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

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1664458063782.jpg (30.64 KB, 450x450, 61EG71hD2gL._SX450_.jpg)

 No.1197480[Last 50 Posts]

Unironically the most important Socialist theorist since Lenin. Fact.
Even Rightoid economists who went into his works thinking they could take it down admit that his arguments and theory are flawless.
Don't understand why he's on the periphery of the Socialist movement today, he should at least be as popular as Zizek and Varoufakis.

 No.1197487

Lenin was a politician, not a theorist, unless you somehow think his pamphlets have any real intellectual weight

 No.1197489

I read it as "the most important Scottish theorist since Lenin."

 No.1197493

who

 No.1197494

He's a decent economist, but a bigot. He shouldn't be invited for lectures and talks.

 No.1197496

>>1197487
Imperialism?

 No.1197499

>>1197480
I agree but shame about his reactionary views. socialism is going to be delayed by another hundred years

 No.1197511

>>1197487
They unironically do.

 No.1197513

>>1197487
>pamphlets
bro

 No.1197516

>>1197489
Lenin was Irish.

 No.1197519

>>1197499
It's not just about him hating on gays, his theoretical views in many ways can hardly be considered marxist. He has done some important work on gatherin empirical evidence for LTV (though it's not like he did that alone), but that's about it.

 No.1197520

>>1197496
Built off of Hilferding and Bukharin’s theories

 No.1197521

>>1197516
Lenin was Kalmyk

 No.1197523

>>1197520
Also profoundly wrong anyways

 No.1197526


 No.1197527

>>1197520
Are you the same retarded troll like in the thread about worst politician quotes? You overplayed you ahnd there and you are doing the same here.

 No.1197529

>>1197523
In what way?

 No.1197531

>>1197529
Don't bother, it's a troll. I know that taking bait is like a national sport on leftypol, but have some standards.

 No.1197532

>>1197487
>there is a wrought iron fence between being a theorist and a politician
uygha needs to read 11 Theses

 No.1197537

Cockshott is based shames he adheres so hard to autismo-boomer thought

 No.1197544

>>1197519
>his theoretical views in many ways can hardly be considered marxist.
How? He's autistic about Marxism, he thinks every other school of economics is stupid.

 No.1197545

Call me when any of his ideas get implemented in an AES country, until then fuck off

 No.1197558

>>1197529
Half-hearted analysis of the causes of WWI that mostly exists to buttress his political grandstanding

 No.1197568

>>1197544
He is of althusserian school of though and has many bad takes from there and some of his own.

If you look at his last video about gay household economy and skip the gay stuff you will see shit like "people are not exploited if they receive wage twice that of the average" and if you dive into comments you will see plenty of other bad takes on marxism surfacing. From what i know, he also doesn't support leninist take on imperialism.

Eh, if he just hated gays i would actually cut him some slack, waving it off as a boomer thing.

 No.1197578

>>1197513
His words feel like I am getting hypnotized. Another traveler brushing against me in hurry shakes me out of it. I say, "Sorry, I'll have to get on the train now!" The train has already started moving. Without luggage this would be trivial. I run and sweat and cough and jump and almost fall over and… I'm on the train! Phew. The man with the beret and goatee runs next to the train. I open the window. "It's all in my pamphlet, read the pamphlet!" He hits me in the head with a book. I die.

 No.1197587

>>1197579
I fucking wish i was.

This is the video i was talking about. Watch it and read comments. Don't worry there aren't that many of them, it's not a new marvel movie teaser, it's a cockshott video after all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFCYbjSISoA&

Picrel is his response to someone accusing him of using a term "middle class", saying that this is not really a marxist approach.

 No.1197596

>>1197587
He is referring to a vulgarizing of Marx and correct. Class is a relationship between people.

 No.1197601

>>1197579
Bro, you need to actually go watch that video. It's bad for a lot of reasons besides the anti-gay thing.

 No.1197604

>>1197601
The recent one critiquing Patnaiks is bad too.

 No.1197605

>>1197587
>relationship to means of production
Weird semantic uyghle. Class is your relation to the production process as a whole, your role in it. Relationship to MoP is part of that, not all of it, but if that's what he's replying to it's obvious what they meant.

 No.1197607

>>1197604
Really? I figured he'd be fine at dunking on some bourgeois economists. If he can't even do that what the fuck is the purpose of his youtube channel.

 No.1197609

>>1197596
So there is a middle class that is not exploited because they receive the wage twice that of an average, right? Seriously, just watch his video then read him responding to comments.

>Class is a relationship between people.

That's a cop out. Fucking someone is a relationship, but it doesn't determine your class. What determines it is societal structure that say how, when and where you interact with MoP. Yes, ultimately you can say it's between people, but that is redundant.

Also, specifically saying that being a slave isn't determined by your relationship to MoP is just…

 No.1197614

>>1197605
Give me an example when something is your relationship to production process, but not relationship to MoP. I don't think it's possible without some high grade sophistry.

 No.1197616

>>1197604
Didn't have the heart to watch that on. Care to give tl;dr on it?

 No.1197617


 No.1197624

Okay guys, I've been going back and forth on whether or not I should bother with Cockshott. I only have so much time on this planet and I don't wanna spend it filling my brain with shit that turns out to be junk. I don't like his views on LGBT stuff, but I still find his stuff re: political economy interesting at a glance.

Are his views on the obsolescence/irrevelance of dialectics to what he sees as marxism's substantive ideas correct? Are his views on the LTV correct or are people like Heinrich et al right in calling his shit pointless? Should I just read Farojun/Machover instead? Yay or nay?

 No.1197645

File: 1664463658534.png (18.85 KB, 500x250, Oekaki.png)

>>1197614
I think you misunderstood my point. Relationship to MoP is a proper subset of relationship to production process. You can't have the latter without the former, but "relations of production" includes more things than just "relation to MoP." For example it also includes your relationship to the other class(es) and to the superstructure.

 No.1197649

>>1197636
>doesn't matter
Why not? Aren't dialectics pretty important re: methodology?

 No.1197654

>>1197624
You may more or less skip most of the dickblast stuff, i would recommend reading a short paper "Scientific status of LTV", frankly it is the most useful thing i have read with him as an author.

TANS for me was pretty pointless but maybe that's because i am software engineer. HtWW has plenty of bad takes too, but has some interesting stuff also, so it's your choice.

And yes his awful takes on materialism and dialectict are relevant. Keep this in mind.

 No.1197655

>>1197521
Lenin was a serb

 No.1197659

>>1197645
I have understood your point, but you still haven't given me a specific example. And i think with specific examples it would be quite obvious that relations with classes and superstructure stem from relations to MoP and therefor a subset of it.

This is all just some sophistry like how i predicted it would be.

 No.1197666

>>1197655
Lenin was Tigrayan

 No.1197676

>>1197624
If you decide to not read somebody because of a bad take you will find a lot free time lol. Machover and Cockshott have no known disagreements on economics. Heinrich seems neither interested in empirical stuff nor in building socialism. There are comments by Marx and Engels about what to recommend to people who struggle with Das Kapital and they never mentioned the importance of familiarizing yourself with Hegel in those comments.

Engels pushed for the importance of dialectical thinking late in life with his work Dialectics of Nature. Lenin emphasized dialectics and Hegel a lot and the influence of Lenin is very strong which colors our view of what "proper" Marxism is, so some people would use this issue even as a filter to determine somebody can't be a Marxist, looking at such a person's list of proper Marxists would then "prove" that Hegel is important for all Marxists. There have certainly been self-identified Marxists without much care for dialectics and Hegel or even hostile ones, like Otto Neurath.

>>1197659
Seems so. I ask what political differences grow out of this supposed wrong understanding by this or that side and if I receive nothing, I will be certain it is sophistry.

 No.1197685

>>1197676
>Seems so. I ask what political differences grow out of this supposed wrong understanding by this or that side and if I receive nothing, I will be certain it is sophistry.

Belief in "middle class" that isn't exploited, for example. You know, the stuff that was the start of the whole conversation. What a fucking joke you are.

 No.1197688

>>1197624
>Okay guys, I've been going back and forth on whether or not I should bother with Cockshott.
Yes Cockshott should be required reading material.
He has advanced Marxist theory on

Cybernetics
Materialism
the Labour theory of value.

and he can be credited with substituting the language of Hegelian dialectics with a more modern scientific discourse that will not lock you into a now obscure philosophical trend from 200 years ago.

>I don't like his social views

Irrelevant. What liberals do where they pick their intellectual influences based on shared social values rather than theoretical merit, that is just intellectual bankruptcy.

 No.1197697

>>1197676
>>1197688
>>1197654
>>1197636
Thanks for the responses, I'll give him a read and judge for myself.

 No.1197703

>>1197696
kek, so true

 No.1197714

He’s good if you discard everything he says as social theory, which is pretty much what I do.

 No.1197716

>>1197685
>Belief in "middle class" that isn't exploited, for example.
You may not own de jure means of production as a manager but still siphon of some of the surplus from the workers. Some self-employed people—again one has to be aware that in a particular case it might be just a legal fiction (employer covering up the wage relation to circumvent certain regulations that are supposed to protect employees)—are also not exploited.

 No.1197717

>>1197659
>I have understood your point, but you still haven't given me a specific example.
I gave examples: relations to other classes and relations to superstructure. These are linked to the relation to MoP but are not strictly the same thing. They are all tied together but can be separated, e.g.
>factory worker relates to the factory (MoP) by operating the machinery
>factory worker relates to the owning class by obeying their instructions (both with respect to their use of the MoP and other things like when to arrive at the factory or what training and socialization they get prior to getting the job)
>factory worker relates to the superstructure by obeying it (both respecting their job e.g. strike breaking and in general)
IDK what about this is complicated.

>And i think with specific examples it would be quite obvious that relations with classes and superstructure stem from relations to MoP and therefor a subset of it.

They are interconnected, but the relations to MoP are specific to particular MoP and I'd say are definitely subordinate to the overall relations of production (which are broadly the same regardless of the specific MoP) and even subordinate to the relationship between classes, which is a more direct reflection of the relations of production than is the relation to the means of production.

>This is all just some sophistry like how i predicted it would be.

You can call anything sophistry that you please, but these kinds of details are pretty important to Marx.
Moreover, my actual point was that Cockshott seemed like he was being overly pedantic in the context of the discussion, since these clarifications probably aren't germane to the topic at hand.

 No.1197722

>>1197480
Am I the only one who's kind of tickled that Cockshott really comes off as a Pub Guy

 No.1197727

>>1197716
And that's pretty much a serious political ramification not compatible with marxism. Thank you for proving my point.
>>1197717
>factory worker relates to the owning class by obeying their instructions (both with respect to their use of the MoP and other things like when to arrive at the factory or what training and socialization they get prior to getting the job)
And he relates to him in such a way WHY? Maybe because the owner of factory can fire him, since it is him who own the factory and therefore decides who work there and on what terms. Worker has to obey because the only thing he own is his labor. Wow, it's as if when we get to actual examples, we can see that relations to MoP is the BASE for other social rlations. Who would've guessed.

>IDK what about this is complicated.

Nothing, as i showed to your revisionist ass.

 No.1197731

>>1197727
> Wow, it's as if when we get to actual examples, we can see that relations to MoP is the BASE for other social rlations.
The base (which itself is constituted by more than just relations to the MoP btw) is not the only part of the system. The entire point of the base as a concept is its dialectical relationship to the superstructure. Reducing the class system to either of these is missing the entire point of them.

>as i showed to your revisionist ass.

Sounds like you read a couple books, learned a couple terms, and are trying to spar with people over them. That's fine, it's a useful way to learn, but the hostility and self-assurance is going to hold you back from maturing out of your baby leftist phase.

 No.1197735

>>1197731
Maybe you should read a couple too instead of pretending that you did. Quite obvious that any time the discussion goes into specifics and actual details you feel very insecure and always try to go back to meaningless wordplay to hide you lack of understanding of the subject.

 No.1197736

>>1197735
It's arse kid not ass

 No.1197737

>>1197545
Paul is the only guy working on what to do the day after a revolution, literally the only one

 No.1197742

>>1197737
Definitely not the only one. And i will be frank, i am not sure his work is that important.

 No.1197743

File: 1664467319692.png (429.17 KB, 399x614, 1468251641807.png)

>>1197735
>feel very insecure
>meaningless wordplay
uh huh
You know, there's no shame in being ignorant. It just means that you have an opportunity to learn new things.

 No.1197753

>>1197742
Name someone else

 No.1197757

>>1197696
but it's true, Hegelian logic is now obscure
As long as Hegelian logic can't be programmed into a computer, it will never have the potential for technological amplification and remain obscure.

 No.1197759

>>1197722
Imagine drinking guinness with him while discussing algebra and socialist planning.

 No.1197760

>>1197759
That would kinda rule ngl

 No.1197768

Because he is the only non-market socialist still standing.

Everyone else from Varoufakis, Zizek, any dengist, any demsoc, any anarcho-liberal, from Vowsh to Infrared is at the end and their heart some flavor of market socialist.

 No.1197783

>>1197768
Press X to doubt.
If you are talking about vloggers, than Hakim and Finnish Bolshevik don't seem to be market socialists. If you are talking about political activists than i can name a couple from my country that definitely aren't. If you are talking about professors of economics…who cares then?

 No.1197809

>>1197759
>the most math le ebin leftypol user knows is algebra

 No.1197812

>>1197716 (me)
>>1197727
>And that's pretty much a serious political ramification not compatible with marxism.
Your advice is to treat legal formal representation as unquestionable reality? And you think going against that would not be proper Marxism?

>>1197753
The Parecon guys.

 No.1197915

>>1197480
Dat Anglo gay face

 No.1197918

>>1197655
God is a serb

 No.1197940

>>1197753
García Linera

 No.1197943

File: 1664478113532.png (Spoiler Image, 12.25 KB, 427x400, soyddit.png)

>>1197487(low effort soyjak outside of siberia)

 No.1197954

>>1197941
>can you stop?
it's just materialist analysis, why would i want to stop ?
>you are making it worse
you lack self-awareness, and should not ignore constructive criticism

 No.1198085

>>1197523
>>1197529
>>1197558
If you want a serious critique of why Lenin's Imperialism was wrong, read this: https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/980/rethinking-imperialism/

 No.1198097

>>1197487
Incredibly retarded.
>>1197499
Shut the fuck up.
>>1197519
His views can be considered Marxist. Just like you can just claim shit, so can I.
>>1197545
It took like 60 to 70 years for any of Marx's ideas to be implemented in a country, is this your metric?
>>1197568
Althusserian is still Marxist, no matter how much you seethe about his societal views.
>>1197624
Heinrich is retarded and I don't know why people here care about that Zionist. Cockshott has some points but in a STEMlord fashion ignores some of the more social aspects of value. Just read it with a critical mind, not like some fucking wokescold liberal btich.

Unironically, the synthesis of both a productivist interpretation of value (like Cockshott) and a circulationist interpretation of value (like Heinrichs) is the most correct, but most of you retards aren't there yet.

>>1197654
>TANS for me was pretty pointless but maybe that's because i am software engineer
Did you fucking skim through the book? You being a software codemonkey has zero bearings with the book, which is mostly about political economy.

>>1197696

As someone who read Hegel in German and understands the importance of it in Marxism, at the end of the day, Cockshott is right insofar as that these are just rhetorical slight of hands. They are undoubtably important tools of analysis, quantity into quality, contradictions, I do believe you can do superb analysis with this, but at the end of the day, they are just tools of thinking. It's not THAT integral to building socialism as some would portray it. Marx would have worked without Hegel too, although it did give him the impetus to start his career of course.

 No.1198100

>>1197579
go look at the comments yourself. I even emailed him about it and he repeated the same line. it seems to stem from Paul being an old Maoist, because Mao has much the same retarded view on class
>>1197605
>Class is your relation to the production process as a whole
this is a good point

 No.1198104

>>1198085
>serious critique
>turd position

Sure

 No.1198124

>>1198097
>It took like 60 to 70 years for any of Marx's ideas to be implemented in a country, is this your metric?
Yes, there'd be no point in reading Marx outside of historical curiosity if it had not directly inspired the Russian revolution and the worldwide anti-colonial movement

 No.1198126

>>1198104
Tell me what makes it a "turd position"

 No.1198129

>>1198124
Absolutely retarded. Kill yourself.

 No.1198133

>>1198129
I live purely to spite you, fuck you

 No.1198140

>>1198097
>Althusserian is still Marxist, no matter how much you seethe about his societal views.
Really don't give a shit about his societal views.

>Just read it with a critical mind, not like some fucking wokescold liberal btich.

Seriously it's like every stupid fuck just ignores all valid criticism and goes "you are just a wokie who dislike them because they don't like gays".

>black flagfag

>shit takes
What a fucking surprise

 No.1198141

>>1198100
>the proof is in my emails

 No.1198147

>>1198140
>"you are just a wokie who dislike them because they don't like gays".
Literally half the Wertkritik people on Twitter are transhumanists seething about Cockshott so they deny the LTV even exists just out of spite. That's really what it all fucking boils down to.

 No.1198149

>>1198141
I'm not going to post my emails on a mongolian throat singing forum

 No.1198158

>>1198149
You can post some screenshots with all personal info removed, i would actually be interested to see them.

>>1198147
Are you on twitter, stupid faggot? No. Fuck off with your idpol and persecution complex somwhere else.

 No.1198164

>>1198158
People are literally doing wokescolding against Cockshott in this very thread, so go fuck yourself.

 No.1198171

>>1198164
The troll OP? Are you new to imageboards, son? Most people actually talking in this thread don't seem to give much shit about retarded boomer views of Cockshott. The fact that he had to manipulate data to arrive to conclusions in his video though it a different story, just as his bullshit about middle class and not being exploited if you make twice as more than average.

 No.1198184

>>1198164
What I have noticed is that the critics rapidly rotate between things (like they make a third-worldist point, when there is push-back they don't say you are right or wrong but just throw an insult and go on to the next point, after a while it loops) so it seems arbitrary to pick out one and say that must be the one they are serious about. What I am certain of is that they can't be serious about all of them (e. g. you can't plausibly claim to be a follower of both Heinrich and Lenin's imperialism model).

 No.1198308

File: 1664494758028-0.jpg (108.87 KB, 878x572, comrade_k_cockshott.jpg)

File: 1664494758028-1.png (27.39 KB, 969x171, cockshotheg.png)

File: 1664494758028-2.jpg (77.86 KB, 720x479, cockshott posters.jpg)

File: 1664494758028-3.png (225.83 KB, 959x894, ClipboardImage (9).png)

>>1197579

 No.1198310

File: 1664494821594-0.jpg (117.83 KB, 643x314, 54554546.jpg)

File: 1664494821594-1.png (623.35 KB, 2239x1526, ClipboardImage (14).png)

File: 1664494821594-2.png (40.91 KB, 1067x179, ClipboardImage (13).png)

File: 1664494821594-3.png (158.62 KB, 1100x601, ClipboardImage (12).png)

File: 1664494821594-4.png (139.01 KB, 1089x624, ClipboardImage (11).png)


 No.1198312

File: 1664494901408-0.png (201.2 KB, 1318x938, ClipboardImage (10).png)

File: 1664494901409-1.jpg (143.53 KB, 805x503, 1317815653187.jpg)

File: 1664494901409-2.jpg (104.29 KB, 908x714, dftry65rydfth.jpg)


 No.1198318

>>1198312
That quote is not objectionable. Tho overall Cockshott is a dipshit.

 No.1198321

>Marx’s labour theory of value does not say that commodities, on average, exchange at their values. Consequently, if it is empirically demonstrated that average prices are not directly proportional to values, this does not undermine Marx’s labour theory of value. Conversely, if it is empirically demonstrated that average prices are proportionate to values, this is not evidence in support of Marx’s theory (although it does undermine other important aspects of Marx’s Capital, especially the theory of the equalization of the rate of profit and, to a certain degree, his theory of rent). To be sure, the question here is certainly not whether the empirical evidence that Paul and others present actually demonstrates that average prices are indeed directly proportionate to values or not. It might do so, or it might not, but I’m not going into that here.3 The question is whether that has any bearing at all on the empirical validity of Marx’s theory.

>First of all, it is commonplace knowledge that a good part of Vol. III of Capital (Chapter 10 in particular) is dedicated to demonstrating that prices tend to fluctuate around prices of production (simply put: the cost-price of the commodity + the average profit) rather than around “simple” values – e.g., among many other instances: “[commodities] are sold at their prices of production”.7 Paul doesn’t deny this. So for Paul to defend that his labour theory of value is Marx’s, he first of all has to introduce a completely unwarranted rupture between a “Vol. I & II Marx” and a “Vol. III Marx”, which he does.


>One could argue that Marx never finished Vol. III and would have corrected this had he done so, but that would be incompatible with Marx’s own contention that “all the problems have been resolved in the first 3 books” and that “ the advantage of my writings is that they are an artistic whole”.8 Note that Marx wrote those last two lines in a letter to Engels 1865, two years before Vol. I of Capital was published. So it is a very long stretch to say that Marx, on one of the most fundamental aspects of his work, held different views between Vol. I and II of Capital on the one hand, and Vol. III on the other.


> Marx explicitly contradicts that prices tend to be proportionate to values no less than three times even in Vol. I


>Paul, however, seems to be determined to force Marx, at all costs, to hold the same “labour theory of value” as him. These costs are that he has to resort to a whole lot of highly problematic “explaining away”. He has to:


<(1) make Marx blatantly contradict himself on one of the pillars of his theory: between Vol. I and III of Capital, between Theories of Surplus Value and Vol. I, within Vol. I, and between a whole range of other works;

<(2) claim some unscientific attitude (like “dishonesty” – a charge which Paul did indeed level against Marx when I pointed this out) on the part of Marx where he explicitly contradicts Paul’s theory of value in Vol. I;
<(3) ignore or put away as irrelevant the fact that Marx wrote to Engels that the first 3 volumes of Capital were finished in a theoretical sense.

>I find that quite an unscientific procedure.


>Rather than resorting to a catalog of intricate suppositions and paradoxical constructions, I would conclude from all of the above that it is far more plausible, I would even say evident, that Marx, who can hardly be accused of being a dimwit, didn’t just blatantly contradict himself on such a fundamental piece of his theory. I think that he actually just meant it when he said.

 No.1198332

>>1198147
The truth is that cockshott is wrong on both social issues and LTV specifically because of his rejection of materialist dialectics, they are directly related.

 No.1198414

>>1198332
You don't need muh dialectics for the labor theory of value. You need it for the law of value.

 No.1198422

File: 1664498927573-0.png (38.95 KB, 1037x522, garh34e.png)

File: 1664498927573-1.jpg (187.98 KB, 1080x1350, sh54e3sj.jpg)

File: 1664498927573-2.png (38.36 KB, 1144x304, WORSTANSWER.png)

File: 1664498927573-3.jpg (294.26 KB, 1222x616, new3.jpg)

File: 1664498927573-4.jpg (128.2 KB, 1028x263, new1.jpg)


 No.1198423

File: 1664498971252-0.png (337.9 KB, 1044x1402, 1624512688102 (2).png)

File: 1664498971252-1.jpg (276.08 KB, 1578x950, DIEalecticaL.jpg)


 No.1198449

>>1197487
Based retard

>>1197494
>>1197499
t. crypto-liberal in service of American imperialism

 No.1198494

>>1197494
>>1197499
Consider the folowing:
Jewish nigger

 No.1198497

>>1197655
*is
lenin still alive in serbia
fuck bosnia

 No.1198500

File: 1664502061723.png (407.99 KB, 2720x1606, selection bias.png)


 No.1198506

>>1197519
>his theoretical views in many ways can hardly be considered marxist.
So what?

Whether that's the case or not (I don't know nor care), it's irrelevant. Marxism isn't a Bible, his work isn't infallible, and judging a theory on whether or not it's Marxist is the kind of shit Marx himself would tell you off for doing.

 No.1198507

>>1198500
>caring about idpol

 No.1198510

File: 1664502545140.gif (157.02 KB, 500x281, sadball.gif)

>>1197759
>Imagine drinking guinness with him while discussing algebra and socialist planning.
no
if it were scotch I'd say yes

 No.1198522

File: 1664502992303.mp4 (942.51 KB, 480x270, 1643342481201-1.mp4)

>>1198507
>idpol

 No.1198525

>>1197480
Does he still support Zionism and the British occupation of Ireland?

 No.1198531

>>1198522
I should have explained myself instead of shitposting:
This thread is in the context of economic theory. I believe it is possible to take most of his analysis and remove his dumbass sociological identity struggle drama, and still have a valuable contribution. We do this with many other theorists.
So bringing up a random link like the post I replied to, while relevant to dickblast himself, really just manifests as surplus drama and a waste of time. It's like someone asking about Marx being an economist and me saying Marx called Lassalle a jewish nigger.

 No.1198543

File: 1664504381759.png (429.33 KB, 977x1200, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1197809
Numbers are a spook.

 No.1198548

>>1198531
its not a "random link" its one of the first blog posts that cockshott wrote about LGBT and in it he cherry picks data to make an argument that is as wrong as "did you know black people commit 50% of the crime despite being 14% of the population" he is immediately called out for it and instead of admitting it he demands "evidence" for something painfully obvious and tries to hide behind the alternative hypothesis being "unfalsifiable" essentially using empiricist positivism(idealism) as a shield to call people who (correctly)disagree with him conspiracy theorists

then someone proves it 2 whole years later and 2 years AFTER that he makes his dumb ass videos

 No.1198560

File: 1664505710091.jpg (26.46 KB, 475x458, thumbsisup.jpg)

>>1198531
>surplus drama
wow that's really good
that perfectly captures it

 No.1198566

>Science is a process which is decentering of the subject, moving beyond it in order to come to terms with objects as they relate to each other. It is only by whack-a-moling the subject as it appears in objects do we make scientific progress. Science, just as ideological production, must be accomplished by particular individuals. And when a science is in its infancy, and the product of only a small number of individuals, these personal subjectivity, particularities of time and space, can be greatly amplified.

>These reactionary tendencies are the results of accidents of history, of the particular subjectivity of Professor Cockshott and his cohort, rather than the fundamental goals and methods of the science they have helped to produce, and in fact that the liberatory goals of socialist cybernetics are precisely at odds with these prejudices.


>Cockshott’s class analysis of male homosexuals, painting them as an upper middle class interest group, is quite convenient considering what it leaves out, such as the extremely high rates of poverty, roughly double the poverty rates for the general population. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the arc of the article itself which acts as an indictment of gay men as economic-political actors on the one hand, and a dismissal of LGBT concerns on the other…


>It is notable however that this kind of analysis is missing when talking about trans people, given their high poverty rates and homelessness. Eliminating poverty and guaranteeing access to housing are key aspects to any socialist program, after all…


>Cockshott would have us believe that his social reproduction analysis makes his point of view a foregone conclusion, however his point of view is premised on a total rejection of the concept of the subject in a way that makes his analysis of language lead to analytic and positivist errors.


>There is something fundamental left out of this analysis. We acknowledge the person who inherits the Dukedom, and we acknowledge the Duke as a structural role, but what exactly is the relationship between the two? What is the Duke to the person who inherits the title? Here is the crucial role of interpellation – if the title-holder acknowledges themselves as the Duke, they themselves become the subject of this logic of the estate, they as an individual.


>Assuredly, one could create such categories with arbitrary criteria for the purpose of scientific study, but the social categories of male and female are both historically contingent and relate to individuals not through analytic sorting but through complex processes of interpellation


>A materialist conception of history entails that when we advocate for a new mode of production, a new set of relationships of production, we are also embracing new values and social conventions, whether we can really anticipate what those will be or not.


>Cockshott would like to have his cake and eat it too, he wants his radical commitments to reorganize society through economic planning and new economic forms or organization, but he’s unwilling to accept that this may produce results counter to his aesthetic preferences as a British baby boomer…


>Moving from his poor treatment of transgender women and homosexual men in his online blog, there is a more central, though less explicitly reactionary problem to be found in his theoretical work of economic planning.


>This is the problem of methodological nationalism: the socialist commonwealth found in “Towards a New Socialism” was originally intended to directly correspond to the countries of the communist bloc, and the text was intended to be a method of reforming the inefficient and failing planning system of the 80s. Given this background, it is no wonder that Cockshott focuses on the one hand national economic systems and trade between states on the other.


>Attempting to apply the lessons of the book to political and economic struggle in capitalist countries seems to suggest that the application of socialist cybernetic planning would be in what to do after nationalizing industry after gaining control of the state…


>Perhaps more importantly, waiting to apply socialist cybernetic planning until socialists take power is a grave mistake based on the simple fact that in order for the workers movement to succeed it must be powered by a political, ideological and economic revolution which are concurrent.


>While not as immediately abrasive as the attacks on trans women and gay men, methodological nationalism can lead to endorsement of very dark reactionary tendencies should socialists ever take power somewhere in the world, including the rejection of internationalism itself as was the case in many shameful points in the history of the communist bloc…


>In both cases, though, we may surely find that these errors are the result of pure sentimentality grounded in the subjectivity of one Paul Cockshott, who cannot go beyond his generational distaste for queer people, or the now long dead soviet union which dominated the questions of socialist politics for the first half of his life.


https://casperforum.org/blog/a-defense-of-cybernetic-planning-and-social-reproduction-theory-from-the-reactionary-tendencies-of-paul-cockshott/

 No.1198620

File: 1664510695186.jpg (25.87 KB, 480x360, 1662661626485.jpg)

>>1197605
>uyghle
I fucking love that word filter so much. Funniest shit I've read since the suyghuring post.

 No.1198658

>>1197480
I have seen so many people on twitter vilify him for his reputation about sexual identity etc. without having read him. I even saw one person ask why any socialists know who he is. I don't care what he says about women or trans ppl, it mostly seems to make his actual work taboo

 No.1198668

>>1197487
>Lenin was a politician, not a theorist.
He was both, as he engaged in political praxis instead of being just a ideological voice like those that are just theorists.
>unless you somehow think his pamphlets have any real intellectual weight
the fact that his detractors engage in strawmans and other types of non-arguments to not engage in his critics and books shows his works are the most valuable political and theoretical texts of the last century.
want more proof, look at modern day parties that don't follow his thought, they don't achieve nothing and just becomes betas to liberalism.

 No.1198753

File: 1664520654963.png (340.4 KB, 605x640, alpha paul.png)

I'm kinda glad we have this thread for paulposting that doesn't have to shit up the cybersoc thread
>>1198312
>second pic
dr. wpc solves the mind-body problem with autism
>>1198422
what if paul posts here 👀

 No.1198815

>>1198308
<Fitche
Yeah I am sure that comment guy who can't even spell the name of the philosopher he refers to knows very well what he is talking about…

>>1198310
<We can immediately, without thinking, classify animals as felids or cannids. You can do it at a glance.
Cockshott making a point known from Gestalt psychology here. Many examples could be given. You immediately recognize white paper as white even while colored light is shining on it. You can form sentences describing this, but this comes later. What you (that is the part of you that forms sentences and can react to sentences) get is already weighted and assembled and aggregated and integrated. One might speculate that this assembling process you cannot observe inside yourself represents data and intermediate results in a structure very similar to language, but if that is so why is our language so atrociously slow in comparison.
<Speculating that it is 'essences' in your thought process that enables you to do this classification gets you nowhere.
I believe this speculation easily gets you to the false idea you could classify everything with tree structures, criticized by Wittgenstein (argument for family resemblance).

 No.1198821


 No.1198857

>>1198815
>Yeah I am sure that comment guy who can't even spell the name of the philosopher he refers to knows very well what he is talking about…
I often mispell names since english is not my first language and i often can't be assed to look up each time how exactly anglos spell this specific name.

Once someone accused me of not reading Dostoyevsky because i misspelled his name despite the fact that i am russian and his books are in ourmandatory reading list is schools.

 No.1198858

>>1198857
I am also retarded is not the great defense you think it is.

 No.1198859

>>1198858
Memorizing every spelling of every word in your shit parody of a language is not a good metric of intelligence or education. I'd rather spend time on something more useful, like reading a book. Eat shit, anglo.

 No.1198861

what a dumbass

 No.1198985

>>1198859
You don't get what that mistake points at. English writing does not transform letters of German family names that are also present in English. Fichte = Fichte. The spelling mistake the other guy makes repeatedly is not one a German speaker would make, even someone who has never heard of that philosopher, since the letter order looks alien to the language and Fichte also happens to be a normal German word. Cockshott is notorious for spelling mistakes, but he doesn't make the mistake because he can read German while the other guy cannot.

 No.1199924

>>1197624
Ignore literally everything he has to say on anything other than central planning/LTV. If you do that, then he's an absolute goldmine of a source.

 No.1199990

>>1198985
So, he is not german either, so fucking what? I think i can safely conclude that if there is a retard here, it's you.

 No.1199996

File: 1664569359955.jpg (49.02 KB, 625x604, EZKVZRLUcAA1V12.jpg)


 No.1199998

>>1198859
> I'd rather spend time on something more useful, like
<low quality bait posting on leftypol.org

 No.1200004

>>1199998
Still more useful.

Also, i think i am the one taking the bait here from this moron. Probably should stop

 No.1200010

>>1199996
he looks like cockshott and spider jersualem fucked

 No.1200017

>>1200010
So that makes them all middle class

 No.1200115

>>1199990
>he is not german either
Yes that was exactly my point: You need to be part of the philosopher race (German and Chinese) to do philosophy… You dumb fuck, these youtube pseuds are literally less well-read on a topic Cockshott gives 0.5 nano-shits about and it shows. And you think posting these morons saying moronic things makes yourself look good by standing in their glow because you can't even parse Cockshott's argument.

 No.1200152

imagine having read thousands of books and disregard cybernetics when it comes to communism like 99 % of the so called marxists

 No.1200163

>>1200115
You couldn't provide a proper argument to defend dickblast progressing alzheimer so you have tried to nitpick the spelling of the person he was arguing with, was rightfully called a retard and now you are having meltdown.

 No.1200196

>parse Cockshott's argument
he doesn't have an argument he is disingenuously redefining "subject" to mean what he wants it to so that he can strawman dialectics. he repeatedly and wrongly claims that the word subject can only be defined narrowly as a legal category invented by monarchy and absolutely refuses to engage with the proper philosophical meaning

<Is value the ‘subject’ of Capital?


>In Capital, the idea of the circuits of money and of capital play an important roles. In both c-m-c and m-c-m’, value in a sense plays the role of subject. It is tempting to see the whole of the argument in Capital as an investigation into the self development of capital/subject. My grasp of Hegel is not sure enough for me to say if this view of things is actually Hegelian, but whether or not this is the case, it does suffer from drawbacks. One of them is philosophical, the other is historical.


