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

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

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

File: 1637452137902.png (254.67 KB, 800x750, CyberSocCatALT.png)

 No.609222[Last 50 Posts]

Previous thread >>392953 hit bump limit. Someone please archive it!

For a complete reading list, see: https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/two-reading-lists/

Cockshott's Patreon, YouTube and blogs

Videos torrent archive
Here's the torrent with all of Paul Cockshott's YouTube channel videos up to 27/10/2020 (i.e. Eliminating inequality):
Magnet link:
Torrent file:

This thread is for the discussion of cybersocialism, the planning of the socialist economy by computerized means, including discussions of related topics and of course the great immortal scientist himself, WILLIAM PAUL COCKSHOTT.

Archives of previous thread
1) https://archive.is/uNCEY
2) https://web.archive.org/web/20201218152831/https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/997358.html
3) https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1092975361


other thread is still active tho
hope cockshott pays u for this btw


just like our dear jannies, I do it for free


There's no literature on how you heal the social divisions to get people to trust in a system of neo-Athenian democracy


I prefer this OP honestly


Sort of unrelated but what are Cockshott's views on religion, if he has commented anything on the topic? I'd assume he's probably an atheist or agnostic no?


Why does Cockshott argue that "subjectivism" doesn't exist, because the "subject" is a bourgeois legal category? Sounds kinda like nonsense


see that's the useful thing about sortition. you automatically end up representing the masses. no trust necessary. or if you limit it to within a communist party, then it ensures the leadership represents the cadre

he hasn't said anything on religion as far as I know

he doesn't. he argues that subjectivism is wrong and serves bourgeois interests, not that subjectivists don't exist. in case you mean subjectivism-in-itself, I think he explicitly rejects platonic idealism in one of his videos


I feel like at some points he takes some pot shots at chirstanity but it wasn't in an article about it it was just some offhanded comments. He probably doesn't care about it until it interferes with secular politics.



There's that paper written by an economist that deals with the situation wherein the rate of profit has already reached zero. Paper title is something like "post-ROP reaching zero" or something.

plz link & attach it to me



>see that's the useful thing about sortition. you automatically end up representing the masses
When you present this idea to the masses, a lot of them don't trust it because capitalism makes people anti-social


Somewhat related to Cockshott. I recall a debate between some market socialist and that spanish economists guy. The later cited his research where he and other marxist economists examined the labour worked in today's world to find if it corelates to profit, and that apparently LTV does apply basically universally, up to and including the "smart" mental labour which is so often cited as a btfo of Marx. So, does anyone have that research study on hand? I would really like to see it.


>examined the labour worked in today's world to find if it corelates to profit.
LTV isn't supposed to prove correlation between labor input and prices? Correct me If I'm wrong


was it socialism done right debating victor? In that case you can rewatch his videos or look up the economists he cites like ochoa and shaikh


So the idea is to replace money with labour time? That's just a shitter version of markets. Commodity production should be based needs instead of this bullshit.


>That's just a shitter version of markets.
not really because markets have a M-C-M' circuit of capital.
Labor vouchers don't circulate so they aren't money. Marx himself literally states this.


doomer garbage based on nothing. whenever I mention these ideas to people they tend to be intrigued

you mean Victor Magariño? you could email him and ask. it's probably from the debate with SDL. personally I find value autism a waste of time

absolutely utopian


Planned economy is utopian.


planning happens in every firm anon. you're just coping for being exposed as a theorylet, especially by the other anon. the fact that you write "commodity" instead of "good" or "product" also reveals this


moreover, I wonder how you expect any kind of rational production without planning. please tell us how you propose needs are to be met


>He thinks market economy actually services needs of the people
>He attacks Planned Economy and labour time accounting because it alegedly doesn't
Shit bros, new ideology just dropped! Market left-communism!


>personally I find value autism a waste of time
Why? Whenever I find myself debating open-minded pro-capitalism people the most common route of attack is "Well Marx was (maybe) right when you had a steelmill but now we're in the knowladge economy!".


because labour is just another constraint. I'm not interested in critiquing capitalism. I am interested in building socialism


Empirically, it is possible to break down prices and socially necessary labor time to an absurd degree of correlation. Cockshott actually did such a study too. You land at 90 - 99% correlations.


>doomer garbage based on nothing.
It's entirely anecdotal yes, not nothing but not scientific either, a good amount think it's a good idea but others not so much.


>So the idea is to replace money with labour time?

Money can circulate so that you can "make money from money" like interest rates and other bullshit which is ultimately just stealing surplus product. This allows the bourgeoisie to exist in the first place.

Labor vouchers cannot circulate. This alone changes so much.

>That's just a shitter version of markets.

Marketing of goods will only exist in the consumer sphere, not between government businesses.

>Commodity production should be based needs instead of this bullshit.

Commodity production will be phased out this way You need a transition period before you abolish the commodity form.


Every single company in existence has to use planning. A worker-led planned economy is able to satisfy the needs of a society in a far more rational way than any market anarchy ever could.


>Empirically, it is possible to break down prices and socially necessary labor time to an absurd degree of correlation. Cockshott actually did such a study too. You land at 90 - 99% correlations.

I am pretty sure Cockshott can do no such thing. At best he can show that prices of production and values have been steadily and increasingly diverging for almost ninety years. The law of value demonstrates that prices of production and values must diverge or capitalistic accumulation will collapse.


>what is tropf


This one?


yes, thank you very much
I'll read this tomorrow.


Why does Cockshott reject the ideo of unequal exchange? Is he fucking serious?



do you think commodities are not traded on the same global market? if so, are you retarded?


>the same global market
The global market is not an even playing field. Just look at what happened in regime changing Eastern bloc countries.

It's kind of hilarious when an anglo communist pushes the muh free market meme, because it always was a meme to cover up what was actually happening.


>The global market is not an even playing field
correct. but you're playing on the same market all the same. whoever has the most productive MoPs sets the value of the commodity. if a nation can only muster mediocre productivity then the only way it can compete is by its labour power having lower value than the competition. if the exchange were truly unequal then some porky would find a way to profit through arbitrage
the why of the situation is another question


Love it how cockshottfags immediately get triggered once their god gets called out


are you two going to present an actual argument?


What is unequal exchange?


>perhaps if I answer anon's question with another question they won't notice my argument lacks rigour


Depending the definition you use that's pretty much unequal exchange.
>Unequal exchange is used primarily in Marxist economics, but also in ecological economics (more specifically also as ecologically unequal exchange), to denote forms of exploitation hidden in or underwriting trade. Originating, in the wake of the debate on the Singer–Prebisch thesis, as an explanation of the falling terms of trade for underdeveloped countries, the concept was coined in 1962 by the Greco-French economist Arghiri Emmanuel to denote an exchange taking place where the rate of profit has been internationally equalised, but wage-levels (or those of any other factor of production) have not. It has since acquired a variety of meanings, often linked to other or older traditions which perhaps then raise claims to priority.
What definition of unequal exchange does Ck actually oppose?


>What definition of unequal exchange does Ck actually oppose?
good question. my point is it's not the exchange (trade) that is unequal, since that is effectively saying that value is created in distribution, which it is not. what we have is unequal exploitation. it struck me also that due to imperialism and porky's need to bribe workers in the core, increasing the value of labour power in the core, that core workers might end up not being net exploitees at all. if this is the case then that would make core workers an actual distinct class. not a strata within the working class, but a separate class unto itself. this is speculation on my part


okay, good


lämnar en rad åt kamrat AH här

I'll probably be talking to paul this friday. if any anon has questions then leave them here and hopefully I'll be able to bring them up


based anon


I'm glad you acknowledge his godhood


Greek Marxist econ prof's channel.


>2 videos 8 years ago


File: 1637942990596.webm (992.28 KB, 1920x1080, 1625945689474.webm)

>Paul Cockshott, the author of Towards a New Socialism, is essentially a NazBol.


>ancaps calling others fascists


WTF nazbol Cockshott, is he planning the economy to do what ?.


File: 1637945474678.jpg (17.99 KB, 264x247, eyebleach.jpg)

What did i just read ?, it's got an entire paragraph on how socialism can't work because it doesn't have venture capitalists.


This is just some retarded market "anarchist" blogpost. Yeah he's a dickhead and basically wrong on the subjects of immigration, gender and sex but for the rest he's all right. Even my trans comrades respect his work on cybernetic socialism.


i never get this shit, Cockshott is an economist, he has cringe takes on other things, yes, but that has nothing to do with economy, it's just people trying to discredit his work about planned economics with inrelevant shit.


File: 1637953000403.png (225.77 KB, 499x405, stfumarketsocialist.png)


File: 1637953307127.png (70.46 KB, 427x400, glow soy.png)


File: 1637994821572.jpg (20.46 KB, 255x389, Postcapitalism.jpg)

If we're posting cringe Cockshott critiques, let me post this classic gem.

>ATTACK OF THE CYBER-STALINISTS. Over the past twenty years, Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell – a computer scientist and an economics professor – have worked tirelessly on a problem we thought we didn’t have: how to plan an economy. Though not well known, their work is rigorous and performs an invaluable service; it is a textbook outline of what we should not do. Cockshott and Cottrell argue that improvements in computer power, together with the application of advanced maths and information theory removes, in principle, the Hayek/Robbins objection: that the planner can never have better realtime information than a market. What’s more, unlike the left in the calculation debate, they say the computer model we would need for planned production should use the labour theory of value, and not try to simulate the results of supply and demand…

>The huge service Cockshott and Cottrell perform here is not the one they intend. They show that to fully plan an early-twenty-first-century developed economy, it would have to be stripped of its complexity, see finance removed completely, and have radical behavioural change enforced at the level of consumption, workplace democracy and investment. Where the dynamism and innovation would come from is not addressed. Nor how the vastly enlarged cultural sector would come in. In fact, the researchers make a strong case that, because of its decreased complexity, a planned economy would need fewer calculations than a market one. But that’s the problem. In order for the plan to work, society in this project has to go back to being ‘plannable’. Workers interface with every aspect of Cockshott and Cottrell’s plan via ‘their’ workplace – so what happens to the precarious worker with three jobs; or the single mum doing sex work on a web cam? They can’t exist. Likewise, the financial complexity that has come to characterize modern life has to disappear – and not gradually. There can be no credit cards in this world; no payday loans; probably a much-reduced e-commerce sector. And of course there are no network structures in this model and no peer-produced free stuff. Though the researchers decry the dogmatic idiocy of Soviet planning, their world view remains that of a hierarchical society, of physical products, of a simple system where the pace of change is slow. The model they’ve produced is the best demonstration yet of why any attempt to use state planning and market suppression as a route to postcapitalism is closed…
>The nature of modern society alters the problem. In a complex, globalized society, where the worker is also the consumer of financial services and micro-services from other workers, the plan cannot outdo the market unless there is a retreat from complexity and a return to hierarchy. A computerized plan, even if it measured everything against labour values, might tell the shoe industry to produce shoes, but it could not tell Beyoncé to produce a surprise album marketed only via social media, as she did in 2013. Nor would the plan be concerned with the most interesting thing in our modern economy: free stuff. Such a plan would see time spent curating a Wikipedia page, or updating Linux, exactly the same way as the market sees it: wasteful and incalculable. If the rise of the networked economy is beginning to dissolve the law of value, planning has to be the adjunct of something more comprehensive…

If you want to read the rest, it's on libgen.


