[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /AK-47/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war. - New board: /draw/


ITT we post links and pdfs to critical or constructive takes on Cockshott and cybersocialism, as well as works or authors who wrote in the fields of cybernetics, systems theory, or operational research in general.







Wew, somebody really marked the FUCK out of that book before it was scanned



Good thread you got here. Finally found my home here and now I will primarily post here.


Glad you like it; have some more Beer!


File: 1608528016191.jpg (77.65 KB, 1900x2462, thinking potato.jpg)

Is there really an advantage to centralizing a cybernetic system? We have so much processing power now, wouldn't it make more sense to have multiple competing models generate different plans and then use some kind of political system to reconcile the differences? Surely there will always be weaknesses and the different approaches would result in mistakes averaging out?


I don't know if there is an advantage to centralizing a cybernetic system. Cybernetic systems are in a sense decentralized by definition.

The question of decentralization needs to be answered in more than one area though. Do we want centralization in regards to economic planning? Do we want centralization in regards to party structure? Do we want centralization in regards to the state structure? What about proletarian intelligence agencies? I think you mean in terms of economic planning, but I don't think that is necessarily the most pressing issue.

Cockshott and Beer have started us on the path of how we can model economic systems and implement these models for economic planning. This is an important question no doubt, but I would also like to try and model political formations, and the relationship between the economy and politics. Niklas Luhman's theory of law might be useful here which is why I linked some of his work (not the stuff on law but collection of essays on self-reference). It's kind of hard to find some of his stuff.


worked for me, kinda. every page is a different chapter o.O


I mean in the sense that the plan is formulated within democratic centralism, per Cockshott's proposed system as I think it's supposed to be. I will look into the stuff posted ITT, but I thought I would raise the question since it's a major point of contention within the far left.


Gonna try to make an effort post here at least every other day so the thread doesn't die, as I know >>>/edu/ is a pretty slow board.

In any case have some more books lol. These are related to Beer's VSM though, but written in a slightly more updated and less idiosyncratic style. You should still read Beer et. al of course.




Really wishing the Watch Thread function was working right about now.


Lit! /edu/ is a pretty slow board so I think we should be able to keep it alive.


I think there are a couple different takes you could have on that. I don't exactly think Cockshott's framing is coherent as it relates to that question, and I'm not really sure if he fully grasps what democratic centralism means, at least as I understand it. MLs will probably disagree with me, but I think there is a distinction between centralization as it relates to the vanguard, and centralization as it relates to the state that he is missing.

This gets into a major sectarian issue in interpreting Lenin: is democratic centralism meant strictly for the vanguard, or is it also a principle that the workers state is supposed to follow? Or put a different way, is the vanguard supposed to retain control of the workers state after the revolution?

I think this distinction between vanguard and workers state is important, but some might not agree. Whether you read Cockshott's conception of centralization as coherent or not is going to depend on that to a large degree.



A scientific defense of the LTV. I am skeptical of his model of planning, but for this alone he is extremely based IMO.


bump more pls


I'll see if I can find something interesting. The project that inspired this thread is on the backburner rn in favor of >>733 but it is broadly related so I'll be contributing more to this thread in the future


Bumping this thread because brainlets on leftypol don't know why their Cockshott threads are being bumplocked


Is there a transcript of this?

A question for you cybersocs from someone who admittedly doesn't know a lot about cyber socialism: Who chooses/elects/trains the people who build, write and maintain these cybernetic planning systems and accompanying algorithms?


>We have so much processing power now, wouldn't it make more sense to have multiple competing models generate different plans and then use some kind of political system to reconcile the differences?

This is exactly what Cockshott proposes my man.



Sounds like cockshott got filtered


>Be some 18 year old
>try to read Hegel
>be eternally mad because he didn't get him right away

Theorylets need a little more humble pie and just say he doesn't make sense to me. He's not easy and this is understood, but when you dismiss something in this arrogant way the alarm bells start going off. The materialist elemeng to Hegel can't be ignored.