>If we see capital as a subject, then the real material subjects of the system of production are not adequately represented, or, if represented at all, appear just as instantiations of the ideal subject.


>By the real material subjects I mean abstract legal personalities or subjects of right. Under capitalist systems of law, some of these legal subjects correspond to human bodies, others to bodies corporate. It is these juridical subjects that buy and sell commodities and reproduce themselves in the process.

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/04/historical-materialism-and-the-repudiation-of-subjectivism/
WRONG!
>>1200115


>The nature of the subject is also central in debates over the nature of subjective experience within the Anglo-American tradition of analytical philosophy.

WRONG!

>In contemporary analytic philosophy, the issue of subject—and more specifically the "point of view" of the subject, or "subjectivity"—has received attention as one of the major intractable problems in philosophy of mind (a related issue being the mind–body problem).

WRONG!

>A subject is a being who has a unique consciousness and/or unique personal experiences, or an entity that has a relationship with another entity that exists outside itself (called an "object").


>A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. This concept is especially important in Continental philosophy, where 'the subject' is a central term in debates over the nature of the self.


>The thinking of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud provided a point of departure for questioning the notion of a unitary, autonomous Subject, which for many thinkers in the Continental tradition is seen as the foundation of the liberal theory of the social contract. These thinkers opened up the way for the deconstruction of the subject as a core-concept of metaphysics.


>Thinkers such as structural Marxist Louis Althusser and poststructuralist Michel Foucault[1] theorize the subject as a social construction, the so-called poststructuralist subject.[7] '''According to Althusser, the "subject" is an ideological construction (more exactly, constructed by the "Ideological State Apparatuses"). One's subjectivity exists, "always already" and is discovered through the process of interpellation. Ideology inaugurates one into being a subject, and every ideology is intended to maintain and glorify its idealized subject, as well as the metaphysical category of the subject itself (see antihumanism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(philosophy)

 No.1200198

>>1200152
>imagine [imaginary strawman]
I would prefer not to.

 No.1200204

>>1198548
non-seq; rent free

 No.1200211

>>1200196
>word subject can only be defined narrowly as a legal category invented by monarchy and absolutely refuses to engage with the proper philosophical meaning
Reminds me of his retarded takes on Marx describing difference between animal and human labor in Classical Econophysics and his video on materialism, absolutely missing the whole fucking point.

<Turning to Marx’s human example – an architect – his argument looks even shakier. For do architects ever build things themselves? They may occasionally build their own homes, but in general what gives them the status of architects is that they don’t get their hands dirty with anything worse than India Ink. Architects draw up plans. Builders build. (In eliding this distinction Marx showed an uncharacteristic blindness to class reality)

 No.1200228

>>1197676
>If you decide to not read somebody because of a bad take you will find a lot free time lol
this is a good thing, the maximization of free time is the primary purpose of man.

>>1198531
>I believe it is possible to take most of his analysis and remove his dumbass sociological identity struggle drama, and still have a valuable contribution
so do it. i mean this wholeheartedly (if, as always, playfully): plagiarize his ideas, restate them without giving credit and without going off on weird tangents about social issues yourself. if confronted on your theft, deflect and deny.
ideally, do so with a different aesthetic style. he's got geriatric lecturer down, so you should go the opposite direction - young and extremely online - weeb or furry probably.

if nothing else it would be an interesting experiment.

the analogy to marx doesn't quite hold: marx using slurs against Lassalle in private conversation as part of a joke is quite distinct from him purporting to be performing a serious phrenologists analysis of Lassalle and then publishing it, which would be a sign marx is slightly insane.

 No.1200328

>>1200196
You are not convincing, i think Cockshott is correct about his analysis of subjectivism.
He is doing a materialist analysis when he looks for the economic structures that are responsible for ideological influences in philosophy.
In colloquial use, many people have a tendency to say subjective when they mean personal bias or personal preference. I have not yet figured out why that is, or whether that has something to do with this.
>>1200228
it is beyond me why you would instruct people to do plagiarism, it is very bad advice.
There should not be a problem with Cockshott having these social views, you are not forced to agree with him, i don't understand why this creates so much surplus drama.

 No.1200330

File: 1664587080203.jpg (143.53 KB, 805x503, 1664494901409-1.jpg)


 No.1200334

>>1200330
Is he autistic or something?

 No.1200356

>>1200328
>it is beyond me why you would instruct people to do plagiarism, it is very bad advice.
There should not be a problem with Cockshott having these social views, you are not forced to agree with him, i don't understand why this creates so much surplus drama.
Obfuscation might work at the very beginning, but sooner or later people are going to connect the dots and call you a "Cockshottite" or similar. IMO the best path is a middle ground - always give credit where it's due and let people know it's Cockshott, etc.'s idea, but also don't promote him as a new Great Head of Marxism. Let others call you a Cockshottite before you start calling yourself a Cockshottist. That was how Wilhelm Liebknecht eventually got Marx's ideas accepted, in fact I think the phrase "cult of personality" originated with him as something to avoid.

That's also the path I take with Mike Macnair, another great cult theorist who also has a few very cancellable views on social issues.

 No.1200375

>>1200328
>his analysis of subjectivism.
the topic is not subjectivism, its "the subject" or "the self" and if it exists and how it is constituted and by extension the existence of consciousness and class consciousness. it is also about how the objective is found in the subjective experience sublated through dialectical negation, and that there is no third-party non-bias "objective scientific view" consisting of bare facts apart from the interconnected experience of actually existing humans embedded in a always changing universal manifold. cockshott thinks this is a bourgeois fiction that does not exist. this materialism is a one-sided vulgar materialism.

>The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.


>Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity.


>The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.


>Feuerbach, not satisfied with abstract thinking, wants contemplation; but he does not conceive sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity.


>The highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is contemplation of single individuals and of civil society.


>The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

>With Bacon as its pioneer, materialism contains in a naïve manner the germs of universal development. Matter is still smiling upon us in its poetic-sensuous charm. The aphoristic doctrine, on the other hand, teems with theological inconsistencies.


>In its further development, materialism becomes one-sided. Hobbes is the systematiser of Baconian materialism. Sensuousness loses its bloom and is turned into the abstract sensuousness of geometry. The physical motion is sacrificed to the mechanical and mathematical one. Geometry is proclaimed the cardinal science…. Materialism is rationalised, and it develops also the ruthless logicality of reason. Hobbes, starting from Bacon, argues that if all knowledge is supplied by the senses, then…. only the corporeal is perceptible and knowable, therefore we can know nothing of the existence of God. Only my own existence is certain…. Hobbes systematised Bacon, but did not establish the main principle, the origin of the ideas and knowledge of the sensuous world.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/english-materialism.htm

>Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter. This is, of course, pure materialism. But, having got so far, Feuerbach stops short. He cannot overcome the customary philosophical prejudice, prejudice not against the thing but against the name materialism. He says:


>“To me materialism is the foundation of the edifice of human essence and knowledge; but to me it is not what it is to the physiologist, to the natural scientists in the narrower sense, for example, to Moleschott, and necessarily is from their standpoint and profession, namely, the edifice itself. Backwards I fully agree with the materialists; but not forwards.”


>Here, Feuerbach lumps together the materialism that is a general world outlook resting upon a definite conception of the relation between matter and mind, and the special form in which this world outlook was expressed at a definite historical stage — namely, in the 18th century. More than that, he lumps it with the shallow, vulgarized form in which the materialism of the 18th century continues to exist today in the heads of naturalists and physicians, the form which was preached on their tours in the fifties by Buchner, Vogt, and Moleschott. But just as idealism underwent a series of stages of development, so also did materialism. With each epoch-making discovery even in the sphere of natural science, it has to change its form; and after history was also subjected to materialistic treatment, a new avenue of development has opened here, too.


>The materialism of the last century was predominantly mechanical, because at that time, of all natural sciences, only mechanics, and indeed only the mechanics of solid bodies — celestial and terrestrial — in short, the mechanics of gravity, had come to any definite close. Chemistry at that time existed only in its infantile, phlogistic form [A]. Biology still lay in swaddling clothes; vegetable and animal organisms had been only roughly examined and were explained by purely mechanical causes. What the animal was to Descartes, man was to the materialists of the 18th century — a machine. This exclusive application of the standards of mechanics to processes of a chemical and organic nature — in which processes the laws of mechanics are, indeed, also valid, but are pushed into the backgrounds by other, higher laws — constitutes the first specific but at that time inevitable limitations of classical French materialism.


>The second specific limitation of this materialism lay in its inability to comprehend the universe as a process, as matter undergoing uninterrupted historical development. This was in accordance with the level of the natural science of that time, and with the metaphysical, that is, anti-dialectical manner of philosophizing connected with it. Nature, so much was known, was in eternal motion. But according to the ideas of that time, this motion turned, also eternally, in a circle and therefore never moved from the spot; it produced the same results over and over again…


>This same unhistorical conception prevailed also in the domain of history. Here the struggle against the remnants of the Middle Ages blurred the view. The Middle Ages were regarded as a mere interruption of history by a thousand years of universal barbarism. The great progress made in the Middle Ages — the extension of the area of European culture, the viable great nations taking form there next to each other, and finally the enormous technical progress of the 14th and 15th centuries — all this was not seen. Thus a rational insight into the great historical interconnectedness was made impossible, and history served at best as a collection of examples and illustrations for the use of philosophers.


>The vulgarizing pedlars, who in Germany in the fifties dabbled in materialism, by no means overcame this limitation of their teachers. All the advances of natural science which had been made in the meantime served them only as new proofs against the existence of a creator of the world; and, indeed, they did not in the least make it their business to develop the theory any further. Though idealism was at the end of its tether and was dealt a death-blow by the Revolution of 1848, it had the satisfaction of seeing that materialism had for the moment fallen lower still. Feuerbach was unquestionably right when he refused to take responsibility for this materialism; only he should not have confounded the doctrines of these itinerant preachers with materialism in general.


>Here, however, there are two things to be pointed out. First, even during Feuerbach’s lifetime, natural science was still in that process of violent fermentation which only during the last 15 years had reached a clarifying, relative conclusion. New scientific data were acquired to a hitherto unheard-of extent, but the establishing of interrelations, and thereby the bringing of order into this chaos of discoveries following closely upon each other’s heels, has only quite recently become possible. It is true that Feuerbach had lived to see all three of the decisive discoveries — that of the cell, the transformation of energy, and the theory of evolution named after Darwin. But how could the lonely philosopher, living in rural solitude, be able sufficiently to follow scientific developments in order to appreciate at their full value discoveries which natural scientists themselves at that time either still contested or did not know how to make adequate use of? The blame for this falls solely upon the wretched conditions in Germany, in consequence of which cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers had taken possession of the chairs of philosophy, while Feuerbach, who towered above them all, had to rusticate and grow sour in a little village. It is therefore not Feuerbach’s fault that this historical conception of nature, which had now become possible and which removed all the one-sidedness of French materialism, remained inaccessible to him.


>Secondly, Feuerbach is quite correct in asserting that exclusively natural-scientific materialism is indeed “the foundation of the edifice of human knowledge, but not the edifice itself”. For we live not only in nature but also in human society, and this also no less than nature has its history of development and its science. It was therefore a question of bringing the science of society, that is, the sum total of the so-called historical and philosophical sciences, into harmony with the materialist foundation, and of reconstructing it thereupon. But it did not fall to Feuerbach’s lot to do this. In spite of the “foundation”, he remained here bound by the traditional idealist fetters, a fact which he recognizes in these words: “Backwards I agree with the materialists, but not forwards!”

 No.1200403

>>1200328
>it is beyond me why you would instruct people to do plagiarism, it is very bad advice.
it's very bad advice in an academic context, but neutral advice elsewhere. prior publication ain't got shit on popularization.
>There should not be a problem with Cockshott having these social views, you are not forced to agree with him
I don't care what views he has, but I wouldn't want to be associated with anyone who presented them publicly as political analysis. That's the angle I'm taking here. Setting aside all possible wider criticism, I'm zeroing in on my hobby horse: gang-signs.

I'm not forced to agree that a purple shirt is fashionable just because you decided to wear one, that's your choice and it imposes nothing on me, but only an idiot would expect to be welcomed with open arms if they walked down Grove Street while wearing purple. Kids note: Grove Street Families wear green. Their enemies, balls, wear Purple. The 'unnecessary' drama comes because ultimately most politics today is first and foremost about human social circles and personal identity-building. Some people, typically Grove-street-green, don't like that Cockshott threw up a post wearing purple about the merits of the Rollin' Heights Ballas. Now if you want Grove street to buy into some of his other ideas, the best thing you can do in that situation is accept that he's marked himself for a drive-by and make the best of it by stealing his best ideas and pretending you had them. unless you hate Grove Street, obviously. Then, even if you don't care about Cockshott, you can purport to love him to mark yourself out as not being Grove Street - aren't gang-signs fun!?
(I left out a bit here: Economic theory is dull and boring. Trust me, I've forgotten enough of it to know. Human drama is much more interesting - if someone comes in trying to bore you with economics, turning it into an opportunity for you and your friends to bond by dunking on them for their social views may not add much intellectually, but it'll create far more by way of social bonds between those doing the dunking… not that anyone consciously does this, of course.)

If you want a mini example: Count the times people will ignore a post like this and cut straight to "fuck off Rosa Killer" because the first thing you see after a name is SocDem Gang colours. A little ritual to reaffirm to oneself and to one's social circle that - like most denominations of communist - they don't like social democrats, even if what seems to be a social democrat is really a developmentally stunted gardener quoting Mao.

 No.1200465

>>1200356
>Cockshottite
>Cockshottist
I think we should go with "Cockshott-thought"
>That's also the path I take with Mike Macnair, another great cult theorist who also has a few very cancellable views on social issues.
I'm just frustrated "cancellable" is even a thing, the unconscious heuristics in my brain have a tendency to convert the attempt to cancel into an act of unwitting endorsement.
The only reason why this exists is because liberals can't use words to express why they disagree with something. It's just so annoying.
>>1200375
i disagree class consciousness is not an "extension of the self." it's a result of experiencing life in a class society.
>it is also about how the objective is found in the subjective experience sublated through dialectical negation,
There is objective reality and included in that objective reality are personal experiences with personal bias.
>and that there is no third-party non-bias "objective scientific view"
it's true the scientific process only manages to approximate unbiased objectivity to a certain degree of accuracy, but you are still full of it.
>consisting of bare facts apart from the interconnected experience of actually existing humans embedded in a always changing universal manifold.
This is just a misrepresentation, materialists don't ignore that humans are involved. Take that back to your manifold.
>cockshott thinks this is a bourgeois fiction that does not exist. this materialism is a one-sided vulgar materialism.
but he demonstrated how economic structures have ideological influences on philosophy, this is not vulgar at all, Cockshott is just doing harder materialism than you.

 No.1200477

>>1200403
>it's very bad advice in an academic context, but neutral advice elsewhere. prior publication ain't got shit on popularization.
You do want to attract intelligent people to the cybernetics movement and if your don't source your stuff they ain't coming
>I don't care what views he has, but
there wouldn't be a "but" if you didn't care, you still haven't entirely freed your intellect.
>ultimately politics is first and foremost about human social circles and personal identity-building
This made me feel like I stumbled into the wrong lecture hall by accident and it was about marketing your self as a brand
>Economic theory is dull and boring
>bonding by doing the dunking
<reject theory embrace tribalism
That's not compatible with the socialist project

 No.1200478

File: 1664594184259.png (129.82 KB, 800x560, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1197494
>>1197499
i've never heard the idea that he's bigoted substantiated. i've merely seen the allegation thrown around. if I remember he merely made a statistical argument that not reproducing couples (so, gays, lesbians, trans, and sterile heterosexual couples) are more likely to become bourgeois since they don't have the financial burden of child rearing. I think it's kind of a stupid and limited argument but not really bigoted against LGBT

>>1198494
pic

 No.1200479

>>1200465
>unbiased objectivity
this is fundamentally not possible that is the point
>materialists don't ignore that humans are involved
its not that humans are involved its that it is only possible for knowledge to exist when mediated through a human subject. this is the meaning behind "substance is subject". correct concepts do not appear ready made in the mind from nothing, they go through a dialectical process where the subjective is integrated into the whole from abstract to concrete, general to particular, and back again.

Cockshott is just doing harder more reductive materialism. There is actually a name for that, its called physicalism, not materialism.

>In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.


>Physicalism is closely related to materialism. Physicalism grew out of materialism with advancements of the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms are often used interchangeably, although they are sometimes distinguished, for example on the basis of physics describing more than just matter (including energy and physical law).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

>By the word materialism, the philistine understands gluttony, drunkenness, lust of the eye, lust of the flesh, arrogance, cupidity, avarice, covetousness, profit-hunting, and stock-exchange swindling — in short, all the filthy vices in which he himself indulges in private. By the word idealism he understands the belief in virtue, universal philanthropy, and in a general way a “better world”, of which he boasts before others but in which he himself at the utmost believes only so long as he is having the blues or is going through the bankruptcy consequent upon his customary “materialist” excesses.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch02.htm

this is the kind of bullshit you run into when you substitute whatever colloquial definition you like into an established historical conversation using specified terms

the only materialism is Dialectical Materialism

 No.1200486

>>1200465
>I think we should go with "Cockshott-thought"
No, we should go with "Cybernetic Socialism", even if in practice the only person you're citing is Cockshott. Naming a political trend after one person implies that you agree with everything that one person said, which opens you up to attack or dogmatism if one of their positions is wrong. Yes, I am still upset that "Scientific Socialism" got turned into "Marxism"

>class consciousness is not an "extension of the self." it's a result of experiencing life in a class society.

An amusing aside: back before the Comintern imposed new standards for theoretical terminology, the US left used "self conscious" instead of "class conscious". In socialist publications before 1925ish you'd regularly read about "self-conscious workers".

 No.1200494

>>1200477
I hate to do a point-by-point thing but I'm watching a movie.
>You do want to attract intelligent people to the cybernetics movement and if your don't source your stuff they ain't coming
Intelligent people are some of the best at tricking themselves. If they're motivated to believe that I had these ideas (say because I'm funny and agree with them on other issues), their intelligent little brains will come up with a thousand ways to defend me, even though we know that in this hypothetical I'm a plagarist.
>there wouldn't be a "but" if you didn't care, you still haven't entirely freed your intellect.
I'm free (in a sense, in another sense I'm just very good at pointing out all the bars they've got here in prison.), I'm mostly using Cockshott as an excuse to ride my hobby-horse, rather than having any particular investment in cybersocialism. Don't get me wrong, cybersyn is cool, but the contemporary tech-scene pushes me closer to Pol than to Paul.
>This made me feel like I stumbled into the wrong lecture hall by accident and it was about marketing your self as a brand
It's close, actually. What, you think marketers give all that money to psychology researchers so they've got someone to do coke with? It's detrimental that it sounds like marketing (a bad gang sign, you see.) but it's dealing with the same raw material - you're gonna use the rocket equation whether that rocket's putting Gagarin in space or 16 MIRV warheads onto Moscow, and you're gonna have to describe human group behaviour when dealing with human groups, whether that's to sell them Betacasettes they don't need or to explain why it's bad for your reputation to tell left-twitter that you think it's bourgeois to be big-gay.

My line isn't quite reject theory, but if you want to build a movement the most important thing you need is people, not documents. Any successful socialist movement will be, at its core, a big tribe or a big union of tribes.

 No.1200497

>>1200479
>this is fundamentally not possible that is the point
<the scientific process only manages to approximate unbiased objectivity to a certain degree of accuracy
you keep ignoring what other say to you and debate an imagined opponent
>it is only possible for knowledge to exist when mediated through a human subject
No information must have a physical existence, because human brains are also just part of material reality
>"substance is subject"
i cringed
>correct concepts do not appear ready made in the mind from nothing,
we can agree on that, brains process information they gather from the environment first with sense and then with measurement instruments.
>they go through a dialectical process where the subjective is integrated into the whole
this doesn't mean anything, it's just one of those phrases

>Cockshott is just more reductive materialism.

more reductive is good a thing
>There is actually a name for that, its called physicalism, not materialism.
materialism and physilcalism are too similar to care about the distinction.

>this is the kind of bullshit you run into

can you imagine how enormous a cow had to be, for it to take a shit that is tall enough that somebody can run into it,

>>1200486
>No, we should go with "Cybernetic Socialism"
Fine

 No.1200508

>>1200497
Now philosophy isn't my thing, but I'm up for a punt.
>No information must have a physical existence, because human brains are also just part of material reality
On reading this, I immediately thought of Rongorongo. Can Rongorongo meaningfully be said to be information if we can't decode what it means? If, for argument's sake, it's now impossible to decode? You've got glyphs, sure, but they're no more informational than the rings in a tree. (Less so, in the sense we're good at reading age from that.)

My mind's lighting up like a switchboard as I pop this thought in alongside an earlier post about how a swastika - gang sign - only encodes 'naziism' due to subjective human social context. There's nothing fundamental in the glyph that means fascism. Flip it in a mirror, ship it to Japan and now your glyph says Buddha, not Hitler.. If that means nothing to you, don't sweat it, I'm just having fun.

 No.1200510

>>1200494
>Intelligent people are some of the best at tricking themselves. If they're motivated to believe that I had these ideas (say because I'm funny and agree with them on other issues), their intelligent little brains will come up with a thousand ways to defend me, even though we know that in this hypothetical I'm a plagarist.
You sound like a scam artist.
>I'm mostly using Cockshott as an excuse to ride my hobby-horse, rather than having any particular investment in cybersocialism
ok never mind
>What, you think marketers give all that money to psychology researchers so they've got someone to do coke with?
Sure why not, lets go with that.
>Any successful socialist movement will be, at its core, a big tribe
i doubt that very much

 No.1200514

>>1200508
You don't get it, information is a physical thing in physics, it's not dependent on humans.
Information doesn't necessarily need to carry meaning

 No.1200517

>>1200497
ok buddy go ahead and reject the core theory of Marx Engels Lenin and Mao if you want i can't force you to learn

 No.1200526

>>1200510
>You sound like a scam artist.
That's half because I'm using a scam as a framing device, 35% because of the writing style i used, 25% because you've an incentive to think negatively of me because I'm devaluing something you identify with (Intelligence), and the remainder because that adds up to 110%.
>i doubt that very much
Unless you think the revolution will be delivered by robots and cybernetic supermen, I'm afraid to tell you that you're wrong. replace "tribe" with "group" or another, similar, less loaded word and that should be clear. how is it possible to deliver a socialist revolution without a group of revolutionaries? and once you have such a group, will it not have signs, rituals, values, taboos, and so on?

>>1200514
This seems liable to spiral into definition fighting so I'm going to check out.

 No.1200639

>>1200497
kys illiterate retard, vulgar materialism is what marx and co. hated
you would have been shot

 No.1200664

>>1197480
Idk I just read his article against trans people and I agreed with it

 No.1200724

>>1200163
>You couldn't provide a proper argument
You haven't addressed anything aside from the first sentence in >>1198815 and I suspect you haven't read the rest of it since you act like a ADHD spaz from Twitter.

>>1200356
>There should not be a problem with Cockshott having these social views, you are not forced to agree with him, i don't understand why this creates so much surplus drama.
Interesting term. People seem rather arbitrary about when they have this demand to be a role model. (You can talk about the Pareto criterion for voting and allocation schemes and people don't demand a disclaimer about fascism being bad.) This arbitrariness leads one to question: Why would they do this in this case and not in that case? What is their real agenda? But this is conspirational thinking that makes certain assumptions about how much people are informed, how much they care, that there is some structure and coherence in their thought process. And I wouldn't take any of these assumptions for granted. People see people signal something on social media and they copy-paste behavior to fit in.
>don't promote him as a new Great Head of Marxism. Let others call you a Cockshottite before you start calling yourself a Cockshottist.
Redundant advice, this is how it is. There are some people out there who are dumb as fuck and only get by because of rich parents and networking, and virtually all their political arguments are tribalist shit and gossip.

 No.1200794

>>1200211
is dickblast implying architects aren't workers here?
>>1200334
>computer science phd
>Is he autistic or something?
anon I

 No.1200829

>>1200724
>You haven't addressed anything aside from the first sentence in >>1198815 and I suspect you haven't read the rest of it since you act like a ADHD spaz from Twitter.
And you still can't refute the fact that you are retarded dickblast fanboy whos only argument was "He misspelled the name, so he doesn't understand the subject"

 No.1200833

>>1200211
>>1200794
Marx makes a point about a fundamental difference between humans and animals in that humans plan ahead. The example was that bees building their homes just follow impulses and the architect supposedly sees the building in his head at first. But neither is it true that animals don't plan ahead (as we know today from countless experiments with ravens and spiders and so on) nor is it true that somebody who draws something has that something worked out in detail before drawing (people fail very simple geometry questions if they aren't allowed to doodle). So it's a difference in degree rather than a chasm.

 No.1200835

>>1200794
>is dickblast implying architects aren't workers here?
He is basically trying to refute Marx delibiration on difference between animal labor and human labor:

<A spider conducts operations which resemble those of a weaver, and a

bee would put many a human architect to shame by the construction of its
honeycomb cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best
of bees is that the architect builds the cell in his mind before he constructs
it in wax. At the end of every labour process, a result emerges which had
already been conceived by the worker at the beginning, hence already existed
ideally. Man not only effects a change of form in the materials of nature; he
also realizes his own purpose in those materials. And this is a purpose he is
conscious of, it determines the mode of his activity with the rigidity of a law,
and he must subordinate his will to it.

He rejects the point about the fact that first we construct the result in our imagination with "b-b-b-but architects are middle class" and after that says that the difference between human and the bee is that human writes down the results and then acts on them. Guess we weren't different from animal before we invented writing.

 No.1200838

>>1200829
Have you read Fichte?

 No.1200840

>>1200833
There is a difference between planning ahead and being able to imagine results of the work in your head before putting any work and changing what you need to do accordingly.

>as we know today from countless experiments with ravens and spiders and so on

Sure, spiders plan ahead. You are a certified retard cockshotitte.

 No.1200851

>>1200840
<According to common sense, and to the theories of many psychologists and philosophers who study our ability to form ‘mental images’, such an image is something like an inner picture or perhaps even a 3D copy of the world. From this point of view, examining a ‘mental tiger’ is rather like scrutinizing a picture of a tiger, or perhaps peering at a real tiger. (…) Consider, for a moment, the pattern of stripes on your ‘inner tiger’. A warm-up task, popular among psychologists and philosophers interested in imagery, is to try to count the number of stripes on your inner tiger’s tail; and then to count the number of stripes on the body. This is surprisingly difficult to do – and you may start to suspect that your image doesn’t contain quite enough detail to accomplish this task. Perhaps you can ‘zoom in’, say, on your tiger’s tail. But is the number of stripes on the ‘zoomed-in’ tail the same as the number of stripes on your original mental tiger? And, for that matter, I find I can’t really count the stripes convincingly, even when I have zoomed in – my image just doesn’t seem stable enough to give me a reliable answer. So examining a mental image, however vivid, seems very different from examining a real image (e.g. a photo of a tiger).

<Now let’s try something much simpler than a tiger. I have a wire-frame cube on the desk in front of me (…) Just imagine the cube balancing on one ‘corner’ (…) Now there are, of course, eight corners on a cube. Let’s leave aside the ‘bottom’ corner (the one it is balancing on) and ‘top’ corner (opposite to the bottom corner). Can you describe the layout of the other six corners? Imagine a horizontal plane, which intersects one of the corners. Does it intersect any of the other corners? (…) Imagine that the only source of light is coming directly from above: a spotlight high above the point on the desk that the cube is balancing on. Can you see that? (…) What do the shadows look like now.

 No.1201014

>>1200833
>Marx makes a point about a fundamental difference between humans and animals in that humans plan ahead
plenty of animals plan ahead. wolf hunting tactics can be quite complex. many animals hide food for later, such as dogs and squirrels
>So it's a difference in degree rather than a chasm
aye. and that leads to a qualitative difference. and at risk of stating the obvious, only humans are active participants in human society
>>1200835
Paul has some weird notions around class that keep popping up
we can't know to what extent non-humans experience qualia, but we do know that humans excel at abstract reasoning and tool use
it also seems Cockshott doesn't know aphantasia exists. not being able to form a "picture" of what one wants to build doesn't mean you can't design and build it. similarly the inability to "picture" 4-D objects doesn't prevent us from reasoning about them

 No.1201041

File: 1664638461608.png (1.65 MB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1201014
It's actually quite possible to get reasonably effective at intuiting how 4d space works once you get comfortable with interacting with the models.

 No.1201087

>>1200478
I've heard this same argument from Hans Hermann Hoppe, an ancap economist.

 No.1201105

>>1201041
sure but that's still not quite the same I suspect. I'm aphantasic myself, so I don't really get the whole mental image thing to begin with. the upshot is that thinking in higher dimensions isn't too different for me, and I've programmed stuff that involves 5-dimensional constructs

 No.1201114

>>1201105
You are quite correct in that.
Honestly I think the attempts to differentiate human and animal labor is circumstance and cumulative effects causing inflection points in accumulation more than anything else. Humans are animals, so human labor is just a subset of animal labor.

 No.1201116

>>1201014
>not being able to form a "picture" of what one wants to build doesn't mean you can't design and build it
No idea whose position you are arguing with here. I thought Cockshott's point was to reduce the apparent gap between animal cognition and human cognition by two movements: 1. Pulling up animals. Animals have more ability to plan and react and learn than people in the days of Marx thought. 2. Pushing down humans. Humans don't draw or write down an idea as a distinct act after the thinking-up act is finished. The person who is creating a drawing or text is reacting to it during the act of making it, and this reaction is not just monitoring the gap between the goal and where they are currently, but modifying what the goal even is.

 No.1201134

>>1201014
>qualia
Dennett makes a strong case against qualia.
he worked together with neuobiologists for a very long time, so he's been given a view of the brain generating consciousness that is as close to "bare metal" as you can get at the moment.
It is likely that most of what he says will be proven correct when we eventually get a full scientific resolution of all the remaining mysteries around consciousness.

 No.1202301

>>1200833
Marx wasn't talking about individual human capacity he was talking about modes of production and labor specifically in the context of an economy. Ravens and Spiders don't do agriculture or produce commodities for exchange or build grain silos to store wheat for next years planting.

another episode of
<when you don't read

>The capitalist buys labour-power in order to use it; and labour-power in use is labour itself. The purchaser of labour-power consumes it by setting the seller of it to work. By working, the latter becomes actually, what before he only was potentially, labour-power in action, a labourer. In order that his labour may re-appear in a commodity, he must, before all things, expend it on something useful, on something capable of satisfying a want of some sort. Hence, what the capitalist sets the labourer to produce, is a particular use-value, a specified article. The fact that the production of use-values, or goods, is carried on under the control of a capitalist and on his behalf, does not alter the general character of that production. We shall, therefore, in the first place, have to consider the labour-process independently of the particular form it assumes under given social conditions.


>Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.


>The elementary factors of the labour-process are 1, the personal activity of man, i.e., work itself, 2, the subject of that work, and 3, its instruments.


>The soil (and this, economically speaking, includes water) in the virgin state in which it supplies [1] man with necessaries or the means of subsistence ready to hand, exists independently of him, and is the universal subject of human labour. All those things which labour merely separates from immediate connexion with their environment, are subjects of labour spontaneously provided by Nature. Such are fish which we catch and take from their element, water, timber which we fell in the virgin forest, and ores which we extract from their veins. If, on the other hand, the subject of labour has, so to say, been filtered through previous labour, we call it raw material; such is ore already extracted and ready for washing. All raw material is the subject of labour, but not every subject of labour is raw material: it can only become so, after it has undergone some alteration by means of labour.


>An instrument of labour is a thing, or a complex of things, which the labourer interposes between himself and the subject of his labour, and which serves as the conductor of his activity. He makes use of the mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of some substances in order to make other substances subservient to his aims. [2] Leaving out of consideration such ready-made means of subsistence as fruits, in gathering which a man’s own limbs serve as the instruments of his labour, the first thing of which the labourer possesses himself is not the subject of labour but its instrument. Thus Nature becomes one of the organs of his activity, one that he annexes to his own bodily organs, adding stature to himself in spite of the Bible. As the earth is his original larder, so too it is his original tool house. It supplies him, for instance, with stones for throwing, grinding, pressing, cutting, &c. The earth itself is an instrument of labour, but when used as such in agriculture implies a whole series of other instruments and a comparatively high development of labour. [3] No sooner does labour undergo the least development, than it requires specially prepared instruments. Thus in the oldest caves we find stone implements and weapons. In the earliest period of human history domesticated animals, i.e., animals which have been bred for the purpose, and have undergone modifications by means of labour, play the chief part as instruments of labour along with specially prepared stones, wood, bones, and shells. [4] The use and fabrication of instruments of labour, although existing in the germ among certain species of animals, is specifically characteristic of the human labour-process, and Franklin therefore defines man as a tool-making animal. Relics of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economic forms of society, as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not the articles made, but how they are made, and by what instruments, that enables us to distinguish different economic epochs. [5] Instruments of labour not only supply a standard of the degree of development to which human labour has attained, but they are also indicators of the social conditions under which that labour is carried on.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm

 No.1202321

>The application of the philosophy of materialist dialectics to society is historical materialism. In order for Marxism to function as a science of society, it must be a form of materialism, acknowledging matter's existence independent of thought. Or to say the same thing differently, it is social being that determines consciousness.

