Previous thread ( >>210868 ) hit bump limit.
We scientific (STEM) socialism here.
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 1)
https://archive.is/uNCEY2)
https://web.archive.org/web/20201218152831/https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/997358.html3)
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1092975361You can make webm related real by contacting Ck on his Facebook or YT channel.Sorry to break it to you, but two things basically remove a lot of credibility from the computer guy narrative:<br/>1. in a chat with FinBol a couple of years ago, someone asked him the most dreaded but fundamental question: how do you sustain a system where whatever job you have, you'll get paid exactly the same? He came up with the most underwhelming answer: well, you take pride in doing your job well. Basically a non-answer and something completely disappointing coming from someone that tries to mathematise every bloody thing to then come up with a "because reasons" answer. Also, while he advocate for the complete and total elimination of each and every "market" mechanism whatsoever, he then said that when there are not enough people willing to do some kind of job, you just… paid them more! So, the demand-side for a job goes down, the supply-side just goes up. Totally not a market logic! <br/>2. He made some video a few years ago when he supposedly "debunked" the reasons why people should push for some kind of UBI. I'm not taking a side here, but I'm just bringing to your attention an actual example, not some "because reasons" scholarly assumption. He said in the end that a UBI would be, among other things, a "help to the worst employers" or an "incentive" to them. Well, here in Wopistan, porkies and especially smaller porkies are crying so much because a welfare benefit introduced in the last couple of years - i.e. "giving money to people to don't do nothing" - is basically undercutting the possibility by restaurants and such shit to hire for the shitty wages they were used to pay to waiters. A real life demonstration that something that is not even close to an actual full UBI can nonetheless work very well against "the worst kinds of employers" and not be an "incentive" for them. Beside this, in that video he only considers raising the income tax for low and medium brackets as a mean to finance an UBI, while things like imposing wealth taxes, land taxes and property taxes are apparently not even contemplated.
Plastic Pills created a documentary on Cybernetics and project Cybersyn, it's patreon exclusive for now, but he will eventually release it on his channel. <br/>Here is the trailer: <a href="
https://youtu.be/10aFfl0hrrk" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
https://youtu.be/10aFfl0hrrk</a><a onclick="highlightReply('442739', event);" href="/leftypol/res/392953.html#442739">>>442739</a><br/><span class="quote">>Nope. He means there should be a bourgeois liberal secular dictatorship. And he's not wrong</span><br/>The Americans funded the taliban and the isis goons. He can't mean the US occupation because that didn't even intent to create a bourgeois secular anything in Afghanistan, they just wanted managed chaos, to extract resources, to block the BRI, and justify indefinite military expenditure. <br/>The last military occupation that did in earnest try to secularize Afganistan was the Soviet one.<br/>The US occupation continued funding the most reactionary elements during their stay, them getting kicked out isn't a big loss.<br/><br/>The next big player that tries it's hand with Afghanistan is now going to be China, and they probably will not do much to secularize Afghanistan either, because they won't interfere in internal politics. But they also will not fund reactionaries, and probably will squeeze out the foreign operations that do, which might reduce the back warded ness a tiny bit. So basically Afganistan will remain an utterly shit theocratic hell world. Until somebody can build a scifi military that can actually operate in this place, or we get a miracle and Afghanistan gets industrialized enough to produce enough surplus to sustain it's own societal progress.
https://sitewithaview.ovh/the-problem-of-scale-in-anarchism-and-the-case-for-cybernetic-communism/After some stuff about Glushkov, Kantorovich, Cybersyn that you can skip even if you have only a very superficial familiarity with them, this gets really technical and weird. The start is around the first mention of
Economic Science Fictions – so ctrl-f for that. Disclaimer: I don't fully understand it myself. I am not a computer scientist, but I have a feeling that there is a leap of faith in the paragraph with the claim
Maximizing our integrated information favors cooperation over competition… My impression is that the author conflates distinct concepts: the independence of people in capitalism as a legal/ideological fiction and actual independence. I think really existing capitalism has no compatibility problems with actually existing strong dependence. In that paragraph the author states something I believe is practically identical to a poor argument for indirect elections: It's about high probability of subsystems being pivotal as something unquestionably good, because people then have a lot of power as long as we define having power as high probability of being pivotal… The problem with that definition is that it leaves out of the picture the probability of getting what you want, which is NOT the same as the probability of being pivotal.
>>484689the author using terms like "Stalinism" makes me skeptical that they have an accurate view of history. this passage in particular supports this:
>In [Glushkov's] plan, this completely decentralized, vast computational network would have eventually entirely removed the state from the tasks of economic planning and distribution of services. Needless to say, the project was vehemently opposed by the Soviet government, after an initial phase of mild enthusiasm quickly evaporated.this doesn't square with the reality of OGAS being continually expanded until the end of the USSR
I have no idea why the author goes on about Kolmogorov complexity. the bit about multilayered networks is somewhat interesting, but much too abstract
this Bifo fellow the author cites seems hopelessly lost in idealism
Can you give a good estimates how many different items are produced in an economy like that of Sweden? How about an estimate of how many different items a fashion company like Nike is offering within a year? I bet if you ask Paul Cockshott such a question, he will underestimate that by a factor of more than 100. (I admit that is a weird question outside normal experience and most people will fail to give a decent estimate within a factor of ten, and I don't think it makes an insurmountable issue for computer planning, but still.)
Here I found some estimates for Amazon (article is from June 8, 2021):
https://inventlikeanowner.com/blog/the-story-behind-asins-amazon-standard-identification-numbers/Talking about inventing Amazon's internal numbering system back in the nineties:
<I (Rebecca Allen) proposed that we replace the 10-digit ISBN as the key for our catalog with a minimum-impact-on-the-code “ASIN”.<base 36 number (the letters of the alphabet plus the 10 digits)Then after looking at the numbers and release dates of products, she does a little bit of math, and comes to this:
<So, between sometime in 1997 or 1998 (I forget exactly when I created ASINs, but I left in 1998, so it had to be before that, and it wasn’t one of the first things I did, so it was not in 1996) and 2016, Amazon used 100 Billion (with a B, for Bezos) ASINs. Between 2016 and now, they’ve gone through at least 6 times that.Deflating factors:
<They are using a new ASIN for each new expiration date on a given product.<Second, vendors have the option of using a distinct ASIN in each geographic region / market.<scam listings, counterfeit goods and the likeMulti-pack versions of a product also got a distinct ASIN, of course.
>>484691I don't think anyone denies that we'll have to deal with billions or even trillions of distinct goods
>They are using a new ASIN for each new expiration date on a given product>Second, vendors have the option of using a distinct ASIN in each geographic region / marketthis kind of info doesn't belong in a product ID
in principle the number of good could be infinite. but in practice you still have to "instantiate" each type of good. think lazy evaluation
>>484596replace youtube.com with yewtu.be in the link name and you can watch it
also gluglu doesn't demand it from non-europeans afaik
>>484699>>484700It's funny how many people conflate the genotype/genome with the genetic code, even a scientific minded individual like Cockshott.
Good video nonetheless and nice takedown by Cockshott.
>>484686He's extremely wrong if he thinks that the US' failure to do exactly that isn't indicative of all such imperialist ventures.
