No.499941[Last 50 Posts]
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.499942
other thread is still active tho
hope cockshott pays u for this btw
No.499943
>>499942just like our dear jannies, I do it for free
No.499944
There's no literature on how you heal the social divisions to get people to trust in a system of neo-Athenian democracy
No.499945
I prefer this OP honestly
No.499946
Sort of unrelated but what are Cockshott's views on religion, if he has commented anything on the topic? I'd assume he's probably an atheist or agnostic no?
No.499947
Why does Cockshott argue that "subjectivism" doesn't exist, because the "subject" is a bourgeois legal category? Sounds kinda like nonsense
No.499948
>>499944see that's the useful thing about sortition. you automatically end up representing the masses. no trust necessary. or if you limit it to within a communist party, then it ensures the leadership represents the cadre
>>499946he hasn't said anything on religion as far as I know
>>499947he doesn't. he argues that subjectivism is wrong and serves bourgeois interests, not that subjectivists don't exist. in case you mean subjectivism-in-itself, I think he explicitly rejects platonic idealism in one of his videos
No.499949
>>499946I feel like at some points he takes some pot shots at chirstanity but it wasn't in an article about it it was just some offhanded comments. He probably doesn't care about it until it interferes with secular politics.
No.499950
Request:
There's that paper written by an economist that deals with the situation wherein the rate of profit has already reached zero. Paper title is something like "post-ROP reaching zero" or something.
plz link & attach it to me
thx
No.499951
>>499948>see that's the useful thing about sortition. you automatically end up representing the massesWhen you present this idea to the masses, a lot of them don't trust it because capitalism makes people anti-social
No.499952
Somewhat related to Cockshott. I recall a debate between some market socialist and that spanish economists guy. The later cited his research where he and other marxist economists examined the labour worked in today's world to find if it corelates to profit, and that apparently LTV does apply basically universally, up to and including the "smart" mental labour which is so often cited as a btfo of Marx. So, does anyone have that research study on hand? I would really like to see it.
No.499953
>>499952>examined the labour worked in today's world to find if it corelates to profit.LTV isn't supposed to prove correlation between labor input and prices? Correct me If I'm wrong
No.499954
>>499952was it socialism done right debating victor? In that case you can rewatch his videos or look up the economists he cites like ochoa and shaikh
No.499955
>>499941So the idea is to replace money with labour time? That's just a shitter version of markets. Commodity production should be based needs instead of this bullshit.
No.499956
>>499955>That's just a shitter version of markets.not really because markets have a M-C-M' circuit of capital.
Labor vouchers don't circulate so they aren't money. Marx himself literally states this.
No.499957
>>499951doomer garbage based on nothing. whenever I mention these ideas to people they tend to be intrigued
>>499952you mean Victor Magariño? you could email him and ask. it's probably from the debate with SDL. personally I find value autism a waste of time
>>499955absolutely utopian
No.499958
>>499957Planned economy is utopian.
No.499959
>>499958planning happens in every firm anon. you're just coping for being exposed as a theorylet, especially by the other anon. the fact that you write "commodity" instead of "good" or "product" also reveals this
No.499960
>>499958moreover, I wonder how you expect any kind of rational production without planning. please tell us how you propose needs are to be met
No.499961
>>499955>>499958>He thinks market economy actually services needs of the people>He attacks Planned Economy and labour time accounting because it alegedly doesn'tShit bros, new ideology just dropped! Market left-communism!
No.499962
>>499957>personally I find value autism a waste of timeWhy? Whenever I find myself debating open-minded pro-capitalism people the most common route of attack is "Well Marx was (maybe) right when you had a steelmill but now we're in the knowladge economy!".
No.499963
>>499962>Why?because labour is just another constraint. I'm not interested in critiquing capitalism. I am interested in building socialism
No.499964
>>499953Empirically, it is possible to break down prices and socially necessary labor time to an absurd degree of correlation. Cockshott actually did such a study too. You land at 90 - 99% correlations.
No.499965
>>499957>doomer garbage based on nothing. It's entirely anecdotal yes, not nothing but not scientific either, a good amount think it's a good idea but others not so much.
No.499966
>>499955>So the idea is to replace money with labour time?Money can circulate so that you can "make money from money" like interest rates and other bullshit which is ultimately just stealing surplus product. This allows the bourgeoisie to exist in the first place.
Labor vouchers cannot circulate. This alone changes so much.
>That's just a shitter version of markets. Marketing of goods will only exist in the consumer sphere, not between government businesses.
>Commodity production should be based needs instead of this bullshit.Commodity production will be phased out this way You need a transition period before you abolish the commodity form.
No.499967
>>499958Every single company in existence has to use planning. A worker-led planned economy is able to satisfy the needs of a society in a far more rational way than any market anarchy ever could.
No.499968
>>499964>Empirically, it is possible to break down prices and socially necessary labor time to an absurd degree of correlation. Cockshott actually did such a study too. You land at 90 - 99% correlations.I am pretty sure Cockshott can do no such thing. At best he can show that prices of production and values have been steadily and increasingly diverging for almost ninety years. The law of value demonstrates that prices of production and values must diverge or capitalistic accumulation will collapse.
No.499971
>>499970yes, thank you very much
I'll read this tomorrow.
No.499972
Why does Cockshott reject the ideo of unequal exchange? Is he fucking serious?
No.499973
>>499970saved
>>499972do you think commodities are not traded on the same global market? if so, are you retarded?
No.499974
>>499973>the same global marketThe global market is not an even playing field. Just look at what happened in regime changing Eastern bloc countries.
It's kind of hilarious when an anglo communist pushes the muh free market meme, because it always was a meme to cover up what was actually happening.
No.499975
>>499974>The global market is not an even playing fieldcorrect. but you're playing on the same market all the same. whoever has the most productive MoPs sets the value of the commodity. if a nation can only muster mediocre productivity then the only way it can compete is by its labour power having lower value than the competition. if the exchange were truly unequal then some porky would find a way to profit through arbitrage
the
why of the situation is another question
No.499976
>>499973Love it how cockshottfags immediately get triggered once their god gets called out
No.499977
>>499976are you two going to present an actual argument?
No.499978
>>499977What is unequal exchange?
No.499980
>>499975Depending the definition you use that's pretty much unequal exchange.
>Unequal exchange is used primarily in Marxist economics, but also in ecological economics (more specifically also as ecologically unequal exchange), to denote forms of exploitation hidden in or underwriting trade. Originating, in the wake of the debate on the Singer–Prebisch thesis, as an explanation of the falling terms of trade for underdeveloped countries, the concept was coined in 1962 by the Greco-French economist Arghiri Emmanuel to denote an exchange taking place where the rate of profit has been internationally equalised, but wage-levels (or those of any other factor of production) have not. It has since acquired a variety of meanings, often linked to other or older traditions which perhaps then raise claims to priority.What definition of unequal exchange does Ck actually oppose?
No.499981
>>499980>What definition of unequal exchange does Ck actually oppose?good question. my point is it's not the exchange (trade) that is unequal, since that is effectively saying that value is created in distribution, which it is not. what we have is unequal
exploitation. it struck me also that due to imperialism and porky's need to bribe workers in the core, increasing the value of labour power in the core, that core workers might end up not being net exploitees at all. if this is the case then that would make core workers an actual distinct class. not a strata within the working class, but a separate class unto itself. this is speculation on my part
No.499983
lämnar en rad åt kamrat AH här
I'll probably be talking to paul this friday. if any anon has questions then leave them here and hopefully I'll be able to bring them up
No.499990
>>499988WTF nazbol Cockshott, is he planning the economy to do what ?.
No.499992
>>499988This is just some retarded market "anarchist" blogpost. Yeah he's a dickhead and basically wrong on the subjects of immigration, gender and sex but for the rest he's all right. Even my trans comrades respect his work on cybernetic socialism.
No.499993
>>499992i never get this shit, Cockshott is an economist, he has cringe takes on other things, yes, but that has nothing to do with economy, it's just people trying to discredit his work about planned economics with inrelevant shit.
No.499996
>>499988If we're posting cringe Cockshott critiques, let me post this classic gem.
>ATTACK OF THE CYBER-STALINISTS. Over the past twenty years, Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell – a computer scientist and an economics professor – have worked tirelessly on a problem we thought we didn’t have: how to plan an economy. Though not well known, their work is rigorous and performs an invaluable service; it is a textbook outline of what we should not do. Cockshott and Cottrell argue that improvements in computer power, together with the application of advanced maths and information theory removes, in principle, the Hayek/Robbins objection: that the planner can never have better realtime information than a market. What’s more, unlike the left in the calculation debate, they say the computer model we would need for planned production should use the labour theory of value, and not try to simulate the results of supply and demand…>The huge service Cockshott and Cottrell perform here is not the one they intend. They show that to fully plan an early-twenty-first-century developed economy, it would have to be stripped of its complexity, see finance removed completely, and have radical behavioural change enforced at the level of consumption, workplace democracy and investment. Where the dynamism and innovation would come from is not addressed. Nor how the vastly enlarged cultural sector would come in. In fact, the researchers make a strong case that, because of its decreased complexity, a planned economy would need fewer calculations than a market one. But that’s the problem. In order for the plan to work, society in this project has to go back to being ‘plannable’. Workers interface with every aspect of Cockshott and Cottrell’s plan via ‘their’ workplace – so what happens to the precarious worker with three jobs; or the single mum doing sex work on a web cam? They can’t exist. Likewise, the financial complexity that has come to characterize modern life has to disappear – and not gradually. There can be no credit cards in this world; no payday loans; probably a much-reduced e-commerce sector. And of course there are no network structures in this model and no peer-produced free stuff. Though the researchers decry the dogmatic idiocy of Soviet planning, their world view remains that of a hierarchical society, of physical products, of a simple system where the pace of change is slow. The model they’ve produced is the best demonstration yet of why any attempt to use state planning and market suppression as a route to postcapitalism is closed…>The nature of modern society alters the problem. In a complex, globalized society, where the worker is also the consumer of financial services and micro-services from other workers, the plan cannot outdo the market unless there is a retreat from complexity and a return to hierarchy. A computerized plan, even if it measured everything against labour values, might tell the shoe industry to produce shoes, but it could not tell Beyoncé to produce a surprise album marketed only via social media, as she did in 2013. Nor would the plan be concerned with the most interesting thing in our modern economy: free stuff. Such a plan would see time spent curating a Wikipedia page, or updating Linux, exactly the same way as the market sees it: wasteful and incalculable. If the rise of the networked economy is beginning to dissolve the law of value, planning has to be the adjunct of something more comprehensive…If you want to read the rest, it's on libgen.
No.499997
>>499996>try to simulate the results of supply and demandneoclassicals and Austrotards think simulating these is better than just measuring them because they're so steeped in production anarchy
>They show that to fully plan an early-twenty-first-century developed economy, it would have to be stripped of its complexitythey say this like it's a bad thing. we want the simplest economy that satisfies demand
>see finance removed completelyyes
>workplace democracy>Where the dynamism and innovation would come from is not addresseditisamystery.png
>so what happens to the precarious worker with three jobs; or the single mum doing sex work on a web cam?gee I wonder what happens to jobs and """jobs""" that only exist in capitalism. it's a real thinker
>it could not tell Beyoncé to produce a surprise album marketed only via social media, as she did in 2013does this guy not know that the USSR had more orchestras per capita than the rest of the world? that it had plenty of filmmakers and painters?
>Such a plan would see time spent curating a Wikipedia page, or updating Linux, exactly the same way as the market sees it: wasteful and incalculablewhat does this guy think people will do with the extra free time that planning enables? just sit around? nevermind that we can renumerate people for editing Wikipedia or patching Linux
No.500000
>>499996>>499997>1. Market society is very complex and arcane in how it satisfies demand.>2. However, people participate in this byzantine system, meaning that they must be satisfied with it.>Conclusion: Therefore, any change or simplification of this market complex is in and of itself bad for all humans, as well as being hurtful to me personally as an Austrian economist.Holy shit bros, I never considered this. His argument is just too strong. Someone help.
No.500003
>>499996>Paul MasonI didn't even read this I just came to say I hate him and want him to die.
No.500006
>>500005There's no cope to be had, you're the one putting yoyr hope in a DARPA project being used to liberate the people, MKULTRA's more successful counterpoint, the video from Infinite Jest.
No.500009
>>500008No, I'm ssying computers should function ONLY for economic planning. This whole exchange shows why computers in the home and in the pocket shut down thought an conversation, and are anti-dialectical.
No.500010
>>500004go to bed ted you're drunk
No.500011
>>500010I'm not anti technology, it's very specifically consumer electronics that I am convinced cannot exist outside the neoliberal context
No.500012
>>500011Oh and also the internet as we know it, no more forums, no more social media
No.500013
>>499998Kung Fu Panda is pretty fun
No.500014
>>500009let's put it to a people's vote if not a referendum then a randomly selected body, tard. you really think people in socialist countries didn't have the internet because they didn't want it or because it wasn't "based"?
No.500016
>>500015This was pretty boring honestly. Is there even anything more to talk about regarding cybersoc? We need more ideas regarding praxis and how to get into power. Enough with the theoretical bullshit already.
No.500017
>>499999>>500013I mean yeah…but doesn't answer my question really
No.500018
>>500016>A theoretician talking about theory>Every author has to cover the same topicsRetard
No.500019
>>500016questions that ask things like "how does second-hand work in socialism?" are boring yes. didn't this guy ask shit like that last time too? "how does X work after the revolution?" when X is something entirely contingent on capitalism
quantum computing is interesting, but not something we need for planning
I agree praxis is what's needed. let's see more discussions how we actually get this stuff off the ground
No.500020
>>500016Well Cockshott is trying to popularize his ideas atm, I think spreading his ideas to various people and parties is a good idea. But i wouldnt turn to him for praxis
No.500021
I wouldn't turn to a non-political leader for political strategy. I don't turn to Zizek for his expertise on Marxist economics. I don't turn to Shaikh for his opinions on ideology. It is fucking retarded to think every writer should cover every topic.
No.500022
>>500021yeah this tbh. Cockshott barely has any ideas on praxis outside muh referendums
No.500023
>>500019quantum computers are useful for planning too.
If your plan gets disrupted by unforeseen events, like a natural disaster taking out an important industrial sector. You have a plan with a hole you need to plug, to do that you can run a type of path optimizing algorithm that goes over all the disconnected ends in your input output tables. Quantum computers are much better at that type of computation than classical computers, which means you can recover much quicker.
No.500024
>>500023t. knows nothing about mathematical optimization
>Quantum computers are much better at that type of computationno they ain't. quantum computers are nowhere near being able to do this. quantum supremacy has not been demonstrated. a colleague of mine who knows this shit is convinced QS will never happen.
interior point methods are perfectly able to deal with these problems. there's no need to hope for magical quantum fairy dust to save us
No.500025
>>500024can you say why or link to an explanation ?
