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 Ahem,
FUCK HEGEL>>3138It would be also interesting if we could talk about actual spreadsheet / source code implementations of economic planning professor Cockshott shared during youtube lecture. I tried my best to watch his lectures but honestly they were not that easy to follow
>>3142>Anti hegelPro dogmatism, anti learning.
>Post hegelI wish. We're stuck with hegel for now.
im continuing working on my resource-based economy simulator (not exactly cockshottian but it is close, just different approach, eventually cockshottian planner/optimizations can be added)
i didn't progress alot but i made refactoring, and now you can load to the simulation more complex things from soviet economy
heres the test definition of Tatra 148 (simple model, analytical), that could be loaded to the simulation (now from .jsonnet/.json definitions too, not only the API)
that i added:
- jsonnet support for economic sets and objects definition
- multiple sets can be now simulated relatively painlessly (before it was impossible)
- soviet set is WIP (soviet set was the original set, but it was disabled in favor of 'medieval' test set)
- i plan now to add more soviet data and more complex models and maybe some production / processing chains (that i already tried so simulate one way or another)
definitions can be actually extremely simple yet relatively powerful,
and for hi-def defs/models i also plan to do some work to support them (some of it is WIP, like multipart objects / multi-object models)
later i could add the Industrial Catalogues and maybe voxel editor for models, but its rather distant
>>3156Doesn't imply imperialism is ogre as such only that developed world proles don't get a cut of the superprofits
>>3153Ty muchly
>>3160TL;DW: "third worldist" shitposted on CK's latest video, boomer CK took it seriously, found further empirical evidence that BTFO's "thirld wordists" even further.
Kinda amusing and cringe at the same time while more empirical evidence is shown.
>>3173is this the pascal programming one?
its good but cockshott has to realize no one uses pascal anymore
>>3174You'd be surprised
Delphi still sells for thousands of dollars
New economic planning book coming in May 31, 2021:
https://www.routledge.com/Democratic-Economic-Planning/Hahnel/p/book/9781032003320.pdf is a recent presentation by the authors hosted by the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE).
>Robin Hahnel and Mitchell Szczepanczyk presented the results of their innovative attempt to model democratic annual planning in a post-capitalist economy. ComputerSimulationExperimentsOfParti_powerpoint Through iterative computer simulations of the planning process from local to central level and back, using a new computer coding technique, they found that it would not take a long at all to reach a feasible and practical annual plan to meet social needs with available resources which involved the participation and democratic decisions of people.
>This was another compelling refutation of the critique made by neoclassical pro-market theorists like Von Mises and Hayek; and Keynesian pro-market social democrats like Alec Nove who argued that socialist planning was infeasible because there were just too many calculations to make. Only the invisible hand of the market and market pricing could do this. This paper showed that this was not true, especially now with the advances in computer programming. Democratic socialist planning can work and can replace market chaos.The pdf includes links to the source code. Can a techie check it out and tell us if it's gooode? Also, will anyone preorder (and upload the full book here)?
>>3180Hyped to see mounting evidence in our favour.
Waiting for Dickblast's next book.
sandinistaSandinista >>3183Thank you for the PDFs anon.
On a sidd note, I generally see the /crisis/ thread as the econ thread.
NEW COCKSHOTT VIDEO : Socialist planning and the environment crisisRunning time:
1 Hour and 53 minutesPrepare to be blasted!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Thv6_ZL3ds >>3199what makes a fascist better? you mean how they want to kill you and say it openly rather than do it smoothly with a drone strike and pretend it didn't happen?
fuck you are retarded
>>3200No, obviously I'd never say that. The sort of people that believe shit like "Antifa are the real fascists" are so lacking in political consciousness you may as well start from scratch rather than humoring them. I'm talking about actual fascists, at least the poor ones.
>>3201The grunts of fascism, the lumpens and proles, have Noticed a serious problem with society and instead of identifying it properly have misplaced it onto various national and ethnic spooks. If you can show them that the nation has never really had their best interests at heart and actually works towards the interests of the bourgeoisie they are much easier to flip than liberals who think the issue is merely an aesthetic lack of civility and people like Trump who are causing a ruckus in their well oiled machine of benevolence, just to do a racism.
>>3202I am pro-class war. I want the lower classes to have the same solidarity that the upper classes have.
>>3199Depends which type. Do you mean generic fascism, National Socialism (lots of reaction to modernism), or modern /pol/ """fascism""" (kill niggers jews and LGBT, trad life, what is theory)?
i dont actually know much about fascism lolThere are easy targets like naive teenage "SJW cringe compilation" alt-right types who think leftism is aposematic cancel-culture tumblr troll-bait.
>>3206Well pigeonholing them is a bit silly because as you no doubt know on the left people wear ideologies like they do a pair of underwear, and the rightoids do it too. You have to take it on a case by case basis.
Like even back in the day the Italian fascists were way more chill than the Nazis, who were pretty much always psychotic retards. Most fascists nowadays are more like the Nazis, but the clueless types among them (the majority) are the targets to flip because they're just generally mad about the present state of things. Their gripes are typically:
<Wages are going down, immigrants are lowering them<House pricing is going up, immigrants are occupying them<Taxes are going up: Israel, Africans, international orgs are guzzling the money down, we're buying out Jewish corporations<The white community is being destroyed: People are being forced to move to cities to find work, where monopolisation is happening, and these multicultural hubs are nefarious machinations, not the result of capitalism<Our religion is being threatened/our morals are under attack/everyone is on drugs now/everyone is gay: Nobody cares about the morality of the old world because neoliberalism saw it as a boundary to profit (even though the morals were retarded, the observation is correct)This is very easy bread and butter socialist politics, we can appeal to these people.
>>3207>[pigeonholing]. You have to take it on a case by case basis.I completely agree. I was trying to point out the difference between a well-read nationalist theoryfag who cares about states instead of da joos bullshit, and people who cling to cherrypicked and misinterpreted statistics to prove race is a great universal prediction technique.
>>3208no u
>>3209Yeah race science people are pretty far down the rabbit hole, but luckily the science is very flimsy and is one of the easier things to attack. The JQ is probably one of the more difficult conversion points because Jews made media careers their thing after the whole ordeal in Europe and Israel has successfully bought out most US politicians. Pointing out that the Irish also have ridiculous amounts of influence in the media because of Euro(Anglo) antics is probably the dumbest fucking strategy in politics but is equally true. I mean, Biden is a direct result of that.
As for nationalism, it's pretty dumb but as a bong I can see why it's used. Here we're faced with a deeply entrenched aristocratic bourgeoisie that control every element of government, we're just as much of a post-KGB autocracy as Russia, but without the consciousness to inform the population that the country has been stolen from them. That's why groups like the SNP, Plaid, and NIP constantly whip up nationalism, to detach themselves from the monsters in Westminster. I doubt many of them seriously care about the concept of a nation.
NIGGER, which part of
>More germane, when someone has written a program in a ‘high-level’ language like Java or HTML, it must then be compiled into the very low level machine code instructions that are executed automatically by a computer’s central processing unit (CPU). Now, a compiler is itself a program, and the first compilers for high level languages were necessarily written using low level instructions. However,once there is just one compiler for a high-level language, it becomes possible to write many other programs in that language, including other compilers, including compilers for that language itself!implies HyperText Markup Language is Turing complete?
HTML accompanying CSS3 is Turing complete http://eli.fox-epste.in/rule110-full.html >>3218It's a nice one, I admit I have to search it up each time I use it.
It's fun for describing the stereotypical aggressive dyed-hair idpol SJWs that live in /pol/'s head.
>>3223We already discussed his stuff a bit in the cybernetics threads on 8ch (2019) and on bunker (2020). Very similar views to Cockshott. Here's an interview with him:
https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01e19-jan-philipp-dapprich (in German). I haven't read his PhD thesis yet.
>>3225>>3226Cool. Is he the next generation of cyber-marxist after cockshott?