It looks like he's relegated himself to analytical Marxists and epistemologists, deluding himself into thinking that this is the real stuff. Scholarship on Marx has advanced past Althusser's idea of a "epistemological break" between the young Marx and old.

Hegel matters.


Pee-pee-pew is an anglo, so he's analytical.
The difference between anals and conts is that anals are focused on understanding but find thinking pointless, whereas conts are the other way around. It's kinda like Kant's analytic/synthetic or understanding/reason distinction.
So you see the reason anglos hate yuros like Hegel is because you can't simply understand them, you have to think while reading them, but thinking is for pseuds.


smug fart sniffing egomaniacs


>Don't waste your time on Hegel
The working amount of theory needed is accessible without Hegel. That much is true, but the rest of the article is trash.

At least Engels disagrees wholly and entirely with Cockshott.
>Once again, therefore, it is no one but Herr Dühring who is mystifying us when he asserts that the negation of the negation is a stupid analogy invented by Hegel, borrowed from the sphere of religion and based on the story of the fall of man and his redemp-tion [D. K. G. 504]. Men thought dialectically long before they knew what dialectics was, just as they spoke prose long before the term prose existed.3 The law of negation of the negation, which is unconsciously operative in nature and history and, until it has been recognised, also in our heads, was only first clearly formulated by Hegel.

From the little I've read of Cockshott's article and of Anti-Dühring, I think a good rebuttal to Cockshott would be Anti-Dühring.


>>3353 (me)
Other fun quotes:
>Seriously, you can only subdue Hegel by first of all becoming Hegel yourselves. As I have already remarked—Moor's beloved can only die at the hands of Moor

Here is Engels quoting Marx in Anti-Dühring:
>But, as Marx says: "The mystification which dialectics suffers in Hegel's hands by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."

From the quoted passage, Marx writes in the afterward of the second german edition:
>Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connection. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the sub-ject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.
So, first investigate wtf is going on, then apply dialectics to it. He's saying he didn't discover the laws via dialectics, but applied dialectics a posteriori, which is different than the Hegelian dialectics in that the Hegelian dialectics is primarily internal investigation of pure reason. (from what I understand)
He continues:
>My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i. e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of "the Idea", he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of "the Idea". With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.
From my limited understanding of Hegelianism, the difference here is what is taken as the origin/foundation (the arche [1]) of thought itself (I'm probably using arche wrong btw). Hegel sets off to begin his investigation having no suppositions and looks for the foundation which holds all else. This foundation cannot be dependent (mediated) on anything else (aka immediate, aka unmediated), or otherwise, it wouldn't be foundational. This means that the foundation must justify itself as a foundation, a self-"referential" foundation. He basically sets up a thought process in which he finds this self-referential foundation and builds upon it to greater and greater complexity and encompassing power. The starting point, however, and the investigation of Hegel, centers around thought, a system of meta thinking, in which thought itself is the subject of inquiry. Basically, our way of thinking is dependent on this meta-thinking system. As an analogy, thinking is doing basic arithmetic (2+2=4) and Hegel's system is the description of the Peano Axioms [2].
Marx, however, instead of having thought as the arche (and hence contingent on a thinker), places the arche as material reality itself, and makes human a subject of inquiry in such a reality.
>The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion.31 But just as I was working at the first volume ofDas Kapital,it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre '[descendants (original in greek, couldn't copy it)]3 2 who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing's time treated Spinoza, i. e., as a "dead dog".33 I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of work-ing in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is stand-ing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell
Marx saying, "no wait, Hegel is actually big boss."
>In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.
Marx saying human society is impermanent, and that porky fears the theory that realizes this and is not subject to capitalist realism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arche
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms


>>3355 (me)
> Hegel's system is the description of the Peano Axioms [2].
But this is only his exposition of the system itself, not of the dialectical method.
The dialectical method is what is used to arrive at such system. If you were to get the results of such system without the process, they would seem absurd and contradictory. The point of the method is to discover ways in which systems develop, in which many times patterns occur, such as the negation of the negation, and the contingency of two perpendicular elements (use value, exchange value).