No.500026
>>500025explanation of what? interior point methods or why QS is unlikely?
No.500028
>>500026>explanation of what? interior point methods or why QS is unlikely?Lets go with why quantum supremacy is unlikely.
No.500029
>>500028>Lets go with why quantum supremacy is unlikelydrift
basically there's a maximum amount of time you can perform any measurement. if you keep doing the same experiment and averaging results, hoping to get more accuracy, you will hit a point after which the amount of noise goes
up, not down. this because drift has a 1/f noise power density
No.500030
>>500029so basically this is about processing error rates getting worse with increasing runtime of programs on a quantum computer.
No.500031
>>500030it's more that you can't measure well enough to actually achieve QS, regardless of what your quantum gates are actually doing
No.500032
>>499996>Workers interface with every aspect of Cockshott and Cottrell’s plan via ‘their’ workplace – so what happens to the precarious worker with three jobs; or the single mum doing sex work on a web cam? They can’t exist. Likewise, the financial complexity that has come to characterize modern life has to disappear – and not gradually. There can be no credit cards in this world; no payday loans; probably a much-reduced e-commerce sector.<NOOOO NOT THE COERCED PROSTITUTION AND PREDATORY PAYDAY LOANS NOOOOO>>499998delinking seems much more possible and is even likely tbh
No.500033
>>500032anon just did a hecking plutophobia. what about the poor predatory lenders???
No.500035
>check out cockshott's twitter again>see him putting radlibs in their placea good start to the workweek
>>500034one (1) labour voucher for you anon
No.500036
>>500035Cockshott is such a fucking know-it all. Peak STEM-lord edge
No.500038
>>500036I'm glad to see you acknowledge STEM supremacy anon
No.500039
>>500038I am an engineering major, but STEM-supremacy is so far removed from reality, that only somebody who isn't studying STEM atm could spout this. So thanks for proving my point
No.500040
>>500039STEM is based, engineers are cringe
t. STEMbro
No.500043
>>500036>>500035that tweet isnt wrong though. radlibs really are out to get him
No.500046
>>499998Both of them might have been on the same email list for some university, so check through those archives if they're available.
>>500041BASED
, although sometimes a person gotta wonder if every PMC major ought to do stints in the countryside, as classcucked as these fields frequently are. No.500048
>>500045Pretty sure he has a twitter that runs under his channel name, unless he has made a second account where he tries to be a little more "discrete"
No.500049
>>500043I mean he isn't wrong in this instance per se, but it seems to me, that he is digging himself a hole where everyone disagreeing with him on some core issues, is part of the neoliberal left or what not. Sorta like Maupin does.
You read Hegel? Neoliberal left.
You think transsexuals are "comrades"? Neoliberal left
And so on…
No.500050
>>500048I think his main twitter got banned
No.500051
>>500049I don't even know why a big brain like Cockshott is using that term. Neoliberal refers to the 70s/80s market counterrevolution fueled by American conservatives and lolberts. There's no neoliberal left. He should call it the progressive "left" or something.
No.500052
>>500044what a bunch of cowards. let the radlibs seethe
honestly I don't give much of a shit, and I wish paul would stop with the 2nd wave feminist bs. pic very related
>>500045this uygha needs to read stalin on the national question
>>500049who are these people who disagree with paul who aren't libs?
No.500053
>>500045No. Pierre is @SARMseller420
No.500054
>>500051>There's no neoliberal leftthis is news to me, what replaced them?
No.500055
>>500051Neoliberal just means "college kid that acts all faggy and shit" nowadays.
No.500057
>>500054there never was a neoliberal left, it's contradictory
No.500058
>>500056Well what neoliberal left refers to definitely exists but I think his point is that neoliberalism is inherently right wing so neoliberal left is an oxymoron. I feel like a better term is just left liberal cause these people definitely subscribe to social liberal ideas but are arguably still economically left wing.
No.500059
>>500058it's perhaps more that the only left that has been allowed to exist under neoliberalism since the end of the USSR is the idcucked left
No.500060
>>500057There is a neoliberal left, it encompasses all "civil rights" style reform politics
No.500061
>>500060I don't think you understand the words you are using.
No.500062
>>500061Don't tell me what i do and don't know bitch I'll fuck you
No.500065
>>500064Politicians like Hillary Clinton are both neoliberal and "progressive". Same for the German FDP and the Green Parties in Germany for example. Neoliberals have co-opted social-liberal speak for a while now.
No.500066
>>500064>coveruh oh dengbros we got too cocky
No.500068
>>500067Legislators are sick of doing your emotional labour for you, stop being a manbaby and expecting your mommy government to look after you
No.500069
>>500067>uspoltake this crap to your containment thread
No.500070
>>500067i never figured out if that sub is a joke or if it's full of clones of matt yglesias
No.500071
>>500070it's partly a joke, but dead serious for practical purposes. the main mod is also a huge racist if leaked chat logs are to be believed
No.500072
bump
No.500074
>>500070started off ironic then became colonized by unironic centrists and economics grad students.
No.500075
>>500073Incredible as usual.
No.500076
>>500073Cockshott is a maoist sympathizer
No.500077
>>500073MAOIST COCKSHOTT
A
O
I
S
T
C
O
C
K
S
H
O
T
T
No.500079
>Embed ruins text formatting
>[code]-tags don't work
The fuck mods?
No.500080
>>500078>>653156The comments are fuckin reddit-tier
No.500081
>>653156good song, shitty comments as per
>>500080 lelel
No.500082
>>500076>>500077cockshott was in a maoist party in the 70s and still cites mao in alot of his articles.
No.500086
>>500085!!!!!!>OCTOBER COUPWHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT
JEEP IN MIND THIS GUY STARTED OFF THE BOOK SAYING THAT HE IS GONNA GO BEYOND WESTERN DOGMA
No.500087
>>500086>JEEP IN MINDdababy convertible
No.500089
>>500085Anyone interested in a review of that book can go to the archived cybernetics thread here
https://archive.md/HBHxH and search for two comments, one containing the words
the book is shit and the other containing
written by a liberal guy.
No.500090
So i have been following his youtube lectures and it looks promising. His fan base is what it is but all academic work in the field of economics of planned economy is more than valuable.
No.500093
>>500092It didn't work cause the author couldn't buy hookers. How can communism work if it couldn't meet his basic needs?
No.500094
>>500093>coke and hookers are basic needs, you need to go to the underworld to get these, how can a man liveHunter biden in the USSR 1983
No.500096
Why is this thread dead?
Also any resources on planning software?
No.500097
>>500096there's not always new stuff to talk about anon
>Also any resources on planning software?there's the stuff on Paul's github, and all these program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_software_packages No.500101
With Stalin, would they automate the economy with a cybernetic planning model?
No.500103
>>500077New Era for Soviet Socialism with Cockshott Characteristics?
No.500104
>>500096Because nobody here seems to want to develop algorithms :/
>>500102^Poster got destroyed in this thread >>653824 but he can't parse complex texts (like the one in his screenshot) so he has no awareness of that. He is the one accusing people of not having read Capital in pic related.
No.500105
>>500104why would you even link that thread where i destroy you. not a smart move
also LOL at this thread. "New Era for Soviet Socialism with Cockshott Characteristics" what a joke
No.500106
>>500104>the concept of socially necessary labour time will vanish with capitalism>if you thinkwhat lel
do they even know it's just a metric to determine value? 😂
No.500107
>>500101>With Stalin, would they automate the economy with a cybernetic planning model?uhh, could you rephrase this to a question that makes sense?
>>500104>Because nobody here seems to want to develop algorithms :/the algos exist anon, it's the easiest problem. building a system, getting the data and getting ppl to use the system is the real problem. organising etc
No.500108
>>500107>the algos exist anon1. N people and N tasks (that everybody in the group is qualified for and that can be split up).
2. Each individual rates what percentage of total work weight each task amounts to.
3. Each individual gets assigned no more than 1/N share of total work weight according to same individual's rating.
4. Each individual gets assigned no more than 2 different tasks.
Show me the algorithm.
No.500110
>>500108specifically, you formulate the problem as a MIP in say MPS format then you feed it to a solver like lp_solve or glpk
No.500111
>>500109Pah! What a shitty response, like you are on a quiz show and say,
I'll fockin google it if you let me m8. The first question is: Can you prove (or disprove) that at least one assignment within these constrains always exists? Also, are you sure it is NP or just that it isn't worse than NP?
No.500112
>>500111>Can you prove (or disprove) that at least one assignment within these constrains always exists?it depends on the specifics of the problem anon. the solver will tell you this. for example if everyone is fine with any job then obviously a solution exists: just assign people to each job sequentially
No.500113
>>500111we can also use Hall's marriage theorem: a solution exists so long as every job has at least one worker who is willing to do it. this can be determined in time linear in the number of non-zeroes in the work weighting matrix
finding the
optimal solution on the other hand is almost certainly NP. the total number of combinations is something like nchoosek(4N, 2N), which is exponential in N. luckily we don't need an optimal assignment
No.500114
>>500111oops, I messed up the condition somewhat. anyway just check the wiki page, especially the linked section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall%27s_marriage_theorem#Fractional_matching_variant No.500115
>>500108Aren't you overexaggerating just how specific these planned tasks have to be? Like do you need 1000 separate tasks for 1000 people? A lot of people have similar jobs (e.g.: elementary school teachers can be put into one group).
No.500116
>>500112>it depends on the specifics of the problem anon.It's a yes-or-no question about
>>500108 So your answer is no? Can you give a counter-example then?
No.500117
>>500116>Can you give a counter-example then?there being at least one job no one wants to do
No.500118
>>500117Fail. Read the specification of the problem again:
>>500108 No.500119
>>500118>2. Each individual rates what percentage of total work weight each task amounts to.clarify this
No.500120
>>500119The requirement is that each individual does no more than the 1/N share of the total burden of chores according to their own individual burden-weight estimate. An individual's estimates of the burden of doing this or that task sum up to 100 %. The most extreme thing an individual can do is rate one of these activities as 100 % of the total burden of chores and all other chores at 0 of the total. The individual then cannot be forced to do more than 1/N of that chore. If there were no requirement that an individual does no more than two different things max, it would be trivial to make sure that nobody does more than 1/N of the total burden according to their individual estimate. We wouldn't even have to look at the estimates, just giving each the same mix of doing 1/N of each chore would do it. But in real life, there is a cost to learning tasks (even for what officially doesn't count as qualified work) and to switching tasks, so the scenario with that constraint of two different things max per person is more realistic.
No.500121
>>500120>their own individual burden-weight estimateso an individual's ranking or preference. of a small set of jobs I will add, because no one will be able to rank the full N jobs for N > 100 or so. the number of types of jobs is likely in the millions
>individual's estimates of the burden of doing this or that taskthere is no way for any individual to know this, or even the system itself. we're doing unknown function optimization here
>their individual estimateestimate of what? like, this whole thing is back-asswards
>But in real life, there is a cost to learning tasksyes, hence why this is an instance of MIP
No.500122
>>500121The problem is fully specified in the original post. There is no statement there about requiring everybody to rank all the tasks in the world. Small number of different tasks does not imply small workforce. I don't want to dox myself, but I work at a big company where I get assigned each day to one of a dozen things together with hundreds of other people and where such a mechanism would be highly relevant post rev.
Deal with the topic or don't, but there is no need to post BS justification why you don't want to deal with it.
No.500124
>>500123What's ambiguous to you in
>>500108 ?
No.500125
>>500124I'll put this the other way around: please state your problem on the form A*x <= b subject to a subset of x being integral
I can't read your mind anon. "burden-weight estimate" means nothing to me. if you want pointers then you need to be more formal about your question. this is a hard thing to communicate over text
No.500126
>>500125>"burden-weight estimate" means nothing to me.The burden-weight estimate of a task is a number representing the estimate of how much of a burden doing that task
in its entirety is.
No.500127
>>500126>how much of a burden doing that task in its entirety isin terms of what?
No.500128
>>500127A non-negative number. You have heard of those, I hope.
No.500129
>>500128 (me)
Sorry I have to go now. I will post something about it before the end of the year.
No.500130
>first page of towards a new socialism
>" SOVIET SOCIALISM FAILED BECAUSE…"
huh? does cockushotto consider the soviet union a failure?
No.500131
>>500130>thing that collapsed didn't failHow doyou get to this lrvel of ideology?
No.500132
>>500130How could he not, it doesn't exist anymore.
No.500134
>>500131It didn't 'collapse', glowbro
>>500132By that logic 99% of all societies have failed because they no longer exist. Slave societies 'failed', feudalism 'failed'
No.500135
>>500133Inability to resist the conspiracy is a systemic failure yes
No.500137
>>500135It's the word collapsed that bourgeois media likes to use as to say the USSR collapsed because they did a communism.
No.500138
>>500137Im not bouj media
No.500139
>>500138>>500137>>500136Cockshott wrote that in the late 80s/early 90s when the USSR was in the process of dissolving and a ton of leftists were turning neoliberal and becoming blackpilled.
No.500140
>>500136That's bullshit because that would mean impoverished, ruined states that exist today can be counted as successes.
No.500141
>>500140Those states are successes, for the comprador class
No.500142
>>500140They exist and are therefore successes in a viability sense
It says things about Lenin's org method that the USSR no longer exist, no matter what words you put on its death
No.500143
>>500042Science Technology Engineering Autism Math
No.500144
>>500130He says it failed but that it was a genuine attempt at socialism that must be analyzed for its strengths and weaknesses. He doesn't go the "not real socialism!!!" route.
No.500145
>>500128this kind of plump response won't get you the answers you seek anon
as far as I can tell what you're asking amounts to an assignment problem. many of these can be solved in polynomial time. you can also formulate them as MIPs, in which you can use any MIP solver, as I have already said. this is less efficient than special-purpose algorithms because MIP is NP in general
TL;DR: general algos exist. if you want a specific algo you have to be very specific with your question
No.500146
have sex
No.500148
>>500141But not for 99% of people
No.500149
>>500147based volcel anon
>>500148you guys are just saying the same thing
No.500150
Cockshott's ideas will never take off until he has a working real life model to show people which I don't think will ever happen. Theory is great but real applications is what shows people it's not bullshit.
No.500151
>>500150we'd better get to work actually building something then. can't sit around hoping for revolution
No.500152
>>500150I think creating an explicitly joint political party/union/newspaper/mass org with explicit commie themes, with paid entry but voted on allocation of funds/policies in in a similar manners cockshott offered, would be a good place to start
No.500153
>>500152No it wouldn't there have been a thousand things like that. You need a real working model simulated or real so you could show people look it's a working model anyone could implement this right now and not "it could work in 50 years maybe"
No.500154
>>500150Cockshott has showed models for different things before, wtf are you talking about?
No.500155
>>500154He has never shown a working real life model of planning. I'm talking about plan a simulated economy or a real small firm and show how it could be implemented
No.500156
>>500155Check his github.
No.500157
>>500156I've seen it. That's not what I mean. That's has to do with how planning would actually work.
