No.499941[View All]
Previous thread >>392953 hit bump limit. Someone please archive it!
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 Patreon, YouTube and blogshttps://www.patreon.com/williamCockshott/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQhttps://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/http://paulcockshott.co.uk/Videos torrent 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 thread1)
https://archive.is/uNCEY2)
https://web.archive.org/web/20201218152831/https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/997358.html3)
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/10929753614) YOUR LINK HERE
No.500519
>>500515Ad-hom and appeal to authority.
Have you actually read dickblast or do you just smugly tell other people to read him? Have you actually read Marx or do you think some british nerd really overturned nearly 200 years of existing theory?
Quote the relevant parts that refute the argument or stop responding.
No.500520
>>500518??? What are you on about.
No.500521
>>500497>cockshott's method reifies value production as an end in itself, No, based on the books that Cockshott wrote about cyber-socialism i would say it qualifies as production for use. So production is not an end in it self.
Cockshott does say that every mode of production has a law of value. I think that's a good position because it encourages scientific evaluation to continue in communism. Some Marxists oppose this because they hold communism as the end of history.
>which will never reach communism and negate itself back into capitalism.Cockshott's system abolishes money, after that capitalism will never come back.
>He is actually a robot AI that cant understand dialectics, This is retarded
>and this proves that computers will never be able to match human consciousness I don't see any reason to build conscious computers, but it's idealist to say that it's impossible, or that you would need to use hegelian logic to do such a thing.
>and that Cockshott is anti-marxist.Cockshott has in collaboration with many others advanced Marxism as a science, and there is no real problem with him using contemporary philosophical and scientific expressions to do so.
>>500507I would prefer people would not derail the cybernetic thread with struggles over social norms, but all of you are missing the root of the debate a little bit.
The main axis of disagreement between Cockshott and the politics about minority sex advocacy groups is that Cockshott wants a non-representational political system with direct democracy, while the politics and movements about minority sex advocacy is entirely representational. Regardless of Paul Cockshott's views on social issues there is no dispute that representative politics leads to oligarchical and plutocratic interests dominating politics. The Statistics of the representariat are irrelevant, political parties that nominally should represent the labor force don't in actuality and neither do the various representational political movements.
No.500523
>>500521>This is retardedits called a joke you autist
>there is no real problem with him using contemporary philosophical and scientific expressions to do so. I agree. Unfortunately Cockshott is philosophically illiterate, which is his main problem.
No.500524
>>500497Stalin was for "socialist commodity production" and the USSR had money under his leadership btw, so whoever said "MLs would be critical of Cockshott's retaining of value production under socialism". You're talking out of your ass.
Wherever commodities and commodity production exists, there the law of value must also exist.- Stalin
Marx in reference to exchange or distribution of goods in socialism/lower stage communism:
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values.
- Marx
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. - Marx
>>500496Why are mods banning others than the primary wrecker/troll ITT?
No.500525
>>500521> I think that's a good position because it encourages scientific evaluation to continue in communism. It is a bad position because it doesn't do this and is unscientific. Cockshotts understanding of the philosophy of science, what its scope is and what it can do is incredibly lacking. Cockshott promotes Scientism™, a form of bourgeois empiricism that rejects class consciousness and historical materialism in favor of a mythological given of WYSIWYG that relies on not examining your bias and a lack of curiosity towards the way reality is socially mediated.
No.500526
>>500524> "MLs would be critical of Cockshott's retaining of value production under socialism"This isn't what I said. I agree with you about Stalin.
I said that Cockshott's theory reifies value production. He treats it as a law of nature instead of something that is socially emergent and embedded. He does the same thing with everything because he does not know that he is a logical positivist. He subscribes to the "non-idealogical" ideology of people trained in STEM at liberal universities.
No.500527
>>500519Cockshott didn't overturn 200 years of theory
Marx just gave some suggestions and in the spirit of "scientific socialism" they turned out to be less than ideal. If the conclusion is bad it's back to the drawing board. That's science right there.