File: 1638010514447.png (427.26 KB, 993x378, cockshott_meme.png)

>try to simulate the results of supply and demand
neoclassicals and Austrotards think simulating these is better than just measuring them because they're so steeped in production anarchy
>They show that to fully plan an early-twenty-first-century developed economy, it would have to be stripped of its complexity
they say this like it's a bad thing. we want the simplest economy that satisfies demand
>see finance removed completely
>workplace democracy
>Where the dynamism and innovation would come from is not addressed
>so what happens to the precarious worker with three jobs; or the single mum doing sex work on a web cam?
gee I wonder what happens to jobs and """jobs""" that only exist in capitalism. it's a real thinker
>it could not tell Beyoncé to produce a surprise album marketed only via social media, as she did in 2013
does this guy not know that the USSR had more orchestras per capita than the rest of the world? that it had plenty of filmmakers and painters?
>Such a plan would see time spent curating a Wikipedia page, or updating Linux, exactly the same way as the market sees it: wasteful and incalculable
what does this guy think people will do with the extra free time that planning enables? just sit around? nevermind that we can renumerate people for editing Wikipedia or patching Linux


File: 1638015162194.png (437.21 KB, 828x635, Econ vs Philo.png)

Saw this meme once and wondered if Samir Amin and Cockshott ever had an exchange? I sure can't find anything online and it seems unlikely considering Cockshott is critical of unequal exchange and probably world systems theory in general


great pic


>1. Market society is very complex and arcane in how it satisfies demand.
>2. However, people participate in this byzantine system, meaning that they must be satisfied with it.
>Conclusion: Therefore, any change or simplification of this market complex is in and of itself bad for all humans, as well as being hurtful to me personally as an Austrian economist.
Holy shit bros, I never considered this. His argument is just too strong. Someone help.


oh shit oh shit, he's got us figured out! abort! abort!



>Paul Mason
I didn't even read this I just came to say I hate him and want him to die.


"Cybersocialism" is an oxymoron, the function of computers is to erade the social sphere and atomize individuals to positions where all political possibilities outside what the market demands die. Even if you can rationally calculate the economy, socialism would neccesarily mean ripping people away from their electronic devices, socialism has to decomputerize life if it is to have any real meaningful contrast to neoliberalism. It's not a coincidenxe that the electronics industry as we know it was born under neoliberalism.


cope lol


There's no cope to be had, you're the one putting yoyr hope in a DARPA project being used to liberate the people, MKULTRA's more successful counterpoint, the video from Infinite Jest.


File: 1638327782521.jpg (39.57 KB, 470x352, me irl.jpg)

>socialism has to decomputerize life
this is bigger than socialism


File: 1638328333345.jpg (117.85 KB, 600x800, 1615856394811.jpg)

>You WILL NOT use computers to help economic calculation and governance under socialism!
>why?… because, because its antisocial, OK!!!
mega cope


No, I'm ssying computers should function ONLY for economic planning. This whole exchange shows why computers in the home and in the pocket shut down thought an conversation, and are anti-dialectical.


go to bed ted you're drunk


I'm not anti technology, it's very specifically consumer electronics that I am convinced cannot exist outside the neoliberal context


Oh and also the internet as we know it, no more forums, no more social media


Kung Fu Panda is pretty fun


let's put it to a people's vote if not a referendum then a randomly selected body, tard. you really think people in socialist countries didn't have the internet because they didn't want it or because it wasn't "based"?


File: 1638367311582.jpg (83.03 KB, 1276x720, mpv-shot0001.jpg)

<Questions on computer technology and socialism
>An interview covering many topics associated with computer technology and socialism: 3d printing, neural nets, quantum computing.


This was pretty boring honestly. Is there even anything more to talk about regarding cybersoc? We need more ideas regarding praxis and how to get into power. Enough with the theoretical bullshit already.


I mean yeah…but doesn't answer my question really


>A theoretician talking about theory
>Every author has to cover the same topics


questions that ask things like "how does second-hand work in socialism?" are boring yes. didn't this guy ask shit like that last time too? "how does X work after the revolution?" when X is something entirely contingent on capitalism
quantum computing is interesting, but not something we need for planning
I agree praxis is what's needed. let's see more discussions how we actually get this stuff off the ground


Well Cockshott is trying to popularize his ideas atm, I think spreading his ideas to various people and parties is a good idea. But i wouldnt turn to him for praxis


I wouldn't turn to a non-political leader for political strategy. I don't turn to Zizek for his expertise on Marxist economics. I don't turn to Shaikh for his opinions on ideology. It is fucking retarded to think every writer should cover every topic.


yeah this tbh. Cockshott barely has any ideas on praxis outside muh referendums


quantum computers are useful for planning too.
If your plan gets disrupted by unforeseen events, like a natural disaster taking out an important industrial sector. You have a plan with a hole you need to plug, to do that you can run a type of path optimizing algorithm that goes over all the disconnected ends in your input output tables. Quantum computers are much better at that type of computation than classical computers, which means you can recover much quicker.


t. knows nothing about mathematical optimization
>Quantum computers are much better at that type of computation
no they ain't. quantum computers are nowhere near being able to do this. quantum supremacy has not been demonstrated. a colleague of mine who knows this shit is convinced QS will never happen.
interior point methods are perfectly able to deal with these problems. there's no need to hope for magical quantum fairy dust to save us


can you say why or link to an explanation ?


explanation of what? interior point methods or why QS is unlikely?




>explanation of what? interior point methods or why QS is unlikely?
Lets go with why quantum supremacy is unlikely.


>Lets go with why quantum supremacy is unlikely
basically there's a maximum amount of time you can perform any measurement. if you keep doing the same experiment and averaging results, hoping to get more accuracy, you will hit a point after which the amount of noise goes up, not down. this because drift has a 1/f noise power density


so basically this is about processing error rates getting worse with increasing runtime of programs on a quantum computer.


it's more that you can't measure well enough to actually achieve QS, regardless of what your quantum gates are actually doing


>Workers interface with every aspect of Cockshott and Cottrell’s plan via ‘their’ workplace – so what happens to the precarious worker with three jobs; or the single mum doing sex work on a web cam? They can’t exist. Likewise, the financial complexity that has come to characterize modern life has to disappear – and not gradually. There can be no credit cards in this world; no payday loans; probably a much-reduced e-commerce sector.
delinking seems much more possible and is even likely tbh


anon just did a hecking plutophobia. what about the poor predatory lenders???



File: 1638794459224.png (113.11 KB, 608x629, paul_does_it_again.png)

>check out cockshott's twitter again
>see him putting radlibs in their place
a good start to the workweek

one (1) labour voucher for you anon


Cockshott is such a fucking know-it all. Peak STEM-lord edge


>trans is when neoliberal


I'm glad to see you acknowledge STEM supremacy anon


I am an engineering major, but STEM-supremacy is so far removed from reality, that only somebody who isn't studying STEM atm could spout this. So thanks for proving my point


STEM is based, engineers are cringe
t. STEMbro


STM gang


>not being a STEAMlord or STEAMlady


that tweet isnt wrong though. radlibs really are out to get him


They've tried to cancel him in the past. If Cockshott starts getting big I wouldn't be surprised if they made an all out attempt.


File: 1638943485745-0.png (48.18 KB, 587x274, 1.png)

File: 1638943485745-1.png (117.09 KB, 587x274, 2.png)

is this pierre?


Both of them might have been on the same email list for some university, so check through those archives if they're available.

BASED, although sometimes a person gotta wonder if every PMC major ought to do stints in the countryside, as classcucked as these fields frequently are.


File: 1638946436716.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 87.8 KB, 960x762, media_E9fecjoXEAA3X2R.jpg….jpeg)


Pretty sure he has a twitter that runs under his channel name, unless he has made a second account where he tries to be a little more "discrete"


I mean he isn't wrong in this instance per se, but it seems to me, that he is digging himself a hole where everyone disagreeing with him on some core issues, is part of the neoliberal left or what not. Sorta like Maupin does.

You read Hegel? Neoliberal left.
You think transsexuals are "comrades"? Neoliberal left
And so on…


I think his main twitter got banned


I don't even know why a big brain like Cockshott is using that term. Neoliberal refers to the 70s/80s market counterrevolution fueled by American conservatives and lolberts. There's no neoliberal left. He should call it the progressive "left" or something.


what a bunch of cowards. let the radlibs seethe
honestly I don't give much of a shit, and I wish paul would stop with the 2nd wave feminist bs. pic very related
this uygha needs to read stalin on the national question
who are these people who disagree with paul who aren't libs?


No. Pierre is @SARMseller420


>There's no neoliberal left
this is news to me, what replaced them?


Neoliberal just means "college kid that acts all faggy and shit" nowadays.


File: 1638971127156.png (73.43 KB, 427x400, 1637677710005.png)

Did the glows somehow find this site and currently try to spread doubt about the existence of neolibshits?


there never was a neoliberal left, it's contradictory


Well what neoliberal left refers to definitely exists but I think his point is that neoliberalism is inherently right wing so neoliberal left is an oxymoron. I feel like a better term is just left liberal cause these people definitely subscribe to social liberal ideas but are arguably still economically left wing.


it's perhaps more that the only left that has been allowed to exist under neoliberalism since the end of the USSR is the idcucked left


There is a neoliberal left, it encompasses all "civil rights" style reform politics


I don't think you understand the words you are using.


Don't tell me what i do and don't know bitch I'll fuck you



But again that's just what we call progressives and social liberals (most of whom are keynesians and definitely support capitalism). Neoliberal is associated with conservatism and people like Reagan, Thatcher, Friedman, Pinochet, etc.