No.500158
>>500156>>500157Nothing to do with*
No.500160
>>500159Robert Owen was a really nice guy. If the world was made up of Robert Owens everything would be fixed.
No.500161
guys I just realized the title of
How the World Works is a fucking pun. you know,
works, as in labour
>>500157to see how planning would "actually work" you have to go and actually implement it in real life. for this you need a critical mass of people on board, and access to some amount of means of production, preferably in more than one industry. say forests, logging machinery, carpentry industry, small-scale paper mill and associated chemical processing. another path is farms and food industry. fuel production
No.500162
>>500161>to see how planning would "actually work" you have to go and actually implement it in real life. for this you need a critical mass of people on board, and access to some amount of means of production, preferably in more than one industry. say forests, logging machinery, carpentry industry, small-scale paper mill and associated chemical processing. another path is farms and food industry. fuel productionin other words you'd need a small country to go along
No.500163
>>500162not necessarily a country, more like a small town
No.500164
>>500161>guys I just realized the title of How the World Works is a fucking pun. you know, works, as in labourOh I see. I thought the title was a sort of analogy because Marxism, ultimately, is just about showing how the world really works.
No.500165
>>500162the reason why at least I am for getting this stuff into actual use ASAP is because reality is much more complicated than any model economy. the kind of stuff that actually needs to be done in practice will be very different when real people are involved. formulas and algorithms are all well and good, but how do you incorporate this into a system that people can actually use? that shit is hard
No.500166
>>500161Why can't you simulate this and why do you need that? You can't perform planning on a local firm level? How does planning work in a small town of 50 people?
No.500167
>>500166Well you'd need someone to make a game like RuneScape or something I suppose.
No.500168
>>500166>>500167you can indeed use this stuff on model economies. video games are a prime example. AI people do it all the time. it's just not very interesting I think. you have perfect information about what things cost and how productive they are. your workers have zero input on what you do
we can compute optimal build orders for Starcraft, and even have the system reevaluate them as we learn more about the enemy. and that's certainly useful as a student lab assignment
same thing with games like Workers & Resources. it's possible to compute the fastest path to say nuclear power. and it's an in-kind calculation even. but we know exactly how much each building costs. we know what the workers need
No.500169
>>665354
it's almost like PPP is a bad measurement or something
No.500171
>>665363
>That's why Taiwan has a higher GDP per capita than Chinamate the reason why taiwan had a higher gdp per capital is the fact that taiwans population is way smaller compared to china. you have a island of 23.57 million people vs a big land of 1.4 billion people so of course taiwan is gonna have way larger gdp per capita.
>And Taiwan has less inequality than that shit hole over there. Socialism just fails every time, and never works, mate have you seen the state of taiwan these days, wages are stagnant, the only good industry is semi conductors, and taiwan cities look heavily outdated and ugly as shit.
also that chart you posted doesnt show the whole entire picture, fun fact taiwans gdp growth rate has decreased to the 3 range
https://www.statista.com/statistics/328535/gross-domestic-product-gdp-annual-growth-rate-in-taiwan/while chinas gdp growwth rate is still around 5-6
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/gdp-growth-rateact the kmt taiwan wwhere most of the massive gdp growth rate started did not use free market capitalism but used dirigsme style economic policy. But this dirigsme style seems to have been influenced by socialism to a degree since
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ideology_of_the_Kuomintangthe kmt itself was influenced somewhat by socialist idelogy, to the point that even after the commie purge, chiang himself and especially suns son still kept some of their socialist leanings.
also fun f
No.500172
>>500168It is important that in economic simulation that people do work in the form of repetitive tasks I think.
Like the game would have mines, agricultural fields, factories, etc…
Get as close to reality as possible and use the tech for automation in the real world.
No.500173
>>500171>act the kmt taiwan wwhere most of the massive gdp growth rate started did not use free market capitalism but used dirigsme style economic policy. But this dirigsme style seems to have been influenced by socialism to a degree since
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ideology_of_the_Kuomintang
>the kmt itself was influenced somewhat by socialist idelogy, to the point that even after the commie purge, chiang himself and especially suns son still kept some of their socialist leanings.
>also fun falso goddamnit i wish there was an edit function what i meant to say is
also fun fact kmt taiwan wwhere most of the massive gdp growth rate started did not use free market capitalism but used dirigsme style economic policy. But this dirigsme style seems to have been influenced by socialism to a degree since
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ideology_of_the_Kuomintangthe kmt itself was influenced somewhat by socialist idelogy, to the point that even after the commie purge, chiang himself and especially suns son still kept some of their socialist leanings.
No.500174
>>500173like for example
Chiang Kai-shek
Contrary to the view that he was pro-capitalist, Chiang Kai-shek behaved in an antagonistic manner to the capitalists of Shanghai, often attacking them and confiscating their capital and assets for the use of the government, even while he was fighting the communists.[33]
Chiang crushed pro-communist worker and peasant organizations and the rich Shanghai capitalists at the same time. Chiang continued Sun's anti-capitalist ideology; Kuomintang media openly attacked the capitalists and capitalism, demanding government-controlled industry instead.[34]
Chiang blocked the capitalists from gaining any political power or voice in his regime. Once Chiang was done with his original rampage and "reign of terror" on pro-communist laborers, he proceeded to turn on the capitalists. Gangster connections allowed Chiang to attack them in the International Settlement, to force capitalists to back him up with their assets for his military expenditures.[35]
No.500175
>>665396https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/world-development-indicators/series/NY.GDP.PCAP.KN#:~:text=GDP%20per%20capita%20is%20gross,the%20value%20of%20the%20products.
GDP per capita is gross domestic product divided by midyear population. GDP at purchaser's prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in constant local currency.
No.500176
>>665393
Communists took over very poor countries and they systemically outperformed peer capitalist countries by a huge margin.
What do you think would happen if socialists took over a rich country , do you seriously think any capitalist countries of today could compete with that ? Are you delusional ?
No.500177
>taking the shitlib's baitreport and hide, you idiots
>>500172technical coefficients will tend to reveal themselves over time yes
No.500178
>>665401
oh you mean the united states which began development in the 1850s was left to develop in its own place ithout any real fear of foriegn invasion, and pretty much remain intact and wwas the only sole economic power post ww2 managed to have a gdp per capita over small countries.
meanwhile china which was a victim of multiple wars of imperialism, invasion from the japanese and only began real export development post 1970s has smaller than taiwan
mate the only idiot here is you for completely ignoring the historical context. Population arguably plays a big factor in chinas low gdp per capita since one it did not have the time to develop its economy but rather faced imperialism that prevented its development for a long while. so unlike america which had a way bigger headstart and was allowed to develop domestically and all the other reasons i listed earlier, china did not have these advantages. Second the only time china began sane economic policy was in 1979 meanwhile taiwan had a hread start of about twenty nine years. third the chinese population is so spread up in a huge fucking land mass thats its going to take a slow ass time for the wealth to spread which is why its the coastal chinese cities mainly have the wealth
like you can use the us example but to use the us example honestly shows such a horrendous lack of historical analysis to the point that the real dumb one is honestly you.
No.500180
>>665403
If you compare the development of socialist countries to the development of capitalist countries that had a similar starting point, socialist countries obliterate the capitalist countries.
We have not yet seen how socialist countries look like after they got several hundred years worth of development, but based on the available data, it's pretty save to say that current capitalist countries would look pathetic in comparison.
It's pure cope on your part to try to compare countries that had centuries of development with countries that had mere decades of development. You are broadcasting that capitalism can't win unless it's a fake competition.
No.500181
>>500180also hes using a real idiotic argument hes using fucking taiwan higher gdp per capita as evidence of capitalism being better.
The problem is taiwans gdp per capita rise only happened 25 after the system switched to export promition post 1960s, and this is the same thing with south korea.
Meanwhile for china the whole export promotion deng style developmentialism only happened around the early 1980s, and what do you know the gdp per capita boom happened only after 25 years later.
but the thing is 25 years after the early 1980s is around the late 2000s aka twenty years later after the taiwan gdp per capita rise. so when taiwan had the advantage of a earlier gdp per capita rise due to using the export model in the earlier 1960s is it really that suprising taiwan had a higher gdp per capita compared to china.
the only real comparision that we can make is what happens after the twenty years from now because if china manages to catch up and pass taiwan while taiwan stagnates stagnates(which is starting to happen now) then it shows the china model works and is better
Tho give it more time since
No.500183
>>500182>half of the video has no audio>part 2 with audio starts halfway through and has several minutes missing in the endClassic Paul
No.500184
>>500182>>500183someone teach this man how to edit videos
No.500186
>>500184He's a computer scientist, it should be nothing to him lmao
No.500188
>>500186hey you make websites right? do you mind proving p=np for me real quick? thanks pal
No.500189
>>500188This why I can program, but I do not have a degree. Proofs always seemed like wankery to me.
No.500190
I get that cockshott is trying to explain marxist concepts and all but he's going to dumb down and explain the computation aspect of his plan.
First of all are the computations based on people's purchasing habits?
What are they based on?
This all seems to nevolous and abstract.
No.500191
>>500189<Proofs always seemed like wankery to me>does not know about formal verificationget on my level anon
No.500192
>>500191NTA but formal methods are mostly used in academia, most private organizations just write tests that cover 80% of the program and call it day. Formal methods are pretty autistic ngl they make be good for research but pretty useless irl
No.500193
>>500192>Formal methods are pretty autistic nglthey're used extensively in aerospace. they
should also be used in all safety-critical code. for example OpenSSL. also libc. but porky doesn't want to spend the programmer wages necessary on this, even if it means massive security breaches and losses down the line
the recent log4shell debacle is yet more proof that the langsec.org people are correct
No.500196
>>500195do glowies really have nothing better to do than produce this low quality bait
No.500197
>>500196Ever heard of jokes?
No.500198
>>500197jokes are a bourgeois notion
No.500199
NEW VIDEOProfit of enterprise
<Explains the underlying mechanism of periodic financial crises under capitalism.Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMm_bamyicProxy:
https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=WVMm_bamyic No.500200
>>500199>20 seconds in>audio cuts outoh boy
No.500203
Mr cockshott seems to fall short where it counts.
He says that unproductive members ought to be moved to more productive enterprises and that all labor ought to be of equal value.
No, there ought to be jobs that are more highly paid than others and people who slack ought to be sent labor camps or gulags how people say. The alternative is a race to the bottom.
No.500204
>>500203>unproductive members ought to be moved to more productive enterprisesyes. put the whores to work
>all labor ought to be of equal valuehe literally says the opposite. skilled labour power embodies more SNLT than average. cockshott suggests two solutions to this: either pay skilled workers more for their labour, or pay them while they're getting educated. we could even have piece wages for education, spurring people to study/train harder
No.500205
>>500203>people who slack ought to be sent labor camps or gulags how people sayfuck off
let me choose how many hours I wanna work, I'll gladly take a lower wage
No.500206
>>500187>>500194I'm just saying a big brain like him shouldn't have dificulties with simple video editing software
No.500207
>>500204>pay them while they're getting educatedsounds like a much nicer solution to me, makes sure people are doing what they genuinely want to do and not what gives the biggest buck
No.500208
>>500206video editing is a PITA. I work with video backend. one minute of video takes one hour to edit
>>500207>makes sure people are doing what they genuinely wantikr. it's also easier accounting-wise
No.500210
>>500209>there was an attemptI don't want to discourage you by shouting you down, because after all you showed interest in economic planning, but i also have to inform you that what you have proposed is not a workable solution. You need a more sophisticated system than a ration-plan.
If you just use standard ration of goods for everybody, you'll get fights because everybody will try to have standard rations reflect what they want.
We also have the ambition that socialist economic planning as a system works better than what capitalism is doing, so that nobody gets any ideas about bringing back capitalism.
No.500211
>>500209>Listen you won't get what you want under socialism, you get what you need, that's the trade off sorry.pic very related
>Here's the plan for you [lots of shit that anon thinks people want/need but barely covers a tiny fraction of it]anon this is retarded and just gives fuel to the Austrians
>What's this nlog(n)?what is n here? I can assure you the computations are much more complicated. you need linear programming at least, and I heavily suspect LP is not enough. you need to get into non-convex planning. see this thing by Cosma Shalizi:
https://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/ No.500212
>>500209if you want an inkling of how much more complicated this is than you think, look around your home. count the number of distinct things. now do the same at your friends' homes. even if 50% of it is useless crap, and a lot of the differences are branding, it's still a fuckload of unique things. then look at say the average Soviet home, which was more kitsch than the kind of spartan thing you imagine
even just food is a much bigger problem than you think. sure you can optimize the system to only produce a gruel that fulfills people's nutritional needs and nothing else. how long do you think people will put up with that, in peacetime?
let's say you have 1 million products as you say. each product requires 150 inputs on average. you have maybe 100 million different workplaces/methods of making these products. that is a 100M x 1M matrix with 15G non-zeroes. certainly something that fits in RAM. you will have to use linear programming to deal with this, and LP with 1M variables is non-trivial. you have to use interior point methods
you might think "why do I need to bother with this LP crap? can't I just solve a Leontief-style system?". but when you sit down and actually try that you quickly realize there's a problem whenever there's more than one way of making things
even if we pretend Leontief is enough, solving the system of equations requires an iterative solver. how much time it takes depends on the distribution of eigenvalues in the system, specifically the condition number. you're looking at something between O(n) and O(n²)
to get a feel for how hard solving Ax=b is, read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biconjugate_gradient_stabilized_methodyou can play around with bicgstab() in GNU Octave
systems of this size are solved regularly in academia so it's definitely possible. I'd expect the real number of distinct products to be in the billions
this isn't to discourage you anon. in fact I encourage you to experiment. just know that it's almost certainly more difficult than you think at the moment
No.500213
have sex
No.500214
>>500213sex is fleeting
math is forever
No.500215
>>500206>I'm just saying a big brain like himMaybe he isn't such a big brain. His videos seem to confirm that he has quite a few of brainworms
No.500216
>>500215If you're so clever then make some sort of simulation out of his equations then.
No.500217
>>500216The guy is knowledgeable about computer science, but too many people on here treat him as some sort of prophet when it comes to areas like political theory, philosophy in general etc.
People like you prove my point, by sperging at me for questioning him in the slightest
No.500218
BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT SHEIKH COCKSHOTT!
No.500220
I suggest going from solving a more simple scenario to the problem
>>500108 as it is stated: If the N workers all have the same preferences, the burden sizes of the chores for the individual workers can be thought of as being like steel rods of different length that must be brought to the same length by cutting (one may cut a rod into up to N segments of various sizes) and welding (a rod made by welding segments together is only allowed to be made of two such segments). If there are only two rods, it's obvious that they can always be brought to same size by cutting off a segment from the longer one and welding it onto the shorter one, following the standard of the average length. If there are more rods, there is no combinatorial explosion here. You establish the standard of the average length, look for a rod with below average length, and make it proper length by cutting from a rod of above average length. Any such rod will do and there is no need of projecting ahead what a series of steps will do, as it always works out. If there are two rods, you know it can be solved, whatever the size difference. If there are three rods, you can fix one rod and put it aside, and you are then in the situation with two rods and you know that can be solved. And likewise starting from any higher number of rods. Each of the rods you end up with only got one welding ring at most.
