/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion.

IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan

(343.91 KB 646x567 1.png)
Cybernetic socialism general Comrade 08/05/2019 (Mon) 22:17:56 No. 10470
New Cockshott video: Maths and Matter
Cockshott gang shall be born anew
We can finally invite cockshott to come to the thread an give us all a good wack for being dumber than him, since bunkerchan isnt blocked for him, unlike 8chan.
(914.25 KB new_socialism(1).pdf)
I wish that the autists would stop spamming him. It will only get worse if he gains popularity though.
I would watch his new video if I wasn't on such slow speeds. I takes me minutes to upload those images.
A personality cult needs to be established for dickblast so autists will continue his work when he finds eternal peace

it was bit meh. He's basically rehashing his older introduction to modern materialist viewpoints video in terms of how he, le practical BRITISH mathematician think of mathematics as a discipline. I'm a brainlet but I can still appreciate intuition that does not necessarily stem from material world.
here's the epub
(402.36 KB 680x703 cockshottfeels.png)
t. idealist
What happened

t. can't into geometry
(34.70 KB 400x533 please notice me.jpg)
>tfw post a lengthy comment to a year old article on his site and get a cogent reply from him
Stafford Beer> Cockshott

>mastermind of project cybersyn
>operations research pioneer during WWII
> studied tantrism, jung, parapsychology and teilhard the chardin's omega point theory.
>The city of London's top management consultant
IIRC, basically some anons couldn't quite get their heads around the fact that Cockshott probably wouldn't appreciate being called a niggerfaggot and proceeded to pull down their pants and shit on the floor quite publicly while screaming about being TRUE REVOLUTIONARIES LIKE THE BOLSHEVIKS because they weren't afraid to use chan lingo when talking to a 60-year-old academic who they just dragged onto an imageboard.
COCKSHOTT talks about beer and cybersyn actually in TANS.

He's worth reading. I see cockshott as a modern day version of beers actually, the only thing that would complete it is if Cockshott was invited to venezuela to implement cybersocialism there (actually he was an advisor to chavez for a little while)
Check out Beer's Pamphlet Designing Freedom. Beer's works are as comfy as management science gets, with drawings and poems, cybernetic flowcharts, rants against the establishment, casual mentions of ESP

Beer's story is actually kindof sad, the fall of allende and the coup traumatized him so hard he turned from a city of london businessman into a hippie.

He was out of the country when it happened, and he spent the rest of his life trying to get other south american countries to implement his system. he failed obv, after that he grew out his beard, gave up all his worldly posessions and became a hippie.

>Although Cybersyn was abandoned after Allende was removed from power by the Pinochet coup in 1973, Beer continued to work in the Americas, consulting for the governments of Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela.

>In the mid-1970s, Beer moved to mid-Wales where he lived in an almost austere style, developing strong interests in poetry and art.
check out this book
>Cybernetics is often thought of as a grim military or industrial science of control. But as Andrew Pickering reveals in this beguiling book, a much more lively and experimental strain of cybernetics can be traced from the 1940s to the present.The Cybernetic Brain explores a largely forgotten group of British thinkers, including Grey Walter, Ross Ashby, Gregory Bateson, R. D. Laing, Stafford Beer, and Gordon Pask, and their singular work in a dazzling array of fields. Psychiatry, engineering, management, politics, music, architecture, education, tantric yoga, the Beats, and the sixties counterculture all come into play as Pickering follows the history of cybernetics’ impact on the world, from contemporary robotics and complexity theory to the Chilean economy under Salvador Allende. What underpins this fascinating history, Pickering contends, is a shared but unconventional vision of the world as ultimately unknowable, a place where genuine novelty is always emerging. And thus, Pickering avers, the history of cybernetics provides us with an imaginative model of open-ended experimentation in stark opposition to the modern urge to achieve domination over nature and each other.

also the whole earth catalog:

>We are as gods and might as well get good at it.So far, remotely done power and glory—as via government, big business, formal education, church—has succeeded to the point where gross defects obscure actual gains. In response to this dilemma and to these gains a realm of intimate, personal power is developing—power of the individual to conduct his own education, find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and share his adventure with whoever is interested. Tools that aid this process are sought and promoted by the WHOLE EARTH CATALOG.