>This means that the first premise of the materialist conception of history is not with people's consciousness, but with living people, who are engaged socially in production to satisfy their different needs. According to Marx and Engels


>the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature…By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.[8]


>As opposed to animals, people produce and reproduce their own means of subsistence and thereby play an active role in creating their own material existence. Before people can create art, literature, or practice politics, they must be able to be able to sustain themselves:


>life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life.[9]


>It may be asked how people sustaining themselves makes them different from animals? After all lions hunt for their food. The fundamental difference is that human labor consciously acts upon nature in order to make it suitable for their own needs, while animals act based on instinct. People can use their minds and their hands to conceive buildings, literature, computers and air-planes. These creations are consciously imagined before they are physically created. Through our labor, human beings can reshape the tools provided by nature to our purposes. It is through human labor that civilization and all its benefits emerged. According to Marx, what is constant to the labor process no matter the mode of production, are the following: “(1) purposeful activity, that is work itself, (2) the object on which that work is performed, and (3) the instruments of that work.”[10]


>On the whole, human labor is not organized individually, but socially through various modes of production that extract surplus labor and ensure the reproduction of society. Human labor enables for people to increase their productive capacity, creating a surplus beyond their immediate needs. According to Marx and Engels:


>…each stage contains a material result, a sum of productive forces, a historically created relation to nature and of individuals to one another, which is handed down to each generation by its predecessor; a mass of productive forces which on the one hand is modified by the new generation, but on the other also prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.[11]


>In the course of human evolution, a minority of the population gained control of that surplus, dividing society between those who had control of the surplus and those who produced it. This gave rise to class relations:


>The production which these productive forces could provide was insufficient for the whole of society and made development possible only if some persons satisfied their needs at the expense of others, and therefore some—the minority—obtained a monopoly of development, while others— the majority—owing to the constant struggle to satisfy their most essential needs, were for the time being (i.e. until the creation of new revolutionary productive forces) excluded from any development.[12]


>Human history is driven forward by a central conflict between the direct producers and those exploiting them. Or as Marx and Engels put it:


>The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.[13]


>Since historical materialism recognizes that society is constantly changing, it understands that there have been different classes and modes of production throughout history. Marx identified different modes of production that have existed throughout history: primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. Since historical materialism is a dialectical theory, it recognizes that each mode of production is historical and transient, meaning that the level of productive forces develops over time and they conflict with the existing social and political relations of production developed at an earlier time. This antagonism between the forces of production and old relations of production is at the same the struggle between classes is the driving force of social revolutions. Marx describes this in the classic summation of historical materialism:


>In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.[14] [ . . . ]


https://blanquist.blogspot.com/2018/06/introduction-to-materialist-dialectics.html

 No.1202347

File: 1664689691523.png (242.08 KB, 527x458, anylastwords.png)

ONLY GOD CAN UNDERSTAND DIALECTICS: WHY HEGELIAN MARXISTS ARE PSEUDS

TLDR: dialectics aren’t real and even if they were humans would be incapable of understanding them

PEOPLE TOTALLY MISUNDERSTAND COCKSHOTT'S ANTI HEGELIANISM. The whole reason Cockshott is anti hegel is because he is a computer scientist and it is widely accepted in the academic computer science community that a human mind is equivalent to a universal turing machine (if not actually much WEAKER since a TM has unlimited memory and a human brain doesn’t). None of his critiques of Hegel's logic make sense without this basic understanding.

All of theoretical CS is based on the classical categories of computability theory (degrees of unsolvability, computability over functions, real numbers and ordinals). Cockshott even wrote a book, less known here, "Computation and its limits" which goes into detail debunking "hypercomputationalists" i.e. people who reject the academic CS consensus and argue that the human brain can go beyond a turing machine. This isn't just a limited claim about building software, its a universal claim on the actual mathematical limits of logic and even physics.

Absent this understanding, I can see why his statements of "the implicit critique of the Hegelian method provided by the failure of Hilbert and Russell’s formalist project." don't make sense. Philosophyfags here have been too quick to dismiss Cockshott as just an ignoramus, while remaining extremely ignorant of the actual philosophical implications of computability and information theory on the nature of reality, and its this frame Cockshott is coming at it from.

>Here we have the same sort of presentation process that occurs in the Logic, with its deduction of being from nothingness, and becoming from the contradiction between the two. At the beginning in Hegel this has a certain plausibility but as the argument proceeds, as he gets to the derivation of “ought.” I for one felt, reading Hegel as an undergraduate, that this was all a conjuring trick. He was sneaking already formed presuppositions and concepts into the argument rather than deriving them. This essentially is what Althusser says of Marx’s form of presentation. It only works to the extent that he brings in real historical forms which have their own material history, their own information content, into the argument. Althusser contrasts this form of presentation at the start with the chapters on the working day and primitive accumulation which present the real histories of the forms being discussed.


>If we look at the history of mathematics, and if any domain would seem suited to the logical self development of ideas it is maths, we can see how a method analogous to that of Hegel came to grief. The formalist project of Russell and Hilbert came to grief first in set theory and then in Turing’s (1937) paper on the decision problem. The project had aimed to found mathematics on logic and Hilbert had asked for a mechanical procedure by which the truth or falsity of a mathematical theorem could be determined. If a theorem could be proven true, then you demonstrate that it can be derived from axioms using valid rules of inference. So if you could discover such a mechanical method for checking arbitrary theorems, you would have demonstrated that all of maths could be logically deduced from a collection of founding axioms. Turing showed that no such proof decision process can exist. He did it by taking the term “mechanical procedure” and designing a general purpose “universal” computer that could perform any calculation that a human mathematician could do. He then demonstrated that the assumption that such a mechanical proof procedure could exist would lead to a contradiction analogous to Russell’s paradox. It thus follows that even in mathematics, the project of a complete and logical development of the system falls down. The basic reason is that you cannot get more out of an axiomatic system than you put in: Chaitin’s aphorism: “You cannot get two kilos of results from one kilo of axioms.” Advocates of “dialectical logic” may say that this is just a restriction of formal logic, dialectical logic does allow you to derive more than you start out with. Well the reason why formal logic is different is that it is specified precisely enough to allow machine checking. A human dialectician is free to engage in all sorts of rhetorical sleights of hand, importing hidden assumptions without needing to give any justification for them. The great advantage of a mechanizable formalism is that it excludes such verbal conjuring tricks.


That's the reason Cockshott rejects Hegelian logic and especially applied to political economy, because it would have to violate Chaitin's incompleteness theorem to be true. Marx is in tension because he's a half Hegelian - he tries to start off the exposition of capital in a Hegelian manner but is required to smuggle in actual historical empirical data about the development of capitalism (ex: primitive accumulation) to actually have a theory. The informational content in Marx is a result of external information being brought in from this source. not some a priori derivation.

It is logically impossible to derive more information from a theory than you put in. Many people will claim the reason Cockshott rejects Hegel is because Hegel's system is not formalized, which is completely missing the point. He's not saying Hegel is wrong because he hasn't been formalized, he's saying Hegel is wrong AND THATS WHY he hasn't been formalized, because to pose it in a formal way would open it up to the same sorts of incompleteness arguments that have been used against other systems in the past. A system of logic must be "mechanisably falsifiable" (in the Turing-ist, not Popperian sense).

All of this coping about Cockshott's materialism being "crude" really just reveals the critics own lack of understanding about science.

It has been mathematically proven any law in physics, if not computable, can be simulated to a finite degree i.e. the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle. A human brain exists as a physical system in physical material reality. Any claim that a human brain performing logic using Hegel's system or any other can transgress the inherent limits of computation therefore must inherently devolve into a form of cartesian dualism.

And that’s giving the maximum benefit of the doubt, since any evidence there is actually points to a human brain being weaker than a UTM not the opposite. And before anyone says well a brain is analog, and that somehow lets it transcend digital logic: there have been information theory proofs that show that you can simulate analogue processes digitally with arbitrary precision (in theory, though probably not in practice tbf). also:

>the effects of noise on limiting information transfer allow us to quantify the information transmission rates of real neurons, and they are finite and finitely describable. The presence of noise in the brain, which is estimated at the level of 10%, simply makes analogue hypercomputation not a credible option after all.


Choice:

1. For Hegel’s or any system of logic to be complete it would also have to be hypercomputational
2. There are very strong arguments why both logical systems and physical reality are not hypercomputational

Therefore:

Any claim that a system can transcend these limits is equivalent to a claim that the system can transcend the limits of both logic and physical reality. This is non materialist and also anti scientific.

Conclusion:

Marx got around this limit of Hegel’s system by using actual empirical and historical data in his work. In that sense he is a bad Hegelian but a better theorist. The reality is that Hegel’s system does not enable us to transcend the limits of logic but is likely internally inconsistent or relies on assumptions which are not themselves derived from the system. This could only be demonstrated by a complete formalization of the system, which will never happen for exactly those reasons.

Hegelianism is supposed to be a complete, closed circuit system (Engels):

>Therefore, however much Hegel, especially in his Logic, emphasized that this eternal truth is nothing but the logical, or, the historical, process itself, he nevertheless finds himself compelled to supply this process with an end, just because he has to bring his system to a termination at some point or other. In his Logic, he can make this end a beginning again, since here the point of the conclusion, the absolute idea — which is only absolute insofar as he has absolutely nothing to say about it — “alienates”, that is, transforms, itself into nature and comes to itself again later in the mind, that is, in thought and in history. But at the end of the whole philosophy, a similar return to the beginning is possible only in one way. Namely, by conceiving of the end of history as follows: mankind arrives at the cognition of the self-same absolute idea, and declares that this cognition of the absolute idea is reached in Hegelian philosophy.


Even hypothetically, if a hypercomputational system of logic existed it would be incomprehensible to human minds because we can’t compute it. For the same reason humans can’t apprehend actual physical infinities. There is literally no human brain big enough to understand it, let alone write it down. If such a system existed only an infinite being (i.e. God) would have any chance of understanding it.

Laugh it up, but Hegel is actually pretty close to claiming this. Starting with Spinoza for who god was nature, for Hegel god is reason, that comes to understand itself i.e. “Absolute Spirit” an ‘all-inclusive unity’. Spinoza’s system is close to a (nondualist) vedantic or buddhist idea of a cosmic soul. Hegel is a Spinozist, and literally stated as much:

>“The fact is that Spinoza is made a testing-point in modern philosophy, so that it may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all.”


t. Hegel

Hegel inherits this ontological monism and changes it from static being to a process of self development of consciousness. But what is this consciousness? It is not a human consciousness but a cosmic consciousness which comes to know itself.

The problem is that we know that ontological monism is false, and not scientific. The fact that buddhism and other forms of eastern mysticism are becoming so popular on the left is a consequence of this bullshit.

We know now that material reality is made up of physical particles like atoms, protons, electrons and quarks. A human mind is bound by the laws of physical reality, and as TCS has shown the laws of computability at a MAXIMUM.

Positing the actual real existence of dialectics is equivalent to positing the existence of a God, whether of the spooky christfaggotry type or an impersonal Spinozist/Hegelian or eastern type.

For Marxism to be scientifically grounded it needs to divorce Hegelianism. This necessitates also rejecting the arrogant assumption of logical completeness that Hegel posits which was already rejected by Marxism as explained by Engels in ‘Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy’. Although Engels does a lot of cringeworthy Hegel-stanning in that book too he also recognizes its limits esp. in terms of Marxism.

Althusser went a long way in doing this. It always makes me laugh when people try and say that modern Marx scholarship has obviated Althusser’s idea of an epistemic break, they simply do not understand the idea of symptomatic reading, which does not rely on authorial intent. For Althusser, reading is to ‘determine what a particular text is unable to say or represses because of its ideological conviction.’.

>In The Philosophy of the Encounter, texts dating from the late 1970s and early 80s, he somewhat modifies his original position on the epistemological break. He now says that there were relict Hegelian idealist strands in Marx as late as Capital.


>The shift to seeing the epistemological break as being gradual is realistic. Having looked at Althusser’s idea of matérialisme aléatoire it occurred to me that instead of relying on old Lucretius’s second hand account of Epicurus’s now lost works, Althusser would have been better to rely on the modern Atomists. I got out Heisenberg’s Physics and Philosophy. In the second chapter of this he gives an account of the historical birth of the quantum theory and the long period that elapsed between Planck’s initial work on the black body radiation in 1895 through Einstein’s introduction of the idea of the photon in 1905 to the matrix and wave mechanics of the mid 20s up to the synthesis of these in the late 20s. We are talking here of a 30 year period for the epistemological break between classical and quantum mechanics during which a half dozen or so of the brightest minds in the world worked on the problem collectively. Heisenberg recounts that in the early 20s they had hybrid ideas mixing a bit of quantum with a bit of the classical continuum, which were still a scientific advance but were far from being fully worked out. The Bohr atom with electrons in actual orbits was an advance, but it retained Newtonian forms of thought: electrons as planets, the nucleus as a sun. It could not account for the great stability of atoms under collision. Two solar systems approaching one another would be completely disrupted but atoms bounce off one another unharmed. It is a mistake to expect Marx, working without the active collaboration of other theorists, to have completely worked out a consistent framework in his own life. What you were bound to get is a gradual process in which things became more and more worked out as time went on. You can see the same thing in Darwin. After the explicit break with the Lamarkian concept of evolution of acquired characteristics in the Origin of the Species, one sees the old concept of acquired characteristics resurface from time to time in the Descent of Man or in the Expression of the Emotions. Without a theory of genetics like that developed by Mendel, the old idea of evolution through acquired characteristics retained its appeal… the logical inconsistency of the Lamarkian model is easy to see after DNA but was not originally so evident.


What Cockshott is doing is an epicurean/ATOMIST and post-althusserian symptomatic reading of Marx, informed by modern physics and information theory, rebasing Marxism from its deterministic roots inspired of newtonian physics and classic evolutionary biology to a modern one based on notions of randomness and stochastic process, in line with the shift of modern physics.

But I’m sure the pseuds over here will continue to say HURR DURR MUH HEGEL MUH ANGLO POSITIVISM HEHE BASED

 No.1202362

>>1202347
This is what materialized autism looks like.

Human brain is not a compuitation device and any pure math field like CS is not empirical and should always be taken with a grain of salt, especially considering Godel incompleteness theorem.

This approach is reductionist and retarded.

>Positing the actual real existence of dialectics is equivalent to positing the existence of a God

Same with formal logic actually. Or, you know, math in general.

 No.1202370

i only came here to make remind you all that humans are tribal
but comrade, i must also note: none of these words are in the bible.

 No.1202372

File: 1664691522334.png (436.66 KB, 1277x2768, 1624513282823 (3).png)


 No.1202385

>>1202383
I noticed this when looking up him up earlier. Cockshott bastardizes Althusser the same way he does Marx.

>The second category of Althusser’s early work, one closely related to the first, are those texts that deal with Hegel. Written primarily for an academic audience, they approach Hegel’s philosophy either critically, in terms of the history of its reception and use, or exegetically, in terms of examining what possibility Hegel’s metaphysics, logic, politics, epistemology, and understanding of subjectivity offer to those interested in understanding and encouraging societal transformation. Between 1946 and 1950, the results of Althusser’s exegeses were positive: Hegel indeed had something to offer. This judgment finds its most detailed explanation in Althusser’s 1947 thesis “On Content in the thought of G.W.F. Hegel.” In addition to detailing Hegel’s relation to Kant and criticizing the simplification of the dialectic by Hegel’s commentators, Althusser argues in this work that the dialectic “cannot be attacked for its form” (1947, 116). Instead, Hegel can only be critiqued for a failure of the contents of the form

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/althusser/#HegeMarx

 No.1202431

>>1202385
Not relevant because early Althusser (40s/50s) was way more Hegel sympathetic. By the time of the 1960s/70s he was already turning anti-Hegelian similar to his postmodernist colleagues. And indeed the very late Althusser of 'Philosophy of the encounter" which Cockshott is influenced by is an even further evolution of his thought.

Again, completely out of context

 No.1202434

>>1202362
>Human brain is not a computation device
computational theory of mind is considered the orthodoxy by most computer scientists and cognitive psychologists

 No.1202439

>>1202385
>>1202431
>Not relevant because early Althusser (40s/50s) was way more Hegel sympathetic. By the time of the 1960s/70s he was already turning anti-Hegelian similar to his postmodernist colleagues. And indeed the very late Althusser of 'Philosophy of the encounter" which Cockshott is influenced by is an even further evolution of his thought.

After typing this, I realized that your source literally says this in the exact next paragraph:

>By the early 1950s, Althusser’s judgments that Marxism was, of necessity, Hegelian and that it aimed at human fulfillment had undergone revision. This transition to thinking about Marx as the originator of a philosophy totally distinct from Hegel’s was signaled in a review essay from 1950 which argued that the post-war mania for Hegel in France was only a bourgeois attempt to combat Marx. In two short essays from 1953 on Marxist philosophy, this switch is fully apparent. In these texts, Althusser aligns himself with the position advanced by Mehring and Lenin that, at a certain point in Marx’s development, Hegel is left behind and that, afterwards, Marx forged his own original concepts and methodology.

 No.1202440

File: 1664699331693.png (49.39 KB, 208x166, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1202439
>In his description of what these concepts and methodology are, Althusser pretty much follows the Party line, insisting that Marx reversed the Hegelian dialectic, that historical materialism is a science, that the sciences verify dialectical materialism

 No.1202442

>>1202440
yes - thats in the 1950s. And by the time of philosophy of the encounter in the 70s/80s he rejects hegel even more. learn to read

 No.1202444

>>1202301
<Ravens and Spiders don't do agriculture or produce commodities for exchange or build grain silos to store wheat for next years planting.
I have to admit I would never occur to me to define humans by production of commodities. Of course it would be a grave mistake to say that animals never store food. So what is this supposed to prove? Aren't you overly specific here. You get lost in details.

Marx talks about humans under capitalism for the most part of Capital. But this is not relevant to the criticism here.

You quote Marx:
<An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage.
German original:
<Dem Zustand, worin der Arbeiter als Verkäufer seiner eignen Arbeitskraft auf dem Warenmarkt auftritt, ist in urzeitlichen Hintergrund der Zustand entrückt, worin die menschliche Arbeit ihre erste instinktartige Form noch nicht abgestreift hatte.
(Emphasis mine.) That word means prehistorical. I don't believe Marx equated precapitalist with prehistorical.

To be charitable to you, you said more broadly "in the context of an economy". But this is also not relevant: Whether a genetic potential of humans to do X is always expressed or only under more specific historical circumstances is not relevant to the criticism ITT of the point Marx made about the gap in capacity between humans and animals, since the criticism wasn't that humans don't do X under other different historical circumstances. Stick to what Marx actually said. He said that difference is that the architect has an ideal representation of the finished thing in his head. As pointed out in >>1200851 your usual human capacity to visualize things is very weak indeed. And we know that animals also plan ahead. That makes the difference between humans and animals a difference in degree, not an absolute.

>>1202321
>As opposed to animals, people produce and reproduce their own means of subsistence and thereby play an active role in creating their own material existence.
Insects also modify nature. Ants herd lice like humans herd cows.

 No.1202445

File: 1664699979742.png (198.3 KB, 1054x637, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1202442
that is the very next line after your quote and is describing the switch in Althusser's interpretation of Marx from Hegelian to "his own original concepts and methodology " which Althusser insists is historical and dialectical materialism.

 No.1202453

File: 1664700630192.jpg (5.76 KB, 228x221, 1613084028658.jpg)

>>1202445
Again, you COMPLETELY ignore the late althusser which cockshott is referencing, which is indisputably anti-hegelian regardless of terminology.

>The principal thesis of Althusser’s last philosophical writings is that there exists an “underground” or little recognized tradition in the history of philosophy. Variously labeled a “materialism of the encounter” or “aleatory materialism,” the method which he uses to articulate this philosophy is to simply comment upon works by philosophers who exemplify this current and to point out where, how, and to what extent they do so. In addition to Marx, the philosophers that he cites as being part of this underground tradition include Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, Machiavelli, Spinoza, Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Derrida. From these readings in the history of philosophy, Althusser aims to suggest that this tradition exists and that it is both philosophically fecund and viable. He also wishes to return to and bolster the thesis he first ventured in the late 1960s that there are really only two positions in philosophy: materialism and idealism. As he understood it, the two tendencies are always in a war of opposition with the one functioning to reinforce the status quo and the other to possibly overcome it.


>Perhaps because it functions in opposition to the idealist tendency in philosophy, aleatory materialism is marked almost as much by its rejections as it is by the positive claims it contains about the world and about history. As Marx is included within this tradition, it is not surprising that many of these rejections are also attributed to him during the course of Althusser’s earlier work. These include a dismissal of what Althusser calls “the principle of Reason,” or the idea that the universe or history has an origin or an end. With this prohibition, Althusser means to exclude from this tradition not only the usual suspects in the rationalist tradition, but also mechanical and dialectical materialisms with their logics of determination.


Not to say Althusser is 100% correct, but to warp this by fucking quoting the fucking wikipedia of philosophy, which actually contradicts what you are saying, and your pretending Althusser stopped writing anything after 1977. OFC what althusser was wrong about is that while its true dialectical materialism is untenable, mechanical materialism is actually based and correct.

cope and seethe

 No.1202462

>>1202453
So… Cockshott subscribes to Althusser after he rejected Marx's method?
And you reject both Althusser and Marx?

 No.1202469

>>1202462
Do you still strangle your wife?

 No.1202472

File: 1664701823904.png (324.78 KB, 636x474, smugface.png)

>>1202462
Dialectical Materialism is not Marx's Method. It was invented by another German proletarian philosopher Joseph Dietzgen.

>The idea that Marxism was based on dialectical rather than historical materialism goes through two stages. First Dietzgen invents dialectical materialism in the 1870s and claims that the theory of social democracy is based on it. At the start of the 20th century it was still recognised that Dialectical Materialism was Dietzgen’s innovation. The dialectical materialism of Dietzgen then became the official philosophy of Social Democracy and then of Communism. Since Marx’s Historical Materialism was also the official theory of both movements, dialectical materialism was projected back onto Marx and Engels and supposed to be their ‘method’. This is formalised in texts such as Stalin’s Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Stalin gave no credit to Dietzgen but instead projects the whole of diamat back onto Marx and Engels claiming that they had got diamat from the ‘rational kerenel’ of Hegel. Later, during the cold war, a wave of Western Marxists arose who, despite their anti-stalinism had so imbibed Stalin’s statement about Marx using the rational kernel of Hegel that they went back to study Hegel in order to try to understand Marx. Trotskyists like Healey demanded that their followers study Hegel’s logic if they were to understand revolutions. Marx had remarked:

<The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm)
>The horrible paradox is that a tradition that Marx himself had decisively rejected in the 1840s came, a century later, to weigh like a nightmare on the brains of late 20th century marxists.

 No.1202474

>>1202472
So you reject Engels Lenin Stalin and Mao?

 No.1202478

File: 1664702061680.bmp (149.54 KB, 342x442, 1567484.bmp)


 No.1202484

File: 1664702293340.jpg (2.88 KB, 111x107, wtf_sunglasses.jpg)

>>1202474
>you have to either 100% reject or 100% accept any source or influence. No in between

 No.1202490

>>1202484
only reject just the theoretical foundation of marxism but you agree with some other parts? i don't think you can call that marxism

 No.1202494

File: 1664703052382.pdf (1.03 MB, 197x255, busybeaver.pdf)

>>1202347
>a human mind is equivalent to a universal turing machine
humans can reason about things that computers will never be able to, for example uncomputable functions. other snags include pdf related
anyone who claims brain == compooter is a pseud of the highest order

 No.1202499

>>1202490
Can you give an argument why Hegel would be more foundational than say Ricardo? Because you are more familiar with the former than the latter?

 No.1202504

>>1202499
Hegel isn't foundational. Dialectical materialism is.

 No.1202505

>>1197480
I like Cockshott so i'll attempt to answer OP:

Cockshott didn't do a lot of talks or presentations, his theory until relatively recently was confined to books, forums and email lists. He also writes about dry economic topics using math which inherently limits his audience as compared to someone like a Zizek who writes about culture and essentially does an intellectualized version of breadtube video essays on movies, etc. Same reason Austrian economics (no math) is so popular on the right despite it being totally redundant and 100 years out of date and every rightoid libertarian position could be justified just as easily using bog standard neoclassical economics, except that requires you to understand calculus, which most people don't.

Cockshott is also too far left to be popular. The majority of the current western ""left"" is filled with social democrats, market socialists, and just flat out liberals who don't like the idea of a planned economy because they have uncritically absorbed many of the red scare/cold war tropes about Marxism and the USSR, are theorylet to begin with, and are just flat out not Marxists. They don't really want to abolish capitalism therefore they look for the parts of the (usually pre Marxist) socialist tradition which are compatible with not abolishing market capitalism, such as worker coops, and replace analysis of commodity exchange and circuits of capital with vague utopian ideas about workplace democracy and anarchist ideas of flattening hierarchy.

Cockshott is also out of step with current woke LGBT+ stances due to his being a 1970s second wave british baby boomer radical/anti trans feminist.

Finally, Cockshott is rejected by the majority of sectarian Marxists because he has a highly heterodox interpretation of Marx/Marxist tradition combining aspects of DeLeonism, Leninism, Maoism, Analytic Marxism, Althusserian-ism, as well as even left communist influences. When asked about recommendations for a modern materialist philosopher, he recommeded Huw Price, who is a neopragmatist. So his philosophy is influenced by both postmodern and analytic philosophy, much like Cockshott himself.

The fact is most internet Marxists aren't even close to a level of theory to where they could fuck with Cockshott, and the ones who are have long since turned into blogger pseuds with their own special interpretations of Marx.

The fact is until another Marxist revolution happens and Cockshott's ideas are validated in practice by that country setting up a computational form of economic planning, he will likely remain obscure. I have no doubt he will eventually be vindicated by history, though, even if it takes 30-50 years after his death.

 No.1202514

>>1202444
>the criticism ITT of the point Marx made about the gap in capacity between humans and animals

Marx wasn't talking about human capacity he was talking about labor in a chapter about surplus value in a human society. In context, this labor is qualitatively different than animals being able to plan ahead and its not a matter of degree.

>>1202301
>We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.

 No.1202522

>>1202504
If Diamat is foundational to Marxism and Hegel is foundational to Diamat, it follows Hegel is foundational to Marxism. If your Diamat works without Hegel, what's the difference between it and Histomat?

>>1202505
>He also writes about dry economic topics using math which inherently limits his audience
I think both TANS and HTWW are written for a lay audience. You can just skip over the math since the plain text roughly tells you what the math does.
>Cockshott is also too far left to be popular.
I think that's the main reaon. I also believe Zizek would not be nearly as popular if he didn't voice anti-communist and pro-NATO points from time to time. And I don't mean that just because of the leanings of the broader audience, but the people more upstream who scan the content before they decide what they want to give publicity and how much.

>>1202514
>qualitatively different than animals being able to plan ahead and its not a matter of degree.
What have you read about animal experiments from the last 100 years to test cognitive ability.

 No.1202531

>>1202522
>What have you read about animal experiments from the last 100 years to test cognitive ability.
Does cognitive ability allow non-human animals to create surplus value from their labor?

 No.1202533

>>1202531
animals are dead labour

 No.1202539

>>1202531
Would you say a laborer Alice demonstrates more cognitive ability than a laborer Bob if both work for the same employer and in the same position and Alice works harder and produces more surplus at no benefit to herself?

Would you say based on what you observe that Alice must have a better ability to picture the future than Bob?

Would you say animals never store a surplus?

 No.1202540

File: 1664706490230.gif (1.71 MB, 500x500, 1611959451747.gif)

>>1202494

Again, the computational theory of mind was (and is) the orthodoxy in multiple fields of study for decades now since the 1960s. saying:
>anyone who claims brain == compooter is a pseud of the highest order
is basically saying the vast majority of computer scientists and cognitive psychologists are pseuds. Again there are always some Searle/Penrose tier religiously motivated quacks who try and claim this isn't the case, but they are always wrong.

I see we have finally reached the gish gallop by way of PDF stage of the debate, as the hegel-pseuds always do when they post some research paper they haven't read or understood.

The fact is while not technically proven, it is literally the working assumption of multiple fields including all computer science that there are no functions that can be computed by humans, but cannot be computed by a Turing machine. While i'm sure the hegel pseuds are busy furiously googling some one off research papers by people who claim to have refuted it. Again academic consensus and established knowledge isn't made by 1 person writing a paper but a theory and school of thought convincing scholars of that discipline. There are innumerable research papers written in every discipline, most of which have 0 citations. The fact stands there is no credible alternative to the CT/CTD thesis as overturning it would amount of overturning most of computer science.

After having read the paper it literally doesn't do jackshit to refute the CCTM, CT/CTD thesis. Again, I fucking DOUBT that anon has actually read or understood that paper since it's an example of a formally defined function which cannot be computed by a turing machine. There's literally nothing in there implying or stating that a human being or human brain could compute it.

>If so, that would arguably force a qualitative change in our understanding of the Gödel incompleteness phenomenon—showing that incompleteness from strong set theories rears its head for much simpler arithmetical questions than had previously been known.


Again, all this is saying is its possible to formally define a function in a way which should be computable, but is actually undecidable. The idea is that the axiomatic system underpinning almost all modern math, known as Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory, has its own Gödelian boundaries which, as the authors of that PDF argue is more restricted than that of a general case.

THIS DOESN'T HAVE JACKSHIT TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION AND FUCK YOU FOR MAKING ME WASTE AN HOUR OF MY LIFE READING THIS.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the CCTM, this is the fucking problem with hegelpseuds they just furiously google pdfs they think vaguely look like support their position and post them, posting PDFs without explanation should be a fucking bannable offense its essentially just a form of trolling, making me read a research paper to the end just to find out it either doesn't support what you're saying or is actually an argument against it, or is irrelevant.

 No.1202542

>>1202522
>what's the difference between it and Histomat

>>1202321
<The application of the philosophy of materialist dialectics to society is historical materialism.


>Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory, is materialistic.


>Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its history.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

 No.1202545

File: 1664706798758.jpg (217.06 KB, 1080x1261, 1625780527375.jpg)


 No.1202554

>>1202545
>Analyticsfags believe 1 + 1 = 2
Those wacky analyticsfags! Wackity Shmackity shmoo!

 No.1202562

File: 1664708187867.png (290.05 KB, 491x491, cockshott.png)

>>1202540
>>1202545
I have a feeling these motherfuckers look under the whatever page on wikipedia, look under "criticism" and then google the nearest PDF related to whatever words and/or authors they find there, then post it and say HEH, SEE! YOUR BTFO! assuming no one will take the time to read it and/or understand it meanwhile this site has a ton of people with technical backgrounds who actually can understand it and will read it and know you're full of shit.

Although that doesn't matter since they still win via Agent Kochinski/Alt-right tactics of unlimited gish gallop, and they'll be back to posting 15 more vaguely related pdfs soon enough.

 No.1202577

File: 1664710042369.png (443.34 KB, 1471x1520, archiving.png)

Good thread. Be sure to archive when done. Currently reading it.

 No.1202584

File: 1664711443584.pdf (483.97 KB, 197x255, 3427361.3427369.pdf)

>>1202540
>there are no functions that can be computed by humans, but cannot be computed by a Turing machine
this is equivalent to saying machines can create value, which they cannot. human reasoning ability will always trump that of computers. a computer will never be able to troll you, nor do your mom like I did last night
>THIS DOESN'T HAVE JACKSHIT TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION AND FUCK YOU FOR MAKING ME WASTE AN HOUR OF MY LIFE READING THIS.
lel. have pdf related too

 No.1202585

File: 1664711494009.png (7.45 KB, 352x425, redditsoy2.png)

>>1200115
>>1198985
>>1198858
Holy autism
>Look, someone's making fun of Elon Musk
>AND HE'S MAKING TYPOS

 No.1202587

>>1202540
Yes actually, the vast majority of psychologists are in fact pseuds.
Congratulations, you're at tier 1 of the iceberg.

 No.1202607

>>1202585
You are looking at an arrow sign but not what that arrow is pointing at. The guy with the typo hasn't read the philosopher he is defending. His consistent wrong spelling of the name is just pointing at that fact.

 No.1202629

>>1202362

"The McCulloch description sounds something like this. The brain is an electro-chemical computer, weighing about three pounds. It is slightly alkaline, having a pH value of 7.2 — a stable quantity, unless the subject is having a fit. It is highly structured, having a neural logic connecting some ten thousand million neurons. Because of the structure of the cortex, and the rate of propagation of nerve impulses, it has a typical cortical rhythm, à periodicity averaging ten cycles per second. Storage capacity is arcund 10^12 to 10^15 bits.

The ‘rate’ of an individual neuron is about thirty microseconds (millionths of a second), and the brain as a whole operates in the milli-second (thousandths of à second) range. This, incidentally, is very slow by modern computer standards. Nowadays we talk about nanoseconds (thousandmillionths), and the latest computers work in the 500-nanosecond range. That is, they are already two thousand times faster than the brain. (So much for ‘the speed of thought’.) As to fuel, the brain runs on glucose at about twenty-five watts. The glucose is transformed to pyruvic acid, burnt to carbon dioxide and water using oxygen. Energy is stored in phospho-creatine, held constant (except for those convulsions again), and released as adenocine triphosphate — the same form of energy as powers muscle. The oxygen is of course provided by the blood, the circulation of which through the brain is about à quart per minute — one seventh of the whole circulation — without oxygen a neuron dies in three minutes. The twenty-five watts come in because this power is needed to heat the blood by one degree Fahrenheit.

Now it is easier to think about the brain as a computer than to think about the electronic computer itself as some kind of brain. This latter comparison was also made much of during the early days of automation, and was much criticized too. The programmed computer is not itself very brain-like; yet the typical modern computer configuration can be designed as an integral assemblage of specialized computers, and they can be arranged hierarchically. "

The Brain of the Firm by Stafford Beer, in page 97

 No.1202645

>>1202629
>trying to have an interesting debate with anybody who says brains aren't like computers because of muh Godel or muh quantum or muh halting problem

 No.1202669

>>1202434
It is still a pure math, not empirical field meaning conclusions should be taken as onthing more than a speculation. Doesn't have more validity than pure philosophy.

 No.1202677

>>1202540
>is basically saying the vast majority of computer scientists and cognitive psychologists are pseuds.
First you need to support the claim that vast majority of them have this opinion. But if they do they are pseuds.

 No.1202684

>>1202629
So you have no ability to tackle actual arguments so isntead you throw in the quote from a book about management. Man, you are a moron.

 No.1202689

>>1202362
A human body is nothing but a robot made out of flesh and a human brain is a computer made out of fat, water, protein, carbohydrates and salts. Deal with it.

>>1202677
its a well known fact anyone who has gone to university to study these subjects knows, you might as well ask for proof that biologists believe in darwinian evolution.

 No.1202693

>>1202562
>they'll be back to posting 15 more vaguely related pdfs soon enough.
called it: >>1202584

 No.1202707

>>1202689
>A human body is nothing but a robot made out of flesh and a human brain is a computer made out of fat, water, protein, carbohydrates and salts. Deal with it.
Depends on how you define robot. But still doesn't matter because brain is not a computational device.
Because we don’t have deterministic hardware. A computational device is expected to put out the same result every time you enter the same data. The brain won’t.

First: our neurons are growing in a dynamic way and activation potentials are not fixed. You just don’t get the same spec on two brains. You don’t even get the same spec on the same brain a day later.

