he's completely BTFO'ed all arguments against Marx's Law of Value, he's empirically proven that Economic Planning is 100% possible with current data sets and modern computation, he's shown that current economic theory is based on complete woo that doesn't hold up to basic mathematical scrutiny or even basic logic.
The thing is, because all his online content is extremely complex, technical post-grad level university lectures, it's hard to get his idea's out there. Which I think why as Socialists, we should try present his arguments, theories and evidence in a far more presentable, digestable, ELI5 fashion for Normies.
What made classic Leftypol good is that we were able to present Socialist content for normies that would be shared by Zoomers and such. So I think a good project for us on this board, would be to work How the World Works (
https://libgen.rocks/ads.php?md5=0f775aef8cbe24a8978e115669bfcdfb) into a decent Youtube series that explains how we can build a new economic order in the not too distant future.
>>2636916dumb attempt at derailing the thread. stay in your general
>>2636916>I'm not going to watch twitch streamers, particularly Haz adjacent twitch streamers like Agent Kochinski or Cockshott. pretty much what i was gonna say tbh
I'm not sure I'd say that it was about presenting socialism to normies in a way that explained the theory (hence the meme about leftist memes all being walls of text) so much as the best things about old leftypol were when it was able to make memes that were *funny*, because the role of an imageboard should be to produce lots of propaganda content that can be easily shared and is tapped into the current flows of desire in the world. but old leftypol's culture was also very insular and that reflects in the state of the left today where you are either an insider who gets the joke or you don't know what about it is supposed to be funny (like the Hoxha bunkers thing is a good example of this).
though I'm all for leftypol doing literally anything other than shit the bed 24/7 getting into inane slapfights with pseudo-JDPON chuds who think communism is a pissing contest about being a worker in a more oppressed nation than someone else.
I can't take him seriously because of his name
Explain his ideas first, then I will consider reading him
>Cockshott is probably the best Socialist theorist of our age
Is he? I mean people here like him, for some reason. But I've never really heard him say anything spectacular or groundbreaking. Admittedly I haven't watched that much of his work
>he's completely BTFO'ed all arguments against Marx's Law of Value
How so?
>he's empirically proven that Economic Planning is 100% possible with current data sets and modern computation,
In what way? You're just saying he does these things without explaining it. Plus, aren't these all just fairly standard marxist positions?
>>2637002hes just trolling we all know cock shot prefers youtube
>>2636916>If anything comes of their work it'll exist in a more refined versionaesthetic whore
>>2636980TaNS is a very pragmatic model for a future democratically planned economy with computers and shit. It's an essential read.
Bourgeois academic nerd shit, we know how to plan an economy without computers since more than a century, nobody cares about beat up angloid college professors seething about transhumanists anf migrant
Literally who? A twitch streamer?
>>2636910Cockshott is inherently suspect because he keeps demonstrating bad judgement, whether it's being a member of this gaggle of MI5 zionist, monarchist, british-monarchist contrarians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_and_Irish_Communist_Organisation#Unconventional_political_positions_in_1980s , his article about how gays are bourgeois or his joining of the opportunist Alba party* and writing of an article using dubious statistics to argue that its leader wasn't a sex offender, he loves running his mouth and reminding you at the end of the day he's a Scottish boomer.
*not even opportunist in a communist sense: opportunist in a "a former SNP leader was a accused of being a sex offender, so he made his own party that was basically the SNP for people loyal to him, plus some TERF dogwhistling because that was a hot-button issue at the time, entirely in order to punish the SNP" sense.
This would be a disaster for sharing his content for social-signalling purposes at the best of times even before you remember that economic planning is mostly orthogonal to socialism and is, in a certain sense, a strange fetish picked up from the USSR. People don't become or not become socialists on the basis of pragmatics: a pragmatic vision of a new economic system gets you nowhere without a pragmatic vision of how to implement it starting from the status quo, while a non-pragmatic vision with an equally non-pragmatic view of how we get there can get you very far indeed. (This is what most current socialists believe in.)
Dengoids should be shit on sight.
>>2637007>we know how to plan an economy without computers since more than a centuryYet no country on Earth puts it in practise. It is useful to update.
>>2637017Cockshott is of value purely because of his mathematical and computational work.
We do not care whether the engineer who came up with the touch screen is a transphobe, homophobe or whatever. The technology works and that's that.
