No.10737[View All]
READINGhttp://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/For a complete reading list, see:
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/two-reading-lists/Cockshott's Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/williamCockshott/Cockshott's youtube channelhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQCockshott's Blogshttps://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/http://paulcockshott.co.uk/Cockshott's videos torrent archiveHere's the torrent with all of Paul Cockshott's YouTube channel videos up to 27/10/2020 (i.e. Eliminating inequality):
Magnet link:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:d5e5cc7a91228fef2ea213f816b27cfea8185961&dn=Paul%5FCockshott%5F%28October%5F27th%5F2020%29&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2710%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.me%3A2710%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.internetwarriors.net%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cyberia.is%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fexplodie.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fp4p.arenabg.ch%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker1.itzmx.com%3A8080%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker3.itzmx.com%3A6961%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.zerobytes.xyz%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.tiny-vps.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ds.is%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.stealth.si%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.si%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.torrent.eu.org%3A451%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fretracker.lanta-net.ru%3A2710%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fopen.acgnxtracker.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.moeking.me%3A6969%2Fannounce
Torrent file:
https://anonymousfiles.io/RileL0Sn/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
https://archive.is/uNCEYhttps://web.archive.org/web/20201218152831/https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/997358.html 677 posts and 106 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. No.11415
>>3808That SDL glowie made similar objections to Victor Magarino in their debate, which the latter addressed in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKfKv8ezhkEsandinistaSandinista No.11416
>>3807O'Brien is a Kliman stan so he basically follows Klimans criticisms
No.11417
>>3704absolutely infantile
No.11418
>>3628>cockshott graph.pngLOL Imagine having this on the cover of your econ101 textbook. Technically, he is right that the two are not totally orthogonal and the slant is in the direction depicted, but the slant is pretty mild. I suppose you can make something like that about Protestants VS Catholics, too.
>>3670You will not find anything closer to the contemporary viewpoint of American teenage liberals on that issue (which is what you seem to prefer) in Marx.
>>3682>He literally wants labor vouchers<Owen’s “labour-money,” for instance, is no more “money” than a ticket for the theatret. Capital Volume I.
<These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.t. Capital Volume 2.
>>3704>There are no phases of communism<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!t. Critique of the Gotha Programme
>>3762See:
>>3763>>3793>Limit how much they can take if the outlet is having shortages.Labor vouchers also ration things. The difference is that the individual has a choice about priorities when using vouchers. Without that, people will just take things (and not just what they need directly, but they will grab things in order to barter with them). I don't smoke, but I would grab a pack of cigs in such a situation, for example.
No.11419
>>3816>Labor vouchers also ration thingsIn a completely unnecessary and inefficient way.
>The difference is that the individual has a choice about priorities when using vouchersHow about you don't force them to have to think about priorities, and instead allow them to take as they please, so long as it doesn't negatively effect community supplies.
left_communismLeft Communism No.11421
>>3817>so long as it doesn't negatively effect community supplies.What the fuck does this mean? Taking something from a supply automatically means that the community supply is negatively affected. How are you going to ration stuff so it doesn't run out? You haven't explained.
No.11422
>>3818It didn't take long for you to prove Godwin's Law, did it. Do you even know what the context of the original image was? Like you think he's calling for pogroms against homosexuals or something?
No.11424
>>3819>What the fuck does this mean?Can you not figure this out or something? It means don't take too much to the point where people starve or are deprived of something for unnecessary reasons.
>Taking something from a supply automatically means that the community supply is negatively affectedOh jeez, I guess we should just let everyone starve because it would negatively affect the supply if they took anything (what the fuck is the point of saying that dude).
>How are you going to ration stuff so it doesn't run out? Here's a fucking idea: calculate your fucking supply and consumption rate of your community. Estimate the amount of goods you need to keep everyone satisfied until resupply.
If things get low and rationing is needed, get the clerks to start limiting the amount of items one can take.
Not hard.
left_communismLeft Communism No.11425
>>3818>>3628All I see are two correct graphs.
No.11426
>>3822> don't take too much to the point where people starve How is the average person meant to know how much this is? You contradict yourself later on by explaining your rationing system anyway - you agree that it's not as simple as "people can self-regulate consumption so that the community doesn't starve as a whole".
>what the fuck is the point of saying that dudeI said that because you said a ridiculous thing. Saying that people can "take as they please" as long as it "doesn't negatively affect community supplies" is a nonsense statement, since any level of consumption will negatively affect community supplies.
>If things get low and rationing is needed, get the clerks to start limiting the amount of items one can take.There we go, so you concede the point. This is what labour vouchers essentially do. Instead of clerks limiting items manually, it would be automated.
No.11427
>>3820It means the trolls are getting desperate if they stoop to down to that level of anti-communism
No.11428
>>3820>>3818nu-leftypol is absolutely cucked if they think there is anything wrong with those graphs. The idea that identity issues are orthogonal to class used to be common sense here now you have tards buying into intersectional nonsense.