>>484683How stupid.
>>484687Turns out that the bourgeois military dictatorship also supported Abrahamic reactionaries in their attempt at "reform"
>>484707You don't need Cockshott's software. Games like Factorio, Minecraft, and other games with resource management mechanics, are often reducible to linear programming problems. Almost every major programming language has some library for LP solving.
Oskar Lange has a really good book on dynamic programming called "Optional Decision-making". Lots of neat asides against von Mises, including the fact that he stole the name "praxeology" from a legitimate field of mathematical inquiry and then established it in a completely insane, incoherent, manner. Lange is underrated, especially later Lange.
>>484705Read Marx's journalism for the New York Tribune on the Civil War in the US. See also his writings on the historical events that occurred in his time, like the 18th Brumaire.
>>484706Based dickbalst
>>484710The tawantinsuyo didn't use currency, but only a barter system and a highly centralized bureocracy who used the quipu as an accounting tool (and also as a form of books, but the way of reading them has been lost to history)
>>484707what
>>484709 says. I've experimented with lp_solve, it's quite easy to use, and some of cockshott's projects use it as well. what you want to do is write a generator that generates linear programs that can then be passed to lp_solve
one complication is that you quickly get into integer programming, which lp_solve isn't very good at since it's using the simplex algorithm instead of an interior point method. solving large mixed integer programs is an active field of research
>>484712no, they're mostly useless subjectivists and Klimanfags in some cases like SDL
>>484725>he does not seem to have a very clear idea to what end such programming would be put in a socialist economyKantorovich suggests that the "planning ray" (typically called c in the literature) should be in the direction of some basket of goods. I disagree with Kantorovich on this. It makes the most sense to optimize in terms of social labour, and introduce constraints based on measured demand.
Glushkov gives a clearer picture of how these things could be put to use in a socialist economy, via his Displan proposal. Unfortunately most of Glushkov's work is still only available in Russian. Perhaps we can get some slavic comrades to translate more of them?
Person A: Money can most definitely buy happiness for most people.
Person B: Meanwhile, some of the happiest countries surveyed live in relative poverty in Africa.
Happiness is very complicated. It seems true that in the USA, money is necessary, but not sufficient for happiness. However, there are places where people live in harmony in small communities and in a state we'd consider poverty. They work hard and they have far less luxuries than us, but they also get a lot of joy from how meaningful their lives are.
When an American goes to work, he makes things for strangers. When someone on the west coast of Africa goes fishing, he feeds his family and friends.
When an American grows up, he struggles to keep meaningful friendships. When a west African grows up, they are friends with all their village and they serve an important role in that village that makes they socialize often.
The American lives a less human life than the west African, in a sense. We've created an abomination of manmade experiences that are unnatural and go against our evolved psychology. We are meant to be happy in small tribes where everyone sees everyone fulfill important roles, not massive communities where we do abstract tasks like
Please debunk person B.
>>484734You don't have to go back to living in primitive tribal society, to have meaningful lives. The fact that capitalism has caused people to become atomized doesn't mean that complex society have to be like that. Work becomes meaningless in capitalism because of exploitation. Capitalists remove surplus value from society, that is what makes it meaningless. The work in a small tribe appears more meaningful because the surplus is not lost to a ruling class. Doing work for strangers in a complex system with a high degree of division of labor doesn't have to appear meaningless, if you make the economic system transparent enough. the Money based market economy just has too many layers of obfuscation to have this level of transparency.
Live in an advanced mode of production does not necessarily have to feel like living in a fish-bole yearning for the lake and river.
>>484755>pwease explain acceleration uwuSure, if you want to accelerate capitalism into outright collapse, you have to forcibly reduce the rate of profit by shortening hours of labor. Capital always and everywhere responds to the fall in the rate of profit by introducing improved technology to reduce the employment of labor power in production, in order to recover the rate of profit. This sets the stage for a further reduction of hours of labor and further acceleration in the development of the forces of social production.
If you have further questions, consult Capital, volume 1, chapter 15.
>>484752good point inequality is what "actuates" the unhappiness.
>>484753>Oh, I agree with that. It's just that it is hard to really take advantage of that headroom in a system of production that is limited by human labor power.So it's future proof ?
>>484740the state is a tool of class repression. if there is only one class then there is no longer a state. as the other anon said, goberment != state. it's possible that new classes emerge in socialism
>>484753>It's just that it is hard to really take advantage of that headroom in a system of production that is limited by human labor power.literally every mode of production to date, and every mode of production that will ever be, will be limited by human labor power. or are you one of those people who think that robots run themselves? that they never wear out?
we can certainly replace lots of labourers with machines, but you still have to contend with the AM/FM problem, namely living in a world of Actual Machines rather than Fucking Magic
>>484755>is it truly senpai himself that graces this board?I doubt it, but paul has shown himself to be too good a shitposter to not be relatively online
>>484764>the state is a tool of class repression. if there is only one class then there is no longer a state. as the other anon said, goberment != state. it's possible that new classes emerge in socialismI believe i was talking about communism, of which Engels said:
<"The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away."Of course, It is all the rage these days to disown Engels, so go ahead and add your voice.
>>484764>literally every mode of production to date, and every mode of production that will ever be, will be limited by human labor power.While you are at it, disown Marx too, who wrote that even under capitalism labor cease to be the well-spring of material wealth:
>" Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself. (What holds for machinery holds likewise for the combination of human activities and the development of human intercourse.) No longer does the worker insert a modified natural thing [Naturgegenstand] as middle link between the object [Objekt] and himself; rather, he inserts the process of nature, transformed into an industrial process, as a means between himself and inorganic nature, mastering it. He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor. In this transformation, it is neither the direct human labour he himself performs, nor the time during which he works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body – it is, in a word, the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth."Please. Just. Stop.
>>484765>I believe i was talking about communism, of which Engels said:I feel this just gets into sophistry about what "government" actually is. feel free to use the anarchist definition if you want. you could read "The government of persons" as being synonymous with the state, for Engels
>the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itselfthis is still labour. or are you making the case that programmers and sysadmins are not working class? to me it seems Marx changed his mind on this in Capital vol 1. it is still labour, no matter if it is mostly muscle or mostly gray matter that is involved in the process
>>484750It isn't retarded to say that exploitation doesn't cause unhappiness, saying otherwise is like hasan tier "ppl are alienated because they don't get the full value of their labor"
>>484751Shortening the work day is one of the general directions of the movement. This is all that is needed to be said about it.
>>484754By "government" i don't mean state, the domination of one class over the other is a state, the simple administrative organ is a government, so yeah, it's not a government-less society.
>>484768>By "government" i don't mean state, the domination of one class over the other is a state, the simple administrative organ is a government, so yeah, it's not a government-less society.Frankly, I don't care what YOU or any other anon mean by the term – however well-intended. Show me where the commonly accepted definition of the word is not associated with an organ for exercising control over the actions of members of a community. This is exactly what Engels argued would no longer exist when the state withered away.
In any case, we are not going to settle this here and should be satisfied to simply accept that we disagree.