I would understand the strong anti-COckshott sentiment if there were hordes of mathematicians working on the Marxist planning of economy. But there are only a few.
>>2637018>Yet no country on Earth puts it in practise. It is useful to update.most countries on Earth have put neoliberalism in practice. So we uphold neoliberalism as the most advanced form of economy then?
You twerps forget that the world does not exist beside us. We exist within the world. At some point, we have to generate something ourselves. At least try.
But what can I expect from morons who are satisfied by "muh voluntarism" everytime an attempt is proposed.
>>2636980His writings and videos are already very concise and straightforward. Make an effort.
>>2637022If the engineer who came up with the touch screen was a reprehensible poster i would make sure to misattribute the invention when promoting it online to avoid taint by association. If the touch screen wasn't yet popularized, i would effectively plagiarize his work and pass it off as my own. (particularly easy when working in formats like "meme infographic on an imageboard" where, if you're doing it right, you'll usually leave out citations anyway and let it stand self-evident)
That would be my fundamental recommendation for popularizing his work: If his mathematical and computational work is so good, promote the ideas without attribution, or by pretending he's merely one of 20 sources for something you've synthesized yourself. The fun thing about mathematics is that E=MC² remains true even as I package it with the untruth that I came up with it last tuesday.
>but that's morally wrong! what a violation of academic ethics!Yes, but if world socialism hinges on everyone using the metaphorical touch-screen then you need a Steve Jobs to market the existing thing, not more reverence for Frank Beck for inventing it. Getting on the wrong side of a Hbomberguy video essay is a small price to pay for communism, where the concept of "price to pay" will quickly be outmoded.
>>2637030You have redirected the point into one of ethics and copyright and thus you are acting in bad faith.
Unless and until you prove yourself competent to replace Cockshott, he must be protected.
>>2637030Check out this moralist idiot
>>2637060Actually, I have redirected into a question of marketing. I touch on copyright not-at-all and ethics only to dismiss ethical objections to the optimum marketing strategy: sell the product without disclosing its unsavory origins, making up new origins if necessary. (Cybersocialism,
Designed by Anonymous in California…)
This is the internet, Cockshott surrendered any right to protection
lol he had when he made bad posts. If there's anything salvageable in his work, it lies in him doing the mother of all self-criticisms (and even then it'll be a hard sell) or in someone else taking the good and passing it off as independent of the bad in a much more stylish package.
>>2637061It's statistically implausible that two people are so retarded as to misinterpret a post explicitly dismissive of morality as "moralist" so I'm going to have to remind you that samefagging is generally considered uncouth.
>person who did nothing demands that person who did something selfcrits so that the person who didn't do anything can feel better about themselves
amazing development
>>2637066The nuleft is famous for dragging down talented achievers to their useless level on idpol issues. These people would fail the entry exam to the CPC let alone be able to climb the party hierarchy based on merit.
Their ideal is an egalitarian kakistocracy: everyone needs to be shit like me so that I may feel better about myself by secretly thinking I'm better than anyone else.
>>2637066I don't demand that he self crits, I'm saying that if you want his ideas to have any reach beyond a half-dead general on leftypol.org then the status quo clearly isn't doing it. Either he needs a re-brand or, if we value ideas and not men, the ideas need to cut the dead-weight of their originator.
For all it matters to me he can stay irrelevant like everyone else, I'm just giving advice.
>>2637068He has achieved nothing until his ideas are put into some kind of practice.
Moreover, it's hardly an "idpol issue" to point out that he was a member of a monarchist org that opposed the miners during the 1984-5 miner's strike, or to criticize him for joining the non-communist non-socialist Alba party on the grounds that Alba was a vehicle for one man's transparent opportunism and not a serious political vehicle.
He is one among a number of less than 10.
Now of course he is not perfect but it is frankly ridiculous that so many people, even on here, seem to expect him to be.
Get fucking real. Every notable historical figure has some negative aspects. Usually those are glossed over, because the contributions contra the mistakes are understood to be more notable.
>>2637158Resolving economic problems without resolving the political problems that enable you to decide economic policy is no great claim to fame. A hundred or more Post Keynesians do that every day, and without embarrassing themselves with forays into non-economic matters.
>but he's not a reformist, he's a revolutionary!!One must then judge his failure to (a) have his ideas adopted by any nominally socialist governments, or (b) his failure to advance revolutionary causes so that his ideas can be put into practice.