No.500528
>>500526You literally said, quote:
>"wants to maintain value production" is a good critique of cockshott, from an ML perspective and has nothing to do with value-criticism or value form theory. With broken grammar you are implying that Cockshott's proposal of keeping value production in his TANS model that explicitly is for a
lower-stage of communism goes against Marxism-Leninism. It does not.
>Cockshott's theory reifies value production. He treats it as a law of nature instead of something that is socially emergent and embedded. He does the same thing with everything because he does not know that he is a logical positivist. He subscribes to the "non-idealogical" ideology of people trained in STEM at liberal universities.You Hegelian idealists claim this yet nothing you've come with has ever been convincing because at base this is just your spiteful assumption. Quote Cockshott once implying that his voucher stage etc. is claimed to be eternal. The accusation of positivism is just another one of the unfounded smears never backed up with anything substantial.
No.500529
>>500523>its called a jokeMy apologies, this Joke is retarded.
>Cockshott is philosophically illiterateI disagree
>>500525>Cockshotts understanding of the philosophy of science, what its scope is and what it can do is incredibly lackingYou should read Econo Physics.
> Cockshott promotes Scientism a form of bourgeois empiricism that rejects class consciousness and historical materialism in favor of a mythological given of WYSIWYGfalse allegations
>the way reality is socially mediated.Idealism, there is objective measurable material reality and that is not socially mediated.
No.500530
>>500519you said
>cockshott's method reifies value production as an end in itselfwhich seems to imply planning itself entails value production, which it does not. planning
can be used for value production, obviously, because capitalist firms are all planned. if you think TANS proposes value production for its own sake then please point out where it does so
I've criticized in email cockshott's use of kantorovich's plan rays as being a form of value. me and my colleagues think we should minimize labour instead, quite literally minimizing value production
it's also funny that you cry ad hominem while also saying normie shit like
>He is actually a robot AI that cant understand dialecticsyour last bit in particular reeks of Hayek:
>computers will never be able to match human consciousnessthe point isn't that computers are fucking magic or even that AI is possible (it isn't), it's that computers are
essential to coherent and fully disaggregated planning
No.500531
>>500508But seriously though if labor vouchers are essential for the whole thing this is kind of a big deal.
No.500532
>>500508>>500531we're talking about a single global planned economy. there would be no trade
No.500533
>>500532Well shit does the whole world get to vote? Lol
No.500534
>>500527>Marx just gave some suggestions and in the spirit of "scientific socialism" they turned out to be less than ideal.wrong
>>500528>you are implying that Cockshott's proposal of keeping value production in his TANS model that explicitly is for a lower-stage of communism goes against Marxism-LeninismNo I'm saying his rejection of dialectics leads him to bias that are against ML and against the USSR which he is.
> his voucher stage etc. is claimed to be eternalagain not what I said, I'm not sure if you are too stupid to get it or you just haven't read Marx.
>The accusation of positivism is just another one of the unfounded smear1) Its accurate
2) you don't know what positivism is
3) physical reductionism, neo-positivism and logical positivism are still positivism
>>500529
>Idealism, there is objective measurable material reality and that is not socially mediated.This is explicitly anti-marxist(and idealist)
>>500530
>which seems to imply planning itself entails value production,No, his method does.
>if you think TANS proposes value production for its own sake then please point out where it does soIt is not really something that he talks about, its a fundamental assumption he makes before starting. I've explained it three different ways and you keep trying to put it back in this box where it doesn't fit.
Cockshott believes that by logically proving that planning is possible to be more efficient than market anarchy that somehow the bourgeoisie is just going to roll over and let the communists win because he is scientifically correct. This is completely bogus absurdity.
Lets try a different way for all of you: how do we get from here to a point where we can implement Cockshotts planning?
Answer: class struggle.