>>484769just fucking look at yourself:
>>484740>how do you … cannot manage production … the stateobviously here you meant a simple administrative organ, not a tool of class oppression
Then I tell you
<Communism is not a government-less societybecause I tried to tell you that communism doesn't exclude a managerial organ, to which you reply
>Government of people is replaced by administration of thingsSO MAKE UP YOUR MIND ALREADY >>484770And Lenin said "He who doesn't work, doesn't eat"
There will be a shitton of work to do after the revolution, if the conditions will be especially shitty, like in pre-WW2 USSR, people will have to do more intense labor for faster industrialization and development of the productive forces. We can't know for sure, and running your entire campaign on "shortening the work day" instead of "political power to the people" is peak retardation. Well excuse me, Jehu, but we don't need a revolution, we can just add a shorter workday reform!
>>484773Real life scenario:
- Work at google.
- Exploited, but less
- happy, as far as for materialistic concerns
oh no no anti-work bros how do we ever recover??
Maybe you mean "abuse" and not "exploitation" and if you do use exploitation when you really should be using abuse, then read a fucking book.
Marx spent his youth explaining alienation during capitalism, tying it all together with commodity production, with philosophy and so on, and you come in here saying "nah, fuck that, surplus value extraction is the source of unhappiness"
And then you call me pseuds.
>colourful bold texthey anglo, use PostLeft if you don't like colors
>>484771I was originally reacting to this quote:
>In [Glushkov's] plan, this completely decentralized, vast computational network would have eventually entirely removed the state from the tasks of economic planning and distribution of services. Needless to say, the project was vehemently opposed by the Soviet government, after an initial phase of mild enthusiasm quickly evaporated.Since under communism there is no state to manage production. And there is no government to manage production. I wondered aloud how is production managed under communism without a state or a government?
I was throwing a question out for discussion. The fact that the writer's work eventually removed the state from economic planning would not necessarily be a negative if the state itself was supposed to wither away. The question was what would replace it.
>>484776>how is production managed under communism without a state or a government?1. Communism as a state-less society means
STRICTLY a society without state as a class oppression tool
2. Glushkov's opposition to the soviet "state" was just an opposition to that specific administrative tool, he obviously proposed a decentralized and separated from "the state" aka the class oppression tool.
Glushkov proposed a managerial/administrative organ that would have removed /the state/ from economic interference. So the class oppression tool wouldn't influence the administrative tool.
What are you wondering about? States and governments don't manage production, administrative organs do. Those organs may be called "state" or "government" but that's misuse of "state" or "government"
>>484772>And Lenin said "He who doesn't work, doesn't eat"I am not a Leninist. Neither was Lenin, for that matter. He studied Capital.
Even if a political revolution were necessary today, its sole necessary measure upon achieving power would be to immediately reduce hours of labor to eight hours a week or less.
>>484778>economic exploitation causes unhappiness. Literally everyone that has ever worked is aware of this.Nope, again, comfy google employees and labor aristocrats are still exploited, but not unhappy.
>literally an anglonope
>>484779>I am not a Leninist.Who cares? Lenin was right. Work is necessary. Promising the proletariat they will have butterflies and fairy dust is only going to result in their frustration after the civil war with the fact that the nation needs rebuilding, and fast.
>Even if a political revolution were necessary todayYou don't consider political revolution necessary? Then you're not a Marxist.
>its sole necessary measure upon achieving power would be to immediately reduce hours of labor to eight hours a week or less.you're not talking about any specific country, any specific conditions and/or any specific way in which revolution would happen. I wonder why. Where is the nation that had a revolution without damaging its productive forces and/or inheriting the broken economy after the disruptive actions taken by workers?
>its sole measureno. If there was as measure, it would be the political power of the proletariat, ideally completely its own.
>>484780>You don't consider political revolution necessary? Then you're not a Marxist.It's not that i don't think it necessary, but I don't think we should wait for one. Revolutions are contingent events. We need to think about how to move ahead without waiting for something that's outside our control. And that initiative is not to be found in bourgeois electoralism. We should be creative with direct action.
>>484780
>you're not talking about any specific country, any specific conditions and/or any specific way in which revolution would happen.I am only talking about the advanced countries, and, in first place, the United States. For too long communists in the advanced countries have sat on their fat asses and done absolutely nothing. They need to act! The less developed countries cannot carry this thing alone.
>>484780
>If there was as measure, it would be the political power of the proletariatThe seizure of state power by the proletariat is not an end in itself. It is only a means to the complete abolition of classes. It is absolutely NOT "completely its own." It is merely a suicide pact of an exploited class.
The proletariat must abolish itself. It has no choice. Any other course leads to disaster!
>>484783>It's not that i don't think it necessary, but I don't think we should wait for one. Revolutions are contingent events. We need to think about how to move ahead without waiting for something that's outside our control. And that initiative is not to be found in bourgeois electoralism. We should be creative with direct action.Cringe. Revolution doesn't come by itself. You should know it, but you don't, why?
>I am only talking about the advanced countries, and, in first place, the United States. For too long communists in the advanced countries have sat on their fat asses and done absolutely nothing. They need to act! The less developed countries cannot carry this thing alone.Cool, go out and copwatch or something, but that won't do jack shit. You need to inform the masses. You need to organize the masses. You need vanguardism and you need a plan, not just any silly random direct action. You've read what is to be done, right?
>>484783>The seizure of state power by the proletariat>means abolition of classeswhat?
>It is absolutely NOT "completely its own."What do you mean by this? The proletariat shouldn't have al the power? I guess "all power to the councils" is a shit slogan, sorry everyone, we need to give bourgeoisie some power too, you know, just to balance it out.
>>484780>nope, again, comfy google employees and labor aristocrats are still exploited, but not unhappyHow do you know? Of course they are directly unhappy with wage cucking to some degree, especially if they are class conscious. They are also uncomfortable with the control their employer and management has over them. It is also not possible to extricate all of the factors that economic exploitation has on a person due to their CLASS. This includes things like alienation from labour and commodification of all aspects of life. All aspects of exploitation.
You claimed
>Unhappiness doesn't come from exploitationWhich is patently false.
>>484781Comrade,
The Internationale was written in 1871, when the cutting edge technology of the time was the steam engine and the telegraph. It would be sixty years before production based on exchange value broke down and 100 years before the last commodity money disappeared from circulation. Fifty percent of Europe and America still farmed for a living. Capitalism was still in its infancy; it had not yet laid the material foundation for communism.
Try joining the 21st century with the rest of us for a change, instead of living in the dark ages.
>>484785>How do you know? Of course they are directly unhappy with wage cucking to some degreeNope, happy with having good work conditions, work day and manageable work intensity. It's a fact. People don't need to own all the value they produce, and the goal of communism isn't to give them all of it, neither is it the cause of unhappiness and alienation.
>They are also uncomfortable with the control their employer and management has over themOmfg this is literally hasan tier "democratic workplace" shilling. Ah yes, famously, what Marx was advocating for "democratic ownership of the workplace"
>All aspects of exploitationLiterally not, capitalist exploitation is defined in the framework of extraction of surplus value, and that's it. Alienation from products of labor doesn't mean jack shit here, not in this relation. Yeah, it's related, the capitalist then appropriates the products of their labor and sells them on a market, sure, but that's already a bigger picture then exploitation.