>>3822There is literally nothing novel about Cockshott's use of computer technology its just an implementation of what Marx describes in gothakritik but actually going through the maths of calculating labor input-output for the whole economy which would be required to actually do that in reality.
You're just a moron who doesn't understand marx, Let alone Cockshott, let alone math
No.11430
>>3827>In the United Kingdom, a study showed that, whereas only 16% of men had university degrees, 36% of gays had them (Arabsheibani, Marin, and Wadsworth 2005). Where only 5.5% of all men had professional or managerial jobs the proportion among gay men in the United Kingdom was 9%.TLDR: Cockshott shows statistical evidence that gay men have higher levels of education, income, home ownership, etc. Also gay men don't produce children or perform as much unpaid childcare like straight women do for that reason. Also a bunch of stuff about gay men coming more from the upper middle class and working class dislike of homosexuality.
>Gay activists are wont to identify their campaigns with campaigns against women’s oppression, but the economic analysis so far shows that this concept is fallacious. Not only are gay couples financially better off, they also, in the main, often opt out of the socially necessary unpaid labour that is at the root of the disadvantaged position of women/wives. The establishment and normalization of gay marriage will tend to increase the inequality of men and women in this respect. Insofar as a portion of the male population were once covert homosexuals, who would have hidden their preferences, married women and helped to bring up children, they can now move directly into a respectable gay marriage where they are statistically very unlikely to do any unpaid child raising work.After reading this, the takeaway shouldn't be that hes a nazbol, but belongs to a very particular group of british radical and trans exclusionary second wave (mostly boomer) feminists.
Essentially his argument boils down to gay men are an economically privileged group and gay marriage is more about uniting the finances of already upper class gays than anything else.
Partly I just think this is him being a boomer. He has this caricatured idea of gays as upper middle class white men drinking mimosas like Terry and Greg from american dad.
In the past it was hard for gay couples to adopt children and still is in many places. If gay couples adopted children at a higher rate due to greater progressivism in laws around that you may see more of them share in "child rearing". I'm a fan of Cockshott's work but I can't really endorse this incredibly dated take, on both a factual and moral level even if all of his stats are true.
No.11431
>>3828>I'm a fan of Cockshott's work but I can't really endorse this incredibly dated take, on both a factual and moral level even if all of his stats are true.So, where is he wrong about factual stuff? Is he using flawed statistics or something?
No.11432
>>3829he isn't wrong on the stats, just pointing out that even if they are true the idea that gays are privileged because they don't participate in child rearing is directly a consequence of them not being able to adopt children in the past and even somewhat today
No.11433
>>3828Couldn't the fact that gays might not own as many children skew income levels higher?
No.11434
>>3828>Essentially his argument boils down to gay men are an economically privileged group and gay marriage is more about uniting the finances of already upper class gays than anything else.which is true, marriage is a reactionary institution mostly about property.
>He has this caricatured idea of gays as upper middle class white men drinking mimosas like Terry and Greg from american dad.which seems statistically true
>he isn't wrong on the stats, just pointing out that even if they are true the idea that gays are privileged because they don't participate in child rearing is directly a consequence of them not being able to adopt children in the past and even somewhat todaythat would imply a majority of gay couple would want to adopt children, not sure if true
also, he doesnt put any blame on a personal level. He just say that on a society level.
No.11436
>>3833Nice one. I had a good laugh.
No.11437
>>3824>This is what labour vouchers essentially do. No, it's not. Labor vouchers do this ALL the time. Free use does this only in emergencies.
>you agree that it's not as simple as "people can self-regulate consumption so that the community doesn't starve as a wholeExcept no, it genuinely is as simple as that. I have complete faith in the human race to not over consume. The only times a ration system would be necessary is when supplies gets fucked by a random occurrence (train crash, bad harvesting season, etc). Very rarely do I expect anyone to actually over consume. And even the ones who would over consume probably aren't going to make a significant dent in resource use.
>Saying that people can "take as they please" as long as it "doesn't negatively affect community supplies" is a nonsense statement, since any level of consumption will negatively affect community supplies.You gonna need to chill with the strawman. When I mean negatively affect, I mean cause a shortage.
Period.
>There we go, so you concede the point. This is what labour vouchers essentially do. Instead of clerks limiting items manually, it would be automated.Once again, you charge ahead into a foolish assumption. This is not what free use does. Labor vouchers ration ALL the time. They limit consumption ALL the time.
>There is literally nothing novel about CockshottHim and his fucking fans think otherwise. He thinks he's all hot shit.
left_communismLeft Communism No.11438
>>3822>If things get low and rationing is needed, get the clerks to start limiting the amount of items one can take.You still haven't replied to the actual point that without labour vouchers…
people will just take things (and not just what they need directly, but they will grab things in order to barter with them). I don't smoke, but I would grab a pack of cigs in such a situation, for example.>>3828>>3830As you might know, gays actually can adopt in some countries. So, do you have anything to back up your believe that they are as eager as straights to adopt? If not, don't call Cockshott wrong on this.