Politicians like Hillary Clinton are both neoliberal and "progressive". Same for the German FDP and the Green Parties in Germany for example. Neoliberals have co-opted social-liberal speak for a while now.


uh oh dengbros we got too cocky


File: 1639141064835.jpg (35.9 KB, 541x462, 5vj1d2cfqb381.jpg)

I was browsing r/neoliberal to see what they're like and found this gem. Apparently passing legislation is too much ask of legislatures.


Legislators are sick of doing your emotional labour for you, stop being a manbaby and expecting your mommy government to look after you


take this crap to your containment thread


i never figured out if that sub is a joke or if it's full of clones of matt yglesias


it's partly a joke, but dead serious for practical purposes. the main mod is also a huge racist if leaked chat logs are to be believed





started off ironic then became colonized by unironic centrists and economics grad students.


Incredible as usual.


Cockshott is a maoist sympathizer





M a o i s m - D e l e o n i s m
P r o l e t a r i a n d e m o c r a t i c c e n t r a l i s m
C y b e r n e t i c c o m m u n i s m
Communism of the 21st century.


>Embed ruins text formatting
>[code]-tags don't work
The fuck mods?


The comments are fuckin reddit-tier


good song, shitty comments as per >>653160 lelel


cockshott was in a maoist party in the 70s and still cites mao in alot of his articles.


Someone in the China general asked if professor dickblast had read this paper .pdf attatched


W O R K S   F O R   M E
    I don't see the issue.

Protip: Post an example of the problem to /tech/ to help people fix it.




File: 1640077644287.jpg (39.56 KB, 785x267, IMG_20211221_110527.jpg)




dababy convertible


File: 1640078235830.jpg (102.2 KB, 768x277, IMG_20211221_111428.jpg)


>intellectuals in the west admired the ussr before the red scare

waowwww so surprising!!!!
>after stalin's death the bourgeoisie cooled down knowing an idiot took his place
wowwww this is so informative, i really opened this book for this kind of LIBSHIT BRAIN ROT AND SPINNING HISTORY


Anyone interested in a review of that book can go to the archived cybernetics thread here https://archive.md/HBHxH and search for two comments, one containing the words the book is shit and the other containing written by a liberal guy.


So i have been following his youtube lectures and it looks promising. His fan base is what it is but all academic work in the field of economics of planned economy is more than valuable.


File: 1640104066584.png (10.86 KB, 720x720, kek.png)

>the words the book is shit and the other containing written by a liberal guy


File: 1640104421507.jpg (145.82 KB, 1125x649, ussr gdp.jpg)

besides this being liberal trash, it's also factually wrong. despite Gosplan's general slowness and inefficiencies due to being built by mathlets, it did work


It didn't work cause the author couldn't buy hookers. How can communism work if it couldn't meet his basic needs?


>coke and hookers are basic needs, you need to go to the underworld to get these, how can a man live
Hunter biden in the USSR 1983


File: 1640108585313.png (96.65 KB, 500x355, gorby freedom.png)

don't worry anons, comrade Gorby fixed this problem!


Why is this thread dead?
Also any resources on planning software?


there's not always new stuff to talk about anon
>Also any resources on planning software?
there's the stuff on Paul's github, and all these program:





With Stalin, would they automate the economy with a cybernetic planning model?


File: 1640287681566.png (749.58 KB, 1729x2841, 3.png)


New Era for Soviet Socialism with Cockshott Characteristics?


File: 1640290260528.png (115.6 KB, 1224x596, brainlet on snlt.png)

Because nobody here seems to want to develop algorithms :/
^Poster got destroyed in this thread >>653824 but he can't parse complex texts (like the one in his screenshot) so he has no awareness of that. He is the one accusing people of not having read Capital in pic related.


why would you even link that thread where i destroy you. not a smart move
also LOL at this thread. "New Era for Soviet Socialism with Cockshott Characteristics" what a joke


>the concept of socially necessary labour time will vanish with capitalism
>if you think
what lel
do they even know it's just a metric to determine value? 😂


>With Stalin, would they automate the economy with a cybernetic planning model?
uhh, could you rephrase this to a question that makes sense?

>Because nobody here seems to want to develop algorithms :/
the algos exist anon, it's the easiest problem. building a system, getting the data and getting ppl to use the system is the real problem. organising etc


>the algos exist anon
1. N people and N tasks (that everybody in the group is qualified for and that can be split up).
2. Each individual rates what percentage of total work weight each task amounts to.
3. Each individual gets assigned no more than 1/N share of total work weight according to same individual's rating.
4. Each individual gets assigned no more than 2 different tasks.
Show me the algorithm.


File: 1640293168936.jpeg (58.66 KB, 1209x1650, gaculate plan.jpeg)

this problem is NP, but can be solved approximately via interior point methods for mixed integer programming. like, if you're at the point where you can state the planning problems like this then you're pretty much already there


specifically, you formulate the problem as a MIP in say MPS format then you feed it to a solver like lp_solve or glpk


Pah! What a shitty response, like you are on a quiz show and say, I'll fockin google it if you let me m8. The first question is: Can you prove (or disprove) that at least one assignment within these constrains always exists? Also, are you sure it is NP or just that it isn't worse than NP?


>Can you prove (or disprove) that at least one assignment within these constrains always exists?
it depends on the specifics of the problem anon. the solver will tell you this. for example if everyone is fine with any job then obviously a solution exists: just assign people to each job sequentially


we can also use Hall's marriage theorem: a solution exists so long as every job has at least one worker who is willing to do it. this can be determined in time linear in the number of non-zeroes in the work weighting matrix
finding the optimal solution on the other hand is almost certainly NP. the total number of combinations is something like nchoosek(4N, 2N), which is exponential in N. luckily we don't need an optimal assignment


oops, I messed up the condition somewhat. anyway just check the wiki page, especially the linked section:


Aren't you overexaggerating just how specific these planned tasks have to be? Like do you need 1000 separate tasks for 1000 people? A lot of people have similar jobs (e.g.: elementary school teachers can be put into one group).


>it depends on the specifics of the problem anon.
It's a yes-or-no question about >>658144 So your answer is no? Can you give a counter-example then?


>Can you give a counter-example then?
there being at least one job no one wants to do


Fail. Read the specification of the problem again: >>658144


>2. Each individual rates what percentage of total work weight each task amounts to.
clarify this


The requirement is that each individual does no more than the 1/N share of the total burden of chores according to their own individual burden-weight estimate. An individual's estimates of the burden of doing this or that task sum up to 100 %. The most extreme thing an individual can do is rate one of these activities as 100 % of the total burden of chores and all other chores at 0 of the total. The individual then cannot be forced to do more than 1/N of that chore. If there were no requirement that an individual does no more than two different things max, it would be trivial to make sure that nobody does more than 1/N of the total burden according to their individual estimate. We wouldn't even have to look at the estimates, just giving each the same mix of doing 1/N of each chore would do it. But in real life, there is a cost to learning tasks (even for what officially doesn't count as qualified work) and to switching tasks, so the scenario with that constraint of two different things max per person is more realistic.


>their own individual burden-weight estimate
so an individual's ranking or preference. of a small set of jobs I will add, because no one will be able to rank the full N jobs for N > 100 or so. the number of types of jobs is likely in the millions
>individual's estimates of the burden of doing this or that task
there is no way for any individual to know this, or even the system itself. we're doing unknown function optimization here
>their individual estimate
estimate of what? like, this whole thing is back-asswards
>But in real life, there is a cost to learning tasks
yes, hence why this is an instance of MIP


The problem is fully specified in the original post. There is no statement there about requiring everybody to rank all the tasks in the world. Small number of different tasks does not imply small workforce. I don't want to dox myself, but I work at a big company where I get assigned each day to one of a dozen things together with hundreds of other people and where such a mechanism would be highly relevant post rev.

Deal with the topic or don't, but there is no need to post BS justification why you don't want to deal with it.


File: 1640308921218.gif (227.49 KB, 335x304, wammaspin.gif)

you need to formalize your problem anon. if you're too much of a mathlet to do so then I'm afraid I can't help you


What's ambiguous to you in >>658144 ?


File: 1640309416314.jpg (70.3 KB, 720x544, hmmm.jpg)

I'll put this the other way around: please state your problem on the form A*x <= b subject to a subset of x being integral
I can't read your mind anon. "burden-weight estimate" means nothing to me. if you want pointers then you need to be more formal about your question. this is a hard thing to communicate over text


>"burden-weight estimate" means nothing to me.
The burden-weight estimate of a task is a number representing the estimate of how much of a burden doing that task in its entirety is.


>how much of a burden doing that task in its entirety is
in terms of what?


A non-negative number. You have heard of those, I hope.


>>658459 (me)
Sorry I have to go now. I will post something about it before the end of the year.


>first page of towards a new socialism
huh? does cockushotto consider the soviet union a failure?


>thing that collapsed didn't fail
How doyou get to this lrvel of ideology?


How could he not, it doesn't exist anymore.


<criminally forcibly deliberately dismantled


It didn't 'collapse', glowbro
By that logic 99% of all societies have failed because they no longer exist. Slave societies 'failed', feudalism 'failed'


Inability to resist the conspiracy is a systemic failure yes


>By that logic 99% of all societies have failed because they no longer exist. Slave societies 'failed', feudalism 'failed'
Yes exactly


It's the word collapsed that bourgeois media likes to use as to say the USSR collapsed because they did a communism.


Im not bouj media


Cockshott wrote that in the late 80s/early 90s when the USSR was in the process of dissolving and a ton of leftists were turning neoliberal and becoming blackpilled.


That's bullshit because that would mean impoverished, ruined states that exist today can be counted as successes.


Those states are successes, for the comprador class


They exist and are therefore successes in a viability sense
It says things about Lenin's org method that the USSR no longer exist, no matter what words you put on its death


Science Technology Engineering Autism Math


He says it failed but that it was a genuine attempt at socialism that must be analyzed for its strengths and weaknesses. He doesn't go the "not real socialism!!!" route.


File: 1640352600684.jpg (20.42 KB, 293x282, displeased jenny.jpg)

this kind of plump response won't get you the answers you seek anon
as far as I can tell what you're asking amounts to an assignment problem. many of these can be solved in polynomial time. you can also formulate them as MIPs, in which you can use any MIP solver, as I have already said. this is less efficient than special-purpose algorithms because MIP is NP in general
TL;DR: general algos exist. if you want a specific algo you have to be very specific with your question


have sex



But not for 99% of people


based volcel anon
you guys are just saying the same thing


Cockshott's ideas will never take off until he has a working real life model to show people which I don't think will ever happen. Theory is great but real applications is what shows people it's not bullshit.


we'd better get to work actually building something then. can't sit around hoping for revolution


I think creating an explicitly joint political party/union/newspaper/mass org with explicit commie themes, with paid entry but voted on allocation of funds/policies in in a similar manners cockshott offered, would be a good place to start


No it wouldn't there have been a thousand things like that. You need a real working model simulated or real so you could show people look it's a working model anyone could implement this right now and not "it could work in 50 years maybe"


Cockshott has showed models for different things before, wtf are you talking about?


