How can AI usefully be integrated into a planned economy model? Seems like a ripe area of research
It could/is used to predict consumption trends and for planning ahead. They talk about how corporations use datamining for this purpose in people's republic of walmart.
Is there some good video about it?
It sounds interesting but I can't be bothered to read heavy literature after a day of office.
Can I get a quick summary how Cockshott responds to right wing critique of planned economy about incentivization?
There are people here who unironically think Paul Cockshott is an intellectual god on earth.
So many possibilities but its still utopian at this level of technology. How can you implement AI economy in an underdeveloped 3rd world country?
They are high on hopium.
We will implement socialist mass surveilance of course, my dear comrade.
And? This is about cybernetic economic planning not about counter revolutionary activity.
I think he was joking
What's the problem with mass surveillance?
What exactly do you even want to do that you don't want anybody to see you.
Yeah its probably an american seething about muh totalitarianism.
>>1390377>Red Plenty by Francis Spufford
Heard from this site that this book is bad and neoliberal, but was just a 4 post thread, is there any truth to that or is just a fake ?
general intellect unit pod did a pretty good episode on it but yeah basically it is liek "they tried to do all this shit and it was flying to close to the sun so it didn't work and everything collapsed" I think the guy is against socialist planning in general, interesting examples and the timeline it lays out is interesting I guess but like from what I gather not reading it and being some literal random retard on the internet wasting time typing this post for you based on a podcast I listened to half asleep months ago- is that it is based on feelsies and persona ambitions of people be they idealistic scientists or careerist soviet apparatchiks planners or corrupt bureaucrats or whatever
drugs, masturbate, most things really im not a huge fan of being perceptible.
Is there some audiobook of that book that they are talking about?
Why do you think those things won't be normalized and universally legal by then?
It will be so normalized that you won't think of it and it will be as if you were sneezing or wiping your butt. Just natural processes that were turned into taboos by less rational ideologies.
hearing this but the part were they talk about Khruschev is kinda cringe because they spew some misconceptions about the soviet system, but it seems okay, and it seems to be in the same line as Michael Ellman's book about planning like they said in the start, in other words, it shines some light about the question, ends in it being negative in nature.
I'm not a historian. What were the misconceptions?
the whole "Boss above says, people below obeys" that they say how it was in the soviet union, it was not like that most of the time, some times it happened but in the end was just a few times.
I think that surveillance and state control can be abused by people in positions of power or advantage, but maybe they would use methods outside of the state to gain intrigue and control over other people regardless. I don't really know if more or less state control would be better for realization of a successful altruistic communist society but ig "the gradual withering away of the state" might be possible if we reach a point where everyone is satisfied materially and people have developed altruistic attitudes towards other people and society and how they fit in itIdk how good faith you are arguing but meh I will take it at face value
>>1391076>Idk how good faith you are arguing but meh I will take it at face value
How is universalizing oversight or removal of irrational "taboos" bad faith?
Like what do you even fear from mass surveillance? So what if some security dude saw you wanking, like, you've saw enough dicks in porn and nothing happened. What is even the problem?
>>1391049>it was not like that most of the time,
Then how was it? This is like every command economy works including amazon.
I feel like some level of privacy is necessary to enable people to self actualize and have ownership over themselves and also to protect against tyranny
>How can you implement AI economy in an underdeveloped 3rd world country?
what might some barriers realistically be?
maybe like bad internet infrastructure or a high portion of rural and poorly educated people?
honestly internet is getting better in most developing countries with the exception of the rural parts of the very poorest (ex: afghanistan)
There's a bit about neural nets in Towards a New Socialism, pages 83 & 83. AI is a bit of a meme. I think a better term for this context is: statistics, statistics, statistics, and more statistics.>>1390902
Maybe the politics of Francis Spufford are that, but he is a good enough writer that the characters in Red Plenty aren't that. I liked the book when I read it ten years ago. Cockshott also wrote a positive review about it.
cockshott's use of neural nets is not necessary when compared to ordinary optimization methods.
Well in theory AI could finally put paid to von Mises' too clever "economic calculation problem" which he claimed mathematically invalidated the very idea of centralized economic planning.
The essence of the ECP is the claim that planned economies are unable to collect and process information efficiently to coordinate production and distribution. Market economies, in contrast, being distributed between buyers and sellers, supposedly can. That's because the information in a market economy is diffused throughout millions of spontaneous transactions, all governed by the law of supply and demand. (This is also where you get Hayek's whole "spontaneous order" schlock.)
Now, whatever merits this argument might have once had when planners were restricted to pen and paper and their naked brain are now completely invalid. That's because big data analytics platforms, and AI can pre-process and pre-digest vast quantities of economic data in real time at far greater speeds and with far greater accuracy than mere meatbags.
As a matter of fact, within the market economy now is all that information, floating around diffusely. A single funnel that collected and analyzed it would provide a strong basis for a planned economy.
Similarly, if you look at how Walmart or Amazon are run, they use machine learning to dynamically adjust pricing and manage inventory and they do it quite successfully. In essence, these companies are planned economies in miniature. Scale that up to the entire economy and put it to work solving real problems and there is your communist utopia lol
Just listened to. Can recommend.
>>1391348>which he claimed mathematically invalidated the very idea of centralized economic planning.
Too bad Neoclassical maths come from a priori conclusions and not empirical facts,in the end ECP theory may be popular, but it's only backed by schizo math and hysterical defense, The examples misses and his followers give that the ECP would cause in a planned economy never happened in any socialist nation and his excuses about the success of the Soviet union at the time is Hilarious "Soviet spies are in US supermarkets and shit to get prices."
but yea, AI would bury this garbage once for all.
Cockshott's 2010 review of Red Plenty>This is a marvelous and unusual book. It sits in a remarkable way in between science popularisation, social history and fiction. The author describes it variously as a novel whose hero is an idea and a fairytale. The hero idea is that of optimal planning. The idea of running a planned economy in just such a way as to ensure that resources are optimally used in order to deliver the ‘red plenty’ of the title. Combining real and imagined characters, politicians like Khrushchev, mathematicians and economists like Kantorovich and Nemchinov with fictionalised minor characters, it gives a gripping and apparently realistic picture of life in the USSR during the 1950s and 60s. It is not a single narrative as one expects from historical fiction. Instead it gives us a series of snapshots from the lives of individuals, separated by years. The common link is the project of the Cybernetic economic reformers, and the ambitions of Khrushchev to attain communist plenty. The author shows real skill as a science populariser, explaining such diverse topics as how the Pentode valve logic of the early BESM computers worked, to the molecular mechanics of the carcinogenesis mechanism that eventually killed its designer. He vividly portrays the enthusiasm and self confidence of the USSR in the late 50s when Khrushchev’s boasts that they would overtake the USA by 1980 and achieve communism seemed plausible. He gives a good didactic account both of the basic mechanisms of the Soviet Economy, and, through the lives of incidental characters paints a picture of its real operation that is more detailed and convincing than any academic history. He traces the idea of cybernetic economic management from the hope of the 1950s and early 60s to its sidelining under Kosygin, and the eventual relegation of Kantorovich to the less ambitious task of optimisating steel tube output for the oil and natural gas industry. Ironically, says Spufford, as growth rates slipped in the 1970s, it was only the exploitation of petroleum for export that allowed Soviet living standards to rise.