Second, you won’t be able to input the same data twice into the same brain, there’s simply too much interpolation involved and our compression and filter mechanisms are still not completely understood. It is possible to switch the filters off, so we know the brain handles even more data, it just protects us from most of it.

Third: Computation can be emulated within a trained brain, but it’s obviously abuse of something designed for a totally different purpose. It takes a life of training to turn a brain into a somewhat reliable computer, perhaps on par with a HP48, but we can process random shreds of 8K 3D visual data into a jigsaw image of unknown size in real time, with 3D 48kHz Audio, countless heat, tactile and pain sensors, chemical analysis units which can detect thousands of of information traces and most of that from day one. Neither of these use full data processing like computers do. We can derive a useful image from glimpses of a few pixels though and detect wheteher another pair of eyes is set on us from hundreds of meters away.

So, it simply works completely differentely than a computer, so using a pure math "science" field that is created to speculate about digital computers and just take all the conclusions and apply them to a brain is not gonna work. Anyone who thinks it would doesn't know what he is talking about.

>its a well known fact anyone who has gone to university to study these subjects knows, you might as well ask for proof that biologists believe in darwinian evolution.

Which i can easily provide, stop deflecting. Also stop avatarfagging since it only makes you look more like a teenager trying to be edgy.

 No.1202708

>>1202699
>can't handle the facts

 No.1202717

>>1202607
Or he read this philosopher in different language, like russian or something. Or he just misremembered the name. That doesn't tell us anything about wherever he read the philosopher or not, you autistic pseud.

 No.1202729

File: 1664721094522.png (58.54 KB, 640x420, bryansk.png)

>>1202707
>stop avatarfagging
Not that anon, but that's not what avatarfagging was back then nor what it is today. This is an imageboard, tourist.

 No.1202735

>>1202729
Sure, it's just attentionwhoring. Posting irrelevant picture to every meaningless post on a board is a bad taste at the very least.

 No.1202738

File: 1664721245586.jpg (90.63 KB, 1021x964, Ai smug.jpg)

>>1202707
>A computational device is expected to put out the same result every time you enter the same data.
Plenty of algorithms have non-deterministic parts. So what happens to your argument after hearing that fact? Do you want to make a big deal out of whether something happens in hardware or software?

 No.1202741

>>1202738
Waiting for an actual argument, pseud.

 No.1202747

File: 1664721437972.jpg (5.09 KB, 208x242, i don fuckin no tbh.jpg)

>>1202735
>posting images on an imageboard is attention whoring

 No.1202757

>>1202753
/ thread

 No.1202765

>>1202747
le reaction faces and pic unrelated are low effort ways of attracting attention to your otherwise inane posts, yes
imageboards didnt even let you post image replies at first and they were developed as just 2ch textboards that let you upload pictures so the idea that imageboards are centered around images is just a western misconception, discussion is still the main point

 No.1202767

>>1202744
>The point you are missing
I don't see how one could rephrase the post that you reply to here without also stating the point that you claim it is missing. Choosing randomly is a common thing in algorithms and that is something you would know if you had read an introduction to algorithm from today or 40 years ago. So tell what fundamental difference it makes to have that on the software level instead of the hardware level. You don't have more than a vague intuition about a topic you know next to nothing about from either the brain-science view of the computer-science view. The artificial brain is a combination of hardware and software. Some of that software is mutable data, ergo the artificial brain is mutable.

 No.1202773

>>1202769
you cant reproduce true RNG either

 No.1202775

>>1202738
>I can put rand(x) in my code so it's totally like a brain, guys
Lol, what a joke

 No.1202777

>>1202717
>Or he read this philosopher in different language
And what evidence do you have to support that? How could you tell? Have you read that philosopher?

 No.1202783

>>1202777
>And what evidence do you have to support that?
He misspelled the name, duh. That is the evidence.

 No.1202786

>>1202769
So the rarity proves the quality to you? Sounds like you have rentier-capitalist brainworms.

>>1202775
The point is that the criterion of randomness does not work to make a fundamental distinction between the two.

 No.1202789

>>1202786
>The point is that the criterion of randomness does not work to make a fundamental distinction between the two.
It wasn't a criteria of randomness from the start, brainlet. You don't even uinderstand computer science, do you?

 No.1202795

>>1202707
You didn't actually make the case that the human brain isn't a computer, you made a case that the human brain lacks a typical computer interface.
Even your argument about the brain being able to rewire it self. That is not exclusive to human brains, computers made from silicon microchips can have similar features. The most obvious example would be field programmable gate arrays.

 No.1202806

>>1202684

why do you care about me "kind" sir

 No.1202812

File: 1664723691749.png (67.25 KB, 677x702, 1644721180301.png)

>>1202765
wow did you just explained the difference between a textboard and an imageboard

nobody cares about your le wrong generation go back to the roots bullshit

 No.1202830

>>1202785
Human beings are actually terrible at coming up with random numbers. In the book "The Armchair Universe" A. K. Dewdney presents a tiny program called Predictabit that takes in a sequence of human-made zeros and ones and tries to predict the next one. It usually scores quite a bit better than 50 %.

Given that hardware random generators exist and you even mention them, I'm not sure how that helps your case that humans are just so special.

The hard distinction between random and deterministic is itself an abstraction. Whether something is called random or deterministic is not independent of the precision of our measuring instruments. We can use deterministic language when designing hardware, but that doesn't mean the hardware is actually always doing the same. Changes in air pressure and temperature changes the speed of computation. (THE one current temperature and THE one current speed are also abstractions.) A lot can depend on the order in which partial results arrive during computation so the results can actually be drastically different based on "room weather".

>>1202789
>You don't even uinderstand computer science, do you?
You are neither studying computer science formally nor a hobby programmer, right? So why are you talking like this.

 No.1202835

>>1202833

stop insulting people like a maniac, asshole

 No.1202839

>>1202785
>True RNG (…) the brain is built on such a system beginning to end
>>1202830
>brain gets asked to RNG some stuff, fails
>>1202833
>th-that's not the topic

 No.1202866

File: 1664726656555.png (232.76 KB, 467x433, 11-ZOHzk7P.png)

>>1202812
He searched the history of imageboards on Wikipedia or something to prove he's totally not a butthurt tourist masquerading as an oldfag. Post with an image, it pisses him off.

 No.1202902

>>1202812
>>1202866
>He searched the history of imageboards on Wikipedia
this shit doesnt even show up on wikipedia

>masquerading as an oldfag

only you retards seem to care about how old a user is tho

 No.1202909

>>1202729
>This is an imageboard, tourist.

>>1202866
>he's totally not a butthurt tourist masquerading as an oldfag

Not even what imageboard means. Funny coming from someone obsessed with calling out "tourists".

 No.1202930

File: 1664728942560.png (598.54 KB, 2083x1842, neckbrd.png)

>>1202689
brains are not computers you absolute pseud
>>1202735
>Posting irrelevant picture to every meaningless post on a board is a bad taste at the very least
how new are you

 No.1202951

>>1202812
Imageboards are literally textboards where you have the option to embed images. Images aren't even the main selling point, don't let the term the Japanese chose confuse you as en English-speaking person. Hell, Futaba still lets you start threads without an image (a function I wish other imageboards had too).
You don't need to become the 4chin equivalent of social media norms who need to use celebrity reaction gifs for every post.

>nobody cares about your le wrong generation go back to the roots bullshit

Are you okay?

 No.1202994

>>1202930
>brains are not computers
In what way though? Looks like it always gets ridiculous when people try to come up with simple gotchas. ("Hardware can't into randomness!") Or they just throw out some big words. ("You haven't truly grasped Godel on the postpunk-structuralism-quantum level, your ideology is SHATTERED, no I have no time to explain kthnxbye.")

 No.1203055

>>1202994
for one thing brains aren't just function computation machines

 No.1203068

>>1202994
>In what way though?
That one's on you to show, but for one we know how computers work as opposed to how the brain works which we do not understand in a lot of aspects
Brains are also organic and change their connections on the fly which computers do not do on a hardware level and are not supposed to do on a firmware level
Not everything is a computer, computer scientist

 No.1203071

File: 1664733446192.gif (1.19 MB, 498x387, nerd.gif)

>>1203068
Also computers are not autonomous

 No.1203077

New Multitude editor here, still waiting on one of the Cockshott acolytes here to write a QRD on the man, the myth, the legend

 No.1203120

File: 1664734748266.png (417.78 KB, 1280x800, cybersoc.png)


 No.1203153

>>1203120
>socdem flag
>criticizing anyone

 No.1203171

>>1203068
>>>brains are not computers you absolute pseud
>>In what way
>That one's on you to show
Wow thanks for the great insight.
>change their connections on the fly
What makes you think you can't do an equivalent of that in software?

>>1203077
That will not happen because the followers of Cockshott are a hallucination (which you can see by the state of his Patreon). People agree on labor vouchers because of arguments. People (not entirely the same group as the first) agree on sortition because of arguments, and so on. You can go through older archived threads and make articles from some of the posts there.

 No.1203177

>>1203153
>If you want a mini example: Count the times people will ignore a post like this and cut straight to "fuck off Rosa Killer" because the first thing you see after a name is SocDem Gang colours. A little ritual to reaffirm to oneself and to one's social circle that - like most denominations of communist - they don't like social democrats, even if what seems to be a social democrat is really a developmentally stunted gardener quoting Mao.
- some gay furry ( >>1200403 )

 No.1203255

>>1203171
>Wow thanks for the great insight.
You could always show me how the brain is a computer as you assert.
>What makes you think you can't do an equivalent of that in software?
Software would be more analogous to thoughts. Both require an intact firmware to be manifested which is dependent on the hardware or the wiring, which doesn't change in case of a computer except over time due to degradation from use and age. There are no viruses which cause computers to explode or monitors to melt.

 No.1203259

File: 1664737535936.jpg (1.5 MB, 1065x4667, 15357216.jpg)

>>1202783
You never explained why spelling Fichte wrong in a youtube comment section makes Cockshott correct about the "the knowing subject"

heres the comment chain in full. Cockshott dodges the question too and gets BTFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjja-oNyfdI&lc=UgyUuExX9DapVDDvegF4AaABAg

 No.1203302

>>1203259
Wrong anon. I was arguing with that idiot that misspelling author's name doesn't mean the guy didn't read him.

 No.1203346


 No.1203367

>>1203255
>Software would be more analogous to thoughts. Both require an intact firmware to be manifested which is dependent on the hardware or the wiring, which doesn't change in case of a computer except over time due to degradation from use and age. There are no viruses which cause computers to explode or monitors to melt.
Software can steer hardware so of course malicious software can permanently damage hardware. This isn't just true of things humans regularly think of a moving objects but also things that look stationary but can have moving parts inside (which can be computers; IIRC Tsutomo Shimomura described a software damaging an ancient computer in his 1996 book Takedown). Current gaming systems like the Nintendo Switch have hardware configuration that changes by software updates blowing fuses, permanently altering the hardware. Why do you even have this hardware/software dichotomy in your head, is this an echo of the body/soul dualism belief? Why would it be le wrong or le inauthentic or whatever to put a function in software that can be done in software instead of having it directly in the hardware?

 No.1203386

>>1202540
>The fact is while not technically proven, it is literally the working assumption of multiple fields including all computer science that there are no functions that can be computed by humans, but cannot be computed by a Turing machine.

Have you considered yet that this assumption is completely unfounded and computer science has yet to catch up with modern philosophy? Why would you assume this applies to anything outside of hypotheticals within your own narrow field of study? Physics has similar problems which is why the most popular theories in the field are also dead ends.

Analytics are still fighting with the spectre of Marx and have failed to integrate dialectics into their theory because of cold war propaganda marrying them to bourgeois idealism. They have never examined their assumptions because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the argument. Its exactly the same as it is in economics. This will continue to be a problem and they will never make progress until the task is complete.

 No.1203387

File: 1664740791695.jpg (47.13 KB, 405x270, proof.jpg)

>>1203367
>Software can steer hardware so of course malicious software can permanently damage hardware.
>Current gaming systems like the Nintendo Switch have hardware configuration that changes by software updates blowing fuses, permanently altering the hardware.

 No.1203403

Why does he speak with an english accent if he's scottish?

 No.1203412

>>1203259
Can you cap the other comments, can't access YT where I am.
>>1203386
>computer science has yet to catch up with modern philosophy
Example?
>>1203387
https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/xbox-360/#tab-17-3-efuses

 No.1203414

>>1203403
Internalized imperialism

 No.1203448

File: 1664742072759.jpg (107.89 KB, 1280x720, scotsman.jpg)

>>1203403
in an alternate reality paul talks like pic related

 No.1204027

>>1202472
this is completely wrong. Engel references how dialectical materialism was independently invented by Dietzgen and Marx.
>Thereby the dialectic of concepts itself became merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical motion of the real world and thus the dialectic of Hegel was turned over; or rather, turned off its head, on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet. And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen

 No.1204100

>>1204027
This is the most substantial point against Cockshott in this thread. Let's give it a fair and balanced treatment. So you say:
>This gay fanfic written by demented Engels when Marx couldn't protest because he was dead proves what his method was all about.
But I do have a question: Marx and Engels were asked by people who found Capital tough to read, somewhere in their letter correspondence you can fight one or two references to that. There is some advice about skipping around some things at first. What you won't find is the recommendation that you need to read Hegel.

Frankly I don't even see how your own reference amounts to a recommendation to read Hegel.

 No.1204147

>>1204100
>a recommendation to read Hegel.
>>1202472 said "Dialectical Materialism is not Marx's Method."

Cockshott doesn't just say not to read Hegel, he says Marx wasn't a dialectician which is flat out wrong. Cockshott also tries to separate historical materialism from dialectical materialism which is also wrong. Historical materialism is also dialectical. You don't have to read Hegel to understand dialectics, you can get everything you need from just Marx, Engels and Lenin, but for some people it can certainly be helpful and it shouldn't be discouraged, especially by people who don't even understand what they are discussing in the first place.

 No.1204157

>>1204147
The article by Cockshott is called "Please waste no time on Hegel!" So you agree with Cockshott on that?
>Cockshott also tries to separate historical materialism from dialectical materialism
Like "Rosa Lichtenstein" and Otto Neurath. Can you point out at anything that they miss when they talk about the world because they aren't dialectical enuff, whatever that means?

 No.1204386

>>1204157
Cockshott does not just argue in that article not to waste time on Hegel, he also tries to argue not to learn dialectics because he wrongly believes you can separate Marx's method from dialectics when it is foundational to his theory and there is broad agreement on that fact by the majority of Marxists and Marxist-Leninist parties and in actually existing socialist states past and present. If you are still confused you can read the article here >>1202478 and then google an introduction to dialectical materialism or use one of the various resources on the /edu/ board to learn more.

 No.1204496

>>1202347
>>1203171
The argument isn't really whether brains are computers or not but whether the mind is a computer. Brains are defined within preconceived limits that could arguably be equivalent to a computer, but there is nothing scientific or useful that follows from this, its an empty conjecture that proves nothing but its own theoretical limitations. The mind is not a computer, and this is the problem. Cockshott rejects the existence of the mind, consciousness, the subject as superfluous "idealism" and "bourgeois legal categories" and refuses to acknowledge or engage with scientifically rigorous definitions of mind outside of this restricted view.

As Marx explained these "bourgeois legal categories" come from definite social relations. They are social constructs but they real in the same way that money is real. To call them fictional is to say that all of language is fictional.

This idea that the mind is a computer relies on the assumption that the mind=brain by imposing the limits of the brain as definite physical object which is an anthropocentric abstract concept created for scientific utility in medical applications.

To prove the mind is the brain you would have to show it is possible to simulate the mind in full, which is the same problem as predicting the weather. You can make forecasts by arbitrarily limiting the scope of data by conceiving the planet earth as a closed system, and you can make the predictions more accurate by including solar flares or whatever you want but you cannot fully capture actual reality from inside a finite set of data.

The computation theory of mind says that there is a central processor, which can access one memory location at a time, but this is not how reality operates, there is no central processor. Its flawed from the beginning. Cognition is interrelational and distributed.

The truly objective view conceives of the mind constituted as a relational process between the brain and its environment, including the body, society, all of nature up to and including the whole universe. The self is a concept created by the physical human that imagines it is a discrete object separate from its environment but it is not.

This is the essence of dialectics, objects refer to definite collections of matter, but are human created categories that split the actually existing material world into subjectively defined parts to more easily deal with them. They are only useful in so far as they are applied to their specific domain and must be tailored to the specific task at hand by applying theory to practice.

The universe itself is a hypercomputer, physics is nonlocal and there are no parts, there is only the actually existing material whole, and existence is being itself in totality.

 No.1204502

>The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term “civil society”; that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels, where I moved owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarised as follows.

>In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

 No.1204863

>>1204157
>Can you point out at anything that they miss when they talk about the world because they aren't dialectical enuff, whatever that means?
>>1204386
>it is foundational to his theory and there is broad agreement on that fact by the majority of Marxists and Marxist-Leninist parties and in actually existing socialist states past and present
You were asked to give an example of something that can be only grasped through the dialectical method and that the non-dialectical people are not grasping. You either have no example that can be only grasped through the dialectical method or you have something that you call that but that is also grasped by the non-dialectical people so you will have to say that they are doing dialectics either way.

>>1204496
>The computation theory of mind says that there is a central processor, which can access one memory location at a time
You made that up.

 No.1204941

>>1200478
I though it was more that people with no children do not contribute to the very necessary reproductive labour a society needs to continue.
Like didn't he get in trouble for saying there should be some sort of childless tax or some shit? Think he just sees it as a correction for all the human effort spent child rearing being unwaged.

 No.1204946

>>[deleted post]
Having kids has huge potential economic benefits though. Not to mention social ones.

 No.1204949

File: 1664803950081.png (205.64 KB, 1026x1024, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.1204954

>>1197655
Lenin was a jew

 No.1204959

>>[deleted post]
>>1204949
Kids will often look after you when you're old at a better standard than state care, they might help you out with money if they are successful, they will help you if you get into financial difficulty (when they are grown up), and so on.

It's not a sure bet but there are benefits for most people.

 No.1204968

>>1204863
You're in a thread right now where a guy who's foundational philosophy is anti-dialectical. His "anti-dialectical" thinking has brought him to reactionary conclusions on gender, imperialism, and even materialism (he wrongfully attributes consciousness and matter to be the same thing aka vulgar materialism.)

Dialectical materialism is simply the manifestation of science and its attempts accurately explain it. It's completely possible for a person to do dialectical thinking without realizing it because it's simply applying the scientific method on the world and it's phenomenon. Try doing meteorology without any dialectical thinking and you'll realize that vulgar materialism is simply not up to task with it (unless you think Hurricanes are beings that have their own unique life span and properties without taking influence of wind, atmosphere, temperature, rotation of the earth etc.)

 No.1204971

File: 1664805694632.jpg (91.28 KB, 500x500, cyberpunk dystopia.jpg)

he's an idiot
he's trying to do with cybernetics what lenin tried to do with taylorism except he's like 50 years late

 No.1204974

>>[deleted post]
I would think a lot of boomers have adult children who do not have their own children so they can also have their kids look entirely after them as they get even older.

 No.1204975

>>1204971

oh yes, popularizing the application of cybernetic management of the communist society, so idiotic.

 No.1204988

>>1204975
society is already being cybernetically managed and it means unprecedented surveillance and social control
thinking you can just take over the existing bourgeois apparatus of domination without changing its core logic is kautskyite nonsense
besides, we're not living in a communist society, so drawing up plans and writing drafts is utopian and reactionary. you'd think this would be common knowledge on an ostensibly marxist image board.

 No.1204990

>>1204975
Communism is the de-computerization and de-digitalization of society, so cybernetic management is less than useless, it's actively harmful. Computers and the internet are the work of the CIA and their distribution among the populace has been the death knell for the labor movement.

 No.1204997

>>1204988
>society is already being cybernetically managed and it means unprecedented surveillance and social control
>managed
you mean destroyed

>thinking you can just take over the existing bourgeois apparatus of domination without changing its core logic is kautskyite nonsense

I think you are correct a cybernetic system designed for the needs of the working class would be different from one designed for the bourgeoisie.
A socialist cybernetic system would be directed at the productive forces and resources instead of people.

>>1204990
>Communism is the de-computerization and de-digitalization of society
You're just one of those people who are trying to turn back time, stop injecting that shit into socialism.
Socialism embraces new technology.

 No.1205000

>>1204997
Computers make organizing for even social democratic reform next to impossible let alone communist revolution, no revolution has ever taken place in a computerized society and this is a fact

 No.1205004

>>1205000
counter revolution is also impossible in any computerized society too mister primitivist communism.

 No.1205007

>>1205004
If the Congo ever gains real sovereignty over its resources, the whole digital economy and electronics industry would collapse. The whole industry is reliant on resource imperialism even more so than the basic metal industry.

 No.1205009

File: 1664809133264.jpg (29.34 KB, 500x456, tiresome.jpg)

>>1205000
This is so tiresome, computers are just tools, capitalists are using it to create a cyberdistopia, socialists can use it for cyberneticaly planning a socialist economy that brings abundance of material wealth and leisure time.

 No.1205011

>>1205009
>computers are just tools
Urban planning is also just a tool, drugs are also just tolls, you're failing to see how the ruling class is using these tools to make politics an impossibility.

 No.1205015

>>1205009
You would have to alter the core designs of computers to make them serve the proletariat so much that they could hardly be called computers anymore

 No.1205063

>>1205007
if Brazil or Argentina or other second/third world countries also get real sovereignty the food industry would also collapse, maybe it's something to do with how capitalism works to cheapen the processes to attain more profits and not the fault of food itself… nah, it's clearly the food's fault, famines are revolutionary in fact.
if you don't like the use of food as a comparison then use any other item in it's place, the result is the same and just as stupid as your anti-computer rant.

>>1205011
correct but does not mean we will throw these tools away, we will just use to our favor.

 No.1205069

>>1205063
You don't need computers to live and having them in your home and pockets at all times has a uniquely dehumanizing and anti-social effect on people, unlike food

 No.1205093

>>1205011
>you're failing to see how the ruling class is using these tools to make politics an impossibility.
You don't need computers to entrench power, none of this is new, the ruling classes used to make them selves into absolute monarchs. They kept getting murdered for it. Democracy with an open political system has the advantage for the ruling class that loosing power doesn't come with a death sentence. If the current ruling class has already degenerated to the point where they can't realize this anymore, it's their funeral. Everything is a democracy it's just that some democracies use more civilized methods than others. Technology is very advanced now that compresses time, the stupid feudal period where they murder each other will not be centuries it will just take a few years.

>>1205015
>You would have to alter the core designs of computers to make them serve the proletariat so much that they could hardly be called computers anymore.
Most computers are universal touring machines, they can be reprogrammed to do pretty much anything you want.
The only thing we have to do is remove all the backdoor security flaws the capitalists have build into computers. I don't know why they chose to put a crippling flaw into their information infrastructure, but we're not going to repeat their mistake.

 No.1205170

>>1204990

>Communism is the de-computerization and de-digitalization of society, so cybernetic management is less than useless, it's actively harmful. Computers and the internet are the work of the CIA and their distribution among the populace has been the death knell for the labor movement.


why has leftypol been filled with so many Ted K tier pseuds lately

 No.1205182

>>1205170

I'm getting 4chan pol vibes, maybe they are coming from there

 No.1205309

>The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange….

>Into this society of individual producers, of commodity producers, the new mode of production thrust itself. In the midst of the old division of labor, grown up spontaneously and upon no definite plan, which had governed the whole of society, now arose division of labor upon a definite plan, as organized in the factory; side by side with individual production appeared social production. The products of both were sold in the same market, and, therefore, at prices at least approximately equal. But organization upon a definite plan was stronger than spontaneous division of labor.


>The factories working with the combined social forces of a collectivity of individuals produced their commodities far more cheaply than the individual small producers. Individual producers succumbed in one department after another. Socialized production revolutionized all the old methods of production. But its revolutionary character was, at the same time, so little recognized that it was, on the contrary, introduced as a means of increasing and developing the production of commodities. When it arose, it found ready-made, and made liberal use of, certain machinery for the production and exchange of commodities: merchants' capital, handicraft, wage-labor. Socialized production thus introducing itself as a new form of the production of commodities, it was a matter of course that under it the old forms of appropriation remained in full swing, and were applied to its products as well….


>Then came the concentration of the means of production and of the producers in large workshops and manufactories, their transformation into actual socialized means of production and socialized producers. But the socialized producers and means of production and their products were still treated, after this change, just as they had been before — i.e., as the means of production and the products of individuals. Hitherto, the owner of the instruments of labor had himself appropriated the product, because, as a rule, it was his own product and the assistance of others was the exception.


>Now, the owner of the instruments of labor always appropriated to himself the product, although it was no longer his product but exclusively the product of the labor of others. Thus, the products now produced socially were not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities, but by the capitalists. The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialized. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, every one owns his own product and brings it to market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests. [2]


>This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today


>The separation was made complete between the means of production concentrated in the hands of the capitalists, on the one side, and the producers, possessing nothing but their labor-power, on the other. The contradiction between socialized production and capitalistic appropriation manifested itself as the antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie….


>But the production of commodities, like every other form of production, has it peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work, despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in the only persistent form of social inter-relations — i.e., in exchange — and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of competition…


>The conditions of existence natural to the animal appear as the final term of human development. The contradiction between socialized production and capitalistic appropriation now presents itself as an antagonism between the organization of production in the individual workshop and the anarchy of production in society generally


>Once their nature is understood, they can, in the hands of the producers working together, be transformed from master demons into willing servants. The difference is as that between the destructive force of electricity in the lightning in the storm, and electricity under command in the telegraph and the voltaic arc; the difference between a conflagration, and fire working in the service of man. With this recognition, at last, of the real nature of the productive forces of today, the social anarchy of production gives place to a social regulation of production upon a definite plan, according to the needs of the community and of each individual…


> The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.


>But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinction and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State…


>With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization.


>The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history, pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.


<Frederick Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Part III: Historical Materialism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

 No.1206747

>>1204496
stfu spinozist

 No.1207261

File: 1664910611315.jpg (48.28 KB, 581x680, FLR88wsXsAE6u_R.jpg)


 No.1207782

>>1204988
>besides, we're not living in a communist society, so drawing up plans and writing drafts is utopian and reactionary.
The book was written during the USSR and intended as a discussion for reform. It didn't get published in Russia for obvious reasons and they had to publish it way later. By then, the USSR collapsed.

>society is already being cybernetically managed and it means unprecedented surveillance and social control

Fascists use guns so we can't use them

>thinking you can just take over the existing bourgeois apparatus of domination without changing its core logic is kautskyite nonsense

Planning goods is now domination
Also insert random socialist slur like Kautsykite (I bet you have never read Kautsky)

STFU

 No.1207795

>>1205011
>Urban planning is also just a tool, drugs are also just tolls, you're failing to see how the ruling class is using these tools to make politics an impossibility.
Damn, if only the ruling class would be the proletarian class and they could use the tools to make politics for any other class an impossibility
retard

 No.1208858

WHY MARXISM NEEDS PHILOSOPHY
>What kind of struggle is worth our efforts? What goals should we aim for? Whom should we build solidarity with, and why? A typical response is that all of this is just obvious. We care for and defend the oppressed, the exploited, and the marginalized. And besides, you can’t know who to fight for, or why, until you’re in the midst of an active, timely struggle. There are no set recipes for activism and no master-keys unlocking all revolutionary potentials.

>Our objection to this way of thinking is simple. It’s not that activism is of second-rate import. It’s that something as important as intervening in the world, and affecting people’s lives, requires sound justification. If we are committed to “the idea” of communism, then we’re also committed to its practical realization and all of the real-world consequences that this entails. Being serious about ideas means confronting their flesh-and-blood impacts when they come to fruition. Intellectual maturity, then, demands an accounting of our political ideals. We have to care that we are right and that our enemies are wrong. And this means something more than being on the “right side” of a particular issue; it means knowing that your politics are grounded in an accurate conception of reality and of what is objectively good for human beings. Otherwise, every political thought-piece we pen, every protest we support, every party meeting we attend, is just an example of playing with other people’s lives and futures. The Truth matters.


>Everyone thinks they can get “the truth” from the daily news. Just look around, and it should be obvious that our world is plagued by poverty, war, and violence. On this, the socialist, the liberal, and even the reactionary can agree. But most people who open a newspaper are not magically transformed into Marxists. Why? It’s because, contrary to the American idiom, the facts don’t speak for themselves.


>More than just a daily stream of facts, we need a systematic and total appreciation of our condition. We need to know why we are acting and for what ends. And for this, we need an adequate conception of human flourishing, human nature, and the nature of the world in which we are acting; in short, we need philosophy.


>Typically, Marxist polemics shy away from laying all their cards on the table. It is much safer, and appears much more sophisticated, to merely offer negative criticisms (even ruthless criticisms) of political opponents. However, if we are to be confident in our politics, it is imperative that we are also confident in the theoretical outlook that underlies them. In this, we disdain to conceal our views: Marxism not only requires philosophy in general, but demands a specific kind of philosophy. It demands monism, the idea that the entire universe is an intelligible Whole.


<MONISM AS THE BASIS FOR SOLIDARITY

>How does monism support a Marxist politics? In the first place, Marxism is about the international solidarity of the working class. And the working class is affirmed, not on identitarian or “workerist” grounds, as though it was just one identity among countless others. Instead, the working class is unique because it represents the universal interests of humanity. In its struggle against capitalist exploitation, the proletariat have the historical mission of abolishing class society, and inaugurating a new world based on common material interests and flourishing.

>In a monistic universe, there are no permanently discrete parts, but instead everything is a modification of Nature. As such, each individual thing—and each individual person—can only be understood through this substantial unity. I cannot form an adequate idea about myself without, at the same time, understanding my place in the world. And therefore, I can’t understand my own identity without realizing my substantial identity with others. Universal solidarity, the unity of all peoples, regardless of particular cultures or geographies, is built upon this more fundamental, and metaphysical, unity[…]


>Many socialists will shy away from this whole picture. They will complain that exotic doctrines such as “monism,” “conatus,” and “existential inertia” are very costly premises for supporting something as commonsensical as universal solidarity. We don’t need these speculative categories to simply care about people. And others go further still. They claim that these metaphysical premises are not only costly but also useless. In a polemical blog written against our position, William Clare Roberts opined, “[a]dherence to abstract principles does not produce political demands.” Or put more directly, “I can understand you and still want to kill you.”


>But Roberts’ complaint says a lot more about his empiricist worldview than it does our own philosophy. A purely descriptive, empirical understanding of the world certainly can’t imply any sort of ethics. (You can’t derive the moral claim that “murder is wrong” from a technical understanding of the circulatory system.) If all we have is a pile of facts before us, then indeed, we might all be “equally human” and still decide to wage war on one another for no reason. In this case, any political agenda, all norms and ideals, will have to be artificially added to one’s “realistic” worldview (supposing we want to engage in politics or activism at all). In the end, this will always be a romantic and question-begging move. Empiricism always searches for a borrowed normativity not derived from “what is,” but only chosen according to one’s own whim.


>Monism provides a way to bridge the gap between “what is” and “what ought to be.” For only monism offers an account of nature which is normatively-charged. Precisely because it is not a mere empiricism, cataloging this or that fact, monism can make universally-descriptive claims about humanity and what’s good for human beings. Unlike the religious moralist, the monist does not try to “speak truth to power.” This would, again, set up a pious dualism between “what is right” on the one hand, and “what is the case” on the other. Instead, the monist simply uncovers the innate, rational tendency of human beings to maintain and increase their power by combining with others. Caring about the other is not a free-will decision, but instead is the natural outgrowth of maintaining our own existence. It’s not a choice, but a necessity.


>Anything else is liberalism. What contemporary liberalism involves is replacing metaphysical foundations, especially monism, with a methodological pluralism. Any theory will do, so long as it helps to bolster your politics. There is always a skeptical attitude taken towards absolute truth claims and an enforced humility when it comes to philosophy itself. This is what the founder of modern liberalism, John Rawls, called the “burdens of judgment.” Since there are no absolute answers to ultimate questions, the best we can do is to build policy consensus with diverse groups, using equally diverse justifications as a guide. The liberal aims for identical norms, but for non-identical reasons.


>The result is an eclectic attitude toward political philosophy. Under the guise of nuance and sophistication, there is an acceptance that theory is sometimes useful, but only when, in the words of Aaron Jaffe, “practical potentials can be drawn from intellectual history in light of human needs today.” Even rationalist philosophy is sometimes accepted, albeit in a patronizing manner. As Roberts puts it, “If you are committed to rationalism, then you should keep that commitment in mind as you make your arguments, not try to make your arguments follow from your rationalism.” In other words, keep your pet theory if it makes you happy, just don’t take it too seriously, and agree with my politics in the end. Again, this is no different from the eclectic, liberal method of allowing all sorts of diverse, private beliefs, only so long as these result in the desired policies at the end of the day.


>But taking theory seriously is really the most practical course of action. It avoids the common fallacy of trying to derive positive, political conclusions from the negative premise that “we just don’t know” about the nature of reality. Instead, monism demonstrates the unity of human nature and the human good; In so doing, it establishes the real basis for international solidarity[…]

 No.1208860

>>1208858
<MONISM AS THE BASIS FOR ACTION
>To be clear, none of this yet touches upon the practical question of exactly how to motivate particular people to care about the oppressed. This is a question of raising political consciousness, and so depends on all sorts of local, historical, and ultimately empirical factors. However, neither does the monist position amount to a purely formal morality (of the Kantian variety), where what we “ought” to do hovers above the actual world. Instead, monism tells us—based on our shared human nature—that we will care about the exploited and the oppressed insofar as we are rational. Put otherwise, solidarity is the result of our insight into reality[…]

>Thus, while abstract categories do not produce history out of whole cloth, they do make historical events comprehensible. It’s not a question of monism being “sufficient” for historical consciousness, but it is absolutely “necessary.” Monism constitutes the immanent register, i.e., the unchanging, universal laws that condition and make intelligible the always-changing events. Just as with physics, where the law of acceleration does not accelerate, so likewise do metaphysical laws not undergo change. But for precisely this reason, they can register change, and allow us to make sense of rapidly evolving conditions over time. This uncovering of the absolute within the relative, identity within difference, and the universal within the particular is the very essence of dialectics.