He has never shown a working real life model of planning. I'm talking about plan a simulated economy or a real small firm and show how it could be implemented


Check his github.


I've seen it. That's not what I mean. That's has to do with how planning would actually work.


Nothing to do with*


File: 1640671534746.jpg (602.55 KB, 2400x3035, 1640671527034.jpg)

t. utopian


Robert Owen was a really nice guy. If the world was made up of Robert Owens everything would be fixed.


File: 1640682996038.jpg (94.87 KB, 500x645, cockshottbike.jpg)

guys I just realized the title of How the World Works is a fucking pun. you know, works, as in labour

to see how planning would "actually work" you have to go and actually implement it in real life. for this you need a critical mass of people on board, and access to some amount of means of production, preferably in more than one industry. say forests, logging machinery, carpentry industry, small-scale paper mill and associated chemical processing. another path is farms and food industry. fuel production


>to see how planning would "actually work" you have to go and actually implement it in real life. for this you need a critical mass of people on board, and access to some amount of means of production, preferably in more than one industry. say forests, logging machinery, carpentry industry, small-scale paper mill and associated chemical processing. another path is farms and food industry. fuel production
in other words you'd need a small country to go along


not necessarily a country, more like a small town


>guys I just realized the title of How the World Works is a fucking pun. you know, works, as in labour
Oh I see. I thought the title was a sort of analogy because Marxism, ultimately, is just about showing how the world really works.


the reason why at least I am for getting this stuff into actual use ASAP is because reality is much more complicated than any model economy. the kind of stuff that actually needs to be done in practice will be very different when real people are involved. formulas and algorithms are all well and good, but how do you incorporate this into a system that people can actually use? that shit is hard


Why can't you simulate this and why do you need that? You can't perform planning on a local firm level? How does planning work in a small town of 50 people?


Well you'd need someone to make a game like RuneScape or something I suppose.


you can indeed use this stuff on model economies. video games are a prime example. AI people do it all the time. it's just not very interesting I think. you have perfect information about what things cost and how productive they are. your workers have zero input on what you do
we can compute optimal build orders for Starcraft, and even have the system reevaluate them as we learn more about the enemy. and that's certainly useful as a student lab assignment
same thing with games like Workers & Resources. it's possible to compute the fastest path to say nuclear power. and it's an in-kind calculation even. but we know exactly how much each building costs. we know what the workers need


it's almost like PPP is a bad measurement or something


<This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development (…) In 28 of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL outcomes
Cope shitlib



>That's why Taiwan has a higher GDP per capita than China

mate the reason why taiwan had a higher gdp per capital is the fact that taiwans population is way smaller compared to china. you have a island of 23.57 million people vs a big land of 1.4 billion people so of course taiwan is gonna have way larger gdp per capita.

>And Taiwan has less inequality than that shit hole over there. Socialism just fails every time, and never works,

mate have you seen the state of taiwan these days, wages are stagnant, the only good industry is semi conductors, and taiwan cities look heavily outdated and ugly as shit.

also that chart you posted doesnt show the whole entire picture, fun fact taiwans gdp growth rate has decreased to the 3 range


while chinas gdp growwth rate is still around 5-6


act the kmt taiwan wwhere most of the massive gdp growth rate started did not use free market capitalism but used dirigsme style economic policy. But this dirigsme style seems to have been influenced by socialism to a degree since


the kmt itself was influenced somewhat by socialist idelogy, to the point that even after the commie purge, chiang himself and especially suns son still kept some of their socialist leanings.

also fun f


It is important that in economic simulation that people do work in the form of repetitive tasks I think.
Like the game would have mines, agricultural fields, factories, etc…
Get as close to reality as possible and use the tech for automation in the real world.


>act the kmt taiwan wwhere most of the massive gdp growth rate started did not use free market capitalism but used dirigsme style economic policy. But this dirigsme style seems to have been influenced by socialism to a degree since


>the kmt itself was influenced somewhat by socialist idelogy, to the point that even after the commie purge, chiang himself and especially suns son still kept some of their socialist leanings.

>also fun f

also goddamnit i wish there was an edit function what i meant to say is

also fun fact kmt taiwan wwhere most of the massive gdp growth rate started did not use free market capitalism but used dirigsme style economic policy. But this dirigsme style seems to have been influenced by socialism to a degree since


the kmt itself was influenced somewhat by socialist idelogy, to the point that even after the commie purge, chiang himself and especially suns son still kept some of their socialist leanings.


like for example

Chiang Kai-shek
Contrary to the view that he was pro-capitalist, Chiang Kai-shek behaved in an antagonistic manner to the capitalists of Shanghai, often attacking them and confiscating their capital and assets for the use of the government, even while he was fighting the communists.[33]

Chiang crushed pro-communist worker and peasant organizations and the rich Shanghai capitalists at the same time. Chiang continued Sun's anti-capitalist ideology; Kuomintang media openly attacked the capitalists and capitalism, demanding government-controlled industry instead.[34]

Chiang blocked the capitalists from gaining any political power or voice in his regime. Once Chiang was done with his original rampage and "reign of terror" on pro-communist laborers, he proceeded to turn on the capitalists. Gangster connections allowed Chiang to attack them in the International Settlement, to force capitalists to back him up with their assets for his military expenditures.[35]



GDP per capita is gross domestic product divided by midyear population. GDP at purchaser's prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in constant local currency.


Communists took over very poor countries and they systemically outperformed peer capitalist countries by a huge margin.
What do you think would happen if socialists took over a rich country , do you seriously think any capitalist countries of today could compete with that ? Are you delusional ?


>taking the shitlib's bait
report and hide, you idiots

technical coefficients will tend to reveal themselves over time yes


oh you mean the united states which began development in the 1850s was left to develop in its own place ithout any real fear of foriegn invasion, and pretty much remain intact and wwas the only sole economic power post ww2 managed to have a gdp per capita over small countries.

meanwhile china which was a victim of multiple wars of imperialism, invasion from the japanese and only began real export development post 1970s has smaller than taiwan

mate the only idiot here is you for completely ignoring the historical context. Population arguably plays a big factor in chinas low gdp per capita since one it did not have the time to develop its economy but rather faced imperialism that prevented its development for a long while. so unlike america which had a way bigger headstart and was allowed to develop domestically and all the other reasons i listed earlier, china did not have these advantages. Second the only time china began sane economic policy was in 1979 meanwhile taiwan had a hread start of about twenty nine years. third the chinese population is so spread up in a huge fucking land mass thats its going to take a slow ass time for the wealth to spread which is why its the coastal chinese cities mainly have the wealth

like you can use the us example but to use the us example honestly shows such a horrendous lack of historical analysis to the point that the real dumb one is honestly you.


>obsessing over trans people
>in the dickblast thread of all places
should I tell him?


If you compare the development of socialist countries to the development of capitalist countries that had a similar starting point, socialist countries obliterate the capitalist countries.

We have not yet seen how socialist countries look like after they got several hundred years worth of development, but based on the available data, it's pretty save to say that current capitalist countries would look pathetic in comparison.

It's pure cope on your part to try to compare countries that had centuries of development with countries that had mere decades of development. You are broadcasting that capitalism can't win unless it's a fake competition.


also hes using a real idiotic argument hes using fucking taiwan higher gdp per capita as evidence of capitalism being better.

The problem is taiwans gdp per capita rise only happened 25 after the system switched to export promition post 1960s, and this is the same thing with south korea.

Meanwhile for china the whole export promotion deng style developmentialism only happened around the early 1980s, and what do you know the gdp per capita boom happened only after 25 years later.

but the thing is 25 years after the early 1980s is around the late 2000s aka twenty years later after the taiwan gdp per capita rise. so when taiwan had the advantage of a earlier gdp per capita rise due to using the export model in the earlier 1960s is it really that suprising taiwan had a higher gdp per capita compared to china.

the only real comparision that we can make is what happens after the twenty years from now because if china manages to catch up and pass taiwan while taiwan stagnates stagnates(which is starting to happen now) then it shows the china model works and is better

Tho give it more time since


no audio edition


>half of the video has no audio
>part 2 with audio starts halfway through and has several minutes missing in the end
Classic Paul


someone teach this man how to edit videos


<part 2


He's a computer scientist, it should be nothing to him lmao


>He's a chemist, he should now how to cook.


hey you make websites right? do you mind proving p=np for me real quick? thanks pal


This why I can program, but I do not have a degree. Proofs always seemed like wankery to me.


I get that cockshott is trying to explain marxist concepts and all but he's going to dumb down and explain the computation aspect of his plan.
First of all are the computations based on people's purchasing habits?
What are they based on?
This all seems to nevolous and abstract.


<Proofs always seemed like wankery to me
>does not know about formal verification
get on my level anon


NTA but formal methods are mostly used in academia, most private organizations just write tests that cover 80% of the program and call it day. Formal methods are pretty autistic ngl they make be good for research but pretty useless irl


>Formal methods are pretty autistic ngl
they're used extensively in aerospace. they should also be used in all safety-critical code. for example OpenSSL. also libc. but porky doesn't want to spend the programmer wages necessary on this, even if it means massive security breaches and losses down the line
the recent log4shell debacle is yet more proof that the langsec.org people are correct


>He's a Physicist, playing Basketball should be nothing to him lmao


File: 1640870604188.png (34.06 KB, 577x196, inca.png)


do glowies really have nothing better to do than produce this low quality bait


Ever heard of jokes?


jokes are a bourgeois notion


Profit of enterprise
<Explains the underlying mechanism of periodic financial crises under capitalism.
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMm_bamyic
Proxy: https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=WVMm_bamyic


>20 seconds in
>audio cuts out
oh boy


New dickblast!


File: 1640882894231.jpg (79.87 KB, 1280x720, mpv-shot0002.jpg)

A tier diagram right here


Mr cockshott seems to fall short where it counts.
He says that unproductive members ought to be moved to more productive enterprises and that all labor ought to be of equal value.
No, there ought to be jobs that are more highly paid than others and people who slack ought to be sent labor camps or gulags how people say. The alternative is a race to the bottom.