>This is a book that should be read by anyone who is seriously interested in the possibility of a different sort of economy from the one we now have. It shows both the strengths, and the hidden weaknesses of the most serious attempt so far to construct an alternative to capitalism, an attempt that was born when the idea of a communist future was taken very seriously by a whole society. To read it is to be convinced that whatever the truth of standard leftist criticism of the USSR as being undemocratic and bureacratic, there was much more than that at issue in this tragedy. It raises real political and philosophical issues that would have to be faced by any future socialist project, and draws attention to a forgotten history that today’s socialists ignore at their peril. The bulk of what we read and hear about the USSR focuses on the 1920s and 30s. The remaining 50 years of its history fade before the glamour, grandeur and horror of the early years. But the early 1960s, when Russia was already an industrial country, with many areas of internationally competitive technology in aviation, space, computing holds more relevant lessons for the European left than its early years. It is clear what lesson orthodox economists will draw: It’s a timely exploration, now so many people have gone off the idea of markets, of why the alternative is worse. But such conclusions betray an unjustified and callous smugness. It is a smugness not justified by the elegaic last paragraph of the book. The restoration of the market mechanism in Russia was a vast controlled experiment. Nation, national character and culture, natural resources and productive potential remained the same, only the economic mechanism changed. If Western economists were right, then we should have expected economic growth and living standards to have leapt forward after the Yeltsin shock therapy. Instead the country became an economic basket-case. Industrial production collapsed, technically advanced industries atrophied, and living standards fell so much that the death rate shot up by over a third leading to some 5.7 million extra deaths. If you were old, if you were farmer, if you were a manual worker, the market was a great deal worse than even the relatively stagnant Soviet economy of Brezhnev. The recovery under Putin, such as it was, came almost entirely as a side effect of rising world oil prices, the very process that had operated under Brezhnev.>But this does not excuse us from seriously considering the problems so vividly raised in the book. Spufford recounts how the attempt to follow the reformers’ recommendations and raise the price of food to provide more income for farmers provoked strikes by industrial workers, which were suppressed with great brutality. The same scenario played itself out in Poland in the 70s and 80s, when any attempt to raise the ridiculously low subsidised meat prices led to strikes. Spufford brings out the disconnection between the recommendations of the reform economists and the real lives of the people that the reforms would impact on. Food subsidies were the bad conscience of inequality. They were necessary because without them, those on the lower wage rates could scarcely have survived. Marx had advocated that in the first stage of communism everybody would be paid in labour vouchers not money – 1 hour’s work getting 1 hour’s vouchers. Goods would be directly priced in terms of the labour required to make them and social expenditure would be met out of a tax or time-levy on incomes. Soviet prices deviated considerably from labour values for two reasons: ⋆ The well known subsidies on essential foods and housing. ⋆ The turnover tax was, I think, calculated on the basis of total turnover not just wages, as such it was similar to the fixed percent markup Marx posited for prices of production. Given that due to subsidies, wages underestimated the real value of labour power, this sort of markup would mean that the deviation of prices from labor value would actually have been bigger than under capitalism. To have furthered Khrushchev’s avowed aim of communism, Kantrovich would have had to propose egalitarian pay rates and a shift in state finance from turnover taxes to income taxes, before prices could be rationalised.
>Spufford gives greatest emphasis to the policies of those around Kantorovich and Nemchinov, who were advocating price reforms as part of a programme to allow optimal operation of the economy. Kantorovich argued that these prices – objectively determined valuations - arose out of the objective technical structure of the economy. If actual prices corresponded to objectively determined values, then the signals that these prices provided would guide individual factories to produce in accordance to what the plan needed. There is of course a strong similarity between this argument and that put forward by Western economists about the role of prices in guiding resource allocation in a market economy. It is probably no accident then that Kantorovich was the only Soviet economist to get a Nobel Prize for economics. But there was a fatal paradox in this whole notion, one that Spufford brought out in a meeting between Kosygin and a leading reformer: how were these optimal prices to be calculated? The maths was well understood, but the technical problems of handling that much data with 1960s computers were vast. And if Gosplan could concentrate the information and could have done the computations, then the indicative prices would have been unneccessary – the whole process of calculation could have been done in-natura with the Objective Valuations only having a fleeting existence as coefficients within the matrices of the planning computers. So the programme of Kantorovich ended up requiring the same level of computing resources as that of his rival cyberneticist Victor Gluschov who apparently advocated the complete abolition of money – something superficially closer to Krushchev’s vision of communism. In this context it is worth reading InterNyet: why the Soviet Union did not build a nationwide computer network by Slava Gerovitch. It would have been interesting had Gluschov appeared as a character in the book, rather than just as someone who is refered to indirectly. In the afterword it becomes clear why Gluschov remains such a shadowy figure to Spufford. Spufford reveals that he relied entirely on English language sources. What he knew of Gluschov came from Gerovitch’s brief account. All in all, let me say again, this is a book that should be read by anyone with a serious interest in economic alternatives.
guess I'm downloading it then
Let's also not forget as we are currently and periodically reminded how great markets are at coordinating misinformation. Such as the long term price of federal interest rates…
I need a good, quick high-school-to-college math refresher for this stuff. I took it long enough ago that I'm rusty. Any suggestions
thanks anon, these look really good. You don't need an understanding of trigonometry or calculus to understand LA?
honestly i think a few hours of grinding khan academy precalc/calculus would be better than reading a calc textbook.
what if I grow asparagus in old oil tankers, hm? checkmate, Marxists
thanks for posting anon
chatgpt on the ideas of paul cockshott:
>Paul Cockshott is a prominent Marxist economist and computer scientist who has contributed a number of ideas to socialist thought. Some of his key ideas include:
<1. Economic Planning: Cockshott is a proponent of economic planning as an alternative to capitalism. He argues that central planning could be more efficient than markets because it would eliminate the waste of competition and the duplication of effort that occurs when firms produce similar goods. He believes that modern technology makes it possible to plan the economy in a more efficient and democratic way than in the past.
>2. Labor Theory of Value: Like many Marxists, Cockshott subscribes to the labor theory of value, which holds that the value of a good or service is determined by the amount of labor that went into producing it. This theory provides a critique of capitalist exploitation, as it shows that capitalists extract surplus value from workers by paying them less than the value of the goods and services they produce.
<3. Computational Socialism: One of Cockshott's more recent contributions has been the idea of "computational socialism," which involves using modern computer technology to plan the economy in a more efficient and democratic way. He argues that computers can be used to collect data on the economy and to create simulations that can help planners make better decisions. He believes that computational socialism could overcome the problems of bureaucracy and inefficiency that plagued earlier attempts at economic planning.
>4. Marxist Theory of Crisis: Cockshott has also contributed to Marxist theories of crisis, arguing that crises in capitalism are caused by a tendency towards overproduction. He believes that capitalists are constantly seeking to increase profits by investing in new technology and expanding production, but this leads to a situation where there is more capacity to produce goods than there is demand for them. This overproduction leads to a crisis, as capitalists are unable to sell their goods and workers are laid off.
<Overall, Cockshott's ideas are focused on developing a socialist alternative to capitalism that is more efficient, democratic, and equitable. His work is grounded in Marxist theory but is also informed by insights from computer science and other fields.
has anyone in here evaluated the existing free software ERP packages? are they suitable for what we want to do?
>>1402810> Cockshott subscribes to the labor theory of value, which holds that the value of a good or service is determined by the amount of labor that went into producing it> determined by the amount of labor that went into producing it
yes? this is literally reality
Very vague. I like this part:<The system will be logically centralised and physically decentralised
Data has to be processed in a synchronized fashion for coherence of the plan, but costs of data storage and processing have become so low that there can be copies running everywhere.
<Functionality of direct/legal democracy (liquid democracy) within groups (initiating initiatives, discussing initiatives, drafting bills, voting in electronic referendums, passing laws, rejecting laws).
People in and around the German Pirate Party already made a software for that called LiquidFeedback, which uses voting with Schulze Condorcet (you can rank options and even equal-rank options).