Anyways, I'm not an expert in this stuff, so I'll just stop.


Conts are cunts, their writing forces you to think because they don't give a shit if it's hard to understand. In fact, the less understandable the more thoughtful.
But anals are the ones who are smug. Conts travel around the world and socialize, while anals look down upon visiting conts and try to ban them from lecturing. So much thinking and so little understanding makes their autistic brains hurt. It's sad, but it's true.
So I would say conts are butthurt from all the anality of anals, while anals are brainhurt from all the cuntiness of conts.


clever and loled.



This is embarrassing and reddit-tier, it's like he's deliberately trying to make materialism look extremely autistic. The problem is not that he reduces everything to matter, which is great, but that he reduces matter itself to the extremely limited pop-science conceptions. In other words he's selling materialism short.
Unironically, reading Hegel is exactly the thing that would have helped him.


I had no idea that Taimur Rahman had made a video on Hegel.
I also had no idea that Taimur followed Cockshott's work. Not to aggrandize, but the leftypol community has been instrumental in putting Cockshott's work in the limelight and popularizing it (however mildly) on the internet left.

On the topic of Cockshott's response, there are so many glaring errors, I don't even know where to start. Again, do keep in mind that I have a cursory understanding of Hegel, so a lot of these ideas come from shallow reading of secondary sources.
>These ideas are not relied upon by any of the contemporary sciences.
This is scientism. It is basically ignoring philosophy of science, which is very important and is one of the things that is gravely missing from modern science. And Hegel absolutely BTFOs science as a totalizing venture of specific fields precisely because they take as supposition the limits of their study. They must isolate un-isolatable phenomena in order to study them, and hence are forever doomed to not get a complete picture. And, further, science is philosophy's bitch, science's foundation depends on philosophy, not the other way around.

>Logic can only occur where matter is so configured as to perform logical operations, conjunctions, disjunctions negations etc.

I'm not sure I agree with this characterization. It is a weird one that IMO characterizes logic as a physical process, rather than a system that exists in different contexts. What I mean is that if true, then it can also be said that physics doesn't exist in nature, it can only occur where matter is configured to perform physics. Which is true to some extent, but also doesn't really explain what physics is, and makes this weird characterization of physics just being a mental masturbation with no relation to reality.

>But that is because it is advantageous to the evolutionary survival of organisms to be able to react to their environment

This is some teleology of evolution or some shit. It is ironic that he says "No biologist thinks that there are essences" then says something that implies an essence moving evolution forward. I really dislike this interpretation of evolutionary biology. He just says this as this were a scientific fact. Again, philosophy of science comes to view as crucially important. I might be stretching what he really thinks, but I see this "essence" of evolution all the time in reddit-tier pop-sci explanations of evolution. As if the species had a meta-mind that chooses what is advantageous. It also ignores completely that a stupid jellyfish or mushrooms, or even diatoms are just as "evolved" as a human. Where is this "advantageous" logic in mushrooms?

>A more sophisticated understanding would be in terms of matrix multiplication rather than simple logic.

Here he is committing the same mistake he says he is wary to avoid. Matrix multiplication as such is a human endeavor. He is projecting a purely mathematical structure onto an organism that is unaware of formal mathematics.
Which he then follows up with
>I can not think of any instances in which a useful understanding of any real process can be well modeled by the sort of abstractions that Hegel employs.
That's his problem. Even if I learned tensor math, I wouldn't know how to apply it to the spacetime manifold.

>We have so more tools to look at the world with developed in the last 200 years that to go back to 1820s would be a terrible retrograde step.

This assumes that we have overcome Hegel, which many philosophers do not think so. And it also assumes that there is no value in reading philosophy, which many prominent scientists of the 20th century would disagree. There is value in reading any philosopher, regardless of what time period they are from. Plato and especially Aristotle are still being "rehashed" by 20th century philosophy, and I'm sure 21st century as well.