>you claimed … which is falseNo, it's not, unhappiness comes from many different aspects, like abuse, where the worker needs to do highly intense labor for a long time, but not exploitation in all and any of its forms.
If you think:
>Worker is very comfy, BUT>Worker knows he doesn't get the full value of his labor>Therefore greedy worker wants moreThen the source of the worker's unhappiness isn't exploitation, nor material insecurity, since as pointed out, worker is very comfy, but the source is the worker's materialistic attitude towards the world, and it's internal, not the system's fault. Capitalism isn't at fault for mommy making you go to sleep early.
Address my Marx point, do you understand alienation as Marx puts it?
>>484784Yeah, after 2000+ blog posts, hundred of answers on askFM and god knows how many tweets, I am really disappointed to learn I can't convince you in one response on leftypol.
This is me sad.
>>484786>The Internationale was written in 1871This is the Russian internationale, the one written in the 1920s or later.
What is the fundamental change? Nothing, only evolution of automation technology. You may not believe it, but utopians back even before 1850s were making the argument that steam machines and so on can drastically shorten the workday, but the Russian revolution didn't happen because workers decided socialism is better, but because 1. horrible conditions 2. they were persuaded to chase their political power and assisted in their struggle by the vanguard.
>instead of living in the dark agespls utopian
>>484777>States and governments don't manage production, administrative organs do.States have been managing production under capitalism since the Great War. How do you not know this? Britain managed war production and much of early discussion by Keynes is based on this. Hitler's Germany manage production as well. The USG directly built 1800 factories during World War II. Japan as well. Af ter that WWII, the US went over to managing the production of surplus value and took a mostly hands-off attitude toward production of use value. But it still intervened when necessary in various industries, like auto and aircraft given their national defense significance.
Please. Just. Stop.
>>459181>You can be happy in general or with your job and still be unhappy you are being exploitedMore "bitter at the thought of" being exploited. Unhappiness is a general state that people find themselves in, it's not just when you are saddened by a thought.
>>484791>>484792By your shitty logic, communism isn't a state-less society.
Again, state is only meant as a tool of one class to dominate the other. Statelessness of communism comes from it not having classes and not having anybody to dominate anybody else.
Communism being stateless doesn't mean there won't be a government organ.
How are you two so fucking retarded?
>>484802> Jehu … Just seems like a juvenile boomer who thinks that every word that Marx and Engels wrote is sacred and holy.Guilty as charged!
Marx, Engels, Einstein, Darwin and Freud: Five thinkers whose ideas are still driving scientific knowledge more than century after their deaths.
Jehu compares Marx and Engels to Einstein, Darwin and Freud; anon catches vapors and declaims:
>>484807
>omg this jehu bastard thinks that marxism is a religion lmaoNo wonder everyone is anonymous around here. Who would want to be associated with such stupidity.
This is interesting:
https://sci-hub.st/https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2727266.pdfAn Excerpt:
>As part of the Khrushchev thaw, Kantorovich and his fellow economist V. S. Nemchinov were empowered in 1958 to begin planning and recruiting for a new laboratory for the application of statistical and mathematical methods in economics. This laboratory, to be affiliated with the Siberian Branch of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Novosibirsk, was to work with the newly created Central Mathematical Economics Institute in Moscow. The geography of the decision is telling. Novosibirsk, some 5,000 kilometers east of Moscow, was a safe place for ideas too radical for the nation's capital. As a nonparty member, Kantorovich was not eligible to direct such a laboratory, but he was named its deputy director. He recruited heavily from his students and colleagues in Leningrad, and soon assembled a talented group to staff the new laboratory. Among those at Novosibirsk, probably the most illustrious today (1989) is Abel Agenbegyan, an important economic adviser to Mikhail Gorbachev.JUST FYI: Abel Agenbegyan, adviser to Gorbachev during the final days of the USSR, was also the brash young economist and protege of Kantorovich who wrote the report that killed off the reduction of hours of labor in the S.U. His recommendation ultimately drove the Soviet Union into Brezhnev-era stagnation, leading to its inevitable demise.
Maurice Dobbs in 1967 on Kantorovich's ideas, about three years after the SU wnet back on its promise to reduce hours of labor and about 3 years before the west was about to enter the biggest crisis since the Great Depression:
https://sci-hub.st/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40401275I haven't read it yet. But will do do this week.
>>484818interesting PDF finds
>I think Kantorovich's approach might conflate use value and exchange value, or just simply ignore the difference between the twodo you have a quote where he does this? I know Kantorovich has his "shadow prices" thing but those are not exchange values. from what I know of Kantorovich's work it seems he was mostly focused on calculation in kind. is it perhaps related to Gosplan, which did planning in terms of rubles for certain sectors?
>>484819>do you have a quote where he does this?Not from him directly yet, but from a presentation of his argument made at the time of his death on his Nobel Prize winning ideas from the first of the two PDFs
>We are now at Kantorovich's fundamental economic insight: An optimal plan is inseparable from its prices. Even if a plan was entirely in quantities, and said nothing about prices, if that plan was optimal, it would imply the existence of resolving multipliers that function just like prices. The other side of this is that if the wrong prices are used and managers attempt to maximize value, then optimality will not be achieved. Finally, with a suboptimal plan, no such resolving multipliers exist because there is no separation of convex sets. There are no price implications of suboptimality. In the same PDF, the writer says Kantorovich wanted to put prices on what he called a scientific basis according to his colleagues:
>The mounting stagnation and poor economic performance of the Soviet economy under Brezhnev and his immediate successors gave further credence to the forces seeking reform of the Soviet economy. According to Petrakov, Kantorovich never gave up on the possibility of "a restructuring of the price system on a scientific basis-the very restructuring whose necessity was later declared by the 27th Party Congress." So, at least according to this writer, he conflated use value and exchange value. But This does require some confirmation.
>>484820that does make it seem like Kantorovich is a bit confused on this issue yes. but on the other hand it might be the result of the way Gosplan was set up, inertia in the system etc
>a restructuring of the price system on a scientific basisthis sounds a bit like "Classical labour values" by Dave Zachariah and Cockshott, where they derive value from first principles:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/101915/1/MPRA_paper_101915.pdfTL;DR: value derives from the largest left eigenvector of a matrix R that describes the necessary consumption of the workforce
>>484819>do you have a quote where he does this?On page 135 of Kantorovich's book we find this:
>"In principle, prices should approximate to otsenki . . . even an approximate agreement of prices with otsenki would mean that both prices and valuations reflected hire cost, rent, etc. . . . This would result in a change in price relationships in comparison with existing prices- in particular, a certain relative increase in prices for those types of output (and of services) in the production of which large, specialized and also scarce equipment are being used, namely, prices of metal, petrol, coal, cement and railway transport"In other words, prices should more or less conform to his optimized calculations. Dobbs comments on this:
>"We seem to be confronted with yet another kind of price — a novel type of animal – different from those we have known hitherto: one that can be derived only when the particular plan among feasible plans which is optimal has been discovered, and one that when it is arrived at will both indicate what is optimal in methods of production and ensure that optimal methods are maintained. thoughts on this?