But I am not fond of the LF delegation mechanism: Your delegates can delegate to others. It had been argued before implementation on mathematical-logical grounds that doing this results in massive concentration of voting power. The "counter-argument" to that has been repeatedly stating a made-up scenario about people undoing hyper-concentration by re-delegation while giving zero fucks that reality has confirmed the haters. I say why not just let a person rank proxy voters: If I don't vote my number one votes for me; if that person does not vote either I delegate to the second in my proxy ranking and so on. I mean, isn't it BLOODY OBVIOUS that e. g. the fifth guy in your own ranking is probably someone you trust more than letting the first one in your ranking delegate to person B who in turn delegates to person C who delegates to D who delegates to E and you probably don't even know E.
I don't want people to see me wiping
i dont see why a planned economy is different from a market economy, amazon already has records of the fleshlights i bought lel
>>1408478>Artificial intelligence algorithms will be able to replace a significant part of the state bureaucracy
I'm curious how the proposed blockchain (I presume he means something like git rather than bitcoin) interacts with normal relational databases. perhaps a translation layer is envisioned?
also only a subset of laws can be translated to computer code
does anyone have the Vetudas works in English on PDF? both Nikolai and his daughter Elena>>1408887>Data has to be processed in a synchronized fashion for coherence of the plan, but costs of data storage and processing have become so low that there can be copies running everywhere.
yeah this is a point that proponents of "decentralized planning" don't see to get. you want to arrive at a coherent set of data (single point of truth) that everyone derives the continuously evolving plan from. this could be in the form of a set of files, and the each plan corresponds to a hash of such files (treeish in git parlance)>But I am not fond of the LF delegation mechanism: Your delegates can delegate to others. It had been argued before implementation on mathematical-logical grounds that doing this results in massive concentration of voting power. The "counter-argument" to that has been repeatedly stating a made-up scenario about people undoing hyper-concentration by re-delegation while giving zero fucks that reality has confirmed the haters. I say why not just let a person rank proxy voters: If I don't vote my number one votes for me; if that person does not vote either I delegate to the second in my proxy ranking and so on. I mean, isn't it BLOODY OBVIOUS that e. g. the fifth guy in your own ranking is probably someone you trust more than letting the first one in your ranking delegate to person B who in turn delegates to person C who delegates to D who delegates to E and you probably don't even know E.
good point. a similar point struck me. simple delegation results in aristocracy
Since you guys like numbers:
Cool but also>All laws will be computer code>blockchain for all data but also relational databases>hyper-digitized specific democracy implementation with no regard for broader political considerations>Basically nothing is implemented, its just a front end.
High idealism content, 6/10 for effort.
a frontend is needed though, so that's good at least. he has apparently implemented Veduta's method for solving inter-industry balances but it's really nothing special once you scratch the surface>>1409957
second thought is even more based?
I dont fully agree with "socialism doesn't have to be planned", but he is babies first step into marxism so I will led it slide.
Was either normalized in the USSR or China or Cuba
just waiting for the radlibs to screech about this one somehow
because there's nothing else to complain about
watch the deprogram podcast, he based now
He said planning does not automatically equal socialism. What's wrong with that ? Planning can be done for various purposes including maximizing profits. Its the class structure and purpose that determines whether planning can be considered socialism
planning is a necessary but not sufficient condition for socialism
because market "socialism" isn't and everything that isn't exchange is planning
what internet marxoids miss when going after smug socdem types like socialismdoneleft is that a fully realized market socialism would be just as much of a 'planned' economy as nearly everything they'd propose. it just doesnt satisfy marxs critique of political economy lol
I think he's honestly hiding his power level like all his baby tier videos. Plus i think he means in a general sense, like you dont need the state to plan your shoelace tying in the morning which is true. Planning is only needed at a high level for inputs and outputs to units of production. You don't need microplanning or if you do it doesn't need to be specified that hard by the state
I've seen pseuds here say we need some sort of Neo-China tier level of mass surveillance for a planned economy to be effective lol.
well that's just retarded.
but planning would affect daily life. the video has a fragment with hardin, and to be honest it feels like he is dodging the question. I think the problem is that people underestimate how much of their daily lives are already determined by production, which makes them feel uneasy when they hear that planning would disrupt some aspects of this false, illusory
private freedom. of course planning is going to affect your daily routine, but your routine is already the result of the current model of production (capitalism)>>>/leftypol/1411800>implying we don't already live in mass surveillance states>implying it was china, and not the US, that invented and implemented the concept>muh chyna, oriental despotism!>>1411801
he is trolling. of course planning would require surveillance (in the sense of data gathering). besides, data mining is here to stay, this is a fact. the difference is that under a socialist government the surveillance would be in your favor and at your service, not against you. some other fun facts: if you were to agree with cockshott, under planning, "digital
currency" would have a rather short expiration date, transactions between consumers wouldn't be supported
, and the possession of foreign currency would be punishable by law
these remarks often surprise some self-proclaimed socialists
: those that don't know that for most people money already has an expiration date (one month, if you live from paycheck to paycheck), etc, etc.
You're seething over the use of "Neo-China" which is clearly referencing Nick Land and then basing your whole post on this misunderstanding.
>>1411797>Planning is only needed at a high level for inputs and outputs
I think you need to read the actual literature. what to produce comes out of the solution to the plan equations. it's not just "inputs and outputs" but what exactly to produce. this is especially true for intermediate goods. you don't get to decide how many M3 screws are to be made, that is entirely given by the need for M3 screws in the rest of the economy>>1411817
substantiate this claim. this doesn't appear to be the case with say Gosplan
not really because lange-lerner type is based on neoclassical economics equations and most planning is closer to a straightforward normative application of the LTV combined with numerical linear algebra.
>>1411853>it's not just "inputs and outputs" but what exactly to produce.
… isn't that the same thing? outputs are "exactly what to produce"
oh yeah you're right
What about Australian style "preference" delegation within a "tripartite parliamentarian" method via Systemic Consensing?
That's what we're trialing in my org and it works.
But then again, it's what we (Australians) are familar with so there's little friction making it all more palatable.
>mfw our fucked up hodgepodge system works somehow, at least at our scale of 70 people
out of curiosity, how many people here know how to implement the algorithms and equation systems mentioned in chapter 6 (p. 76, 77, 84 and 85) of towards a new socialism? what do you use for the equations? the jacobi method mentioned in the text seems like the best option but I have seen people on github use regular sparse matrices, is that code just using the jacobi method under the hood, or is there a more modern way of solving the problem?>>1412076
no, it is one of those things where quantitative changes produce qualitative changes. there is a difference in aggregation, you could have input-output tables that represent entire sectors and only give you a general or strategic
notions. this is very different from a model where the input-output tables describe literal, actual production lines with as little aggregation or abstraction as possible
in other words, the first method can, at most, give you information like>the energy sector should receive 10% more funding this year
the second one will give a different level of information>the screw factory "s5" should produce 24600 18mm m3 stainless steel socket head screws this week
>>1412272>p. 76, 77
sparse linear solvers are standard. in fact the text mentions Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel>I have seen people on github use regular sparse matrices, is that code just using the jacobi method under the hood, or is there a more modern way of solving the problem?
it would help if you linked said code. but mostly likely yes. the conjugate gradient method can be used if your system is SPD>84 and 85
the harmony algorithm is just a shitty interior point solver. just read the literature on LP
Cockshott is a programming language theorist not a numerical analysis person. I'd like to see someone with better knowledge on numerical linear algebra rewrite TANS imo. I think any sparse matrix method would work pretty well though
much of the modern theory on LP didn't exist when C&C started writing TANS so a 2nd edition sounds like a decent enough idea
surprisingly positive video
Marx willing, we may see the end of the USA within a decade or two
>>1416526>Cybernetic Communists>Can't use free recording software
Thought's on this abysmal take >>1415904
Certified technocracy moment
People don't optimise for energy but for their own time they spend working. Working time is the only thing that can produce more of itself using only itself as a starting point. Thats why it's the source of value.