People have different preferences usually. Let's put that into the rod metaphor: Before any cutting and welding is done, when you mark a segment on a rod, everybody agrees what percentage of this rod's total length the segment amounts to. You can do this umpteen times and there is always perfect agreement on that. But people have disagreements about the weight of these rods and nobody cares about the rods' length anymore. Now everybody of the N people demands to have a rod that is no more heavy
in their own individual opinion than 1/N of the total weight of the rods. (In other words, people agree that doing 20 % of chore A means doing half as much as 40 % of chore A, but they don't necessarily agree on how much of a burden 20 % of chore A is if expressed as a percentage of doing chore B.)
The allocation of a given bunch of chore packages will work out if there is at least one worker OK by their own 1/N standard with being the last to get a package and there is at least one other worker OK with being the second to last to get a package, and at least one worker who is not these two who is OK with being the one right before these two to get a package and so on. A sufficient condition for that (not the only one) is if the second worker to choose a package identifies at least two of these packages as equal to or smaller than 1/N in weight, the third worker to choose a package identifies at least three as equal to or smaller than 1/N in weight, and so on, since that means that for each there is at least one tolerable package available when it's their turn.
No.500221
Someone PLEASE respond to my post here >>668796 with the screenshot of the BayArea dengist getting BTFO by Cockshott in some youtube comment section. I know some of you must have it.
(can't find it in the comments of the source video anymore since BayArea deleted his channel)
No.500222
>>500221I'd love to see that but I don't know if a lot of people here watched baywatch that much. I didn't even know he deleted his channel. Afaik the comment was never posted here.
No.500224
>>500221glowarea deleted is channel a while back after being doxed and exposed as a LARPing dumbass
No.500225
>>500220>Now everybody of the N people demands to have a rod that is no more heavy in their own individual opinion than 1/N of the total weight of the rodsthis is subjectivist
No.500226
>>500225That's the point of
>>500108 you dweeb. There is a pile of shit a group must do, people make
individual statements how much of a burden doing this or that is. If they get assigned in a way that is in line with their subjective statements (e.g. with a group of five people no individual has to do more than one fifth of the entire pile in their own individual estimate), this reduces conflict between people.
No.500227
>>500226>individual statements how much of a burdensorry, but no. you can state your
preferences for certain tasks. you do not know how much of a "burden" any task is, whatever that means
it may be the case that we need to pay people extra to perform jobs that are unpleasant or dangerous
No.500228
>>500227Read:
>>500108 >>500120 >>500122If you want to share your opinion without reading threads I suggest a community that is specifically built for that purpose, Twitter dot com.
No.500229
>>500228I fucking already read and responded to them, retard. this is an assignment problem, for which we have plenty of algorithms
No.500230
>>500229You
still don't understand a problem written in plain English in
>>500108 and your attitude now expressed in
>>500227 is:
<Nooo the people who have to do the work are in NO position to estimate how hard doing this or that is!This:
>>500220 was me. All the other responses to
>>500108 are crap and it would have been better had you said nothing at all. How can you make a statement about a problem's complexity class if you can't parse the problem to begin with? How can you jabber about "one job no one wants to do" when that isn't even part of the formulated problem? Do you also tackle a problem given in math class that way, you make up your own instead and refer to it as the problem or tell your teacher that the problem is made up and fake news? Oooh, it's not formulated well and surely that must be the reason why you can't solve it, wahwahwah *sad trombone sounds* Here we are, in an
'anonymous exchange, and yet, when you're too dumb to solve the problem at hand, you decide to bring in here all the emotional baggage of defending your social status as if your real name were broadcasted. I hope you are still underage like the robot girl you jack off to and not actually "working" as a "programmer". If you are adult already and have your "programmer" cert from University of McDonald's, be assured you will never do more than taking pieces you don't understand made by people infinitely wiser than you and flailing around while trying to glue them together with your codemonkey snot.
By Allah, you people are dogs. I will go on as usual.
No.500232
>>500230https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assignment_problemPeople don't want to spoonfeed you its already been said that the problem is an assignment problem which you could've easily googled at any time.
No.500233
>>500229>>500232<1. X is an assignment problem. 2. There are solutions for some assignment problems. 3. Therefore, X is already solved.Top Minds of Reddit ITT
No.500234
>>500233I honestly don't know what to tell you bro. The simplest algorithm to understand would be to just check every job with every agent and find the solution that makes everyone think they did the least amount of effort. That solution is O(n!) but it works. There are better solutions in the article. Your problem is not unique its been solved since the 40's.
No.500235
>>500234Your answer is false. Read the problem description in
>>500108 again.
No.500236
>>500235No it fucking isn't it goes through every possible combination of workers to tasks the only way its false is if the problem never has a solution.
No.500237
>>500236Counter-example to
>>500234 : If every worker has the same preferences and the chores are not rated as all being identically unpleasant, then assigning each worker to exactly one chore breaks constraint number 3.
No.500238
Yes exactly, sometimes there are no solutions.
No.500239
>>500238But anon, the scenario with everybody having the same prefs has a solution, as shown in the first paragraph of
>>500220 No.500240
>>500239If there are N discrete workers and N tasks and each task takes 1/N effort to perform for all workers you can't make it so everyone works less the 1/N because there literally isn't a single task to do that is less then 1/N amount of effort.
No.500241
>>500240Assuming you want all tasks finished to completion.
No.500242
>>500240That's true, but you should read the actual problem description again, which stated: "Each individual gets assigned
no more than 1/N share of total work weight". So this isn't an example of a preference profile that would make it impossible to meet the constraints posed in
>>500108I have to go now and will be back in a week.
No.500244
What if we start a federation of cooperatives or some shit? I know it's idealist and reformist, but you gotta start somewhere.
A centralized plan based around some coops, with the aim of expanding as a priority. It could start with coffee shops or something similar and eventually move to manufacturing and factories. We would need a huge amount of profit though so it sounds unrealistic unless you get a class traitor sugar daddy like Engels or a 0% interest credit loan.
Even though it's a stupid idea, I like to think about it. How would we pay the members of a coop? It should be through labor tokens, but they wouldn't be worth anything because we don't produce any commodities, it reminds me of company scrip (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip). Also, the coop would get money in US currency, because it would sell to the general public. How do you deal with this? You would need to stablish an exchange rate between labor tokens and currency.
Say a coffee costs the amount of labor from a worker + the costs of the raw material + some amount from the tools to produce the coffee (cups, espresso machine, chairs, cleaning, etc).
I don't know where I'm going with this. Any thoughts?
No.500245
>>500244I found this crypto coin which is supposed to represent a labor token.
https://labor-token.github.io/labor-value-token-2.htmlHonestly, I think that NFTs are more appropiate for labor tokens, since they're unique and non-interchangeable which is kind of the whole point. Thing is how the fuck would you verify that an hour of work has been done… I guess you would need to trust a boss or some shit to mint the NFT for each worker that has done an hour of work? Still, the problem seems to be how to calculate the exchange rate in a way that it would be useful for a worker in this experimental kind of coop. No one is going to work for labor tokens if they can't do shit with them.
No.500246
>>500245Well their would be no need for crypto. Labor hours are already tracked by private companies in order to figure out how much wages need to be paid. There's also just a ton of problems with crypto in general beyond the fact that it's not needed.
You can't really map TANS onto a single private company. If we take the proposal for trade with capitalist countries and "Neo-socialist" countries the idea is that the planning board sells tokens that foreigners can use to buy goods as if it were a normal labor voucher, the planning board gets capitalist cash, while the foreigner gets a labor voucher. The exchange rate between labor tokens and foreign currency is not set by the planning board but instead will use the price set by the market. This isn't really that different from a normal currency exchange. With a coffee shop though this is a really weird way to do business. Your basically asking consumers to convert there money into a currency that can only to buy coffee. This does happen in the form of gift cards but there are two major differences. For one when you buy a gift the "exchange rate" is 1 dollar of USD buys you 1 dollar worth of coffee. There is no free floating exchange rate and the only reason people buy them is because it's basically a more personalized version of giving people cash. Second when I walk into Starbucks I don't need to pay in Starbucks gift cards I pay in USD. Forcing me to pay in gift cards is basically the same thing as forcing customers to pay in yen or whatever for no obvious reason, especially to an uninformed consumer. On the pay side this is again like giving people gift cards in lieu of money wages, which is probably illegal. So in practice working in labor vouchers is just like working with USD but you have this bizarre middle step. Additionally if we make the labor vouchers free floating then the value of peoples wages at the co-op depends on how well the company is doing business, ignoring legality for a second actually attracting workers would probably be impossible unless they’re already in on the idea.
No.500247
>>500246If we zoom out a bit and presume there is a large federation of co-ops that produces a large variety of goods then we get a slightly more interesting picture, but I still think the idea is unworkable. For starters we need to define what federation of co-ops means, and in what context it exists in. Here I’ll be assuming that we have several different co-ops that have all agreed to trade in labor vouchers that exist in the USA today. Let’s start with trade between co-ops. For starters in order for trade to take place their must be trust. With USD it is reasonable to assume that the money isn’t forged because it is regulated by the government and if you believed the money is forged you can report the forgers to the secret service. In order to establish trust then HR departments must be independent of the individual co-ops and instead be employed by the federation as whole. As part of their duties they must accurately report hours worked lest they be fired and the offending co-op should have to pay back the labor hours it faked at a minimum. If the federation has workers that work for the federation directly then the federation needs to impose a “tax” on the co-ops in order to pay for the over head. Because people are paid in labor voucher it would make sense to take an idea out of TANS and levy an income “tax” on the workers to pay for this overhead. In my opinion the tax on co-ops should be proportional to how many people are employed at the co-op and then each individual worker negotiates how much “tax” they pay as what sets their wage. The manager needs to make sure that the totality of taxes collected from the workers is at least equivalent to the amount of tax being set by the co-op. The setting of an individual “tax” on workers makes it so that the wage responds to and is competitive with pay in normal capitalist firms. Additionally the manager would want to add an extra “tax” to the pay in order to pay for other costs of running the bussiness itself, as well as to get money for expansion, loans can also be used to fiance expansion just as in normal capitalist firms. Next is the question of profit. The co-op has 2 options, operate for profit, or don’t. If they chose to be not for profit then there are tax benefits to that, but no one is going to fund to fund that. If it does operate for profit then their will have to be some kind of agreement between the federation and the investors on how much profit will be delivered. The profits would add to the amount of “tax” that will come out workers pay checks. While this is all fun to think about, many of the problems mentioned in the first post still apply to the federation, the exchange rate thing makes a little more sense because now you’re trading USD which can buy a bunch of goods, and labor vouchers which can also by a variety of gods (but still less then what you can buy with USD) but it still doesn’t fix the fundamental problems of making labor vouchers work in a capitalist economy.
No.500248
>>500244>What if we start a federation of cooperatives or some shit?I've had this exact same idea. start co-ops and have them use planning to coordinate action between themselves
>It could start with coffee shopsit's better to start with basic products like food. I was linked this thing by Marx where he talks about similar ideas:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1866/08/instructions.htm#05<We recommend to the working men to embark in co-operative production rather than in co-operative stores. The latter touch but the surface of the present economical system, the former attacks its groundwork.>>500245incredibly retarded. just use a database
No.500249
>>500244>>500248 (me)
also someone started a co-op thread the other day: >>670918
No.500251
Did you guys finally solve that math problem above? If you haven't yet, I did it for you. The answer is 73.
No.500252
>>500248>I've had this exact same idea. start co-ops and have them use planning to coordinate action between themselvesUtopianism? Jacque Fresco maybe?
No.500253
>>500252>Jacque Frescoah the Venus Project guy. well no, partly because he proposes going directly to communism
No.500255
>>500253aha. Still, just do it the Lenin way. Yeah the projects seem like fun but they won't lead a proletarian revolution.
No.500256
>>500254I would just revisit the entire western esoteric canon. That should make you ready to tackle it
No.500257
>>500256>western esoteric canonwhat dis? adam smith?
No.500258
>>500257Alchemism and the sorts
No.500259
>>500243Are you implying that you have solved the problem? Because I have read this whole exchange as well as the links and there isn't a solution yet described or linked to in this thread. The generous interpretation is that you either don't understand the problem or the content of the links. But a more realistic one is you understand neither: The problem states that a person might do more than one type of chore, but only two different ones at most, and that a chore can be divided up between several people. (If you didn't register this the first time around, you should have figured it out after
>>500120 at the latest.) As such, it is not a problem about assigning each chore to exactly one person – but let's pretend it were that for a moment: The problem asks for weighting and that means cardinal information. If you only take in rankings, that's only ordinal information. And you can't get cardinal data from ordinal (aside from that a person being assigned to the chore they ranked lightest having a burden of below 1/N in their own estimate and a person being assigned to what they ranked the heaviest having a burden above 1/N in their own estimate). So, even if the problem were about matching one to one, it wouldn't make sense to refer to stable marriage as the reference point (a sensible reference point would be the Hungarian algorithm).
So what we have here is a gross misreading (corrected more than once, but you are stubborn) together with a recommendation that wasn't a very bright move even from the point of view of that misreading. What's your next move? Maybe you want to report this for derailing?
We can't have a discussion about an algorithm allocating resources without money in our communist economic planning thread! Reee! I recommend that you just shouldn't post if you got nothing constructive to say.
And now I will follow my own advice. From the very simple "rod algorithm" in
>>500220 that uses a universal weight standard some interesting variations can be built easily. A subjective version would solve our original problem and I have a hunch that this solution would also give at least some of the subjective versions of these variants as well. For example,
more people than chores: The algorithm would be a very niche thing if it only worked for exactly the same number of chores as people. But you can just use a concept of zero-length rods to make the number of rods equal to the number of people, and then go on as usual. (Maybe the rod metaphor isn't so great in this context. You can just think of zero-length columns, take the average length of all columns, and then go on as usual.)
Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel propose in their vision "Participatory Economics" that individuals get a balanced blend of more and less desirable tasks to do ("balanced job complexes") and they seem to have a general standard scheme in mind rather than individual judgment (a mistake IMHO). Critics like David Schweickart ("Nonsense on Stilts" & "I Still Think It's Nonsense") claim one big reason Parecon is unfeasible is because of the high cost of
each individual having to change between many different tasks supposedly brought about by this balancing requirement (Schweickart: "I don't want to be running all over the place each day or week or month, trying to do a hundred or so different things.") But the rod algorithm shows that with N people and ≤N chores everyone could do nobody has to do more than two different things at most. Suppose we have two general standards to balance (for example an estimate of person-hours each chore takes and an estimate of calories it burns), then the upper bound with N people and ≤N chores everyone could do would be no higher than four different chores per person. Albert has written about Parecon for decades, but I'm sure he doesn't know any of that. People on the pro-socialist side clearly haven't done much thinking yet when it comes to relevant algorithms and I would appreciate if you stopped acting phony by pretending otherwise.