>unproductive members ought to be moved to more productive enterprises
yes. put the whores to work
>all labor ought to be of equal value
he literally says the opposite. skilled labour power embodies more SNLT than average. cockshott suggests two solutions to this: either pay skilled workers more for their labour, or pay them while they're getting educated. we could even have piece wages for education, spurring people to study/train harder


>people who slack ought to be sent labor camps or gulags how people say
fuck off
let me choose how many hours I wanna work, I'll gladly take a lower wage


I'm just saying a big brain like him shouldn't have dificulties with simple video editing software


>pay them while they're getting educated
sounds like a much nicer solution to me, makes sure people are doing what they genuinely want to do and not what gives the biggest buck


video editing is a PITA. I work with video backend. one minute of video takes one hour to edit
>makes sure people are doing what they genuinely want
ikr. it's also easier accounting-wise


What's so complicated about planning anyways?
Listen you won't get what you want under socialism, you get what you need, that's the trade off sorry.
Here's the plan for you. Make 3000 calories worth of food per person per day, the type of food will be based on the dietary recommendations set by the food pyramid, whole grains take precedence over sweets, make 10 clothing style shirts per person, 5 pants and two sets of shoes.
As for electronics you get one of each per year and one car.
But ideally you should use public transportation anyways.Which under a socialist society there ought to be plenty in the form of bullet trains and such.
The amount of workers each industry gets assigned is the amount that were assigned during capitalists times.
Or something like that.
What's this nlog(n)?
So if I have a million products nlog(n) is equal to 6 million
6 million computations?
What does that even mean?
I don't know I'm not convinced this is such a big issue.


>there was an attempt
I don't want to discourage you by shouting you down, because after all you showed interest in economic planning, but i also have to inform you that what you have proposed is not a workable solution. You need a more sophisticated system than a ration-plan.

If you just use standard ration of goods for everybody, you'll get fights because everybody will try to have standard rations reflect what they want.

We also have the ambition that socialist economic planning as a system works better than what capitalism is doing, so that nobody gets any ideas about bringing back capitalism.


>Listen you won't get what you want under socialism, you get what you need, that's the trade off sorry.
pic very related
>Here's the plan for you [lots of shit that anon thinks people want/need but barely covers a tiny fraction of it]
anon this is retarded and just gives fuel to the Austrians
>What's this nlog(n)?
what is n here? I can assure you the computations are much more complicated. you need linear programming at least, and I heavily suspect LP is not enough. you need to get into non-convex planning. see this thing by Cosma Shalizi: https://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/


File: 1640940528066.jpg (51.38 KB, 600x430, 1640582899596.jpg)

if you want an inkling of how much more complicated this is than you think, look around your home. count the number of distinct things. now do the same at your friends' homes. even if 50% of it is useless crap, and a lot of the differences are branding, it's still a fuckload of unique things. then look at say the average Soviet home, which was more kitsch than the kind of spartan thing you imagine

even just food is a much bigger problem than you think. sure you can optimize the system to only produce a gruel that fulfills people's nutritional needs and nothing else. how long do you think people will put up with that, in peacetime?

let's say you have 1 million products as you say. each product requires 150 inputs on average. you have maybe 100 million different workplaces/methods of making these products. that is a 100M x 1M matrix with 15G non-zeroes. certainly something that fits in RAM. you will have to use linear programming to deal with this, and LP with 1M variables is non-trivial. you have to use interior point methods

you might think "why do I need to bother with this LP crap? can't I just solve a Leontief-style system?". but when you sit down and actually try that you quickly realize there's a problem whenever there's more than one way of making things

even if we pretend Leontief is enough, solving the system of equations requires an iterative solver. how much time it takes depends on the distribution of eigenvalues in the system, specifically the condition number. you're looking at something between O(n) and O(n²)
to get a feel for how hard solving Ax=b is, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biconjugate_gradient_stabilized_method
you can play around with bicgstab() in GNU Octave
systems of this size are solved regularly in academia so it's definitely possible. I'd expect the real number of distinct products to be in the billions

this isn't to discourage you anon. in fact I encourage you to experiment. just know that it's almost certainly more difficult than you think at the moment


have sex


File: 1640940752621.jpg (477.14 KB, 1176x920, 1640382608052.jpg)

sex is fleeting
math is forever


>I'm just saying a big brain like him
Maybe he isn't such a big brain. His videos seem to confirm that he has quite a few of brainworms


If you're so clever then make some sort of simulation out of his equations then.


The guy is knowledgeable about computer science, but too many people on here treat him as some sort of prophet when it comes to areas like political theory, philosophy in general etc.
People like you prove my point, by sperging at me for questioning him in the slightest




File: 1640966844301.jpg (80.42 KB, 750x500, quipu inti.jpg)


I suggest going from solving a more simple scenario to the problem >>658144 as it is stated: If the N workers all have the same preferences, the burden sizes of the chores for the individual workers can be thought of as being like steel rods of different length that must be brought to the same length by cutting (one may cut a rod into up to N segments of various sizes) and welding (a rod made by welding segments together is only allowed to be made of two such segments). If there are only two rods, it's obvious that they can always be brought to same size by cutting off a segment from the longer one and welding it onto the shorter one, following the standard of the average length. If there are more rods, there is no combinatorial explosion here. You establish the standard of the average length, look for a rod with below average length, and make it proper length by cutting from a rod of above average length. Any such rod will do and there is no need of projecting ahead what a series of steps will do, as it always works out. If there are two rods, you know it can be solved, whatever the size difference. If there are three rods, you can fix one rod and put it aside, and you are then in the situation with two rods and you know that can be solved. And likewise starting from any higher number of rods. Each of the rods you end up with only got one welding ring at most.

People have different preferences usually. Let's put that into the rod metaphor: Before any cutting and welding is done, when you mark a segment on a rod, everybody agrees what percentage of this rod's total length the segment amounts to. You can do this umpteen times and there is always perfect agreement on that. But people have disagreements about the weight of these rods and nobody cares about the rods' length anymore. Now everybody of the N people demands to have a rod that is no more heavy in their own individual opinion than 1/N of the total weight of the rods. (In other words, people agree that doing 20 % of chore A means doing half as much as 40 % of chore A, but they don't necessarily agree on how much of a burden 20 % of chore A is if expressed as a percentage of doing chore B.)

The allocation of a given bunch of chore packages will work out if there is at least one worker OK by their own 1/N standard with being the last to get a package and there is at least one other worker OK with being the second to last to get a package, and at least one worker who is not these two who is OK with being the one right before these two to get a package and so on. A sufficient condition for that (not the only one) is if the second worker to choose a package identifies at least two of these packages as equal to or smaller than 1/N in weight, the third worker to choose a package identifies at least three as equal to or smaller than 1/N in weight, and so on, since that means that for each there is at least one tolerable package available when it's their turn.


Someone PLEASE respond to my post here >>668796 with the screenshot of the BayArea dengist getting BTFO by Cockshott in some youtube comment section. I know some of you must have it.
(can't find it in the comments of the source video anymore since BayArea deleted his channel)


I'd love to see that but I don't know if a lot of people here watched baywatch that much. I didn't even know he deleted his channel. Afaik the comment was never posted here.




glowarea deleted is channel a while back after being doxed and exposed as a LARPing dumbass


>Now everybody of the N people demands to have a rod that is no more heavy in their own individual opinion than 1/N of the total weight of the rods
this is subjectivist


That's the point of >>658144 you dweeb. There is a pile of shit a group must do, people make individual statements how much of a burden doing this or that is. If they get assigned in a way that is in line with their subjective statements (e.g. with a group of five people no individual has to do more than one fifth of the entire pile in their own individual estimate), this reduces conflict between people.


>individual statements how much of a burden
sorry, but no. you can state your preferences for certain tasks. you do not know how much of a "burden" any task is, whatever that means
it may be the case that we need to pay people extra to perform jobs that are unpleasant or dangerous


Read: >>658144 >>658293 >>658400
If you want to share your opinion without reading threads I suggest a community that is specifically built for that purpose, Twitter dot com.


I fucking already read and responded to them, retard. this is an assignment problem, for which we have plenty of algorithms


You still don't understand a problem written in plain English in >>658144 and your attitude now expressed in >>669479 is:
<Nooo the people who have to do the work are in NO position to estimate how hard doing this or that is!

This: >>668404 was me. All the other responses to >>658144 are crap and it would have been better had you said nothing at all. How can you make a statement about a problem's complexity class if you can't parse the problem to begin with? How can you jabber about "one job no one wants to do" when that isn't even part of the formulated problem? Do you also tackle a problem given in math class that way, you make up your own instead and refer to it as the problem or tell your teacher that the problem is made up and fake news? Oooh, it's not formulated well and surely that must be the reason why you can't solve it, wahwahwah *sad trombone sounds* Here we are, in an 'anonymous exchange, and yet, when you're too dumb to solve the problem at hand, you decide to bring in here all the emotional baggage of defending your social status as if your real name were broadcasted. I hope you are still underage like the robot girl you jack off to and not actually "working" as a "programmer". If you are adult already and have your "programmer" cert from University of McDonald's, be assured you will never do more than taking pieces you don't understand made by people infinitely wiser than you and flailing around while trying to glue them together with your codemonkey snot.

By Allah, you people are dogs. I will go on as usual.




People don't want to spoonfeed you its already been said that the problem is an assignment problem which you could've easily googled at any time.


<1. X is an assignment problem. 2. There are solutions for some assignment problems. 3. Therefore, X is already solved.
Top Minds of Reddit ITT


I honestly don't know what to tell you bro. The simplest algorithm to understand would be to just check every job with every agent and find the solution that makes everyone think they did the least amount of effort. That solution is O(n!) but it works. There are better solutions in the article. Your problem is not unique its been solved since the 40's.


Your answer is false. Read the problem description in >>658144 again.


No it fucking isn't it goes through every possible combination of workers to tasks the only way its false is if the problem never has a solution.


Counter-example to >>669603 : If every worker has the same preferences and the chores are not rated as all being identically unpleasant, then assigning each worker to exactly one chore breaks constraint number 3.


Yes exactly, sometimes there are no solutions.


But anon, the scenario with everybody having the same prefs has a solution, as shown in the first paragraph of >>668404


If there are N discrete workers and N tasks and each task takes 1/N effort to perform for all workers you can't make it so everyone works less the 1/N because there literally isn't a single task to do that is less then 1/N amount of effort.


Assuming you want all tasks finished to completion.