The "joke" about Cockshott being an AI is that Cockshott thinks humans are atomic robots that react to their environment and have no internal sense of being, which completely negates the purpose of communism. To him human emancipation is about being scientifically rigorous and "correct" instead of being free from coercion and writing our own future. He is the inverse Nick Land that conveniently has the exact same consequences, techno dystopia.
This is what happens when you let engineers solve social problems, they isolate variables according to their biases and then they ossify those variables into eternal truths and then point to their own self perpetuation of this idealism as "proof".
No.500535
>Western socialist critics of the resulting system commonly applaud the theory outlined in State and Revolution, but highlight the conflict between Lenin’stheory and subsequent practice. Some blame Lenin and his theory of the Party, some blame the difficult circumstances of Russia, some blame Stalin, some Khrushchev, some Gorbachev. But few question the original model of a state of workers’ councils described by Lenin.
>The harking back to the purity of pre-Stalinist (pre-Leninist) soviet democracy is no more than an unthinking nostalgia, derived from an uncritical acceptance of Lenin’s State and Revolution. In this book Lenin carried out a brilliant defence of the writings of Marx and Engels, in particular their reflections on the Paris Commune, the first workers’ state. In the Russian context, he argued for the “complete destruction of the old state machine, in order that the armed proletariat itself may become the government” (Lenin, 1964, p. 489). Sad to say, this genuinely democratic state, a state of soviets of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies, degenerated in short order into something rather different.
Ahistorical trotskyite propaganda. How can you call yourself an ML and reject the foundations of Lenin? How is this retard any different than a techno feudal democrat?
No.500536
>>500534>This is explicitly anti-marxist(and idealist)Marxism is concerned with objective reality, because it's a materialist philosophy, you are the idealist.
No.500537
>>500534I just think he's missing the how do we get from point a to point b and the other ugly details
I think I read a comment of his saying lazy workers would just be moved to more productive enterprises
Yeah no that's no how you deal with lazy workers
No.500538
>>500534>Cockshott believes that by logically proving that planning is possible to be more efficient than market anarchy that somehow the bourgeoisie is just going to roll Why are you so eager to make shit up? Do you think you look good right now?
No.500539
>>500536you dont even know what these words mean
No.500540
>>500539Philosophy is stale anyways
We need practical solutions to practical problems not this nebolous materialism vs idealism debate
Cockshott claims the economic calculation is solved, the guy who wrote the people's Walmart claims it's solved, I believe it's solved
Hegel was a troll
No.500541
>>500540History is over too.
No.500542
>>500508TANS has a chapter on trade with non-socialist nations.
>>500534>Cockshott believes that by logically proving that planning is possible to be more efficient than market anarchy that somehow the bourgeoisie is just going to roll overShow as much as a SINGLE citation by Cockshott saying we should just ask the bourgeoisie for giving us socialism.
>>500537Again, no citation. What a surprise.
No.500543
>>500536Materialism is dialectical, when Marxists say Materialism they mean Dialectical Materialism. "materialism" small m is synonymous with "naive" or "vulgar" physicalism, what you are describing by "objective measurable material reality and that is not socially mediated" which is an idealist philosophy.
"objective reality" exists, but it is not what we measure, because what we measure is a socially mediated part of reality that we use our human senses and human brains to categorize and name before we measure.
No.500544
>>500543That's the sort of banal and obvious insight that people have all the time (I mean literal children). You are just strawmanning actual materialists for your anything-goes-feefees philosophy.
No.500545
>>500542>>500538>>500537What does he say? According to Cockshott, how are we supposed to implement his agenda? Does he actually have a plan to get to his plan? Which chapter is it in? What is to be done?
No.500546
>>500540>Cockshott claims the economic calculation is solved, the guy who wrote the people's Walmart claims it's solved, I believe it's solved>Hegel was a trollCan you explain how these are related? Does Hegel talk about the economic calculation problem? Did Marx think that it wasn't solvable?