ETV is technocrat nonsense. also>Labour-value (not labour value) is just energy, either as kj or kw
W is the unit of power
, not energy. you'd think le clever ETV proponent would know this
also this dude doesn't even take into account emergy and exergy which are staples of technocratic thought
Put A.I Stalin in the Big computer.
make the expected and the real become one.
>>1416934>Certified technocracy moment
it is retarded, but it made me think: in TaNS cockshott briefly mentions that, if education were to be considered part of the job
so to speak, and thus the state paid people to go to college, the difference in wages between qualified
labor wouldn't make much sense. now, given that people use their wages, among other things, to buy food, wouldn't it make sense for manual
labor, which involves more physical effort and consequently requires higher caloric intakes, to perceive a slightly higher wage to offset the additional food costs?
I don't think the extra food they eat is that large in proportion to their salary. Equal differences exist for people who are just short or tall. The bigger issue is that manual labourers earn way less.
But if you just have company lunches like mining and big tech companies have in a lot of the world, it could be alleviated.
Yes. Training specific to a production process has to be priced in for the product. It only has to be priced in for the salaries as well if people self-finance their training and since in the TANS model the public provides for all training and education it does not make sense to give higher salaries to those workers (though practically speaking, if not the whole world is under the same model and skilled workers threaten to leave, we might have to compromise on that). Work processes that burn more calories need to be priced in both in the sense of the product being more expensive and the salaries of those doing that work being higher.
The type of work that results in earlier death is also objectively more expensive. Think of all the work it takes society to make a literate adult human being with basic knowledge about the world. This can be thought of as an input cost spread in many tiny parts over everything the worker produces while alive. So the output of life-shortening production processes must be made more expensive to reflect that. You can also think of the worker who shortens his life through such work as giving this time to the products (in addition to the time the worker is literally working) and justify higher salary by that.
yes this could happen, and it would lead to feminist screeching. but we could also choose to not demand payment for 'taters and rice, effectively communizing carbs
>Towards a New Socialism by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/>Brain of the Firm by Stafford Beer>Cybernetic Revolutionaries by Eden Medina>Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine and The Human Use of Human Beings (1st edition) by Norbert Wiener>Economic cybernetics by Nikolay Veduta>People's Republic of Walmart by Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski>Red Plenty by Francis Spufford>Economics in kind, Total socialisation and A system of socialisation by Otto Neurath (Incommensurability, Ecology, and Planning: Neurath in the Socialist Calculation Debate by Thomas Uebel provides a summary)
Guaranteed none of you have read any of this
Definitely no one has managed to read through Cockshoot's rambling academic dilettantism or they must have been lobotomized or something to bear it
Only honest and good post ITT
Cope and read Marx
I've read most of it including most of Marx
I was telling the truth about most of Marx and I've read enouth on the list to know your description of them is false :^)If you like slightly more purple sorry I mean better written prose try Comrade Xi's recommended reading listYou've read at least the first volume of Capital yes, what else
Another interview. At one point Cockshott seems to admit he doesn't believe in a transition to higher-phase communism, which certainly would match the impression you get from his work. I wish the interviewer would have responded by asking more about the abolition of the distinction between work and daily life, i.e. "work to live" becoming "live to work", and everything else Marx had to say about the end of class society. He must know that primitive communists, or even communal peasants, had a totally different view of work versus leisure that could easily reappear in the future successor to those societies. So his comment about machines raising babies seems totally off the mark.
I find it hard to see how primitive communist style of view on work could re-emerge when there is now so much specialisation and skill needed for most work, and work is so alienated from 'natural' human activity. Even in socialism this would still be an issue, in the 21/22nd century you cannot just spend one day doing one thing and the next doing another.
Not to say there couldn't be a bit less specialisation of labour in the future, but for example installing electric lines or being a doctor isn't the kind of thing that anyone can just do on whatever day they feel like, so many roles need a high degree of training and skill in order to get the precision which we expect in the modern day.
>>1426601>he doesn't believe in a transition to higher-phase communism
you mean the part about higher-phase communism coming about through material abundance? I don't think that's necessary, and paul seems to think that particular avenue is impossible due to environmental constraints
the difference between lower- and higher-phase is one of remuneration, not abundance. else you could call capitalist abundance communism>abolition of the distinction between work and daily life,
this ties into remuneration too I think. one way I look at Gothakritik is that Marx suggests work changes from labour to hobby
>>1427242>you mean the part about higher-phase communism coming about through material abundance?
No.>the difference between lower- and higher-phase is one of remuneration, not abundance. else you could call capitalist abundance communism>one way I look at Gothakritik is that Marx suggests work changes from labour to hobby
This is actually what I meant. The fact that Cockshott says work will likely never be abolished, and then immediately implies that by 'work' he means productive activities like child-rearing and that its abolition means reduction of all productive activity, throws me for a loop because, as you say, that is not what the COTGP seems to be talking about. An abolition of work *as such* should entail the transformation of indirect productive activity into direct activity organized much like in a domestic economy, where formal relationships (parent/child; union rep/rank-and-file) and informal ones (couples who divide chores ad hoc; primitive communists who eat ripe fruits at will) gradually replace acephalous mass exchange. I think Marx fully agreed with the anarchists that class society and its social relations were the main roadblock preventing "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need" from becoming a reality; not Star Trek abundance, just enough to free people from having to alienate their labor product. Cockshott (elsewhere) interprets the equal inequality of the higher phase very literally as being a form of Socdem-type payouts to new parents, and possibly also including Ricardian rent, so this seems to be a running theme. TANS was supposed to be called "Towards a New *Communism*" - maybe this is what he meant all along.
But it seems we are on the same page here. All I'm saying is that it's one thing to argue about what is feasible, and another to differ on what Marx actually meant.
paul is hard to nail down on this yes. my interpretation is that we'll never get rid of labour completely because there's always stuff to maintain. but it's not unthinkable that we could achieve say a 4 hour work week and this would obviously amount to a qualitative shift compared to the present
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm>>1426635>I find it hard to see how primitive communist style of view on work could re-emerge when there is now so much specialisation and skill needed for most work
Yes, but how many different activities does a person need to do in order to have some balance? Two.>>1427242>the difference between lower- and higher-phase is one of remuneration, not abundance.
Well, reduced scarcity is definitely a part of it.
>>1428290>Well, reduced scarcity is definitely a part of it.
sure, pauperism isn't socialism and all that
Agree on both points. I sympathize with the hesitancy of >>1426635
to get too "utopian" about specialized labor, but I think cases like computer software are instructive on how things could look different. Just think: people are *so close* to knowing how to manage their own machines, run basic FOSS tools from the internet, and basically get rid of the monopoly of companies that do basic shit for idiots like Apple, Google, Facebook… Imagine the huge labor time that goes into paying tech support fags just so that porky can sell cheap useless crap rather than giving people basic courses on things that are so simple. Imagine if the average person knew how to fix their own damn dishwasher and how many repairmen would be out of work as a result. And just from these examples, think about how much free time people would then have to study higher and higher fields like construction, electrical wiring, gardening… I happen to believe that the average person could learn how to do these things if properly taught, just like most people learn to change their motor oil not because of real variation in skill or interest but because of their background. Specialization of knowledge is hardly due to any such variation but far more so to the molding process of bourgeois society. This is just the beginning of the abolition of mental versus physical labor.
Cockshott argues that the climate emergency will vastly alter the picture Marx paints. Of course this is true. But it could just as well accelerate the transition as hinder it, or balance the one with the other. How environmental is transporting apples in an electric-powered truck compared to splicing the cultivar into your own backyard? Carbon limits on individuals will force them to get creative.
