausage.gif)
(4.97 MB 600x416 mcdonalds.gif)
>>736629 >>736632 >>736644 Dunno why the vol deleted the thread, maybe it wasn't worth the shitpost thread, whatever, so I'm reposting the pics here. I just found these bits hilarious from the book. Google image search "pulsating sausage" to know what I mean. And obv. "McDonald" in the context is an economist and not the chain restaurant.
(105.36 KB 1124x460 1.png)
>>736736 >Google image search meant to say google search
(163.97 KB 800x800 lel.png)
>>736726 >Paul Cockshott, the author of Towards a New Socialism, is essentially a NazBol.
(2.73 KB 286x212 TaNR.gif)
>>736679 >>736688 Well I'd say using "he" allways is just as weird. Personally I would allways use "they", and not for some PC assuming gender shit, but because it is more formal. Also it strips the subject from gender, meani g that in the example tge single and only important thing is that the subject is, lets say, a capitalist.
(262.27 KB 499x405 stfumarketsocialist.png)
>>736726 the person who wrote that is a buttmad market socialist/market anarchist who has an axe to grind with cockshott's defense of central planning and uses his admittedly bad takes on gender to segue to criticizing his economics. I've noticed that Cockshott particularly seems to trigger these types of left-market anarchists and crypto ancaps who think what's so great about the market and market based society is it allows people to be anti social and isolated/atomized and view any sort of collectivity/collectivism as tyrannical and bad because its the community imposing its will on the individual. Like "if we live in a commune the socially conservative members will vote to make me straight by force! It's this weird brand of extremely individualist new-left derived social-misfit weirdo leftism, gutterpunk lifestylist anarchism where being on the left is about saying "fuck authority, silent majority!" to own le conformist society. Maupin may be a dengoid but he was totally right to brand these weirdos as synthetic leftism. In this context the author's fears (which to us seem like unfounded paranoia) make more sense since they think any type of central plan, collectivism, or communalism will lead to the conservative majority imposing it's will.
>>736756 >Well I'd say using "he" allways is just as weird. The official gender-neutral pronoun in English has been "he" in formal English between the 1700s and the latter half of the 20th century. "They" was used informally and to a much lesser extent for the fucking obvious reason that it can lead to confusion. Literally nobody gave a shit about this until like 30 years ago. The first book I read where the author said "I'll be using he every odd and she every even chapter, alternating between the two" was from 1996, iirc, which I thought was weird (because who the flying fuck cares, by changing grammar you don't change the real conditions of women), but Cockshott seems to have gone further and eradicated the remaining hes. girl power
>>736767 >admittedly bad takes on gender such as?
>>736726 >a trans person isn't a woman If they are a trans man, then yes.
>>736893 >gender-neutral pronoun This used to a be contention for people who wanted more precise language for referring to a person in general without specifying sex, before it became identitarian cancer. The sticklers proposed "s;he" they used a semicolon because that's used in notation for set-theory and they meant it as abbreviation of GP={she;he}. Where "GP" meant general person. Imho this would have been the best solution, or at least one that had a chance of ever reaching mainstream use. >girl power that's now a belittlement to describe female token leaders that don't have any real power
>>736767 >left-market anarchists and crypto ancaps who think what's so great about the market and market based society is it allows people to be anti social and isolated/atomized you are right but they wouldn't call it anti-social isolation/atomization just simply "freedom" or "freedom from tyranny" >lifestylist anarchism It's not even restricted to anarchism. I've met two self-proclaimed Leninists so far who were market shills, with the exact symptomatic thinking you describe. In my opinion it has to do more with what the Lacanians/Zizekians have been describing since... the fucking 50s... as the crisis of symbolic authority that was classically associated with the figure of the patriarchal father under late stage capitalism. To give you a very schematic rundown it goes something like this: Western capitalism eradicated (institutionalized) patriarchy, what remains is economic injustice around reproductive work for women; with rights to vote, abortion, divorce, etc. and with the involvement of women in the workforce women became independent; much of the authority of the classical father (what a shock) came from the economic realities of the family unit, namely the he earned the bread, so everyone else needs to STFU; while the classical patriarchal family was the dominant one the neurotic patients at psychoanalytic clinics were mostly complaining about symptoms related to a punishing superego (repression, cowardice, self-doubt, self-sabotage, etc.) while today the symptoms predominantly relate to what Mark Fisher termed "depressive hedonia" ("inability to do anything else except pursue pleasure": overeating, the pleasure of purging via bulimia, compulsion to socialize and to be