>[Wright] purports to believe that both hands and sex organs 'labor', so if he is consistent then he must believe that both the action of the sex organs and those of hands and brains are abstract labour and thus comparable in quantitative terms>Wanking is widespread and hands are not just used for making thingshttps://www.midwesternmarx.com/articles/reply-to-mr-wright-by-paul-cockshottI for one am excited for a possible future wanking-and-penetration-based mode of production
>>484830sweet. paul is an absolute writing machine. puts my lazy ass to shame
>>484833we need a revolution somewhere before we can put all this stuff into practice. unless things can be built bottom-up somehow, which I suspect is another way to go about this. even succdems can get in on this via a employee funds type of scheme, which is how Allende got things started in Chile
>>484830Very interested in this.
>>484838Already exists.
>>484840For Cockshott in Spanish I believe the book he did with Maxi Nieto (Ciber-comunismo) is more up to date.
>>484840We need to get this to:
>Podemos (Spain)>MAS (Bolivia)>PSUV (Venezuela)>PCC (Cuba)>PL (Peru)>Members of the Constituent Constitutional Assembly (Chile)>PD (Colombia)>Morena (Mexico)>UNES (Ecuador)Who else>
>>484854This doesn't belong into this thread, which is about Cybernetics and socialist planning.
But if you have to know, Cockshott thinks that it undermines womens rights.
you can go to his website
http://paulcockshott.co.uk/ and read his articles in the politics sections from after 2010,
obviously i'm not linking directly to it because it's off topicAlso the neoliberals tried to cancel one of Cockshott's lectures about the history of wages under the pretense of related social causes.
>>484853also none of these groups will ever give a shit about some PDF or video being sent to them and the best way to spread Cockshott's ideas is to either create a party for it and hope the platform is "stolen" or join those parties and advocate such a platform yourself
BTW im pretty sure Cockshott supports market socialism as a transitionary stage towards his model, so maybe supporting that instead is a better idea.
>>484838TANS is already available in Chinese. pdf related. feel free to spread it with chink comrades
>>484839>>484841>>484843I'm involved with some spanish cyberneticians, and they've said that translating good critiques of Austrian economics would be very useful as there is an active debate around this in Brazil at the moment
>>484846penispew vs dickwolff would be a very interesting debate
>>484854>muh transeswe already know paul has boomer takes on queer stuff anon. no one cares
>>484862don't tell me, tell him, stupid bitch
oh wait, you actually don't stand up for class and let this divisive shit pass because you're just a fucking conservative cocksucking little spineless bitch who only wants to appeal to /pol/acks because thats the shithole you fucking rat came crawling out of
bitch
>>484863meds
>>484865cool, also i genuinely do not care and anyone who does care is a complete and utter charlatan who ought to be avoided at all costs
>>484863>implying I'm on twitterI've talked to paul a couple of times, and there's more than enough stuff to talk about without bringing dumb idpol shit up. every second you spend pretending this discussion is worthwhile is a second you're not talking about class
>>484864beats me
>>484867again
you dense motherfucking bitch
tell him it's not important or you're not to be taken serious
but you wont because you're just a stupid bitch faggot eating the shit right off his ass
>>484877We have confirmed anons from Mexico, Peru, Chile,Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil, unfortunately none from Bolivia AFAIK.
The sad thing as I said before is that cockshott's plan probably requires a fuckton of money, the governments of Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia are way too worried about…you know…surviving against the genocidal US to implement cockshott's ideas, and those probably require a fuckton of money on US dollars to implement, and that's exactly the one thing those governments lack the most.
>>484885So the lectures and study material is only available for those that enroll ?
Or are they going to put this stuff online afterwards ?
>>484892you are of course allowed to disagree with Cockshott
but your behavior is that of a bully
the hate-labels that mimic religious persecution, that's cancerous.
what you are doing is using the language of exclusion, when you should be using the language of counter arguments.
should do self criticism and reflect on your bad behavior.
>>484902going to guess someone stole or vandalized some personal property of his
t. someone who had his moped stolen about a year ago
>>484912>shaikhbased
take the shaikh pill bro
>>484912Cockshot is pushing against Hegel because he thinks it cuts people off from contemporary scientific advances, he called it "people get stuck in a time warp". He's likely right about this.
>Look at his unequal exchange videosI did those are excellent, i would recommend those.
>I also have seen the criticism>Now I have seen his book get called irrelevantWell Cockshott is a socialist, so you have to account for people masking their anti-socialism when they attack his works, there are many such cases where they really just try to socially discredit him without refuting him. Your post could technically fall into this category, because you aren't really making any attempts at refuting what he said.
Anyway thanks for the visual book selection pic
>>484912to add to what
>>484919 is saying, actual criticism of Cockshott & Cottrell's proposal tends to be things like how to deal with renumeration or getting away from TANS' assuming things happen in a single nation. also mathematical arguments
>>495801ah. figured as much just a few seconds later
>>484925>Sofar nobody was able to poke a hole in their mathematical frameworkThats because its internally consistent. The problem is not that C&C et al are wrong or even that their conclusions are bad its that their founding assumptions are misdirection and bait made up by liberals in the 1800s. The transformation problem isn't "not a problem" because you can derive prices, its not a problem because Marx never intended to transform values into prices because that is not what his work was about.
The whole thing was was a bourgeoisie misdirection that successfully derailed discourse on abolishing exploitation in favor of a mathematically "fair" redistribution policy so that liberals can endlessly quibble over the details of apportionment instead of seizing control of production. Instead we got decades years of people trying to "prove" nonsense. Political power does not come from being logically consistent or mathematically correct.
>>484926>muh pricesThe fact of the matter is that labor is not infinite and needs to be rationally allocated in a certain way to achieve certain goals. Instead of letting market anarchy do it, you do it via more democratic means of planning. That's all there is to it.
>Political power does not come from being logically consistent or mathematically correct.Nobody claimed so.
>>484925>Sofar nobody was able to poke a hole in their mathematical frameworkpaul had fallen victim to the AI meme when writing TANS. his harmony method is just a shitty interior point method. there are better algorithms. I have informed him of this and he's quite grateful for such critique
>TANS actually has a rather clever scheme for remunerationI might have to re-read TANS, but one open question is whether to use social labour or straight labour time. piece rates vs hourly wages
>>484932>books about planned economieshere's some tips I got from paul:
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691003931/the-socialist-systemhttps://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-planning-structural-decisions-Contributions/dp/0444107347https://1lib.sk/book/2481030/a891e5https://1lib.sk/book/2191598/3affcd >>484925>TANS actually has a rather clever scheme for remunerationDisagree. It's very rudimentary.
>>484926Sorry if this offends you, but you really sound like you got what you think from twitter memery. I don't believe you have read TANS. That book isn't about the transformation problem and the transformation problem is irrelevant for planning in socialism.
>>484934There will be soon a new book by Cockshott.
>>484938Kornai is an anti-communist.
>>484940I have two of them at least. you could try libgen, sci-hub or kademlia (eMule) for the others
>>484944>Kornai is an anti-communist.so? also what
>>484945 said
>>484948dude austrians are such brainlets that they think means of payment are the same as currency. the only recourse they have at this point is "muh tacit knowledge". nevermind the fact that markets consist of definite quantified trades and are not tacit at all
>>484953>the right>good critiqueno anon
>>484954email between universities
>>484964they have less long range bombers because there's no reason to have them when you can just bomb from multipurpose jets from air bases in qatar, etc.