That's true, but you should read the actual problem description again, which stated: "Each individual gets assigned no more than 1/N share of total work weight". So this isn't an example of a preference profile that would make it impossible to meet the constraints posed in >>658144

I have to go now and will be back in a week.


we'll be looking forward to your return and you still not having read up on algorithms for solving assignment problems so we can rehash this asinine conversation yet again


What if we start a federation of cooperatives or some shit? I know it's idealist and reformist, but you gotta start somewhere.
A centralized plan based around some coops, with the aim of expanding as a priority. It could start with coffee shops or something similar and eventually move to manufacturing and factories. We would need a huge amount of profit though so it sounds unrealistic unless you get a class traitor sugar daddy like Engels or a 0% interest credit loan.
Even though it's a stupid idea, I like to think about it. How would we pay the members of a coop? It should be through labor tokens, but they wouldn't be worth anything because we don't produce any commodities, it reminds me of company scrip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip). Also, the coop would get money in US currency, because it would sell to the general public. How do you deal with this? You would need to stablish an exchange rate between labor tokens and currency.
Say a coffee costs the amount of labor from a worker + the costs of the raw material + some amount from the tools to produce the coffee (cups, espresso machine, chairs, cleaning, etc).
I don't know where I'm going with this. Any thoughts?


I found this crypto coin which is supposed to represent a labor token.
Honestly, I think that NFTs are more appropiate for labor tokens, since they're unique and non-interchangeable which is kind of the whole point. Thing is how the fuck would you verify that an hour of work has been done… I guess you would need to trust a boss or some shit to mint the NFT for each worker that has done an hour of work? Still, the problem seems to be how to calculate the exchange rate in a way that it would be useful for a worker in this experimental kind of coop. No one is going to work for labor tokens if they can't do shit with them.


Well their would be no need for crypto. Labor hours are already tracked by private companies in order to figure out how much wages need to be paid. There's also just a ton of problems with crypto in general beyond the fact that it's not needed.

You can't really map TANS onto a single private company. If we take the proposal for trade with capitalist countries and "Neo-socialist" countries the idea is that the planning board sells tokens that foreigners can use to buy goods as if it were a normal labor voucher, the planning board gets capitalist cash, while the foreigner gets a labor voucher. The exchange rate between labor tokens and foreign currency is not set by the planning board but instead will use the price set by the market. This isn't really that different from a normal currency exchange. With a coffee shop though this is a really weird way to do business. Your basically asking consumers to convert there money into a currency that can only to buy coffee. This does happen in the form of gift cards but there are two major differences. For one when you buy a gift the "exchange rate" is 1 dollar of USD buys you 1 dollar worth of coffee. There is no free floating exchange rate and the only reason people buy them is because it's basically a more personalized version of giving people cash. Second when I walk into Starbucks I don't need to pay in Starbucks gift cards I pay in USD. Forcing me to pay in gift cards is basically the same thing as forcing customers to pay in yen or whatever for no obvious reason, especially to an uninformed consumer. On the pay side this is again like giving people gift cards in lieu of money wages, which is probably illegal. So in practice working in labor vouchers is just like working with USD but you have this bizarre middle step. Additionally if we make the labor vouchers free floating then the value of peoples wages at the co-op depends on how well the company is doing business, ignoring legality for a second actually attracting workers would probably be impossible unless they’re already in on the idea.


If we zoom out a bit and presume there is a large federation of co-ops that produces a large variety of goods then we get a slightly more interesting picture, but I still think the idea is unworkable. For starters we need to define what federation of co-ops means, and in what context it exists in. Here I’ll be assuming that we have several different co-ops that have all agreed to trade in labor vouchers that exist in the USA today. Let’s start with trade between co-ops. For starters in order for trade to take place their must be trust. With USD it is reasonable to assume that the money isn’t forged because it is regulated by the government and if you believed the money is forged you can report the forgers to the secret service. In order to establish trust then HR departments must be independent of the individual co-ops and instead be employed by the federation as whole. As part of their duties they must accurately report hours worked lest they be fired and the offending co-op should have to pay back the labor hours it faked at a minimum. If the federation has workers that work for the federation directly then the federation needs to impose a “tax” on the co-ops in order to pay for the over head. Because people are paid in labor voucher it would make sense to take an idea out of TANS and levy an income “tax” on the workers to pay for this overhead. In my opinion the tax on co-ops should be proportional to how many people are employed at the co-op and then each individual worker negotiates how much “tax” they pay as what sets their wage. The manager needs to make sure that the totality of taxes collected from the workers is at least equivalent to the amount of tax being set by the co-op. The setting of an individual “tax” on workers makes it so that the wage responds to and is competitive with pay in normal capitalist firms. Additionally the manager would want to add an extra “tax” to the pay in order to pay for other costs of running the bussiness itself, as well as to get money for expansion, loans can also be used to fiance expansion just as in normal capitalist firms. Next is the question of profit. The co-op has 2 options, operate for profit, or don’t. If they chose to be not for profit then there are tax benefits to that, but no one is going to fund to fund that. If it does operate for profit then their will have to be some kind of agreement between the federation and the investors on how much profit will be delivered. The profits would add to the amount of “tax” that will come out workers pay checks. While this is all fun to think about, many of the problems mentioned in the first post still apply to the federation, the exchange rate thing makes a little more sense because now you’re trading USD which can buy a bunch of goods, and labor vouchers which can also by a variety of gods (but still less then what you can buy with USD) but it still doesn’t fix the fundamental problems of making labor vouchers work in a capitalist economy.


>What if we start a federation of cooperatives or some shit?
I've had this exact same idea. start co-ops and have them use planning to coordinate action between themselves
>It could start with coffee shops
it's better to start with basic products like food. I was linked this thing by Marx where he talks about similar ideas: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1866/08/instructions.htm#05
<We recommend to the working men to embark in co-operative production rather than in co-operative stores. The latter touch but the surface of the present economical system, the former attacks its groundwork.
incredibly retarded. just use a database


>>672910 (me)
also someone started a co-op thread the other day: >>670918



Did you guys finally solve that math problem above? If you haven't yet, I did it for you. The answer is 73.


>I've had this exact same idea. start co-ops and have them use planning to coordinate action between themselves
Utopianism? Jacque Fresco maybe?


>Jacque Fresco
ah the Venus Project guy. well no, partly because he proposes going directly to communism


File: 1641587060292.jpeg (16.29 KB, 253x400, 6888680.jpeg)

What are the prerequisites to understanding this book?


aha. Still, just do it the Lenin way. Yeah the projects seem like fun but they won't lead a proletarian revolution.


I would just revisit the entire western esoteric canon. That should make you ready to tackle it


>western esoteric canon
what dis? adam smith?


Alchemism and the sorts


Are you implying that you have solved the problem? Because I have read this whole exchange as well as the links and there isn't a solution yet described or linked to in this thread. The generous interpretation is that you either don't understand the problem or the content of the links. But a more realistic one is you understand neither: The problem states that a person might do more than one type of chore, but only two different ones at most, and that a chore can be divided up between several people. (If you didn't register this the first time around, you should have figured it out after >>658293 at the latest.) As such, it is not a problem about assigning each chore to exactly one person – but let's pretend it were that for a moment: The problem asks for weighting and that means cardinal information. If you only take in rankings, that's only ordinal information. And you can't get cardinal data from ordinal (aside from that a person being assigned to the chore they ranked lightest having a burden of below 1/N in their own estimate and a person being assigned to what they ranked the heaviest having a burden above 1/N in their own estimate). So, even if the problem were about matching one to one, it wouldn't make sense to refer to stable marriage as the reference point (a sensible reference point would be the Hungarian algorithm).

So what we have here is a gross misreading (corrected more than once, but you are stubborn) together with a recommendation that wasn't a very bright move even from the point of view of that misreading. What's your next move? Maybe you want to report this for derailing? We can't have a discussion about an algorithm allocating resources without money in our communist economic planning thread! Reee! I recommend that you just shouldn't post if you got nothing constructive to say.

And now I will follow my own advice. From the very simple "rod algorithm" in >>668404 that uses a universal weight standard some interesting variations can be built easily. A subjective version would solve our original problem and I have a hunch that this solution would also give at least some of the subjective versions of these variants as well. For example, more people than chores: The algorithm would be a very niche thing if it only worked for exactly the same number of chores as people. But you can just use a concept of zero-length rods to make the number of rods equal to the number of people, and then go on as usual. (Maybe the rod metaphor isn't so great in this context. You can just think of zero-length columns, take the average length of all columns, and then go on as usual.)

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel propose in their vision "Participatory Economics" that individuals get a balanced blend of more and less desirable tasks to do ("balanced job complexes") and they seem to have a general standard scheme in mind rather than individual judgment (a mistake IMHO). Critics like David Schweickart ("Nonsense on Stilts" & "I Still Think It's Nonsense") claim one big reason Parecon is unfeasible is because of the high cost of each individual having to change between many different tasks supposedly brought about by this balancing requirement (Schweickart: "I don't want to be running all over the place each day or week or month, trying to do a hundred or so different things.") But the rod algorithm shows that with N people and ≤N chores everyone could do nobody has to do more than two different things at most. Suppose we have two general standards to balance (for example an estimate of person-hours each chore takes and an estimate of calories it burns), then the upper bound with N people and ≤N chores everyone could do would be no higher than four different chores per person. Albert has written about Parecon for decades, but I'm sure he doesn't know any of that. People on the pro-socialist side clearly haven't done much thinking yet when it comes to relevant algorithms and I would appreciate if you stopped acting phony by pretending otherwise.


TBH its difficult. math, stats and physics knowledge, id guess


>words words words
anon this is still perfectly solvable with mixed integer programming
>The problem asks for weighting and that means cardinal information. If you only take in rankings, that's only ordinal information
you're not going to get cardinal data from people. especially not as N approaches the number of tasks that exist globally
as I've already said, git gud at formalizing or else you will not get the answers you seek


Yes, the authors make no presumption about readers being familiar with the works of certain economists or philosophers.

<1. the problem is perfectly solvable
<2. it is not formalized rigorously enough for analysis


the anon is asking for specific algorithms. general algorithms exist (branch-and-bound), but problem-specific algos tend to be faster. so to get a specific answer the question must also be specific and not normie tier


lmao how will cybercommies ever escape the ghost of Mises?


>aaaa im debooonking
going to have to give this a watch tomorrow morning. but if this guy was serious he'd go after penispew not hakim


I'm going to note here that what the Austrians do is ascribe magical computational powers to the market. this is rooted in not having a scientific understanding of what computation even is. and similarly with information theory


I have to read a lot of maths and science, damn. Any relevant textbooks?