Apparently he's co-authoring the next book on planning and ecosocialism with Cockshott
>>3229This argument is a meme/pasta thrown around by illiterate leftcoms
That quote is also misinterpreted as saying "we can't say anything about communism in advance", what it is actually referring to is the utopian socialists like Comte, Owen, etc. who believed that they could create socialism out of some vision they had. Marx points out this is ahistorical, and sees "scientific socialism" and the materialist conception of history as explaining history as a process, and that socialism/communism will be the result of that, in the same flavour as Hegel's historical theory he lays forth in the philosophy of right.
The problem is modern day leftcoms take this (ironically) completely out of historical context. Marx lived before the USSR was a thing, whats idealist is to ignore actual history and actually existing socialism and still pretend that we live in 1916. When Cockshott wrote TANS, it wasn't as some abstract vision he cooked up out of his head, to create socialism where none had existed before. It was a policy paper intended to be applied to the late 1980s USSR. In fact many of the idiosyncrasies to a modern reader of TANS can be explained by this, but I digress. So far from being ahistorical it actually engages in the real history of socialist political movements in the 20th century, unlike the idealist leftcom who is still living in the 19th century. Cockshott is doing the exact same thing as Marx but analyzing the political movements of his day. To quote the man himself,
>21st century Marxism can no longer push to one side the details of how the non-market economy of the future is to be organised. In Marx's day this was permissible, not now. We can not pretend that the 20th century never happened, or that it taught us nothing about socialism. In this task 20th century Western critical Marxists like Cliff, Bettleheim or Bordiga will only take us so far. Whilst they could point out weaknesses of hitherto existing socialism, it did this by comparing it to an ideal standard of what these writers thought that a socialist society should achieve. In retrospect we will see that these trends of thought were a product of the special circumstances of the cold war, a striving for a position of ideological autonomy ‘neither Moscow nor Washington’, rather than a programmatic contribution to Marxism. The very psychological detachment that such writers sought, deflecting from their own heads the calumnies directed at the USSR, prevented them from positively engaging with the problems faced by historically existing socialism. It is only if you envisage being faced with such problems oneself, that one would come up with practical answersThe only way the "Cockshott=utopian" line makes sense is if you ignore the fact that he's actually analyzing 20th century actually existing socialism. Of course, certain leftcoms/trots stick to the line that the USSR was "state capitalist" and therefore socialism has never existed
>Idealist marxists, on the other hand, tend to claim that failure in the Eastern bloc should not count against Marxism, since the Soviet system represented the betrayal rather than the realisation of Marxian ideals. While the social democrats say that Soviet socialism was not the kind of socialism they wanted, these marxists say that the USSR (post-Lenin, perhaps) was not really socialist at all. Social democrats may accept that the Soviet system was indeed Marxist, and they reject Marxism; idealist marxists cling to their theory while claiming that it has not yet been put into practice.
>we reject the idealist view which seeks to preserve the purity of socialist ideals at the cost of disconnecting them from historical reality. We recognise, that is, that the Soviet-type societies were in a significant sense socialist. Of course, they did not represent the materialisation of the ideals of Marx and Engels, or even of Lenin, but then what concrete historical society was ever the incarnation of an Idea? When we use the term `socialism' as a social-scientific concept, to differentiate a specific form of social organisation by virtue of its specific mode of production, we must recognise that socialism is not a Utopia. It is quite unscientific to claim that because the Soviet system was not democratic, therefore it cannot have been socialist, or more generally to build whatever features of society one considers most desirable into the very definition of socialism.
>Our view can be summed up as follows: Soviet society was indeed socialist. This society had many undesirable and problematic features. The problems of Soviet society were in part related to the extremely difficult historical circumstances in which the Bolsheviks set about trying to build socialism, but that is not all: important policy mistakes were made (just as possible in a socialist society as in capitalism), and furthermore the problems of Soviet socialism in part reflect serious weaknesses in classical Marxism itself.
>The failure of the Soviet system is therefore by no means irrelevant to Marxian socialism. We must reflect carefully on the lessons to be learned from this failure. Nonetheless, unlike those who delight in proclaiming the complete historic rout of Marxism, we believe that a different type of socialism – still recognizably Marxian, yet substantially reformulated – is possible. The Soviet Union was socialist, but other forms of Marxian socialism are possible. This claim can be sustained only by spelling out in much more detail than hitherto both the sorts of economic mechanisms and the forms of political constitution which socialists consider both desirable and feasible. This we try to do in the book.Marx himself, famously also laid out the foundations of socialism in his 'Critique of the Gotha Program', a reading of which Cockshott actually derives TANS from. In fact TANS, arguably, is nothing more but an elaborated version of Marx's 'Critique of the Gotha Program', since the matrix algebra Cockshott explains in TANS is just showing how it is both practical and mathematically/computationally feasible to calculate labor inputs to goods/services as Marx wants. If Cockshott is a 'utopian' for writing TANS, Marx is even more of a utopian for writing 'Critique of the Gotha Program' before socialism of any kind had yet existed. The reality is that neither Marx nor Cockshot are utopian and leftcoms are simply abusing the term out context, the same way that social democrats pick up the term 'reactionary' and throw it around to describe socialists and communists.
Yet leftcoms will continue to "quotemine" Marx and somehow pretend that Cockshott is equivalent to the 19th century utopian socialists like Comte and Owens that Marx was criticizing in that quote. All it does it reveal their lack of understanding of both and Marx and Cockshott, not to mention socialist history.
>>3233just to follow up, leftcoms are basically the Amish people of leftism, just like the Amish believe its ok to use any technology up until the 1830s and then after that God disapproves, leftcoms believe in analyzing history and drawing conclusions from any part of history up until some nebulous period between Engels death in 1895 and the start of the Russian revolution, after which it is "utopian" to do any analyzing. Essentially the only non utopian form of theory is not what is past and future for us, but only Marx himself. Like Marx is the 'final prophet' of socialism and that after his death all others (except those thinkers they like) are false prophets.
It reminds me of something Engels said,
>The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history…But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afreshWhere Engels criticizes younger German Marxists who took theory as dogma and used it as an excuse to not do analysis, just taking it as God's truth.
>>3233>quotemine"Proof-texting" is what they call that in Christian theology.
>>3234>who would win?>Mensheviks>Mennonites>>3235>Marx's methodYou'd need to accept his priors, too, which may not correspond to present conditions. Then, it would tend to produce the same theory, the same analysis, and the same irrational reverence for the results.
Many authors have taken Marx's models and adapted/extended them to modern conditions and structures, such as Wallerstein. Their work is valuable, even if they are not part of a "movement". It's better to find what still holds and to what extent (e.g. LTV's quantitative support by Cockshott), and extend those using whatever tools are suited to the task.
>>3241Yes, the rhetoric in the link upbread is packed with neoliberal jargon and rhetoric. I should have stopped reading at
>opportunity costand noped out completely before the barely-concealed austerity fetishism in the last paragraph.
These are the faggots planning the Great Reset for porky.
>>3246read free books. using libgen.is
Go to a college website. Check their degree listings. They usually or sometimes have the syllabus for each course publically available online.
Check out the syllabus and the required textbook, then just go to libgen.is and download the latest version of it. Rinse and repeat for every class/book they have on the degree. Now you have 80% of the knowledge of someone who has that degree.
Or just use an "open source degree" guide like this one:
https://github.com/ossu/computer-sciencethere are many others like it on the internet.
For statistics use khan academy or something. Just know for advanced statistics you have to learn calculus and linear algebra first
just take it one step at a time, doing a little bit each day when you have free time
>>3246you don't need any practical skills for understanding indepth meaning of this (and even people who have it they don't really understand it for the most part)
so better start with the theory, read some classic book (like K&R or w/e (yes even if you don't understand it, you can read the book several times over the time), read something on computer architecture (like wikipedia), and history of computing / technology, then if you want to do practice randomly hack python scripts with whatever you like
you then soon will understand basic elements of computing
>>3252Why do you need an idol for that?
>>3253>>3246You'll need a little bit of advanced math. Set theory and formal logic are a good start.
If you are feeling up to a challenge, Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming, decades in the making and not yet finished, is the computer scientist's Das Kapital.