This is precisely the same failure mode as the post keynesians, just with a different set of countries in case a and more competition in case b. It does not matter what economic theories you draw up to prove your premise (planning can work!! full employment under capitalism can work!! look at my equations!!) if they are not matched by economic practice.
As it stands he's not a notable historical figure, he's an economist with a blog. Big whoop, so's Steve Keen.
>>2636910>Cockshott is probably the best Socialist theorist of our ageI agree and I'm moderately horrified by that. I found it all very obvious when I read him right after Marx. Then I looked at other stuff out there like "communization theory" and it's horseshit.
>The thing is, because all his online content is extremely complex, technical post-grad level university lectures, it's hard to get his idea's out there.Both Towards a New Socialism and How the World Works are written for a general audience. I read both. I'm not a programmer or a university graduate and I don't think these works are hard to understand.
>>2637022>We do not care whether the engineer who came up with the touch screen is a transphobe, homophobe or whatever. The technology works and that's that.Yes.
>>2637172>Resolving economic problems without resolving the political problems that enable you to decide economic policy is no great claim to fame>It does not matter what economic theories you draw up to prove your premise (planning can work!! full employment under capitalism can work!! look at my equations!!) if they are not matched by economic practice. I don't think you understand how computational sciences work for you to say this.
>One must then judge his failure to (a) have his ideas adopted by any nominally socialist governmentsYes but that is not what the people who scream the louded about his issues online go about this and I hope you know this. They'd rather burn him at the stake and have no one even mention his computational Marxist econophysical materialism (because they are mainly radlibs/reformists/anti-communist progressives anyway).
>This is precisely the same failure mode as the post keynesiansI don't think you really know what's special and qualitative about his positive contributions for you to casually compare to post-Keynesianism radical/social/welfarist liberalism here.
>>2637188I do not need any special understanding of mathematics to understand that a proof in a locked drawer undiscovered is of no value. Both he and post-Keynesians have achieved nothing in terms of changing the world. It is from a place of sympathy that I compare him to them and not to something much more pathetic.
If you were invested only in the ideas and not in the man, you'd listen to my advice: promote the ideas, don't mention the man. You don't seriously believe that "radlibs/reformists/anti-communist progressives" have read enough of his work to know when you're spouting it without attribution, do you? What could come more naturally to an imageboard user than letting ideas stand independent of their creators by anonymising them?
>>2637201>I do not need any special understanding of mathematics to understand that a proof in a locked drawer undiscovered is of no value. Self-own, didn't need to read the rest.
>>2637211Self-own, didn't need to read the rest. ;)
he is a pseud who has more furor against gay people and transgender people than he has for actually building communism, a reactionary with some correct ideas here and there
>>2637172>without resolving the political problemsThis is the easy part. The hard part is that marxist economic theory is outdated and needs a complete overhaul.
>>2637188>>It does not matter what economic theories you draw up to prove your premise (planning can work!! full employment under capitalism can work!! look at my equations!!) if they are not matched by economic practice. >I don't think you understand how computational sciences work for you to say this.Indeed.
>>2637201>Both he and post-Keynesians have achieved nothing in terms of changing the world. It is from a place of sympathy that I compare him to themSo you are a progressive/radlib?
You really don't understand the point the other poster is making. If you think you do, answer this:
What is the purpose is of simplistic models that are related by their makers to something complex?
>>2637235he compared them to the post keynesians because they both have achieved nothing and have created laudable models for capitalist economics, yet those models are just that, models of something that has not yet existed despite their "decades of work" to bring it so
>>2637234If it were the easy part it would have been done, no?
The various socialist and communist governments of the world have the power, Cockshott has the new theory, it should be trivial to bring the two together. Nevertheless, just like the poor post Keynesians and their non-accelerating-rate-of-inflation compatible employment guarantee schemes…
>>2637235>So you are a progressive/radlib?I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
>>2637246>both […] created laudable models for capitalist economicsRagebait, don't engage
>>2637247>sympathyAnyway, would you answer the question?
>>2637251i ragebait with my genuine opinion, then, you also ignored the part of that sentence where i said they both achieved nothing, and if you really think my idea is ragebait, cockshottt's ideas could be easily created by a corporation or any company
>>26372521. It takes some level of lazy thinking to imagine that sympathy constitutes endorsement. Do you seriously think I "endorse" the victims of a train crash by feeling concern or pity for them?