Among other things, Pickering talks about Price and Littlejoan's 1968 Fun Palace project, which inspired the millenium dome. remember it?

Retrofuturism, Tony Blair's New Labour, costly white elephant projects, traces of 90s rave culture, breathless celebration of the city of London's highly finantioglobalised new tech economy.

Marx and Benjamin wrote of World Exhibitions as mass producers of capitalist consciousness.

>tesco is the official education sponsor of the millenium experience

does someone have those memes of his new book, how the world works? also link to where 2 buy
(262.27 KB 499x405 marketsocialiststfu.png)
cockshott OC
>> studied tantrism, jung, parapsychology and teilhard the chardin's omega point theory.
If you see any of these as a positive you are seriously retarded.
who doesn't love some tantrism?
I find it quiet hilarious how some people here try to portray le 60yrs old sage Cockshott as some kind of fragile wise man whoms't must not be criticized. All of this culminating into:

Grow a pair of balls, assholes.
Does anyone have that screencap of someone asking Cockshott if they should have sex with their girlfriend or not and Cockshott actually responding?
Some parts of the 8chan Cockshott/Cybernetics discussions got archived:
I'm about to read this, what am I getting myself into?
You dumb faggots know 8chan is still online and accessible to archive.is, minus images, through its direct IP address, right?
> fragile wise man whoms't must not be criticized
How the fuck do you get that from "the man has never been on an imageboard before, you're going to fucking alienate him by spergimg out"? Are you actually going to start screaming about how Lenin, being a TRUE REVOLUTIONARY, would've totally spent his time on 8ch calling people niggerfaggots again, or something?
>after that autistic shitposter did what he did.

Wait, what?
the best socialist book youve read in a long time
Did anyone save the code that was posted in the last thread, can you post it again here please ?
this board is going to shit fast
>>1288no really what happened?
gnussr lives!
also bump because this seems to be one of the few effortposts on this boards.
btw does anyone know why Cockshott speaks with that accent? im a burger but even i know that doesnt sound scottish.
(512.84 KB 402x767 unknown.png)
which one of you did this?

poll in /tech/ about programming languages/ etc to use in making open source planning software
Yeah, it's weird. It seems like he picked up a bit of an English accent somehow. Apparently he went to Manchester uni in the early '70s, so that could have something to do with it.
(276.31 KB 680x703 cubiclecuck.png)

any responses?
Part 1
On careerists. Who are these careerists?
- Hosts say academics who want to influence bourgeois policy so they disavow Marxism (Yes! we know this)
- Kliman says there are careerists far worse in their opportunism (but doesn't give examples)
- Interviewers say academics are aware they are dishonest in rejecting Marxian economics, post-Keynesian economists are all cowards who reject Marxian economics to keep career.
--- Take away: Kliman is speaking strictly of careerists in academia. The hosts are speaking of both academics and internet personalities. This is useless discussion since we already know professors in bourgeois academia have pressure to conform to the capitalist system.

Interpretation of Marx:
- Host says: Social democrats want to claim they have the true interpretation of Marx and present social democracy/regulated capitalism as Marx's goal
- Kliman agrees, he responds: Various groups (mostly European) do try to appropriate Marx and create a version of Marxism to fit their agenda.
--- Take away: Nothing we didn't already know

Internal consistency of Marxian Economics:
- Marx gets attacked for the transformation problem contradiction. TSSI "sovles" the problem
--- Take away: Nothing, no further discussion. FUCK DON'T TEASE ME