>>3254you dont need an idol, just a person
>>3254>knuthIts also extremely dry
>>3250>Any competent junior-mid-level programmer with a strong math background can implement the algorithms based on C&C's literature. I don't know what you need a figurehead for.I agree with both sentences.
>>3255Methinks Cockshott puts too much weight on word origins. I'm sure there are many Latin medical terms that when literally translated mean something like "this dangly slimy thing". This doesn't mean that modern understanding of medicine is held back by the name not changing. That modern English is a very individualist language and that other languages have changed to be less collectivist is something I believe myself, though again I wouldn't put much weight on the word subject. This doesn't really have anything to do with cybernetics though, so if you want to talk more about it maybe make another thread, "linguistic individualism".
>>3257Eh true but humanities isn't science nor is it truth
The 17th and 18th century philosophers used and understood subject in that sense as the notion under consideration
The modern academic literature on "the subject" is basically a bunch of barely literate cargo cultists schizoposting in long form pretentious language
>>3261You can have mine.
Polite sage
>>3275Infrared wouldn't like Cockshott because he's too anglo for them. TBH they've said they dislike Cockshott before, I'm not sure what could be gained by interacting with them since they seem like pseuds at best
The revolution will not be lead by some autist in Michigan, regular ML seems alot better than this schizo shit which is just the Posadism of the 21st century but even more obsure.
I actually hid the infrared thread because I couldn't take the sustained autism, TBH I just assumed most of the people there knew he was an autistic schizo-lolcow and are stanning him for the memes/lulz.
If you take infrared seriously you may have a legit mental problem.
If this infrared bullshit becomes the new meme ideology of leftypol I'm done here.
>>3276>TBH I just assumed most of the people there knew he was an autistic schizo-lolcow and are stanning him for the memes/lulz.he reads green text literally and gets triggered. he spent 3 hours arguing strawmans that weren't even targeted toward him
kek
anarchismAnarchism >>3287>>3288 (me)
Apologies, that is also irrelevant.
>EC2 High Memory instances offer 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 TB of memory in an instance.And azure also has competing services.
>>3289An SSD can't quite replace RAM.
Depends on how it's programmed I guess. I'm not really familiar with cockshott.
>>3290I'm not familiar with modern techniques regarding matrix manipulations. But sorry, it is evidently irrelevant since 6 TB ram instances are available to the general public anyways.
>>3291 >>3290 >>3289 >>3288And these are the prices listed.
So at most it costs:
15 USD an hour
365 days in a year
24 hours in a day
131,400 USD.
Not sure what the context is but this is ridiculously cheap for large scale shit.
>>3288Not really irrelevant as Cockshott was talking about cost not feasibility but I would be surprised if manipulating matrixes would indeed require the computer to store the whole matrix in memory.
>>3292Now that's interesting because it took Cockshott ~4 and a half hours to compute a matrix with 10^12 numbers with an HP Z620. I reckon it would be much less with an EC2 instance but even if it's the same length it would only cost ~67$, so however we look at it the price is really a trivial problem.
>>3293To be clear, Cockshott was explicitly talking about the cost being a barrier for an
amateur not a governmental entity of course, but as we have seen that it is not even the case.
>>3295>>3294Interesting.
A new server that has 4 TB of RAM will probably cost you upwards of 4k USD.
I have no real knowledge of Cockshott's methods. Perhaps they can be compartmentalized, distributed, or approximated to an acceptable degree.
>>3300>Would there be some kind of penalty if a student doesn't pass classes or fails to graduate?I imagine there would have to be, what makes the most sense is simply having to take time off of school to do some other necessary labor.
>Would the labor shortage tax incentivise teachers to be more lenient in passing students in these fields to prevent said shortages? (I guess this last one doesn't personally affect a teacher individually but rather the pressure could be directed to the board of directors)It's possible, it will be less so since profit is not really a factor, but there may be pressure on poorly performing schools to pass more to save face, at which point you kinda just need a little bit of state oversight to give some form of aid to struggling schools.
>>3300These questions are kinda boring in that they both go so much into the details of the system and they also don't look like questions that would be resolved in a particularly creative way that requires explaining to somebody who is used to living in capitalism.
>Would there be some kind of penalty if a student doesn't pass classes or fails to graduate?GULAG There has to be a limit on how much time per decade or so you can keep studying without having positive results to show for it.
>Would the labor shortage tax incentivise teachers to be more lenient in passing students in these fields to prevent said shortages?Yes. Look at the present. The Covid crisis has led to accelerated graduations in medicine in some places.
>>3303>>3304Yeah Cockshott is a 1970s Althusserian or quasi/post-Althusserian advocating a version of structuralism
Its understandable that people think he's a positivist since Structuralism as a school of continental philosophy was often accused of being too close to positivism.
>Philip Noel Pettit (1975) called for an abandoning of "the positivist dream which Lévi-Strauss dreamed for semiology," arguing that semiology is not to be placed among the natural sciences. Cornelius Castoriadis (1975) criticized structuralism as failing to explain symbolic mediation in the social world he viewed structuralism as a variation on the "logicist" theme, arguing that, contrary to what structuralists advocate, language—and symbolic systems in general—cannot be reduced to logical organizations on the basis of the binary logic of oppositions. Critical theorist Jürgen Habermas (1985) accused structuralists… of being positivists…Giddens draws on a range of structuralist themes in his theorizing, he dismisses the structuralist view that the reproduction of social systems is merely "a mechanical outcome."A quote from Cockshott's "ON ALTHUSSER’S PHILOSOPHY OF THE ENCOUNTER"
>It is because Kauffman and Althusser are both dealing with the same problem, the origin of ordered systems or ordered structures (Kauffman 1993). Kauffman is concerned with auto-catalytic nets and the process of creating cells for the first time as a result of pre-biotic evolution. Althusser is concerned with the process of formation of modes of production, another structured self reproducing system. There is the same problem that once the system exists, it self reproduces, but the components that constitute part of the self reproducing system, the new mode of production, have to arise as a contingent effect of prior history where the self reproducing mechanism is not thereTBH I think the only reason he's accused of being a positivist is because he's british/scottish and there's an stereotype there of being associated with anglo analytic philosophy. If he was a frenchman literally saying the exact same thing I doubt people would be saying he's a "positivist".
>>3308Cuba is doing market reforms afaik to get out of sanctions.
The norks i believe have already done some cyber reforms though im not sure if they know about Cockshott.
>>3322Lmao. I mean I haven't found ANYONE who's able to refute this paper so be the change you want to see in the world? The paper circumvents Diaz + Osuna and finds some pretty gnarly and concerning evidence.
I'm a fan of Cockshott's work but this is the only paper I see that manages to beat up Cockshott's claims.
cockshottCockshott >>3327We'll wait it out I guess, sometimes these academics take a long ass time to respond, remember Cottrell is a working academic whos teaching classes unlike Cockshott who is retired. Maybe you wanna mail Shaikh too while you're at it ;)
I've mailed academics before and sometimes they haven't responded until like 3-4 months later.
I guess until then econophysics is
BTFO??
>>3335IMO a better list would just include basic "engineering/phyiscs math" aka pre-calculus, Calculus, multi variate calculus, linear algebra, and calc-based probability/statistics.
Not sure what abstract algebra, analysis, topology, and geometry are adding here, then again im not a mathematician
>>3338Heterodox ML maybe. Dunno
He's like a Maoist who got Althusser-pilled who dragged his ideology halfway to De Leonism with Councilcom/leftcom influences.
Probably closer to MLs than any other tendency because he doesn't deny the USSR was socialist, which is why finbol+jason unruhe like him but radlibs generally don't
>>33551. Crooked teeth doesn't make someone wrong unless, thiking that is rightoid tier
2. Pretty sure orthodontia wasn't as widespread when he was young
3. Some people still prefer to keep their natural teeth rather than cut and dig into them to put crowns and bridges
4. Some people would like to replace their teeth but don't have the money for it.
5. I cannot stop taking bait please someone help me.
>>3364Yeah women had twice as many orgasms as capitalist societies
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.htmlON a serious note the only reason West Germany was wealthy was because of the Mashall Plan
I'm a firm believer that in order to appeal to the people, you first need to prove that the thing you're trying to "sell" works. No, not as in a "economy simulation", we need a real test. People actually making a living in an economically planned society/commune.