2. In that sentence, "a place of sympathy" means I am being sympathetic to Cockshott, not to the Post Keynesians.
Post Keynesians are utterly doomed in their efforts to resolve social problems with economic theory. Nevertheless, there is something pure, something beautiful in their total commitment to something condemned to complete and utter failure. It is the attractive version of when a computer programmer believes he can build socialism by coding yet another decentralized Twitter clone. (Which isn't intellectual or governance-adjacent enough to be beautiful in its timewasting.)
While I think Cockshott is a wanker with more of the personality defects of do-nothing Marxists (who really ought to know better) than the personality virtues of the Post-Keynesians (naive, narrowly but dedicatedly focused to the least-bad line of capitalist inquiry, so close yet so far…), I can still see the beauty in writing an economic tome that could resolve all our problems
if only it were ever actually read by a policymaker. That is why I say I sympathize. That is why, sympathetically, I categorize him as a doomed economist. Were I not sympathetic, I would compare him to a lower form of time-waster such as myself (whom I've set the thankless task of explaining to a handful of autistic people concepts like "if you want people to like your ideas, perhaps you should package them in an attractive way" and "theories don't mean anything unless they're put into some kind of practice by people" and, for the most part, failed dismally.)
>>2637279The question was: What is the purpose is of simplistic models that are related by their makers to something complex?
Cockshott's problem is he is still trying to calculate prices. We dont need price "calculation". We need price accounting, based on the real actual quantitiy of labor. We dont manipulate labor-prices based on some 200 I.Q. algorithm. The accounting can be done on pen and paper by laymen.
The point of accounting is to measure efficiency of labor, and to realize the principle of "to each according to their contribution". That's all, no more complicated theoery needed
>>2637292Actually the question was "would you answer the question" and, in the interest of putting you out of your misery, the answer is "nah."
The purpose of [anything] is what it does. When it comes to this post, the purpose is to frustrate you.
nPhPrf7DlPVQ9aOSXHyWnb2ArXmbVtmyryZ3P5ZnQVawU6TiZ2N766bozs8I+RzqqfnpPYOJQDdmBNcPbVGadrNRUY1treT3oJbC5ELJ8Rl1jmX4EOnEHXkGcIcaaVRZsvz91xCiU9wtx7C547jPk2qh3IdF/O07pkBeKvvM5uM= >>2637293We need price accounting, based on the real actual quantitiy of labor.
That's what Cockshott and Cottrell propose for planning in TANS.
>We dont manipulate labor-prices based on some 200 I.Q. algorithm.Again, the actual cost accounting is in labor time. TANS proposes that when we ask what is the actual cost of making this or that consumer item, we look at labor-time ratios not modified by demand. And TANS does not contain any description of an algorithm for the price modification aside from just stating to raise or lower price of consumer items to deal with shortages and gluts. The labor-time data is still there. C & C even say that can be put on the items together with the modified price to make panic-buying less likely.
>>2637070>I'm saying that if you want his ideas to have any reach beyond a half-dead general on leftypol.orgdude's a fucking researcher he has more reach than you think he has, you insufferable ass
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eDREwZMAAAAJ&hl=en >>2637682Steve Keen utterly mogs him in citations lol. The guy who compared Cockshott to post Keynesians should apologise (to the post Keynesians)
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hbcdga0AAAAJ >>2637918>non-communist more cited in academia than communistwaaaaaaaaaaaow
>>2637937Michał Kalecki (Marxian, influential on Post Keybesians, literally advised postwar socialist governments
mostly unsuccessfully because they preferred fantasy to serious planning, post Keynesianism is suffering) mogs both of them and Marx himself is one of the most cited economists of all time so I think we can ditch your nonsense cope hypothesis.
>>2637002I just assume streamers are from twitch by default.
>>2637005Refined meaning optimized and sanded of it's internal inconsistencies through immanent critique.
>>2636910>he's done [x]Yes anon, and so have the wide variety of heterodox economists all assuming different models to start from. The difference is that a lot of their work is probably more serious and rigorous than that of Cockshott.
>The thing is, because all his online content is extremely complex, technical post-grad level university lectures, it's hard to get his idea's out there.His ideas aren't hard to grasp, and they're also not that fantastic tbh. Yes, it's nice to know that the communists have an alternative model for economics, but how do you plan to fit this model without legitimizing it as better than capitalism ? Without diagnosing the inherent problems with capitalism that push for such a transition ? Without assessing how (or if) to do a revolution ?