On Value Theory/Value Form Theorists (idk what this is, the hosts say these people are "post Marxists" whatever that means):
- Hosts say Value Form Theory is dominant research field in academia, Kliman agrees because it offers multidisciplinary research opportunities
- Kliman on Marx: Value is created in production and realized in exchange
- To Marx "realization" means selling a good and making money.
- If a good is not sold, the money is still earned (or lost) but not realized, however the owner is still richer (eg. capital gains on real estate appreciation)
- Kliman of Marx: something that has no demand (no use value) has no Value and IT LOSES THE VALUE IT HAD BEFORE (IF ANY) (eg. construction equipment loses value after 2008 crises since no one wants to build things) This does not contradict Value created in production. In addition, consumption also destroys Value since it destroys the Use Value.
- Kliman says: As long as TEMPORARILY is preserved then there is no contradiction about Value being destroyed when commodity is consumed or loses market demand.
--- Take away: This is very good discussion but it had nothing to do with the "transformation problem" and why the TSSI is supposedly correct
Part 2
- No discussion on what TSSI is
- No discussion on why the transformation problem in Marx is a myth and how the TSSI "sovles" the problem
- Anwar Shiakh also "solves" the transformation problem (he also says it is not a problem) but he does not support TSSI
- Kliman states: TSSI is treatening to Marxists because it raises the question "are they interpreting Marx correctly"
- Econophysics disputes TSSI:
- Cockshott disputes TSSI:
- Take away: No further discussion. Because "podcast is wrong format for responding to critiques" I guess we need to wait for more episodes. FUCK THESE GUYS

On Cockshott:
- Hosts claims Cockshott says Capital vol. 3 supports Straffa's theory. However Cockshott does not believe in Straffa's theory and has criticized it in his past video lectures
- Take away: Nothing, No further discussion. This podcast = shit

Analytical Marxism:
- It is crappy Straffian Economics (Yes I agree!)
- Take away: Nothing No further discussion. Why even bring up this topic?

What did I just listen to?
The hosts are terrible. They not making an effort to ensure Kliman understands their topics. They gloss over topics Kliman did not understand while presenting Kliman as agreeing. For example the entire section on Stalinist research tradition, Kliman says Analytical Marxism is unrelated to Stalinism but the Hosts raised this topic to connect Analytical Marxism and Stalinist "political Marxism". They failed and moved on without any acknowledgement of Kliman's disagreement.

VERY BAD podcast, the host interrupted the Kliman too much. They misinterpreted him. The hosts should progress through the topics in order, inform the listener when each topic is discussed, and discuss all topics that are brought up at the beginning instead of name dropping and moving on. I hope the hosts can bring on more Marxist academics but they should improve their interviewing skills and let the guests speak. We the audience don't care about the hosts accomplishments, we don't care that you consider yourselves the one true inheritor of Marxian economics, we don't care to know how big your ego is. We do care about what the guests has to say.
However, I sincerely thank the hosts for promoting discussion of Marxian Economics and encourage everyone to listen to thier entire podcast series called "alpha to omega" which is at least 100 episodes long. I hope this program can be improved and more people will study Marxism.
thanks for slogging thru that for us anon and taking one for the team. so they didn't offer substantive criticism of econophysics/cockshottist marxism at any turn?
I don't use YT, so I'll go by what's posted here.
>Host says: Social democrats want to claim they have the true interpretation of Marx and present social democracy/regulated capitalism as Marx's goal
That's early 20th century socdems. Today's socdems are openly against Marx. But the "euro-communists" are like that.
>Hosts say Value Form Theory is dominant research field in academia
What sort of subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of academia are they talking about here, three academics in a pub somewhere and two of them agree on that?
>TSSI is treatening to Marxists
What planet do the host and Kliman live on?