I know this has been proposed several times before, but it's absolutely necessary. Any ideas?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation#List_of_micronationshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nulliushttps://www.twinoaks.org/about-twinoaks-community/faqs-frequently-asked-questionscockshottCockshottWhat happens if we cross Cockshottism with post-autonomist commonism (basically the commons, commoning as a process, the network-, social- and ecological commons? What if we take Cybernetic communism, abstract it to the level of Marxism, incorporate theoretical controbutions from the commonists, but perhaps even recent, specific autonomist concepts like the social production, union and strike? What if we also tie in what seems to be a new return to orthodox Marxist type writings like those of the neo-Marxian economists; like Sweezy, Bellamy Foster who refocuses on accounting for the 'present'' material conditions (as opposed to those of yester century) while also including Lenin's economic developments in regards to imperialism, as well as, at least with Bellamy Foster, a way of tackling the ecological problem as well?
What if cybernetic communism would become the praxis for the industrial and pots-industrial world (which today is most of the world) where Cockshottism, autonomism and neo-Marxian economics and eco-Marxism would be the initial theoretical corpus from which to spring a contemporary praxis?
Could we do that?thinkThink
>>3373>post-autonomist commonism (basically the commons, commoning as a process, the network-, social- and ecological commons?what does any of this mean and why is it different from communism
>>3374twitter pseud is in fact a pseud, move on
>>3377Here you go lad
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=calculus+chain+ruleMagic calculus solving sauce
If you have trouble with even this ask more questions and we'll do our best to help you
stalinStalin >>3377Not in six hours but I think Spivak's Calculus is a very rigorous and good intro to calculus. However not really for beginners imo unless you're talented. There's also Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach by Morris Kline which is a bit more relevant for engineering applications and is a broad overview.
For you though since you only have 6 hours (even less now):
https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Calculus/Book%3A_Yet_Another_Calculus_Text__A_Short_Introduction_with_Infinitesimals_(Sloughter)Just go over as much as you can I guess.
>>3386apparently the guy who made this also BTFO Jean-Francois Gariépy in a debate?
WTF is this, is it a neoclassical form of socialist calculation similar to lange?
>>3388Workers coops will probably be a transitional stage to a planned economy so IMO theres no need to go hard on shitting on them right now.
The reason they are so popular is because
1) Wolff has done a tone of work over the past 10-15 years popularizing them in a Way that Cockshott has not for his work.
2) Workers coops are easy to understand and can be explained using simple moral language while centralized computerized planning's justifications require and understanding of mathematics. This is partly a communication issue.
3) Workers coops dovetail more easily into liberal politics. It doesn't require the abolition of the market, commodities, or really a hugely radical change. Starting worker coops now doesn't even technically require the abolition of capitalism as it can exist side by side with private capitalist businesses.. Several European fascist or fascist-adjacent ideologies like Falangism tolerate and even promote worker coops, in fact even fucking REAGAN supported them. Worker coops can also be justified on moral grounds even if one doesn't buy into a Marxist analysis of political economy, which is why you have a bunch of "anarcho-liberals" who are basically just edgy liberals/socdems who can safely incorporate worker coops into their worldview without acknowledging any of the disturbing, radical, anti-capitalist/anti-market conclusions that would come from a Marxist critique of bourgeois political economy.
4) Just plain ignorance - Cockshott isn't really well known, he should probably do some media appearances on left wing podcasts etc.
Was gonna post this
>>3389>Workers coops will probably be a transitional stage to a planned economy so IMO theres no need to go hard on shitting on them right now.Let them get adopted due to popular demand (which seems to be the likely scenario in mega-spooked western countries that lose their senses at the mention of "planned economy"), until they come into severe problems related to the market mechanisms - that's where cybernetics comes in.
>>3388anectodally, until a good strategy for combatting idpol and lifestylism can be developed cockshotts theories will never be acknowledged because
1. his views on gender arent liberal enough for a lot of people, i'm not a fan of his views too but it really ticks others off and at best they dismiss most of his work because of it (smug lefty syndrome applies)
and 2. stalinboos view his work as revisionism, socdems and anarchists view it as stalinism with computers
other than those 2 its just a matter of discussing his theories, criticizing his flaws and spreading his arguments
also i believe that cockshott praised market socialism as a transitional stage so his theories are compatible with coops
>>3402then do "stalin enthusiasts" support cockshott?
>All Stalin enthusiasts are MLswhy?
>>3420he says just as equally dumb shit about gays
because he is a fucking retard
>>3418>promotes idpol>complains when his retarded reactionary idpol is called out for what it is>"m-muh idpol!"faggot
>>3417can't be arsed to try and find sources i bothered 15 years ago with
nobody else seems to give enough of a shit to even read up on the history of cybernetics and planning, so i'm just here to call everyone a retard, i'm pretty much done with "socialism" and all the pretentious faggots it attracts online
Victor Mikhailovich Glushkov wrote a book
Fundamentals of Paperless Informatics
he predicted:
>“Soon enough paper books, newspapers, and magazines will be no more. Every person will have an electronic notebook—a combination of a flat screen and a mini radio transmitter. No matter where you are in the world, if you key a specific code in the notebook, you will be able to summon texts and images from giant remote databases. This will forever replace not only books, newspapers, and magazines, but also television.”is there a translated version of this book ?
http://www.pseudology.org/science/Glushkov_Osnovy_bezbumazhnoi_informatiki.pdfpic: prototype of soviet smartphone
>>3427sounds cool i would be interested in a translated version too
also is anyone aware of a copy of any material from Cybernetics in the Service of Communism?
cockshottCockshott >>3417I'll try and provide the answer that
>>3423 won't. beyond the usuals you hear of in here (leontief, kantorovich, glushkov) you might also want to look up stafford beer, otto neurath and andrew pickering
>>3429cool
>>3432i almost appreciate your efforts but it is wasted on people that never bothered to look into it themselves and beg to be spoonfed while making grand claims about cockshotts supposed unique way of something "new"
anyways, nice job, i almost don't want to kill myself anymore and have a glimpse of hope
but only almost
>>3424>>3426this is the people you are wasting this effort on after all
really, you might as well have just posted gay furry porn and it would have the same effect on these american suburb children
>>3413cringe
>>3419stop getting your ideology from Twitter and/or KYS
>>3423cope
sandinistaSandinista >>3432if you still don't see what i mean, they just keep going on the same level
>>3434don't waste your time on leftypol, it's a cesspit of /pol/acks that recently found that stalin is based because he outlawed the gay
there is nothing to their leftism, it is entirely meme tier shitflinging
tell them to kill themselves, don't engage in good faith, use your knowledge somewhere where it is appreciated and understood and you will be around people that don't have to be pointed out that something even exists before they feign interest and ask for source when they never even considered to study the topic at hand at their own accord
leftypol like any other burger infested shithole in the internet is only a testament to their education system where schools are only cages to keep the little shits busy while the parents slave away at walmart
completely lost to fascism, write off americans and move on
>>3435yes, anonymous imageboards aren't a very good discussion tool, especially when they're full of gringos
>use your knowledge somewhere where it is appreciated and understoodthis is pretty much what I do already
>>34351) Not a burger
2) Bunkerchan was my first board 1 year ago
3) Radlibs such as you are clearly incapable of separating the good and the bad in one's work so it's useless to have a normal conversation with people like you from the very get go.
4) Nobody in my family has ever been to a Walmart, fuck you
sandinistaSandinista I've been listening to some of Ian Wrights stuff and he talks about an interpretation of capitalism as a cybernetic machine. OK, I'm sold, what do I read. I don't care about cybernetic socialism, I want to understand the cybernetics of capitalism.
>>3435>1 person posting idpol shit>people pointing out its reactionary retardation>this is evidence that leftypol is /pol/>1 idiot is the entirety of /leftypol/bruh, are you new? If you see bait you don't like, report it.
>>3440La gente que dice que "ya se perdió todo en leftypol" soon doomers que no están dispuestos a poner de su parte para hacer este lugar mejor. Es una perspectiva de "consumidor" y no de pertenencia a la comunidad.
salu2
>>3449Lol, thanks. I can't discern between anons.
