/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

According to Cockshott he was threated with never getting a visa to visit China again if he pushed to get his books on cybernetic socialism published.

Cybernetic socialism is still human governance.

>>2481241
>>2481241
If remember correctly there was this dissidents group. Called the young left that was organizing strikes and cockshott was in contact with them but stopped because of the visa thing

>>2481241
Elaborate, this is juicy drama we all need to hear.

>>2502650
cool censorship Xi!

>>2481241
Cockshott is too good for this shitty world

>>2502707
cockshott has terrible political instincts, judging by his pasts affiliations. the man is brilliant when it comes to computer stuff, but he keeps joining the most deranged and insignificant sects in the scene because of his social ineptitude. so I'm willing to give the chinese government the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume the group he was collaborating with are undesirables. this is going to sound insane but I don't think theoreticians should become politicians (or vice versa), for a number of reasons. I think modern parties are doing a relatively good job at separating both tasks

>This is idealism btw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J-OlqejLbw
The idea that AI "appears" intelligent and therefore must be interpreted as "thinking" is such idealist drivel that I am surprised cockshott is pedaling this. This is the guy who was warning against anthropomorphizing computers and now he is doing a 180. We judge others as intelligent by our own standards, this is why some people think that animals are not conscious, but a deeper thinking on the matter lets us see animals as ourselves and then our perception is changed.

The video is good and 99% correct, I just hope this is not paul going off the deep end.

Also, I find it weird how the top comment is an ancap who praises the video.

>>2502730
>I don't think theoreticians should become politicians (or vice versa), for a number of reasons
Let's be real, the theoreticians are more principled than politicians because they have standards while politics boils down to games with goal to stay in power. Also goes to show just how much capitalist inroaders are in china. They are not the paragon of communism that a lot of neo-leftists make them out to be. I am willing to concede to the neo-right that china is more a fascist economy than a socialist one.

>>2481241
>>2502710
you mean the academic retard who unironically thinks value exists without exchange and realization? cuckshott never got past ch 1 of capital lol

>>2502730
>the man is brilliant
lmao cuckshotts a transphobe who doesnt even get the law of value

>>2502786
muuuuuh transhumanists

>>2502773
>le politicians are bad because power xd
not how it works, you are ignoring class conflict or the role of the state under capitalism. wtf are you doing here

I don't give a shit about integrity, that's not how politics work, matter of fact, they have nothing to do with personal attributes

>>2502793
Enjoy your sellouts.

>>2502782
The potential for value exists before exchange. This was confirmed by the great and infallible Sir Haz Al-Din (PhD, PBUH) esq. Value does not exist before creation, but an estimate can be made since all value comes from labor which can be quantified beforehand so you can have a proper price estimate beforehand (only possible in north korea).

>>2502800
>Enjoy your sellouts.
???
if you are under the impression that anyone here likes or expects anything from bourgeois politicians you are in the wrong site. if you think that the difference between chiang kai shek is mao is that the formed received bribes, you are mentally retarded: the difference between the two were the interests they represented. to think any "game" has actual relevancy in class politics is an anti-socialist position, specially if you are under the assumption that the system is, in principle, fine and we only need better politicians. this is, you ignore that there are opposing, irreconcilable, interests in society and politics is the peaceful war between these interests, not a contest of personal integrity and accountability

>>2502829
Tell that to boris yeltsin. As if communist countries don't have corrupt politicians.

>>2502839
>communist countries don't have corrupt politicians.
where did I imply this?
the point I'm making is that politics isn't about integrity or whatever, it is about class conflict. corruption and such are common crimes at best and symptoms of systemic failure at best (for example, of the bureaucratization of the government in the ussr: a problem that I don't expect a retard like you to understand) but in the grand scheme of things it is irrelevant. the soviet union would have fallen regardless of yeltsin or whoever else being "honest" or not. if your system needs everyone to stay honest against extremely endearing material incentives, then your problem isn't corruption but the structural failure of your political system

and by the way, I'm reporting your post for arguing under false pretenses and misrepresenting what is a very straightforward and simple point

>>2502851
>if your system needs everyone to stay honest against extremely endearing material incentives, then your problem isn't corruption but the structural failure of your political system
Or maybe the honest people should just kill the sellouts. Too bad honest people are usually nice guys. Listen here retard. Your political games won't work on me. I am 253 years old and I have seen shit. It all starts with the individuals. You cannot build communism with shitty individuals. That's what vanguardism is about.
>>2502854
What a pussy. You cannot stand your ground so you go cry to mommy. I'll report your ass for being a crybaby.