>A dialectical monism asserts that all of nature is materially extended. There are no purely ethereal beings (no ghosts, no demons, no angels, and no souls). And likewise, all material things are intelligible (no unknowable objects, no Cthulhu monsters from the abyss). The value of this insight is that it rules out all manner of supernatural explanations for human events. We can no longer conceive of exploitation and suffering in terms of original sin, divine curses, or a providential plan. Neither can we condemn members of the ruling class as being simply motivated by an evil will, just as little as we would accuse them of being possessed by the devil.


>Instead, monism entails materialism. Everything within nature is interconnected and governed by natural laws. Human actions, just like natural phenomena, operate according to the rules of efficient causality. Present conditions produce future events, and every event can be traced back to some cause or causes[…]


>The problem is all the greater when it is not just a matter of criticizing capitalism, but also explaining the shifts between world systems. Marxism wants to tell a story about historical change; social revolutions occur when the relations of production (how classes are organized) fail to keep up with new forces of production (innovations in labor, machinery, and resources). Historical materialism, then, is a theory of social change based on economic conditions and not individual wills. But this presumes that material conditions do, in the last instance, determine human behavior and events[…]


>Hegel’s maxim that, “the real is rational and the rational, real” does not simply crown any current set of circumstances as beautiful or pleasant. Spinoza, the Enlightenment’s arch-rationalist, certainly had plenty of criticism for his own political milieu. Instead, rationalism only asserts that all events, whether natural or man-made, whether good or bad, can in principle be understood. Everything has some determinate cause[…]


>This is why Friedrich Engels affirmed one of Hegel’s most speculative formulations: “Freedom is the appreciation of necessity.” That’s because freedom is not merely the negative, spontaneous, “freedom from” restrictions and domination. Rather, it is the affirmative control and agency that comes with understanding one’s circumstances. The point of socialism is to take into the collective hands of society the means of production in order to satisfy human happiness. How we will achieve this control, and how we will put it to useful ends, depends on an understanding of both human nature and material existence, or what Spinoza called, “the order and connection of things.”[…]


<MONISM IS TRUE

>Contemporary political theorists have been enculturated into an academy dominated by postmodern and positivist attitudes. As Hegel would put it, they run away from metaphysics, i.e., “first philosophy,” like it’s the plague[…]

>This position, that Marxism is a Spinozism, is not unique to us. Marx himself invokes Spinoza as a dialectician, and credits him with the insight that every positive determination is, at the same time, a negation (omnis determinatio est negatio). Engels also cites Spinoza’s “substance as causa sui” as something that “strikingly expresses the reciprocal action” of dialectics. The father of Russian Marxism, Georgi Plekhanov, in his polemics against the opportunist Eduard Bernstein, argued that Marxism should not drift toward the merely critical philosophy of Kant, but must return to Spinoza[…]


>But the reason why the Russian Marxists embraced Spinozian substance is that it constitutes the real foundation for materialism. Self-causing Nature is governed by its own, unbreakable rules. In this way, thought and extension are “parallel” to one another. The laws of nature, and nature as physically extended, are not separate entities—like a Creator god in Heaven, overlooking His creation. Instead, intelligible laws run through the very fiber of extended space itself.


>Friedrich Engels said that the most important choice in the history of philosophy was the one between materialism or idealism. We agree. Subjective thoughts and ideas do not freely produce themselves, but instead, are produced by and reflect the material world around us[…]


>At the same time, for the mind to be able to mirror physical existence, both must be subject to the same intelligible principles. Or, as Engels also says, dialectics is “…the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought—two sets of laws which are identical in substance…”[…]


>Without the correct theory, observations can lead to any given worldview, however supernatural or paranormal. Thus, Engels criticized “the empirical contempt of dialectics” as leading to “the most barren of all superstitions,” ultimately landing at the seance table of Victorian spiritualists.


>If we fail to develop the correct philosophy, not only is our contact with reality imperiled, but our politics will be reduced to a faith-based exercise. In order to escape an agnostic liberalism, we have to embrace dialectics as our consistent method, and monism as our ontology.


>Philosophical knowledge is for everyone; it’s not the private reserve of an academic elite. Precisely because monism is true, and reflects the actual organization of our shared reality, it is accessible to all. Clarifying our daily experience tends towards a dialectical understanding of the world as not governed by supernatural or spontaneous forces, but by what’s real, rational, and necessary. Lenin was right when he said that the scientist is a “spontaneous materialist.” The same can be said of all thinking people everywhere. Besides, as the revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg wrote at the turn of the Twentieth Century, “No coarser insult, no baser aspersion, can be thrown against the workers than the remark: Theoretic controversies are only for academicians.”


>We must advance political struggle with a clear idea of why we fight, and how best to achieve our goals. We ought not to be scared by abstract concepts or rational proofs. As the Marxist Nikolai Bukharin put it in his philosophical notebooks, “This most abstract of concepts is at the same time the totality of everything concrete.…This is the great substance of Spinoza’s causa sui….” In other words, reason is red.

https://spectrejournal.com/reason-is-red/

 No.1208898

>>1208858
>We care for and defend the oppressed, the exploited, and the marginalized.
What you mean, furries?

 No.1209260

>>1204386
>he also tries to argue not to learn dialectics because he wrongly believes you can separate Marx's method from dialectics when it is foundational to his theory and there is broad agreement on that fact by the majority of Marxists and Marxist-Leninist parties and in actually existing socialist states past and present
wasn't there a whole school of analytical marxism, which did, in fact, separate Marx from dialectics?

Gerald Cohen was a pretty respected philosopher in this tradition.

 No.1209298

>>1209260
Yes and it resulted in liberalism.

 No.1209319

>The most explicit self description of Analytical Marxism, however, comes from Roemer in the Introduction to his collection: "Analytically sophisticated Marxism" is pursued with "contemporary tools of logic, mathematics, and model building" and committed to "the necessity for abstraction," to the "search for foundations" of Marxian judgments, and to "a non-dogmatic approach to Marxism". An impressive set of elements, to be sure. Where do we apply for candidate status in this analytically correct fellowship? More than rigor, however, sets Analytical Marxism apart - as John Gray's praise for this "powerful new school" makes clear. For, hailing the early Austrian criticisms of Marx by Böhm-Bawerk, von Mises and Hayek (and that of right-wing U.S. economist Paul Craig Roberts) and genuflecting before "the prodigious virtuosity of capitalism" and the marvels of the market, Gray was far from a sympathetic commentator on Marxism ("the first world view in human history that is genuinely self-defeating"); his praise for Analytical Marxism occurs in the context of a lengthy anti-Marxist polemic ("The System of Ruins").

>Included by Elster as "dead" in Marx (in his most recent book, An Introduction to Karl Marx) are the following: "scientific socialism"; "dialectical materialism"; Marxian economic theory - in particular, its two "main pillars," the labor theory of value ("intellectually bankrupt") and the theory of the falling rate of profits; and, "perhaps the most important part of historical materialism," the "theory of productive forces and relations of production". Similarly, in a long march through Marxian economics in his Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory, Roemer left intact only the Marxian theory of exploitation; he then proceeded in 1982 to find even this final survivor inadequate. Exploitation, Roemer now informs us, is simply inequality. But what, then, is the difference between the Analytical Marxist position and that of non-Marxist philosophers such as Rawls? Roemer answers that "it is not at all clear"; "the lines drawn between contemporary analytical Marxism and contemporary left-liberal political philosophy are fuzzy". One must wonder what really is left of Marxism in Analytical Marxism. In what follows, we will examine some of this work (especially that of Elster and Roemer) in order to explore the extent to which it can be considered "Marxist." The conclusion is that Analytical Marxism is not Marxism - and that, indeed, it is in essence anti-Marxist.


>"Neoclassical" or "Rational Choice" Marxism? There are several alternative labels which have been attached to Analytical Marxism and its practitioners; they include Neoclassical Marxism, Game-Theoretic Marxism and Rational Choice Marxism. Consideration of these labels themselves provides a good point of entry into an examination of Analytical Marxism. "Neoclassical Marxism," as Patrick Clawson described Phillipe van Parijs' article on the falling-rate-of-profit controversy, would appear on its face to be an oxymoron. How could such a construct exist? After all, neoclassical economic theory begins from the atomistic individual conceived as ontologically prior to the whole, the particular society.


>This is the "Cartesian" heritage, so well analyzed by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, which it shares with methodological approaches in other spheres: The parts are ontologically prior to the whole; that is, the parts exist in isolation and come together to make wholes. The parts have intrinsic properties, which they possess in isolation and which they lend to the whole. In neoclassical analysis, we have atomistic individuals who, with exogenously given assets and techniques, enter into relations of exchange with each other in order to satisfy exogenously given wants; and society is the sum-total of these arrangements of exchange. Nothing could be further from Marx's perspective. To begin with the isolated individual for whom the various forms of social connectedness are a "mere means toward his private purposes" was simply "twaddle".


>Thus, in the dialectical (in contrast to the Cartesian) perspective, parts have no prior independent existence as parts. They "acquire properties by virtue of being parts of a particular whole, properties they do not have in isolation or as parts of another whole". Marx's starting point, accordingly, is to develop an understanding of society as a "connected whole," as an organic system; it is to trace the intrinsic connections and to reveal the "obscure structure of the bourgeois economic system," the "inner core, which is essential but concealed" on the surface of society.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/chwe/austen/lebowitz1988.pdf

 No.1209358

>>1209260
Cohen's writing has all the charm of stale oatmeal. Also, I'm pretty sure he disagreed with Marxists on more than dialectics. (This point will be used by dialectics dorks to claim that the lack of dialectics led Cohen to have the wrong take on this or that, irrespective of whether other anti-dialectics writers had those takes and irrespective of whether other pro-dialectics writers had them, since dialectics dorks neither have competence and making logical arguments nor do they care to.)

 No.1209363

>>1209358
Every single anti-dialectic writer has either been proven wrong or results in liberalism. please provide important "anti-dialectical" writers that have predicts or changed the world (hint: you wont find any. every successful revolution has been premised on dialectics being the philosophy for their movement)

 No.1209383

>>1209363
>Every single anti-dialectic writer has…
Implying here that you know every single anti-dialectic writer. What is it with you people and logic?

 No.1209390

>>1209383 (me)
Also just fucking lol at this:
>every successful revolution has been premised on dialectics being the philosophy for their movement
The French Revolution was based on some fruits discussing le dialectics you guys.

 No.1209409

>I tried to read Ilyenkov like two three years ago before I had really taken time to just read Hegel and I didn't understand him. I had to read Hegel in order to then go back and when I read Ilyenkov I was like oh this is brilliant. There's this quote that he says about this, thinking of spirit in terms of the concept of the ideal.

>The ideal is a concept that Marx introduces in the preface to the the second German edition of Capital where he also talks about Hegel being upside down and declares himself a pupil of Hegel. Evald Ilyenkov is the person that systematizes this concept as best as possible. He recognized the world historic value of Hegel's depiction of the objectification of thought through human praxis and said that this development made a fundamental advance in the understanding of thought and in the science of thought. The Marxist concept of the ideal which in Ilyenkov systematized held that the idea was the "real objective activity of man as the agent of social production".


>The ideal or there you can replace the ideal for Spirit is something objective it's not just ideas. Ideas don't float around in The Ether they they're embodied in human Minds that are engaging in concrete praxis that is objective and socially and historically determined. So that way of thinking about it I think shows that this idea of the unfolding of spirit that when it rolls out of the tongue it sounds a little bit mystical and a little bit idealist is not at all that idealist. It's just about the unfolding of culture the unfolding of this realm of the ideal, which is objective. That's a materialist way of understanding ideas. Ideas are objectively grounded in social practices just like the modes of production develop and the relations develop so does culture develop along with it and that's the unfolding of the of the ideal or the unfolding of spirit that Hegel talks about.


>Hegel was almost a proto-materialist he got very close to dialectical materialism or Marx's materialism just because he was such a thorough investigator. You have various points throughout the lectures on the history of philosophy where he's saying the technological level of development in this area allowed Spirit to develop there. By Spirit he means thought and culture and politics and he's saying basically saying it developed because of the mode of production without saying it. It wasn't that Marx necessarily just reversed everything Hegel said and said the opposite.


>[They] just kept quoting this one line where Marx said that he flipped Hegel on his head basically saying that Hegel was an idealist versus Marx the materialist and and while Marx did kind of flip it on its head you know he said it's the base that determines everything rather than just the superstructure, it's more complicated than Marx just reversing everything Hegel said, whatever that would even mean. It's more complicated than just saying Hegel was an absolute idealist because he wasn't.


>That's what Lenin calls Hegel after thoroughly reading he says "proto-materialist" is the direct phrase and then Engles calls it a materialism upside down so it's not just upside down but it's a materialism that is upside down.

 No.1209423

>>1209383
Dialectics is simply the movement of history. Writers who use historical materialism and dialectics can understand the basis and philosophy of the French Revolution better than the Jacobins themselves.
>>1209383
I can make a broad judgement on anti-dialectic writers because they are wrong and dialectics is simply true. Every good scientist uses dialectics to make scientific hypothesis and theories whether they realize it or not. Anti-dialectical writers can sometimes have a correct idea in the same way dialectical thinkers can also be wrong, in that a conclusion can be correct regardless of whether the argument is sound.
To argue against dialectics is arguing against all of science.

 No.1209674

>>1204496
>Cockshott rejects the existence of the mind, consciousness, the subject as superfluous "idealism" and "bourgeois legal categories"

>The truly objective view conceives of the mind constituted as a relational process between the brain and its environment, including the body, society, all of nature up to and including the whole universe. The self is a concept created by the physical human that imagines it is a discrete object separate from its environment but it is not.

>This is the essence of dialectics, objects refer to definite collections of matter, but are human created categories that split the actually existing material world into subjectively defined parts to more easily deal with them. They are only useful in so far as they are applied to their specific domain and must be tailored to the specific task at hand by applying theory to practice.
>The universe itself is a hypercomputer, physics is nonlocal and there are no parts, there is only the actually existing material whole, and existence is being itself in totality.

This has massive pseud energy.
You've convinced me Cockshott is correct.
And by the way all the evidence we have says mind = brain


>>1209423
>Dialectics is the movement of history
Dialectics = time ?

I think this one of the reasons why we should abandon the Hegelian stuff, it's not clear enough what it means.

 No.1209716

>>1209674
It's a statement that history has its own laws that follow which resemble the laws of nature. Dialectics is how certain elements affect one another and how they're in a constant fluid state.

 No.1209718

>noooooooooo! marx didn't have a dialectical theory of revolution but if he did he was wrong and dumb for it. the soviet union was a failure real communism has never been tried because they didn't do enough computers. if we prove that to bourgeoisie with facts and logic they will have to listen to us because they just will okay. Thats how Science works. If you want to understand marx read Turing and Darwin not heglet and spiroza. Praise Cockshott!!

 No.1209928

>>1200328
>He is doing a materialist analysis when he looks for the economic structures that are responsible for ideological influences in philosophy.
If so, it's not an economic structure in capitalism he would pinpoint to explain it. In philosophy, the term is from the Latin translation of the Greek "hypokeimenon," which didn't originally refer to "subject" in the modern sense at all but to "what lies under" being or substance. He implies the legal sense is tied to the use of "subject" in philosophy, yet he nowhere demonstrates an actual historical connection between these uses. He could more plausibly have tried to connect the change in the meaning of "subject" in philosophy to early capitalism, but the philosophical use of the term wasn't originally derived from the legal use regardless. One of Cockshott's crotchets is to insist on a particular definition being the only one possible, then criticizing others in accord with his particular definition, even when its use makes little sense in the context of the work or historically ("the 'subject' preexists capitalism? no matter, no need to deal with that because it doesn't fit into the definition").

This approach is "undialectical" in the sense that it neglects the discursive and posits no underlying historical, "material" logic of development for the changes in the term, only offering an origin insofar as it intersects with how he defines it, as if there were a total discontinuity or rupture (surreptitiously adopting a position closer to Nietzsche and Foucault than Marx). Allowing the discursive to have a free-floating existence undermines the historical analysis as "Marxist analysis," and it frankly doesn't challenge Hegelian idealism enough by leaving enough room to posit the development of the concept underlying the discontinuities that result from how he uses definitions.

 No.1209952

>>1209674
retard

 No.1209999

Prediction of goalpost-moving in >>1204863
>You were asked to give an example of something that can be only grasped through the dialectical method and that the non-dialectical people are not grasping. You either have no example that can be only grasped through the dialectical method or you have something that you call that but that is also grasped by the non-dialectical people so you will have to say that they are doing dialectics either way.

Observation of goalpost-moving in >>1209423
>I can make a broad judgement on anti-dialectic writers because they are wrong and dialectics is simply true. Every good scientist uses dialectics to make scientific hypothesis and theories whether they realize it or not (…) To argue against dialectics is arguing against all of science.

1. You say people absolutely need to study Hegel/Christianity/Anthroposophy/etc. or they ain't doing right. 2. And then you isolate yourself against examples of people who do right without Hegel/Christianity/Anthroposophy/etc. by saying they are doing it anyway, subconsciously or whatever. Of course you are free to believe number 2, but then you have to drop number 1. The vast majority of people doing science have never read any Hegel.

>>1209674
>This has massive pseud energy.
People who say stuff like
>computer science has yet to catch up with modern philosophy
are pseuds? Just think of all the amazing Hegelian algorithms that people in computer science don't use because they are all morans!

>>1209718
Try again. Cockshott says the USSR was socialist and that only the organized working class can end capitalism.

 No.1210009

File: 1665046712342.jpg (44.79 KB, 680x523, aeb.jpg)


 No.1210010

>Hegel’s remark “All that is real is rational; and all that is rational is real.” is central to understanding the philosophical outlook of communism.

>It’s worth carefully studying Engel’s explanation of this seemingly paradoxical position, as it sheds a lot of light on some aspects of the problems with pseudo-Leftists and other reactionaries conservatives.


>Fundamental to the genuine left is this concept:


>“Just as knowledge is unable to reach a complete conclusion in a perfect, ideal condition of humanity, so is history unable to do so; a perfect society, a perfect “state”, are things which can only exist in imagination. On the contrary, all successive historical systems are only transitory stages in the endless course of development of human society from the lower to the higher. Each stage is necessary, and therefore justified for the time and conditions to which it owes its origin. But in the face of new, higher conditions which gradually develop in its own womb, it loses vitality and justification. It must give way to a higher stage which will also in its turn decay and perish.”


>One aspect of that is the idea that “each stage is necessary, and therefore justified for the time and conditions to which it owes its origin”. Pseudo-Leftists assert the opposite. They are able to present themselves as more “militantly opposed” to the status quo than revolutionaries because they refuse to “understand” current reality as “necessary” and “therefore justified for the time and conditions to which it owes its origin”. Instead they simply denounce it from an ahistorical perspective as contrary to some absolute morality.


>Anyone critical of the status quo is bound to highlight its negative features and denounce them as intolerable. But by denying that those negative features had their own rational basis the pseudo-Left obscures the rational necessity for inevitable change to the status quo arising from new circumstances that obsolete the justification for the old reality and necessitate a new reality.


>Revolutionaries are historical optimists who stress the inevitability of progress. Pseudo-Leftists are reactionaries who merely denounce how bad things are and actively reinforce the idea that they cannot be changed. But when revolutionaries reject the irrational obscurantism and moralistic posturing of pseudo-Leftists and line up together with the ruling class against them, by asserting that “all that is real is rational”, they are also implicitly saying “all that exists deserves to perish” as explained by Engels:


>“And so, in the course of development, all that was previously real becomes unreal, loses it necessity, its right of existence, its rationality. And in the place of moribund reality comes a new, viable reality — peacefully if the old has enough intelligence to go to its death without a struggle; forcibly if it resists this necessity. Thus the Hegelian proposition turns into its opposite through Hegelian dialectics itself: All that is real in the sphere of human history, becomes irrational in the process of time, is therefore irrational by its very destination, is tainted beforehand with irrationality, and everything which is rational in the minds of men is destined to become real, however much it may contradict existing apparent reality. In accordance with all the rules of the Hegelian method of thought, the proposition of the rationality of everything which is real resolves itself into the other proposition: All that exists deserves to perish.”


>In his Australian article ‘Not in Your Name Indeed’, Barry York described the politics of the pseudo-Left as a “mish-mash” , a “jumble of prejudices”, “more akin to a sub-culture than a political movement”.


>I think these words captured something very important about the pseudo-left – in particular its atheoretical and ahistorical nature. Pseudo-left ideology lends itself well to bulleted lists of things to oppose and things to support. At the same time, events in the world are classified according to surface appearance rather than in terms of what underlies them. The pseudo-left may talk of the “underlying reasons” for something like the war in Iraq but this talk is always of “hidden agendas”, “secret motives” and is quite different from studying such events in light of the underlying flow of history.


>Hegel’s statement: “All that is real is rational; and all that is rational is real” asserts that history makes sense: “the phantom of a world whose events are an incoherent concourse of fortuitous circumstances, utterly vanishes”.


>In contrast, pseudo-left ideology attributes only the most superficial rationality to what happens in the world.


>Indeed it seems to me that the pseudo-left has an essentially folk-loric version of how the world works. There is evil and there is good. (Or there is God and there is Satan). Being “good” means being pure and true and perfect and this comes down to opposing the dark forces of evil. It’s an abstract, ideal position which is capable of generating protests but has no serious orientation toward actually changing the world. The feel-good slogan “Not in My Name” captures its nature rather well.


>The Hegelian conception of history exerted an enormous influence on both Marx and Engels. Although Hegel was an idealist, his view of history was one in which humans were seen as becoming progressively more capable of controlling their own destiny. He saw history as always progressing in the direction of greater freedom – driven by the dialectical opposition between what is actual and what is potential.


>Engels pointed out that “according to Hegel certainly not everything that exists is also real, without further qualification. For Hegel the attribute of reality belongs only to that which at the same time is necessary: “In the course of its development reality proves to be necessity.” “.


>This qualification is important, otherwise Hegel’s statement could be taken as no more than the assertion that the status quo (being “real”) is always rational and therefore justified. Such an interpretation would contradict his view of history as a process of progressive change in which what is actual loses its necessity and gives way to its own potential: “It certainly makes war upon itself — consumes its own existence; but in this very destruction it works up with existence into a new form, and each successive phase becomes in its turn a material, working on which it exalts itself to a new grade.”


>Getting back to the pseudo-left it seems to me that their political outlook is characterized by a denial/ignorance of both necessity and rationality (and therefore of reality). Opposition to US imperialism turns out to be an unchallengeable, immutable, stand-alone principle of some sort. The idea that Bush et al could intend to democratize the Middle East – that their old policy is no longer rational (ie that in the current world situation it has lost its necessity) is seen as strange and nonsensical. How could it be possible for US imperialism to do such a thing?


>It’s easy to appear as very revolutionary and militant if your stance does not include any appreciation of current reality and necessity. And the opposite is also true – it’s easy to attack those who are being (correctly) radical and militant. Basically you don’t have to feel responsible for anything that happens because such a stance does not involve actually trying to change the world.


>In “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific”, Engels said this about Hegel:


>“This new German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system. In this system — and herein is its great merit — for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process — i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development. From this point of view, the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence, all equally condemnable at the judgment seat of mature philosophic reason and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but as the process of evolution of man himself. It was now the task of the intellect to follow the gradual march of this process through all its devious ways, and to trace out the inner law running through all its apparently accidental phenomena.


https://c21stleft.com/2014/10/14/hegel-engels-and-the-pseudo-left-all-that-is-real-is-rationaland-all-that-is-rational-is-real/

 No.1210018

>>1210009
Yeah that's a fair description of the Hegelfags. "You can only do right by following dialectics. Any person who does something right and says they aren't doing dialectics are just doing dialectics without knowing it."

 No.1210372

>>1197735
>meaningless wordplay
Says the autist going full Deleuzean about "the orchid relates to the wasp"

 No.1210383

>>1210372
Better than being retarded cockshottist-autist and saying that ownership is the only possible relation to means of production therefore slave = wage worker.

Nice to see you fags still butthurt about having to real argument for daddy dickblast's retardation.

 No.1210395

>>1210383
> slave = wage worker.
He wrote an entire book about historical materialism and the different economic systems throughout the ages. There is an entire chapter about slavery and how it differs from being a wage worker. Cope and seethe you son of a whore.

 No.1210402

>>1210395
Rerad, uygha, read. We already had dickblastists saying that class is not defined by relations to means of production because that would make slave and proles same class. You are just butting in the middle of conversation without understanding what the fuck people are talking about.

 No.1210405

>>1210402
Shut the fuck up you cracker.
Obviously, there is more than class than just the relationship to the means of production. A slave and a proletarian both do not possess any MoP, otherwise they wouldn't be in said classes to begin with. That doesn't mean that the relationship to the MoP is completely irrelevant. How difficult is that to fucking understand?

As always, you fucking ultras are fucking AUTISTIC. Dickblast is saying "no, it isn't adequate", you are reading "WOW HE IS DENYING THAT MOP AND CLASS RELATIONS ARE RELATED!!!!!!"

 No.1210407

>>1210383
>>1210402
Before figuring out whether Cockshott is right or not you have to know what he is saying.
>slave = wage worker
Cockshott literally claims the opposite of this and he claims that failing to distinguish the two follows from the mindset he criticizes.

 No.1210414

>>1210405
>>1210407

>A slave and a proletarian both do not possess any MoP, otherwise they wouldn't be in said classes to begin with.

Literally what i talked about in the previous post you illiterate faggots. Ownership in the only possible relation to MoP you can have. Reducing it to this is what i called the retarded take that leads to following retarded conclusion "class is not defined by relations to MoP because that would mean slave = wage worker"

Fucking morons can't even fucking read.

 No.1210419

>>1210414 (me)
Ownership is NOT* the only possible relation to MoP you can have.

 No.1210426

>>1210414
>everybody drives on the wrong side of the road except me

 No.1210427

>>1210414
>"class is not defined by relations to MoP because that would mean slave = wage worker"
No you worthless failson piece of shit. It is YOU who cannot read.

Person A says "said criteria are not enough to describe class".

YOU are claiming person A said "class is not defined by the relations to MoP".

That is NOT what person A is saying. Person A is saying there are OTHER FACTORS to consider beyond mere ownership.

Are you FUCKING retarded? Even your own screenshot shows this! He says it isn't adequate, meaning there are other things to consider! Are you fucking braindead? Do you know how to fucking read and reason and think logically? Have you smoked your brain away or are you a drug addict? What the FUCK is wrong with. Kill yourself

 No.1210437

>>1210427
Same shit, it is just uneducated revisionism that leads to "gays are middle class" bullshit from Cockshott.

>Person A says "said criteria are not enough to describe class".

Because he is being reductionist in what this criteria means ("relation == ownership") just so he can sneak his own retarded criteria of "income per family head".

>Person A is saying there are OTHER FACTORS to consider beyond mere ownership.

You don't even understand what people are telling you, sanictard. You are again trying to push the narrative of relations to MoP being equal ownership of MoP. And now you are even trying to pretend that this is my position.

Wage workers can choose which MoP they work on which creates new relationship - labor market. And it is still being relation to MoP which means that cockshottists take about "it is not enough to define class" is moronic to say the least.

Take some ritalin.

 No.1210438

>>1210426
Truth is not decided by majority. And you don't even have a majority, stop pretending that this thread is not made by one autist "winning" arguments by war of attrition being stupider and more stubborn than several people on the other side of the argument.

 No.1210440

>>1210437
>Is Cockshott right just because it makes sense in a common interpretation of what his words mean? No, actually he means something else entirely here and so the point he makes is nonsense. And even though he has disagreed with the point explicitly, this is what I know he actually believes. And all the other people who interpret his words in the common way actually mean it in another way secretly and thus I have proven that they are all logically wrong. And this must be so for they would be right otherwise and they know they would be right otherwise and so they can't mean that and so they are wrong and they choose to be wrong because they are stupid and evil. And I shall post this insight day after day. What is the deal with my enemies? They are probably insane. Yeah that's it. And so I will have to keep on posting how Cockshott is wrong and time is a cube, day after day, year after year.

 No.1210449

>>1210440
The most common interpretation of his words is "relations to MoP means ownership to MoP" otherwise what he says doesn't make any sense. And that is a retarded take on what relations to MoP is.

 No.1210453

>>1210449
>I know what he says, otherwise what he says doesn't make any sense. Then I decided to have a massive spergout over what he meant pretending he didn't mean that.
Okay? When will you be done with this? Maybe want to criticize something else after this?

 No.1210460

>>1210453
No i literally laughed at his retarded take and your copium because that's exactly what he meant.

Then again, it's entirely understandable that you can't understand complex sentences (meaning more than 5 words), after all you have been taking computer lessons from a boomer who can't even fix his own microphone.

 No.1210480

>>1210460
What exactly are you contributing to anything with this? Your choice of wording is not more precise than Cockshott's. What Cockshott's words or your words mean only gets clear with more context. With the context given, you know what Cockshott means and you agree with it. It's like you both describe the same arrangement of furniture and one person uses a certain label to mean one specific object and another one uses the same label to describe a combination of two objects. Yet with the context given it is clear that you and him mean the same furniture arrangement. And you know that it's clear. And you say it is clear. And other people say it is clear. And you agree it is clear. And then you act like an absolute spastic about these finer points of label usage. You come across as deranged or dishonest. Maybe you are upset about something else. In that case I'd prefer you to directly state what it is.

 No.1210492

>>1203448
Based english Cockshott.

 No.1210499

>>1210480
>you know what Cockshott means and you agree with it
Wrong, if you turned your brain on instead of going full postmodernist on me with "words mean nothing" and maybe actually listened to dickblast video you would notice that his position leads to creation of some middle class that is working for wage but not exploited, and when called on that by marxists he retreats to "class is not just relations to MoP because that would mean slave = wage worker".

I criticise his position and say that there is no middle class that works for wage and is not exploited and that he reduces relations to MoP to simply ownership because he needs to sneak in his own criteria to change the definition of the class to justify his revisionist ass holding chauvinistic opinions.

And here you are trying to tell me that we hold the saem position, just arguing over words. Do you have some reading disorder or something?

 No.1210509

>>1209716
>Dialectics is how certain elements affect one another and how they're in a constant fluid state.
That sounds nice but how do you use this as theory to make predictions?

>>1209718
bruh, strawmaning Cockshott

>>1209999
<hypercomputer
and
<non-local physics
Are pseud buzzwords that don't mean anything.
Can you explain the difference between a normal computer and one that's hyper ?
Physics is the study of natural phenomena and the effort to describe the laws that govern reality in as precise mathematical terms as possible. People doing experiments and searching for equations. Why is this "non-local" ?

>Just think of all the amazing Hegelian algorithms that people in computer science don't use because they are all morans!

I would love to try out a computer programing language that uses hegelian logic.
Please make one.
At the moment it looks like computers can't hegel, because from a information science perspective Hegelian logic appears to spit out more information than you put in.

 No.1210513

>>1210499
>middle class that is working for wage but not exploited
? Would you mind telling me how many clicks you have to go back in this conversation to see you mentioning that point. Click on the post you replied to, and go back from there. Count it.

 No.1210532

>>1210513
>Click on the post you replied to, and go back from there
Not that far actually. You replied to this my post >>1197735 which is in the middle of coversation talking about relations to MoP and middle class. Just scroll like 5-6 posts up from it. You cant ctrl+f the word "middle" if you have trouble finding it.

So do you admit that you just butted in the conversation without understanding context and then whine that replies made no sense to you?

Also,what is your take on existance of non-exploited wage workers that are apparentely a separate class from proletariat and porkies?

 No.1210625

>>1210532
>You replied to this my post >>1197735
Nope. Now will you actually do the count?
>So do you admit that you just butted in the conversation without understanding context and then whine that replies made no sense to you?
No. There is an amount of context awareness that is reasonable to ask for and what you demand (from others, not from how you read others yourself) goes beyond that.
>your take on existance of non-exploited wage workers that are apparentely a separate class from proletariat and porkies?
Of course not everybody is exploited. If you measure class by income alone, this will not put every boss or landlord above every worker, but it will roughly work. So it's not a grave mistake to treat people above a certain income level as the ruling class as a rule of thumb. Self-employed people are not necessarily exploited, some people on high incomes can draw a rent even if in a purely legalistic framework they might appear as exploited working class, just like vice versa some people appear as self-employed through the angle of contract texts when they are practically speaking employees.

 No.1210643

>>1209999
If you're describing reality then it doesn't matter whether one has read Marx or Hegel beforehand. Dialectics is a way to organize reality much like math or logic. Even non-Marxist can have Marxist takes as long as you can analyze how thye arrive at that conclusion.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1968/reading-capital/ch02.htm
Capital by Marx is an example of using Dialectics to understand Capital. You can probably read countless other introduction to Capital that expound on this point. Marx's Capital is a method of philosophy which involves the dialectic and it's how he is able to analyze the primary contradiction between use and exchange value from which all of Capital derives from.

 No.1210653

>>1210509
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
>The de Broglie–Bohm theory makes the same (empirically correct) predictions for the Bell test experiments as ordinary quantum mechanics. It is able to do this because it is manifestly nonlocal. It is often criticized or rejected based on this; Bell's attitude was: "It is a merit of the de Broglie–Bohm version to bring this [nonlocality] out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored."

this(pilot wave) is cockshotts position btw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation
>Hypercomputers compute functions that a Turing machine cannot and which are, hence, not computable in the Church–Turing sense.

cockshott believes hyper-computation is physically impossible because his informational model of reality rules it out by definition. his theory of the mind relies on this assumption.

 No.1210684

>>1210643
>Capital by Marx is an example of using Dialectics to understand Capital.
Disagree. The Hegelese are just a few bits in the presentation (absent in the French version, by the way).

 No.1210685

>>1210440
>>1210480
>Your choice of wording is not more precise than Cockshott's
Why would you use the common sense interpretation of words when Cockshott claims to be a Marxist doing Marxist theory and there are already specific scientific definitions for those words within Marxism?

This is is price=value so LTV is wrong ancap tier understanding. I can tell you value is socially necessary labor time all day long but I can't make you understand a systematic theory if you refuse to update your variables in the first step by appealing to "common sense".

 No.1210746

>>1197480
Does anyone else think he looks extra handsome in this picture

 No.1210751

>>1210685
>price=value so LTV is wrong ancap tier understanding.
My dear great Marx understander, price ≈ value in bigger aggregates.

 No.1210780

File: 1665086653672.pdf (179.9 KB, 197x255, bells-thm-130110.pdf)

>>1210653
So when you say "physics" you don't mean scientists , experimental set ups, theoreticians, rooms with black-boards and so on. All of which are macroscopic objects that don't experience any quantum effects. To me you appeared to be using "quantum words" in the wrong context.

