No.757798[Last 50 Posts]
The other thread was full
For a complete reading list, see: https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/two-reading-lists/
Cockshott's Patreon, YouTube and blogshttps://www.patreon.com/williamCockshott/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQhttps://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/http://paulcockshott.co.uk/
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):
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
4) YOUR LINK HERE
I don't know if anybody else has noticed, but over the course of these often silly threads of the past five years we have actually worked out a sort-of alternative to both Parecon and TANS.
One big reason to keep some salary differentials in an egalitarian society is to make up for more or less harsh working conditions. If it is easy to balance the individual work burden by combining different activities the salary differential might not even be necessary. The last thread showed (under some simplifying preliminary assumptions, ahem) that the number of different activities per person necessary for this balancing can be kept fairly low, so it seems possible to do this.
If people don't need to get different amounts of consumption points, we might do something else entirely than having consumer budgets. In a thread from some years ago there was the idea of using a simple algorithm that can be used to allocate a given amount of some good to people ("cookie algorithm") who state what amount they want. The rule works out in a way so that on an individual level you never increase the chances of getting an amount at least as high as what you really want by stating a different amount than what you really want. Also, if you don't ask for more than your proportional share (number of units of the item divided by number of people, rounded down), you are guaranteed to get that. If the amount of units is lower than the number of people, this guarantee amounts to zero units, but items can be grouped together to make delivery guarantees about quantities of these more fuzzy categories. The concrete items of a given produced pile of stuff can be thought of as leaves on a category tree. (And of course some items can be made only available to certain groups, e.g. baby clothes only for people with babies.)
The problem with this is that this system leaves out the individual choice of working more or less for more or less individual consumption, a choice that exists in both Parecon and TANS (and capitalism, well not for all people under capitalism). Perhaps you'd need an appraisal from a certified shrink to get more free time? Of course, some freedom to move around the time when you work could still be implemented under this (e.g. having a sabbatical and retire one year later than the standard), but it's not the same.
Is this a bit silly? Would the Socialist Party of Great Britain be interested in this? (They seem to hate labour vouchers.) What do you think? I suspect the answer is yes to both questions.
What is the essence of dialectical materialism? Its essence is the dialectical method scientifically applied to matter in all its aspects. To dialectically grasp matter is to understand it as a whole and in the material reality of its many interconnected parts and changes
Reward is good and all but can't forget about the stick, the stick is essential I'm afraid
So somebody says they'll work in the salt mines for more points, that's good and all but they didn't show up to work for a week. Why? Just chill dude get off my back bros, drinks a natty sips
>>757942>the stick is essential I'm afraid
But stick doesn't imply salary differential.
It doesn't have to be a gulag or anything just some kind of punishment it's what I mean.
It'd be in everyone's best interest.
And like they say 90% of your job is showing up anyways.
I mean you could say if they miss a day they get no points and no food but then they'd be begging and trying to get other people to give them food, I don't know…
Starting to understand the criticism towards Cockshott-types.
either samefag or two retards. the only difference is how many people need to read
the people here who agree with that goal should write out a book covering it then. maybe use a fake pen name to cover the whole group
go back to your thread bordigafag
Based, I was looking for a copy pdf of Cyber Revs>>758103
oh? you kek'd? your kekistan chungus?
What is the deal with Ajit Sinha?
Why is he trying to do away with the concept of a 'center of gravitation' in economics (implicitly firing a shot at Cockshott and Shaikh and the rest of the prices-oscillate-around-values clan)?
What's his game here? If there's no gravitational centers then what the fuck is he trying to do / say?
love Magariño, just wish he had more accessible vids >>768817
not yet, might be possible under cyber-communism
interesting, will have to give it a watch. also>no more bearded victor
shame>>768821>might be possible under cyber-communism
shhhh, don't let the jennyposters know
Aren't you mixing up two concepts? To say that two measures are approximately the same is not the same as saying that one attracts
Can you upload a copy of that elsewhere?
That is the theory that Cockshott proposes, based on Machover & Farjoun's theory that values are attractors for prices.
Have you read Laws of Chaos?
I have - what is it you think I'm getting wrong?
Ah ok I see. F&M never describe values as attractors, but Cockshott does in Classical Econophysics, based on their work and the vindication of the Vol. I LTV.
I don't understand your objection to my original post because I never said that attraction logically follows from approximate equalities/overlaps of two measures
Could cybernetics be used within capitalism?
That'd be interesting I've read some people propose it be used on England's healthcare system first.
There ought to be some kind of pilot program of some sort.
Of course. Stafford Beer's job before going to Chile had been giving advice to capitalist companies. The guy who invited Beer to Chile, Fernando Flores, later developed communication software for companies and got rich with that.
>>777125>I've read some people propose it be used on England's healthcare system first
I've heard similar thoughts but for Sweden. so maybe?
why would it? make the workers providing the service responsible to the masses
Well I just posted a picture of the DMV you know it's not known for its good service lol
Isn't it also massively massively underfunded?
you didnt even post a statement that could be denied properly.
if anything quality of service and product alike goes to shit under capitalism.
why should quality of service be bad under socialism?
Well um cause of no competition
You'll get what they give you
>Well um cause of no competition
look at libraries. look at healthcare. unless you're in burgerstan where only those who can afford get decent care
True, I'm staying in Thailand and went to the public doctor when my kids eye got stung by a bug.
It wasn't too bad to be honest.
I even waited just a couple of hours.
But maybe that's cause they're Buddhist I don't know, they're polite people…
Americans on the other hand…
Hell I went to the supermarket today and ofcourse a boomer had to cut in front of me when I was about to go to the check out
One of these days I'm going to punch one of those old bastards if they try me the wrong way
don't punch people just for being rude anon
some queueing is to be expected btw, else you're wasting resources. read queue theory
That isn't an argument, it's some anticommunist's fantasy
They did have more than one soft drink in the GDR and they do have several cigarette brands in North Korea and they try introducing new variants and very unpopular ones get phased out and so on (source: "Made in North Korea", book about graphic design by Nick Bonner). Compared to capitalism, in socialism competition should get shifted more out of consumer feedback (which will still exist of course) into the designing & prototyping phase.
Yeah, if you don’t have mechanisms ti reward people for the quality of it or even have duality control in production overall. This ain’t a problem of not disciplining and punishing workers, but wholly different structural issues that can be solved under socialism
I'd assume that the media would be a monopoly like most things under socialism which would sway public opinion anyways.
But this guy>>782286
Claims that there'd be artificial competition.
direct democracy is when masses get conditioned to support their state… indeed. what a shit bait, unfunny and dishonest
Well then stop assuming so much shit you weirdo, doesn't work well when you want to learn.
Having multiple or only a single project designing/providing goods depends on the situation (e.g kitchen appliances vs fusion reactor) and falls into the realms of politics.
not to mention that websites like kickstarter prove the feasibility of democratic controll over investment choices
How is that direct democracy? this is the worst strawman I've ever seen on /cybersoc/
Guess the media could just be a big YouTube
But the thought of direct democracy without any guide whatsoever can be scary.>>792449
You know what would be interesting? if somebody found a way to quantify machine labor. I've thought about that in the past. Like this machine can produce this amount of labor units.
what the hell is machine labor. how can a machine do labor
Machines have been doing labor since the industrial revolution, that's how capitalism came to be I think.