>>3448Check out Ian Wright's videos. He explains how Capital is already a cybernetic system. Really nice shit.
>>3450capitalism is already an inherently cybernetic system from the start due to the self-correcting nature of markets.
it's just that the mechanisms it uses for sensing and the means by which it corrects are damaging and deeply inefficient.
>>3456Markets
are a self-correcting system. The problem is that the corrections it makes are often horrific and destructive and serve profit, not general welfare.
>>3465>the book seems to outline democratic institutions and an international planning organization,
>outlining things that grow from the conditions the revolution rises from and will never be the same in 2 placesagain, cockshott is an idealistic retard that does absolutely nothing of value to leftism, crying about gays and trans is the sole reason he gets shilled here
rotten teeth faggot that can't even set up a homepage, understand basic marxism or get a grasp on statistics
>>3468>It is really silly to suggest you can model or sketch anything out when material conditions are definitely gonna change it.ftfy
>>3469>>3470i called him a retarded idealist for all the other retarded shit he does, because he is all around retarded as shit
but keep coping
you jumping on only this part of the response shows where your interest lies
>>3471>you jumping on only this part of the response shows where your interest liesActually jumped on it because I've noticed for the second day running there are seething retards sperging about idpol ITT
There's nothing else to address in your post because you are brain dead
>>3472try having a thought instead
>>3474keep seething whiney little idpol bitch
go join that frog faggots thread, you seem to fit there better
>>3477Yeah, I definitely don't agree with everything in this book, but it seems to have some nice things to offer.
People rag on about how he didn't invent the idea of computerized planning, and duh! but he seems to have been one of the first few people to put it on paper, all collected in one place and suitable as a primer or reference.
council_communismCouncil Communism >>3463The corrections are in fact corrections because the market and capitalism are both designed to
maximize profit. Said corrections do not take into account plenty of other things, like whether said profit involves human suffering or not. Capitalism, as a designed system, accurately fulfils its designated objective. The problem here was that the analysis was bad: increasing material wealth through a profit driven system did not achieve the goals of the Enlightenment and other revolutions, but it did successfully do what it was designed for.
Saying that it's doing things that are wrong leaves open the interpreteation that capitalism can be fixed in a way that it doesn't produce these problems. Saying that capitalism is working correctly and still produces these horrific results is saying that capitalism needs to be replaced and there is no way to fix it.
>>3485C H I L D R E N S C H A N N E L
H
I
L
D
R
E
N
S
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
>>3482>contributing to the causeyou'd have to hit me really hard on the head to be dumb enough to think that it's worth the effort
as long as i don't have some dipshit meme face to go with it nobody will care
people only even read zizek because "trash can funny"
fuck leftism
>>3503>the virgin pig iron skillet-small range and threat factor
-shitty weight distribution
-attracts unwanted attention
-too heavy for one-hand use, too short as a two hand melee weapon
-makes you look like an unhinged housewife
>the chad aluminum baseball bat -long range, easy to use to threaten your opponents, just smash an object in your vicinity
-optimized weight distribution
-piece of sports equipment with perfect plausible deniability that doesn't invite suspicion
-usable in one hand and two hand combat
-makes you look like a sports bro chad
There you go.
>>3507>basic bitch geometry remarks<OMFG WHAT IS THIS SOO CRAZY XDkys
>>3512<I KNOW YOU JUST EXPLAINED WHY HE ISN'T THAT BUT ISN'T HE THAT?kys
>>3517They seem to me the same shit as Sinn Fein in Ireland: lukewarm socdem but not pro austerity and most of all pro independence.
Worth a critical support given the circumstances.
sandinistaSandinista >>3526POTENTIAL SPOILERS ON THE NEW BOOK TITLEIf you see the corner of the video, he wrote "Towards a new materialism".
Could this be the new book he is writing?
(He's also writing a book on planning btw).
sandinistaSandinista Anyone seen Socialism Done Left's critique of Cockshott's Limits of Market Socialism?
Has Cockshott provided arguments previously that respond to the points SDL raises?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJt2Tcz9Di0>>3529I've seen it. He doesn't really raise any points other than saying he disagrees with Cockshott because cockshott assumes the LTV to be correct and he disagrees with that. Also he handwaves away econophysics and empirical evidence of the LTV. Finally he says he doesn't believe in planning because "he's been convinced of the power of competition".
Literally not a critique, its a reaction video where he says i agree with this and i disagree with this without giving any reasonings or arguments let alone evidence
>>3533"In the late 80s i was working for a company which went bankrupt"
"Which was its name"
"It was called MEMEX"
My sides
sandinistaSandinista >>3537Yeah that might help. An updated version of Towards a new socialism would be good. Maybe a more fleshed out version of his socialist strategy videos as well. I always struggled to imagine how you would go about creating and testing the systems need to run the economy in that way. How do you go from money as it is now to labour vouchers?, how would you organise the building of a planned economy?, would it be done in stages and if so what are they? etc.
>>3539Thanks I'll have a look
>>3558Anon, can you not see how rude it is to say "refute this plox"? You're basically dropping a steaming turd into someone's lap, saying "go google and research this for a few hours to a few days and im not even going to link a specific paper or pdf"
Why don't YOU TLDR Kliman's arguments first?
>>3563I thought People were familiar with Klimans argument here. Apparently not
>can you not see how rude it isGive me a Break. This isn't rude. I just asked a question
>>3564The problem with Kliman's argument against empirical marxism is that it's actually one argument pretending to be another. According to Kliman the empirical evidence for the LTV is wrong because Cockshott/Shaikh
fail to consider the effect of industry size on labor-price correlations. According to Kliman the way to measure industry size is by their costs, and once you take this into account there is no correlation between them. This is just wrong because by factoring out costs, Kliman is factoring out vertically integrated labor costs. The labor-time embedded in a commodity is composed of the direct labor inputs and also the "indirect" labor inputs of the labor expended on all the components and raw materials etc. that are put into it. Essentially Kliman compares the prices to direct labor inputs with most of the "costs" (i.e. indirect inputs) abstracted away and concludes that no, labor correlate with price. This is asinine, and in addition Kliman makes a bunch of other mistakes in basic mathematics/statistics.
One explanation for this is that Kliman is simply being dishonest, or that he's simply weak in mathematics knowledge compared to Cockshott and Shaikh who were engineers beforehand and compared to them Kliman doesn't really understand the math or theory behind econophysics to begin with.
But there's a much simpler explanation: Kliman resents the fact that he has to argue about empirical data at all. You can see this in the many podcasts and weakass responses he made in them after getting BTFO by Cockshott's videos. Sure he may opportunistically make use of empirical evidence, but according to him, the only way to make sense of Marx is through close reading and "textual" analysis. In this he is more similar to his neoclassical and austrian colleagues who really see economics as a mainly a-priori discipline.
The idea that there's a correlation between labor time and price was well known as an empirical rule of thumb and was known as common sense by the classical political economists including Marx. Even the Austrian economist Bohm Bawerk, in his critique of the LTV conceded this and had to argue merely about the level of generality of the LTV by pointing out exceptions. The truth is that Kliman know's he's full of shit but he keeps making these bad arguments anyway, because if he made the actual argument he wants to make he would be laughed out of the room, which is that
the only things we need to know of marx are based on close reading, and not on independent use of empirical or econometric data. Kliman and his clique are essentially the Austrian economists of the left in this sense and probably shouldn't be taken seriously.
>>3571reminds me of my man diogenes of sinope
>Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one ‘idea’ of a cup, and this ‘cupness’ precedes the existence of all particular cups.>“I can see the cup on the table,” interrupted Diogenes, “but I can’t see the ‘cupness’.'”>“That’s because you have the eyes to see the cup,” said Plato, “but,” tapping his head with his forefinger, “you don’t have the intellect with which to comprehend ‘cupness’.'”>Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, “Is it empty?”>Plato nodded.>“Where is the ‘emptiness’ which proceeds this empty cup?” asked Diogenes.>Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato’s head with his finger, said “I think you will find here is the ‘emptiness’.'” >>3571notes on this video:
Mostly good and more people need to hear this. The atomist influence on Marx is frequently underplayed compared to Hegelianism. When Cockshott talks about determination being negation not being specific to Hegel, he's actually right in that 'determination as negation' was originally formulated by Spinoza, though I wouldn't expect him to know that.