I doubt there has ever been a single person in the world deciding against becoming a Marxist because of le transformation problem.
>What planet do the host and Kliman live on?
Kliman and the MHI are basically a cult leader of hillbot pseudo marxists at this point tbh
(266.63 KB 500x645 cockshottvulture.png)
cockshott OC
(300.38 KB 500x645 cockshottvulture2.png)
nother version
(94.89 KB 500x645 cockshottvulture3.jpg)
yet another
From /NEW/ thread:
That comment had nothing to do with socialism/capitalism, it was about decentralized anonymous permissive systems (e.g.: cash, homesteading, anonymous imageboards, etc.) dying off in a world dominated by panopticons.
>Cockshotts system has labour vouchers attached to your identity (so only you can spend your vouchers), the system doesn't need to know what or where you bought something, it just needs to know when you spend a labour voucher to be able to invalidate it
I was aware labor vouchers can be cancelled in an anonymous decentralized fashion, but I was unaware Cockshott's system can function without specific details of consumption/sales, and assumed some kind of anonymyzer scrubbing would be needed to protect privacy. So it functions entirely off inputs and outputs?
>this just says large corporations that act on behalf of shareholders and produce for profits rather then for use, are bad.
The issue I'm complaining about has nothing to do with capitalism nor socialism, but with the exhaustive "paper trail" left behind by every single activity billions of people carry out in their daily lives today, and with the attendent bureaucracy that allows corrupt individuals within whatever system the opportunity to abuse that data, data that should not (and until very recently, did not) exist.
>What do you think Cockshott's system is missing?
I'll admit, as I said before, that my grasp of it may be incomplete or innacurate, due to the extremely arcane nature of the subject. But at least from what I understand, some way of eliminating the human factor, so that the system can gather the enormous amount of data it requires without acting as an open book for anyone with access to the system to peer over details about the lives of any among billions of individuals.
>Argument from the natural state of humans?
Not just that, also to point out that countless indigeneous cultures are to this day anarchic in nature.
>Anarchism hasn't been a significant political current beyond first world countries
There are anarchist socialist parties throughout the world with history reaching back to peasant rebellions. I'll admit anarchism (1st-world included) generally peaked in popularity, influence, and radicalism within the left during the early 1900s, but your statement remains utterly farcical.
>they have to organise production in Anarchist ways.
Poppycock. That standard disqualifies 100% of MLs outside PRC/NK/Cuba/Vietnam/etc.
>small groups of developers that wield enormous influence
But these systems are designed in such a way that their functioning is not supposed to be tinkered with directly, only the specification they implement.
>successful crypto project would have a network effect that keeps their respective dev-groups in power
What power?
>Besides most people can't code or fork a project
This is a nonsequitor. Only a few hundred people on the planet know how to design modern microprocessors, does that mean they have more power than the other myriad employees of Intel or AMD, executive staff included? Does that also mean all of them are working together, rather than analyzing and countering each others' designs on the part of whoever they're affiliated with? Does this also go for any other esoteric but critical field, like scientists, mathematicians, doctors, lawyers, and accountants? Jesus, it's like talking to a retarded contrarian toddler.
>Markets concentrate wealth
Are you actually conflating crypto tech in general with buttcoin in particular? I'm talking about use of such technology, including for planning, votes, online forums, whatever. Not buttcoin specifically.
(502.90 KB 1280x600 laborVoucher.jpg)
Well done, comrade.
>I was aware labor vouchers can be cancelled in an anonymous decentralized fashion, but I was unaware Cockshott's system can function without specific details of consumption/sales, and assumed some kind of anonymyzer scrubbing would be needed to protect privacy. So it functions entirely off inputs and outputs?

This specific concern can be solved by aggregating consumption at the store or neighborhood level instead of at individual level. Planning algorithm does not need to know who is buying which products, it only needs to know that products are being purchased from stores in a neighborhood and that these stores need to be restocked and the products need to be reproduced.
No they did not, the only interesting part was the discussion on Value Theory which was far too short to satisfy.

> What sort of subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of academia are they talking about here, three academics in a pub somewhere and two of them agree on that?
I think they meant Value Theory was dominant within Marxist scholars as opposed to TSSI. Is that actually true? Who knows.

>I doubt there has ever been a single person in the world deciding against becoming a Marxist because of le transformation problem.
Kliman was not saying that people are discouraged form studying Marxism due to the transformation problem. He was saying that Marxists who do not follow the TSSI interpretation are not true Marxists(tm) and these fake Marxists reject TSSI because it reveals they do not understand Marx.