That's an online poll not a refrendum
machines don't produce labour time units, since their work is not (yet) universal, as opposed to human labour. They do however act as a productivity bonus to the human labourer, reducing their time requirement (Or: freeing a part of society's total labour time to be used for different activities). This can be measured by adding up labour time costs in the final product when a certain machine is used in a certain way of production.
If we want to get boring responses that don't get everyone killed we can just include Chinese people in our polls and give their population proportional weight.>>792405
I'm not sure what you mean by artificial. People compete for respect among colleagues, friends, family (and last but not least: the other sex). Perhaps you think of some companies growing and others going under as real
competition and anything else as less real, but it's ultimately people who compete. The way it is in capitalism is that if my boss has a stupid idea, me and my colleagues may suffer tremendously (company going out of business) as a result of this decision we have no input into. But I don't see why we couldn't just have competing designs without that suffering.>>792528
Machine labor as simple physical movement can be quantified by e.g. horsepower.
I second everyone else here saying CS/math. If possible do a double major/degree if possible in your country. If not I'd say CS is better. Sometimes there a "Computing and Maths" degrees that are combined as well.
>>793977>>machine labor>don't make me call Jenny anon. machines do not create value.>read Capital
And that's why nobody takes you guys seriously.
anon we have threads on here regularly where some idiot goes "but what about muh AI?" and it always turns out they have read zero theory and want to be spoonfed learns
following your suggestion 3/4 of your pay now goes to the computer you use at your job. Judging from your comment it will certainly make better use of it (none, that was an insult)
forget the pay, anon's computer now gets to VOOT. and because it's running 100 copies of itself in their own little virtual machines they too get to voot
I'm learning Cramer's method now, I've learned Gauss' method before. Is Cramer's more efficient?
doesn't look useful for large systems, and looks worse than forming an explicit inverse
for sparse systems iterative methods are used, like Jacobi or Gauss-Seidel
I don't understand what is said here yet but thanks!
Being able to calculate the price of things within a socialist economy is cool and all but what's cooler is AI
Here's a video about the current state of AI in videogames, it made me feel better not being able to beat the AI on hard lolhttps://youtu.be/PK2LhtL3b9U
I should probably post about financial AI though, that's the most relevant to economic planning
I should add that you will have a hard time finding any real info on financial AI because well… It is really really profitable
only 30+ and butterfaces should have beards. twunks like victor with cute faces should not hide their faces
BSci (Computer Science) here, seconding >>803184
Like you suggested, what you posted is cool, fun and interesting but essentially irrelevant. AI is overhyped by people who don't understand it (and those who want to sell it).
>>792528>You know what would be interesting? if somebody found a way to quantify machine labor. I've thought about that in the past. Like this machine can produce this amount of labor units.
I consider machines to be tools, just like a hammer. In fact, a literal wedge or a screw are technically considered simple machines, and I don't see a reason why advanced machines should be considered different just because less labor is required to operate them to accomplish more. This includes factory machines and computers.
As some commenters said before, we tend not to design machines that require the same things humans and other animals do, for obvious reasons, so they don't really have use for rights and participation in our economy or political systems.
Animal labor is an interesting idea as they actually have desires and needs more similar to humans. Even societies advanced enough to plan an economy use cattle as laborers (transport, entertainment, food production, professional athletes [oh boy]) and other animals (guiding people with perceptual disadvantage, herding, tracking and rescue, chemical/drug detection in security situations). Is there any academic interest in how animals could (if they should) be compensated thoughtfully in a planned economy?
Actually, that food production part raises an interesting question: is reproduction and raising a child classified as labor? It has obvious effects on the workforce, and has successfully been commercially outsourced (childcare services, babysitting, primary education). Babby question I know, but I haven't seen it discussed yet. Linking to an existing discussion/debate/book is certainly appropriate.
[I realize there's some derail bait in there about philosophy and animal rights, so don't go too off-topic]
Yeah everyone on the field says that.
But then the accountants lose their jobs.
Nothing to worry about.
cramers method is more useful in proofs imo
I get the feeling Paul doesn't know enough calculus. like that capitalism can be described as a delay differential equation (DDE)>>805352>Is there any academic interest in how animals could (if they should) be compensated thoughtfully in a planned economy?
non-human animals aren't economic subjects anon. but you raise an interesting point that they are certainly more of a "subject" than a machine is>is reproduction and raising a child classified as labor?
yes. Marx goes into this in Capital. labour that is necessary for reproducing society is productive by definition. this is why since entering the workforce, women are now more exploited than men, since women still do most of the necessary housework in addition to their wage labour
bro "AI" is a meme buzzword, accountants get replaced by table calculating software that only needs a few inputs
>>806736>capitalism can be described as a delay differential equation (DDE)
just imagine capitalism as an ordinary differential equation (ODE) first. then you will see that the business cycle is nothing but an eigenmode. but that doesn't take delays into account, hence DDE, which makes these modes even more likely and more complicated
someone with more knowledge than me in these things could formalize Capital like that, and it might even be worthwhile. perhaps Shaikh or Magariño is up to the task. I'm only comfortable with ODEs
It's not accounting software
You have to fill out info for accounting software
I'm assuming accounting AI is automated
Like it takes info from the cash register or whatever, creates an invoice and turns into a tax form or something like that
There's also the expenses I guess, but those can be taken from the bank account
Either way I'm assuming that it's more than just tax software, you're the ai expert supposedly
anon stuff like that already happens to a great extent, especially in larger firms. tying the PoS system to the accounting system is mostly a matter of API calls. we have these "AIs" called programmers that do stuff like that, saving labour in the long run
Can we stop being so smug about this and just treat it as it's treated in academic/professional circles – as synonymous with machine learning, neural networks?
I remember reading this a long time ago, kinda cool. soviets were going to try predict economies using equations it says.
guess i've read all the unprofessional and non academic papers and books where there was differentiated between those terms
was meant for >>811719
those tools are useful yes, but they're still mostly interpolation/extrapolation and classification
the average AI thread on here starts by implying computers can perform abstract labour. buying into the hype completely
one major problem with say neural networks is that they're almost entirely inscrutable, almost by design. compare this to linear or quadratic regression where we're far more able to reason around a prediction
similarly with optimization in planning. when we use linear programming we know what constraints are preventing further optimization and thus what we should throw capital at. can you get similar insights out of a neural network?
My understanding of neural networks is bruteforcing a bunch of scenarios with the data is given.
Which is good enough for planning an economy in my opinion.
Hell 70% of wallstreet is ran by AIs which means 70% of economic resource allocation is already handled by AI
We don't need hal9000>Abstract labor
Well yeah it can do some of that too, like how much cement a building needs in order to get built, sorry if it hurts your feelings
>>812815>My understanding of neural networks is bruteforcing a bunch of scenarios with the data is given.>Which is good enough for planning an economy in my opinion.