>some rando with a few thousands subs
be honest this is you isnt it. Well can someone TLDR im too lazy to watch


just use khan academy


That can't be the only resource necessary


>Any relevant textbooks?
in what field?


maths, for economic planning. I found a linear algebra book in these threads, anything else?


File: 1641832592177-0.jpg (363.9 KB, 1863x914, ecp.jpg)

see pdf related on mathematical optimization

>economic calculation = aggregate of I/O via a homogenous (scalar) variable
already here we have retardation. the purpose of planning is calculation in terms of use-values, which are vector-valued. in the framework used in the video this of course means planned economies cannot do economic calculation by definition. like so much "debate" this is a language problem. the Austrians are not actually talking about calculation, but define economic calculation in a way that excludes planning
it is assumed that price contains full knowledge of consumer and supplier demand. this is information theoretically impossible
there is a spurious distinction between capital goods and consumer goods
it is assumed that planning involves pricing of capital goods, and that this pricing is "arbitrary". this is incorrect
>we need to know demand and technical coefficients in order to do economic calculation
this is correct
it is pointed out that firms are planned internally, which is correct
>we can't calculate how many hospitals can be built
>we can't account for different productive methods
>distributing 80,000 goods among 6,000,000,000 consumers is haaard
solving LP in general is tricky. using interior point methods is O(L*n^2.5) for L bits of accuracy. but in practice LP is often solvable in linear time with predictor-corrector methods. big-O is just an upper bound
>LP only works in a static economy
>LP completely misses the point of the ECP
this is an empty statement as I have already pointed out. socialists care about use-values. not exchange-value.
here the author does a bit of projecting by stating:
>hakim has never picked up a book that challenges his position
>hakim develops his beliefs from buzzwords thrown around by his friends
>hakim is a toddler
>boom and bust cycles are caused by muh central banks
this is incorrect. econophysics and control theory shows us how these cycles emerge

this is enough nonsense for now. gotta get some work done, and make food. might summarize more of the video later


File: 1641834949801.png (151.47 KB, 513x336, comrade mises.png)

the bit about predictor-corrector methods is from this (>>685311) book btw, if I remember correctly. or I may have read it in a paper. for certain classes of LP the number of global steps necessary to get L bits of accuracy is constant

I know this is pearls before swine but I'll continue anyway
>the gobernment should let shitty businesses fail rather than bailing them out
I mean, yeah. but here the author thinks that the point of bourgeois states is maintaining muh free market rather than maintaining the class system
>muh crony capitalism!
>real capitalism has never been tried!
>central banking is socialism!
is this dogwhistling to antisemites?


>global steps necessary to get L bits of accuracy is constant
err, I mean when L is held constant of course. that is, it's O(L)



I watched a video where they claimed we don't have enough sheer computational power to fully plan an economy, they first solved a system through a traditional method and then through gauss method, but I didn't really understand, did the computational power only apply to the traditional method, or is gauss limited in the same way? If not, is gauss method less, but still limited?
Also, is a limited scope computer built for solving equations enough yet?


got a link to said video?
>they first solved a system through a traditional method and then through gauss method
I think you mean Gauss-Seidel, Gauss' method being the traditional O(N³) method that the Austrians think we haven't progressed beyond
there are many ways of solving sparse linear systems. Gauss-Seidel and Jacobi are two general methods. for symmetric positive definite (SPD) systems you can use the conjugate gradient method. convergence depends on the distribution of eigenvalues (spectrum) of the system. usually a preconditioner is also used
>Also, is a limited scope computer built for solving equations enough yet?
what do you mean? things like GPUs are used to accelerate linear algebra solvers


thoughts on this article https://archive.today/CIyRB


has anyone read Eden Medina's book "Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende's Chile"?


looks like a summary of Eden Medina's book

not yet. it's part of my next batch of books to order


>is this dogwhistling to antisemites?
there's always been an overlap between paranoid libertarianism, austrian critiques of central banking, and anti semitic conspiracy theories


can't linear problems be parallelized more easily? Is there anyway to solve shit faster?


>can't linear problems be parallelized more easily?
this is what high-performance computing (HPC) is all about. LP reduces to a series of sparse matrix-vector multiplications. this is typically I/O bound


File: 1641949672081.png (332.92 KB, 2875x2935, cybersoc logo 2.png)

does anyone have a copy of Dapprich's latest paper? it's not on sci-hub
>Optimal Planning with Consumer Feedback: A Simulation of a Socialist Economy


>got a link to said video?
It's in russian sadly
>what do you mean? things like GPUs are used to accelerate linear algebra solvers
yes i meant to ask if specialized machines would accelerate it.


>yes i meant to ask if specialized machines would accelerate it.
it's less that the machines are specialized, since most use off-the-shelf parts. it's more that special libraries are used. libraries tailored for the hardware. for dense linear algebra you will link a BLAS library from the vendor. like Intel or Nvidia.
there are special operations for matrices with special shapes
for dense operations these libraries tend to perform very close to the hardware limit
for sparse stuff it's trickier, because it depends on the sparsity pattern of the system


File: 1642020013502.png (363.79 KB, 1127x685, ClipboardImage.png)


I'd directly ask him for it over mail


File: 1642024324218.png (419.79 KB, 666x616, ClipboardImage.png)

I take you guys dislike Hegel (given Cockshott's opinion of the man). Why is that? Any other philosophers you people are critical towards?


found it
quick critique:
I like that he makes CO2 constraints explicit
the "free corn" method seems like a hack. it should be possible to derive the same information from the basis that lp_solve outputs. both Glushkov and Kantorovich do this I think
I don't understand why he picks corn as the objective function. maybe Dapprich is a Khrushchevite?

what language are you using? it probably has a library for linear algebra

such discussion belongs in a separate thread. there's a Hegel vs Cockshott thread even, if it hasn't fallen off the end of the board


>what language are you using? it probably has a library for linear algebra
>last updated 2014
i- it's not dead i swear!!!1


I feel like lisp probably has a binding to some C library for this stuff. haskell does


I like Cockshott and I think Hegel (at least in the way Marx uses him) is useful. WE EXIST!




As someone who is familiar with both Marx, Cockshott, theoretical CS, and Spinoza, i think that the middle ground is that the Althusserian/Cockshottian critique of hegelianism really only applies to Hegelian dialectics and other "complete" or purportedly complete logical systems, and Marxist non teleological dialectics doesn't suffer from the same weakness


How do you guys resolve the question of janitors getting paid the same as doctors ? I think labour vouchers are good idea but if everyone got paid the same why would people become programers, doctors, engineers etc. Is paying people while they go to school , genuine interest, or some sort of ideological sense of duty to the society really enough resolve this?


Also, anyone saying Cockshott is a positivist, has been kinda disproved by his "Anti-Machism" video. I think he is just a vulgar/crass materialist on most issues, which is more bad than good imo. Also his thoughts on unequal exchange are kinda unsatisfactory


>why would people become programers, doctors, engineers etc.
because they want to?
>Is paying people while they go to school , genuine interest, or some sort of ideological sense of duty to the society really enough resolve this?
paying people for getting educated is one way yes. paul argues this in one paper. I forget which one
the only reason you'd need to pay people more is if there's a shortage of people willing to do some job. for example sewage


>>the gobernment should let shitty businesses fail rather than bailing them out
What is this nu-ancap/libertarian bullshit? I had the impression that they thought the government was useless/incompetent at everything.

>is this dogwhistling to antisemites?

It would highly ironic if so, given Mises was joo lol.


File: 1642516611053.png (986.94 KB, 1228x625, Chad.PNG)

I was thinking about making a simulation of Cockshott's economy with Godot Engine, but some problems arose in my head:
Normal scenario, how things are supposed to work if I understood it well:
>factory of 200 workers produces 100 trucks
>they report 10k hours of labour time in total including labor cost of raw materials, energy ecc.
>So every truck costs 10k/100 = 100 hours to produce
>the state taxes correspond to 20% of the labour time
>the state gives 10k * 0.8 = 8000 hours to the factory (the labour time reported minus taxes) and distribute the 100 trucks on the market for 100 hours each
>now the workers decide to keep 80% of the labour time in the factory to make more trucks and automate the most boring tasks
>Assuming that every worker worked for an equal amount of time, every worker gets the remaining 20%, so (8000 * 0.2)/200 = 8 hours to live with

Problem 1
>next cycle in the factory council workers decide that 8 hours are not enough, so they decide to produce 100 trucks, while reporting 20k hours of work so that they get more labour vouchers and get more goods
>now the price of the trucks skyrockets while the quantity is the same, the workers get paid for work they didn't do
>imagine if every factory does this out of greed
>labour prices keep increasing indefinitely, together with wages, triggering a never-ending inflation
How does the state keep track of labour time of each good if individual fatorie shouldn't report it?

Problem 2, new scenario: let's assume workers are honest about the labour time reported
>state buys 100 trucks, but only 20 get bought
>the state tells the factory to produce less
>less trucks produced = less labour = less labour vouchers
>workers can switch to another factory, hard but possible with free vocational training
>but fail to do so because society reaches a point where it needs fewer goods, so less labour is needed so less vouchers are given. The cause may be overproduction or a high level of automation that reduces production time and therefore factories' income in form of labour vouchers
>now unemployed workers cannot afford goods
>thay need to be given vouchers for work they didn't do or they will starve, which means emitting labour vouchers out of nothing until the overproduction crisis is averted
Let's say that the state takes away the power to regulate production. This way only if the price of trucks rises the state orders more trucks from existing factories or expands production capability. Let's say that the price rises from 100 hours to 110 hours. Do the factories get 100 hours for every truck, or 110 hours?
What if the opposite happens, demand of trucks goes down, so the price decline to 80 hours per truck. Now the state orders less trucks, but this create less vouchers for workers and so they can get less goods. What if this happens in the general economy, creating unemployment? What if the cause is automation, rendering the crisis chronic and perpetual?

What is to be done?


have sex


but I'll stop reading Cockshott if that happens


File: 1642520691415.jpg (122.29 KB, 873x1200, 1618039323659.jpg)

Come and Cockshot me uwu


Seriously? You do not ask why someone will become a worker since obviously, if he will not, there will not be enough food. Any worker would like to work less, it is better to engineer something that will reduce your necessary work time. With med docs, it is not like you can live with pain or live long.
As you see, no duty, nothing like that is involved, it is all required.

I imagine that under socialism studying does imply you will have to do this full time the whole life. As I recall, Cockshott does not talk at all on any reduction in division of labor or necessary time reduction. But this seriously change the system, how work is done and seen. Studying is fun, part time is fun, full time is not.