seen, hoarding, addictions, addictions to everything, etc.) which, as you may have guessed stems from the void of that authority that the father used to provide, but maybe what's even more fascinating is that this "lack of authority" comes in the form of a prohibition itself: under late stage capitalism only prohibition is prohibited as Zizek formulates it. If you're not into Freudians I could easily draw a parallel from Marx: >The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. I think in the West almost all of this has already happened: antiquated gender roles, religions, the family unit, parliamentarism linger on as mere forms without much content to them. We have unisex clothing fashions and people in endless gender crises (trans phenomena), religions without sanctity thinly veiling the fact that they are capitalist businesses, divorce rates up the roof and kids receiving no parenting, parliaments without real political power. In this sense capital did its job, but it can not bring in the new since it relies on these content-less institutions either economically (e.g. reproduction) or ideologically (legitimization), so we are permanently stuck in an endless loop. The error of these "extremely individualist" pseudo-radical fucktards consists (as with all pseudo-radicalism) in aligning with the fucking status quo. The only rallying cry today is "Enjoy!" (consoom!) and the only form of authority deemed legitimate today is that which offers more enjoyment and scraps every obstacle that would be in the way of that enjoyment. It is deeply authoritarian, dystopian even, because it has an inbuilt defense mechanism of making you not realize that you are constantly manipulated. So no, it's not an anarchist problem, it's not even a left problem, it's a late stage capitalism problem and it is detectable on communists, anarchists, socdems, liberals, alt-righters, centrists, everyone. It's a deep cultural crisis with only one way out: a new form of authority. The honest fascists want to bring back the direct, brutal, hierarchical rule of a Führer. The honest communists want collective authority, and economic planning, communal child rearing, etc. are all such proposals. >Maupin may be a dengoid but he was totally right to brand these weirdos as synthetic leftism. You are wrong on many counts. The problem with Maupin isn't that he's a Dengoid (a made up term by the American left - congratulations for falling for it). The main problem with Maupin if you follow the /IG/ thread is that he's a literal booklet who openly said that "you only need to read fiction from cover to cover" and treats theoretical books as encyclopedias which you can open at any page, read two pages, close it and claim that you are familiar with the author. He has absolutely no understanding of what he's talking about. Just a few days ago he was shitting on Freud... FOR BEING AN ATHEIST. I can fucking guarantee you he hasn't read three pages from Adorno, a theoretician that can help you actually understand what's going on about the topic I detailed above. His very term, the "synthetic left" serves as a conspiratard ersatz for theory: it's not that capitalism evolved to where it is now and it has tangible ideological and cultural effects, NOOO! It's the jews Frank Furtschool that makes people act crazy and become dirty hippies! (The deepest irony is that Adorno hated the fucking hippies and it was mutual.) And Frank is paid by the jews CIA! The "synthetic" in "synthetic left" wishes to denote that these people are being created by """someone""" instead of organically growing on trees like REAL LEFTIST apparently did in his fantasy version of history. He's a well spoken obscurantist and you fell for him. Again, fucking congratulations.
>>736916 >The sticklers proposed "s;he" they used a semicolon because that's used in notation for set-theory and they meant it as abbreviation of GP={she;he}. Where "GP" meant general person. I love it.
>>736966 good effortpost anon
>>736966 >A well-read effortposter Thank you!
>>736966 This Zizekian analysis sounds nice ans profound, but ultimately fails. Humans enjoy what they can enjoy. Almost all people in the west have more than enough to eat, have security and all manner of basic needs satisfied today. Most are going out to socialize and enjoy consuming media products like video games and movies. Its not some sort of dark neolib brainwashing making them do this. You say that psychological ailments today revolve around being unable to do anything but enjoy, but you are wrong. The most common ailments are things like depression, trauma and anxiety, things that stop you from enjoying. And people are signing up for treatment en masse because they want to enjoy more, experience more, feel more, not less. The idea of "enjoyment" being the problem is a deranged fantasy brought about by some social reject leftists not being able to really understand why Capitalism doesn't fall. Its as dumb as what the Frankfurt Scholl thought about the issue. Go to the nearest shopping mall and get some icecream. Then you will understand why Capitalism does not fall. Don't waste your time reading Zizek. As a communist, my objection to Capitalism is certainly not that it brings "too much enjoyment" (???), but rather that, through its inefficiency and outdatedness, it perpetually threatens the survival of the freedom and pleasure that it has produced for now.