As I said before, the main difference between the Marxist and anarchist program lies in how to eliminate the material basis for capitalism so that Kropotkin's form of human nature can actually bear its fruit.>>1428263
A four hour work week would be fine with me so long as by "work" you mean tasks that truly nobody wants to do. But even then, what is stopping us from allocating labor directly rather than with a huge, impersonal Cockshottist machine? Labor vouchers = lower phase = holdovers from bourgeois society. I think Cockshott is practicing pessimism of the intellect, so to speak - but this is a very important point of Marxism.
(I am: >>1426601 >>1428093
>>1428330>A four hour work week would be fine with me so long as by "work" you mean tasks that truly nobody wants to do. But even then, what is stopping us from allocating labor directly rather than with a huge, impersonal Cockshottist machine? Labor vouchers = lower phase = holdovers from bourgeois society. I think Cockshott is practicing pessimism of the intellect, so to speak - but this is a very important point of Marxism.
nothing says remuneration has to have much of anything to do with planning. we should expect planning to be used even in higher-phase communism
Sure, since labor time and in-natura calculation are logical options for running basically anything (including the modern firm). And any global economy must entail planning and cybernetics. But this does not have to imply equal remuneration based on labor hours and vouchers such as in the system described in the first half of TANS. The commune and organization stuff toward the end seem quite compatible with advanced communism, but planning of the TANS type should not continue to exist, for various reasons. That's my point.
oh yeah I agree with you more or less. C&C don't go far enough
ooh. this is the guy who's writing a book together with Tom O'Brien
isn't tom o brian anti cockshott now that he's a TSSI guy?
What do you guys think of the numerous studies which shows that state-owned entreprises have lower economic efficiency than private-owned ones? I think they strengthen the case for a socialist market economy under the present historical conditions.
There's also the case for incomplete contracts, namely the idea that since no perfect contract can be written, there are ambiguities in contracts which are generally decided in the last analysis by a firm's owner ("residual control rights").
For instance, the owner of a company would profit from implementing a cost-saving innovation to his firm. However, should the company be bought and his position as owner removed and replaced to manager, he would not have the same incentive to use his residual control rights to implement the cost-saving innovation, since he would need to ask permission from the owner and a large part of the benefits linked to this new cost-saving solution would go toward the mother company instead of him.
The result is that SOEs, while providing sometimes better quality services (because they aren't as incentivized to lower costs, this is true when cost-to-quality relation is strong), would be less innovative than POEs due to the fact that the residual control rights would be in the hands of the state and not in the hand of the owner, which would make managers less likely to take risks and implement new ideas for the firms.
What's /cybersoc/'s response to the arguments presented here?
perhaps, but he's pro-planning. you don't have to agree with everything paul says. tom has been plugging the works of the GIC, see pdf related. I just heard donal mention the GIC in the episode around 6 minutes in. so it may be appropriate to call them leftcoms. but paul also has leftcom tendencies so
I'm not sure what he's position on the TSSI is>>1429302
how is "economic efficiency" defined here? because with neoliberals, "efficiency" turns out to just mean profit
yeah so private firms maximize profit by squeezing workers, big whoop
I've been reading through TANS and taking notes for each chapter. I'm considering creating a thread where I regularly post my notes, so that anons can discuss each chapter and point out where I might have made mistakes. Is this a good idea?
>>1429389> using the same amount of labor.
Press X to Doubt
Labor hours in POEs often aren't accurately recorded.
Giving people incentives to work harder isn't bad if the incurring social costs translate to more well being, especially in the long run (e.g. a decrease in prices, resulting in more purchasing power for workers). Every Chinese people I met told me the reforms were worth it because everyone got richer thanks to it.>>1429461>Labor hours in POEs often aren't accurately recorded.
In the study I linked, the values aren't expressed as productivity per labor hour, but as productivity per worker.
sure go for it. >>>/edu/
might be the right board for it though>>1429495>Giving people incentives to work harder isn't bad if the incurring social costs translate to more well being
yes but this isn't the case in capitalism. serfs had more free time than wagies do>resulting in more purchasing power for workers
purchasing power is a bourgeois measure designed to obscure exploitation
>>1429542>purchasing power is a bourgeois measure designed to obscure exploitation
How is workers being able to buy more things the result of exploitation?
>>1429561>How is workers being able to buy more things the result of exploitation?<WAAAAOW I can buy more funko pops!<this will totally make me forget that I have to waste 1/4 of my life making rent
you are cucking to the neoclassicals
I agree, I think any form of rent and inheriting should be abolished.
But then, how is trying to make the economy more efficient a problem?
It's not about doing more, but doing the same with less. By increasing efficiency, we use less resources while still producing the same quantity, we reduce the ecological footprint of production, and we also reduce the time necessary for producing new products/services. This means we can shorten work hours without making people poorer.
>>1429585>But then, how is trying to make the economy more efficient a problem?
have you read Capital? Smith observed that the use of better tools in agriculture leads to longer working hours, not shorter. as c/v increases, s/v must increase to maintain the RoP>By increasing efficiency, we use less resources
wrong. in fact the opposite is often the case. more productive machinery demands more crap is produced and consoooomed to maintain the RoP
in a narrow sense capitalism has a progressive character in that we can produce any given use-value more cheaply. but this comes at the cost of having to work longer to maintain the RoP>This means we can shorten work hours without making people poorer
oh yes we definitely can, but not in capitalism. poverty is a social relation
indeed, and this is why Amazon and Walmart are so ruthless>>1429697
here's your (you)
>>1429755>which if it were implemented in a cybernetic form of planned economics would outperform both state owned and private enterprises in a market based system like capitalism
I would need to see this in practice to believe it, but I hope it's true>>1429990
I showed you that the average quantity of labor used for production is actually decreasing instead of increasing, which is in direct contradiction with what you previously said, which is that the total quantity of labor being used must increase.
So, give me actual arguments for "efficiency bad" that don't rely on faulty assumptions
>>1431156>I showed you that the average quantity of labor used for production is actually decreasing instead of increasing, which is in direct contradiction with what you previously said, which is that the total quantity of labor being used must increase.
that is not due to increased productivity but due to class struggle. there is not a single porky who would willingly let their workers go home early unless this somehow meant more profit>So, give me actual arguments for "efficiency bad" that don't rely on faulty assumptions
I didn't say efficiency is bad. I said that because the value of any given commodity tends to go down, more of them must be produced to maintain the rate of profit. in addition the organic composition tends to increase, necessitating an increase in the rate of exploitation. this puts workers directly at odds with capitalists. which side is currently winning is entirely down to force
Explain cybersocialism to me, please. And don't reccomend books to me I ain't reading that nerd shit
computers are really good at counting stuff. we should use them to count how much stuff we have, and how much stuff we need to use to make the stuff what we want.
ok, and what problems of a planned economy would that solve?
the counting and the calculating parts
How is cyber socialism different from our economy today? Do we live in cybecapitalism?
Today we have companies using computers internally but in the end they only care about money and can only see prices of things, not how many things are where, what capacity is available, or what the limit of certain resources is. It always lags behind the facts and is constantly in chaos, and is prone to bubbles and overproduction spirals.
A planned economy would eliminate constantly only looking at prices and instead looking at the capacity and limits of everything, meaning that we can plan better, anticipate changes in advance, and decide on things like "ok limit CO2 emissions by 50% while trying to produce the same mix of stuff, what would be the consequences?" and get an answer within an hour or much less rather than blindly putting far reaching restrictions on your economy and hoping it will work out without shortages or problems.
you do planned economies using computers and math and that counteracts the libertarian arguments against planned economies
>>1436341>Do we live in cybecapitalism?
to an extent. neolibs do use some methods from cybernetics, but it's crude at best, because the market mechanism is a shitty controller. it can only act ex post
Hmm ok, I'm a CS uni student close to graduating…anyone with some level of technical knowledge or expertise wanna give some insight on how this would happen?