>>2502856
what honest people? the honest capitalists? they want to kill your vanguard not because they are dishonest or sellouts but because they represent other class interests. you don't want to defeat the bourgeois politicians because they are politicians, but because they represent the interests of the bourgeoisie, no matter their integrity or whatever

if you come to a point where 1. the politicians are expected to act at the behest of the proletariat and 2. any material incentive for anti-revolutionary behavior carries a very high, dissuasive, risk because of, say, popular participation and scrutiny, then integrity also doesn't matter. if you have one but not the other, or if you have none of these two, then your problem is structural and not about integrity either

again, this is like thinking that capitalism would be good if employers were more benevolent or whatever - it's an anti-socialist position and it makes me think that you are either 12 or haven't ever seriously thought about politics in your entire life

>>2502876
I am against the belief that systemic changes in a political system are foolproof to 100%. I am worried about china going down a bad path for the same reason. You cannot create a system that covers any instance of corruption or working against the common interest since it is a sort of arms race. One should be wary of people betraying communism for personal reasons and even then, there are people who will do the right thing even when it is difficult. The system is only manifested in people and things. You need good people to run your system or else the bad ones will exploit whatever inevitable shortcoming your system has. A theoretician that has solid principles will not concede to his enemy while a pragmatist might. Israeli fanatics prove you wrong because fanaticism is the highest stage of integrity. You are loyal to a cause and that cause is yours. Try bribing a zionist. Now see how easy Syria fell to jihadis whose military was easily bribed. more than material interests are at play here.

>>2502887
>I am against
you are mentally retarded and can't be for or against anything because you don't even understand the subject

>the belief
not a belief. case in point: no bourgeois politician has ever "betrayed" the bourgeoisie. it is possible to create a system where "selling out" or any other personal trait of politicians does not matter, and it is right in front of you: every single country under capitalism right now

>You need good people to run your system
the system is what the system does, there is no such thing as corruption. if it needs "integrity" (fake concept btw) then the revolutionary process has failed

>Israeli fanatics
it's called settlers and lobbyists and thinking they are doing a genocide because of some conviction and not simple material interests is not only stupid but a good example of why this is anti-socialist rhetoric. you think that if israelis were to become more benevolent, then the genocide would stop, but it doesn't work like that, there are irreconcilable (this is, no amount of good manners or personal ethics will change the situation), opposing interests

>Try bribing a zionist.
that's precisely what the state of israel exists for, as a "bribe" to zionists, arms manufacturers, american RE companies, and a long etc.

of course, in this case you should be able to discern that the concept of "bribe" becomes meaningless because you are trying to assign a negative moral connotation to what is just the system working as intended

China recently made a statement worrying about how the People's Profit Margins are dropping because of too much competition and called for "quality competition" and boosting the People's Profit Margin through consolidation, while also simultaneously approving a $70 billion stimulus package.

And you're here thinking they will give a shit about Cyber socialism lol

>>2502765
>This is the guy who was warning against anthropomorphizing computers and now he is doing a 180.
Your position on what thinking even is seems very human-centric. If Cockshott grants that spiders think (and he does), why would it be far-fetched to grant that to computerized machines? Maybe the disagreement would vanish if people bothered to distinguish levels of thinking.

>>2503316
I think biocentrification of thinking is a better concept.
We cannot truly create an autonomous processing unit of information. Maybe it has something to do with "the soul" or what not, but all attempts to make a replica of life have not been successful. We can only replicate a tiny fraction of what is considered "life". Machines are not living.

>>2505687
>We cannot truly create an autonomous processing unit of information
what?? we can and do

>Maybe it has something to do with "the soul"
wow spooky
you're a retard

>We can only replicate a tiny fraction of what is considered "life".
"life" isnt even a clear concept

>Machines are not living.
living organism are just chemical machines