I'm curious how you think an NN could do planning. how do you solve a system of constraints with an NN?>Well yeah it can do some of that too, like how much cement a building needs in order to get built, sorry if it hurts your feelings
that's not what abstract labour means anon. read Marx>>812888>>812945
have you played Workers & Resources?
>>812815>Hell 70% of wallstreet is ran by AIs which means 70% of economic resource allocation is already handled by AI
you not only do not understand what "AIs" is, you also do not understand that economic resource allocation is more than buying and selling shares or whatever.
wallstreet and algorithmic trading have nothing to do with the reality of allocating material resources and labour
A share of a corporation represents all the labor and resources the corporation uses among other things if you think about it.
>>813514>inevitable unsustainability of captitalism
type error detected!
guys how does the economy work… i need book recommendations
book that arent outdated please
going to agree with the other anon here. based
Go back to twitter Logo
The Parecon guys have a discussion about effort ratings: https://forum.participatoryeconomy.org/t/questioning-effort-rating/180
Here is my take.
The key principle of Parecon is that people get more influence over things that affect them more. What does this mean for effort-based remuneration?
When it comes to your work team having a fund for paying a bonus based on effort, surely you as an individual are more affected by the decision how to rate your effort than a random co-worker of yours. Picture eleven guys that have a common cash box to reward effort. One of the guys takes ten dollars from that because he thinks he deserves that. On average he is just taking one dollar from each of the other ten guys. Those other guys together only lose as many dollars as that one guy gains. It follows that within a work group an individual's opinion about the own performance should have a weight of 50 %. So if every individual can give the self-estimate that they deserve the maximum effort payment, they should be guaranteed to get at least half of that. To be able to guarantee that everyone can get half the maximum effort reward if they ask for it as individuals requires that the maximum effort reward is no higher than twice the average reward. If you can obtain the average reward if you want no matter what others say about you and likewise for all your co-workers, it follows that being able to pay out anything above average is only possible as a consequence of some individuals (at the very least one person) making the decision to grab less for themselves than what they are enabled to by rules designed following the key principle. People who are content with the average-sized effort reward or some lower amount shouldn't have to tactically exaggerate their self-rating to get that for themselves. Arranging appropriate feedback-aggregating rules to meet this requirement is trivial.
Once might criticize setting a remuneration bonus based on effort ratings in the way described here as toothless for motivation. Imagine 1001 workers in a place and 1000 rate worker X as lazy, but worker X disagrees and so gets the average bonus. But suppose the rating procedure is not anonymized, then there will be group pressure. (To be precise: The data doesn't have to be shared with the public at large, only among the co-workers. And not all the ratings have to be de-anonymized, only your self-rating and your received average.) As long as people can still get thrown out of a work group, I don't think setting the bonus as basically "self-service" would be a big problem.
just let remuneration be a social thing that is agreed upon between coworkers
That doesn't mean anything.
Christ, this sounds nightmarish. Just pay everyone the same rate unless circumstance dictates otherwise (specialised skills, bonuses to encourage performance, etc).
yes it does. see below>>822876
we don't call this the remuneration problem for nothing
should workers be paid a flat sum regardless of the amount of labour performed? an hourly wage? piece wages? how about risky jobs like dive welding?
on the consumption side, what goods and services should require payment and which ones should be provided freely? should healthcare be provided freely, even to simulants? how about food? perhaps staples like potatoes could be provided freely, but things like saffron surely cannot
this is why I say these are social issues that we can't decide a priori. it must be left to lower levels in the system to hash out. it might even differ geographically
>>822890>should workers be paid a flat sum regardless of the amount of labour performed? an hourly wage? piece wages? how about risky jobs like dive welding?
I said unless circumstance dictates otherwise, meaning there are exceptions obviously. But the amount paid out in these situations should be determined by how much extra needs to be paid to get people to do the task, not based upon subjective nonsense like estimations of effort.
Denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.
once I get on adhd meds again I will read this post and make a solid effort to understand it's content
>>822901>I said unless circumstance dictates otherwise, meaning there are exceptions obviously
of course. but let me put it this way: how do we deal with the NEET question?
I agree that "effort" is very subjective. you either do piece wages or hourly wages, maybe with a small UBI also
If Cockshit gets COVID I'm personally going to hunt down the virus and beat the shit out of it >:(
>>823361>how do we deal with the NEET question?
>>823361>how do we deal with the NEET question?
By requiring people who are able to work to do so? If you actually mean how do you stop people from slacking off once at work, that's easy enough; just use a base + bonus type of system, where there is a (relatively low) floor that people can't fall below, but to get full pay certain targets have to be hit. This of course assumes that these kind of incentives are required. Why evidence suggests that for basic routine work pay scales increase productivity, in professional environments graded pay create perverse incentives and actually lead to worse outcomes (eg. researchers falsifying data).
I'd also like to add that the "NEET problem" is largely a result of abusive work conditions and long hours under capitalism. Significantly shortening the work week combined with improving labour conditions would largely solve the problem. People would be much less inclined to avoid working if it wasn't such awful soul sucking torture that consumes almost your entire life. I feel that these kind of discussions tend to assume that capitalist work conditions (highly intensive, dangerous due to lack of proper safely, long hours leading to exhaustion, injury and burnout) would prevail under communism.
>>822921>Denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.
Denial of what? Parecon utopian idiocy? It's one of the few utopian projects that actually sounds so unbearable it makes capitalism look good by comparison. Damn right I deny it.
You first deny the issue ("pay everyone the same rate") and then come around to it ("unless circumstance dictates otherwise (specialised skills, bonuses to encourage performance, etc)"), that's a lot of character development happening over the span of a single sentence.
You have a bad feeling about these decisions. You admit that these decisions have to be done. You want to outsource these decisions to someone in a superior position to the workers. But why? How does this solve anything? Why would these decisions be right (or less wrong) in the hands of somebody elsewhere? Surely the people on the shop floor are most likely in the best position to estimate who gives how much effort. The only reason can be that you worry about the atmosphere at work being poisoned by this shared responsibility, with the fuzziness of outsider decisions being in your eyes a worthy price for avoiding dealing with the issue directly.
But with the limits in the proposal, there isn't really that much to worry about. I rather expected criticism that it would be too weak to motivate people, that they would be disinterested, given how limited this bonus system is. The limits are that no individual can get more than twice the average bonus and any individual can just grab the average for themselves if they want that. There is not much to be afraid of here.
It's probably because workplace democracy and coops are heavily associated with radlibs
>>823694>You first deny the issue ("pay everyone the same rate") and then come around to it ("unless circumstance dictates otherwise (specialised skills, bonuses to encourage performance, etc)"), that's a lot of character development happening over the span of a single sentence.
I've honestly lost track of whether we're talking about co-ops or communist society here. In the case of communism you can't simply have individual groups of workers deciding things like rate of pay, because this is a society wide issue that effects everyone. Secondly, deviations from an equal rate of pay actually increases computational complexity when performing economic calculations, and therefore should be avoided where possible.