Talking about Lambda calculus vs Turing machines was also funny, I think computer scientists would be better served by thinking about the physical basis for computing and stop conflating empirical science with pure maths.
>>3578>He is quite open of his Hatred of Gay MenJust straight up lying
>and Sex-WorkersSupporting Prostitution
>>3578is everyone with boomer takes on sex and gender "nazbols" to these people? it's a weak point of paul's work for sure, but good grief this is worse
>His hatred follows from his underlying assumption — that everyone’s labor belongs to some grand collective; call it ‘humanity’, ‘society’, ‘the nation’, ‘the workers’, or perhaps ‘the commune’. It doesn’t really matter — I choose to call it ‘the abstraction’.production_anarchy.txt
of course they cap it off with a nonsensical understanding of the value debate:
>Even the strange fungibility with which the labor theory of value treats hours of labor begins to make sense. Sure, to people like you and me, an hour of a janitor’s labor is not worth the same as an hour of a doctor’s labor — one produces more value in an hour than the other does.it strikes me that we could actually plan for and renumerate sex work in a cybersocialist system. it's not something I'd advocate, but it could certainly be done. I prefer a gift economy as the goal for these types of things, in the later phases of communism
>>3581 (me)
And for his recommendations tells people to read Bertrand Russel and David Deutsch. Jesus Christ, who is next, Steven Pinker?
>>3578>>3580 (me)
oh and surprise surprise, this person is a mutualist
https://c4ss.org/content/52409 >>3585c4ss is a "thinktank" supported by 'The Molinari Society' which is a literal ANCAP group founded by Roberick long a literal randroid rothbardite.
These are 100% anarcho-capitalists/libertarians larping as mutualists
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=Kjja-oNyfdIAgainst Hegelian and Platonic Idealism
Hegel BTFO
Object oriented programming BTFO
Cockshott's 1 man murder spree of idealism continues.
>>3591>does he count a possible help to it via parallel computing by GPUs of the various equations required?not as far as I've seen. I emailed him a while back asking if he's looked at sparse solvers. he seems to not know much about high performance computing
it isn't the calculations themselves which are the biggest problem anyway. it's getting everyone to submit the necessary statistics that is the real problem.
>>3592Aren't existing big data systems of any help?
Can't fully digital currency on the (near future) Chinese model help?
sandinistaSandinista >>3593currency implies markets. we're trying to move away from that
I'm not sure what you mean by "big data", but what we need is a standardized protocol for reporting production data, inventory, tracking shipments etc
what is to be done, /cybersoc/? specifically, what can be done to organize around the ideas you discuss here? i'm not strong in math, and i will likely never contribute intellectually to the development of practical methods of socialist economic calculation. so what am i to do?
i appreciate this cockshottian strain of thought because of its focus on formulating practical solutions for what seem to be highly theoretical problems, but it seems to me this focus is very seldom extended to the problems of organizing. problems like: what currently existing organizations, if any, are worth working within? what must be changed about the design of these organizations to better accommodate a socialist political movement? if new organizations are required, what principles should inform the design of these organizations? who should be targeted for recruitment by these organizations, and how should they be recruited? how does the individual radical even begin to affect any of the previously stated coming to pass?
obviously the answers to each of these questions will vary wildly with context and conditions; however even with this in mind, there still ought to be some general statements that can be made about what is efficacious and what is not. also it should still be striking just how rare discussions of these topics are in popular leftist discussion. i don't read books, so i wouldn't know how the literature advises on these topics, but that only underlines the fact that there is at least a deficit of communication about these ideas to radicalized midwits like myself, if not an outright deficit of ideas to communicate on the matter in the first place.
>>3604Walmart and Amazon already use it.
Read People's Republic of Walmart.
sandinistaSandinista >>3602bringing attention to these ideas in existing orgs might be a good start. I've had good discussions with both MLs and anarchists, and I'm currently trying to woo a succdem
my rough idea is that cybernetic planning can be tacked on top of worker coops, to prevent them from competing with each other. build things bottom-up
>>3604what the other guys say, but also there's a lack of standards
has anyone heard of this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJJwfW0R3Lv486AjwUWxIYwhe did a pretty good defense of the LTV
someone should tell Cockshott about him
>>3615No Socialist countries ever existed
also, cumshit is trash.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3626>Cockshott and CybercommunismThat shit is always going to look retarded to anyone with a fucking brain cell.
>>3627No u
left_communismLeft Communism >>3633>You're the one that was too afraid to email him.Why in the fuck would I email him moron? And why the fuck are you saying that like we had this stupid fucking discussion before?
>>3635>A fucking leftcom wants to tell us something about retardation? I'm not the fucking idiot who chooses to follow the works of random idiots rather than fucking marx themselves.
Fuck your cyberbullshit, marx is all I fucking need.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3638>Cockshott is a pretty ardent follower of Marx. I hear this excuse all too often. If that were true, why in the fuck is he even bothering with this "cyber" shit?
>Shame that Marx never talked about the Mechanics of economic planningThe fuck are you even saying? HE LITERALLY GETS INTO THAT YOU MORON
>>3638How about you stop being a counter revolutionary revisionist instead>>3639
>Leftcoms are so insufferable and dogmatic that I completely understand why Stalin sent all of you to SiberiaRevisionists are so goddamn insufferable. They follow a ideology that Marx never had any part in.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3645>Pull the trigger you dumb cuntNah, how about you go fuck yourself instead.
>We have the means to make planning more efficient than Marx could have even dreamtNo you dumb wanker, your just another group of fucking revisionists.
>>3646>How do you intend to plan an economy for several million people in today's age? Pen and paper?Marxian theory, maybe pen and paper, probably a computer you dumb shit.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3650>Leftcom praises Marx in name while spitting in the face of his work by refusing to treat it as a living science.What a pathetic argument.
Your cyberbullshit is not Marx. Cockshitt can go guzzle some shit.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3653>>3656RETARD FLAG
Everybody watch out it's a retard flag
>>3657Please cease your existence immediately.
I am appalled by your revisionist ideals.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3662>>3661There no denying science here, I don't even know where exactly you pulled that shit from (definitely from your fucking ass).
Cockshitt ain't shit compared to marx, period.
Your fucking "cyber" bullshit is not needed, at all.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3664>What's exactly "cyber" that are you're opposed to?Cockshitts "personal touches".
Why the fuck he is tampering with the ideas of commuinsm/socialism?
left_communismLeft Communism >>3668The fucking idea that socialism/communism isn't fucking capable of adapting to modern technology, and requires updating to electronics to improve it.
There is no reason why this is needed.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3669I don't think Cockshott seeks to "improve" communism, his work is mainly him providing an empirical case of how a socialist economy can be run AND a system of direct democracy
>>3670I'm pretty sure Marx wasn't a woke warrior either
>>3672>How do you intend to plan an economy for several million people in today's age? Pen and paper?in direct response to this
>cockshitism boils down to "you don't like computers if you don't like cockshit!"this is literally what he suggests with his "pen and paper" retardation
you fucking illiterate uyghur
>>3673Why the fuck is he calling it new socialism?
Why the fuck is he creating his own branch off of "Marxian"?
>>3673>I'm pretty sure Marx wasn't a woke warrior eitherHe wasn't as angry as me.
>>3674
>Revisionism isn't when you add modern analysisThis goes beyond fucking modern analysis.
>>3675>Worst poster on the board with stiff competitionSuck. A. Left. Nut.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3677Imagine being such a baby leftist you think leftcoms sperging and calling everything revisionist with zero arguments is anything out of the ordinary or substantial criticism.
tl;dr of leftcuck's argument:
>goo goo gah gah I don't like the title of his book and he won't say trans rights >>3681>Where did he say he is creating a new branch? Lets see here:
His nazbol tier beliefs.