(35.74 KB 500x375 calebmaupingflag.jpeg)
>>736767 >Maupin may be a dengoid but he was totally right to brand these weirdos as synthetic leftism. here's the video in question https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=xgKPyIj8Q60
>>736966 >>737026 Can you spastics keep it in the dedicated eceleb thread. TIA.
(15.36 MB enjoy.webm)
>>737008 I was anticipating such a reply. Everything you said here were already addressed in previous threads, and I remember your flag from those threads too. You know you've got a strong case when you start off with a tautology like >Humans enjoy what they can enjoy. which is strengthened further by the fact that you use it to defend the current system, since this kind of "reasoning" boils down to the anti-intellectual truism of "people do what they do, and that's that, no need to overthink it" which is just asserting an ahistoric view of the world by eternalizing the present. A truly conservative gesture. >Its not some sort of dark neolib brainwashing making them do this. Tautology followed up by a strawman. I would never use the term "brainwashing" when talking about ideology, because it asserts that ideology gets into the heads of people through brutal force and torture, which, besides being a completely idiotic account, is a non-materialist one as well. I don't know what the "neolibs" have to do with any of this either. The advertisement and the broader culture industry existed long before them. >people are signing up for treatment en masse because they want to enjoy more, experience more, feel more You are proving my point, doofus. Every year thousands of useless self-help books are written on how to supposedly achieve these. People like Jordan Peterson make a career offering advice on how to get "there". Advertisements moved from their classical formula of telling you of the benefits of the product ("Buy car!! Is very fast car!!") to telling you that you get access to these supposed transcendent benefits by buying the product ("By buying this car you get new experiences you didn't even know to exist!") It's ALMOST AS IF the profit motive took control of the administration of almost all aspects of social life and reformatted values and the very conception of normalcy to its mirror image. The people who you are talking about are in this sense the maladjusted ones and a minority of actual clinical cases, usually turning to self-help, gurus, self-medication, or isolation. The fact is that successful "entrepreneurs" under capitalism tend to be coke-heads, illiterates, hedonists, and flaunting all of this. Sure, it begets envy and resentment, but people don't turn up at clinics for being envious of success, instead they try to imitate them. >"too much enjoyment" (???) Well (???) indeed, because sure as fuck I didn't say that. What you fail to see is that the problem is not quantitative (in the sense that capitalism offers too much) but qualitative (the abundance of deeply unsatisfying shit). The prevalent "I'm missing something" feeling isn't a coincidence. Just observe what we are doing right here, exchanging paragraphs without any real social connection, consequence, or hopes of changing the other's mind, whom we already made up our minds about (an asshole). It's deeply unsatisfying. We have a whole thread designated to proving this >>652339. But it's not just these barely functioning tele-marketed crap or hipster products that fall under this category. It's everyday products, bread that has a consistency of a sponge, completely swollen bags of chips that are 70% gas and 30% chips, pastry with more saw dust in them than flour, planned obsolescence in close to all technology we can buy from washing machines through cars to laptops, and with all of these categories getting worse if you look at the ones marketed to the poor. This is what production for exchange value looks like. There's literally no going around it. If you are a capitalist owning a bakery and your competition undercuts your price by substituting 10% of its flour with saw dust you substitute it by 11%. >Go to the nearest shopping mall and get some icecream. Then you will understand why Capitalism does not fall. The variance you see in shopping malls is mostly fake, you realize that, right? Go to the isle that has radios. Look at them. They all look different in shape, color, design, etc. but underneath it's pretty much the same basic tech. I don't want to chose from 120 """different""" radios, dude. I really don't. I don't want to google for hours to read reviews, so that finally I can come to the "informed" conclusion that judging by their price/value I must buy x radio. I want 6 fucking radio types, all of which work for 70 years, and that's