If on the other hand we're talking about co-ops in the context of capitalism, then wages are largely determined by market forces, and therefore workers at the co-op have relatively little say in the matter, other than deciding upon things like base pay and bonuses.>>823839>It's probably because workplace democracy and coops are heavily associated with radlibs
Nah, I'm just annoyed by lets-make-every-detail-society-democratic type of ideologies, as if the problems historical socialism had were simply due to people not voting on every minute detail.
>>825427>In the case of communism you can't simply have individual groups of workers deciding things like rate of pay, because this is a society wide issue that effects everyone. Secondly, deviations from an equal rate of pay actually increases computational complexity when performing economic calculations
Parecon has two layers for setting salaries:
1. a comparison between workplaces (e.g. miners have more stressful/risky work than janitors) and
2. within a workplace.
The first layer is the society-wide stuff. The second layer is only about how to distribute a given
amount set by the first layer. I don't see how that would increase computational complexity. The big plan can be done in complete ignorance of what is happening in the second layer.
>>825472>The second layer is only about how to distribute a given amount set by the first layer. I don't see how that would increase computational complexity. The big plan can be done in complete ignorance of what is happening in the second layer
This would seem to imply that money is earned by a firm and then divided up amongst the workers at that firm, rather that labour credit awarded to the individual worker.
It's only money if the workplace has the option to allocate it to something else than the salaries of its people.
In that case I can't see any ill effects.
Sorry if I seem overly skeptical of anything parecon related. I read some of their stuff years ago and thought it sounded utterly unworkable with endless meetings, votes and filling of forms to decide on every facet of production and consumption.
Didn't know british chocolate was this imperialist.
what do people on here think of the Association for the Design of History (ADH)? they've got Philipp Dapprich on board, Cockshott's PhD studenthttps://www.designing-history.world/en
I just noticed this interesting spat:https://keimform.de/2021/critic-of-wage-based-cyber-socialism/https://www.designing-history.world/en/theory/response-to-an-ultra-leftist-critique-of-cybersocialism/
if Dapprich truly thinks that remuneration is used in higher-stage communism then he is wrong. see the discussion we're having just now in this very thread. I don't however buy this part of Sutterlütti's critique:>To sum up, wage-socialism is still a society based on the logic of exclusion, where the best way to satisfy one’s needs is at the expense of present and future others
this part however is correct:>But Marx and many other communists clearly thought “according to ability” means workers doing things because they think it important and/or want to do it (even [wikipedia] got that right)
Dapprich's response to this is lackluster I think. he seems to try to say that labour voucher wages aren't wages at all. but clearly they are, no matter what you call them. to me the discipline that wages impose is a necessary evil in a society that's just coming out of capitalism. there is necessarily many generations, hundreds of years, before society will have matured enough where wages or perhaps even remuneration can be done away with. but right now people are not socialized this way
the examples Dapprich bring up of unpleasant work are indeed things that we'd likely have to pay people more to do, in lower-stage communism. but by definition
this does not occur in higher
-stage communism. Dapprich seems to reject higher-stage communism outright:>But the sort of activities needed to grow food for 7 billion people and to provide them with computers and rail infrastructure are not of this sort and I don’t think people would voluntarily engage in these activities to the degree that is necessary and justified by their useful effect.
materialist worldview is incompatible with theism or belief in the supernatural
Keimform blogger says:<Who does the garbage collection and other undesired jobs? Likewise Cockshott/Cottrell and Michael Albert (Parecon) argue – based on an idea of justice – that all work should be equally rewarded and only (small) differentiations due to performance should be allowed.
? Here is Michael Albert, in his book "No Bosses":<Why should your more productive inborn genetic characteristics—greater strength, beautiful singing voice, greater speed, amazing memory, or better reflexes, or your more productive work tools or more effective workmates, or even the fact that you produce a more valuable output, ethically entitle you to more income?<In none of these cases would giving you extra income reward some activity of yours, but, instead, it would reward only your luck in the genetic, equipment, workmate, or assigned product lottery.
He speaks of remuneration for "duration, intensity, and onerousness", not productivity, plus some needs-based adjustments. Likewise Hahnel in "Democratic Economic Planning" speaks of "effort, or personal sacrifice" plus some needs-based adjustments.
Cottrell and Cockshott write in TANS about public-funded education (which includes food and housing) and conclude:<So there need be no individual expense or earnings-loss on the part of a student, for which compensation is required.
And:<The fact remains that some jobs are less pleasant than others. Socialist society has to decide whether this problem is going to be dealt with by improving the conditions and quality of work, or by paying incentives to people who do the nasty jobs.
So again, it's about onerousness and not performance.
Blogger says:<Again, the wage-socialist enterprises look out for bonuses, resources and money/tokens and hide production capacities, produce lower quality, and delay the products.
Assertion without argument. Other assertions without arguments follow (muh black markets), with no reason given why these would exist to the same degree as in the USSR or why they wouldn't be big issues (or no issues?) in whatever magical thing the blogger has in his head but doesn't share with the audience. Vague assertions about bureaucrats as a class and workers exploiting the third world.
Blogger says:<In our model – commonism – we usually differentiate between two types of goods: some will be produced in such quantity, that they can be taken freely, others are scarce and therefore prioritizing mechanisms of distribution are necessary.
Given that many different things share common inputs (steel, electricity, plastic etc.) which are all limited, this is nonsense not based on physical reality. It would only make sense to propose such a procedure for some stuff if you could really show that its production is automatic from first inputs to end product. Proposing plural mechanisms
is also not grounded in any reasoning whatsoever, but the failure to think things through. Distinct mechanisms mean you as a consumer can only set priorities within
each category with its own procedure, but not across; in other words: The more distribution mechanisms you have (for a given state of technology and resources), the less freedom you have.
Blogger asks what options exist for distribution and what follows is a paragraph of half-baked quarter-baked
drivel, vastly inferior to leftypol's cookie algorithm (which isn't that great either). The blogger dogmatically asserts that people will find a way to be spontaneously motivated to do whatever and everything will work out (reminds me of the old joke about the economist on the island saying: "Assume a can opener…").
>>826310>It would only make sense to propose such a procedure for some stuff if you could really show that its production is automatic from first inputs to end product
this will never happen. see: the endless discussions around """AI""". but what might
happen is that the value of certain goods becomes so low that it's not worth bothering demanding payment for them. just take however many potatoes you need>leftypol's cookie algorithm
hm?>The blogger dogmatically asserts that people will find a way to be spontaneously motivated to do whatever and everything will work out (reminds me of the old joke about the economist on the island saying: "Assume a can opener…").
it seems the author thinks we can move immediately to higher-stage communism. if this is the case then this debate can be summarized as
Dapprich: higher-phase communism is impossible/undesirable
Sutterlütti: we can go immediately to higher-phase communism
neither of which is correct
Cookie algorithm: https://pastebin.com/bPyr7Vau
You state the number of units you want of an item, and you are guaranteed to get that if you demand no more than the proportional share (number of units available divided by number of people, rounded down). Moreover, if you have a particular amount in mind that you want, you do not increase the probability of getting at least that amount by stating a different number.