He literally wants labor vouchers as money and commodities with "hour-prices" that will fluctuate according to supply and demand.
His attempt to make himself seen as the "new marx".
left_communismLeft Communism >>3682>His nazbol tier beliefs.Marx would be considered nazbol if he was alive today
>He literally wants labor vouchers as money and commodities with "hour-prices" that will fluctuate according to supply and demand.Cockshott didn't invent labor vouchers. Marx talks about them in Gotha Program
>His attempt to make himself seen as the "new marx".I think you're confusing our shitposting memes with Cockshott's actual postions
>>3687>Marx would be considered nazbol if he was alive todayEnd your existence, you fascist liar.
>Cockshott didn't invent labor vouchersDidn't say he did dumbshit. He's fucking with the idea of labor vouchers.
>I think you're confusing our shitposting memes with Cockshott's actual postionsSure buddy, it's all just "shitposting" until it fucking isn't.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3686I like how you deliberately neglected to mention that labour vouchers are non-transferable and can't be accumulated as opposed to money.
Will you explain how Cockshott is turning labour vouchers into money with this in mind?
>>3689>BasedCringe and fascist
>>3690I didn't neglect it. The problem here is that cockshott wants labour vouchers to be worked for based on HOURS. AS IN, HOW MANY HOURS YOUR WORKED.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3687>Marx would be considered nazbol if he was alive todayDon't turn into a retard to try and make your point anon.
>>3691>The problem here is that cockshott wants labour vouchers to be worked for based on HOURS. AS IN, HOW MANY HOURS YOUR WORKED.And? How exactly is this an issue?
<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm >>3697>>3694>Marx is ultra hardcore nazbol for all the shit he wrote about jews, blacks, mexicans and asiansHe didn't write shit, you nazi infiltrator.
>>3695>'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' means, that ideally, each person should contribute to society according to his or her best efforts to do so, and should nonetheless receive from society what he or she requires to survive in relative health and safety.This is
>>3696contrary to this idea.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3706> Him using socialism and communism synonymously does not contradict him discussing lower and higher phase communism.Damnit. I'm so use to having to say "socialism and commuinsm are synonymous" that I assumed the argument was basically "socialism and commuinsm was two different things".
I will accept the point.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3705>It also forces individuals to participate in labourAnd? That's a necessity of lower phase communism. Services are still provided as Marx lays out, but people still need to work. That isn't the same as wage slavery.
>To each according his contribution>The term means simply that each worker in a socialist society receives compensation and benefits according to the quantity and value of the labor that he or she contribute<Quoted from wikipedia Ok, this has to be a fucking flaseflag.
>>3711>Why don't you quote Marx you falseflagging faggot?
>Their commodity, labor-power, the workers exchange for the commodity of the capitalist, for money, and, moreover, this exchange takes place at a certain ratio. So much money for so long a use of labor-power. For 12 hours' weaving, two shillings. And these two shillings, do they not represent all the other commodities which I can buy for two shillings? Therefore, actually, the worker has exchanged his commodity, labor-power, for commodities of all kinds, and, moreover, at a certain ratio. By giving him two shillings, the capitalist has given him so much meat, so much clothing, so much wood, light, etc., in exchange for his day's work. The two shillings therefore express the relation in which labor-power is exchanged for other commodities, the exchange-value of labor-power….But the putting of labor-power into action – i.e., the work – is the active expression of the laborer's own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labor itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another. The product of his activity, therefore, is not the aim of his activity. What he produces for himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the gold that he draws up the mining shaft, not the palace that he builds. What he produces for himself is wages ; and the silk, the gold, and the palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of necessaries of life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper coins, and into a basement dwelling. And the laborer who for 12 hours long, weaves, spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stone, carries hods, and so on – is this 12 hours' weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building, shovelling, stone-breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life, as life? Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours' work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. If the silk-worm's object in spinning were to prolong its existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker.
The free laborer , on the other hand, sells his very self, and that by fractions. He auctions off eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his life, one day like the next, to the highest bidder, to the owner of raw materials, tools, and the means of life – i.e., to the capitalist. The laborer belongs neither to an owner nor to the soil, but eight, 10, 12, 15 hours of his daily life belong to whomsoever buys them. The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labor-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class , unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class ; and it is for him to find his man – i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class.
>And the abolition of such is a matter of material conditions of the forces of production, regardless of the social construction aroundHow is this a counter?
left_communismLeft Communism >>3718Labor will not be abolished. At best, automated.
>>3718>Anon, literally none of this makes the use of labour vouchers equivalent to capitalist wage labourAre you dependent on labour vouchers, which requires labour to get?
left_communismLeft Communism >>3721>post work bullshit.Never stated anything about "post work".
I genuinely just don't see the point of labor vouchers
In a communist society, when free use works much better and does not require forcing people to work for everyday needs and wants like in a capitalist system.
Labour vouchers maintain the idea that our human worth is determined by how much or how many goods we can own ,or produce.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3717>>3719 (me)
Also, I had to add this on.
>Forced labour is slavery.You are a pseud and a fraud. The compulsion of labor is not what defines slavery, the defining characteristic of slavery is the compulsion of the CREATION OF A SURPLUS which is then SEIZED BY THE COMPELLER, not the compulsion to labor itself. The slave is required to reproduce not only his own existence but also the existence of his master.
The argument against wage slavery, serfdom, and ancient slavery by Marx is against the compulsory creation and theft of SURPLUS VALUE. If you can find me a single line of Marx that suggests that he is against requiring people to replace their consumed value then by all fucking means post it.
>>3726>>Forced labour is slavery.>You are a pseud and a fraud.
>the defining characteristic of slavery is the compulsion of the CREATION OF A SURPLUS which is then SEIZED BY THE COMPELLER, not the compulsion to labor itselfIt's not the only characteristic, dipshit.
>>3727>L-look, even the fascists and ancaps agree with meUh…>>199256
left_communismLeft Communism >>3730As far as the critique of capitalism goes, yes, it might as well be the primary defining characteristic: A ruling class who hold power in a given society are entitled to seize by force the surplus generated by a laboring class. The varying forms in which this happens have changed through the years, but this has been the singular most defining feature. Under ancient slavery, the ruling class was entitled to all that was created by the slaves themselves. Under feudal society, the lords were entitled to all that was created using their land. Under captialism, the capitalist is entitled to all that is created with their capital. This is the core of the critique of labor under capitalism, that it simply switches out the ruling class' ownership of your body for ownership of the tools necessary to reproduce your own existence (and directly attacking all other avenues of reproduction), then compels you to create a surplus for someone else to live on in order to use them.
I honestly don't give a damn if you're going to be posting points that argue that we shouldn't be compelling people to work at all, but if you are, stop pretending it's a Marxist position and stop posting with a Leftcom flag.
>>3731My guy, this "labor voucher system" is wage slavery
It has a lack of workers' self-management to the fu extent in which they can chose not to work while not having to suffer a potential lack of "wages" they depend upon.
A free use based system does not limit a persons value to "how much they produce".
left_communismLeft Communism >>3737Because there are only three possible options.
1. Society reaches a level of production at which labor becomes near irrelevant in the process of creating an excess of abundance
2. People are allowed to universally consume more than they produce, ultimately causing societal collapse
3. You force other people to produce for you
>>3740>Since capitalism has already socialized the means of productionCease your speech>>3739>You force other people to produce for youThere's no forcing. The people can choose where to distribute their labor.
If they wish to distribute to free use outlets, they can do so as they please.
If they wish to use their labor for themselves, they can do so as they please.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3741So you're picking option 2, which is where society has no guarantee that production at least meets consumption levels.
Do you realize that the "compelled labor" of accurately measured labor vouchers would enable people worldwide to live at a consumption level that is currently afforded to people in the $60-80k/yr USD range at a drastically reduced working week?