No.500260
>>500254TBH its difficult. math, stats and physics knowledge, id guess
No.500261
>>500259>words words wordsanon this is still perfectly solvable with mixed integer programming
>The problem asks for weighting and that means cardinal information. If you only take in rankings, that's only ordinal informationyou're not going to get cardinal data from people. especially not as N approaches the number of tasks that exist globally
as I've already said, git gud at formalizing or else you will not get the answers you seek
No.500262
>>500254>>500260Yes, the authors make no presumption about readers being familiar with the works of certain economists or philosophers.
>>500261<1. the problem is perfectly solvable<2. it is not formalized rigorously enough for analysisContradiction.
No.500263
>>500262the anon is asking for specific algorithms. general algorithms exist (branch-and-bound), but problem-specific algos tend to be faster. so to get a specific answer the question must also be specific and not normie tier
No.500265
>>500264>aaaa im debooonkinggoing to have to give this a watch tomorrow morning. but if this guy was serious he'd go after penispew not hakim
No.500266
>>500264I'm going to note here that what the Austrians do is ascribe magical computational powers to the market. this is rooted in not having a scientific understanding of what computation even is. and similarly with information theory
No.500267
I have to read a lot of maths and science, damn. Any relevant textbooks?
No.500268
>>500264>some rando with a few thousands subsbe honest this is you isnt it. Well can someone TLDR im too lazy to watch
No.500269
>>500267just use khan academy
No.500270
>>500269That can't be the only resource necessary
No.500271
>>500267>Any relevant textbooks?in what field?
No.500272
>>500271maths, for economic planning. I found a linear algebra book in these threads, anything else?
No.500273
>>500272see pdf related on mathematical optimization
>>500264>1:40>economic calculation = aggregate of I/O via a homogenous (scalar) variablealready here we have retardation. the purpose of planning is calculation in terms of use-values, which are vector-valued. in the framework used in the video this of course means planned economies cannot do economic calculation by definition. like so much "debate" this is a language problem. the Austrians are not actually talking about calculation, but define economic calculation in a way that excludes planning
it is assumed that price contains full knowledge of consumer and supplier demand. this is information theoretically impossible
there is a spurious distinction between capital goods and consumer goods
it is assumed that planning involves pricing of capital goods, and that this pricing is "arbitrary". this is incorrect
>4:00>we need to know demand and technical coefficients in order to do economic calculationthis is correct
>6:00it is pointed out that firms are planned internally, which is correct
>7:00>we can't calculate how many hospitals can be built>we can't account for different productive methodswrong
>8:00>distributing 80,000 goods among 6,000,000,000 consumers is haaardsolving LP in general is tricky. using interior point methods is O(L*n^2.5) for L bits of accuracy. but in practice LP is often solvable in linear time with predictor-corrector methods. big-O is just an upper bound
>LP only works in a static economywrong
>LP completely misses the point of the ECPthis is an empty statement as I have already pointed out. socialists care about use-values. not exchange-value.
>9:30here the author does a bit of projecting by stating:
>hakim has never picked up a book that challenges his position>hakim develops his beliefs from buzzwords thrown around by his friends>hakim is a toddler>10:30>boom and bust cycles are caused by muh central banksthis is incorrect. econophysics and control theory shows us how these cycles emerge
this is enough nonsense for now. gotta get some work done, and make food. might summarize more of the video later
No.500274
>>500272the bit about predictor-corrector methods is from this (>>685311) book btw, if I remember correctly. or I may have read it in a paper. for certain classes of LP the number of global steps necessary to get L bits of accuracy is constant
>>500264I know this is pearls before swine but I'll continue anyway
>13:00>the gobernment should let shitty businesses fail rather than bailing them outI mean, yeah. but here the author thinks that the point of bourgeois states is maintaining muh free market rather than maintaining the class system
>13:30>muh crony capitalism!>real capitalism has never been tried!lel
>14:55>central banking is socialism!is this dogwhistling to antisemites?
No.500275
>>500274>global steps necessary to get L bits of accuracy is constanterr, I mean when L is held constant of course. that is, it's O(L)
No.500277
I watched a video where they claimed we don't have enough sheer computational power to fully plan an economy, they first solved a system through a traditional method and then through gauss method, but I didn't really understand, did the computational power only apply to the traditional method, or is gauss limited in the same way? If not, is gauss method less, but still limited?
Also, is a limited scope computer built for solving equations enough yet?
No.500278
>>500277got a link to said video?
>they first solved a system through a traditional method and then through gauss methodI think you mean Gauss-Seidel, Gauss' method being the traditional O(N³) method that the Austrians think we haven't progressed beyond
there are many ways of solving sparse linear systems. Gauss-Seidel and Jacobi are two general methods. for symmetric positive definite (SPD) systems you can use the conjugate gradient method. convergence depends on the distribution of eigenvalues (spectrum) of the system. usually a preconditioner is also used
>Also, is a limited scope computer built for solving equations enough yet?what do you mean? things like GPUs are used to accelerate linear algebra solvers
No.500280
has anyone read Eden Medina's book "Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende's Chile"?
No.500281
>>500279looks like a summary of Eden Medina's book
>>500280not yet. it's part of my next batch of books to order
No.500282
>>500274>is this dogwhistling to antisemites?there's always been an overlap between paranoid libertarianism, austrian critiques of central banking, and anti semitic conspiracy theories
No.500283
>>500273can't linear problems be parallelized more easily? Is there anyway to solve shit faster?
No.500284
>>500283>can't linear problems be parallelized more easily?this is what high-performance computing (HPC) is all about. LP reduces to a series of sparse matrix-vector multiplications. this is typically I/O bound
No.500286
>>500278>got a link to said video?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llf49XbJBIcIt's in russian sadly
>what do you mean? things like GPUs are used to accelerate linear algebra solversyes i meant to ask if specialized machines would accelerate it.
No.500287
>>500286>yes i meant to ask if specialized machines would accelerate it.it's less that the machines are specialized, since most use off-the-shelf parts. it's more that special libraries are used. libraries tailored for the hardware. for dense linear algebra you will link a BLAS library from the vendor. like Intel or Nvidia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_linear_algebra_librarieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPACKthere are special operations for matrices with special shapes
for dense operations these libraries tend to perform very close to the hardware limit
for sparse stuff it's trickier, because it depends on the sparsity pattern of the system
No.500289
>>500285I'd directly ask him for it over mail
No.500291
>>500285>>500289found it
quick critique:
I like that he makes CO2 constraints explicit
the "free corn" method seems like a hack. it should be possible to derive the same information from the basis that lp_solve outputs. both Glushkov and Kantorovich do this I think
I don't understand why he picks corn as the objective function. maybe Dapprich is a Khrushchevite?
>>500288what language are you using? it probably has a library for linear algebra
>>500290such discussion belongs in a separate thread. there's a Hegel vs Cockshott thread even, if it hasn't fallen off the end of the board
No.500292
>>500291>what language are you using? it probably has a library for linear algebra>lisp>last updated 2014i- it's not dead i swear!!!1
No.500293
>>500292I feel like lisp probably has a binding to some C library for this stuff. haskell does
No.500294
>>500290I like Cockshott and I think Hegel (at least in the way Marx uses him) is useful. WE EXIST!
No.500296
>>500295>>500294As someone who is familiar with both Marx, Cockshott, theoretical CS, and Spinoza, i think that the middle ground is that the Althusserian/Cockshottian critique of hegelianism really only applies to Hegelian dialectics and other "complete" or purportedly complete logical systems, and Marxist non teleological dialectics doesn't suffer from the same weakness
No.500297
How do you guys resolve the question of janitors getting paid the same as doctors ? I think labour vouchers are good idea but if everyone got paid the same why would people become programers, doctors, engineers etc. Is paying people while they go to school , genuine interest, or some sort of ideological sense of duty to the society really enough resolve this?
No.500298
>>500296Also, anyone saying Cockshott is a positivist, has been kinda disproved by his "Anti-Machism" video. I think he is just a vulgar/crass materialist on most issues, which is more bad than good imo. Also his thoughts on unequal exchange are kinda unsatisfactory
No.500299
>>500297>why would people become programers, doctors, engineers etc.because they want to?
>Is paying people while they go to school , genuine interest, or some sort of ideological sense of duty to the society really enough resolve this?paying people for getting educated is one way yes. paul argues this in one paper. I forget which one
the only reason you'd need to pay people more is if there's a shortage of people willing to do some job. for example sewage
No.500300
>>500274>>the gobernment should let shitty businesses fail rather than bailing them outWhat is this nu-ancap/libertarian bullshit? I had the impression that they thought the government was useless/incompetent at
everything.
>is this dogwhistling to antisemites?It would highly ironic if so, given Mises was joo lol.
No.500301
I was thinking about making a simulation of Cockshott's economy with Godot Engine, but some problems arose in my head:
Normal scenario, how things are supposed to work if I understood it well:
>factory of 200 workers produces 100 trucks
>they report 10k hours of labour time in total including labor cost of raw materials, energy ecc.
>So every truck costs 10k/100 = 100 hours to produce
>the state taxes correspond to 20% of the labour time
>the state gives 10k * 0.8 = 8000 hours to the factory (the labour time reported minus taxes) and distribute the 100 trucks on the market for 100 hours each
>now the workers decide to keep 80% of the labour time in the factory to make more trucks and automate the most boring tasks
>Assuming that every worker worked for an equal amount of time, every worker gets the remaining 20%, so (8000 * 0.2)/200 = 8 hours to live with
Problem 1
>next cycle in the factory council workers decide that 8 hours are not enough, so they decide to produce 100 trucks, while reporting 20k hours of work so that they get more labour vouchers and get more goods
>now the price of the trucks skyrockets while the quantity is the same, the workers get paid for work they didn't do
>imagine if every factory does this out of greed
>labour prices keep increasing indefinitely, together with wages, triggering a never-ending inflation
How does the state keep track of labour time of each good if individual fatorie shouldn't report it?
Problem 2, new scenario: let's assume workers are honest about the labour time reported
>state buys 100 trucks, but only 20 get bought
>the state tells the factory to produce less
>less trucks produced = less labour = less labour vouchers
>workers can switch to another factory, hard but possible with free vocational training
>but fail to do so because society reaches a point where it needs fewer goods, so less labour is needed so less vouchers are given. The cause may be overproduction or a high level of automation that reduces production time and therefore factories' income in form of labour vouchers
>now unemployed workers cannot afford goods
>thay need to be given vouchers for work they didn't do or they will starve, which means emitting labour vouchers out of nothing until the overproduction crisis is averted
Let's say that the state takes away the power to regulate production. This way only if the price of trucks rises the state orders more trucks from existing factories or expands production capability. Let's say that the price rises from 100 hours to 110 hours. Do the factories get 100 hours for every truck, or 110 hours?
What if the opposite happens, demand of trucks goes down, so the price decline to 80 hours per truck. Now the state orders less trucks, but this create less vouchers for workers and so they can get less goods. What if this happens in the general economy, creating unemployment? What if the cause is automation, rendering the crisis chronic and perpetual?
What is to be done?
No.500302
have sex
No.500303
>>500302but I'll stop reading Cockshott if that happens
No.500305
>>500297Seriously? You do not ask why someone will become a worker since obviously, if he will not, there will not be enough food. Any worker would like to work less, it is better to engineer something that will reduce your necessary work time. With med docs, it is not like you can live with pain or live long.
As you see, no duty, nothing like that is involved, it is all required.
I imagine that under socialism studying does imply you will have to do this full time the whole life. As I recall, Cockshott does not talk at all on any reduction in division of labor or necessary time reduction. But this seriously change the system, how work is done and seen. Studying is fun, part time is fun, full time is not.
No.500307
>>500301you should email paul about it, he always answers my mails
No.500308
>>500304nooo stop being cute, this is a cockshott topic, no sex allowed
No.500310
>>500301What ?
You could just reduce the workday as a response to productivity increases, and all these problems go away.
No.500311
>>500310This is the point.
If you reduce the workday, don't you get less labour vouchers and so you can afford less stuff?
No.500312
>>500305Im not sure i understand your point about full time, but what if you could have something similar to the gig economy, there could be an app through which people could be notified about job opportunities which they could use to earn extra credits ?
No.500313
>>500312Not him, but a gig economy like system only works with easily automatable jobs.
You can't do that with high-skill job. Also a 50 yo who have been welding plates for all his life can't learn to code overnight.
No.500314
>>500309it's an easier read than Capital and summarizes much of it. but relying on secondary material is risky since you won't get the full picture Marx is trying to get across
t. has read Capital vol 1-2 and How the World Works
>>500301this kind of cheating can be detected via statistical methods
>>500302>>500304weird sex with cockshott
No.500315
>>500311No because if efficiency is increasing across the whole economy then people will be getting paid the same number of vouchers for less work
No.500316
>>500311>If you reduce the workday, don't you get less labour vouchers and so you can afford less stuff?yes but the value of goods also goes down
No.500317
>>500315How do you quantify efficiency?
The only way around would be to pay workers for the work done by robots, which would be a bigger incentive to automate. But if production time decreases, the amount of labour vouchers decreases, or they will stop representing labour time.
>>500316Ho do you prevent what happens in a capitalist economy, where overproduction causes a decrease in prices, while incomes decreases faster than prices creating poverty?
No.500318
>>500317I mean I personally don't put much stock into Cockshott so maybe I'm a bad person to answer that question, but IMO labour vouchers should be the same (or nearly the same) for each person to prevent inequality, some jobs are harder than others so some people should be able to work less hours for the same pay. I don't think a labour voucher should be tied directly to the value of one hour of any particular labour.
No.500319
>>500318That's reasonable
No.500320
>>500318>some jobs are harder than others so some people should be able to work less hours for the same pay. I don't think a labour voucher should be tied directly to the value of one hourNo, 1 labor voucher has to be 1 hour exactly, or else it will create inefficiency in the process of optimizing the economy. The labor vouchers are tied to time specifically because the amount of time that society spends on economic tasks is something that we want to optimize, and you can't go and change the numbers around without screwing that up. We can still take into account that different types of labor are harder and for these people everybody will pay a tax in labor hours into a common fund to pay out a hard-labor-bonus or something like that.
There is however another reason for locking in 1 labor voucher to 1 hour of time. The risk is that somebody might try to cheat the system. Maybe if they are in a position of administrative power or something. If you don't make labor time identical for everybody, there will be people that will try to raise their personal hourly rate, and that will make them labor aristocrats that will eventually try to use rate differentials to restart private capital accumulation. The way over a tax funded labor bonus pot, makes it very transparent who gets the extra payment, and the potential for corrupt apparatchiks undermining the system is negated.