all. Paint yours red if you think it expresses your "individuality" more. I don't want to chose from 300 different deodorants, a wast majority of which sharing 95+% of their chemical composition and the main difference being which football/reality show star's face is on it, I want 10 with different odors and 10 that doesn't give me fucking breast cancer. I don't want to chose from 4 different ISPs. I want 1 and only 1 that doesn't fuck me over constantly. What you think is beautiful about capitalism is actually insanely wasteful, inefficient, frivolous, and psychologically taxing to the point people either get nauseated by it or under its spell. The horrific thing is that this should be the least of our concerns, because the culture industry does way more damage, because only through culture we become persons. What capitalism achieved is completely capturing the process by which we become fully formed adults which Adorno calls the individuating principle. What used to be an interactive process between people whereby they learned and mastered (!) their values, principles, tastes, history, art, language became a one way and passive consumption of marketed and inert cultural products. What we get is a society where native people can barely speak or articulate words (number fifteen burger king foot lettuce), read or write, count or think in abstract shapes and forms, concentrate for more than 10 seconds, or just simply move in a non-awkward way, because their mental faculties to properly form they would have DEPENDED on human interaction, on back and forths, on opposing and supporting, on hating and loving, on being challenged and challenging, on repeating patterns, on mastering basic human movement through play, on creativity and abstract thinking, in short everything that for the profit motive seems frivolous and distracting from making you the good, standardized, obedient, enjoyment obsessed little consumer faggot that can't wait for the next episode of Kardashians. People think that atomization is purely a social phenomenon. It is not. The individuation process of the culture industry of capitalism creates broken pseudo-individuals whose basic mental faculties don't work, who can hold two completely opposing views at the same time and not noticing the inconsistency, who learned to latch onto preformed and marketed things first, and modeled their latching onto people on that experience second (hint: fascism), who can't entertain a thought, who can't hold a thought, who can't notice the differences between a 5 minute Bach piece that took 2 days to write and a 10 minutes techno track that took 3 minutes to copy paste together, who if you ask "what things do you like?" their answer in essence is "Yes.", who can't notice the differences when reading J.K. Rowling and Albert Camus, because that's not the point. The point is that you open your orifices and let the consooom flow in unobstructed. So to go back to your completely idiotic starting tautology >Humans enjoy what they can enjoy. what actually happens is <humans are so malformed as individuals due to the way capitalism works that they don't even realize that what they think they enjoy they usually don't and that this actually drives them to further consumption And this, my theorylets friend, is "why Capitalism does not fall", and not because the ice cream isle at the mall.
cont. >>737498 ...but sure, I might be wrong, I might be the idiot here: >This Zizekian analysis sounds nice ans profound, but ultimately fails. >but you are wrong. >Its as dumb as what the Frankfurt Scholl thought about the issue. >Don't waste your time reading Zizek. [literally: don't read, nigga!] It might be the case that I'm under the spell of pseudo-intellectual charlatans that wrote big ass tomes on this topic and that what really is going on is that the CIA payed 20 French and German theorists who conspired with them to "ruin" leftism for the 7.5 billion people on this planet. It just doesn't seem to scale up so neatly like capitalism does in my explanation, if you know what I mean. And finally, >Almost all people in the west have more than enough to eat, have security and all manner of basic needs satisfied today. this doesn't even need a thorough reply in an economics thread, but I feel that it would be a crime to leave it unchallenged. Lines at foodbanks in London have been getting longer and longer since 2008. We have like 20-30% unemployment in the USA and 32% GDP drop recently and with third-world tier shanty towns in the richest cities working three jobs and without any social securities. But sure, capitalism is fucking awesome, because opposed to a planned economy, it delivers those fine goods I just talked about.