Btw, as another anon pointed out, it's odd to see such a fetish for economic planning amongst socialist.
Marx never really directly said to do so. I know there's some citation about Engels, but it's all very unclear tbh. When you take into account the exploitation and alienation theory, some form of self-management socialism with indicative planning seems more aligned with marx's original thought. This begs the question, why should try to adopt an entirely new system that would be very hard to implement IRL when it doesn't even really fit all that well within marxist theory ?
>>2636910he is an inherently embarrassing guy to have on your side about any issue, id immediately reconsider if it were me. once again proving socialism is the bourgeois ideology as opposed to communism the real movement
>le "theorist"cockshitt doesnt even understand value and wants workers to be graded on how well they work LMAO
>>2636910>Cockshott is probably the best Socialist I noticed you did not say "Communist" or "Marxist". That is good and accurate, no critique here.
>>2636916>>2637017the simple fact that idpol trash is always thrown at him proves that he is right and glowies are afraid of his ideas. this why idpol was created.
>>2637247>If it were the easy part it would have been done, no?Its has been done plenty of times but economic problems have still persisted.
>>2637030>That would be my fundamental recommendation for popularizing his work: If his mathematical and computational work is so good, promote the ideas without attribution, or by pretending he's merely one of 20 sources for something you've synthesized yourselfVery based take. This kind of thing almost applies to Marx too. Packaging ideas in formats that people want to see is important to spreading them.
>>2638480"He joined a non-socialist party formed entirely so a socdem nationalist opportunist could get leverage over his socdem nationalist successor, which ultimately failed anyway" is not an idpol critique.
For that matter: "he showed poor judgement in writing about idpol" is not an idpol critique! Nobody forced him to sit down and write about how fags are uncommunist!
>>2638877capitalists employ anyone including murderers and rapists if they are needed. and your are telling me that we should cancel Cockshott, one of the few actual contributors to contemporary Marxism, because he dislikes rainbow politics and he is a member some conservative British clubs? I hope that your a shill or a troll and not genuinely this retarded.
>>2637971>>2636916William Paul Cockshott is a 70-something Scottish academic in the fields of computer science and Marxist economics. He is a Reader at the University of Glasgow. Since 1993, he has authored multiple works in the tradition of scientific socialism, most notably Towards a New Socialism and How the World Works
>>2638877> Nobody forced him to sit down and write about how fags are uncommunist!not what happened. he simply pointed out the following premises:
>marx's definition of the proletariat is a reserveless subsistence wage worker compelled by poverty to sell labor power>subsistence includes the cost of reproducing and raising 2-3 children since class relations depends on the reproduction of the class itself,>childless proles are more likely to experience upward class mobility and become petty bourgeois due to their ability to accumulate reserves that would otherwise be spent on the reproduction of the proletariat as a class>LGBTQIA+ couples are more likely to be childless for several reasonsit was a statistical argument about the class mobility, not an ontological argument about queerness being inherently counter revolutionary. That being said he was clumsy about how he presented this because he is a 70 something year old British man. I still wasn't offended despite being a millenial raised by divorced lesbians so…. I think people make kind of a big deal out of this stuff and throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to his large body of work, which is generally VERY good and not burdened by idpol.
>>2639094>academic "marxist"The jokes write themselves.
An American walks into a bar in somewhere in Ireland and sits next to a really old guy drinking a beer. And the old guy’s like, “Did you see that wall on your way into town?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I built that wall with my own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Mason? Noooo.”
Then he’s like, “Did you see those cabinets on your way into the bar?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I build those cabinets with me own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Carpenter? Noooo.”
Then he says, “Did you see the iron gates on the way into town?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I built those gates with me own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Smith? Noooo. But you fuck one goat…”
There's a lesson there, I think.
>>2639101You soften his argument substantially with the phrasing "more likely" and you willfully blind yourself to implication and connotation because you wish to retain the idea that he's simply misguided - he misspoke because he's an old British man, it's certainly not possible he holds
prejudices common to old British men, and it's certainly not the case that he's expressed support for other socially conservative causes!