No.500321
>>500320How do you reliably measure the time of a production process while avoiding inflated reports by enterprises to get more vouchers?
No.500322
>>500312By full time I mean 8+ hours/day, specially if it is 12 h/day, fuck it. You can still be useful if you will work only 4 hours/day, may be even less in some cases. 4 h/day leaves lots of free time for doing what else you want. Why the reduction of time possible, I look at growing number of bullshit jobs and some people could be pulled into medical field or to factories or they can exchange jobs, some days at a factory, some days somewhere else. But this will be stable, no need to constantly look for a gig job.
>>500313Hm, there is Upwork - gig jobs for programmers and what else can be done from home. The gig economy, I think mostly why it is negative, is that it is not stable, you may have a job today but not necessary tomorrow and you have very little savings. And you spend lots of time looking for gig jobs and if you compute hour rate including this time, well.. but may be this can be solved since some time is spent talking with potential employers and this could be reduced. Frequently you just filter bullshit jobs, they could have better filtering tools.
No.500323
>>500321>How do you reliably measure the time of a production process while avoiding inflated reports by enterprises to get more vouchers?That's asking the wrong question, the system already has the optimization function for labor-time per task. If there is a work-place that starts using or reporting way more labor-time compared to before or compared to other similar workplaces doing similar things, that will trigger the system optimization loop. It's primary function is to find work-places that use inefficient or outdated production methods to help them upgrade and as side effect it also catches cheaters that fudge reports. In theoretical terms, it looks for deviations from average socially necessary labor-time in production.
No.500324
>>500323Does Towards a New Socialism explain this mechanism more in detail?
I currently don't see how is that possible if it literally rewards industries that take more time by giving more vouchers?
No.500325
>>500324>Does Towards a New Socialism explain this mechanism more in detail?Yes but the details are spread all over
>I currently don't see how is that possible if it literally rewards industries that take more time by giving more vouchers?Upgrades for production like better machine-tools are not "financed" with labor vouchers. Labour vouchers are only used for buying end-products, you could say only consumers use it. Capital-goods as well as resources are direct material inputs and outputs in production that are indirectly allocated in central planning.
No.500326
Would a Deng-tier economy be a prerequisite, how does it synergize with dengism?
I say this because all the high speed rail and superfast internet would come handy for real time information systems.
Cybersin was a bit limited in scope but it seemed to work rather well, so 70s chile infrastructure would be the cutout line?
I'm asking mostly for what could be done in african nations.
No.500327
>>500326Yes. Especially if the country is underdeveloped.
You cannot jump overnight from neoliberism in the West or whatever they have in Africa without building up basic infrastructure and utilities, which should be handled by the state. Also a highly digitalized economy still requires experience by the government to handle it, so having the state owning major industry helps "training" it to manage a cybersocialist economy. A dengist, dirigist or state capitalist approach to welfare helps building confidence of the people towards socialist policies, which is strongly required as the transition to socialism demands decades, during which the political establishment needs a secure power and support to plan ahead for the long term.
I believe that the step between dengism and socialism are coops, which really put the means of production in the hands of the workers. Of course it's not enough as it will requires to move on from the profit motives, but still necessary to breed the cooperative mentality and the legal framework.
Such a radical step needs a strong state, politically and economically, to create such a framework, taxing or turn private enterprises into coops.
I would say that whatever China is doing is a necessary step in the context of the rate of profite still positive.
No.500328
>>500317>Ho do you prevent what happens in a capitalist economy, where overproduction causes a decrease in prices, while incomes decreases faster than prices creating poverty?"overproduction" is not a problem in planning. what you have is production above expectations in some places, and below expectations in others. this results in a shift in values, but not necessarily prices or wages
overproduction is a signal to the system that there's surplus labour power being used in those workplaces. short term it's likely reasonable to pay people just to maintain this spare productive capacity. long term you want to encourage them to work somewhere else. or reduce the length of the working week in that sector
>>500318there are good reasons to have piece wages even in socialism, or a combination of piece wages and a fixed hourly wage. it discourages wasteful use of labour
>>500326>Would a Deng-tier economy be a prerequisiteplease clarify what you mean by "dengism" in this contet
you probably need some amount of development for this to work yes. I don't think computer power or internet connectivity is a limiting factor anywhere. even Subsaharan Africa has a decently built out cell phone network. setting up higher-capacity links can also be done if necessary
No.500329
>>500328I'm on chapter 4 and the preceding chapter talks about uploading spreadshet stats onto a wider database, i don't know the scale of computer technology in the third world, but greater availability of desktop computers would be needed to input data by hand (advanced automatic robot factories could upload production data on its own, but that's were the dengism thing came about, the productive forces are not so advanced in africa) cellphones are not so good for spreadsheets.
>>500327I wonder what could be the objections of bourgeois media to greater use of cybernetics in the economy, some bullshit about the lack of human soul or whining about incentives(ignoring a b c worker grades) maybe?
I really wish this subject would be talked at all in the media, not things like modern monetary theory that are pretty much defacto policy in america with the whole "printing the reserve currency of the world" thing
No.500330
>>500220>>500259Here's how to find the upper bound of different chores an individual would have to do at least a part of in the balanced Parecon-style scheme. Start by dividing the number of different chores by the number of people and continue from there. If the number of chores is no more than half the number of people (realistic in a big workplace), letting pairs of people do the same things doesn't increase the final number.
>>500301>Problem 1Silly. How do they get away with doing exactly the same thing with exactly the same resources as before and claiming a different amount of hours? The old data is still there in the database even if everybody is forgetful. So this doesn't make sense. And of course there will be inspections.
>Problem 2Also silly. That a group of people with similar qualifications get split into some who work 50 hours a week and others who are unemployed is a capitalist thing. Instead of that, there will be a broadly shared reduction of work hours.
>>500318… That's pretty much Cockshott's opinion.
No.500331
>>500330 (me)
>Parecon stuffReminder that's with the caveat that everybody in the group can do each of these chores and that each chore can be cut up in any way.
No.500333
>>500329>I wonder what could be the objections of bourgeois mediabourgeois media will not be allowed to exist after the revolution
No.500334
>>500330>Instead of that, there will be a broadly shared reduction of work hours.Still, if you pay people with labour time vouchers, their purchasing power will be reduced, while prices of goods don't because the demand will be the same while the time to make them will be the same. Then they will not be able to buy goods and this creates poverty.
No.500335
>>500329>i don't know the scale of computer technology in the third world, but greater availability of desktop computers would be needed to input data by handa lot of electronic "waste" that gets sent to these places consists partly of fully functional computers. our cup runneth over when it comes to 'puters. just install Lubuntu on them or something
>cellphones are not so good for spreadsheetsI didn't mean use actual cellphones for this stuff, but the network. if the network has been expropriated then no worries. else data will cost a lot and a custom highly-compressed format may be called for
No.500336
>>500327i second this. dengist strategies can be used to develop a country, while wolff-style market socialism should be used in the first world.
No.500337
>>500334>Still, if you pay people with labour time vouchers, their purchasing power will be reduced, while prices of goods don't because the demand will be the same The target price is not based on demand, but production cost. Amount to be produced in the future is based on whether the buffer would be expected to shrink or grow with the product sold at production cost. There is a dead zone of allowed ups and downs in the buffer where the price is not changed from product-cost price, only when it out of bounds gets the price changed. (That's not to say that there is only a signal to the producers when the price changes. They can directly access real-time information about buffer size and react to that.)
If productivity per hour in general increases, the prices of consumer products go down, since the prices are primarily rooted in labor time.
No.500339
Tangentially related?
https://github.com/DREAM-DK/MAKRO#readme<MAKRO is an economic model built to provide a good description of the Danish economy in both the short and the long run. In addition, the model is used to analyze how economic policy initiatives affect the economy including the gradual transition to a long run path.<(…)<The model is split into several modules, each of which define a group of endogenous variables and exactly as many constraints. The separation is purely for user convenience, rather than technical, as in the end all the modules are solved simultaneously.<aggregates - Calculates objects with ties to many other modules<consumers - Consumption decisions and budget constraint<exports - Armington demand for exports of both domestically produced and imported goods<finance - Firm financing and valuation<government - Government aggregation module<GovRevenues - Government revenues (see also taxes module)<GovExpenses - Government expenses<HHincome - Household income and portfolio accounting<IO - Details of the IO system. The different demand components are satisfied with domestic production competing with imports.<labor_market - Labor force participation, job searching and matching, and wage bargaining<post_model - Module for calculating pure output variables not present in the model that only runs after the main model.<pricing - Price rigidities, markups, and foreign prices<production_private Private sector production and demand for factors of production<production_public Public sector production and demand for factors of production<struk - Structural levels, i.e. potential output (Gross Value Added) and structural employment<taxes - Tax rates and revenues from taxes and duties closely related to the IO system No.500340
>>500339sounds interesting
No.500341
>>500336Richard Wolff isn't a market socialist though, in his video with Hakim he made it clear he wants a planned economy but with co-ops at the workplace level
No.500342
>>703256
>Cockshott is fash, as per his own words.
Post source
No.500343
>>500342hide Langley threads
ignore Langley posts
do not reply to Langley posters
No.500346
>>500345that poster is fucking dope
No.500347
>>500338>(a dypo is the equivalent of a typo in a diagram)lol
No.500348
>>500345do these After The Oligarchy peeps have an email address? I only find links to disservices like tw*tter and f*cebook
No.500350
This is going to sound like an annoying gotcha question but I promise it's in good faith, how do you have computers without imperialism? Particularly without exploiting the child slave labor in the Eastern Congo, the only place with Colton
No.500351
>>500350>how do you have computers without imperialism?Colton is used for the cobalt necessary for NMC, NCA and LCO lithium cells, not the silicon in the chips. There are plenty of other chemistries available for cells, for example LiFePO4 or just plain old lead-acid.
A socialist economy doesn't use slave labour by definition, so this point is moot.
No.500352
>>500350>how do you have computers without >Colton<CobaltComputer chips are based on silicon not cobalt. Cobalt is used in batteries and you can have computers without batteries, if they're plugged into the electric supply all the time. You can make ethical batteries without conflict materials like Cobalt, the performance penalty is not so bad.
It's a little trickier to make due without Coltan which is another conflict material mined in the Congo. It is used for miniaturizing capacitors, without that you will have to use thick capacitors, that makes cellphones thicker as well.
No.500353
>>500350Institute socialism in the Congo obviously, then the rare earths can be mined by union boys
No.500354
>>500352>>500351 (me)
oh yeah, coltan has both cobalt and tantalum in it. fun times. but yes, we can use regular aluminium electrolytic capacitors or ceramic capacitors instead of tantalum ones
>>500353drake no: Congo Free State
drake no: Democratic Republic of the Congo
drake yes: People's Republic of Congo
No.500355
>>500345what a based thumbnail
No.500356
have sex
No.500359
>>500358dat webcam-audio lag
pdf related is the lecture notes mentioned
<Menshevising Idealism: or why the Soviet Union didn't develop the first computersdoes anyone know what is meant by "NB" in this? also
>lecture notes cite Cockshott in the end>notes in turn cited by Cockshottnice little loop
No.500361
>>500359Non-B, with the B standing for Boolean/binary/bivalent (all means the same), so ternary (or more) logic? Haven't watched the video.
No.500362
>>500361paul == non-binary confirmed
No.500363
>>500362Damn, I guess he's not a terf after all
No.500364
>>500358I liked the latest video because it seems to me the tradition of philosophy types saying they are socialists online follow closely with the types of people who entered the party historically. Infra and Agent Kochinski come to mind if you've ever seen any of their "content" it is just applying the type of schizophrenic mental trash they were taught or self taught from philosophy. Then again I am a stemfag so maybe it's just bias.
No.500365
>>500363he could be the kind of anti-trans person who make trans people seethe the most: those who deny gender altogether, who see it for the idealism it is
paul has zero idea about this stuff and he should focus on the stuff he actually knows instead of getting involved in dumb feminist crap No.500366
>>500365Based
Agreed, if I could give any advice to Paul, it'd be to hold whatever belief he wants in private, but to not comment on anything not directly CyberCom related. No.500367
>>500362>>500363>>500365>>500366Stop trying to derail the cybersoc thread.
Cockshotts views on social issues are controversial but yours are too.
You will ruin it for the rest of us if you make this into a battle to enforce compliance with specific cultural values.
No.500370
Would a socialist state make its planning algorithms visible to the public, or only the output targets visible? Any ideas on how safe or prudent this would be?
No.500371
>>500370theres really no problem with making the algorithms public and subject to both popular and expert scrutiny, would probably improve them
No.500372
>>500370If central planning isn't going to be FLOSS then why even bother
No.500373
>>500370Do NOT use the Cockshott flag if you do not understand how free software works or even dare to advocate for proprietary software.
No.500374
Isn't the fact that he doesn't advocate for a vanguard party a bit utopian?
It didn't work out well for the anarchists…
I just don't believe having people in charge is such a big deal.
Marxist Leninism has proven to work.
No.500375
>>500374Cockshott's main grudge is with elections and representative governments. He's said M-L has its flaws but "it still stands head and shoulders above any alternative on how to conduct political class struggle for socialism"
No.500376
>>500373Eh, I know about free/libre stuff, I just thought if there could be any security concerns about having the algorithm public.
No.500377
>>500374Cockshott/TANS does not dispense with the vanguard party structure, it just modifies it to allow for much more integrated proletarian democratic input via cybernetics first and foremost and additionally referendums.
It has clear differences from say the ancom platformist organizational structure.
No.500379
>>500376having the algorithm public is no problem. having the data public on the other hand, that can potentially cause problems. prime example being data on the defense industry. a big 'ol "please bomb this" for porky to direct his drones at
No.500380
>>500379I figured this as well. Some data would need to be secret. However, I think simply by the virtue of having input/outputs tables, a state would be able to offer much more advanced and widespread satistics to the public. This could inform public opinion, political decisionmakikg and journalists. With the exception of where security issues are paramount, I see transparency as a plus.
No.500381
>>500380same here. transparency is also important for innovation. if I can access the data then I can also simulate what happens if we were to employ some new production technique
No.500382
Hi everyone, recently I have been observing Paul Cockshott's discussion about the former Soviet Union. While I am aware that he has a rather bad opinion about LGBT people and he also thinks that unequal exchange between the developed and developing world can't happen, that's not what I want to discuss here. I have only skimmed some parts of his website and his Toward a new socialism book, and from what I understand he promotes the use of computer to do a Soviet planned economy. While this is a very good objective, I fear that he might have not performed a thorough literature review about the problem.