File: 1642521007195.jpg (17.21 KB, 212x120, paul cocks.jpg)


you should email paul about it, he always answers my mails


nooo stop being cute, this is a cockshott topic, no sex allowed


Should I read How the World Works before Captial?


What ?
You could just reduce the workday as a response to productivity increases, and all these problems go away.


This is the point.
If you reduce the workday, don't you get less labour vouchers and so you can afford less stuff?


Im not sure i understand your point about full time, but what if you could have something similar to the gig economy, there could be an app through which people could be notified about job opportunities which they could use to earn extra credits ?


Not him, but a gig economy like system only works with easily automatable jobs.
You can't do that with high-skill job. Also a 50 yo who have been welding plates for all his life can't learn to code overnight.


it's an easier read than Capital and summarizes much of it. but relying on secondary material is risky since you won't get the full picture Marx is trying to get across
t. has read Capital vol 1-2 and How the World Works

this kind of cheating can be detected via statistical methods

weird sex with cockshott


No because if efficiency is increasing across the whole economy then people will be getting paid the same number of vouchers for less work


>If you reduce the workday, don't you get less labour vouchers and so you can afford less stuff?
yes but the value of goods also goes down


How do you quantify efficiency?
The only way around would be to pay workers for the work done by robots, which would be a bigger incentive to automate. But if production time decreases, the amount of labour vouchers decreases, or they will stop representing labour time.

Ho do you prevent what happens in a capitalist economy, where overproduction causes a decrease in prices, while incomes decreases faster than prices creating poverty?


I mean I personally don't put much stock into Cockshott so maybe I'm a bad person to answer that question, but IMO labour vouchers should be the same (or nearly the same) for each person to prevent inequality, some jobs are harder than others so some people should be able to work less hours for the same pay. I don't think a labour voucher should be tied directly to the value of one hour of any particular labour.


That's reasonable


>some jobs are harder than others so some people should be able to work less hours for the same pay. I don't think a labour voucher should be tied directly to the value of one hour
No, 1 labor voucher has to be 1 hour exactly, or else it will create inefficiency in the process of optimizing the economy. The labor vouchers are tied to time specifically because the amount of time that society spends on economic tasks is something that we want to optimize, and you can't go and change the numbers around without screwing that up. We can still take into account that different types of labor are harder and for these people everybody will pay a tax in labor hours into a common fund to pay out a hard-labor-bonus or something like that.

There is however another reason for locking in 1 labor voucher to 1 hour of time. The risk is that somebody might try to cheat the system. Maybe if they are in a position of administrative power or something. If you don't make labor time identical for everybody, there will be people that will try to raise their personal hourly rate, and that will make them labor aristocrats that will eventually try to use rate differentials to restart private capital accumulation. The way over a tax funded labor bonus pot, makes it very transparent who gets the extra payment, and the potential for corrupt apparatchiks undermining the system is negated.


How do you reliably measure the time of a production process while avoiding inflated reports by enterprises to get more vouchers?


By full time I mean 8+ hours/day, specially if it is 12 h/day, fuck it. You can still be useful if you will work only 4 hours/day, may be even less in some cases. 4 h/day leaves lots of free time for doing what else you want. Why the reduction of time possible, I look at growing number of bullshit jobs and some people could be pulled into medical field or to factories or they can exchange jobs, some days at a factory, some days somewhere else. But this will be stable, no need to constantly look for a gig job.

Hm, there is Upwork - gig jobs for programmers and what else can be done from home. The gig economy, I think mostly why it is negative, is that it is not stable, you may have a job today but not necessary tomorrow and you have very little savings. And you spend lots of time looking for gig jobs and if you compute hour rate including this time, well.. but may be this can be solved since some time is spent talking with potential employers and this could be reduced. Frequently you just filter bullshit jobs, they could have better filtering tools.


>How do you reliably measure the time of a production process while avoiding inflated reports by enterprises to get more vouchers?
That's asking the wrong question, the system already has the optimization function for labor-time per task. If there is a work-place that starts using or reporting way more labor-time compared to before or compared to other similar workplaces doing similar things, that will trigger the system optimization loop. It's primary function is to find work-places that use inefficient or outdated production methods to help them upgrade and as side effect it also catches cheaters that fudge reports. In theoretical terms, it looks for deviations from average socially necessary labor-time in production.


Does Towards a New Socialism explain this mechanism more in detail?
I currently don't see how is that possible if it literally rewards industries that take more time by giving more vouchers?


>Does Towards a New Socialism explain this mechanism more in detail?
Yes but the details are spread all over
>I currently don't see how is that possible if it literally rewards industries that take more time by giving more vouchers?
Upgrades for production like better machine-tools are not "financed" with labor vouchers. Labour vouchers are only used for buying end-products, you could say only consumers use it. Capital-goods as well as resources are direct material inputs and outputs in production that are indirectly allocated in central planning.


Would a Deng-tier economy be a prerequisite, how does it synergize with dengism?

I say this because all the high speed rail and superfast internet would come handy for real time information systems.

Cybersin was a bit limited in scope but it seemed to work rather well, so 70s chile infrastructure would be the cutout line?

I'm asking mostly for what could be done in african nations.


Yes. Especially if the country is underdeveloped.
You cannot jump overnight from neoliberism in the West or whatever they have in Africa without building up basic infrastructure and utilities, which should be handled by the state. Also a highly digitalized economy still requires experience by the government to handle it, so having the state owning major industry helps "training" it to manage a cybersocialist economy. A dengist, dirigist or state capitalist approach to welfare helps building confidence of the people towards socialist policies, which is strongly required as the transition to socialism demands decades, during which the political establishment needs a secure power and support to plan ahead for the long term.
I believe that the step between dengism and socialism are coops, which really put the means of production in the hands of the workers. Of course it's not enough as it will requires to move on from the profit motives, but still necessary to breed the cooperative mentality and the legal framework.
Such a radical step needs a strong state, politically and economically, to create such a framework, taxing or turn private enterprises into coops.
I would say that whatever China is doing is a necessary step in the context of the rate of profite still positive.


File: 1642545570985.jpeg (195.5 KB, 824x1160, FDn0N8aXMAASsx7.jpeg)

>Ho do you prevent what happens in a capitalist economy, where overproduction causes a decrease in prices, while incomes decreases faster than prices creating poverty?
"overproduction" is not a problem in planning. what you have is production above expectations in some places, and below expectations in others. this results in a shift in values, but not necessarily prices or wages
overproduction is a signal to the system that there's surplus labour power being used in those workplaces. short term it's likely reasonable to pay people just to maintain this spare productive capacity. long term you want to encourage them to work somewhere else. or reduce the length of the working week in that sector

there are good reasons to have piece wages even in socialism, or a combination of piece wages and a fixed hourly wage. it discourages wasteful use of labour

>Would a Deng-tier economy be a prerequisite
please clarify what you mean by "dengism" in this contet
you probably need some amount of development for this to work yes. I don't think computer power or internet connectivity is a limiting factor anywhere. even Subsaharan Africa has a decently built out cell phone network. setting up higher-capacity links can also be done if necessary


I'm on chapter 4 and the preceding chapter talks about uploading spreadshet stats onto a wider database, i don't know the scale of computer technology in the third world, but greater availability of desktop computers would be needed to input data by hand (advanced automatic robot factories could upload production data on its own, but that's were the dengism thing came about, the productive forces are not so advanced in africa) cellphones are not so good for spreadsheets.

I wonder what could be the objections of bourgeois media to greater use of cybernetics in the economy, some bullshit about the lack of human soul or whining about incentives(ignoring a b c worker grades) maybe?

I really wish this subject would be talked at all in the media, not things like modern monetary theory that are pretty much defacto policy in america with the whole "printing the reserve currency of the world" thing


File: 1642553557603.gif (40.5 KB, 810x1006, parecon chores.gif)

Here's how to find the upper bound of different chores an individual would have to do at least a part of in the balanced Parecon-style scheme. Start by dividing the number of different chores by the number of people and continue from there. If the number of chores is no more than half the number of people (realistic in a big workplace), letting pairs of people do the same things doesn't increase the final number.

>Problem 1
Silly. How do they get away with doing exactly the same thing with exactly the same resources as before and claiming a different amount of hours? The old data is still there in the database even if everybody is forgetful. So this doesn't make sense. And of course there will be inspections.
>Problem 2
Also silly. That a group of people with similar qualifications get split into some who work 50 hours a week and others who are unemployed is a capitalist thing. Instead of that, there will be a broadly shared reduction of work hours.

… That's pretty much Cockshott's opinion.


>>697583 (me)
>Parecon stuff
Reminder that's with the caveat that everybody in the group can do each of these chores and that each chore can be cut up in any way.


File: 1642563373522.pdf (7.68 MB, 180x255, HowTheWorldWorks.pdf)

Paul Cockshott - How the World Works


>I wonder what could be the objections of bourgeois media
bourgeois media will not be allowed to exist after the revolution


>Instead of that, there will be a broadly shared reduction of work hours.
Still, if you pay people with labour time vouchers, their purchasing power will be reduced, while prices of goods don't because the demand will be the same while the time to make them will be the same. Then they will not be able to buy goods and this creates poverty.


>i don't know the scale of computer technology in the third world, but greater availability of desktop computers would be needed to input data by hand
a lot of electronic "waste" that gets sent to these places consists partly of fully functional computers. our cup runneth over when it comes to 'puters. just install Lubuntu on them or something
>cellphones are not so good for spreadsheets
I didn't mean use actual cellphones for this stuff, but the network. if the network has been expropriated then no worries. else data will cost a lot and a custom highly-compressed format may be called for


i second this. dengist strategies can be used to develop a country, while wolff-style market socialism should be used in the first world.


>Still, if you pay people with labour time vouchers, their purchasing power will be reduced, while prices of goods don't because the demand will be the same
The target price is not based on demand, but production cost. Amount to be produced in the future is based on whether the buffer would be expected to shrink or grow with the product sold at production cost. There is a dead zone of allowed ups and downs in the buffer where the price is not changed from product-cost price, only when it out of bounds gets the price changed. (That's not to say that there is only a signal to the producers when the price changes. They can directly access real-time information about buffer size and react to that.)

If productivity per hour in general increases, the prices of consumer products go down, since the prices are primarily rooted in labor time.


File: 1642739800114.gif (40.63 KB, 810x1006, parecon chores.gif)

Fuck I just noticed a dypo (a dypo is the equivalent of a typo in a diagram). Fixed.

Unique IPs: 154

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