>neither of which is correct
But given that this is an assumption about the long run, Dapprich's position on that is not important, whereas spreading the position of the Keimform writers as if that were possible soon is damaging.
budget is scalar but demand is vector valued?>But given that this is an assumption about the long run, Dapprich's position on that is not important, whereas spreading the position of the Keimform writers as if that were possible soon is damaging.
Dapprich is more pessimistic you could say, which is certainly the safer position
another useless scholastic "debate" about abstract concepts like "communism" and hair-splitting over its "stages", it's all so tiresome
on the wage differentials question, I think society with a democratically planned economy would tend to wage equalization on some "general accepted quality of life level" based on a particular morally necessary basket of goods at a particular stage of development of the productive forces, with some major differentiation for some types of jobs based on their short supply, hazardous conditions, low social prestige etc
this is why I say we should just leave remuneration to the political system. the only thing that's necessary as far as planning is concerned is that the amount of concrete labour performed is accurately reported, whatever amount of labour vouchers this results in
You Will Never Be A Bureaucrat
No budgets. You just state you want so many units of X from the pile of produced things, so many units of Y, and so on. You run this for each product. (I'm not saying that's a great idea but that's how it works.)
but "budget" is a scalar parameter in the function
very simple greedy algorithm either way
Unless parecon types have their way, in which case everyone will be a fucking bureaucrat.
States issue money in order to levy taxes. Workers must sell something (labor power, cash crops…) to acquire currency to pay their taxes, leading to commodity production.
so is dickblast an MMT guy?
It sounded like he'd talk about it more in a future video
>>837062>an economy is the sum of the transactions that make it up
oh boy, we're not off to a good start here>credit cycles are due to muh human nature
stopped watching right there
Post programs. I want to see how computer planning is done by looking at code. I remember there was Cockshott github project (java applet program) but no data in it.
Holy fuck this nyearplan program is retarded, holy shit HAHAAHA. Garbage structural coding in OOP language, every method is static, every variable is global… This guy is CS professor, he should be ashamed of himself
cs isnt programming
Ya that shit is unfortunately common amongst academic cs software. When he was studying that was probably how he was taught to program.
Actually I only remember professors telling me do not declare global variables and this was in the 2000s.
By then it probably would have been known not to use global variables. Paul is like 65 years old or something so he would've been studying CS in the 80's.
this. People forget OOP was a niche thing like functional programming is today, until the 90s
Is there any other material where Cockshott (or Cottrell) expands upon their criticisms of Democratic Centralism?
that's how most CLI programs are written anon. carrying global state around on the stack quickly gets tedious. OOPtards even reinvented globals by calling them singletons, hoping no one would notice
>try reading marx
this shit is outdated
>>845557>another victim for chapters 1-3 of capital vol 1
>>845557>Filtered by commodity deffinition
You look at a surface and you try to figure out if there is something underneath that causes this. You can't even poke at that something that is supposedly underneath, you are just guessing about based on the surface patterns, so it's particularly important to have a simple model. If you have too much freedom in your model so that you can link one and the same surface to bazillions of different configurations inside the internals of your model that would be all compatible with the surface, are you really doing science? I show you what the surface looks like right now and ask you what will it likely look like in the near future. You reply that you don't have enough data with just the surface snapshot, so I show you a series of surface snapshots. You say you still can't make a prediction, not even a rough one, because your model predictions change drastically based on which of many, many, many different model configurations you pick which are all compatible with the observed data, basically anything can happen. But after something happened, you assure me, you can deduce something about the internal configuration at that point in the past (still millions of different possibilities). And how much can these internals change over a few days I ask you. You say anything goes. Neoclassical economics.
Too much freedom here means number of of "internal" states (the thing that isn't observable and theorized about) exceeding the "external" states (the observable stuff that the model is supposed to predict).
He's basically appealing to Occam's Razor
>>840903>codemonkey triggered by global variables>b-b-buy muh coding style!11
algos dip, it's all bout algos
virgin OOP vs chad global variables. >>840903
probably wants every function to be accompanied by an object as is typical for javatards
revert to the asiatic mode of production
calculate with pen and paper
EMP is a meme. similar things happen all the time. we call them lightning strikes and solar flares
Lack of political will and lack of real world success
might be due to still-lingering backlash from '89-'91
planning is still seen as fringe in the academic left
the CCP allowing porkies in its ranks doesn't help
perhaps we should approach the Chinese New Left
Can anyone find Towards a new socialism in Hungarian? I've found the first few pages, but nothing else. I would love to send it to some friends
Just finishing up the lectures on money on https://tv.leftypol.org/r/MovieNight
Will replay them again later for people who want to watch/discuss together
This showing is over but the lectures will play again at 5pm UTC, in roughly 1 hour 20 minutes
gonna play the money lectures in 5 minuteshttps://tv.leftypol.org/r/MovieNight
>>859983>Innovation and incentives are much more important issues
you speak as though these are not things that we talk about
The capitalist reforms harmed innovation, incentives to improve, and muh productive forces you philistine motherfucker. I support a cybernetically planned economy so long as it can account for slave labour from dengoids, loliuyghurs, and stupidpol.
it is a question of "why doesn't the ruling class take measures that harm their class position to the benefit of the proletariat"
praise the Omnissiah!
I can't believe I read through all that liberalism
Having 20 companies compete to research the same product, while keeping trade secrets, patent protection and the profit motive harms innovation immensely. Not to mention any basic science is ignored in favor of finding the next TikTok ad algorithm scheme.
>>863968<Implying he wouldn't enjoy it
Somebody buy him a copy
What exactly is supply and demand? after all these years i still dont get it.
it's really how market price fluctuates around a money value associated with human labor. It is abstractly, a bit like standard deviation for particular commodities if you are more familiar with that. Bourgeois economists say that it is entirely responsible for price even though supply and demand cancel out on their graphs at an observable price. They cope by drawing imaginary curves but if, you'll recall from algebra, you have a curve then that means you need a higher order equation. Bigger equations are harder to justify so the bourgeois conception of price falls apart here. There's a bourgeois study called econometrics that mostly abandons the concept of supply and demand and is thus closer to reality.am I getting this explanation right anons?
audio and video cuts out several times
Contingency plans, ie rationing.
Money doesn't work in war anyway, in war we don't need to massively balance consumer goods, most of production can be generalized and proportioned adjusted as supply of materials wane and increase.
there will be no war because the whole world will be socialist :)
>>854095>What do we do if the enemy decides to detonate an EMP and fuck with our entire system?
Every advanced system has this vulnerability. A powerful EMP blast would wreck a capitalist system just as badly. Everybody that is able to build an EMP weapon is also vulnerable to it. That means you can prevent it from being used via mutually assured EMP.
kek, our autistic saviour is kinda cute isn't he?
Launch the fucking nukes of course, what else? MAD all the way, how would you even determine that the enemy nuke isn't going to detonate on the ground?
How is this magical extraordinarily powerful EMP not a problem now? You could take out most existing capitalist infrastructure with an EMP targeted at Amazon AWS data centers.
lol this guys is if I made a planning video
Hardin makes some good arguments, but most of it feels so superficial… Hope that his presentations improve with time.