This isn't a cold war context where you'd have to send tuboprop b52's from colorado to the USSR or something. Plus when america had that many long range bombers it was when nukes would have been primarily deployed by b52 and not long range ICBM. In short, there's no reason for it
>>484964Like
>>484965 said for profit arms industry, but also they wanted a multitool swiss-army-knife fighter jet with the f35, and that was doomed to go massively over budget regardless of procurement economics.
>>484966The Russians are still experimenting with the tu95 (originally build in the 1950s) they are mounting all sorts of new radar system and rocket launch systems on that thing. Maybe they intent to repurpose ancient bombers as a launchpad in the sky.
what does /cybersoc/ think about Aurora Apolito? I see the market "socialists" at c4ss.org are angry at her, so that's a plus
I plan on listening to this interview with her later today, curiously hosted by c4ss:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcriZuhGTEU>>484972I only listened to the beginning and they are already accepting "the calculation problem" as "a powerful argument against socialist central planning" they even say that bourgeois economists invented this shit.
The reality is that the calculation problem has been refuted and the bourgeois economists that came up with this even have admitted to this defeat.
These people have not done any research if they make such elementary mistakes, I would not listen to this it's not worth your time.
I have added a different talk, that might interest you.
>>484972 (me)
>>484973I listened through it, made some notes:
12min market apologism, muh ECP
18min aurora gets to talk
24min aurora criticizes market socialists for cucking to finance capital
32min aurora points out that primitivism is genocidal since it can't support the world population, and that the notion of returning to pre-industrial society is reactionary
34min muh gorillions from the other guy, and the ECP again
49min aurora makes a comparison that in QM physicists has had to apply new mathematical tools
51min aurora compares market socialism to a greek chimera. socialist from the waist up, capitalist from the waist down. also compares to geocentrists adding epicycles on top of epicycles
>>484976what makes you think these jobs wouldn't exist? HR will certainly be necessary, and the public stores in TANS need retail workers
either way it's hard to say these things a priori. after all, some form of marketing is necessary even in communism, for letting people know when new goods are available
>>519317going to agree with
>>484980 here. no one in here cares about the transes. take this 2nd/3rd wave feminist slapfight elsewhere
>>484987google scholar turns up this PostScript version of it:
http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/zombies.psconversion to pdf attached
Interesting critique of the LVT
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2021/09/11/how-the-labor-theory-of-value-emerges-from-egalitarianism/I specifically mention it because the author makes a point of mocking cockshott and cotrells formulations. His objection to C&C's explanations sound fair enough but I'll admit I dont really understand his proposal
Without trying to smear the author, it sounds like they argue that there is no big-v 'Value' in the marxist sense. Rather, similar kinds of work are compensated at similar rates because of peoples in built egalitarianism. It sounds silly to me but I don't understand the maths enough to make a confident assessment either way
any thoughts on this?
>>484997<In the 1860s, Karl Marx declared that all value stemmed from laborMarx didn't invent the labor theory of value, almost all economists at the time agreed with this, bourgeois economists abandoned the labor theory of value when it became clear to them what the political consequences are.
<Nor did Marx think about what his theory implied about human nature.I usually nope out at the muh human nature trope, but i soldiered on reading
>If the labor theory of value were true, one would expect a striking correlation between prices and labor time.Failed at understanding the basics, prices are not the same as value, prices fluctuate around value sometimes above and sometimes below. Market forces as in supply and demand are not actually accurate enough to find the exact equilibrium price.
<Take art as an example. A painting that took a month to create might sell for $1000. Another month-long painting might sell for $1 million.The reason for that is that art has inflated prices because it's used for money laundering. We could probably figure out how that works and what determines the suitability for money laundering of an art piece, but it's irrelevant for the socialist project so nobody bothers. If you want to have pretty pictures to decorate a wall you can get a photo-quality printout and a frame for a few bucks, which behaves like regular commodities in capitalism.
<Cockshott’s thinking works as follows. When we compare things quantitatively, they must have the same dimension. This is a measurement truism. Cockshott’s D-twist is to claim that this truism makes it invalid to compare the prices (or labor times) of different commodities. The reason, he argues, is that all prices come with a different dimension. The price of a pencil has dimensions of $/pencil. And the price of a shirt has dimensions of $/shirt. Faced with these different dimensions, we are not allowed to test the labor theory of value at the commodity level. Dimensions forbid it.Dimensional analysis is just Maths, he's complaining that numbers are communist or something.
To test the LTV at the commodity level, not just the sector level you need capitalist enterprises to hand over the information about how much labor time goes into each product.
<It’s this relative value that gives prices meaning. But according to Cockshott, such a comparison is unsound. By the dictates of dimensional analysis, humans must only compare the prices of identical commodities.here he complains that if you're hungry and want to buy an apple and only compare prices of apple you're doing it wrong. You should behave like homo economicus in bourgeois economic textbooks and forgo the apple because today pencils are on sale and a better deal than apples. This is insane, that's enough self torture I'm not reading another line.
>>484997Everything about his equalitarian huersitic s non sense. For starters he says people won't accept starvation wages because they think it is unfair. No, they won't accept starvation wages because if wages are so low as to not even allow for basic survival, there is no reason to work. He also says that this explains why no one would pay very high wages but this is stupidly obvious, people want to pay less for shit, it has nothing to do with fairness. He then goes on to use these bounds as a way to explain why commodity prices can correlate without supporting the LTV. The problem is he's wrong on why these bounds are the way they are, so the theory can't explain why the LTV us wrong. Even if he was right about his equalitarian heuristic it's really a matter of Occam's razor, if commodity prices corelate with labor time, then differences in prices are most likely explained by labor time. He tries to weasel out if this by saying, "That's like saying that height is explained by how tall a skeleton is" but that's a retarded analogy because in one your explaining differences in height by measuring differences in height, but labor isn't like that. We're not comparing the difference of prices by measuring different prices, where looking at prices and the time it takes to make something.
>>484997not feeling confident in this guy's argument when he seems to get Marx' point wrong in the first few paragraphs. predicting the guy will veer into subjectivism
>Take art as an exampleLTV does not apply to art, partly because art is not interchangeable. whereas things like steel and t-shirts are (assuming same quality). not that this necessarily makes the author's point wrong
>We know this because of a widely-studied scenario called ‘ultimatum game’.this isn't how capital works or "thinks". part of Marx' argument is that capital is an emergent gestalt, a thing larger than any of its participants. it doesn't care about what is fair, but what maximizes profit
>When Marx wrote Capital his goal was to explain capitalist incomethis is correct, but I think the author misses Marx' point how one-sided the relationship between worker and capitalist is. the capitalist
needs the workers, but the workers don't need the capitalists
>And yet capitalists seem to take only a small minority of the piedoes the author understand the difference between rate of profit and rate of exploitation?