Hmm, ok. Thank you, I will now read that nerd shit as I am intrigued.
read TANS and "calculation in natura" by cockshott
It is important how will the workers make decisions under the socialist economy. In Cockshot, it is something like an automated demand finding algorithm which, in the end tells workers where they should work.
But for the workers, there is something that commands them, it is something foreign, they do not understand it. Under market economy it is no better.
I think that a system where the workers have better understanding, is a better system, it can't be easily taken from the workers.
Here follows a constructive example.
Lets assume there is a set of factories, hospitals or just companies. The workers have right to work in any company they want, no one can tell them - hey, we do not need you, except may be when education is necessary for the work.
So how will this look like? Under market economy, we look how the prices will change. Since no one controls the workers, so the workers see the prices as a result of their actions, which is good.
For beginning, we take only a subset of all companies, those that produce food, houses, etc, what everyone is consuming. So we can write the equations
n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … + f1 = p1
n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … + f2 = p2
n - number of products of type 1, human being will consume
p - price of product
f - price of some inputs to produce the product.
For the wages
w1 = o1/x1 p1
w2 = o2/x2 p2
o - total products by company
x - number of workers in the company
p - price of product.
Then we can write the price
p1 = w1 x1/o1
The system of equations can be solved analytically.
People usually consume more than what is necessary to be alive. To account, set wage to w1_final = 3 w1 = N w1, …
I omit solutions, I did this time ago, but the workers decide which company to work for by looking at prices and where the price is smallest.
So there is this simple rule, no magic.
May be someone will find it useful to view socialism in slightly different way.
>>1436632>n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … + f1 = p1
n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … + f1 = w1
And f should be negative. Then w1 will be gone and it is just a system of prices. The workers do not think in terms of wages and act to correct the prices, not to rise their wages.
I wrote this half a year ago and no one was interested so I did not look at this again.
a machine cannot tell people what to do. it can only provide suggestions. this can be done in a transparent way scrutable to all. you could have a solver work out what places seem to need more workers and which ones need less, all publicly viewable. workers will tend to change jobs from time to time, so over time the workload should even out>formulas
it would be nice if you used established notation
where do these prices come from? how does this interact with the plan solver?
n'*p + f = p amounts to saying p = f + c for some constant c, implying that every product has the same value added. additionally it seems
p = inv(diag(x))*o
therefore f = inv(diag(x))*o - c>>1436650
consider formatting it in pdf form with LaTeX
this doesn't make sense, like, at all>n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … + f1 = w1>n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … + f2 = w2>…
the "n1 p1 + n2 p2 + …" part is the same for all w, so in other words you have
a = n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … + ni pi
where a is the sum of all the goods weighted by their price, then you define w as
w1 = a + f1
w2 = a + f2
and so on. but you write>And f should be negative. Then w1 will be gone
but if w1 = 0, then f1 = -a. I assume the same is true for all the other w, so we end with f1 = f2 = … = fi = -a
a complete absurd
w1 = o1/x1 p1
Substitute this to
n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … + f1 = w1
n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … + f1 = o1/x1 p1
Solving for p1…
leftypol mods plz implement latex
>>1436632>It is important how will the workers make decisions under the socialist economy.>for the workers, there is something that commands them, it is something foreign, they do not understand it.>>1436666>a machine cannot tell people what to do. it can only provide suggestions.
this is a political problem, not a technical one. its solution is setting plans by direct democratic consensus. workers are not commanded to produce what has been planned by a foreign force. they collectively decide what resources should be allocated into what sectors to produce what outputs.
How would the media (newspapers, etc) work under this model? I'm not saying free market is better, but I would distruss the state fact-checking stuff. I don't have a solution for this, but I'm interested in what you guys think.
as lenin said:<For the bourgeoisie, freedom of the press meant freedom for the rich to publish and for the capitalists to control the newspapers, a practice which in all countries, including even the freest, produced a corrupt press. <For the workers’ and peasants’ government, freedom of the press means liberation of the press from capitalist oppression, and public ownership of paper mills and printing presses; equal right for public groups of a certain size (say, numbering 10,000) to a fair share of newsprint stocks and a corresponding quantity of printers’ labour.
if you want a cybersoc angle on it, this problem is simplified significantly by the advent of cloud based server architecture. you don't even have to give everyone a share of physical paper to print their shit on anymore. you can just give everyone a suitable amount of server space and literally everyone with an interest in it can have a journal.
It is late, but here is a graphical example. Two companies: Blue milk and Red milk. The green plot is the sum of prices of blue and red milk. From w equation, o2/x2 = l2, it is labor productivity. A worker looks at prices and decides to leave Red co and joins Blue co, this shown by rising labor productivity in Red co, l2.
f1 and f2 is not equal, so the prices intersection is shifted.
If workers will follow the simple rule, they will find that the Blue co workers work longer and they will force more workers to join, until work time is equal. In some cases, they may let this time inequality of time stay, if it is medical or engineering personnel, considering productivity and quality points.
At the bottom of the picture is how I plot this in maxima.sourceforge.net. sp1 is solution to price1 found by solving equations system. sum12 is sp1 + sp2. >>1436650
f is positive, sorry. I added f to price and then solved again for w, now the equations looks slightly different: n1 p1 + n2 p2 + … = w1 = l1 p1 - f1 l1.
>>1437117>they collectively decide what resources should be allocated into what sectors to produce what outputs
uh no. this amounts to anarchic production of intermediate goods. what is struggled over must be the bounds within which the solver is allowed to act. you should read what Dave Zachariah has written on this>>1437124
said. even today very little is stopping you and some buddies from starting a blog. the real question is financing>>1437186
this looks neoclassical
if I understand correctly,
a = n1 p1 + n2 p2 + …
is basically the cost of labor or individual consumption, the cost of keeping the worker alive and in working condition, so to speak. then
l = o / x
productivity, basically the units produced, on average, by a worker
w = l p - l f
means that the individual wage equals price times units produced by the worker minus the cost of the inputs constant capital
used producing those goods. then, you say this leads to
a = w
then I think you made a small mistake, because prices should be
p = a / l + f
and you end with labor values, this is, prices equal to labor content
the obvious problem is that "labor prices" aren't enough:
imagine the product c1 that is never used as input for other goods, and isn't consumed by workers either (so n1 = 0), then it wouldn't make much sense to produce it, right? but your system doesn't reflect that. as long as a =/= 0 and l =/= 0, then w =/= 0 and p =/= 0
cockshott uses a market for consumer goods where prices are allowed to diverge from labor contents to give the system information about consumer preferences. if I understand correctly, your system would also need a market for intermediate goods (the inputs, f in your equations)
>>1437542>cockshott uses a market for consumer goods
a shop is not a market
TANS, chapter 8
yes anon C&C use crappy wording
"In economics, a market is a coordinating mechanism that uses prices to convey information among economic entities (such as firms, households and individuals) to regulate production and distribution."