Recently on his facebook page I saw him referencing this article:
https://www.haerdin.se/blog/2022/01/21/on-vertical-integration/?fbclid=IwAR1CU8WAseXZv8bUAoNI36ARR5WN_0VbzSvU979UZb0ueQw8e5PwM-TdLzYFrom what I see on that article the author promotes to use linear programming and a kind of input-output procedure for planning. Of course this is a feasible approach but I notice the word "vertically integrated values". Now this is a very high-sounding word but I have been reading some old documents by the US on the former Soviet economy and they just use the word "input norm" which from what I understand is also used in economics. Another book is called A.Kursky, The planning of the national economy of the USSR, Moscow, 1949 uses the word "technical-production indices" for roughly the same concept. So I was curious that the author uses such a word instead of reusing old concepts. Now the discussion by Cockshott et al. does not touch on the literature by the US government on the subject. I can list some old articles in the 1950s:
- H.Levine, Centralized planning of supply in soviet industry, in Comparisons of the U.S. and Soviet Economies (Washington, D.C., 1959)
- Manove, Michael, (1971), A Model of Soviet-Type Economic Planning, American Economic Review, 61, issue 3, p. 390-406.
- Planning with Material Balances in Soviet-Type, J. M. Montias, The American Economic Review,Vol. 49, No. 5 (Dec., 1959), pp. 963-985.
All these documents can be downloaded on the Internet. There are some more documents and they refer to the Soviet planning technique as "method of balance" or "material balance planning". Now, when you check those documents you can see that the equations are very similar to the link above, yet the authors described the way they model the former Soviet planned economy in great details, discussing various related problems (here I'm not saying that they are completely correct). I wonder if Cockshott et al. have reviewed those documents ? In fact the article by H.Levine said that the US government already created a program in the 1950s with the statistics they found for the Soviet economy and ran it using computers already. So it is clear that this can indeed be done. But from what I understand Cockshott et al. have not discussed those stuff (those economists discussed abotu aggregation of plans, imbalances, ….).
I think using computers can indeed help. But I'm afraid this is not the main problem. You see, the enterprise director big wigs, the bureaucrats, the technocratic elements, … of course would not be very happy when the planned socialist economy goes well, so they would try to hoard some stuff to sell on the black market. In fact I once read a RAND article saying that under a planned economy the enterprise director always has a tendency to do so, and he only does not do so under, you guess it, the free market economy.
In programming they have phrase called garbage in garbage out.
Another problem is "democracy". Now the planning method used by the former Soviets consists of a number of tables connected to each other (you can see the document by A.Kursky for more information). It can be used by "authoritarian" or it can be used for "democracy". What I'm trying to say is that it's a set of techniques and it can be used both ways. Anyway I think we should not dismiss the experience under former Soviet Union and elsewhere such as Albania and other countries but try to make sense of them.
You know, about the term "vertically integrated labour" I tried to search for them and it's basically about articles relating to Sraffa, Parsinetti, Ian Wright, … discussing the so-called "transformation problem". But I have noticed that Lenin's Imperialism book has a passage in which he agrees with Hilfeding that under monopoly capitalism, since the monopoly takes so much space so new free movement of capital is difficult so the process of equalization of profit does not work as described in Marx's Capital vol 3 anymore.
Here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm"In Great Britain it is the size of the enterprise and its high technical level which harbour a monopolist tendency. This, for one thing, is due to the great investment of capital per enterprise, which gives rise to increasing demands for new capital for the new enterprises and thereby renders their launching more difficult"
Also see "Notebooks on Imperialism" by Lenin, notebook Alpha, on the book Finance capital by Hilfeding there is a quote "Heavy industry. Outflow of capital difficult (the path to monopoly)."
Note also that land does not factor in the equalization of profit. Now since under imperialism the equalization does not work the way it does as under free flow capitalism then the transformation does not work like it does when there is free flow of capitalism. Then why do we even need to discuss the stuff by Sraffa, Okishio, … at all ? I tried to read Okishio theorem's article on Wikipedia and basically with enough scientific innovation the average rate of profit actually goes up, which is obvious. Even Marx mentioned it. I have not read the detailed articles though. There is also this thing called "TSSI interpretation" by Kliman which I also think is of little use.
Okay, end of rant. I hope that I did not offend anyone in this post. But I really think that literature review is a good thing.
No.500383
>>500382>vertically integrated valuesCockshott and Cottrell use this term in
The Scientific Status of the Labour Theory of Value. Dave Zachariah uses it in
Labour value and equalisation of profit rates: a multi-country study. Sraffa does too I think. I would suggest checking out their references for the etymology of the word
the notion goes back to at least Vladimir Karpovich Dmitriev's
Ekonomicheskie ocherki (1898). and of course Marx, but he was a mathlet and doesn't express this with concise matrix notation
>There are some more documents and they refer to the Soviet planning technique as "method of balance" or "material balance planning"MBP sucks. we're not recreating Gosplan. even input-output planning is better than MBP, and IOP sucks too
>You see, the enterprise director big wigs, the bureaucrats, the technocratic elements, … of course would not be very happy when the planned socialist economy goes well, so they would try to hoard some stuff to sell on the black marketit's almost like democracy is important or something. that the people in charge can be recalled if they misbehave. stuff like that
>he only does not do so under, you guess it, the free market economyyes they do, that's what profit is
>But I have noticed that Lenin's Imperialism book has a passage in which he agrees with Hilfeding that under monopoly capitalism, since the monopoly takes so much space so new free movement of capital is difficult so the process of equalization of profit does not work as described in Marx's Capital vol 3 anymorefrom what I know this is controversial. one thing that happens in imperialism is a differentiation in the value of labour power. rent also plays a role, for example patents preventing exploited nations from manufacturing medicine
proponents of "unequal exchange" never pinpoint where exactly this supposed inequality takes places. and they can't since distribution doesn't create value. instead the term "unequal exchange" stands in for things outside of circulation like what I mentioned above
>Note also that land does not factor in the equalization of profita brave assertion
>Then why do we even need to discuss the stuff by Sraffa, Okishio, … at all ?we don't. this is value autism
No.500384
>>5003831) I really don't like the word vertically integrated value. Why don't he use one of the words already used by, say, people in the former Soviet Union ? That word sounds high sounding and academia.
2) "MBP sucks. we're not recreating Gosplan. even input-output planning is better than MBP, and IOP sucks too"
I do not agree with the notion that MBP sucks, I think it's extremely valuable. We should not fetishize computers.
3) ">Note also that land does not factor in the equalization of profit
a brave assertion"
For land rent (differential + absolute) due to monopoly on land, free flow of capital just does not happen like in other fields so this part does not factor in the equalization of profit. Read Lenin for more information, I don't remember which work, anyway just check for works relating to land.
No.500385
>>500383Btw I was discussing the transformation problem though, but yeah the unequal exchange part is also problematic.
No.500386
If Chile was willing to implement project cyber why wasn't the soviet union?
No.500387
>>500386Ossified conservative bureaucracy
No.500388
>>500386too much bureaucracy and inertia, and by the time computer technology was good enough they were already blackpilled on socialism and starting to do socdem reforms under pizzahut man (80s)
No.500389
>>500384We are not fetishizing computers. How about you actually finish reading TANS before doing these strange critiques?
No.500390
>>500389The material balance method performed by the former Soviet Union and elsewhere represent a great experience of socialist construction and it's experience should be used for the future. The computers may help but the experience gained from the former Soviet Union regarding planning is still very important. I'm not very impressed with Cockshott as you can see from my original post
No.500391
>>500390Judging from your posts, you barely understand what Cockshott and Cottrell propose in TANS anyway, since you have just skimmed through materials. As you have not researched this manner, you have no right to speak upon it. That is all.
No.500392
>>500391Here is my opinion
" I have only skimmed some parts of his website and his Toward a new socialism book, and from what I understand he promotes the use of computer to do a Soviet planned economy. While this is a very good objective, I fear that he might have not performed a thorough literature review about the problem.
Recently on his facebook page I saw him referencing this article:
https://www.haerdin.se/blog/2022/01/21/on-vertical-integration/?fbclid=IwAR1CU8WAseXZv8bUAoNI36ARR5WN_0VbzSvU979UZb0ueQw8e5PwM-TdLzYFrom what I see on that article the author promotes to use linear programming and a kind of input-output procedure for planning. Of course this is a feasible approach but I notice the word "vertically integrated values". Now this is a very high-sounding word but I have been reading some old documents by the US on the former Soviet economy and they just use the word "input norm" which from what I understand is also used in economics. Another book is called A.Kursky, The planning of the national economy of the USSR, Moscow, 1949 uses the word "technical-production indices" for roughly the same concept. So I was curious that the author uses such a word instead of reusing old concepts. Now the discussion by Cockshott et al. does not touch on the literature by the US government on the subject. I can list some old articles in the 1950s:
- H.Levine, Centralized planning of supply in soviet industry, in Comparisons of the U.S. and Soviet Economies (Washington, D.C., 1959)
- Manove, Michael, (1971), A Model of Soviet-Type Economic Planning, American Economic Review, 61, issue 3, p. 390-406.
- Planning with Material Balances in Soviet-Type, J. M. Montias, The American Economic Review,Vol. 49, No. 5 (Dec., 1959), pp. 963-985.
All these documents can be downloaded on the Internet. There are some more documents and they refer to the Soviet planning technique as "method of balance" or "material balance planning". Now, when you check those documents you can see that the equations are very similar to the link above, yet the authors described the way they model the former Soviet planned economy in great details, discussing various related problems (here I'm not saying that they are completely correct). I wonder if Cockshott et al. have reviewed those documents ? In fact the article by H.Levine said that the US government already created a program in the 1950s with the statistics they found for the Soviet economy and ran it using computers already. So it is clear that this can indeed be done. But from what I understand Cockshott et al. have not discussed those stuff (those economists discussed abotu aggregation of plans, imbalances, ….).
I think using computers can indeed help. But I'm afraid this is not the main problem. You see, the enterprise director big wigs, the bureaucrats, the technocratic elements, … of course would not be very happy when the planned socialist economy goes well, so they would try to hoard some stuff to sell on the black market. In fact I once read a RAND article saying that under a planned economy the enterprise director always has a tendency to do so, and he only does not do so under, you guess it, the free market economy.
In programming they have phrase called garbage in garbage out.
Another problem is "democracy". Now the planning method used by the former Soviets consists of a number of tables connected to each other (you can see the document by A.Kursky for more information). It can be used by "authoritarian" or it can be used for "democracy". What I'm trying to say is that it's a set of techniques and it can be used both ways. Anyway I think we should not dismiss the experience under former Soviet Union and elsewhere such as Albania and other countries but try to make sense of them. "
I certainly have performed some literature review.
No.500393
>>500384>I really don't like the word vertically integrated valueare you active in academia on this? if so then feel free to use whatever terminology you think is best. you could even write a paper sticking your neck out on this
also the term is "labour coefficients" not "technical-production indices". or so Ellman says. page 265 of Socialist Planning, 3rd edition
>I do not agree with the notion that MBP sucks, I think it's extremely valuable. We should not fetishize computers. anon you can do MBP on computers too if you like. or linear programming-based planning by hand. Kantorovich even shows how to do the latter
the reason MBP sucks is mathematical. it's a shitty linear system solver. it amounts to coordinate descent. it a huge reason why Gosplan was slow as molasses, why it took something like 18 months to turn five year plan into techpromfinplan. also the concept of five year plans is shit. read Glushkov. continuous planning is where it's at
>For land rent (differential + absolute) due to monopoly on land, free flow of capital just does not happen like in other fields so this part does not factor in the equalization of profit. Read Lenin for more information, I don't remember which work, anyway just check for works relating to land.perhaps I will. but also who cares. we know capitalism sucks. we know imperialism sucks. we don't need to go into autistic detail in all the ways it sucks, that's been done to death
>>500386weird ossified cult-like behavior far removed form the dynamism of Marx. but also they kind of started building OGAS so your characterization is inaccurate
>>500392why are you repeating yourself?
No.500394
>>500382>Of course this is a feasible approach but I notice the word "vertically integrated values". Now this is a very high-sounding wordNo? Vertical means the same as what it usually means in economics here, doesn't it, following the links of the chain going from raw materials to finished product.
No.500395
>>500394woah there city boy, cool it with yer fancy words there
No.500396
>>500393"are you active in academia on this? if so then feel free to use whatever terminology you think is best. you could even write a paper sticking your neck out on this
also the term is "labour coefficients" not "technical-production indices". or so Ellman says. page 265 of Socialist Planning, 3rd edition"
I have said in previous post that in the past they used other words, such as "input norms" or "technical-production indices" for that, and Cockshott et al. should at least mention it in a literature review. What Elman said began in 1959, what I mentioned was in a 1949 book. I'm fuzzy on the differences.
No.500397
>>500393>>For land rent (differential + absolute) due to monopoly on land, free flow of capital just does not happen like in other fields so this part does not factor in the equalization of profit. Read Lenin for more information, I don't remember which work, anyway just check for works relating to land.>perhaps I will. but also who cares. we know capitalism sucks. we know imperialism sucks. we don't need to go into autistic detail in all the ways it sucks, that's been done to deathWhy do you use the word "autistic" ? Do you criticize me as autistic because I try to discuss some theory ? Okay then I guess.
No.500398
>>500396sure but everyone uses the term vertical integration now. language evolves
>>500397if you want to discuss how imperialism works I suggest you make a thread dedicated to just that. we're autistic about cybernetics and planning in here, not particulars about how capitalism works
No.500399
>>500374"proven to work" and also proven to fail. Claiming ML to be a useful strategy is true, but claiming that it is the only way towards communism is, imo overfixating on too few datapoints. I vaguely remember Cockshott mentioning a similar point and comparing to overfitting in machine learning.
No.500401
>>500400based - plz embed when u can
No.500402
>>500400Does he post ahead of time he's releasing a video?
No.500405
>>500403>>500404anon is Cockshott confirmed
No.500406
Since it was brought up, can someone explain how MBP was supposed to work versus LP planning? I always see MBP mentioned, but haven't found a good explanation of it.
No.500407
>>500399>e>>500399""proven to work" and also proven to fail"
Okay utopian socialist keep denying the great plausibility of scientific mass-based socialist planning.
No.500408
>>500407t. Hasnt read TANS
No.500409
>>500407>there is only one viable strategynot to be all anarchist in here but vanguardism has some pretty fucking obvious problems. it's great for carrying a revolution to fruition, but you'd have to be blind not to see problems like corruption and careerism in actually existing socialist political systems (USSR, PRC). time and time again we see special perks given to cadre that are not available to the masses. we don't see sufficient mechanisms to keep the leadership accountable to the cadre or the cadre to the masses. without this, vanguardism degenerates into blanquism
>Okay utopian socialist keep denying the great plausibility of scientific mass-based socialist planning.imagine saying this in the only thread on this hellsite where people take planning seriously. also mass is not the only dimension at play. volume and time are as much players in this, as is energy in its many forms (electrical, thermal, chemical, nuclear). and a myriad of other categories of use-values
No.500410
>>500409"Mass" here mean the masses, the people,… not weights.
No.500411
>>500410Bruh Cockshott's original proposal even suggests direct voting between planning options ???