>competitive egalitarianismthis just sounds like repeating one of the fundamental requirements for LTV to apply - that there is competition
>Real-world humans, it seems, judge ‘value’ using many different dimensionshere comes the subjectivism
I think the author is correct that the LTV is not indispensible. in the concept of cybersoc social labour just a useful thing to economize on. technocrats have an energy theory of value, and it leads to a different way of structuring society. one that I think is not as good for workers
>>485000sounds interesting, will have to give a watch
>>485000not great, but not terrible either.
It sounds like he's implying that the soviet union could have build the internet in the 1960s if only the coordination between different bureaucracies had been better, that's ignoring the cost of doing it with 60s tech
>>485001>I think the author is correct that the LTV is not indispensible.The author is incorrect and the LTV should be the basis of socialist planning
>>485001>the technocrats have an energy theory of value, and it leads to a different way of structuring society. one that I think is not as good for workersthe technocrats ?
LTV is based on time, not energy
>>485002He means the technocracy movement of the 1950s US who wanted energy accounting.
Cockshott once said: Using windmills would be energy efficient but take up a lot of labor time. This was his argument against energy accounting. It is better to incentivize human lifetime being saved than just energy being saved.
>>485002>The author is incorrect and the LTV should be the basis of socialist planningin mixed integer programming, social labour is just one of many constraints. the only question that remains is what to optimize on (the vector c in the literature). and you can let c be any real vector. the renumeration problem ties into this too
>LTV is based on time, not energyI know. but if you read almost anything written by serious technocrats then ETV shows up
>>485003>Using windmills would be energy efficient but take up a lot of labor time. This was his argument against energy accountingI've used the argument of human hamster wheels being rational with ETV, which got the local technocrats to listen to my critiques a lot more
>>484997<Muh art muh wine muh YeezysAll goods for which FUCKING DAVID RICARDO said LTV does not apply.
Time and again the SAME tired objection.
>>485003>He means the technocracy movement of the 1950s US who wanted energy accounting.>Cockshott once said: Using windmills would be energy efficient but take up a lot of labor time. This was his argument against energy accounting. It is better to incentivize human lifetime being saved than just energy being saved.Ok i get it now, but why is he confusing the technocracy movement with cybernetics ? they're not the same
>>485004>social labour is just one of many constraintsfor planning yes, but not for pricing
>I know. but if you read almost anything written by serious technocrats then ETV shows upYes but what does that have to do with the LTV ?
I get it there are some similarities between cybernetic socialism and technocracy, but it's not the same.
>>485007>for planning yes, but not for pricingwhich is why I mentioned the renumeration problem
>Yes but what does that have to do with the LTV ?because in socialist planning you optimize on social labour, whereas in technocratic planning you optimize on energy. these are two different values for c which given the same set of constraints will have different optimal solutions, both of which are in the feasible set given by the constraints
>>485011part of me wants to email paul and tell him how useless debating haz would be
the other part is too morbidly curious to do that
NEW VIDEOAgainst Machism
https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=KomcVwC40h4 49:38
>Mach was the most significant opponent of materialism in the late 19th century. This examines why his arguments were wrong even then, and how Einstein's papers in 1905 defeated Mach's position on the non-existence of atoms. NEW PAPER>Artificial Intelligence inspired methods for the allocation of common goods and servicesSpyridon Samothrakis has released an updated version of his 2020 paper about open-loop planning
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257399direct link:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257399&type=printableI'd upload the pdf but I can't because of cloudflare
>>485031https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstandard_analysis>Much of the earliest development of the infinitesimal calculus by Newton and Leibniz was formulated using expressions such as infinitesimal number and vanishing quantity. As noted in the article on hyperreal numbers, these formulations were widely criticized by George Berkeley and others. The challenge of developing a consistent and satisfactory theory of analysis using infinitesimals was first met by Abraham Robinson.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonstandard_calculus>This approach formalized by Weierstrass came to be known as the standard calculus. After many years of the infinitesimal approach to calculus having fallen into disuse other than as an introductory pedagogical tool, use of infinitesimal quantities was finally given a rigorous foundation by Abraham Robinson in the 1960s. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/pdf/lenin-cw-vol-14.pdf>We are faced, says Poincaré, with the “ruins” of the old principles of physics, “a general debacle of principles”. It is true, he remarks, that all the mentioned departures from principles refer to infinitesimal magnitudes; it is possible that we are still ignorant of other infinitesimals counteracting the undermining of the old principles. Moreover, radium is very rare. But at any rate we have reached a “period of doubt”. We have already seen what epistemological deductions the author draws from this “period of doubt”: “it is not nature which imposes on [or dictates to] us the concepts of space and time, but we who impose them on nature”; “whatever is not thought, is pure nothing”. These deductions are idealist deductions. The break-down of the most fundamental principles shows (such is Poincaré’s trend of thought) that these principles are not copies, photographs of nature, not images of something external in relation to man’s consciousness, but products of his consciousness. Poincaré does not develop these deductions consistently, nor is he essentially interested in the philosophical aspect of the question. It is dealt with in detail by the French writer on philosophical problems, Abel Rey, in his book The Physical Theory of the Modern Physicists (La théorie de la physique chez les physiciens contemporains, Paris, F. Alcan, 1907). True, the author himself is a positivist, i.e., a muddlehead and a semi-Machist, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm>The main defect of all hitherto-existing materialism — that of Feuerbach included — is that the Object [der Gegenstand], actuality, sensuousness, are conceived only in the form of the object [Objekts], or of contemplation [Anschauung], but not as human sensuous activity, practice [Praxis], not subjectively. Hence it happened that the active side, in opposition to materialism, was developed by idealism — but only abstractly, since, of course, idealism does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects [Objekte], differentiated from thought-objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective [gegenständliche] activity. In The Essence of Christianity [Das Wesen des Christenthums], he therefore regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice [Praxis] is conceived and defined only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearance [Erscheinungsform][1]. Hence he does not grasp the significance of ‘revolutionary’, of ‘practical-critical’, activity.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/appendix1.htm>Nature operates with these differentials, the molecules, in exactly the same way and according to the same laws as mathematics does with its abstract differentials. Thus, for instance, the differential of x3==3x2dx, where 3xdx2 and dx3 are neglected. If we put this in geometrical form, we have a cube with sides of length x, the length being increased by the infinitely small amount dx. Let us suppose that this cube consists of a sublimated element, say sulphur; and that three of the surfaces around one corner are protected, the other three being free. Let us now expose this sulphur cube to an atmosphere of sulphur vapour and lower the temperature sufficiently; sulphur will be deposited on the three free sides of the cube. We remain quite within the ordinary mode of procedure of physics and chemistry in supposing, in order to picture the process in its pure form, that in the first place a layer of thickness of a single molecule is deposited on each of these three sides. The length x of the sides of the cubes will have increased by the diameter of a molecule dx. The content of the cube x3 has increased by the difference between x3 and x3+3x2dx+3xdx2+dx3, where dx3, a single molecule and 3xdx2, three rows of length x+dx, consisting merely of lineally arranged molecules, can be neglected with the same justification as in mathematics. The result is the same, the increase in mass of the cube is 3x2dx. >>484498Capitalist software is fucking bullshit, absolute garbage, its architecture, implementation, and use-cases, are themselves infested with and defined by capitalism itself. The only rational way of going about working on software as a species is in a global monorepo where every single line is open source, obviously, and every single line is scrutinized to the utmost before it reaches the codebases of the deep branches of functionality. Where every library is made in an architecturally sound way in a way that can be used in arbitrarily many ways for many purposes, or else it is not written. Where experimentation can be done and anything can be stolen from anywhere, without the need to copy and paste but by directly referring to existing code in the monorepo. Where every build is deterministic, every programmer has ample resources to experiment and learn. And this should extend to all human knowledge. I'm so mad.