>The great danger is that young people’s minds will get stuck in a time warp,

In other words "Don't read philosophy, it will make you get stuck in a time warp" This is absurd.
>employing modes of thought that have long since been abandoned
Yes. And this is a serious problem of so called scientists and contemporary science.
>whilst in the process they ignore the concepts and threads of intellectual development that have led up to a modern scientific understanding.
Such as?

>If people are to understand a modern materialist outlook, and if they are to start that with philosophy then the starting point has to be Lucretius.

>Lived during 1st century BC
Oh by god! Please no! Otherwise young people’s minds will get stuck in a time warp

In fact I think a close reading of Marx might reveal a much more "mystical" component that Cockshott criticizes. I don't condemn the work that Cockshott does, of course. I don't even care that much that his philosophy takes are absolute trash (goes without saying that his takes on gender shit and other social issues are also trash). Neither Marx nor Cockshott are sacred cows. They both developed excellent ways of thinking about our current state of affairs that represent the only viable alternative of interpreting reality, with repercussions that impact basically all fields of knowledge.


>the leftypol community has been instrumental in putting Cockshott's work in the limelight
Don't be silly. Look up when TANS was written. Look up when the translations of TANS were made. That was all long before 8chan. Cockshott has made acquaintances in Germany, China etc. over the decades and we got nothing to do with that. The guys at Monthly Review who are publishing How the World Works also have known Cockshott for decades I'm sure.
>>Logic can only occur where matter is so configured as to perform logical operations, conjunctions, disjunctions negations etc.
>I'm not sure I agree with this characterization. It is a weird one that IMO characterizes logic as a physical process
It's just consistent materialism.
>>The great danger is that young people’s minds will get stuck in a time warp,
>In other words "Don't read philosophy, it will make you get stuck in a time warp" This is absurd.
There are only so many hours in a day. Time spent reading Hegel is not time spent learning anything about the developments in the field of physics over the past 100 years.


>There are only so many hours in a day.
I don't disagree with that. If he said that Hegel wasn't necessary, or that there might be more fruitful reading for a leftist, I'd agree wholeheartedly, but he's not doing that here. He's saying that Hegel has nothing of value, and hence shouldn't be studied.
>Don't be silly. Look up when TANS was written.
True, I concede and agree.


File: 1608528367761.jpeg (108.08 KB, 1104x604, labour voucher.jpeg)

This thread is to discuss how we plan to adapt, and build upon current Marxist thought into the century. We must cut ties with larp of the 20th century, we need no more trot parties or consumer ideologies. This is about Marxism as a science.

A huge part of this is of course cybersocialism so I'd like to use this thread to discuss ideas relating to that too. If you are new to this, Cockshott's Towards A New Socialism is a must. If you want to bring round your soccdem friends, recommend People's Republic of Walmart as a taste.


A cybernetics reading list from the related thread on leftypol:

- Towards a new socialism, P.Cockshott
- Arguments for socialism, P.Cockshott
- Imperialism in the 21st Century-John Smith
- People's Republic of Walmart
- Brain of the Firm, Stafford Beer
- Human Use of Human Beings, Norbert Wiener
- Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener
- Designing Freedom, Stafford Beer
- The Knowledge We Have Lost in Information: The History of Information in Modern Economics, Philip Mirowski
- Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High Technology Capitalism, Dyer-Witheford
- Cyberwar and Revolution: Digital Subterfuge in Global Capitalism, Dyer-Witheford
- Cyber-Proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex, Dyer-Witheford
- Inhuman Power: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Capitalism, Dyer-Witheford

You have read TANS, haven't you comrade?


Add ecology to cybernetics too.

But something I've been thinking a lot about lately too is about the possible need for a critical evaluation to the basis for the supposed need for a vanguard party as argued by Kautsky and Lenin, or especially of the petit-bourgeois form that democratic centralism entailed.

Today we are in a period of real subsumption to capital, neoliberal globalization has integrated all feudal corners of the world into the world-system of capitalism and the working classes are larger than ever before in recorded history, with several major technological revolutions happening in the last 100 years (relations- and means- of production advancing in our favor) while the contradictions are mounting (extreme increase in the organic composition of capital, RoP in imperial core treading to alarming low in the middle of this century). Secularism and irreligiosity is the norm in the developed world, while the struggling developing economies are coping with appeals to supernatural beliefs.