As far as QM interpretations are concerned yes the De Broglie Bohm interpretation (or pilot wave theory), seems to be the best candidate.

I think that in the 80s there was a debate about Bell's theorem disproving the De Broglie Bohm interpretation, but it turned out that was just a case of smuggling in unwarranted philosophical assumptions.
<hybrid universe model in which hidden variables determine only part of the outcomes of experiments
vs
<fully causal hidden variable model
with the latter model making predictions congruent with experimental measurements.
PDF for more details

>cockshott believes hyper-computation is physically impossible because his informational model of reality rules it out by definition. his theory of the mind relies on this assumption.

Ok hyper-computation is a label applied to many things. In the early 20th century there was a calculation debate, that was about whether or not it's possible to calculate all prices for commodities in an economy without markets. And the answer to this is yes. However some ideologically motivated economist made up BS that claimed markets were doing some kind of magic computation, they also called that "hyper-computation"

I think today the most common definition of hyper-computation is something that can solve the halting problem. Don't hold your breath on that one.
I think hyper-computation will remain a myth.

 No.1210861

>>1197480
I think he is very overrated by people here, despite being very based for his anti-hegelian mechanism. At the end of the day, his cybersocialism is half common-sense, half old mam trying to make a hobby for himself by imagining what he would do to plan an economy. I guarantee that in reality, if a socialist power was to attempt cybersoc, half of his shit would either prove to be just plain basics, or completely useless for a real world implementation. Not because Cockshott is stupid, but because it is stupidity to imagine that a professor who is detached from the levers of economic control would make a perfectly, or even well-working design for a planned economy.

Secondly, it comes of to me that too many things live rent free in his head at certain times. His obsesion with LGBT issues is one thing, (in my view not that major), but his obsesion with libertarians is not. Because despite some anons hailing his anti-capitalist videos, they are absolute dogshit that make him look like a retard deagogue. Why? Because he fixates on libertarian drivel that literally no one who is a REAL and non-lumpen capitalist would ever take seriously to begin with. Wow! The original Austrian theories are all dogshit that make no sense? Capitalism destroyed! Except if you'd show the vids to anyone with experiance with modern economy, they'd just scratch their heads in confusion at what sort of obscure strawman he is bashing. Because despite the prominance of hyperonline ancaps or ancap propagandists, their ideas are even more marginal than those of Marxism.

But despite the negative, I do believe that Cockshott must always be critically supported for being one of the few brave heretics to revolt against the Hegelian dominance. Cockshott deserves to be known simply so that Mechanism could be reinvigorated as a Marxist thought current against the deluge of idealist pseudery.

 No.1210884

File: 1665091627062.png (110.94 KB, 967x824, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1210780
>So when you say "physics" you don't mean scientists
of course not, i mean the laws that govern interaction between physical objects. pilot wave proves that quantum interaction can be understood as non-local, so a unified theory would have to account for non-local information transfer like how the information in black holes is preserved. this is obviously a problem with the assumptions of the theory which describes the universe as a set of discrete points but we know from experiment a change in one place can determine output in another which suggests the whole is not a collection of parts, that the structure of the whole determines the existence of the parts. this view has not been shown to have utility for the profit motive so it is widely not explored in academia. on top of that is cold war baggage because Bohm was a communist and this view directly contradicts liberal individualism.

>the most common definition of hyper-computation is something that can solve the halting problem. Don't hold your breath on that one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Philosophical_implications picrel

>I think hyper-computation will remain a myth.

Thats a lot more respectable than "hyper-computation IS a myth" which is Cockshott's position, but I think you just showed us that he is using a special pet definition like he does with everything else.

 No.1210904

>>1200478
I swear to god that these people get canceled by federal agents.
Good luck trying to spread socialism to the masses when you have the label of “homophobe” or “transphobe” on you.

 No.1210916

>>1210884
NTA but just to point out once again that philosophers of science and actual working scientists are two very different groups and the CTD thesis is overwhelmingly accepted by actual computer scientists, the other positions esp. #3 is the aforementioned quack position.

 No.1210926

Cockshott is a neopragmatist not an analytic

 No.1210927


 No.1210957

>>1210884
You make wild speculations about the nature of the universe and i don't know how to reply because for me there's insufficient data to draw a conclusion.

You have touched on so many things, like for example the question whether or not information in black-holes is preserved. That was the debate between Steven Hawkins and the holographic universe people. I think Hawkins won and that means that black-holes do not destroy information.

At the moment we can't make a unified theory because we haven't figured out quantum gravity yet.

I honestly think you are wasting your time with the hyper-computer thing. That text in the pic you posted also says quantum stuff happens in the brain. I seriously doubt the human brain uses any quantum effects because the quantum computers that people have build need to be insanely cold to function. I guess human brains are too warm to do quantum stuff.

>>1210904
Yeah they try to socially discredit socialists as a means of class warfare, we have to find a way to neutralize that weapon.

 No.1210961

>>1210684
funny since Althusser is French and is able to discern a materialist dialectic in Marx's Capital. read the link i posted

 No.1210969

>>1210961
>funny
It's true. Have you read Capital in French?

 No.1211012

>>1210957
>there's insufficient data to draw a conclusion
yep

>Hawkins won

maybe he changed his mind

>At the moment we can't make a unified theory

yep

>because we haven't figured out quantum gravity yet.

and that might be a dead end

>I honestly think you are wasting your time with the hyper-computer thing.

probably true. its because someone >>1202347 brought it up back years ago to "debunk" dialectics and keeps reposting it, he claims that hyper-computation is not possible in principle, which has not been proven scientifically and arguments for the opposite do exist and are taken seriously even if its by a minority.

 No.1211029

>>1210969
it doesnt change the fact that there is a materialist dialectic even if its worded differently.

 No.1211048

>>1211029
>Marx used a special method that is absolutely necessary to understand his book Capital. But he never told his readers about it. He left only a few cues for the intellectuals. (Cues which he removed in the French edition of his book because fuck you French fags, this is not for you!) 100 years later Pseudbert MacWifeystrangler, ironically French, figured out the key to what Marx REALLY MEANT.
Nah I don't believe that.

 No.1211057

Now comrade, please don't sue me for libel
But I say again: not one of these words appears in the bible

 No.1211267

File: 1665114706913.mp4 (3.2 MB, 720x480, read.mp4)

>>1211048
Marx wrote more than just one book. Althusser isn't the only person to say Marx had a method, people only refer to him because Cockshott does. You don't have to read Hegel if you don't want to. You can learn the same method from Marx or Engels or Lenin or Stalin or Mao instead. There are even introductory texts translated from communist countries to help you and people have made free audio recordings if you experience trouble with reading.

Philosophy is just like any other field, sometimes there are pre-requisites. Normally people don't walk into a math class without having learned basic arithmetic and demand the teacher explain algebra in 3 sentences or less and then start calling them a pseud for bringing up multiplication.

Anyone can understand dialectics, its not even difficult and its not a secret club, you just have to actually dedicate time to it and put in the work to get results. Millions of working people have done it before and you can too.

 No.1211272

>>1211267
the issue is that dialectic doesn't give you unique information and you can come to the same conclusions using other methodologies.

 No.1211280

>>1210625
>noooo i don't have to understand the conversation to participate in it, it's your own fault for not giving people full context in each of your replies, you need to know when it's an alledgedly new guy speaks to you and give him full context waaaaaaaaa
Bitch, please.

The rest is just you blatantly showing you have no idea what marxist theory actually says about the subject and tries to defend dickblast's retarded takes.

>Self-employed people are not necessarily exploited

Lol, you are really a moron. What are you even doing on this board, libtard?

 No.1211284

>>1211272
Formal logic doesn't give you unique information either. Nor math. Because neither is an empirical field.

 No.1211396

>>1197494
>>1197499
>writes a three-part essay on why gender theory is bullshit
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-1/
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-2/
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/23/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-3/
<In the case of gender, these material limits Marx refers to are the sexed body and the social expectations based upon the sexed body. The man cannot produce materially in the same way a woman does in this case. The presuppositions are the social expectations placed upon women due to their reproductive potential. So, the act, by a man, of performing socially constructed femininity does nothing to change the universality of the category of woman, nor does it allow men to enter that category. So, yes, the woman is expected to “act like a woman,” whatever may constitute acting like a woman in a given society. She’s only expected to do so because of her biological sex, though. Her performance of femininity is not what makes her a woman; she has femininity forced upon her because she is a woman, and is sanctioned if she refuses to comply.
idk that sounds based to me

 No.1211535

>>1211267
>Philosophy is just like any other field, sometimes there are pre-requisites. Normally people don't walk into a math class without having learned basic arithmetic and demand the teacher explain algebra in 3 sentences or less
What you have been asked for over and over and over and over is an example, which is something else. A rocket engineer can demonstrate a rocket, car engineers can demonstrate cars. They do not demand you spend X hours of audiobooks of whatever cope nonsense. Weather forecasting is a complex science but the output is easy to read and check.

 No.1211549

File: 1665131020130.png (248.78 KB, 1000x669, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.1211555

>>1211535
theres a bunch in here too. you could have just googled it

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/sampler.htm

 No.1211563

>>1211280
>>Self-employed people are not necessarily exploited
>Lol
People who don't own the means of production are employed by people who do own the means of production. The owners of the MOP sell the products produced by the non-owners of the MOP working with the MOP. What the non-owners of MOP sell to the owners of MOP is not the specific products they produce with the MOP they don't own, it is their ability to work. It is at this point in production where surplus value is extracted.

 No.1211649

This is not a QM thread but I'll repeat it here. Bohmians can apply again when they have reproduced all predictions of QFT (relativistic QM) so they better get calculating, which they won't because most of them don't even work in the field but are internet brained pseuds lmao. Not even a coper btw

 No.1211665

>>1211649
Cockshott stanning bohmian mechanics isnt even relevant to the CCTM which is the part which applies to hegel so im not sure why anons are even bringing it up.

Again, im not a physicist, but i do have a background in computing and I'll tell you saying quantum woo somehow proves CCTM is wrong or proves Hegel right is 100% a pseud move.

Again there is a VERY GOOD REASON Cockshott is against hypercomputing, because Austrians use the idea of hypercomputation to say that a human brain can calculate things a computer can't therefore computerized economic planning is impossible.

 No.1211677

>>1211549
>>1211555
I wonder if inability to parse analogies is related to autism or just low intelligence in general. But thanks for those texts that you just googled without reading which I likewise won't read to make sure we have some common ground.

A rocket engineer can demonstrate a rocket. The output is demonstrated. You can treat rocket engineering as a black box and judge it by the output.

Car engineers can demonstrate cars. Same as above. The output is demonstrated. You can treat car engineering as a black box and judge it by the output.

Weather forecasting is a complex science but the output is easy to read and check. Same as above. The output is demonstrated. You can treat weather forecasting as a black box and judge it by the output.

The question is not about building what is in the black box taking insights of wankers from the internet who never read the things they talk about. The question is: What are the predictions from the black box? First we look at the output and then we decide whether understanding what's in the box and building it ourselves is even worth it.

 No.1211685

File: 1665138645622.gif (288.6 KB, 576x2992, 20120321.gif)

>>1210957

>. That text in the pic you posted also says quantum stuff happens in the brain. I seriously doubt the human brain uses any quantum effects because the quantum computers that people have build need to be insanely cold to function. I guess human brains are too warm to do quantum stuff.


Which, as mentioned before is the penrose quack shit about how free will is made by quantum effects on microtubules in the brain.

>Phillip Tetlow, although himself supportive of Penrose's views, acknowledges that Penrose's ideas about the human thought process are at present a minority view in scientific circles, citing Minsky's criticisms and quoting science journalist Charles Seife's description of Penrose as "one of a handful of scientists" who believe that the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process.


Penrose actually believes that the brain is a quantum computer, and that proper intelligence isn't possible without the performance boost that a quantum computer can get by simultaneously evaluating many alternatives. Personally I believe that while our brain is indeed very good at evaluating many alternatives, the reason is simply that it's built out of massively parallel hardware.

Again this is an example of an otherwise smart scientist starting to go way out of his lane and opine on shit outside of his field of study (biology, CS, cog sci). classic Ultracrepidarianism.

Again Hegelpseuds are just frantically searching for any quack that will allow them to claim quantum woo justifies hegelianism under the cold light of mechanical science.

 No.1211687

>>1211665
I'm inclined to agree with you and Cockshott, but I'm not well read on the subject of hypercomputabilty so I abstain from commenting. I just use any opportunity to shit on overly smug Bohmians I can get

 No.1211739

>>1211685
Careful, you're doing what you accuse those 'hegelian pseuds' of doing, namely overreaching when it's very apparent that you don't hold multiple phDs in the relevant requisite fields which would be required to muster a valid statement concerning this intensely interdisciplinary subject matter.
Do you have a phD in AI, comp sci, cog sci, neurology, philosophy of (several subfields), biology, psychology, quantum physics, etc.?

 No.1211741

>>1211677
low autism score is entrenched in positivist dogma

 No.1211760

>>1211549
>Man has 10 fingers. We must enjoin the cadres to be good at learning how to distinguish nine fingers from one finger, or the majority of fingers from the minority of fingers. There is a difference between nine fingers and one finger.
STEMlords don't want you to know this…

 No.1211765

>>1211048
https://www.marxists.org/subject/dialectics/marx-engels/capital-afterward.htm

>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.


>The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] 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.” 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 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.


>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.


>The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.


Marx explicitly says he has a dialectic. Has no one in this thread actually read Capital? It's not Marx making a black box of production where prices are unknowable. He takes all the phenomena in political economy, takes their essence of it and shows how they all relate to each other and change each other.

 No.1211768

>>1211739
>it's very apparent that you don't hold multiple phDs in the relevant requisite fields
Scientists regularly present aggregated results to broader audiences. You don't need a PhD in X to know that the views of some person are fringe in X because people with a PhD in X tell you that much in ordinary language.

 No.1211792

>>1211741
>>1211739
Actually a lot of anons here are university educated, they did a poll a few years back where it showed like 95% of leftypol had a university education and there are tons of people from different technical fields here including many with advanced degrees. So your BS about people not knowing what they're talking about, especially as a group is wrong.

 No.1211794

>>1211741
>POSITIVISM POSITIVISM POSITIVISM
once again Cockshott's ideas are most closely related to neopragmatism, not "positivism" or plain anglo analytic philosophy

 No.1211810

>>1211765
>Marx explicitly says he has a dialectic.

<Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?


<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 connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

Isn't he literally saying here his approach is empiricist and he is just presenting the findings in pseudo-Hegelian style?

 No.1211812

File: 1665151102129.jpeg (14.46 KB, 250x396, Althusser.jpeg)


 No.1211838

>pseuds: the thread

 No.1211900

File: 1665154014636.jpg (73.6 KB, 514x536, cringelevels.jpg)

>>1211012
>probably true. its because someone >>1202347 brought it up back years ago to "debunk" dialectics and keeps reposting it, he claims that hyper-computation is not possible in principle, which has not been proven scientifically and arguments for the opposite do exist and are taken seriously even if its by a minority.

let's be clear: arguments for the opposite do exist but are not accepted by the academic CS community. What you have are "philosophers of science" and people from other fields who keep interjecting with this. Again you keep trying to call this even when it clearly isn't. You may as well focus on the 3% of biologists who don't accept evolution or the 3% of climate scientists who don't believe in global warming.

Theoretical computer science is mathematics with finiteness constraints. Hypercomputationalists are essentially breaking the very core rules of TCS to get their results, which is why its rejected so hard, same way there are unorthodox theories in physics which make unrealistic assumptions (ex: Alcubierre drive needing exotic matter, etc.).

Comparing hypercomputationalists to creationists is probably unfair, but what is not unfair is to say it was an intellectual fad of the 1990s and since then research has died down quite a bit.

The main approaches to computation beyond Turing definability (‘hypercomputation’): supertask, non‐well‐founded, analog, quantum, and retrocausal computation. These models depend on infinite computation, explicitly or implicitly, and are essentially physically impossible; moreover, even if infinite computation were realizable, the Halting Problem would not be affected.

In other words:
>amount to little more than the obvious comment that if non-computable inputs are permitted, then non-computable outputs are attainable.

Again, I'm not going to let actual pseuds like >>1211838 proudly and confidently proclaim everything which is the product of endless research papers, books, and ideas of a branch of science is false and wrong, but some randos on an imageboard have got the real truth because:

>computer science has yet to catch up with modern philosophy


Don't tell me what you don't know, because to people in the know you just come off like a pseud.

 No.1211902


 No.1211907

>>1211900
>What you have are "philosophers of science" and people from other fields who keep interjecting with this
Which is basically on the same level as "academic CS community". Pure math fields are not empirical, so their conclusions have same level of scientific validity as philosophers'.

 No.1211919

>>1211907
Believe it or not, but people in CS do actually write programs now and then. And you can find upper bounds for algorithmic complexity by pure math. Dialectical plonkers meanwhile have nothing to show since they lack the precision of people with a formal math education.

 No.1211926

>>1211907

why does this matter? still doesn't mean they are qualified to say computer science is wrong and its an even further level of pseudery to have randos here take philosophers speculations and interpretations of actual science as gospel and give their own take on it, giving it a 2x pseudery level.

 No.1211946

File: 1665155720509.png (413.14 KB, 511x595, ayys.png)

>>1211919
>>1211907
Just because TCS uses an apriori methodology doesn't mean it hasn't been empirically validated as well. Compiler theory and the design of programming compilers and interpreters is a fairly straightforward application of theoretical computer science like automata theory.

Finite-state machines are significant in many different areas, including electrical engineering, linguistics, computer science, philosophy, biology, mathematics, video game programming, logic, modeling of application behavior (control theory), design of hardware digital systems, software engineering, compilers, network protocols, and computational linguistics.

Similarly to Cockshott's comments on boolean algebra vs hegelian logic, maybe the fact that TCS has so many straightforward engineering applications should help you realize it has a hell of a lot more validity that the ad hoc methods of an 18th/19th century german idealist who even Marx rejected in the end.

try again, PSEUDS

 No.1211948

>>1211919
>Believe it or not, but people in CS do actually write programs now and then.
Most of the shit relevant to this discussion is not possible to check on a computer. And even if it was, it would still be a speculative, not empirical field for obvious reasons
>And you can find upper bounds for algorithmic complexity by pure math.
<You can check math with more math
Sure, and you can validate philosophy with more philosophy.
>Dialectical plonkers meanwhile have nothing to show since they lack the precision of people with a formal math education.
<I am speaking in a special formal language that is better than your formal language so i am right.
Are you some kind of platonist or something?

Ironically i am CS major.

>>1211926
>still doesn't mean they are qualified to say computer science is wrong
As quialified as you to say that philosophical conclusions are wrong.
>its an even further level of pseudery to have randos here take philosophers speculations and interpretations of actual science as gospel and give their own take on it, giving it a 2x pseudery level.
Less "pseudery" than cockshottists going full reddit while not studying math further than basic trogonometry if even that. You fuckers couldn't even understand why i mentioned Godel in this thread.

 No.1211954

>>1211946
>Compiler theory and the design of programming compilers and interpreters is a fairly straightforward application of theoretical computer science like automata theory.
<Hey the shit we built to emulate our math validates our math. We are real science now, guyz!
What a fucking joke.

 No.1211958

>>1211926
The fact is that computer science is still living in the dark age because it hasn't adopted Hegelian algorithms. And why? Does it even need to be explained? Are you retarded? I bet you are white and not even gay. The issue is dead simple. All you need to do is understand quantum dynamics from a Godelian perspective. Only then will you see that nine fingers are more than one. But you are too imperialist-minded to get it. And this right here is the reason the USSR failed. Because of shitlords like you. Fact. We could have decolonized Mars by now just following the basic Dietzgen-Lasalle-Stirner-Steiner-Trotsky-Sonichu paradigm, but you blew it, you shitflinging monkey.

 No.1211969

File: 1665156340567.png (295.45 KB, 450x452, 1647331510412.png)

>>1211948
>Less "pseudery" than cockshottists going full reddit while not studying math further than basic trogonometry if even that. You fuckers couldn't even understand why i mentioned Godel in this thread.
Incompleteness is an argument against hegelianism, not for it you pseud. Hegelians are the ones claiming a complete logical system.
>Ironically i am CS major.
lol STFU undergraduate.

Kindof makes sense now that I understand I've been arguing with a bunch of 19 year olds that know nothing but are super confident they are right.

 No.1211972

>>1211948
>Ironically i am CS major.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLSHIT

 No.1211983

>>1211969
>Incompleteness is an argument against hegelianism, not for it you pseud. Hegelians are the ones claiming a complete logical system.
Calling anyone a pseud while not understanding an argument about math. It is clear that you only just now read the wiki page and still doesn't understand what you have read.

>I've been arguing with a bunch of 19 year olds

I can see that you have never been in an actual serious discussions before.

>>1211972
Nope. I don't have like PhD or anything, but i have studied CS in uni and work as software engineer for like almost two decades.

 No.1211993

File: 1665156988136.png (48.03 KB, 894x773, mmm.png)

>>1211948
>Ironically i am CS major.
Good thing you're not in a theory of computing class I was teaching, otherwise I'd probably fail you tbh since you clearly can't understand any of the ideas presented here.

>>1211972
It's possible. Some people scrape by without really understanding anything. Just ironic some guy claims to be able to debunk Cockshott and the literal consensus of working academics and computer scientists.

>>1211983
Again, maybe you need to dust off the old textbooks because you're the one who doesn't understand any of the arguments being made here.

 No.1211999

>>1211948
>Ironically i am CS major.
Damn. I wouldn't mind a degree tbh. Where do you get your essays written and how much does it cost per paper? Can it be budgeted into your student loans and bursseries?

 No.1212030

File: 1665157650747.png (253.54 KB, 351x430, pointing.png)

>>1211983
>work as software engineer for like almost two decades.
Software engineering is not theoretical computer science and your ability to write business software, or to vaguely refer to Gödel's incompleteness theorems in some disconnected smug manner, does not qualify you to comment on the hypercomputation debate. If you want to bring a real argument, try again. Please explain, in detail, why exactly Gödel's theorems prove hypercomputation is possible. Hint: you can't. because thats exactly the opposite of what is true. There is a correspondence between Gödel's arguments, the halting problem, and Cantor's diagonalization arguments, the exact thing Cockshott uses to argue against Hegel in: >>1202347

again:

>Here we have the same sort of presentation process that occurs in the Logic, with its deduction of being from nothingness, and becoming from the contradiction between the two. At the beginning in Hegel this has a certain plausibility but as the argument proceeds, as he gets to the derivation of “ought.” I for one felt, reading Hegel as an undergraduate, that this was all a conjuring trick. He was sneaking already formed presuppositions and concepts into the argument rather than deriving them. This essentially is what Althusser says of Marx’s form of presentation. It only works to the extent that he brings in real historical forms which have their own material history, their own information content, into the argument. Althusser contrasts this form of presentation at the start with the chapters on the working day and primitive accumulation which present the real histories of the forms being discussed.


>If we look at the history of mathematics, and if any domain would seem suited to the logical self development of ideas it is maths, we can see how a method analogous to that of Hegel came to grief. The formalist project of Russell and Hilbert came to grief first in set theory and then in Turing’s (1937) paper on the decision problem. The project had aimed to found mathematics on logic and Hilbert had asked for a mechanical procedure by which the truth or falsity of a mathematical theorem could be determined. If a theorem could be proven true, then you demonstrate that it can be derived from axioms using valid rules of inference. So if you could discover such a mechanical method for checking arbitrary theorems, you would have demonstrated that all of maths could be logically deduced from a collection of founding axioms. Turing showed that no such proof decision process can exist. He did it by taking the term “mechanical procedure” and designing a general purpose “universal” computer that could perform any calculation that a human mathematician could do. He then demonstrated that the assumption that such a mechanical proof procedure could exist would lead to a contradiction analogous to Russell’s paradox. It thus follows that even in mathematics, the project of a complete and logical development of the system falls down. The basic reason is that you cannot get more out of an axiomatic system than you put in: Chaitin’s aphorism: “You cannot get two kilos of results from one kilo of axioms.” Advocates of “dialectical logic” may say that this is just a restriction of formal logic, dialectical logic does allow you to derive more than you start out with. Well the reason why formal logic is different is that it is specified precisely enough to allow machine checking. A human dialectician is free to engage in all sorts of rhetorical sleights of hand, importing hidden assumptions without needing to give any justification for them. The great advantage of a mechanizable formalism is that it excludes such verbal conjuring tricks.


Again, you continue to throw out Gödel's theorem as though people here will just take you at your word about something you vaguely remember from university 10 years ago and half remembered, or more likely never understood. Again, there are people here with actual advanced degrees who have done research in these areas who know what the fuck they are talking and that you are full of shit.

You can say Hegel is right but don't try to claim you know what you clearly DONT.

 No.1212055

>>1211999
>I wouldn't mind a degree tbh
Be born in postsoviet country just in time to get into uin while the secondary education system is still not collapsed under neoliberal reforms and study hard for 5 years, i guess.
>Can it be budgeted into your student loans and bursseries?
Not burger so the concept of student loans is kinda alien to me.
>Where do you get your essays written and how much does it cost per paper?
Again, not a burger, so i don't know what the hell you are talking about.

And yes, i am fully aware that you are trying to shittalk me. But it's hard to get offended by a mathlet.

>>1212030
>vaguely refer to Gödel's incompleteness theorems in some disconnected smug manner
It only feels smug because you have shit for brains and don't get what i am talking about.
>why exactly Gödel's theorems prove hypercomputation is possible
Where i even claimed that, moron? Do you think that this whole thread there was just one guy talking to you? I mentioned Godel in the beginning of the thread in the context of scientific validity of pure math fields, and did the same just now, that's it. The fact that your brain kinda mixed all the different arguments about different propositions into one hot mess just shows how fucking retarded you are. And why people just stop arguing with you halfway. You are just a certified moron.

 No.1212075

>>1212055
>Where i even claimed that, moron? Do you think that this whole thread there was just one guy talking to you? I mentioned Godel in the beginning of the thread in the context of scientific validity of pure math fields, and did the same just now, that's it.
OK, sorry then I thought you were a different anon.

 No.1212152

File: 1665159941471.png (149.95 KB, 329x253, smoking.png)

>>1212055
so your whole argument is that because TCS isn't empirical, it means it can't be applied to understanding the physical world? This seems wrong, the person who pioneered the physical interpretation of the CT thesis was a literal physicist, David Deutsch.

Again, claiming TCS being apriori means that the strong/physical interpretation of the CT thesis (Church–Turing–Deutsch) must therefore be wrong is also pseudery, just of a different kind.

The Church-Turing thesis is a statement about models of computation. The Church-Turing-Deutsch principle is a statement about theories of physics.

Deutsch’s idea was based on an observation that seems self-evident: computation is inherently a physical process, in the sense that any computation must be carried out by an actual physical computing device, and so must obey the laws of physics.

This line of thought led Deutsch to propose a revision of the Church-Turing thesis, which we are calling the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle. Just to restate it in the terms used above, the CTD Principle says that every physical process can be simulated by a universal computing device.

Again, with all the pdfs the Hegelians have posted here, here's one they should probably actually read: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall04/cos576/papers/deutsch85.pdf

Every computational process is ultimately a mathematical description of a physical process in terms of (possibly coarse-grained) state transitions.

Every physical process has a mathematical description in terms of a sequence of mathematical operations such that it may be simulated by a Turing Machine. Therefore, every physical process may be simulated by a universal computing device.

Again, this is a claim on physical reality not just abstract TCS, it was Deutsch who applied the CT thesis to physics.

There are two fundamental theories of physics that account for nearly all experiments and observations performed to date: general relativity and the Standard Model. If we could simulate these theories by Turing machines, then the outcomes of any experiment could be deduced by a Turing machine, and then then any physical computational device could be simulated by a Turing machine.

General Relativity: There was a breakthrough in numerical relativity in 2005, and we now have computer programs that do an excellent job of simulating general relativity. While we can't rigorously show that relativity satisfies the Church-Turing hypothesis, this is good evidence that it does.

The Standard Model: Lattice field theory seems to do a very good job of simulating the Standard Model (albeit with enormous computation times). Again, we can't rigorously show that the Standard Model satisfies the Church-Turing hypothesis, but this is good evidence that it does.

If you are talking about computing devices that can be built using any conceivable future technology, these two theories probably cover all of them.

The Church–Turing thesis is about physically realizable machines. To the best of our knowledge, hypercomputation models cannot be realized in the physical world. They are a figment of our imagination.

If someone would find a new law of physics which enables solving the halting problem, that would make a big fuss in the world of science. But I am not holding my breath.

Bottom line, there is very strong and good evidence for the physical interpretation of the CT thesis aka CTD.

 No.1212169

File: 1665161118947.png (32.98 KB, 862x824, goedelpuff.png)

>>1211948
>You fuckers couldn't even understand why i mentioned Godel in this thread.
<i play the Gödel card
In theory Gödelpuff's power allows him to self-reference out of any information structure.
But in practice Gödelpuff gets caught in a heuristics net.

 No.1212188

File: 1665162216377.png (261.26 KB, 480x481, God.png)

>>1212152
bottom line is that there is a deep correspondence between multiple fields (CS, Cognitive Psychology, Physics, Math) with the CT/CTD/CTM overlapping theories and also a deep overlap of its practical applications in multiple fields of engineering (including not just software). There is also an academic consensus in these fields on these issues as well.

A lot of this shit honestly gives off the same energy as creationists arguing against darwinian evolution in the 2000s, despite evolution being the core of biology and medicine, throwing whatever theories they could possibly find against the wall and seeing what sticks.

But instead of "irreducible complexity" proving the Christian God made the universe as is 7000 years ago they argue that the universe is a hypercomputer and that proves Hegel was right.

lol

 No.1212217

>>1210861
i cant believe the schizo has more based takes than 90% of this board…

 No.1212290

>>1211665
>Austrians use the idea of hypercomputation to say that a human brain can calculate things a computer can't therefore computerized economic planning is impossible

Wouldn't that imply that democratic central planning is superior to computers?

 No.1212298

>>1212290
no because austrians would claim information can only be effectively communicated by the price signals of the market, so decentral planning is out as well

 No.1212301

File: 1665168160393.png (234.96 KB, 351x430, animesmoking2.png)

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me… In the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. Hypercomputation has not been proven not to exist, therefore it must exist.

- Academician Paul Cockshott

 No.1212303

>>1211926
>computer science is wrong
but thats not what was said. the assumptions of computer science don't apply to other fields.

 No.1212304

>>1212298
and if the austrians are wrong about markets?

 No.1212309

>>1211993
>the literal consensus of working academics and computer scientists.
>>1211768
> the views of some person are fringe

huh I guess Communism is debunked since most academics aren't Communist. I wonder what that would make of Cockshottism since it is even more fringe. wow science is so cool!

 No.1212315

>>1212309
>huh I guess Communism is debunked since most academics aren't Communist. I wonder what that would make of Cockshottism since it is even more fringe. wow science is so cool!
only makes sense if you consider political science and economics to be equivalent to the conclusions of actual hard science and math.

>>1212304
they would probably still say you can't calculate the value of capital goods without a capital goods market and even if you could theres no way you could do it by hand for millions of goods and services.

 No.1212326

>>1212290
I don't think that anon was right about the Austrians. What they actually believe is that the market is a hypercomputer. This take is based on loosely echoing some claim from Hayek without reading the text it appears in. Hayek basically wrote 80 years ago:
<Price tags on things, like dude, think about all these numbers travelling across the country inside trucks that hold these things, like WHOOOAA. No way computers could store and transmit that much information.

>>1212315
>they would probably still say you can't calculate the value of capital goods without a capital goods market
They do say that, but we can start from crude measurements like labor time and update the valuations with the data you get from the consumer-goods market.

 No.1212333

>>1212326
Hayeks informational argument does seem to be outdated by the existence of computer networks and the internet, then again Mises original calculation argument shouldn't have survived the 1930s based on the USSR actually having a planned economy let alone Kantorovich inventing linear programming in 1939.

 No.1212335

>>1212303
>the assumptions of computer science don't apply to other fields.
In fact it doesn't always apply to supposedly CS field - practical software and hardware engineering. There is a lot of complications when actual physical devices interact with sfotware that just don't work as CS academics imagine it to work. In fact usually the worst person to write a software would be a CS academic.

 No.1212336

>>1212303
it actually applies to alot of fields, see: >>1212188

 No.1212339

>>1212336
That's just your unsubstantiated claims. Are you gonna quote another book on corporate management to "prove" how important CS is to every field?

 No.1212340

>>1212336
is computer science is the science of the hardware we refer to as computers or is it the science of computation?

 No.1212342

>>1211677
>But thanks for those texts that you just googled without reading which I likewise won't read
Won't read or are incapable of reading?
I read everything I post here multiple times before submitting to make sure it is relevant. I have to in order to bold the important parts. Do you need me to break it up make it more digestible?

If you clicked on the links you would know they are short lists of examples, which is what you asked for.
They are very short I wouldn't call them "texts". I even gave you a variety of authors. I don't know why you are under the impression that philosophy produces things like engineers do. Philosophy produces ideas not rockets.

Its interesting that you refuse to argue with Marx and insist that I make an example myself so that you can nitpick that instead. Why don't you just attack Marx directly if you think he was so wrong?

example from Engels from Utopian and Scientific for what dialectics can do that science cannot:

>a rational limit beyond which the killing of the child in its mother's womb is murder.

 No.1212347

>>1211810
>>1211812
>Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?
>My dialectic method

 No.1212362

>>1212339
>>1212340
its a well known fact and its common knowledge. I don't need to be doing your research for you especially since hegelians ITT have already admitted to using timewasting BS to trolling ITT, ex:
>a computer will never be able to troll you, nor do your mom like I did last night
in:
>>1202584
again, there's another post here that in detail explains the CTD/CT in physics: >>1212152

and again, in cogsci it is also pretty much the mainstream:

>Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. Computational theory just uses some of the same principles as those found in digital computing. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is a computational system. More specifically, it states that a computational simulation of a mind is sufficient for the actual presence of a mind, and that a mind truly can be simulated computationally. 'Computational system' is not meant to mean a modern-day electronic computer. Rather, a computational system is a symbol manipulator that follows step-by-step functions to compute input and form output. Alan Turing describes this type of computer in his concept of a Turing machine.