No.500548
>>500533>does the whole world get to vote?of course
>>500534>Cockshott believes that by logically proving that planning is possible to be more efficient than market anarchy that somehow the bourgeoisie is just going to roll over and let the communists win because he is scientifically correctwhere does he say this? seems to me you're just pulling shit out of your ass
>Answer: class struggleno shit
>The "joke" about Cockshott being an AI is that Cockshott thinks humans are atomic robots that react to their environment and have no internal sense of beingmore Hayekian nonsense
>>500535anon the book is specifically calling out trots in that section. the trotskyist "muh bureaucracy" whine is nothing but Great Man theory. as if Stalin himself birthed the oh-so-horrible bureaucracy instead of the other way around. the naïvety around the nature of bureaucracy is a key weak point of Lenin. a weakness that Trotsky repeats with a side of seethe. Lenin thinks you get away from bureaucracy just because the workers are armed and hold elections and because elected officials have the same wage as everyone else
>>500545you've hit upon the true problem with cockshott. he doesn't provide any agenda
>>500546the ECP comes in the 1920's. what Marx would have thought of it is mostly irrelevant since the man was a mathlet
No.500549
>>500544>You are just strawmanning actual materialistsResponding to your retarded statements about Science(tm) isn't "strawmanning "materialists".
No.500550
>>500543>if you disagree with me i'm calling you vulgari don't care
>"objective reality" exists, but it is not what we measure, because what we measure is a socially mediated part of reality that we use our human senses and human brains to categorize and name before we measure.If you are going to argue like this, I'm going to declare Instrumentalism as solipsism.
There are inaccuracies in instruments, and there are errors in theories and experimental setups, and last but not least there is personal and collective biases of scientists, but we really do measure objective reality. If the thermal probe measures the pool of lava to be 1500 Kelvin, it will objectively incinerate you if you jump in.
No.500551
>>500545The concept of TANS emerged during the last decade of the USSR. The object of that book really is a reformed USSR despite references to England and other places. So there is no transformation plan for e.g. the USA in it. There has been no revolutionary movement in recent decades so there are no events and developments to get ideas from. In the meantime there are plenty of weak small reformist projects or defensive projects you can give a (not very enthusiastic) nod to if you enjoy getting piled on by the more radical-than-thou online types.
>>500547>but it wasn't in 1900Do you seriously believe children in 1900 did not experience clocks showing different times or marks on rulers not matching up perfectly.
No.500552
>>500550We have seen that the starting point and the fundamental premise that this philosophy is subjective idealism. The world is our sensation—this is the fundamental premise, which is obscured but in no wise altered by the word “element” and by the theories of the “independent series,” “co-ordination,” and “introjection.” The absurdity of this philosophy lies in the fact that it leads to solipsism, to the recognition of the existence of the philosophising individual only.
No.500553
>>500552>the recognition of the existence of the philosophising individual onlyAnd what does this have to with Paul "the idea that the subject exists is bourgeois ideology lol" Cockshott?
No.500554
>>500553He is what Lenin is critiquing, that which he calls a solipsism and subjective idealism, vulgar materialism, mechanical materialism, etc etc. Lenin is being cheeky and puts everyone who disagrees with him(like berkelian idealists and mechanical materialists) in the same category, but he is also not wrong, they are two sides of the same coin.
No.500555
>>500553>And what does this have to with Paul "the idea that the subject exists is bourgeois ideology lol" Cockshott?Cockshott is correct with his materialist class analysis of the subject, but it has nothing to do with this argument. That other guy is doing tit for tat debating, i called him a solipsist, and now he's calling me a solipsist back. At this point it's no longer worth continuing, because it's just somebody saying. No U.
No.500556
>>500555Cockshott doesn't even know what the subject is or that the concept exists in other languages. He thinks is it a vestigial remnant of English Monarchy and Legal terminology and refuses to engage with anyone who points out that this is wrong by appealing to the dictionary. This is a perfect example of everything that I have been talking about.
No.500557
>>500554>He is what Lenin is critiquingAnd how would you know that without reading Cockshott? (The word is
criticizing btw.)