When I read Marx I get the impression that all of his practical advice alluded to the implication that we ought to focus our revolutionary educating, agitating and organizing in the advanced regions of the world, where the tools are advanced and abundant and the class contradictions are at their most extreme. Our task is primarily to pierce social alienation at the workplace, bourgeois propaganda via massmedia in times of leisure and accomplishing this via a far more workers party form than either the orthodox Marxists or the Leninists were able to do, due to having a semiliterate and overwhelmingly religious proletariat to work with.

What do you guys think?


>People's Republic of Walmart
Very superficial. This is just for getting liberals to change their perspective; so if you already are pro-socialism, there's no point reading it.
>Imperialism in the 21st Century
Nothing to do with cybernetics. It's getting shilled on Bunker by "third-worldists" from rhizzone.net, as it is all about the claim of exploitation through unequal exchange. They don't reply to questions about the book (aside from "AHAHA YOU ARE WHITE ROFLZ"), so I doubt they have actually read it themselves. Here is a repost about it:

Right at the beginning he says that the first-world buyer of a shirt made in the third world benefits from the VAT he pays to the government because he gets some of that back in government services, so both he and the government benefit from him paying the VAT, how does that make sense to you? Let's make it even more simple: Suppose he gets all of the tax back from the government (that should make the case easier for those wanting to show he is benefiting from the tax), picture a coin wandering from him to the government as he buys the shirt and then back to him from the government, how would you see that as showing him benefiting from the tax? Picture the guy buying shirt after shirt. John Smith says this coin ping-ponging between the buyer and the government is not just a sign of an ongoing extraction from the shirt producer, but itself in its amount constitutes a measure of some of it. So, following the Baran-Sweezy Memorial Prize winner John Smith, suppose a rise in both VAT and government gibmedats results in a shirt-price increase by the amount of the rise and now two coins going ping-pong between buyer and government as the first-worlder buys shirt after shirt from the third-world, this means he is now benefiting more. Does that make sense to you?


In the OP I say this is a good book for socdems as opposed to one for socialists. Either way it is useful to read to disseminate lib ideas easier.
This thread is about bringing new ideas, bringing communism into the 21st century. This isn't a cybernetics thread solely, that book has been recommend by many comrades, while I haven't read it yet I believe it is useful to study. Idk this VAT thing seems exceedingly nitpicky over one sentence. If you have an overall criticism of the book I'd love to hear it


why doe


Yes I think this is the pivotal question for us. I mean there is no reason to believe a vanguard is the way apart from it has been proven to work (under certain conditions) but as Marxists, this shouldn't be sufficient. This is why we need new analysis rooted in our space and time.

I also thing while it seems good that we aren't religious anymore, the 'job' of religion (as an opioid) is being replaced by other things. We have some people looking up to Elon Musk as a god figure, some looking towards environmentalism for their purpose and blind faith, etc etc.

Regrading Marx, he was a product of his period, and that was one of great unrest in Europe. France deemed it necessary to exile him for his writings, you get where I'm coming from? This shaped his attitudes when it came to organising, and made it a lot easier for him to organise proles, since the revolutionary energy was already there. Lenin recognizes this in Left Wing Communism, it is really fookin' difficult for communists in places where there isn't this energy or general class consciousness.

I feel like I missed something in your last paragraph though so please let me know. What do you mean by 'far more workers party'?


>this VAT thing seems exceedingly nitpicky
Can you repeat in your own words what you think is said in that paragraph? Taking for granted that what is said there about John Smith's book isn't a misrepresentation, can you follow the argument against what Smith is saying and do you agree with it?


Hahahaha what is your point? Why are you so insufferable?
>Explain the extremely basis concept of VAT to me right now!! I want 1000 words on whether the benefit a buyer gains from VAT is exploitation or not!
You've misread every post so far yet want to give me some high school quiz on your copy pasted out of context quote. If you have read the book you'll be able to critique it, if you just want to repost some arbitrary quote about VAT I can't discuss it IN REFERENCE TO THE TEXT because I haven't read it.