>>737498 This is a small essay but nothing good in it. You completely missed the point i was trying to make. >this kind of "reasoning" boils down to the anti-intellectual truism of "people do what they do, and that's that, no need to overthink it" which is just asserting an ahistoric view of the world by eternalizing the present. A truly conservative gesture. Superficially this is also what a conservative might say. But your critique of peoples desires is not inherently valid, it has burdens of proof and standards that it has to meet.it doesn't. Anti-consumerism both as practice and theory is and always has been a dead end, its no better than a boomer ranting about not liking current fashion or whatever. >You are proving my point, doofus. Every year thousands of useless self-help books are written on how to supposedly achieve these. People like Jordan Peterson make a career offering advice on how to get "there". Advertisements moved from their classical formula of telling you of the benefits of the product ("Buy car!! Is very fast car!!") to telling you that you get access to these supposed transcendent benefits by buying the product ("By buying this car you get new experiences you didn't even know to exist!") you said that people suffer from mental ailments related to feeling nothing but empty joy, but that is false. I showed that instead, many people suffer from ailments that bar them from living an enoyable life to the fullest degree, and this is the problem. The people going to therapy for depression want in on the consumerism, sex, parties, etc, they're not tired of it, they're excluded from it and resent that exclusion. complete opposite of what you said. >The prevalent "I'm missing something" feeling isn't a coincidence. Highly dubious as to how exactly this is connected to capitalism. A feeling of spiritual emptiness is not exactly a new thing in human civilization. Might as well say a lack of connection to nature is the problem, or the weakening of religion in the face of science. Both phenomena that would still exist under socialism. Also, again, the people who are enoying life in this capitalist way, the people who do have access to lots of consumer goods and a fun social life do not feel "spiritually empty", or at least not (evidently not) to the degree that this brings forth significant revolutionary fervor or discontent. The discontent comes from people who are excluded, for mental or material reasons, from partaking in this culture. >The variance you see in shopping malls is mostly fake, you realize that, right? Go to the isle that has radios. Look at them. They all look different in shape, color, design, etc. but underneath it's pretty much the same basic tech. I don't want to chose from 120 """different""" radios, dude. I really don't. I don't want to google for hours to read reviews, so that finally I can come to the "informed" conclusion that judging by their price/value I must buy x radio. I want 6 fucking radio types, all of which work for 70 years, and that's all. Paint yours red if you think it expresses your "individuality" more. I don't want to chose from 300 different deodorants, a wast majority of which sharing 95+% of their chemical composition and the main difference being which football/reality show star's face is on it, I want 10 with different odors and 10 that doesn't give me fucking breast cancer. I don't want to chose from 4 different ISPs. I want 1 and only 1 that doesn't fuck me over constantly. Not to shock you, but this sentiment is not really widely shared outside of leftist anti-consumerist subculture. This is an incredibly personal aesthetic sensitivity that you universalize without second thought. For example, people in the eastern block were really, really, dissatisfied with the lack of choice and superficial style in their products. Obviously they were idiots in sacrificing social safety on the altar of capitalist consumer "freedom", but alas they did not know what they were doing. The point i'm trying to make here is, again, anti-consumerism is a very very niche sensitivity that only exists in some people in an environment of ubiquitous wealth and consumption anyway. Trying to universalize it and convincing yourself that this personal distaste of yours (probably would go away instantly if you found a gf lets be real) is some sort of deep humanitarian cultural catastrophe is a total dead end. Its as dumb and embarrassing as right wingers who think women who get tattoos are the bane of all that is good. >What you think is beautiful about capitalism is actually insanely wasteful, inefficient, I know its wasteful and inefficient, communism would be less wasteful and inefficient. >frivolous personal taste yet again. Legit getting "while you were partying i studied the blade" vibes from you. >The individuation process of the culture industry of capitalism creates broken pseudo-individuals whose basic mental faculties don't work, who can hold two completely opposing views at the same time and not noticing the inconsistency, who learned to latch onto preformed and marketed things first, and modeled their latching onto people on that experience second (hint: fascism), who can't entertain a thought, who can't hold a thought, who can't notice the differences between a 5 minute Bach piece that took 2 days to write and a 10 minutes techno track that took 3 minutes to copy paste together, who if you ask "what things do you like?" their answer in essence is "Yes.", who can't notice the differences when reading J.K. Rowling and Albert Camus, because that's not the point. The point is that you open your orifices and let the consooom flow in unobstructed. Now you are just catastrophizing. I am everyday surrounded by people who are working, learning in incredibly diligent ways. Yet those same people are also wrapped up in consumer culture. Again, for i hope the final fucking time: It is precisely the people who are NOT part of capitalist consumer culture that have the most mental, physical, etc. problems. The most healthy, intelligent, sociable people generally speaking are also those that care say about brands, the newest music or other topics and pursuits you would probably deem "frivolous".
>>737498 >>737669 cont. >humans are so malformed as individuals due to the way capitalism works that they don't even realize that what they think they enjoy they usually don't and that this actually drives them to further consumption more personal taste universalized. when will it end. >>737582 >his doesn't even need a thorough reply in an economics thread, but I feel that it would be a crime to leave it unchallenged. Lines at foodbanks in London have been getting longer and longer since 2008. We have like 20-30% unemployment in the USA and 32% GDP drop recently and with third-world tier shanty towns in the richest cities working three jobs and without any social securities. Right. yes, things have been getting worse. worse, as in more and more people are actually excluded from capitalist enjoyment and that's why they're angry. Exactly my point, exactly the opposite of your point. People are increasingly getting to a point where basic needs are in jeopardy, but i fail to see what any of this has to do with our discussion on consumer culture. Capitalism will fall if and when enough people are too poor to get icecream at the mall, and it will fall because they want icecream at the mall, as they should. Capitalism will not fall because of an anti-consumerist spiritual awakening. That is all.