I don't believe that there is a need for having remuneration for authors and journalists at all under socialism. For that matter, I don't believe that is necessary under capitalism even. Some people will always build elaborate fantasy worlds and write reports on stuff. I suppose my views on that are fringe even among socialists. So…
Supposing we won't have limits on media sharing through copyright, we still can have remuneration through prizes and stipends decided by juries composed by region or age group. The funds don't have to be entirely allocated according to majority dictate within a jury, but proportional procedures, like one jury allocating three one-year stipends through sequential approval voting
>>1437326>uh no. this amounts to anarchic production of intermediate goods. what is struggled over must be the bounds within which the solver is allowed to act. you should read what Dave Zachariah has written on this
i don't believe it amounts to anarchic production, but i'd be willing to read the relevant zachariah on this if you could point me to it.
it relates to appendix B in pdf related>i don't believe it amounts to anarchic production
what you believe
is irrelevant. what happens is what's important, and if you have to have a meeting about where intermediate goods should go, like some syndicalists do, then you will have crises of over- and underproduction
nothing in appendix b here raises any issue with what i said.>what you believe is irrelevant.
perhaps it is irrelevant as to what the actual answer is, but it isn't irrelevant in the context of you having a conversation with me. no need to be hostile.>if you have to have a meeting about where intermediate goods should go
that's also not what i was saying. what i'm talking about is more akin to what cockshott and cottrell write about in TANS:<Since only a minority of the decisions that have to be taken in a country can be put to a full popular vote, other public institutions would be supervised by a plurality of juries. The broadcasting authority, the water authority, the posts, the railways and so on would all be under councils chosen by lot from among their users and workers. Such councils would not be answerable to any government minister, instead the democracy relies upon the principle that a sufficiently large random sample will be representative of the public. A system of democratic control over all public bodies would mean that at some time in their lives citizens could expect to be called up to serve on some sort of council. Not everyone would serve on national councils, but one could expect to have to serve on some school council, local health council or workplace council. If people were to participate directly in the running of the state, we would not see the cynicism and apathy which characterise the typical modern voter.<For economic planning we envisage a system in which teams of professional economists draw up alternative plans to put before a planning jury which would then choose between them. Only the very major decisions (the level of taxes, the percentage of national income going towards investment, health, education, etc.) would have to be put to direct popular vote.
i regret not mentioning sortition because i omitted it from my post for brevity and had i not done that i suspect we could have avoided this confusion.
my point isn't around how people are chosen for these position, my point is that you have people involved at all. if you have to have people deciding over the minutia of what goes where then the overall system will be slow, and you will have crises. you said:>workers are not commanded to produce what has been planned by a foreign force. they collectively decide what resources should be allocated into what sectors to produce what outputs
but this is precisely the point of planning. you allow the force of nature that is the plan solver the figure out all the minutia, all the allocations, so that you don't have to. what is struggled over are the bounds within which the solver is allowed to operate. one example is how Zachariah and Hagberg suggest bounding the rate of change of employment in each workplace
to be even more explicit, the suggestion that people should stick their noses into the supply lines of the entire economy can only end in disaster. should the workers in a steel mill decide where the steel should go? ridiculous>TANS
unfortunately C&C use the word "plan" here, when no human can draw up any plan for the entire economy. what they are talking about is a constraint. "reserve at most this much resources (in terms of labour time) for investments" is not a concrete allocation of resources
there is also the issue of investment decisions, which are inherently political
it might be better, in these technical discussions, to not even use words like "plan" because it seems to be ambiguous. perhaps we should talk instead of coefficients, allocations, constraints and so on
also nice digits
again it seems the issue here is me, a humanities baby, not being precise enough when talking to math people.> you allow the force of nature that is the plan solver the figure out all the minutia, all the allocations, so that you don't have to. > should the workers in a steel mill decide where the steel should go? ridiculous
note the normative in what this is responding to. i do not say the workers individually decide each discrete allocation of resources. that would indeed be absurd. when i say “they collectively decide what resources *should* be allocated into what sectors to produce what outputs”, what i mean is that what is being planned for (the constraints, as you say) as well as the approval and implementation of the plan are the collective decision of a political body which is composed of (not merely representative of) the working class.
>>1439330>well yeah, obviously. who else would decide?
that was my point this whole time. the problem that was raised was that “the plan” or “the planners” would be a foreign commanding force to the workers, but when we understand it as being the product of the democratic process we see that the plan does not command the workers but rather the plan is the command of the workers.
anyone have any good writings on artificial intelligence and socialism? Everything I've come across somehow almost always gets brought back to the ECP
I want the title comptroller please
>>1440730>having such a title while still being a soft fleshy fallible thing
sorry anon you would first have to become one with the omnissiah
I don't think C&C write anything on this. personally I think we should work to raise the question of planning in all socialist orgs, be they Leninist or syndicalist or whatever
Oh well, inject that shit into my ass.
A shop is not a market. A shop does not come from social conditions. A shop sprouts from a tree and is plucked, before pesky lesbian finance corrupts it, which we must stop.
He deliberately leaves those political questions open. It seems like he is leaving it up to our generation to figure out what the fuck to do.
In any case this video might be relevant:
rare based article from jacobin
uh oh central planning bros, did we get too cocky? don't you know following a set of linear constraints is hecking top-down and basically Stalin?
this is just one moron not understanding math and also conflating technical means of planning with political ones. Central planning doesn't mean central in a literal sense of being part of one computer system or program
>>1450677>Central planning doesn't mean central in a literal sense of being part of one computer system or program
I mean it kinda does. you would at the very least need a central database of some sort that everyone can access. plus you would need to compute the one plan if not in a single place then at least in multiple places such that it is ensured they arrive at the same solution
the ogasdemo.ru guy raises a similar point in >>1408478
Reminder that no one has yet debunked my post on economic efficiency of private owned firms: >>1429302
Until you give an actual account for how imperfect contracts will be handled by state-owned entreprises, there is no reason to believe you guys won't actually repeat the mistakes made by the Soviet Union.>>1431159>that is not due to increased productivity but due to class struggle
No matter the cause, people are still producing more and getting richer (if you abstract the last 5 years of course) while working less, how do you explain the fact that this is possible?
Especially when your theory revolve around the idea that replacing labour with capital require more working time to generate an equal amount of surplus. See:>because the value of any given commodity tends to go down, more of them must be produced to maintain the rate of profit. in addition the organic composition tends to increase, necessitating an increase in the rate of exploitation
>because the value of any given commodity tends to go down, more of them must be produced to maintain the rate of profit
Give me your formula for the rate of profit, I don't get what you mean. Do you mean profit over total investments or profit on a single commodity?
not the same anon but…>No matter the cause, people are still producing more and getting richer (if you abstract the last 5 years of course) while working less, how do you explain the fact that this is possible?
it's possible due to class struggle, the post you're quoting literally answered this
>>1451503>it's possible due to class struggle, the post you're quoting literally answered this
What I was saying is that there is a contradiction in that other Anon's post. Sure, maybe class struggle did reduce working hours, however, how do you explain that productivity is still increasing despite people working less?
Bear in mind that he was saying that replacing labour with capital supposedly decrease output…
what you need to understand with porkoid shit is that to them efficiency just means profitability>people are still producing more and getting richer (if you abstract the last 5 years of course) while working less
these two statements are in direct contradiction, assuming a constant rate of exploitation. you can't become "richer", meaning the value of labour power increases, while the length of the working week decreases, if you do not also decrease profit by a proportional amount. this is basic vol I shit>replacing labour with capital require more working time to generate an equal amount of surplus
no it doesn't. the amount of surplus is given by the length of the working week minus the value of the labour power. again this is basic shit>Give me your formula for the rate of profit, I don't get what you mean. Do you mean profit over total investments or profit on a single commodity?
are you soliciting learns? even fucking wikipedia has this information. profit is calculated as return (surplus) divided by total costs (constant capital (machines + raw material) + variable capital (wages)), or s/(c+v)>>1451525>however, how do you explain that productivity is still increasing despite people working less?
anon this fact is central to Marx' analysis which you would know if you actually read Capital, or at the very least these two (about 30 pages each):https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/
I've skimmed over second doc. The questions like: buy at the close to end time at smaller price.. it is not interesting, it is what is to get away from, what planning is for. The state companies effciency in the studies, is again, for the market where such tricks possible.