No.500412
>>500411as does Lange I think
all this is further proof
>>500410 has not actually read TANS
No.500413
>>500378>https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/85561932Got around to reading an archived version of this thread. One anon claims to have worked on a 1.6 billion variable model for a single retail chain that barely worked. Any thoughts?
No.500414
>>500413This is exactly why the experience of the former Soviet Union should be appreciated and applied creatively, since it was they who got to work on problems relating to aggregation of plans, imbalances, …. which are discussed in the documents which I have quoted in detail.
No.500415
>>500413It'a a useless piece of information. What did they plan for?
>>500414You retard haven't even read TANS. Of course it incorporates the lessons from Soviet planning. Stop embarrassing yourself here and do the reading or open another thread.
No.500416
>>500415I have not called you "retard" at all yet you call me so. You fail to argue appropriately.
No.500417
>>500413it's impossible to tell what that anon was even working on. I was in that thread even. claims without sources are useless
>>500416read uygha, then come back
No.500418
have sex
No.500419
>>500415they’re an un-retard for not having read it
No.500420
>>500416>You fail to argue appropriatelyYou are try to argue about a work you have not even read. Don't throw with stones inside the glasshouse.
No.500421
>>500420That is no cause for throwing insults around. You fail to argue appropriately
No.500422
>>500421take your autism meds
No.500423
>>500422Ask your master Cockshott to get you a new brain
No.500425
>>500108One way of doing it: On an individual's filled out form, look at the biggest weight and smallest weight given to a chore, take the difference. Get this difference for each individual's form. Which individual got the biggest value here? That individual gets assigned fully to the task that individual gave the lowest rating and also partially to the task that individual gave the highest rating, as much as possible of that other task up to maximally 1/N of the total chore weight.
Then go on like that. Remove the assigned person and any fully assigned chores from further consideration and do the difference comparison like in the first step, with the change that for chores that are partially assigned already, replace the original weighting on the forms with the fractional weighting corresponding to the remaining part (e.g. if 15 % of a chore is assigned, the remaining part gets 85 % of its original evaluation). Assign another individual, and so on.
Why wouldn't that always work and where is the NP complexity in that?
No.500426
>>500425>Why wouldn't that always work and where is the NP complexity in that?what you describe is a greedy implementation. it certainly works, but it is not optimal
just read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assignment_problem No.500427
>>500426The article was already posted by
>>500232 and it doesn't deal with the problem
>>500108 as the article describes a bipartite graph, but the problem includes assigning one chore potentially to several people. Efficiency (whether in the sense of Pareto or minimizing burden) isn't part of the problem as it is formulated, it is only about finding a configuration within the stated constraints.
No.500428
>>500427 (me)
Derp I somehow conflated matching graphs with all bipartite graphs. Anyway, the point stands that the problem only asked for a constraint-compatible configuration.
No.500429
>>500427>the problem includes assigning one chore potentially to several peoplejust use a labeling scheme to split such jobs up
>it is only about finding a configuration within the stated constraintswell there you go then. just use a greedy algorithm. it's not hard
No.500430
>>500429>it's not hardThe problem was posed 50 days ago and most replies were shidding and farding.
No.500431
>>500430yeah, because you can just use an LP solver
No.500432
>>500431Anon, be honest: Are you the one who claimed
simultaneously that he didn't understand the problem
and that despite that he somehow "knew" it must be NP complexity, and
also that it couldn't always have a solution, and are you also the one who gave an example of an "unsolvable" scenario with everybody having the same preferences
even though all scenarios with identical preferences had been shown to have a solution at that point in the conversation?
YOU ARE FARDSHIDDY MCPOOPOOPANTS!?
No.500433
>>500432yes anon everyone on this site is the same person
No.500435
>>500434Wow that's lovely
No.500438
>>500434There also is a portal to search Sci-Hub papers to be read online called CyberLeninka.org
No.500439
>>500437in an interesting turn of events it is exposed that all along Paul Cockshott was the expose anal injuries schizo anon
No.500440
>>500437cockshott is annorectal torture poster confirmed
No.500441
>>500437>paul is not brownpilleddisappointing
No.500442
>>500437>I did anal now I have PTSDdo amer*cans really?
No.500443
>>500442I think you missed the words "pressured into"
No.500444
>>500437Of course, it is highly inefficient reproduction
No.500445
>>500437petty bourgeois feminists just complain about being "pressured" into doing anal now? really grasping for straws at this point
No.500446
>>500445I wonder what this "pressuring" amounts to
No.500447
>>500445Really? Because the only institution that promotes anal sex is the Hollywood porn industry. So what's "bourgeois", coombrain?
No.500451
>>500449t. transhumanist leftcom mathlet
No.500452
Shit what are we going to do when boomers like cockshott die and all we're left with is tik tok zoomers.
No chance of cybernetic socialism then lol
No.500453
>>500450Like it or not, he is transphobic, but that has nothing to do with the thread, so let's just leave it there. Everything else in that meme is cope.
>>500452>implying the most educated generations in history can't do math No.500454
>>500453The most educated generation in history were millenials I think
No.500455
>>500450>>500451>>500453the voices of scientific socialism, everyone. virgin channers that found a new guru
No.500459
>>500458what a philistine holy shit
can't believe monthly review actually publishes this guy, academic leftist presses have gone down the drain
No.500460
>>500459He's just making the case gays are bourg I don't see anything wrong with that
No.500462
>>500460Not only is it pointless idpol but it's also dumb and reductive because while older LGBT people often have decently high net worth, younger LGBT people are horribly oppressed and have very high poverty, homelessness, drug use, etc
No.500463
>>500458>>500459Notice that this guy's just seething rather than giving a counterargument, instead just betting on being able to rely on the bourgeois norms of our status quo to "do the work" for him, as he expects to coast along on that unnoticed.
Gay married couples are privileged in western society. This is a fact you cannot argue against. Gay marriage activism was an inherently liberal concern. It has nothing to do with Marxism. Marriage is a circuit of capital.
>>500462>it's also dumb and reductive because while big capitalists often have decently high net worth, petty capitalists are horribly disadvantaged and have a very high risk of poverty, homelessness, drug use, etc No.500465
>>500464Pls go back to your gay porn anime fbi.gov, there are adults talking here.
No.500466
>>500457I think the iron law of oligarchy is the main argument agaisnt democratic socialism. I dont think it's something minor it ought to be address by anyone who promotes democratic socialism.
Do I just comment on one of his YouTube videos or something?
No.500467
>>500466I don't think Paul cares much about what a fascist hack would say
No.500468
>>500458then cancel Marx for thinking the us invasion of Mexico was good, and calling people jewish niggers, if a stance on some stupid idol issue is enough to invalidate any and all contributions of a person, canceling Marx would be consistent
No.500469
>>500466If there is no individual wealth then how can oligarchy develop though?
No.500470
>>500468Marx isn't alive today though, he can't look at the evidence and change his mind, it's hardly fair to compare someone from the 1800s against someone today
No.500471
>>500470And it's fair to project your zoomer Americoid idpol views onto a boomer scottish person?
No.500472
>>500469Via administration of the economy or military I think
The iron law of oligarchy focuses on the administrative part though
No.500473
>>500466Uygha TANS is post-Michels. People already started critiquing the Iron Law of Oligarchy in the 40s. Cockshott's models can be seen as an even more robust refutation than those of that time, which advocated a Switzerland model, considering Cockshott's rejection of money and bureaucracy.
No.500474
>>500472It would need to have very strong checks and balances obviously but it strikes me that every non-democratic form of society is MORE likely to devolve into an oligarchy among the military/bureaucrats/etc
>>500471I'm not a zoomer or an American, being Scottish isn't some amazing excuse for having shit views, they still get the internet up there I believe, anyone can do research
No.500475
>>500460he's a fucking philistine who sucks right wing populist cock and acts like a "socialist" intellectual while he's at it
No.500476
>>500470Your behavior ITT has literally been to close your eyes, say LALALA and moralize rather than refute the
evidence to the contrary provided by Cockshott.
Get real.
No.500478
>>500474>>500475Cockshott does not support pre-teen force-feminized cuckold anime catporn bimbofication transhumanist gender essentialist rights, I must now turn into a value-criticist, deny the existence of the LTV and advocate for market socialism with instant value form abolition characteriatics
No.500479
>>500478Value-criticists are in dire need of being ruthlessly memed on.
No.500481
>>500480>anime catporn incel projecting, merely cries that this socialist is now a right-wing populistYou know the overwhelming majority of communists worldwide don't share your social views, right?
No.500483
The working class doesn't like trans
Read the room lol
Under socialism you won't get hrt
No.500484
>>500481>incelprojection?
No.500485
>>500477This is how I picture the average "value-criticist"
No.500486
>>500484Yes, clearly you, the anime porn addict, gets all the pussy/girldick/tentacles
No.500487
>>500481So what?
>>500482Like I said, focussing on older married gay peoples is deceitful because it ignores the reality of many more LGBT people that are below the poverty line, most gay people don't want to get married because that's a weird institution for old people
>>500483https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights>>500485What the fuck is a 'value criticist', I've not said a single thing about Cockshott's economic work, other than it's possibly suspect based on his terrible thought processes in other areas
PS: You guys realise this board has an anime catgirl mascot right? Lmao.
No.500488
>>500485>when you realize value-criticism is wrong so instead of rejecting the premise you "prove" the oppositecockshautism
No.500489
>>500486You're posting on an imageboard.
No.500491
>>500489Yes, and I'm sick of sharing it with autistic ADHD NEET trans fags screeching about shit they don't know and books they've never read.
No.500493
>>500487Well those British communists need to keep those seats warm
Let's see what they think after the working class has those seats
No.500494
>>500491>autistic ADHD NEET fags screeching about shit they don't know and books they've never readthen why did you come to the anglo stemlord revisionism general?
No.500495
>>500491>normalfag wants to drive out the people that funded these placesTypical AmeriKKKan settler.
No.500496
>>500495t. whitoid
>>500494 >everyone being mean to transhumanists is revisionist(idpol shit) No.500497
>>500490you wont understand because you are a retard but
"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.
cockshott's method reifies value production as an end in itself, which will never reach communism and negate itself back into capitalism.
He is actually a robot AI that cant understand dialectics, and this proves that computers will never be able to match human consciousness and that Cockshott is anti-marxist.
No.500498
>>500496> everyone being mean to transhumanists is revisionistyou could actually try to make a point but we know you don't have one so you attempt to derail with idpol
No.500500
>>500497AI doesn't need to reach consciousness to manage and economy. It already kind of does.
I made another thread about blackrock's Aladdin.
>And why we should steal it No.500502
>>500499it's funny that they focused on the transphobic bit in that dickblast meme, predictably
No.500503
>>500499>>500501I've been a leftist since my childhood. As opposed to you, I guess I got lucky I never maladapted into an anime transhumanist manchild. People as far removed from the working class as you will never represent anyone and merely make a dent on basketweaving xorums like this.
No.500504
>>500457There are two explanations:
1. Econophysics. The logic of accumulation and concentration of money is intensified by capitalist property relations, but it even exists in simple abstract models of pure exchange with agents randomly giving money to each other, resulting in extreme inequality. That is why labor vouchers that get destroyed on consumption are key.
2. The structure of election chains (very popular with anarcho-syndicalists and Parecon guys) is easily hijacked by a well-organized group and has accumulative distortion at every step, so a long chain is worse than a short chain (his friend Moshe Machover wrote a straight-forward paper on it). Proportional elections are less affected by this of course, but Cockshott is for the stronger medicine demarchy (allocation by lottery). The problem with demarchy is that it can get a bit chaotic if the selected group is very small, but you can use statistical methods to keep it representative (require some minimum representation of each sex in the group, age groups, people from different regions).
>>500458Homosexual male couples are less likely to raise kids. Raising kids costs time and money. The more money you have the less likely it is you are interested in socialism. If marriage in your country comes with regulations like subsidies and lower taxes, expanding it to homosexual couples will increase inequality. The solution seems to me to delink any such subsidies and lower taxes from marriage and only link that with whether you are raising children. (Cockshott was asked about that and agreed with it.)
>>500467That fascist hack came from the far left. He observed what happened in the SPD and drew his conclusions from that. There is definitely an observable law, we can only hope this law is historically contingent and will vanish with the right changes as mentioned above.
No.500505
>>500502It's like a litmus test.
>>500503I was a leftist when I was in the womb bro.
No.500506
>>500504>Homosexual male couples are less likely to raise kids. Raising kids costs time and money. The more money you have the less likely it is you are interested in socialism. If marriage in your country comes with regulations like subsidies and lower taxes, expanding it to homosexual couples will increase inequality. The solution seems to me to delink any such subsidies and lower taxes from marriage and only link that with whether you are raising children. (Cockshott was asked about that and agreed with it.)I don't disagree that much with this but for some reason all the cockshott fans ITT sperg out about how 'gays are bourgeois' or 'trans don't represent the working class', really makes you think etc.
also, LGBT people are more left wing on average so that seems to disagree with the thesis
No.500507
>>500503>>500505ive noticed a trend this week of constant raiding that cryptopoltards love showing off their madeup credentials the instant they get called out: ive been to 100 protests! ive been a communist since i was 10! ive thrown dozens of molotov cocktails!
>>500506yeah lgbt is so bourgeois they have much higher rates of poverty than "normal" people
>LGBT people collectively have a poverty rate of 21.6%, which is much higher than the rate for cisgender straight people of 15.7%. Among LGBT people, transgender people have especially high rates of poverty—29.4%. Lesbian (17.9%) and straight (17.8%) cisgender women have higher poverty rates than gay (12.1%) and straight (13.4%) cisgender men.https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-poverty-us/ No.500508
>>500504Can you trade with other nations with labor vouchers or social credits?
No.500509
>>500497>"wants to maintain value production" is a good critique of cockshott, from an ML perspectiveHere is Cockshott:
<It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates under the socialist system.<Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist.So you think that Stalin would have disagreed with that?
No.500510
>>500509If Stalin disagreed he'd just give that person a hard time one way or the other…
Glad to have cockshottists that are atleast wiling to the debate instead of close minded ML's that are more conservative than raegan.
No.500511
>>500510>If Stalin disagreed he'd just give that person a hard time one way or the other…What do you mean by that?
No.500513
>>500511Krushev's words not mine
No.500515
>>500458have you actually read said paper?
>>500497austrian-tier argument
No.500516
>>500477what's going on in this vid? why are they interrupting the speaker?
No.500518
>>500509as usual you are missing the point and trying to instead build some kind of logically tight bs to prove something no one gives a fuck about
the law of value existing and operating under socialism has nothing to do with marx or communism, your "gotcha" leads exactly nowhere. how we do or do not do state planning does not matter for the qualitative change that will lead to socialism.
the problem with cockshott is not that he is wrong about the math, its that he rejects dialectics because he misunderstands what Marx was about.
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: 197