That depends on what he means by reforms. If it's things like the minimum wage or reducing the working week then reforms are clearly possible.
tomas hardin, i know youre lurking here
fighting implies they have a chance. not the case.
sure, but antagonizing them brings nothing good
dude is OLD
he just doesn't give a fuck bout twitter optics
radlibs as in trans people or radlibs as in liberal economists?
how will tuxcels ever recover?
mount /dev/sda# /mnt
mount /dev/sda# /mnt/boot
pacman -S linux
its about trans-shit
literally all he has to do is shut the fuck up about the topic forever and nobody will badmouth him, he's only making it more difficult for me to recommend his channel.
I don't really believe that would cut out more than 20 % of the haters, tops. There are many people who are self-styled critical and radical folks, but actually hostile to communism. Since they have no competence relevant to argue for the position they care so much about, they latch onto something else. And there are plenty of choices for that move, they can also bring up that he doesn't denounce Stalin enough etc.
>>884002>they can also bring up that he doesn't denounce Stalin enough etc.
that happens anyway. doesn't mean you need to hand the radlibs ammo
>>883620>he's only making it more difficult for me to recommend his channel.
Doesn't that just reinforce the point that the trans stuff is just culture war bullshit to distract from real class politics? As in: if your opinion on *whatever makes you less likely to engage in class politics, it is pro your opposite class.
There have definitely been alot of opportunistic market socialists and ancaps who latch onto the TERF shit as an excuse to criticize/cancel cockshott for his economic positions which they dont like
For those who can read German: Helmut Dunkhase just published Plädoyer für Planwirtschaft, a book that summarizes the discussion about economic reform in the USSR/GDR and outlines the TANS model.
It's still dumb boomer chauvinism albeit likely in good faith and delusional presumptions. It is only alienating to people. What are you supposed to do if you are a trans communist or something?
>>895024>What are you supposed to do if you are a trans communist or something?
Stop beng a little whiny bitch and realise youre in this because youre a prole and not because youre an attack helicopter?
Go be a trans activist in a trans activist org, dont come to a prole org and complain
I prefer dead tree copies
Do you have the book?
I read a physical copy of the Dunkhase book. He's a mathematician who has 99 % the same viewpoint as Cockshott (he had translated TANS into German). The only difference is that he has a deeper knowledge about the GDR.
how will you have a revolution when society keeps getting better with reform. that is a contradiction.
Why does Cockshott hate trans pppl so much
Yearly check to see if anyone has programmed a working real model of cybersoc
>>896911>leftyanons can program software larger in scope than the most advanced ERP software that corporations pay millions for
idealism on par with building communism in your local neighborhood
Why can't it be done on the the scale of a single firm or two firms? That would need to be made and seems relatively simple.
so wait, you want "real" software for an abstract two-product economy?
as much as we'd like, you can't program a revolution
Cope response, demanding perfection just so you can say it's impossible.>>896955 >>896967
More slacker cope. Toy models are a starting point and then you add things to it. A version 0.01 is better than nothing. Besides, not everything in cybernetics is about the national level.
Isn't any game with cybersoc premises? That's d fun to play and help popularize the concept
you already have ms excel and lp solve, what other "real" software do you need to plan a two-product "economy"?
hell, you could use pen and paper to "plan" it lol
>>896979>Toy models are a starting point
yeah and any course on linear programming will include such models
the real problem isn't the math but people. you have to get to where you have a system that people are able and willing to interact with, where developers of the system are given feedback by users. you can build all the models you want, but unless you're doing this as part of a historical process then it is nothing but idealism
we could maybe get a pilot project of some kind going, which requires two things: class aware workers and access to means of production
>>894947>Plädoyer für Planwirtschaft
Any chance of an english translation?
I largely agree, in that it will have to be developed in terms of feedback from a real planned economy.
they use the same math dip, only implemented in proprietary algos
only they maximize profits, but you could use it to maximize some basket of goods or whatever
So then create it? It would literally be the most helpful thing for cybersoc. To produce an actual working program to show people it's not just a bunch on math on paper but no you spend another hundred years doing jackshit.
>>898048>So then create it?
again, the limiting factor here is people. in much of the west knowledge of what planning even is
is nil. it's going to take agitation first of all, which I know people are doing
starting at the most basic, food, you'll want to convince farmers to join. groups like via campesina might be sympathetic
cockshott has posted many models before, go check them out if you're so interested instead of posting your "gotcha"
It's not working models. It's a program that goes "steel 1-0-3-1". That's not a working model. I want the program that firms will have to implement on their computers.
>>898477>I want the program that firms will have to implement on their computers.
you mean a protocol?
I mean something that is available to the masses and usable for them, that visualizes everything, is open source, and point & click. Likehttps://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/crowds/ https://ncase.me/ballot/
Marx published manuscripts on differential functions and you can argue that he understood what algorithms are even before this term was well-defined.
Mr. Marx disagreed with you
So did Mr. Engels
So did Mr. Lenin
So do I
You have to win trust of the workers first before thinking of revolutions.
Revolution and reform were never mutually exclusive. Reform needs revolution, revolution needs reform. The revolution is the stronger element though.
This would make sense if you can think in dialectic terms, but…since we are in the Cockshott thread, I will refrain
this is an interesting point that could be its own thread tbh
revolutionary parties can make proposals that obviously get shot down by porky which they can then point to in order to explain why revolution is necessary
Where does Cockshott keep finding all these obscure interviewers? literally every interview video involves some literally who I can barely find any content from.
thanks anon will check this out when i have the time
holy shit, cocky looks like some space flotilla admiral on that thumbnail
it's a banger of a banner yes
These interviews are great, love the bit in the middle lmao
computer science, industrial engineering, operations research
ERP systems basically just manage a digital version of an organization and is composed of various modules. Even ignoring profit maximization, the manufacturing resource planning modules that essentially just manage labor and resource planning is very valuable. Of course you can do this in something as simple as excel. but creating something that scales is a highly non-trivial task.
That's not really how NN work. Also machine learning isn't really that great for planning at the moment (leaving reinforcement learning aside for the moment), these problems are typically handled using optimization methods instead.
no real economist says the actual market price is entirely determined by supply and demand. The production functions are fundamental to even Econ 101 tier results.
There's a reason Cockshott acts dismissive when AI/ML is brought up; it's basically an unnecessary middleman. I don't doubt you could train an AI to efficiently allocate resources in an economy, but why would you? It would fundamentally use the same math we already have, just in a black box sort of way that'd make it hard to double-check it's work if it does something unexpected. Better to have clean and openly available code we can actually critique and modify than that.
To add to this, machine learning shines in applications where some kind of decision needs to be made, and manually programming every possible option is impractical. This is why it's useful for things like translation. But with cybernetics, linear programming, etc. we already have ways to make the economy self-regulating.
I'm sorry, Comrade Cockshott sounds like a terrible gay porn
Is labor vouchers compatible with cybernetic socialism? I personally believe it makes the most sense as the alternative to currency in capitalism.
the black box argument is one I make too. that is, why linear programming is preferable to most ML crap. with a linear program you know which constraints are holding you up>>929565>Is labor vouchers compatible with cybernetic socialism?