>>485040this is blessed and cursed at the same time
I like it :^)
>>485043Shit happens and people think and do certain things primarily as a result of the material conditions, as opposed to shit happens and material conditions exist primarily as a result of people thinking certain things.
>Why does it matterBecause ideas don't cause material conditions, they can only seek to express them. The social struggle is not a matter of interpreting the world, but changing it.
>>485043It's a bit hard to answer this question in a short way but it actually has tons to do with it. Marxists say labor is the main source of value. Labor is alwaya a material act, an interaction with the material world. Marginalists for example will believe a stock rising will also increase its value despite everything happening in the digital sphere, sometimes without humans even micro-trading. You can put more examples like this.
Materialism is the contrast to idealism.
Idealism is the thought that ideas are the most central part of human experience, that ideals guide us, that ideas move history. Citing a negative example, thinking thst group XYZ is criminal because of their culture is idealist.
Materialism is the thought that our material surroundings shape our ideas. To say: The human consciousness does not form his environment - rather the environment forms the human consciousness.
A materialist would say group XYZ is more criminal because poverty pushes people to crime. He explains politics not with supposed inherent qualities of people, but looks at what made them that way.
On a more abstract level, a Marxist can look at the bare bones level of economics (exerting energy, i.e. labor power), not the idealized layer of money+finance on top of it, which is ultimately just a representation, not reality per se. This philosophy is the basis of Marxist economic analysis.
Imagine a tree next to a farm. An idealist might say: The tree belongs to that farmer. The materialist might say: The tree stands next to a farm. There is nothing physical that can show it belongs to the farmer. We might assume it, but it implies private property. In reality they are just two objects standing next to each other. Why do we say it belongs to the farmer? What does it mean if something belongs to someone? How can you own something? What implications does ownership have?
>>485043Materialism is the contrast to idealism.
Idealism is the thought that ideas are the most central part of human experience, that ideals guide us, that ideas move history. Citing a negative example, thinking thst group XYZ is criminal because of their culture is idealist.
Materialism is the thought that our material surroundings shape our ideas. To say: The human consciousness does not form his environment - rather the environment forms the human consciousness.
A materialist would say group XYZ is more criminal because poverty pushes people to crime. He explains politics not with supposed inherent qualities of people, but looks at what made them that way.
On a more abstract level, a Marxist can look at the bare bones level of economics (exerting energy, i.e. labor power), not the idealized layer of money+finance on top of it, which is ultimately just a representation, not reality per se. This philosophy is the basis of Marxist economic analysis.
Imagine a tree next to a farm. An idealist might say: The tree belongs to that farmer. The materialist might say: The tree stands next to a farm. There is nothing physical that can show it belongs to the farmer. We might assume it, but it implies private property. In reality they are just two objects standing next to each other. Why do we say it belongs to the farmer? What does it mean if something belongs to someone? How can you own something? What implications does ownership have?
You can guess how dialectical materialism leads to a criticism of capitalism.
The dialectical part pertains to Hegel, a bit more complicated, IDK if you are interested.
>>485052you mean putting these things into practice? no
me and some other guys have been discussing how to get a pilot project off the ground
>>485054good question. one idea is to get a bunch of cooperatives to use in-kind calculation between each other. something where we can achieve some level of autarky. problem is that this has to be quite a few firms to make sense
farmers and forestry people might be one place to start. parts of the healthcare system too I think
>>485056anon the point is that you don't use markets between workplaces. which is very different from the typical "muh coops" that market "socialists" are usually on about
if you have a better idea then present it
>>485060>I find it hard to believe that a science unable to predict its own economic crises is really so rigorous and advancedI mean yeah. bourgeois political economy exists to prop up the current state of affairs, not to actually understand, critique and surpass it
some neoclassical/Keynesian thought has shades of cybernetics, like how the economy can be steered with taxes. but they're still hampered by the need to defend porky
>Also, how many of you guys in here are non-STEM?I'm a huge STEM lord. not sure about the others
also Victor Magariño is a treasure
>>485062>/r/neoliberalI had to go and have another look at that place and found this:
https://i.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/qr5ruf/the_world_is_fed_up_with_chinas_belligerence/>Now China just picks fights out of arrogance and bullying>[Xi's] policy shift doesn’t seem calculated in the way I envision world leaders calculating>The future was China's for the taking, but I guess Xi wanted to seize the whole world himself>When China lashed out with trade attacks over Australia said we should investigate COVID origins it became very clear that appeasement was going to become expensiveit's afraid
>>485063this question fits better in a separate thread I think. but I'll bite
>if i where to want something to be freeevery single thing useful to humans requires labour anon. nothing is free
>what would happen ?you'd go out of business
>>485064when i mean free i mean a product, let's say for the conversation it's toilet paper.
let's also say i'm bezos rich so money is not a problem
so, it is possible, through messing with supply and demand to make TP free ?.
>>485065people like Bezos aren't communists, for obvious reasons. I don't even understand what you want said with this. you can buy and give TP to people if you want. but the value of TP will always be non-zero, it will always take some amount of labour to make it
in a socialist economy we could decide to make machines that are even better at making TP than what we have now, lowering the value of TP to far below where it would be profitable. or better yet
install bidets in every home so TP becomes unnecessary >>485079of course. there's oodles of other games. Workers & Resources comes to mind
Starcraft is interesting because it is adversarial. you have to do continuous planning. planning investments (building construction) requires integer variables. this makes optimal Starcraft planning NP
>>485086i call bullshit on this
people trust each other just fine, so much so that the bourgoisie and their lackies actively expend effort sowing distrust amongst people
take that away for even a moment and you see solidarity
>>485089who do you think picks and chooses each outgroup?
and when those who decide lose their grip on power, who do you think ends up more often than not becoming the outgroup?
Warning:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cockshott#Political_views>Cockshott advocates for a system of a moneyless economy based on computerized central planning and direct democracy called neosocialism*.[2**]* Leads to this article on the fascist ideology of "neosocialism" from the 1930s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neosocialism** Leads to the following source with no such usage of "neosocialism":
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/index.html >>485093The edit was made by a Wikipedia user Comradeka, who uses imageboard lingo and they/them pronouns on the personal user page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Cockshott&diff=prev&oldid=1046646704Definitely a troll edit. That user also edits other articles with left-wing relevance, but does not appear particularly trollish in that. Probably has an axe to grind because of Cockshott's gender views.
>>485106yeah I listened to it in the car
I think paul should have made clear that planning starts with the base, with the most basic goods. services is something you can bring in later. it's also almost impossible to answer a lot of those questions without actually having cybersocialism in place. he does address some presuppositions however, like a lot of what is now done by the petty bourgeoisie should become effectively salaried work
Unique IPs: 169