>solipsismSaying there is a real world outside of your individual soul that experiences it and that the body your soul occupies is part of that real world and that actually there is no reason to believe that there is some distinct soul thing that occupies a body and that moreover all evidence we have supports that some crude forms of thinking exist even outside of humanity in the animal kingdom (and actually it's better to say
the rest of the animal kingdom as humans are part of it) and even in mechanisms humans build… is about as far from solipsism as one can get.
>>500556>the concept exists in other languages…spoken in capitalist countries (and using a word imported from Latin).
No.500558
>>500556Rulers confuse the subject with idealism, once society is classless that won't happen anymore. The subject is not trans-historical.
No.500559
>>500557I have read Cockshott and I watched everyone of his video lectures until he started publicly condemning dialectics and doing silly narrow scoped gotchas that don't prove anything other than his own ignorance when it comes to philosophy.
I wouldn't expect you to understand how they are related if you already implicitly accept the same ideology as Cockshott. Saying that there is a real world outside your head is fine, if trivial, saying that it corresponds to your experience unmediated and without reflection is not. Maybe you should give the linked text a read and you can learn what the difference is.
You people always do this shit where you start the strawman and bring up souls when backed into a corner. I'm a dialectical materialist and I don't believe in souls or dualism or religion or god. Materialism without dialectics is pretty explicitly idealist because it relies on socially constructed categories and language, which are handed down to the masses by the bourgeoisie according to their material and economic utility not their correspondence with truth or reality. Its pure ideology. Without dialectics you have no class struggle.
You have still not addressed the point being made, instead attempting to narrow the scope of the conversation to be correct on a semantic technicality. It doesn't work when Cockshott does it and it won't work when you do it.
No.500560
>>500551>Do you seriously believe children in 1900 did not experience clocks showing different times or marks on rulers not matching up perfectly.You are completely misunderstanding the point. I'm saying time doesn't exist.
No.500561
>>500559>I have read Cockshott and I watched everyone of his video lectures until he started publicly condemning dialecticsNo you haven't. Cockshott was already anti-dialectics before even starting a YT channel. So your fake story here is ridiculous. Why are you lying?
>Saying that there is a real world outside your head is fine, if trivial, saying that it corresponds to your experience unmediated and without reflection is not.Literally nobody here in this thread nor Cockshott is claiming that you slimy lying fuck.
No.500563
>>500561He was not openly hostile to it until he got pushback from publishing his blog about hegel.
People in this thread are saying exactly that and Cockshott has said exactly that in the comments of his youtube videos and blog. I'm not going to go find them
again because you are changing the subject again. Cockshott does not believe that "you" exist, "you" do not have experiences.
How does the working class gain consciousness and lead itself to revolution if it doesn't exist and is simply an accidental hallucination that is emitted from a human-shaped bundle of atoms that confused itself into thinking it was real?
You stinky dirty slimy lying Solipsist scum No.500564
>>500562Sorry to inform you but pointing out a strawman is a strawman
is an argument. And it's a strawman that is extremely common. That is, it is far more common that anybody who gets accused of this hyper-naive realism is not guilty of doing that than it actually being the case.
No.500565
>>500563>He was not openly hostile to it He already agreed with "Rosa Lichtenstein" on dialectical mumbojumbo back in the Revleft days (more than a decade ago). Shut the fuck up already.
No.500566
>>500564Its not a strawman. Hes been making videos since 2017. Show us where Cockshott was railing on dialectics before this blog
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/04/28/please-waste-no-time-on-hegel/>>500565Even if he was always against dialectics, this just means he was always a retard, and now he has decided to spread that revisionism to new people.
He was very quiet about this position because he knows it goes against everyone who isn't a splitter trot cultists. He goes out of his way to not talk about it in TANS. Instead of making empty claims to distract people with a technicality prove it. Link it.
You are still derailing from the topic to play games with my word choice and examples instead of addressing the point. Cockshott explicitly claims that consciousness does not exist. How does the proletariat achieve communism without consciousness?
Unique IPs: 7