Yes, they're pretty fundamental to Cockshott's model
>first chapter is about sex
he's american so thats bonkers (yes i watched one video)
parecon isn't very new idea t b f with you f a m
>>936406>parecon isn't very new idea t b f with you f a m
they've been doing this since the early 90's at least. that isn't really the kind of useful criticism I'm looking for
well i just read wikipedia page and it has a 'useful
criticism' as you say
sounds like some c4ss retarded fed shit
No, its not c4ss shit its better than that but Hanhnel still subscribes to neoclassical ideas to a far too great extent
there's some marginalism garbo but it's not c4ss muh markets tier
I get the feeling Hahnel thinks Penispew's proposal is "Gosplan with big computer", but actually the two of them agree on a lot of things except the LTV
can someone post bullet points of what parecon is?
I tried to watch the video but failed
thanks for posting anon
>>946070>misspells dietzgen several times
Based anglo dabbing on the germoid language
Holy fuck the culmination of the recent clips into this video is exactly what I've been waiting for
HERE WE GO BOYS MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM-COCKSHOTT THOUGHT
why has no one in here talked about Elena Veduta yet? she's the daughter of Nikolay Veduta and seems very basedhttps://zavtra.ru/blogs/rationalization
on Russian economists using her father's work only for analytics:>It is very bad that modern economists make calculations using false information and thereafter get some false results. The question arises: what is the purpose of your calculations, and why do you have orders for these calculations, isolated from the economy management? The answer is: to get plenty of money easily and to have no responsibility.
on Glushkov being a bit of a STEM-lord:>Viktor Mikhailovich Glushkov was not an economist. We all have the same big misfortune: everyone thinks that he understands economics. […] But people with technical or mathematical background think that they understand the most complex issues of economics. Therefore, Glushkov, not possessing a deep knowledge of economics, had no doubts to create the National Automated System (OGAS). This resulted in failure.
on zombie neoliberalism:>Today, the whole world is going through a certain shock, and does not understand what to do with the dying economy. The governments of all countries are moving in the direction of management of the people, rather than management of the economy. They are trying to use digital technology to manipulate people and for total control in a collapsing economy.
she seems to think it's possible to get Russia on the path towards economic cybernetics
Maybe i'll give that a read later because if she advocates for cybernetics it might be worthwhile. But i have to tell you that rant about Glushkov's credentials, seems like petty academic squabbles and gate keeping.
Could be because of the translation, but this is all super-vague :/ Like, how do they want to get rid of corruption? Is it by using game theory to reduce the gap between the honest statements and the strategically optimized statements or by just collecting more information, so there will be simply less space for lying? Both?>>953446
I suppose she is critical of Glushkov for just assuming honest and accurate inputs.
Ai is a meme. They can only store and retrieve information, the generative power is very low. Any satisfactory result from a CNN is usually cherry picked by researchers unless it's in an extremely narrow problem domain.
Here is my ranking best to meh:
Computer science (theoretical curriculum school)
Computer science (software engineering curriculum)
it's almost like AI is just glorified regression or something
you're often better off just using regular old polynomial regression. no voodoo involved>>953446
petty academic squabbles is where this thread is at. like the conflict between Glushkov and Kantorovich described in Red Plenty>>953490>Could be because of the translation, but this is all super-vague :/
I wouldn't say vague so much as.. the usual question of how we get this shit off the ground
I see she has some videos on youtube. will have to check them out
just listened to embed related. the audio is terrible, but she goes over the economic history of the USSR and touches on cybernetics near the end. she points out that the USSR had to invent planning themselves, that it was a flying by the seat of their pants situation, and that despite this they made huge strides as we all know. she also highlights that it's very important to get the mechanism
right, which I agree with. IMO Gosplan seems to have been founded by mathlets
also in the video below she makes the point that planning in the USSR was slow, that it was cybernetics with a bad connection. she wants to establish some kind of global center for cybernetic socialismhttps://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=HMaQCYZrQoQ
>>953946>she wants to establish some kind of global center for cybernetic socialism
I'd very much support such a thing
Do you know the name of it? Does it have a website yet?
>>954918>Do you know the name of it? Does it have a website yet?
no idea. something to dig into, maybe set up
someone send this video to cockshott
What on earth do you people get out of this? "Oogabooga computer socialism good." Yeah ok I guess. Audio is unbearable. Leftypol seems to believe that the worse the audio is, the deeper the theory must be.>>955113
>>955210>Leftypol seems to believe that the worse the audio is, the deeper the theory must be.
Shit he's onto us, guys…
shit shit shit shit
kill -9 everything!>>955113
I emailed him about it. I suspect he already knows because he's mentioned her father
How common is cybernetics in academia? My computer professor in college said his area of expertise is cybernetics but he writes in a science context. His politics are boomer republican
he probably means cybernetics in the pop sci sence. wearables, AR, VR, ubiquitous computing
He said he had something to do with management. Nothing about tech
I'm frightened and confused by Cockshotts criticism of dialectics in his recent videos
he got that anglo analytical brain
if the principal of quantity into quality is rejected in regards to physical properties of light then what would this imply for qualitative leaps in the development of societies? Is that just a step function or is it too continuous?
>>956035>frightened and confused
Don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing the life's work of people based on a few statements in what isn't even their native language. But the two articles available in English and that video interview aren't informative.
What does she have, an algorithm, a criterion for judging algorithms, some argument that some algorithm that has high worst-case complexity will terminate in time because of the structure of the data it gets fed, a way to relabel aspects of a certain problem revealing it to be equivalent to some other well-understood issue, some good and fast approximation of some goal that is strictly speaking not feasible to compute in time, anything?
cybernetics is just the old term for control theory which is used in various branches of engineering and business even
you'll probably want to check out some of her papers:http://www.strategplan.com/en/publications/
I agree she's rather sparse on what is to be done
I would just ignore those videos. some good critique in the comments.
I'm a total newbie into mathematics (I struggle with basic arithmetics, only thing that I know is some functions because I liked them in high school) not even speaking about other sciences, I also don't know much about history and political economy. What prerequisites should I get firm grasp of to understand cybernetics (Like in Wiener's publications) and then econophysics and their proponents like Cockshott?
Also, I've seen that Oskar Lange has made some contributions to econometrics and using cybernetics in the economy despite of being the market socialist. That's what I assume from his wikipedia page, is there any article that tackles his thoughts and contributions to the cybersoc?
the main point is that capitalism nearly by definition cannot be cybernetic
you can use meme models from excel and say that free marked will fix it but thats not uhm cybernetics
another problem that capitalist model is hardly defined, what recardo meant is not the same as what adam smith meant etc
you don't actually have to be good at arithmetic to tackle a lot of math. symbolic manipulation on the other hand..
just throw yourself at what you think sounds interesting. whenever you find something you don't understand then look it up. and so on. often when I read papers I skim the math, at least the first time around>>959569>the main point is that capitalism nearly by definition cannot be cybernetic
capitalism is very much a control system. a shitty one, but a control system nonetheless. in fact lots of neoliberal policy is aimed at stabilizing capitalism
well as in politics, yes its burg rule
So today I learnt that Nasdaq has to run a 700GB RAM computer in every country it has a CSD in, couldn't help but chuckle about how the unoptimised OGAS would have required 100GB. Remind me, what are the arguments for why "cybernetics is utopian!!!!"?