To clarify for you, I never said this was a misrepresentation. It is nothing in the context however. because it isn't a critique of the work. Perhaps I could post some quotes from books you haven't read and we could simultaneously wank over how big brained we are and pop-quiz one another?


>1000 words
It's a short paragraph, about the size of the post you just wrote.
>If you have read the book you'll be able to critique it
I did read Smith's book and I agree with the copy-pasted argument against Smith, which is why I posted it.
>if you just want to repost some arbitrary quote about VAT I can't discuss it IN REFERENCE TO THE TEXT because I haven't read it.
You don't have to read the book, since you were only asked whether you are able to restate the paragraph in your own words and whether you agree with it under the condition that it doesn't misrepresent Smith.


Khozraschet concepts can be grouped based on relation of these concepts to:
1) commodity production under socialism
2) economic interests, material stimulation and accountability
3) isolation of economic units
4) autonomy of economic units
5) relationship with the owner of the means of production

below is a Morphological Box of the soviet concepts of khozraschet
an asterisk indicates cases when the specified concept does not express an attitude to the above concepts

1) relation to the commodity production under socialism
a) commodity production is compatible with socialism;
b) there is an autonomous turnover of funds, both current and fixed, so business units must operate in the mode of self-financing and self-sufficiency;
c) let's assume autonomous turnover of working capital only - business units must operate in self-financing mode;
d) commodity production under socialism is limited, the law of value is fully or almost completely controlled by the state - cost indicators are necessary for accounting and monitoring efficiency;

2) relation to economic interests and material stimulation and accountability
a) in acts of exchange, business units and economic agents are guided by their own interests, which may or may not coincide with the interests of society;
b) financial reward or punishment depends on the performance of tasks set by the higher organization;
c) the cost parameters, the money is used for the generalized calculation of labor costs;
d) *

3) relation to isolation of economic units
a) there is an economic isolation of economic units due to the social division of labor;
b) there is no objective need for economic isolation of economic units under socialism;
c) *

4) relation to autonomy of economic units
a) the task of an economic unit is to track effective demand - decisions on production planning, pricing, development, labor organization and wages are made by economic units independently;
b) the task of an economic unit is to track demand and perform planned tasks set from above for certain cost indicators, such as profit, profitability, labor productivity growth, and so on, while prices are set centrally;
c) an economic unit must meet the set targets for a number of cost indicators, for the production of main types of products, capital investments and new equipment, as well as for a number of indicators that characterize the technical level of production and product quality;
d) only operational and production independence is allowed in order to reduce production costs when implementing a plan that fully covers the entire production and economic activity of an economic unit;
e) *

5) relationship with the owner of the means of production
a) an economic unit may be the owner of all or part of the means of production assigned to it;
b) an economic unit owns the means of production, paying rent for them to the owner (society), amortization remains in the possession of the economic unit;
c) an economic unit owns the means of production and pays the owner rent, and the rent for fixed assets includes interest and amortization;
d) the economic unit does not own the means of production, but only uses them, the rent is paid and in the case of fixed assets includes amortization;
e) the means of production are provided free of charge and may be withdrawn at the discretion of the owner or his agent;
f) *

This Morphological Box contains 1799 different concepts of Khozraschet. Not all of these definitions and concepts are logically justified (so,naturally, there are correlations between 4 and 5 variables), but we will not argue that the logically unsubstantiated definitions and concepts that fall into this box were not proposed by someone at the time. Some of the concepts and definitions listed above correspond to actual forms of organization of the socialist economy and proposals for their improvement.

It is easy to see that the possible values of variables, with the exception of the "*" value, are ordered. For variable 1, the transition from the value "a" to the value "d" means, as it were, a "decrease in commodification" of the concept of khozraschet; for variable 2, the transition from the value "a" to the value "c" means a decrease in the mismatch of economic interests of various economic units and economic agents, the value "c" corresponds, in particular, to the view that the economic interests of all participants in social reproduction are the same; for a variable 3 transition from "a" to "b" means less need for the economic feasibility of the participants of social reproduction; for variable 4 the transition from "a" to "d" corresponds to the reduction of autonomy of economic units; for variable 5 the transition from values "a" to the value "e" means descending fullness of the function of ownership.