>>701193 using google translate to try and read this but it's pretty shitty. what is the most relevant source here? is it this one, by Volchkov? https://yadi.sk/i/X3WjkG8w3JBqhR in any case I used an online PDF converter on it but the pages all were scans and not text, making the mere 138 pages into 27MB. oh well. it would be nice to have at least a partial russian translation of the relevant texts by some rusanons. whatever you were all willing to provide of course. take note of this thread: >>>/edu/1688 i estimate at about 250 words/page and 135 pages a word count of ~33750, but the anon there might consider it if you ask nicely. any insight into this matter would be nice tbqh
>>737669 >>737682 You could have just said "have sex".
>>516215 it means monastery economy in feudal age where monks collectively make food and tools and consume them and give surplus to seculars
>>747137 Sounds comfy and based not gonna lie
>>747176 ok then, go bang some sticks and rocks in the forest, see how far that gets you.
>>747176 It will solve the problems of central planning.
>>747549 WOW Soviet style bureaucracy! just what we need to take 8 months to file a fucking folder!
(3.06 KB 286x212 newsocialism.jpg)
>>747557 >Read a book retard. you too.
I cringed reading the fag above me
>>747567 then what the fuck are you doing here? just to troll?
>>474510 i've been thinking about blockchain shit and how it would basically be perfect for economic planning. like, it's a distributed, immutable history of the entire economy, everything bought and sold, and it could be used by every single co-operative/state owned industry. you would have an essentially real time view of the entire economy at all times
>>747605 yes. There is already something like this under capitalism, VeChain. Its for tracking supply chains in real time. https://www.vechain.org/ something like blockchain could easily be adopted to a planned economy
>>474515 >>474634 >Arguments for Socialism (Cockshott) is on /leftypol/, but not libgen SOMEONE NEEDS TO UPLOAD THIS TO LIBGEN, IT'S A GEM FOR PROSELYTIZING TO NORMIES! https://libgen.is/search.php?req=cockshott+arguments+for+socialism TANS only works for proselytizing to spergy neolib-LARPers who have no problem biting straight into academic social science already!
>>737682 >Capitalism will fall if and when enough people are too poor to get icecream at the mall, and it will fall because they want icecream at the mall, as they should. Succdem take. Fuck you.
(10.95 KB 468x482 marx-cream.png)
>>752745 kek seize all the means of production icecream
Does Cockshott have any parts referencing the transition between socialism and communism outright? TANS is of course mostly about establishing a socialist economy, since that is our main concern as of now, but how can this economy progress into "higher-stage communism", where market mechanisms basically seize to exist, classes don't exist, perhaps wage differentials don't exist or very minimally, and the "state has withered away"? Basically how do we get from cybernetic socialist planning into our communist utopia, perhaps one were we have reached very high automation, post-scarcity and so on? It's a question I've been thinking about. We call ourselves communist, but socialism is just the transition stage. I am wondering how this crossing of the Rubicon of socialism into communism outright would look.
if you want to know why I didn't respond to this shit >>737669 please see >>741722 >>741725
ck new vid: Turings Universal Computer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7iJi51V3D0
>>753914 wish cockshott had a son or nephew who could set up his recording situation. he reminds me of my dad who also knows a ton about CS and engineering but can't do basic tasks on a modern PC
>>753914 will watch soon thanks
>>753921 am listening, the audio quality is honestly not that bad after a few minutes. disregard my post
>>753921 LMAO, you mean a grandson or grandnephew.
>>753940 Audio quality of this recent 2 videos on immigration (parts 2 and 3) were very good and no one should be complaining about those. The older videos had largely poor quality but he is improving.
I edited Paul Cockshott's wikipedia page, he didn't had the Marxian economists category, so I added that. Also he didn't appear on the list of notable marxian economists so I added him there.
>>762789 based anon
(211.79 KB 2590x3496 alunya.png)
>>762804 rip what?
>>763771 Thread has reached 500 posts. You can still post here, but it doesn't bump up anymore.
>>765225 so is someone gonna archive this and so on? how does this work?
Archive of thread http://archive.is/PnDAj
>>765596 Why not internet archive/wayback machine


no cookies?