700GB isn't even that much when it comes to server RAM>Remind me, what are the arguments for why "cybernetics is utopian!!!!"?
Austrians will deny the possibility of planning no matter what
its fucking nothing for super computer as well
did you know that quantum computer shortens calculation time from 600 million years to 20 minutes ?
also thats not even the good (or even "full quantum") machines that we have
>>960349>did you know that quantum computer shortens calculation time from 600 million years to 20 minutes ?
this depends on the problem that you're solving, and also that quantum supremacy is possible. the jury is still out on the latter
My point is more that modern capitalism has to relly on just as byzantine and computationally expensive calculation as an in-kind economy would, just to make sure you can correctly make a most basic stock trade, hell, perhaps even more than in-kind economies. I think what most pisses me off about capitalist ideologues is that they are a fucking joke that would never be taken seriously by ANY actual capitalist, no less one who deals with the actual living breathing infrastructure of globalized moloch.
Does that apply to video quality too? Would explain Parenti's yellow tapes
>>960641>just as byzantine and computationally expensive calculation as an in-kind economy would
oh, it's much much worse. in-kind calculation is based on concrete physical terms, and it concerns itself with things that move relatively slowly. there's some inaccuracy in the numbers, but it's nothing like for example high-frequency trading or all manner of unstable and/or dumb shit done in say the stock market>they are a fucking joke that would never be taken seriously by ANY actual capitalist
oh yes definitely. pic very related
theres an extremely fast (often at memory speeds) in-memory integer/float compression libraries, i don't know if cockshott knows about them or that swedish guy who tries to do some calculushttps://github.com/powturbo/TurboPFor-Integer-Compressionhttps://github.com/invertedtomato/integer-compressionhttps://github.com/MarcelPiNacy/VectorCodechttps://github.com/lemire/FastPFor
>>961681>if we substitute multiplication and division it [(A*B)/B)] is going to be valid
except when B=0 lmao Cockshott btfo'd yet again checkmate gommies
you already posted this
excellent movie btw
I seriously think this clip is the best 5 minute explanation of how the modern world works
why didn't Mao have a beard?
maybe he was a beardlet? we can't expect those who are facial hair-ly challenged to grow them of course
Harder for many asians to grow beards (unironic)
literally. have. sex
sex doesn't exist. it's a bourgeois construct designed to mislead the workers
Ian Wright's review of the sequel to Laws of Chaos
, How labor powers the global economy
by Emmanuel Farjoun, Moshé Machover, David Zachariah:https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1395/understanding-capitalist-dynamics/
(It's on libgen.)
I'm at page 75 of this one so this feels very relevant
thanks anons can you also post a pdf
i like the slipped implication that the bible is the pure version and everything else is untouchable heathen junk
wouldn’t be surprised if this person was a christian, especially of the catholic or protestant variety
my guess for an MVP is something like 10,000 people spread across 100 different workplaces, all coordinated with cybernetic planning. you need to cover the basics: food, housing, basic healthcare, plumbing, electricity, internet
Leftypol labor vouchers wouldn't be trademarked because intellectual property will be abolished with the cybernetic socialism model
not so fast
trademarks are obviously useful in a transitionary period. and we'll almost surely want to know where certain goods were made and by which people even in a socialist economy
What is the cookie algorithm?
the bottom part of the maslow's pyramid
what are your choices?
Linear Algebra for starters
Into to linear algebra is required and I'm wondering if I should take a second course in it or take differential equations.
I will eventually be able to take cs electives in: AI, parallel programming, computer vision, functional programming, OOP, numerical computation, computer graphics, probablistic analysis, databases, networks, and cryptography. Just wondering what is used in the current literature on planning.
Also constantly doubting my choice of major and wondering if I should just do applied math instead (no labor aristocrat salary to turn me against the people and and broader knowledge of concepts)
differential equations helps immensely in understanding Capital imo. a lot of what Marx says can be said more succinctly with differentials>parallel programming>numerical computation>databases
these seem the most relevant. high-performance computing is very relevant to large scale planning>Also constantly doubting my choice of major and wondering if I should just do applied math instead
you could choose to be a poorly paid CS researcher also, in addition to being a poorly paid applied math researcher. but also if you make decent bank just donate to various orgs. that's what I do
Give examples of how calculus is used in computer science.
What you learn in college is just a foundation so you can continue learning and understanding the world after you start working. If you want to work in economic planning try to get a job in a company that does logistics such as amazon or walmart. The work experience will teach you much more than what you could learn in school (but don't neglect school either).
machine learning activation functions, limits used in algorithimic complexity, numerical analysis
simulation, numerical methods
calculus is fundamental to almost everything
My advice is this. Uni won't make you a planned economy programmer. It can lay the foundations, but that's it. Basically everything that isn't discreet mathematics or memeshit like code theory will help (although discreet mathematics is a real amazing funhouse, so consider that as well). And in terms of code parallels, appart from AI, vision and graphics, all of that will be helpful as well.
More than anything I recomend you do research into your future lecturers. A shitty one will ruin the experiance and make you hate the chosen subject with a passion, while a good one can make you try far harder than usual and achive great learning results.
shoutout to >>966979
>>973457>Cockshott starts making videos on Mao>anti-Mao threads pop up on /leftypol/
HMM conspiracy anyone?
>>966979>The open problems raised above require further analysis of trends and conjunctural>shifts. However, they cannot be resolved from one’s armchair. Only those who engage>in struggles for a more humane society will have a chance of constructing relevant>answers.
oh uh bordibros, did we get too cocky?
No for real, did he die or not?
no its fake and a troll
So wait, is Cockshott a maoist?
Marxist sectism is stupid. Marxism is a continuous tradition of scientific political sociological and economic theory and study. Identifying as a leninist doesn't mean you reject everything mao wrote, citing mao does not make one a maoist. These lables are only there for us selves to understand the broad strokes of organizational models which people adhere to. Some aspects of maoism, mls, gramci, etc, are right, some are wrong, some are more applicable to certain situations and conditions than others. Cockshott talking about mao or defending an aspect of something he wrote, does not make him a maoist.
the cockshott fandom is dying
like if you're a real cocksucker
Cockshott will save us. Have faith.
One of the fundamental techniques in machine learning is called "gradient descent." A gradient is a kind of derivative, which is a topic central in calculus. Here's a cute tutorial about neural nets that highlights how calculus contributes:https://aegeorge42.github.io/
I can't take dive welding example seriously, automate dive welding. No, not completely clearly. So dive welding becomes engineering not life risking.
No, babies can learn to live under capitalism in 20 years. So adults can learn to live under a superior system in one generation too. We just require a superior education system that is multimodal and hands on
I thought I was reading a good thread then I see this reactionary shit. Everyone fucking hates us for being trans even communists. We have unique issues that exceed just class. Shut the fuck up.
gradient descent sucks
t. Newton gang>>981546>automate dive welding
good luck. start by automating a car mechanic
Unique IPs: 166