Below are particular ordered systems of interest from this Morphological Box

aaaab - "full khozraschet"

caabc - "khozraschet of the 20s"

bbaeb - "self-sufficiency and self-financing"

cbacc - "khozraschet of the 1965 reform"

dcade - "khozraschet of the 30s-50s"

Let's make some explanations. Transition from aaaaa to the dcbde is a reduction of the "commodification" of the concept of khozraschet: the system dcbde corresponds to the administrative controls and uses value indicators only as accounting indicators, practically it is a natural economy in value garments; the aaaaa system corresponds to unlimited by administrative methods commodity economy under socialism. It may seem that any system ****a falls out of the many forms of organization of the national economy under socialism, since the variable "relations with the owner…" here takes the value: "an economic unit can be the owner of the means of production" - does this situation not correspond to private ownership of the means of production? In the general case of commodity production, this possibility is not excluded; in the particular case of socialist commodity production, this situation corresponds to the existence of many forms of public property.
Some confusion may be caused by the fact that in the table "full khozrashet" turned out to be "more complete" than the "khozraschet of the 20s". The fact is that the khozraschet of the NEP period assumed independence of economic units - of Trusts, mainly in the management of working capital, while decisions on the management of fixed assets were usually made by the councils of the national economy; in addition, although the Trusts were focused on maximizing profits, profits were withdrawn almost entirely to the state budget and local budgets, so that the Trust had at its disposal up to 10% of the profits directed to a strictly targeted Fund for improving the life of workers and employees - to the Fund for improving the life of workers, and not to the bonus Fund; direct material interest of the Trust collective in maximizing profits, as a rule, was not assumed.

Khozraschet of the aaaaa type is the most complete, the types of khozraschet that are close to aaaaa are called full khozraschet. Khozraschet of the dcbde type is the least complete, it is almost a subsistence economy, in which value indicators are used for accounting purposes. Types of khozraschet that are close to dcbde are called formal khozraschet - it corresponds to the accounting concept of khozraschet.

Now, what kind of khozraschet is socialist?


Curious what's this term in English and what's It's etymology?


Does someone have "How the World Works: The Story of Human Labor from Prehistory to the Modern Day" by Paul Cockshott in .pdf? It's his new book.


I have got the epub version, if you absolutely want it in pdf, you can always convert it in calibre.


File: 1613354893334.pdf (7.68 MB, 212x300, HowTheWorldWorks.pdf)

Here you go, anon.cockshottCockshott


Thank you very much, anon.




So this is the power of analyticals.


File: 1618903609439.png (435.79 KB, 680x680, 1615610887406.png)


> There are only so many hours in a day. Time spent reading Hegel is not time spent learning anything about the developments in the field of physics over the past 100 years
You think I don’t literally do both? I feel like the only people that make up dichotomies about philosophy and science literally just sit on their asses all day on anime forums doing absolutely nothing.
I’m a computer engineering major so I have to learn all this bullshit you’re talking about. I read philosophy because I understand the limitations of pure logic to everyday life and have seen its limits.


>I understand the limitations of pure logic to everyday life and have seen its limits
Can you give some examples. I'm really interested in that and how Philosophy helps with it


>There are only so many hours in a day. Time spent reading Hegel is not time spent learning anything about the developments in the field of physics over the past 100 years.
You think I will spend time down either? Book cuck. I can't read motherfucker!


The theories of logic of Godel and Wittgenstein.


>muh science


CyberSoc thread rise up!


Could cybernetics be a useful way to convert techbros to communism? STEMlords tend to be pretty technocracy-minded. Rationally planning the economy with computers might be a good bridge for them similar to how nazbol could be a bridge for rightoids.


Definitely, Cybersyn'd probably get them hyped.

Unique IPs: 3

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]