 No.1212368

>>1212362
>its a well known fact and its common knowledge.
This is just pathetic. And you used this defense several times already.

 No.1212372

>>1212340
>is computer science is the science of the hardware we refer to as computers or is it the science of computation?
both. Theoretical computer science studies models of computation, systems covers hardware architecture/ networks/operation systems, etc. and theres applied CS for software engineering, etc.

 No.1212374

>>1212362
>and again, in cogsci it is also pretty much the mainstream:

>>>/edu/11759

 No.1212376

>>1212347
Twitter brain is a sad disease to have. If you bother the sentence in the context where it appears it is clear he talks there about his method of presentation which he separates from reasearch.

 No.1212377

>>1212362

>The map–territory relation is the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that "the map is not the territory" and that "the word is not the thing", encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse conceptual models of reality with reality itself.


>A frequent coda to "all models are wrong" is that "all models are wrong (but some are useful)," which emphasizes the proper framing of recognizing map–territory differences—that is, how and why they are important, what to do about them, and how to live with them properly. The point is not that all maps are useless; rather, the point is simply to maintain critical thinking about the discrepancies: whether or not they are either negligible or significant in each context, how to reduce them (thus iterating a map, or any other model, to become a better version of itself), and so on.


>Bateson argued that the usefulness of a map (a representation of reality) is not necessarily a matter of its literal truthfulness, but its having a structure analogous, for the purpose at hand, to the territory. Bateson argued this case at some length in the essay "The Cybernetics of “Self”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relatio

 No.1212378

>>1212368
Can you even respond to the DETAILED post explaining the relation of CT to physics? NO?
>>1212152
instead you focus on one line and ignore all the rest. Again, im at work so i dont have access to a ton of shit right now.

>>1212376

don't bother anon, these pseuds stay in practice by quote mining

 No.1212386

>>1212376

this part? where he says his method of research is dialectical?

>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 connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

 No.1212388

>>1212377
The problem with this, is not that the map can never be as detailed as the territory, but that the pseuds will claim that if the map were just a "little" more detailed then their conclusions would totally be justified and the problem is the model isn't good enough. The analogy to creationism is 100% spot on as this is just a repurposed "god of the gaps" argument in favor of hypercomputation.

Again, CTD says we can calculate physical laws including newtonian mecahnics an the standard model to arbitrary precision.

Do you really think that after calculating results to the Nth degree you will eventually find a noncomputable result?

If you, you're welcome to try and prove that. The burden of proof is on you.

 No.1212389

>>1212386
You don't know what the word "latter" means?

 No.1212390

>>1212378
>quote mining
do you need me to post all the context? I can. I try to keep things short for the people who have attention problems.

 No.1212392

>>1212378
>Can you even respond to the DETAILED post explaining the relation of CT to physics? NO?
It is not an explanation, pseud, you are just making an argument from authority.

>Deutsch’s idea was based on an observation that seems self-evident: computation is inherently a physical process, in the sense that any computation must be carried out by an actual physical computing device, and so must obey the laws of physics.

This is some serious platonic idealism.

Yeah, that's why no one takes you seriously, pseud (and because of your avatarfagging)

 No.1212395

>>1197480
>try to find "how the world works " on pdf
>cant find it
>find the copy right page on google books
>all rights reserved
i stole it on libgen

 No.1212398

>>1212388
>the pseuds will claim that if the map were just a "little" more detailed then their conclusions would totally be justified and the problem is the model isn't good enough

where are people claiming this?

 No.1212403

>>1212392 (me)
>This is some serious platonic idealism.
Also, just bad logic. If every calculation is a physical process, that means every physical process can be calculated. If A->B then B->A. A fucking joke of an argument.

And you have the galls to compare anybody in this thread but yourself to creationist when you literally pull same shit as them - arguments from authority by mentioning some obscure scientists that believe same bullshit you do.

 No.1212411

>>1212392
>>Deutsch’s idea was based on an observation that seems self-evident: computation is inherently a physical process, in the sense that any computation must be carried out by an actual physical computing device, and so must obey the laws of physics.
>This is some serious platonic idealism.
Literally the opposite of platonic idealism.
>>1212403
>If every calculation is a physical process, that means every physical process can be calculated. If A->B then B->A.
What is this nonsense? If all Dutch people are human, that doesn't mean all humans are Dutch.

 No.1212419

>>1212403
now you're just making yourself look really fucking stupid
take a step back, reread your stupid shit

 No.1212421

>>1212411
>Literally the opposite of platonic idealism.
Nope, that just the same "math is actually real argument" just about "computation".
> If all Dutch people are human, that doesn't mean all humans are Dutch.
Exactly my point.

 No.1212424

>>1212419
Nah, it's just your inability to understand your opponent's argument at play. Again. Seriously, faggot, you though mentioning Godel has something to do with hypercomputers. How stupid you really are?

 No.1212442

>>1212421
Computation is a physical process. Nobody knows how you get the idea that this statement is platonist.

 No.1212450

>>1212424
im a random anon you moron. take a step back, a deep breath, stop embarrassing yourself and just take a look at what you're writing.

 No.1212460

File: 1665172519118.png (38.72 KB, 740x251, RevolutionaryXKCD.png)

>>1212424
Coping software engineer resorts to posturing when presented with a wall of arguments he doesn't understand and so he has to cope and seethe

>b.b.b.b.b…..but its an argument from AUTHORITY!!!!


>Human brain is not a compuitation device and any pure math field like CS is not empirical and should always be taken with a grain of salt, especially considering Godel incompleteness theorem.


Again, what does this have to do with the physical interpretation of the CTT? please elaborate. Are you seriously suggesting that CT/CTD/CTM can't explain the nature of reality because of incompleteness but Hegelianism CAN? Again,

>The basic reason is that you cannot get more out of an axiomatic system than you put in: Chaitin’s aphorism: “You cannot get two kilos of results from one kilo of axioms.” Advocates of “dialectical logic” may say that this is just a restriction of formal logic, dialectical logic does allow you to derive more than you start out with. Well the reason why formal logic is different is that it is specified precisely enough to allow machine checking. A human dialectician is free to engage in all sorts of rhetorical sleights of hand, importing hidden assumptions without needing to give any justification for them. The great advantage of a mechanizable formalism is that it excludes such verbal conjuring tricks.


why does incompleteness restrict every single system but Hegel's? special pleading. Again, faced with Cockshott's use of incompleteness/diagonalization/halting problem against Hegel, his response is essentially "NO U". Pathetic.

>>1212368

>Also, just bad logic. If every calculation is a physical process, that means every physical process can be calculated. If A->B then B->A. A fucking joke of an argument.


I'm laughing internally at the pseuds ITT.

I'm sure they'd love to troll me by demanding I teach them a graduate degree's worth of information and show a poll where scientists all have to affirm that the thing they all agreed on as the literal basis of their field is true.

Anyway i'm checking out now, this has just confirmed and strengthens my opinions that hegelians are mostly ideologically motivated pseuds and dialectics is pseudoscience.

 No.1212465

>>1212424
>Seriously, faggot, you though mentioning Godel has something to do with hypercomputers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputing
<Due to limitations first exhibited by Kurt Gödel (1931), it may be impossible to predict the convergence time itself by a halting program, otherwise the halting problem could be solved.

 No.1212476

>>1212460
Congrats on derailing again.

Marxism is still dialectical.

 No.1212485

File: 1665173175726.mp4 (3.27 MB, 644x480, copingandseething.mp4)

>>1212476
argument not detected

 No.1212489

>>1212460
>Are you seriously suggesting that CT/CTD/CTM can't explain the nature of reality because of incompleteness but Hegelianism CAN?
If you drop stupid shit that comes after "but" than yes, that is apretty much what i said. Math is a formal language system and has serious flaws, so thinking that it can accurately represent reality is unfounded. It is a useful tool, just like dialectics or formal logic with their own limitations and different areas of applicability. Also math doesn't explain anything, it describes things, not explains them.

You have been asked multiple time to prove the fact that bullshit you are trying to peddle is actually a mainstream science consensus and always deflected the question and posted some bullshit from a book about corporate management and some single paper where guy claims that if compotation is a physical process then you can compute any physical process, which as i showed is just flawed reasoning and frankly a disguised platonism.

Claiming that everyone who opposes you is "hegelian" because one guy in the thread mentioned Hegel just shows how batshit insane you are.

>nd show a poll where scientists all have to affirm that the thing they all agreed on as the literal basis of their field is true.

Well, i can show a poll on evolution or climate science about climate change. Also, it doesn't ahve to be the poll, just a couple meta-analyses articles published in decent journals, that's it. Hell, even wiki will suffice if it has decent sources.

 No.1212492

>>1212485
Because your detector is broken.

 No.1212493

>>1212485
You keep bringing the conversation back to Hegel when no one is claiming that Hegel figured everything out, in fact its the opposite. Dialectics and computer science are not mutually exclusive they are entirely different in scope and subject but you keep trying to shove them into the same box.

 No.1212505

i'm not being dismissive but i'd be interested if someone could explain why any of this matters in practical terms. more as a challenge, than as an attempt to insist that only the practical matters and there's no merit in making long, incomprehensible, academic posts. (i'm two for three on doing that.)

you don't need to understand computability theory to use or even to program a computer and you don't need to understand philosophy to stage an insurrection.

 No.1212525

>>1212505
>i'm not being dismissive but i'd be interested if someone could explain why any of this matters in practical terms. more as a challenge, than as an attempt to insist that only the practical matters and there's no merit in making long, incomprehensible, academic posts. (i'm two for three on doing that.)
It all started as discussion of incredibly shitty takes on marxism by Dickblast and got derailed by his fanboy into some completely theoretical sphere that none of the participants is knowledgeable about.

 No.1212526

File: 1665174804211.png (290.05 KB, 491x491, cockshott.png)

>>1212505
Because every time you will bring up objections in party meetings of analysis, program, organizational theories, they'll just respond "you're not thinking DIALECTICALLY comrade".

>You have been asked multiple time to prove the fact that bullshit you are trying to peddle is actually a mainstream science consensus and always deflected the question and posted some bullshit from a book about corporate management and some single paper where guy claims that if compotation is a physical process then you can compute any physical process, which as i showed is just flawed reasoning and frankly a disguised platonism.

its not platonism and if you think that you understand neither cockshott, nor materialism, nor platonism. NTA that posted the corporate shit, and that "random scientist" is actually pretty foundational to the pioneering of quantum computing.

The reason I can't show you data on "scientific consensus" is because polls are not taken of scientists on whether or not they agree with X theory, unless its something ""controversial"" like evolution or climate change. Hypercomputation and the CTD are pretty arcane topics for the layperson, and thus, no one has made polls (as far as I know) of scientists, but based on my experience in grad school I have talked to numerous scientists, read untold thousands of research papers, many of which cited these topics, and unless you want me to do a PDF dump ITT or self dox, you're shit out of luck.

The fact is we have yet to discover a physical law that can't be simulated as per >>1212152

this anon >>1212489
>If you drop stupid shit that comes after "but" than yes, that is apretty much what i said
essentially admits guilt to special pleading for Hegel's system so as far as I'm concerned the debate is essentially over.

I think most of the anons here who can read the thread and do their own research will find out who's actually correct and who's full of it.

 No.1212531

>>1212505
Marx and Engels spent a lot of time critiquing "what you see is what you get" style philosophy(physicalism, positivism, "objectivism", analytical philosophy in general) as static, dead and unable to fully comprehend the world in motion. They argue that you have to grasp things in their connections to other things and integrate understanding of the whole in to the parts in order to describe reality accurately. That you need to have both and not be one-sided.

They say that when you look at the world as a set of isolated parts directly from sense perception that this is similar to idealism and not materially grounded, and that it is the foundation of liberalisms appeal to an external absolute morality separate from material reality, which is incapable of actually causing change in the real world because it simply reifies the way things are.

see >>1210010 >>1209319 >>1208860 >>1208858 >>1205309 >>1204502

 No.1212535

>In the meantime, along with and after the French philosophy of the 18th century, had arisen the new German philosophy, culminating in Hegel.

>Its greatest merit was the taking up again of dialectics as the highest form of reasoning. The old Greek philosophers were all born natural dialecticians, and Aristotle, the most encyclopaedic of them, had already analyzed the most essential forms of dialectic thought. The newer philosophy, on the other hand, although in it also dialectics had brilliant exponents (e.g. Descartes and Spinoza), had, especially through English influence, become more and more rigidly fixed in the so-called metaphysical mode of reasoning, by which also the French of the 18th century were almost wholly dominated, at all events in their special philosophical work. Outside philosophy in the restricted sense, the French nevertheless produced masterpieces of dialectic. We need only call to mind Diderot's Le Neveu de Rameau, and Rousseau's Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inegalite parmi les hommes. We give here, in brief, the essential character of these two modes of thought.


>When we consider and reflect upon Nature at large, or the history of mankind, or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. We see, therefore, at first the picture as a whole, with its individual parts still more or less kept in the background; we observe the movements, transitions, connections, rather than the things that move, combine, and are connected. This primitive, naive but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away.


>But this conception, correctly as it expresses the general character of the picture of appearances as a whole, does not suffice to explain the details of which this picture is made up, and so long as we do not understand these, we have not a clear idea of the whole picture. In order to understand these details, we must detach them from their natural, special causes, effects, etc. This is, primarily, the task of natural science and historical research: branches of science which the Greek of classical times, on very good grounds, relegated to a subordinate position, because they had first of all to collect materials for these sciences to work upon. A certain amount of natural and historical material must be collected before there can be any critical analysis, comparison, and arrangement in classes, orders, and species. The foundations of the exact natural sciences were, therefore, first worked out by the Greeks of the Alexandrian period, and later on, in the Middle Ages, by the Arabs. Real natural science dates from the second half of the 15th century, and thence onward it had advanced with constantly increasing rapidity.


>The analysis of Nature into its individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organized bodies in their manifold forms — these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature that have been made during the last 400 years. But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constraints, not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the last century.


>To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. His communication is 'yea, yea; nay, nay'; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." For him, a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis, one to the other.


>At first sight, this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound common sense. Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the woods for the trees.


>For everyday purposes, we know and can say, e.g., whether an animal is alive or not. But, upon closer inquiry, we find that this is, in many cases, a very complex question, as the jurists know very well. They have cudgelled their brains in vain to discover a rational limit beyond which the killing of the child in its mother's womb is murder. It is just as impossible to determine absolutely the moment of death, for physiology proves that death is not an instantaneous, momentary phenomenon, but a very protracted process.


>In like manner, every organized being is every moment the same and not the same; every moment, it assimilates matter supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment, some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew; in a longer or shorter time, the matter of its body is completely renewed, and is replaced by other molecules of matter, so that every organized being is always itself, and yet something other than itself.


>Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis, positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed, and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa.


>None of these processes and modes of thought enters into the framework of metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things and their representations, ideas, in their essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin and ending. Such processes as those mentioned above are, therefore, so many corroborations of its own method of procedure.


>Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasingly daily, and thus has shown that, in the last resort, Nature works dialectically and not metaphysically; that she does not move in the eternal oneness of a perpetually recurring circle, but goes through a real historical evolution. In this connection, Darwin must be named before all others. He dealt the metaphysical conception of Nature the heaviest blow by his proof that all organic beings, plants, animals, and man himself, are the products of a process of evolution going on through millions of years. But, the naturalists, who have learned to think dialectically, are few and far between, and this conflict of the results of discovery with preconceived modes of thinking, explains the endless confusion now reigning in theoretical natural science, the despair of teachers as well as learners, of authors and readers alike[…]


<Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Part II: [Dialectics]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch02.htm

>PDF

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Engels_Socialism_Utopian_and_Scientific.pdf
>EPUB
https://libgen.is/search.php?req=socialism+utopian+and+scientific

>Audiobook with discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_BiWhvVyA&t=5250s
>Audiobook alternate voice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22L4QSC6AEM&t=5500s

>Extended Analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk51YWIJIlw&list=PL9VMwPK_SqUuE-DQkFtceSbIjE5dzN6QA
>Short summary
https://youtu.be/lVY6eP3IVNE?t=520s
>Ch2 Reading and Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE5w6IAi7kg&t=528s
>Jason Unruhe's take
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWK-PM2gE9U&t=477s
>Summary and Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKe5Wg-rpdw
>Dialectical Materialism 101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZXaZHe901w
>Introduction to Dialectical Materialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6TYyqeB0Lk
>Fundamentals of Marx: Dialectics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNHzVeC7jeY

 No.1212540

>>1212526
>essentially admits guilt to special pleading for Hegel's system so as far as I'm concerned the debate is essentially over.
No i didn't, in fact if you had even basic reading comprehension you would be able to read that i said that all of those system have their own limitations and areas of applicability and neither can pretend to be some ultimate system of describing reality.

>I think most of the anons here who can read the thread and do their own research will find out who's actually correct and who's full of it.

You do know that you are basically alone in your position in this thread?

>based on my experience in grad school I have talked to numerous scientists, read untold thousands of research papers


Jesus, this is just so fucking funny.

>The reason I can't show you data on "scientific consensus" is because polls are not taken of scientists

Like i already said - post meta analysis papers published in serious journals at least that would show this as a consensus. I mean you have read thousands of them, you can remember at least one, right?

 No.1212549

File: 1665176024842.jpg (5.76 KB, 228x221, 1613084028658.jpg)

>>1212540
>Like i already said - post meta analysis papers published in serious journals at least that would show this as a consensus. I mean you have read thousands of them, you can remember at least one, right?

Maybe I will, later.

(and if i do I'll post an updated version of the anti hegel copypasta with sources)

but for the moment I have better things to do and other projects going on which are consuming a lot of my time. Also since graduating out of school I lost access to a lot of the journals I did before and would have to pay since I'm no longer part of an university/institution that has access. Not sure if it's worth it just to prove an internet rando wrong.

Especially in light of the fact that pseuds ITT have openly admitted to trying to waste my time by trolling, I guess the ultimate troll for you would be to force me to effortpost when all you have to say is NUH UH.

Not to mention that I'm pretty sure its actually illegal and a breach of copyright law for me to post the literal PDF of closed journal research papers, but if I do actually go through with this later I'll at least post the citations.

 No.1212554

>>1212549
>Not to mention that I'm pretty sure its actually illegal and a breach of copyright law for me to post the literal PDF of closed journal research papers

so this is the power of anglo positivists..

 No.1212555

File: 1665176240913-0.jpg (44.36 KB, 509x598, qmpoll.jpg)

File: 1665176240913-1.jpg (70.05 KB, 1825x1144, ConsciousnessPoll.jpg)

File: 1665176240913-2.jpeg (81.2 KB, 988x498, Consciousness2.jpeg)

>>1212526
>polls are not taken of scientists on whether or not they agree with X theory, unless its something ""controversial"" like evolution or climate change.

https://phys.org/news/2013-01-survey-physicists-fundamental-quantum-mechanics.html

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02134/full

https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2022/1/niac011/6663928

>>1212549
>Maybe I will, later.
lmao

 No.1212556

>>1212554
yeah I don't wanna get in trouble doofus

 No.1212559

>>1212549
>but for the moment I have better things to do
>Spent hours upon hours accusing opponents of being pseuds and when asked for evidence tries to run because "i have better things to do"

>Also since graduating out of school I lost access to a lot of the journals I did before and would have to pay since I'm no longer part of an university/institution that has access.

>Claims to have a degree
>Doesn't know about sci hub.
Don't worry, kid, i have you covered https://sci-hub.41610.org/how-to-use-sci-hub

>Not to mention that I'm pretty sure its actually illegal and a breach of copyright law for me to post the literal PDF of closed journal research papers

Motherfucker, are you for real?

 No.1212561

>>1200228
>so do it. i mean this wholeheartedly (if, as always, playfully): plagiarize his ideas, restate them without giving credit and without going off on weird tangents about social issues yourself. if confronted on your theft, deflect and deny.
>ideally, do so with a different aesthetic style. he's got geriatric lecturer down, so you should go the opposite direction - young and extremely online - weeb or furry probably.
This is a really good idea. I like the point about the format and aesthetics. I feel lots of theory is lacking good summaries. I think we need multi-media theory. Memes for the retards, infothreads for slightly less retards, webpages, videos, audio

TheCommunistManifestoButWithAHotGirlSippingALatteAsTheCoverArt.jpg

 No.1212563

>>1212554
Gotta admit tho. If he is a troll then he is very good. Just look at the size of this thread and it's all the work of combination of a single fucker's autism and leftypol's inability to ignore bait

 No.1212564

>>1212555
They are all hegelians i guess

 No.1212707

>>1212559
lol… see how the gaslighting already happens?
>i dont want to waste my time researching shit for you trolls
<HERE'S SCIHUB, RESEARCH IT NERD! DO IT!
you would think with that this motherfucker could just research it himself and find out whats actually true but instead he tries to bait into wasting time lol

this is /pol/ style saturation of bullshit gish gallop. We've had gish gallop by way of PDF now its the next evolution, gish gallop by way of forcing other people to look up pdfs lol.

That anon is totally right to check out on this bullshit.

sage

 No.1213021

>>1211810
>Isn't he literally saying here his approach is empiricist and he is just presenting the findings in pseudo-Hegelian style?
No, not exactly. Marx isn't "dialectical" in the same manner Hegel is, though. Capitalism presents itself (and its supporters present it) as a wholly coherent, rational system. To an extent, it even develops toward internal coherence over time, as if a logical construction from a priori first principles. An orthodox Hegelian's goal would be to try to demonstrate the logical necessity of the system's actuality and its historical development according to its concept, similar to what Hegel does in his Philosophy of Right. The end result would demonstrate capitalism to be the summit of human achievement in this sphere, either for the time being or for all time. That is, it demonstrates the existing world to be the most just and good one (this theodicial idea is part of Hegel's inheritance from Leibniz, Malebranche, and, to a lesser extent, Spinoza).

Marx does render a picture somewhat like this, in line with immanent critique's own tendency toward a sense of developmental inevitability and in accord with the development of capitalism itself - toward the standardization of rules and customs, and the increasing encompassment of human activities within its peculiar form of "rationality." What Marx wants to do is to demonstrate that capitalism isn't the result of some "absolute idea" above us, of the development of the concept itself, outside of our own control, but ideas that are very much around us, resulting from our own social practices at present and changeable by these. By "standing Hegel on his head," he wants to show how the rationality of Hegel's metaphysical construction in fact proceeds immanently from our practices and the empirical "facts" they relate to, rather than some transcendent idea.

The notion of some total and definitive break between the early and later Marx related to Hegel is nonsense, though; it's easy enough to see connections between the two periods, particularly in the Grundrisse. If any rupture can be said to have occurred, it's more in the increasing distance from Feuerbach's anthropological reinterpretation of Hegel (you can see this in the gradual disappearance of "species-being") rather than from Hegel himself, without implying he became more of a "Hegelian" by virtue of that.

Cockshott's neglect of dialectic is a serious problem, not because Marx's use of dialectic is equivalent to Hegel's, but because he fails to explain the seeming validity of Hegel's system as anything more than simply "wrong," of people being deluded or "tricked" by words, and he relies too much on picking single definitions and using these to critique other positions, without finding a critique of the position in terms of its own logic (a more generous reading of Hegel at least might have cured him of this bad habit). It becomes obvious in his treatment of the "transgender" topic, but it's a frequent problem in much of what he writes.

 No.1213049

File: 1665197058478.png (306.34 KB, 1800x1800, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1210861
>mechanism

 No.1213166

>>1212525
>>i'm not being dismissive but i'd be interested if someone could explain why any of this matters in practical terms.
>It all started as discussion of incredibly shitty takes on marxism
How can an opinion be very bad if it has no practical consequences.

>>1212526
>every time you will bring up objections in party meetings of analysis, program, organizational theories, they'll just respond "you're not thinking DIALECTICALLY comrade".
Yeah it's a placeholder when someone still needs to think of an actual argument.

>>1212531
>They argue that you have to grasp things in their connections to other things and integrate understanding of the whole in to the parts in order to describe reality accurately.
99 % of people claim to be doing that. Neurath was doing that and he called it physicalism.

>>1212540
>You do know that you are basically alone in your position in this thread?
You are certainly wrong about that.

>>1213021
You put effort into writing this instead of just reading the passage in question.

 No.1213174

>>1213166
>You put effort into writing this instead of just reading the passage in question.
I did read it. If you think I wasn't responding to it, you either didn't read what I said or you didn't understand it; I even repeated some of the phrasing to make it easier to connect the two.

 No.1213441

>>1212707
Totally not samefagging anon, we don't need you to post anything, there is already evidence to the contrary >>1212555

 No.1213488

>>1211267
>people only refer to althusser because dickshoot does

too much /leftypol/

 No.1213504

>>1213488
I like Althusser to an extent, but I didn't see many references to him here until relatively recently, within the last year or two.

What's indicative of the connection between the use of Althusser here and Cockshott is how the figure of Althusser is mobilized in discussions. While his interpretation of Hegel and the relationship between Hegel and Marx receive attention, there's less discussion of ISAs/RSAs and scant interest in interpellation, his interpretation of Machiavelli, his relation to psychoanalysis and Lacan, or his view of scientific practice and the "spontaneous philosophy of scientists."

 No.1213521

>>1210010
>Getting back to the pseudo-left it seems to me that their political outlook is characterized by a denial/ignorance of both necessity and rationality (and therefore of reality). Opposition to US imperialism turns out to be an unchallengeable, immutable, stand-alone principle of some sort. The idea that Bush et al could intend to democratize the Middle East – that their old policy is no longer rational (ie that in the current world situation it has lost its necessity) is seen as strange and nonsensical.
Thanks for dissuading me from spending my time reading Hegel. I should've known that writer of the article is up to no good when he started denying Marx's epistemological turn.

 No.1213522

>>1213521
If there's one thing I know then it's never to read Hegel

 No.1213544


 No.1213557

>>1213504
the connection between cuckshit and althusser is that they're both retarded pseuds with no grasp on marxism

 No.1213632

>>1213544
Yes, but I thought that was what the other person was referring to as well. Althusser's other ideas are obviously discussed elsewhere frequently enough, just not here.


>>1213521
>I should've known that writer of the article is up to no good when he started denying Marx's epistemological turn.
There's no such dramatic "turn." His views didn't remain static over time, but there isn't any true break either. Althusser identifies the last stage of Marx's purely philosophical development with the 1844 manuscripts, but the continuity between the manuscripts and the Grundrisse is plain enough, and the connection is similarly clear between the Grundrisse and Capital.


>>1213521
>>1213522
Lucky for you, you don't have to. You can just continue making mindless conclusions from what other people say about things, all without trying to understand the matter in question for yourself. You can then pretend your time is too important to waste with Hegel, when you have ample time to waste making and reading comments about Hegel on an imageboard website. Plenty of people do this with Marx as well.

 No.1213637

>>1213632
bro suck my dick

 No.1213696

>>1213637
Alternatively, you could just fuck off. I'm not even a Hegelian, but he has the most know-nothing "anti-fans" of any figure in philosophy. A site where people felt ashamed to make such stupid comments about things they don't and won't try to understand would be a definite improvement. You don't have to read Hegel, but you don't have anything new or interesting to say on this topic if you don't know anything. I don't need to read temper tantrums about Hegel or Hegelians for the thousandth time.

 No.1213702

>>1213696
I didn't mean it in a bad way

 No.1213758

>>1213696
>>1213702

Well the good news is that the majority of people on this board have bought into anti hegelianism, so debate at this point is just for the few autistic holdouts who basically conceded the debate by saying they can't justify their BS without special pleading for dialectics and had to resort to denying science and whining about sources like some sort of redditor.

It always makes me laugh that people are criticizing cockshottists for being not empirical, as though Marx WAS empirical. the fact is that no political economist, marxist, neoclassical, austrian, or otherwise was empirical because econometrics as a field wasn't really developed or taken seriously until the 1960s/70s and the data wasn't gathered as much anyway. Marx didn't use econometrics to justify the LTV he just assumed it as all political economists of his day did. To the extent he relied on empirical/historical data it was on the parts of his theories relating to the origin of capitalism (i.e. primitive accumulation) and not in his presentation of the commodity form.

With regards to Hegel he wasn't really that empirical either, he was against traditional empiricism and he was even less empirical than Kant. The fact is that the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living and even though Hegelianism was going out of fashion already after the european revolutions of 1848 a bunch of Marxists and continental philosophers keep clinging to it.

Let's face it, it was a mistake from the start for Marx to rely so heavily on that christfag pseud and if you could go back in time and replace all of Marx's books on Hegel with ones on matrix algebra and probability/statistics his work would have been able to explain the same shit in less pages and with far more clarity and less repetition, and with a higher level of abstraction, the initial parts of vol. 1 come to mind with its endless examples with coats and linen, also some parts of vol. 2. are pretty murky as well.

You don't need a phenomenology of value. Call it left ricardianism all you want, I don't care. Fact is that Sraffa was arguably more physicalist and more materialist than Marx, and therefore more based, the only problem is Sraffa/Steedman denied the LTV which is in fact correct according to the best empirical evidence.

Marx was a brilliant writer who packed his work (vol 1.) with all kinds of references to other authors, obscure and well known, faust, goethe, etc. This is why humanities scholars and liberal arts grad students love Marx so much, and part of what makes him such a bore to read for autistic stemlords of the kind that populate this board.

If Marx wrote his philosophy in a more concise form using theorems and corollaries and postulates it would be a hellof alot more clear. Thats why despite disagreeing with him I respect Spinoza the most out of all the philosophers since at least he had the good sense to write all his philosophy in terms of geometrical proofs like a true autist.

 No.1213789

>>1213174
<Indem der Herr Verfasser das, was er meine wirkliche Methode nennt, so treffend, und soweit meine persönliche Anwendung derselben in Betracht kommt, so wohlwollend schildert, was andres hat er geschildert als die dialektische Methode? Allerdings muss sich die Darstellungsweise formell von der Forschungsweise unterscheiden. Die Forschung hat den Stoff sich im Detail anzueignen, seine verschiednen Entwicklungsformen zu analysiren und deren inneres Band aufzuspüren. Erst nachdem diese Arbeit vollbracht, kann die wirkliche Bewegung entsprechend dargestellt werden. Gelingt dies und spiegelt sich nun das Leben des Stoffs ideell wieder, so mag es aussehn, als habe man es mit einer Konstruktion a priori zu thun.
Das Kapital, edition by Thomas Kuczynski, page 710.
Darstellungsweise = method of presentation
Forschungsweise = method of research
Die Forschung = the research
He says it is the method of presentation that makes his research look Hegelian.

 No.1213823

>>1213758
I seem to recall someone bringing up that sraffian econometric predictions were 99% accurate while traditional marxist LTV and marginalist ones were 98%.

 No.1213890

>>1213696
>I'm not even a Hegelian, but he has the most know-nothing "anti-fans" of any figure in philosophy.
Having no better candidate in mind for that title while posting on a Marxist imageboard?

>>1213758
>It always makes me laugh that people are criticizing cockshottists for being not empirical, as though Marx WAS empirical.
I'd say Marx was as empirical as possible at that time. Britain had high-detail government reports called the blue books that Marx did study. I would even say the main difference between Marx and the pro-capitalist writers of his time before anything else (even the question which class you side with) was his broad empiricism, you know studying history and so on, compared to what I would call the narrow empiricism of calling whatever is in front of your nose at the moment all that humanity has ever been and ever will be.
>Sraffa
I don't actually know what he came to think about it. I wouldn't trust the academic third-hand accounts.

 No.1213924

File: 1665248828286.png (417.32 KB, 631x472, phone.png)

>>1213823

I haven't read or seen that but IIRC the main critique of the Marxist tradition by neoricardians is the corn theory of value argument where they show that you can substitute labor for any good or service and still have a logically consistent theory of value, therefore Marxists are ideologically motivated for choosing labor in an unjustified way. Of course the econophysical response is to say that actually theres a higher correlation between labor and price than those other commodities.

In fact Hegelian/dialectical marxism has already been outdated since 1993 when postkeynesian economist Steve keen showed Marx didn't apply dialectics properly and using Marx's own method showed that a consistent dialectical reading of capital would not produce a labor theory of value. Modern Hegel scholars like Richard Dien Winfield have come to similar conclusions.

The fact is a non dialectical, econophysical approach to Marx is the only one which effectively preserves the LTV in any recognizable form. You can choose Hegel or the LTV. not both.

To be a Marxist today, you have to be anti Hegelian, because to be a consistent Hegelian Marxist would eventually lead you down the road to postkeynesianism, and evenetually to be a socdem/liberal as without the LTV there is no exploitation theory. Essentially, you will turn into an Antonio Wolf clone.

Which way, Marxist? Econophysical Left Ricardian or Hegelian Socdem? You choose.

 No.1213950

>>1213924
>showed that a consistent dialectical reading of capital would not produce…
People hate dialectical reasoning because it is so open and ambiguous you can produce any outcome you like to see with it.
>without the LTV there is no exploitation theory
I don't see that. There are people who own assets and are totally passive as owners. It's easy to see that these people do not need to exist for the business to exist = objectively parasites.

 No.1213955

>>1213950
yes but if you concede that non labor inputs can produce value, it leaves you in a conundrum because its not like you can pay a machine for its contribution

 No.1213960

>>1213955
I don't concede that.

 No.1213962

>>1213960
ok then how is there an exploitation theory without the LTV?

 No.1213967


 No.1214006

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

Explain this for me Anglos.

 No.1214008

>>1214006
wym. this doesn't contradict the LTV, wealth =/= value. Value is a social construct. Of course labor cant just produce wealth in a vacuum without any natural resources.

Come on man, if you want to prove Marx didn't have an LTV then this is weaksauce

 No.1214149

>>1213758
I will always defend Hegel like Lenin did when all the empirio-criticist were denouncing him. Why is denying Hegel always associated with Revisionism? Bernstein also denied him and he was the first revisionist. The only exception is French polemics against Hegel which was mainly because the 1844 manuscripts came out and there was an attempt to create humanism marxism through his relation to Hegel. I dont think this interpretation really holds up well and was used to attack the USSR.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm anyway heres a book that goes over the hegelian dialectical method within Marx's capital. The debate is not over.

>If Marx wrote his philosophy in a more concise form using theorems and corollaries and postulates it would be a hellof alot more clear.