Huh are we reaching a peek of minimized working hrs.
here's a fun exercise: if your country is in that graph then divide your country's mean wage by the number of hours worked and compare that to gdp per hour
for my country the ratio comes to roughly 2.34, meaning a rate of exploitation of 134%>>1451525
Method for participatory budgeting:https://equalshares.net
is everyone expected to sift through thousands of project proposals? that's not going to happen>Reduce bias towards the most popular categories.
I suspect the effect will be the opposite, because people have limited bandwidth. I see some thought has gone into the effect of "bullet votes", but therein lies also the problem
what is the benefit of this compared to people "voting with their vouchers"?
Is there a limit to the amount of planned companies possible ?
t. curious newbie
>>1457404>the amount of planned companies possible
what do you mean? every company is planned internally
I am talking about how many companies can be planned under a centralized planning unit
ah. well that depends on the number of products that each workplace provides. the current estimate there is in the billions. so if each workplace provides say 100 different things, then the number of workplaces that can be planned as a single unit is at least 10 million. you can also throw more 'puters at it, so the limit isn't really computational
the real problem is the political side, and also data. how do we avoid the problems that plagued planning in the USSR? how do we make sure the requirements that each workplace reports is reasonably accurate? how do we avoid bureaucratization?
I see. Maintaining accuracy of data in a planned economy across all companies remains a major challenge even today it seems. I think there should be some kind of inspection mechanism set up. Wonder how DPRK does it for example
>>1457528>I think there should be some kind of inspection mechanism set up
definitely. perhaps such inspectors could be chosen by lot. but also you could compare to other workplaces in the same industry, apply statistics to automatically flag strange behavior
>>1457134>is everyone expected to sift through thousands of project proposals?
Population samples.>what is the benefit of this compared to people "voting with their vouchers"?
Both copyright law and patent protections will be abolished. So music* and other audio data, novels and other texts, and comics, and animation, and acting*, and all sorts of technical research will NOT be financed through the consumption vouchers. The stuff that can be copied for free in principle will be free to copy legally. Tangible products will be obtained by vouchers but the cost of inventing will not be included in the price calculation of those things.
*(aside from live stuff in front of an audience)>>1457187
Sortition sounds wonderful in theory, but how can the broad masses be involved when not everybody will be super-enthusiastic. The cognitive load of just deciding between a few worked out proposals (one of them usually being the status quo) is just a tiny fraction of the cognitive load from formulating proposals. Compare the effort that goes into writing an essay with the effort of choosing between a few essays (and you don't even have to justify your choice!). So a sortition-based chamber just deciding between letting through or blocking proposals is a form of sortition one can easily believe to work even with people who got their education pre-revolution.
>>1458481>but how can the broad masses be involved when not everybody will be super-enthusiastic.
Australia. Compulsory voting, compulsory sortition just like we do juries except
based on post code as a proxy for wealth.
Also see Paul's method.
as far as I can tell the site proposes nothing like this, but that everyone should vote on the projects. of course sortition is a way to lessen this burden, to lessen the drudgery of going through piles and piles of proposals in aggregate. indeed as you say:>The cognitive load of just deciding between a few worked out proposals (one of them usually being the status quo) is just a tiny fraction of the cognitive load from formulating proposals
>[culture] will NOT be financed through the consumption vouchers
why? are we going to have meetings about what kind of art is to be produced?
>>1458503>>Population samples>as far as I can tell the site proposes nothing like this
That's because the site just describes a voting method and not the entire fucking society around it. Sortition is fairly common for participatory budgeting so it doesn't need to be stated explicitly.>are we going to have meetings about what kind of art is to be produced?
if you want to draw furry porn get a real job work less hours than you did under capitalism for more pay and draw it in your free time. the only art that requires social planning is that art the production of which is the most heavily socialized. things like large statues, films, orchestral music, etc. that require coordination between very many specialized forms of divided labor power.
What I am interested in is voting procedures for using a given fund either to select a subset of proposed projects with fixed budgets or to assign variable amounts between topics and a sober mathematical analysis of the method's properties (robustness against strategic exaggeration, proportionality, monotonicity, run time).
This has none of that. Fuck you for making me read that drivel.
I see a lot of books ITT but nothing on control theory.
Someone give me some good control theory recs
control theory is an engineering subfield and requires higher knowledge of advanced statistics and linear algebra so you'd probably have to do a masters degree in some sort of engineering to get a holistic treatment of it anon
Well I have a background in controls from a bachelor's in engineering (took a class in it) so I could tackle it. But my statistics/probability knowledge is shit; for that I'm about to start an online class through edX so I can not be a retard
depending on your country's educational fees you could just do an advanced degree and get taught that shit professionally.
So could either of you do a qrd on control theory for us plebs plox
Does the view of capitalist academicians that "development is when more light pollution" have any basis ?
no and yes. you can't reduce "development" (whatever that is) to a scalar. but at the same time we expect a certain amount of artificial light in a developed economy>>1465139
WP has a good definition actually:>The objective is to develop a model or algorithm governing the application of system inputs to drive the system to a desired state, while minimizing any delay, overshoot, or steady-state error and ensuring a level of control stability; often with the aim to achieve a degree of optimality.
in planning the desired state is a functioning economy that meets the needs of its people
pdf related points out a rather deep point that good regulators seek to minimize the entropy in the system under regulation
Well my method of achieving that is basically adapting Dickblast's method and fusing it with my local cunt's vooting and census method (paper).
Basically retrogressing Schlonglaunch's, but making it more culturally plug-and-play.
>>1465432>using Benjamin Peters as a source
neato. will it be live streamed?
Man, they should put more effort to their flyers.
white on white is fine don't be silly
he drinks water like me! so relatable
I mean it's not a very large scale professional lecture or anything. It's just that i promote it here. If we can get the internet sorted out and the livestream person has time we will livestream it. Fully English language. I will keep you posted
(Not my cell that organised it, it's a faction of our org, also I'm wasted af rn but it'd be fun to see you irl or hear your guys input online since it's in my hometown and it's super.intereysing
.Tim platenkamp has written an book on economic planning that was positively reviewed by the big Cock himself so its bound to be interesting.
>>1466599>Tim platenkamp has written an book on economic planning that was positively reviewed by the big Cock himself so its bound to be interesting
drop the pdf here if you have a copy
Who has some /cybernetic/ approved music to study to
Dreampunk, the ambient offshoot of vaporwave that replaces sample-heavy repetition and nostalgia with futuristic soundscapes which will make you feel like you're tripping in a communist megacity ca 2070.
>2814 : Rain Templehttps://youtu.be/7eRf__n7VPg
Hands down my favorite genre and best thing to happen to music culture in the last two-to-three decades.
"the whole [dreampunk] vibe is certainly fluid enough to encompass lots of different musical styles, while still retaining certain elements that make the label stand out as a whole—surreality, futurism, heavy concepts and story-driven projects, while vaporwave as a term and an idea has become something of a burden to everyone involved with it."
https://www.härdin.se/blog/2023/05/21/quantifying-autonomy-in-planning/<What I mean by autonomy in this post is the extent to which each workplace can govern itself without threatening the feasibility of the system as a whole. The less constrained each workplace is the more "free" the workers in that workplace are likely to be. The more orthogonal its actions can be to the rest of the economy, the freeër it is. But at the same time, no workplace is an island.
Literally orthogonal in the geometric represenation.
Anyone ITT know which communist org Härdin is a part of in Sweden?
Thoughts about ogasdemo.ru?
never heard of it can you TLDR
2814 is quite a based artist
you can look at the website and also read >>1408478
I'm asking because I saw someone mention he being organized in some thread on here
I'm swedish and sympathetic so I really would appreciate it
Unique IPs: 106