No.11439
>>3836Ironically "left""com" proposes something closely resembling an ancap paradise.
No.11440
>>3826>nu-leftypol is absolutely cucked if they think there is anything wrong with those graphs. The idea that identity issues are orthogonal to class used to be common sense here now you have tards buying into intersectional nonsense.Actually cockshott's point with those graphs is that identity and class are not perfectly orthogonal. The point of the graphs is that the projection of the identity axis onto the class axis is nonzero, implying a degree of non-orthogonality.
No.11441
>>3838
>Actually cockshott's point with those graphs is that identity and class are not perfectly orthogonal. The point of the graphs is that the projection of the identity axis onto the class axis is nonzero, implying a degree of non-orthogonality.fair enough, i posed that before i read his gays are bourgeois article in detail
No.11442
Hurry up comrades my back hurts from all the lifting I do at worktankieTankie
No.11443
There was an effort post about Cockshott's critique of Hegel, I've attached it as a png.
>>3828> I'm a fan of Cockshott's work but I can't really endorse this incredibly dated take, on both a factual and moral level even if all of his stats are true.Cockshott has a whole slew of bizarre boomer takes that really blows my mind. In 'How the World Works' he makes an absolute bizarre criticism of sex work because it's not productive if you use a very specific definition, which he uses as a weird 'gotcha' moment to say we shouldn't call it sex work.
>>3832I don't know a single gay couple who have been married to unite their financial interests. It's all done to make themselves feel fuzzy and to signify that they're in love. Marriage is an archaic institution originally used by the aristocracy to combine might, but has now been molded to be a cultural force to promote child production in the lower classes. You're a dummy.
>which seems statistically trueMaybe it's due to skewed data due to homophobia being more common in underprivileged demographics?
>that would imply a majority of gay couple would want to adopt children, not sure if trueAdopting kids is fucking hard even in countries where it is legal.
anarcho-primitivismAnarcho-Primitivism No.11444
>>3841>because it's not productive if you use a very specific definitionWhich Definition you talking about?
No.11445
guys is it safe? did the confused """leftcom""" leave?
No.11446
>>3843He occasionaly comes back. Not that he is making much of an argument though
No.11447
>>3844>Not that he is making much of an argument thoughso I can tell
No.11448
>>3836>You still haven't replied to the actual point that without labour vouchersI have already addressed all of your points. Get the clerk to stop them. Period.
>>3837>resembling an ancap paradise.You smoking some shit if you think that's what a fucking ancap "paradise" looks like.
>>3844>>3843Eat shit nerds. Cockshitt is still shit.
left_communismLeft Communism No.11449
>>3846Like clockwork he responds to this thread. Dickblast would out you for breakfast…always remember that
No.11451
How big do you think the cyber security state would need to be in a system of cyber socialism? Frankly I don't trust algorithms to root out reactionary political organizing.
No.11452
>>3849what do you mean by "security" here? computers are no replacement for HUMINT
No.11453
>>3850As in defense against hackers and other ne'er-do-wells who would sabotage or manipulate the results of a cybernetic planned economy, typically from abroad but sometimes domestically assuming the revolution happens in one major country.
No.11454
>>3851well, first of all you can use something like a web of trust to establish a public key infrastructure. all data going into the system must be signed. you can also set up a git-like system where everyone has a content-addressable copy of all data. set it up so anyone with a moderately sized cluster can replicate plan calculations
it is likely that people will put in crappy data into the system by mistake, or that some workplaces will try to game the system. detecting stuff like that requires statistical analysis
No.11455
how do i educate a budding socialist along a Marxist-De Leonist-Cockshottist current?
No.11456
>>3853Just show him TANS and the yt channel
No.11458
>>3855this is the same paper hegelstans have been quoting for years on twitter, and no, it doesn't show that.
No.11460
>>3849no more than it is for a capitalist society with banks, etc. reliant on technology. Obviously it would still have a role. Cybersecurity would probably be better in a socialist society because the investment in it would be made up front unlike in the private sector world of capitalism where it' a last minute addon if addressed at all, and usually only after a major breach.
No.11461
>>3858to add to what this anon is saying, there's a lot of stuff in computer science relating to security. stuff like formal verification, which is hardly ever used even for safety critical code. only in aerospace really.
No.11462
>>3859arent formal methods more for safety than security?
No.11464
>>3852>it is likely that people will put in crappy data into the system by mistake, or that some workplaces will try to game the system. detecting stuff like that requires statistical analysisAn example of something very useful for detecting fraud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law There is also a psychological resistance against repeating numbers that is stronger than what one should expect from results of throwing dice.
For reducing accidentally wrong inputs or inputs that are wrong because users are forced into wrong inputs by the constraints of the input forms like check lists. The standard input form should have at least four distinct options for any question: Yes, no, not answered (yet), does not apply.
Using insights from voting theory can be used to reduce the benefits of tactical disinformation (there is a tradeoff however in that a large dose of this robustness against tactics reduces the sensitivity to information).
Unique IPs: 1