You do know Marx was a huge math nerd? Marx wrote tons of manuscripts dedicates to using math. Maybe you or cockshott should rewrite capital using these mathematical formulas since you think you're presentation of it would be better than Marx's
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/mathematical-manuscripts/

 No.1214177

File: 1665260683688-0.png (56.25 KB, 198x296, dd.png)

File: 1665260683688-1.jpeg (13.46 KB, 180x269, ddddd.jpeg)

File: 1665260683688-2.jpg (19.44 KB, 329x500, dddd.jpg)

File: 1665260683688-3.jpg (19.07 KB, 230x346, ddd.jpg)

>>1214149
I'm aware of the existence of Marx's mathematical manuscripts and it has nothing to do with Capital.
>Maybe you or cockshott should rewrite capital using these mathematical formulas since you think you're presentation
thats already been done

 No.1214366

File: 1665267925810.gif (12.49 KB, 409x409, mrpumpkinface.gif)

>>1214149
Marx wasn't a "huge math nerd". That's a myth made by Engels who was so bad at math that his estimate on that is worthless.

<Marx left about 900 pages of mathematical manuscripts. A sizable part of these manuscripts were published in Moscow in 1968. Many pages are no more than abstracts from textbooks read by Marx. Some of his notes, however, consist of commentaries and deal with the definition of the derivative. Marx devised a method which he opposes to those of Newton, Leibniz, d’Alembert and Lagrange (he ignores Cauchy). His aim was, it seems, to decide whether a function ‘reaches’ its limit or not, a question long debated until the middle of the nineteenth century. As far as one can judge from the published manuscripts, Marx’ method of obtaining the derivative involves no more than a change of notation, concealing the difficulty rather than solving it. By giving independent value to this procedure Marx only reveals that he has not yet fully grasped the notion of a limit; moreover, the method is applicable to polynomials only, not to all functions, and its use would make a general theory of the derivative impossible.


<Marx’ efforts are those of an alert student of the calculus, who tries to think a delicate point through by himself, but cannot yet undertake original creative work in mathematics because he lacks training and information. Still the mathematical level of these efforts is well above that of Engels’ writings and, unlike Engels, Marx did not publish anything on mathematics.


<Marx did, however, send some of his mathematical manuscripts on the definition of the derivative to Engels, who commented in a letter dated August 18, 1881:


>I compliment you on your work. The matter is so perfectly clear that we cannot be amazed enough how the mathematicians insist with such stubbornness upon mystifying it. But that comes from the one-sided way of thinking of these gentlemen. [Marx and Engels 1931, page 513]


<How well these lines show their writer’s cast of mind! Engels did not know anything of the development of mathematics during the fifty years (at least!) preceding the time he was writing. From all evidence, he would have been unable to even name the mathematicians of his time. Nevertheless, he does not hesitate to accuse them of incompetence. Marx’ manuscript becomes ‘a new foundation of the differential calculus’ (Marx and Engels 1967, page 46) by a ‘profound mathematician’ (Engels 1935, page 10), while mathematicians, because of their ignorance of the dialectic, only muddle the problem.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/heijen/1948/xx/math.htm

 No.1214373


 No.1214400

File: 1665269130006.jpg (321.67 KB, 1200x675, karl liebknecht.jpg)

>>1214149
>Why is denying Hegel always associated with Revisionism? Bernstein also denied him and he was the first revisionist.
Karl Liebknecht was apparently a neo-Kantian who took Bernstein's side in debates over philosophy and denied Hegelian dialectics. Despite this, as you all know, he was a steadfast revolutionary leader and martyr renowned around the world.

Source is trust me bro, there's no direct evidence of this on the web in English to my knowledge but I've been told this by a trusted German-speaking comrade.

 No.1214409

>>1214373
Marx tried in his rough drafts to supplement the complete and comprehensive qualitative picture provided in his previous work with a quantitative picture.

Marx did not bring this work, which even in the case of simple reproduction demands rather complicated, although elementary, computations, to completion. The work, however, correctly posed the problem of the distribution of surplus value (in the costs of production) under conditions of large-scale reproduction in both sectors in order to obtain maximum profits and also derived the law of periodic crises. These are problems which can only be solved by means of contemporary methods of linear programming.

The mathematician Samuel Moore, who was Marx’s adviser in mathematics, was unfortunately not sufficiently well versed; he was obviously unacquainted with Fourier analysis, that branch of applied mathematics which deals with the detection of latent periodicities in complex oscillatory processes…

 No.1214426

>>1214373
Again, what does Marx writing about calculus have to do with his analysis of capital? he wrote the math stuff decades after anyway

 No.1214436

>>1213758
>if you could go back in time and replace all of Marx's books on Hegel
Marx didn't write any books on Hegel. He wrote one early essay on Hegel, criticizing his philosophy of right.
>with ones on matrix algebra and probability/statistics his work would have been able to explain the same shit in less pages
The most sophisticated treatment of economics in terms of probability/statistics during Marx's lifetime was Cournot's, and it was a failure in many ways, even by his own estimation. If anything, the choice not to rely on these tools was perspicuous. From the travails of this approach, I would agree with Keynes (who in his own right wrote a well-regarded book on probability) when he said:
<The discipline of economics has never given up its infantile passion for mathematics and purely theoretical and often ideological speculation, to the detriment of historical research and a productive conversation with other social sciences. Too often, economists are obsessed with minor mathematical problems of interest to no one but themselves, and which grant them the appearance of scientificity and allow them to avoid answering other, more complicated questions posed by the world around them.
Too many fetishize mathematicity as a way to seem scientific and clear, even when the use of mathematics can just as easily become a way of patching up or glossing over fundamental deficiencies (e.g. Marshall's later widely praised mathematical treatment of supply and demand was actually inconsistent with the neoclassical program itself), in a way far more obscurantist in practice than Hegelian language itself. I've had better luck explaining Hegel than mathematics more advanced than algebra to the average person; people without backgrounds in mathematics or related fields often shut down when confronted with a series of equations, even if they're relatively easy to understand, and they won't even listen to an explanation because they feel it's too hard regardless.

More to the point: has economics as a discipline really become clearer by virtue of more mathematics, or have mathematical equations more often functioned as so many ways to dodge basic questions from others of whether the "toy models" the mathematics are supposed to buoy actually resemble the world (while aiding in the professionalization and intellectual closure of the field)? Anyone who's familiar with modern economics should know the answer to this. Mathematical equations themselves can seem very clear and correct (at least by themselves), yet remain misapplications when the descriptions of the phenomena aren't precise; economic phenomena often do not lend themselves to this sort of precision, both because of their actual lack of clarity in practice and their historical determinacy in the long run. The use of mathematics is not equivalent to clarity or cogency, and, in the quest for precision, grounding terms for mathematical usage frequently relies on idealizing the description, omitting elements that are factors in reality (minor or not) yet render the mathematical analogy difficult or impossible.

>Thats why despite disagreeing with him I respect Spinoza the most out of all the philosophers since at least he had the good sense to write all his philosophy in terms of geometrical proofs like a true autist.

Marx was familiar with Hegel's own critiques of the defectiveness of this approach (outside mathematics) because of the problem of locating truly immediate grounds, and for being arbitrary and proceeding external to the development of the subject matter.


>>1213789
And? I said:
<Marx does render a picture somewhat like this, in line with immanent critique's own tendency toward a sense of developmental inevitability and in accord with the development of capitalism itself - toward the standardization of rules and customs, and the increasing encompassment of human activities within its peculiar form of "rationality." What Marx wants to do is to demonstrate that capitalism isn't the result of some "absolute idea" above us, of the development of the concept itself, outside of our own control, but ideas that are very much around us, resulting from our own social practices at present and changeable by these. By "standing Hegel on his head," he wants to show how the rationality of Hegel's metaphysical construction in fact proceeds immanently from our practices and the empirical "facts" they relate to, rather than some transcendent idea.
"Immanent critique" is his "method of presentation," what he shares in common with Hegel. Despite the approach in both seeming to coincide for reason of the "method of presentation," his "method of research" is not actually in line with Hegel but proceeds immanently from "our practices and the empirical 'facts' they relate to," not "some transcendent idea." I said his approach wasn't truly Hegelian explicitly; the first two paragraphs are dedicated to arguing just that. I think you just read the first sentence and assumed I was entirely opposed. What I was opposing is the implication that the method of presentation functions in the same way in both, or that it was unimportant to his aims, which is why the rest of the first and second paragraph is about the method.

 No.1214440

>>1214436
>Marx didn't write any books on Hegel. He wrote one early essay on Hegel, criticizing his philosophy of right.
I meant books he read, not wrote. books by Hegel, in his library.

 No.1214448

if you find yourself being swayed by the vigor of cockshottposters and the percieved consensus in their camp, i would just like to remind you that /leftypol/ used to have huge contingents of people who swore that Caleb Maupin and Haz were very important emerging voices and do all kinds of mental acrobatics to make them into 5D chess geniuses

cockshott is just another random antique angloid analytic marxist who cant into hegel. i imagine the niche following he's developed is largely because TANS and his broader work gives the impression of scientific rigor that can be used as a blueprint, but a blueprint for what? when? he is basically engaged in extended alt-history worldbuilding about "what if 20th century socialism had better planning"

 No.1214457

File: 1665271196426.jpg (157.19 KB, 1242x1616, 1648383010201.jpg)

>>1197480
All this guy did was show that you can do centralized big-scale planning with computers. And with that you can say he was innovative as I think he did it earlier than modern tech companies have showed it's possible in practice. Beyond that he literally as a "who?" who only gets support on here because he is a sperg and his theories have lot of SCIENCE and NUMBERS which means he is right.

Not that science and numbers are wrong, although there is certainly such a thing as "scienticsm" which is "wrong" and I think people who like Cockshot fall often into that group. It's that really it is used to give the appearance of something profound while as a social theorist Cockshott pretty much doesn't really say a lot. If you don't believe me try finding anything earth shattering in this thread. I remember reading his books few years ago. Econ-physics one felt like a very long way of saying thermodynamics have to be taken into production (a fact that escaped everyone apparently even though we know it for centuries), and new socialism one didn't really propose a new socialism. It's just a bit more lax USSR with better bureaucracy. One might for instance wonder if the fact that bureaucracy or central control are a bad idea in themselves.

 No.1214471

>>1214448
cockshott isn't an analytic no matter how many times people post this. His outlook is far closer to neopragmatism

 No.1214472

>>1214448
Lies. Literally every meme about Maupin is disrespectful (Maupin Bingo pic, Borger King, Washington Monument pic, Maupin Jazz… and all of these predate the scandal). People shopped Haz into nazi pictures and called him based Hazler to piss him off.

 No.1214490

>>1214472
>>1214476
Maupin did have more positive than negative reception here around the time of his book on Breadtube and before that, but it was never universally positive and soured within a few months of the book's release.

 No.1214491

>>1214409
even if marx wasn't the best student of math, the mathematical manuscripts still prove Mathematics isn't bourgeois and is a worthwhile persuit from a marxist POV.

If Marx had a phd in mathematics instead of philosophy who knows how the world could have turned out differently.

 No.1214497

>>1210927
>>1210861
You are vastly underestimating how influential the Austrian School still is, and how many of their bullshit theories have seeped into other schools of thought. Furthermore a lot of the brainworms like marginal use theory are not exclusive to them but just commonplace in bourgeois economics. You don't really know what you are talking about.

 No.1214503

>>1214490
Maupin did have more positive than negative reception here around the time of his book on Breadtube
People said the topic was too dumb and short-lived to write a book about it.

 No.1214504

>>1214472
a large part of /leftypol/ loved Haz and Infrared until they raided here and mentioning them was banned

 No.1214505

>>1213021
I really don't see how Cockshott's gender issues are in any way formed by his (lack of) dialectical thinking.
But yes, Cockshott does have autistic tendencies in his wordplay semantic definition games - so what? Is every thinker gonna be perfect with everything? Cockshott still has so much valuable theory to give us. I'm not gonna disregard Zizek because the guy has stupid political views either, or Marx because he called people nasty words and so on. IDK what this idea is that one author must be correct at everything he ever did and not only that but be a renaissance man who is great at every topic various fields of study.

 No.1214508

>>1213758
Very interesting post. I wouldn't go as far to say Sraffa was more based than Marx, but you raise good points. We should also remember that Marx studied mathematics very rigorously towards the end of his life. If Marx had been healthier while still in his middle ages and if he had lived longer, maybe we would have seen more mathematical proofs and such in his work. In his mathematic manuscripts, he was working on what we would nowadays consider algorithms. I do believe that he saw "value" as an algorithm and things like exchange value as the variables within that algorithm, but that's for another post.

 No.1214511

>>1214504
You lie. Couldn't you at least lie in the /isg/ thread instead of here or are you worried that too many people will know you are full of shit.

 No.1214512

• Value can mean the “use value”. It is how useful the good is a to a human being. This is rather subjective and difficult, if not impossible to quantify.

• Value can mean the “exchange value”. It is the rate at which the good can be exchanged for another good.

• A commodity is a good that is, or in the future will be, exchanged. It has both a use value (otherwise nobody will want to exchange for it, since it would be useless), and an exchange value.

• There are goods that have no exchange value: For example, if a mother bakes a cake for her children from dough, the cake itself is not baked for the purpose of exchanging it for another commodity. The cake is purely made for consumption within the family. Therefore, the cake has no exchange value, but it does have a use value. The cake is not a commodity in this case.

• All commodities are goods, but not all goods are commodities, since not all goods are made for the intent of exchange. In a hunter-gatherer society where no trade exists, no commodities would exist – everything is made for personal consumption. However, in capitalism, most things are made not for immediate personal consumption, but for trade. Under capitalism, most goods indeed are commodities, since most goods are produced for the intent of exchanging it on a market. Capitalism is the mode of production where commodity production has reached its thus-far historical peak.

• While the distinction between “use value” and “exchange value” is important to understand which goods are commodities and which goods are not, this distinction should not be overemphasized: When we speak of capitalism, we must speak of commodities first and foremost, since these are the most common forms of goods. When we speak of value in capitalism, we are therefore speaking of the value of commodities. But: It would be wrong to split up the “value” of a commodity into exchange-value and use-value. The value of commodities is always both. If it has no use-value, it cannot be a commodity. If it has no exchange-value, it cannot be a commodity. The value of commodities is a unitary concept, not a dualistic one. The value of commodities is always both use-value and exchange-value combined.

• “Value” under capitalism expresses the relation between the commodity as a “thing” on the one hand and between human beings on the other. If all humans died from one day to the other, how could a Ferrari have any value? If all humans disappeared from one day to the next, all former commodities of the world would now just be mere objects, without any value whatsoever. For commodities to have any value, humans must exist. For value to have any meaning, goods and commodities must exist. Value is part of both the exterior world of objects and in the interior world of minds, both in the world of objects and in the world of humans, always these two sides at once: Value is a unitary concept.

• Value is what expresses the connection between humans and objects – the exchange-value being the social connection, the use value being the private connection we humans have towards these things, or, in the case of capitalism, towards these commodities.

• The exchange-value determines how the commodity-as-an-object forms a social relationship amongst individuals; the use-value determines the relationship between the subjectivity of the inside world of human desires and the physicality of the outside world of objects.

• Value is neither based purely on the extrinsic nature of a commodity (such as: the amount of other commodities you can exchange your commodity for), nor is it based purely on the intrinsic nature of a commodity (such as: how much energy or time it took to produce this commodity). Value has both an extrinsic and an intrinsic moment. The value of commodities is of course a social relation (since a commodity must by definition exist for the intent of trade), but it also has a natural component to it (the energy, the time needed on average and so on).

• Value is how society considers the material commodity. However, society and commodity are always bound by the laws of nature, such as the laws of energy, physics, chemistry, geology or the laws of time, aging and mortality. Therefore, just as much as society shapes its relation to the commodity, the commodity’s outside circumstances shape their relation to society as well.

• Therefore, in capitalism, a material product of concrete human labor acquires social character through value. Value is then the objective social process that gives the material product of concrete human labor the dimension of sociality, transforming it from a mere object to a commodity.

• Value can therefore be described as a social algorithm.

• What is an algorithm? An algorithm is an abstract logical procedure consisting of an ordinate and finite sequence of successive steps needed to solve a problem. For example, the sets of rules that allow for the four elementary arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) to occur are algorithms. Allow me to elaborate: For us, an addition of two numbers seems very logical, if not intuitive. You can take one object and another object, and now you have two objects. What we observe in these operations is the external form of the relationship between two numbers: We know the numbers, we know the arithmetic sign of the operation (here: a “+”) and its final result (the sum). However, we are not able to observe the logical procedure that leads to the correct result, which remains hidden and invisible, abstract inside our mind. Unless we are logicians or mathematicians, we are normally not even fully aware of the ordered set of logical rules that led us to solve the operation. Most people in this world can add two numbers, but how many people in this world are aware of the Peano axioms, which are used to formalize natural-number arithmetic? How many humans could axiomatize arithmetic (like the addition of two numbers) from the more basic facts of successor operation and inductions? Presumably not many. Yet, even though most of us do not know the exact nature of the logical steps behind adding numbers, the sequence of these logical steps really exists and produces factual results. It constitutes the algorithm of the arithmetic operation.

• Similarly, inside a market exchange, there is an algorithm that determines an equivalence-relation between commodities. However, unlike the algorithms behind elementary arithmetic, this algorithm exists outside our minds, outside the minds of sellers and buyers – it is not a pure act of human thought, but a generative social structure that most current-day humans were born into, that exists independent of their will. The value of commodities is, like the algorithm behind the addition of numbers, something that just “works” and produces reliable results – yet it is, unlike the purely mind-based arithmetic algorithm, a social algorithm, a real abstraction. Value is the algorithm operating within the social relation of the market exchange, which allows use to determine the equivalence-relation transforming qualitatively different commodities into quantitatively identical exchange-values. Value is what allows us to trade 1 kilogram of coffee for a given amount of money – qualitatively different objects, but quantitatively equivalent within the sphere of the market.

• Value is the set of successive steps leading to the determination of the exchange-value, which in turn is the formal expression of objectified abstract labor constituting the social substance of a commodity. • Value is therefore the social algorithm of market-equivalence between commodities and between the individual concrete labors that produced them. The social process of value determines simultaneously the equivalence between two commodities (as a market-exchange-ratio) and as an objectified quantity of abstract labor. Or, in other words: A given market-exchange-ratio and a given quantity of objectified abstract labor are the mutually equivalent results of the social algorithm of value, expressed in the form of a given exchange-value. What the social algorithm of value adds to the material and merely bodily form of objects-of-use is the social form of exchange-value as the equivalence between market-exchange-ratio with other commodities and quantity of objectified abstract labor.

• In formal terms: If there is a set of commodities C, composed of the three commodity types x, y, and z, there is the following equivalence-relation, denoted by the symbol ~:

1. Reflexivity: x ~ x
Example: 10 grams of sugar = 10 grams of sugar

2. Symmetry: if x ~ y, then also y ~ x
Example: If 10 grams of sugar cost 0.10€,
then 0.10€ can buy 10 grams of sugar.

3. Transitivity: if x ~ y and y ~ z, then also x ~ z, so in total: x ~ y ~ z
Example: If 10 grams of sugar cost 0.10€,
then 0.10€ can buy you 10 grams of sugar.
If 0.10€ can buy you one bubblegum, then one bubblegum costs 0.10€.
Therefore, 10 grams of sugar are worth one bubblegum.

Both 10 grams of sugar and a bubblegum are worth 0.10€. 0.10€ can buy you both 10 grams of sugar and a bubblegum.

• The social algorithm of value is the set of real steps operating within the act of market exchange that puts the commodities (sugar, bubblegum and money) in an equivalence relation, where these formal properties are verified. [Note that money is now no longer based on gold-standard, which would make it commodity-money without a doubt, but now based on fiat-currency, which makes this relation more complex]

• The commodity has a dual-nature, it has both use-value and value, the latter is expressed in the form of a determined exchange-value. It is important the stress the logical difference between “value” and “exchange-value” here: Between the two concepts, there is a relation similar to that existing between the sum as an algorithmic operation of calculation and the sum as a result of this operation. We easily recognize the sum (= the result of an addition), but we do not easily understand the complex arithmetic algorithm behind this addition, the logical steps that lead one number to be added with another number to come up with a third number. Similarly, the exchange-value is the visible result of an algorithm, obvious to the world, while the “value” as a procedure within the market-exchange is the social algorithm leading to this result, a much more complex concept. When we refer to an already determined magnitude of value, such as that of a given commodity, what we are actually referring to is the social form in which we express value, which is the “exchange-value”. Vice-versa, when we intend to consider the origins of the already determined exchange-value to find out from where it comes out, we refer to “value” as the social algorithm, the sequenced steps leading to this result.

• The definition of “value as a social algorithm” contrasts with the idea of value usually presented in Marxist debate. Usually, value is conceived as a “substantial concept”, with the discussion being about what the substance of value consists of and how it is measured, be it labor-time embodied in production (the traditional productivist approach) or money realized in circulation (the newly emerging Western approach).

• Instead, value should be conceived as a processual concept, a social algorithm, a generative relational structure, representing an abstract procedure (the social algorithm) deriving from a real social process (labor), which continuously transforms abstract labor from potentiality into actuality, giving it an objective, a specific and a quantitatively determined social form as exchange-value.

• Value in capitalism is unitary (exchange-value and use-value always combined), but its substance (abstract labor) is dualistic, and its social form (exchange value as the end-result of the social algorithm) is also dualistic. Abstract labor is dualistic in that it reflects the social necessary in production and the social labor necessary to satisfy social needs; the social form of value, i.e. exchange-value, is dual too in that it simultaneously represents a given market-exchange-ratio and a given quantity of objectified abstract labor. The dualism of value is not between substance and form, but inside each of them. Value is the social process that momentarily resolves the dualisms inherent in its substance (abstract labor) and its form (exchange-value), which continuously re-appear in the commodities produced and exchanged on the market, placing them in a relation of equivalence. As a transformative process, value is neither object nor subject, but both things together in a social algorithm, because it is what transforms the subjectivity of its substance as abstract labor into the objectivity of its form as exchange-value.

• Marx’s concept of value is different from the Hegelian concept of Absolute Spirit, since it is not a transcendent subject from which social reality derives and to which it continuously returns, but, on the contrary: Value is an immanent structure that itself is a product of the immediate capitalist social reality. As real abstractions, the algorithm of value is the unconscious and spontaneous result of the concrete and material social practices of a multitude of individuals, the fruit of the myriad of exchange activities that take place at every moment on the market.

• Value is the procedure, the algorithm that converts the concrete, immediate and actual product of human labor into a commodity. Just as language is the code that transforms the sounds the human mouth can produce into socially communicable concepts, value is the code that transforms individual labor into social labor. This discovery is what allows Marx and us to find the key to decipher the social hieroglyphic of the commodity.

• Value has a relational, a processual and a dynamic nature, which leads to it constantly expanding, “endowed with a motion of its own”. When the social algorithm of value infects its own substance – abstract labor – it proceeds to establish the capitalist social relation of wage labor, the purchase and sale of labor power, and now becomes capital, self-valorizing value. “Value therefore now becomes value in process, money in process, and as such, capital”.

• Value exists as capital – the social algorithm of value goes beyond mere social production and reproduction, and now invades with its abstract code both human and non-human nature. This expansion does not have a teleological character, but remains a spontaneous, socially objective process without a planning subject. The search for profit is the conscious aim of capitalists, the same way that organisms instinctively pursue the goal of survival.

• Value is what transforms mere objects of use for humans into commodities standing in social relation between them. Value is not a static concept, but rather a process, a social algorithm.

• Algorithms were not defined in the times of Marx. However, Marx, in his Mathematical Manuscripts, actually foreshadowed the notion of algorithms when he tried to interpret differential calculus. The mathematical procedure developed by Marx shows how it is possible to obtain from a purely abstract and symbolic process, such as the algorithm of derivation, a real and factual result, such as the function derivative, which is actually operating in nature and whose discovery has allowed important practical applications in a wide range of techniques. The concept of value, elaborated by Marx in the economic works of his maturity, presents strong logical analogies with the symbolic operator of derivation in their common structure of algorithm – a purely abstract procedure that produces factual results.

• Value is as a social algorithm operating in market exchange, acting as a symbolic operator of social equivalence between commodities. As operator, value consists of a procedure, an ordered and finite set of steps necessary to achieve a given result. As symbolic operator, value is an abstract procedure that applies in commodity market exchange to content or substance logically distinct from itself. As operator of equivalence, value determines a quantitative relation, requiring that the substance to which it applies is commensurable and qualitatively identical between commodities, differing among them only quantitatively. As social operator, value has a purely social substance, in the sense that it is independent of any physical, natural, and material features of the commodities. As Marx points out, the only possible common feature that meets the criteria of quantitative social equivalence is that the commodities are all the product of human labor. Labor is therefore the substance to which the social algorithm of value applies. • Abstract labor is the substance of value, and has a dual nature.

• Exchange value is the form of value, and has a dual nature.

• Value is therefore measured dually: In money and in labor-time.

• In term, it must be possible to express labor-time in money, which would of course also mean that money can be expressed in labor-time.

• Unequal exchange is a situation in which value in production (labor time) is different from value in circulation (money).

 No.1214514

>>1214511
not my fault if you dont remember it

 No.1214523

>>1214514
I'm sure you have some of those many pro-Haz and pro-Maupin memes we made & screencaps on your computer then?

 No.1214546

>>1214523
never paid enough attention to e-celeb stuff to know what level of irony these are on
couldn't find any pro-haz stuff on the booru though

 No.1214852

>>1214448
>if you find yourself being swayed by the vigor of cockshottposters and the percieved consensus in their camp
Do you mean a single samefagging anon? I just think that mos people already know he is full of shit after he run away after being asked for simple evidence to his bullshit claims and the returned day after trying to ignore that happened. Like i said previously, he "wins" by ignoring his opponent arguments and his autism, tiring out anyone who tries to argue with.

 No.1214910

>>1214505
>I really don't see how Cockshott's gender issues are in any way formed by his (lack of) dialectical thinking.
They repeat the claim a lot here and in other threads without giving an actual argument. The very vast majority of LGBT activists don't claim to be doing revolutionary dialectics. And those people that are referred to as examples of doing revolutionary dialectics either said nothing at all on the gays or had a pretty similar opinion on it as their liberal and conservative contemporaries.

 No.1215040

>>1214910
>They repeat the claim a lot here and in other threads without giving an actual argument
No, he just has the same "definition" problem in his argument on gender issues as well, and there was no need to restate the same objection. It's plain enough in the blog posts someone linked here. If you want a good example, take this from the last of the three posts:
<But the soul has long been rejected, by medicine and biology, as redundant hypothesis, so this is a very shaky terrain on which to sink the founds of gender. At one time the soul, the spirit or pneuma (πνηυμα) was, in ancient Galenic medicine, a scientific hypothesis. Galen knew from vivisection experiments that nerves were vital to the control of muscles. He used to demonstrate that a monkey undergoing vivisection would scream until his scalpel cut the nerve controlling the vocal cords. How did this transmission occur?
Because of her use of an analogy she took from Foucault, he then proceeds to equate her definition as such (or what he considers her definition) with Galen's identification of soul/spirit with the nerves because of its once scientific status, in Galenic medicine (even though this equation didn't exist for Plato, Aristotle and many others), and rejects Butler's contention on the basis of her reuse of an analogy made by Foucault between gender and soul (not in the quoted passage that gives her supposed definition of gender), then the equation of soul/spirit and nerves in Galenic medicine, regarding the soul as redundant in light of later medical discoveries about nerves, etc., and that's Q.E.D. for him (for the record, I largely don't agree with Butler either, but not for Cockshott's reasoning). It's a chain of senseless definitional equations and specious wordplay, the very same thing both "postmodernists" and "Hegelians" themselves are accused of. It approaches the argument externally, not engaging with the logic internal to the book's argument there. In science, this external procedure is normally permissible for those familiar with the field because the standards for evaluating a book or paper (from the logic to the credibility of evidence to the theoretical bases) belong largely to the subject matter being treated; in philosophy, this isn't necessarily so, and trying to do the same thing leads to misunderstandings.
>The very vast majority of LGBT activists don't claim to be doing revolutionary dialectics
I never said this, and I don't think it's true anyway.

 No.1215108

>>1215040
>>The very vast majority of LGBT activists don't claim to be doing revolutionary dialectics
>I never said this
The argument in that very short post you are having trouble with had two parts.
1. The very vast majority of LGBT activists don't claim to be doing revolutionary dialectics.
You agree this is true. Part two:
2. And those people that are referred to as examples of doing revolutionary dialectics either said nothing at all on the gays or had a pretty similar opinion on it as their liberal and conservative contemporaries.
Do you agree with this as well?

And if you agree with 1 & 2 how can it be a credible argument to say that somebody doesn't have the stances on LGBT issues you would like them to have because they are lacking revolutionary dialectics.

 No.1215113

>>1214852
>Like i said previously, he "wins" by ignoring his opponent arguments and his autism, tiring out anyone who tries to argue with.
<I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounce off me and sticks to you.

 No.1215165

>>1215108
>Do you agree with this as well?
Yes, I think the statement is meaningless in that context. Or at least I'm not sure what this "revolutionary dialectics" would be exactly, or if anyone has even said these words in relation to this. No one else in this post has used the phrase, and I don't pay much attention to what random activist groups say or don't say.
>how can it be a credible argument to say that somebody doesn't have the stances on LGBT issues you would like them to have because they are lacking revolutionary dialectics.
Because you're reading into me something I didn't say. It's true that I don't find Cockshott's position sufficiently dialectical. If you prefer a different way of saying the same thing in this case: I don't think he works out the various positions and starting-points and explains them all together rationally and "materially," beginning from social practices. He's too much a partisan of a definition and its correlative ethical position to see clearly on this issue.

Does that mean his opponents do see clearly? As a rule, almost never, and they're often just as much implicated in the stupidity surrounding this issue as Cockshott, if not more so, by refusing to even enunciate arguments for their own positions or against their opponents.

Does the flaw I mention mean Cockshott is completely worthless, as the other commenter seemed to think I was implying? No, go ahead and read him. My view is that you should read this sort of thing for yourself if you have any interest in the topic, at least so you can come to your own conclusions regardless of whether you get anything further.

 No.1215188

File: 1665324486629.pdf (7.68 MB, 180x255, HOW THE WORLD WORKS.pdf)


 No.1215281

>>1214546
I remember one of those China .webms where people say he's "worse than breatubers".

 No.1215801

>>1215188
Time for a repost (last time nobody understood the following lol, let's see how you will do this time).
Think I found a bug in How the World Works, in section 6.3:
>In China, preference for boys has skewed the population by several mechanisms: selective abortion of female infants, higher mortality of girls due to neglect [Banister, 2004], and a lower likelihood of having a second child if the first is a boy.
I don't see how some people (or even everybody) following the highlighted rule would decrease the number of female offspring. (It's a pretty good book overall and I agree with everything else in it.)

 No.1218038

What is it with you people who can lecture all day about how Cockshott can't do four-dimensional dialectical chess correctly and now you can't follow the description of a simple logical mistake he made? RIP thread I guess.

 No.1218046

>>1215801
>>1218038
It's because it's not a logical mistake you pseud. If a family wants a male child then many families stop having kids after they get their male heir. How is this a logical mistake? Cockshott is just pointing out the effect it has on overall population.

 No.1218108

>>1218046
>If a family wants a male child then many families stop having kids after they get their male heir.
Sure, but that isn't the point. The point is that following this strategy doesn't skew the sex distribution.

 No.1218156

File: 1665486732610.png (216.31 KB, 404x266, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1202542
>Stalin

 No.1218600

>>1218156
<Dialectical Materialism
>Dialectical Materialism is a way of understanding reality; whether thoughts, emotions, or the material world. Simply stated, this methodology is the combination of Dialectics and Materialism. The materialist dialectic is the theoretical foundation of Marxism (while being communist is the practice of Marxism).
>An example of dialectical materialism applied is the materialist conception of history .
>See also: dialectics, materialism, Historical Materialism and Political Economy.
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectical-materialism

<Historical Materialism

>This concept is founded on Dialectical Materialism applied to history. Another name for the "materialist conception of history" formulated by Marx and Engels
Further Reading: Marx/Engels subject index: On Historical Materialism
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm#historical-materialism

>"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/index.htm

<Study Guide

>Questions for discussion:
>Chapter 2 - Dialectics
>1. What is dialectics?
>2. What is the difference between the dialectics of the ancients and the dialectics of Hegel?
>3. What is the problem with the dialectics of Hegel?
>4. What did Engels mean when he said that modern materialism “no longer requires the assistance of that sort of philosophy which, queen-like, pretended to rule the remaining mob of sciences”?
>5. Why is Hegel's philosophy important to socialism?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/guide.htm

 No.1218662

>>1215801
Any more takers for this? Come on, make an ass out of yourselves.

 No.1223288

>>1213789
>>1214436
>Despite the approach in both seeming to coincide for reason of the "method of presentation," his "method of research" is not actually in line with Hegel but proceeds immanently from "our practices and the empirical 'facts' they relate to," not "some transcendent idea."
In short: empiricism.

 No.1223414

>>1215801
>I don't see how some people (or even everybody) following the highlighted rule would decrease the number of female offspring.
I do but I'm not saying

 No.1223418

>>1218662
Not to defend Cockshott since I was criticizing him earlier, but I was thinking about this, and you're right if you consider each chance 50/50. He may have been implying something like this scenario: 1. You have a male child, so you have no more children, or perhaps one more with a roughly 50/50 chance of male/female; 2. You have a female child, and you want a male child, so you abort the fetus whenever it's female to guarantee the next child is male.

I'm not sure if he thought about it like this, though, because it looks as if he's citing each mechanism as if it's basically separate from the others, and this explanation can't be separated from "selective abortion," unlike "neglect." If someone had explained it to me this way after a critique, I'd think they'd actually gotten it wrong originally but weren't willing to admit it.

 No.1223423

>>1223418
IIRC there actually was an official rule in some areas that stated if you have a female child you can try once more. And I'm sure whoever bureaucrat came up with that had done the math.

 No.1223427

Uncritical support for gay agenda making one child policy and controlled depopulation viable.

 No.1254142

>>1198308
>>1198310
>>1198312

>Marx writes an entire book shitting on philosophy and Hegelian philosophers in the German Ideology.


>Guys let's completely dilute Marxism by importing bullshit Western Mysticism / Continental Philosophy into the movement because Engels at the end of his life coped with the revolution not happening by reading Hegel.


Hegelcels hated Cockshott because he told the truth.

 No.1254161

>>1197494
What part of his critique of rainbow capitalism and liberal mystification of reproductive labor do you find bigoted?


Unique IPs: 165

[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 / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]