>>26391101. schizo theory. Have you ever known a "transactivist" subtle enough to complain because he misrepresented his academic position, rather than sending a big screed about how he's a transphobe?
which he is.2. Being anti-trans is the settled position of the UK government, supreme court, judiciary, "human rights" administrative bodies, etc, etc, etc. Cockshott could have said nothing and chose to whine about le transhumanists. If it really was a "transactivist" who made the complaint, he has only himself to blame for running his mouth on a contentious issue where - once again - the UK government is already implementing his preferred position!
All he had to do was not fuck the goat!why is it always on trans people to be nice and not transphobes?
you'd think it'd be easier to change the mind/behavior of one person than hundreds/thousands, especially given that transphobia is entirely irrelevant to his other far more important positions
unless… HE thinks it's important
>>2639332anglos are genetically transphobic, arent they?
its like a clash of civilisation thing, like how thailand or brazil has an (un)official designation for transsexuals (e.g. "ladyboys"). by comparison, i think britain is much more open to homosexuality as compared to other nations, but not transsexuality, so its a sort of conceptual issue. i would say that for example, british ruling class stereotypes is one of a rompish homosexuality, so maybe its normalised in an aristocratic sort of way? in the film "if…" (1968), it portrays the british ruling class as quasi-homosexual, so.
>>2637965>Marxian more cited in academia than Marxistwaaaaaaaaaaaow
>>2637017Cartoonish start of your post where you seem to have made every worst reading a paranoid schizo or wrecker could possibly do to smear somebody with selectively hyperbolized and convenient "misreadings" of a target's bio that doesn't fall apart until takes a minute to fact check it:
Let's see the veracity of your claims, using your own fucking source, wikipedia: you use a link to this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_and_Irish_Communist_Organisation#Unconventional_political_positions_in_1980sWe then go to Cockshott's Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cockshott , we can see that he, in his early twenties
(even if you were right: you're judging him for a position he held half a century ago and not since, good job btw, you're somehow worse than a twitter addict) he
split from the organization because of a sizable section already disagreeing with its positions having been formed in the 70s; his faction start a new, smaller organization, which
also has a wikipedia hyperlink to an article, "COBI"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Organisation_in_the_British_Isles . But the positions of this
org, which would logically more consistent with his views, you don't'' cite!
He literally wasn't part of the B&ICO in the 80s. And even if he was:>MI5 zionist, monarchist, british-monarchistHe has not advocated
any of these positions (cite a source from where Paul Cockshott the person advocates "MI5 zionism, monarchism"
anywhere you fucking clown, primary source). Not on his youtube channel, not in his widely circulated books going back at least to the 90s, not in the orgs he is or has been a member of for the last decades plural.
>>2639678now do his membership of the Alba party
which in reconforming, I've found the much more embarassing fact that he persistently gets into idpol discussions on the Wings over Scotland comment section. my god, he really is just a dime-a-dozen Scottish boomer with a compsci degree… >>2639476Kalecki is a Marxist, not a Marxian, anon was wrong.
>>2639368Yes, Britain has a weird class-based view of homosexuality. a lot of the homophobic humor in private eye (unofficial journal of politics the newspaper won't touch but that some need to know), for example, is based on this ruling-class view that thought it's all rather immature to still want to fuck other men as a homosexual
man because that's something you're supposed to get out of your system at eton boy's school.
the precise thing with transphobia is harder to explain (and the american element of getting mad at drag queens is hilarious from the nation that invented panto), but it almost certainly has a similar dynamic.
>>2639697That is a fair point, don't have anything to counter that.
At least he doesn't involved it in his literature or youtube lectures / theory.
>>2639084I think the fact that he is a "post-marxist" that promotes revisionism is a lot more important.
>>2638011>a lot of their work is probably more serious and rigorous than that of CockshottNames?
>but how do you plan to fit this model without legitimizing it as better than capitalismI don't share your interest in avoiding the claim that communism is better.
>some form of self-management socialism with indicative planning seems more aligned with marx's original thought.Planning is centralized by definition. Whenever Marx and Engels talk about labor-time vouchers as something that might work in socialism, they always assume supply matching demand, which requires a lot of planning ahead. Cockshott and Cottrell OTOH allow for imbalances in supply and demand and modifying prices of consumer items to cope with that, so it is Cockshott and Cottrell who assume something less rigid. We can say Marx and Engels did conceive of socialism as having one big plan because…
https://archive.is/Lx8TF ctrl-f
French version of Capital Unique IPs: 37