>>3723I'd probably keep doing my job for less hours on less days in your higher stage but not high enough to count as the kind of moneyless
fully automated luxury space communism men like
comrade Xi envision as the end goal to work towards because I'm a bit insane like that
It's hard work, and I could maybe see a few of my older colleagues who are at least twice as efficient as me and maybe 10 to twenty times more efficient than a newbie sticking it out for the satisfaction of skilled work well done but even then they'd probably prefer to take the opportunity to retire and give their aching bodies a rest
The younger lads are in it for the money and don't see how our kind of work slots in to keep society functioning
inb4
>but muh automationI agree; Automation is essential for a society free of toil but the only people who'd have a chance in hell of designing and building the automation are the workers not just competent but fully skilled in the work
It is for this reason that
the great comrade Stalin (who comrade Xi wisely considers to have made the most correct decisions) outlined the progressively reducing number of hours of the workday in order to give people the freedom of leisure time to pursue their own interests in his final book The Economic ProblemsTo emphasise that this is not purely abstract theory from late in comrade Stalin's life is worth noting that the workday had been reduced to seven hours with more reductions planned before the Great Patriotic War until the danger of the Hitlerite menace forced an increase back to 8tankieTankie >>3749>Already haveObviously not, as you believe labour vouchers
as Marx literally describes them to be a form of wage labour. So either:
A) Marx is advocating for wage labour
or
B) You have have misunderstood Marx
Pick one.
Hint: Wages as you define it is not how Marx defines wages. >>3751<As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the labourers are turned into proletarians, their means of labour into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialisation of labour and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralisation of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htmApparently Marx can "fuck off to a river bridge".
>>3758I have a decent amount of trust that the majority of humanity are fairly alright people.
Asking people to run the entire global economy on "dude trust me" is a pretty hard sell though.
>>3768so its even more retarded, literally just anyone take whatever you want. no rationing of any kind. The only way that could even be possible is under FALC or something. Maybe in the star trek utopia of the year 3000 or something but not today. There will always be natural resource limits of some kind you literally cant just have "free use" unless he's saying its only free use of shit thats already been produced, so literally first come first serve. Grocercy store only has 1/4th the normal food because the farmers only wanted to work 1 hour a day because to do otherwise is, like,
literally, like slavery mannnn and its free use so whatever chud shoves their way in front of grandmas and pregnant women gets to grab up all the food and leave none for anyone else.
>>3762>I'll state this again. This is essentially the one thing I disagree on marx with. Because I see it as entirely unnecessary when a free use system works perfectly fine.Anon, you yourself stated earlier:
>I'm not the fucking idiot who chooses to follow the works of random idiots rather than fucking marx themselves.>Fuck your cyberbullshit, marx is all I fucking needAs well as multiple other reiterations of a similar point.
If you are now stating that Marx is in fact wrong on this, it means you have then conceded on your earlier point, the consequence of such being that "Cockshottists" are made to be closer followers of Marx then you are.
>>3763>transformation Key word here dipshits. It is a contradiction of capitalism, though it's also a part of its transformation in socialism/commuinsm.>>199509
>>3764>Asking people to run the entire global economySo you believe in the dictatorship of the few, not the proletariat.
>>3767Do explain.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3771>So you believe in the dictatorship of the few, not the proletariat.how exactly do you maintain a "proletariat" in a post-class society?
Also, no, that is not what that means.
Also, when are you going to realize that having methods to keep count of production vs consumption has genuine uses beyond being mean to people
>>3770>Anon, you yourself stated earlier:
>it means you have then conceded on your earlier pointExcept that I haven'tWhen I stated "I'm not the fucking idiot who chooses to follow the works of random idiots rather than fucking marx themselves", there was no lie.
When I stated "Fuck your cyberbullshit, marx is all I fucking need", there was no lie.
I disagree with marx on this point with labor vouchers. However, I still don't use anyone else but him as a basis for theory. No cockshitt, not stalin, not mao, not anyone else. Just them.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3774You literally said you disagree with Marx so I guess quoting marx to you isn't an argument so we can move beyond what Marx did or didn't say at this point since you are clearly putting your own theories over Marx at this point. How exactly would "free use" be even remotely viable and not a shitshow?
as in:
>>3769 >>3773>how exactly do you maintain a "proletariat" in a post-class society?I mean before them, during the transformation. When it comes to responsibilities, do you trust the FORMER proletariat to run things?
>Also, when are you going to realize that having methods to keep count of production vs consumption has genuine uses beyond being mean to peopleNever even mentioned that>>3775
>You literally said you disagree with MarxYeah. doesn't mean I use anyone else like cockshitt.
>How exactly would "free use"I trust the people to work whenever it is needed to benefit and maintain society without forcing them and making them dependent on vouchers and currency.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3777Why do you seem to think that socialists are going to rigidly guarantee that nobody takes a second's worth of time more than they produce?
I don't think it'd be very hard to convince the democratic majority that it would be a good idea to implement social security systems like a universal income and various forms of paid time off.
>>3780>Marx would despise you for this. I wish it was built up enough to develop into a a more advanced form.
But honestly, the alternatives to his works are shit, and I see them as either redundant or even regressive.
>>3781>literally taking the right wing caricature of No.
>taking whatever the fuck they wantThat is available to them.
>It would barely work for a small commune of 100 people, let alone scaling to a world with long complex supply chains needed to produce 90% of modern goods and services.Not a single point in your post do you actually detail exactly why any of your points are valid.
>>3782>Why do you seem to think that socialists are going to rigidly guarantee that nobody takes a second's worth of time more than they produce? I'm not even arguing that.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3783>Not a single point in your post do you actually detail exactly why any of your points are valid.Your entire point on why your system works is literally "have faith in the proletariat".
That straight up is not scientific in any sense.
>>3785>If we guaranteed people a universal basic income on a system of labor vouchers garnered through the cancellation of LV's after a certain periodWhat are you even going on about here?
>>3786>That straight up is not scientific in any sense.Ok, so what's the "scientific" answer then?
>>3787>you wouldn't have made mistakes like thinking Marx never stated capitalism socializes productionI have the occasional of shitty memory.
>Stop trying to search for enemies to fight,Don't need to search when I know where to immediately find them.
>stop looking at everyone as a combatantI don't.
>and start honestly contemplating and reviewing what we state before you make a response addressing those statement.
>Implying I already don't.left_communismLeft Communism >>3790""leftcom"" anon,
>Not a single point in your post do you actually detail exactly why any of your points are valid.you still haven't responded to this:
>>3769answer these fucking questions:
With no incentive or compulsions, what is the guarantee that the minimum basics of life will even be created at all? Let alone extras
If people can just take whatever is available, how do you deal with shortages?
How would your system deal with long term planning in terms of infrastructure, etc.? How would your system be able to coordinate any sort of long term plan without knowing if half their workforce will just fuck off tomorrow or decide to work an hour a week for 3 months? Or planning for climate change?
How would your system handle long, complex supply chains, which are required to produce the modern world?
Your answer is just "trust the people
mannn", without any further details the burden of proof is utterly on you to prove your system would result in anything but chaos and probably mass famine/shortages.
>you still haven't responded to this: >>3769You didn't give me a (you).
>IncentiveThe incentive is this: keep your communist society functioning so people don't get fucked.
>If people can just take whatever is available, how do you deal with shortages?Limit how much they can take if the outlet is having shortages. No labour tickets required.
>How would your system deal with long term planning in terms of infrastructure, etc.? How would your system be able to coordinate any sort of long term plan without knowing if half their workforce will just fuck off tomorrow or decide to work an hour a week for 3 months? Or planning for climate change?Most of humanity is not that fucking stupid
>How would your system handle long, complex supply chainsPeople choose to get assigned as a transporter, they transport, they get paid in material conditions
>Your answer is just "trust the people mannn", without any further details Yeah, it is. What else were you expecting? You don't trust the people to run the government or something? Hmm?
left_communismLeft Communism >>3795>From "free use economy" to literal "benevolent big brother economy" in the span of a single postThat would be a community decision though.
>No i dont trust people on mass to just take whatever the fuck they want with no rationing.Guess you don't have much trust with humanity then.
left_communismLeft Communism >>3801>>3800Actually, I misread that.
At least someone trust worthy has to do that. Not literally everyone.
left_communismLeft Communism >>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.
>>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 >>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 >>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 >>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.
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>>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 >>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
>>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