It might be worth watching Cockshott's 4 part critique of Kilman again for review. Is he really some nutjob who thinks he's the last real Marxist? Kliman claims Shaikh's interpretation of Marx is incorrect as well. Anyone know enough about both scholars to say who is right and wrong?
(310.56 KB 600x400 techcrew.jpg)
(234.67 KB 600x400 techcrew2.jpg)
(249.71 KB 600x400 techcrew3.jpg)
(176.03 KB 600x400 techcrew4.jpg)
>I was aware labor vouchers can be cancelled in an anonymous decentralized fashion, but I was unaware Cockshott's system can function without specific details of consumption/sales, and assumed some kind of anonymyzer scrubbing would be needed to protect privacy. So it functions entirely off inputs and outputs?
Yes it functions with inputs and outputs, the main goal of this is to calculate how much stuff to produce. The stores do not need to pin your name to a specific purchase to manage their inventory.
Anyway this is a weird way of putting this question. I think framing this in terms of privacy is making this more abstract than it has to be. This is about whether or not you create a profiling system. Capitalism started profiling people for the purpose of directing consumer behaviour via marketing, because individual capitalists wanted to maximize profits and one way to do this is to direct more purchases towards your products/services then that of the competition.
I don't really know if you need to actively pursue something like directing consumption behaviour in socialism, if you had something like advertising you probably would try to persuade people make rational consumption choices. If you want to tailor products to individual preferences, it's just easier to ask people, then to spy on them. As far as data mining goes, that might be useful for improving medical diagnosis. There are attempts to anonymize this, but those sort of are week measure that are only effective against nosy people with low technical skills. I don't know how the benefits compare to the downsides of data driven health care, though.

>The issue I'm complaining about has nothing to do with capitalism nor socialism, but with the exhaustive "paper trail" left behind by every single activity billions of people carry out in their daily lives today, and with the attendent bureaucracy that allows corrupt individuals within whatever system the opportunity to abuse that data, data that should not (and until very recently, did not) exist.
Well you could use the same "paper trail" for keeping the bureaucratic structures honest as well, this is very much a double edged sword. The data trail is sort of a side effect of information systems, some people have suggested that some of the data would turn into a type of toxic waste, because just like toxic waste it could harm you. To be honest, I don't quite understand the mindset of the people that currently do all the spying. Why aren't they spending most efforts towards discarding irrelevant information, rather than collecting EVERYTHING. I think that there is a dialectic to surveillance, where both the spy and the "surveillance-ed" person are changed, so the process of surveillance is probably corrupting data integrity, my thinking here is somewhat similar to the reasoning for double blind studies on medicine. In the past the systemic risk to socialist system has always been surplus being diverted into a privatization scheme, and you probably can get away with tracking wealth rather then people.

I don't think you make any compelling arguments here, you obviously haven't read any ML theory. Anyway the reason for bringing up Anarchism was about finding a way to reconcile it with ML. Anarchism is economically based on a barter system. There is some theory on improving barter systems to scale better. So it might be worth exploring whether introducing barter systems to an ML system would make it tolerable to Anarchists.

The currently existing crypto stuff is mostly focused on replicating money market schemes, this will result in wealth concentration and consolidation of power.
A separate mater is block-chain technology, these seems to promises to be very robust systems, that certainly is worth it.
try commenting on his blog, hes likely to directly respond to that/ theres also facebook and email
This, I commented on an ancient article on his website, and he responded surprisingly promptly.
(533.71 KB 576x776 cybercom.jpg)
(312.05 KB 576x776 cockshottmarine.jpg)
(543.99 KB 576x776 cybercom3.jpg)

Cockshott new article
(60.67 KB 280x325 culturecockshott.png)
will read soon
should I read Capital before reading Cockshott?
I'm planning on reading Capital next summer when I have the time
Kliman is a hack. Just look at his Q&A on Reddit if you want to see what a disaster looks like.
>tankie who runs it
You mean FinnBol? Lol
You probably mean FinnBol's friend, Polinkazh. He's not that tankie though.
At least read them side by side. They are complementary. Especially Capital Volume 2, where Marx discusses the multi-sector overview of the capitalist economy and explains how communism will be structured.
How exactly do I go about studying cybernetics today? It doesn't seem to be a thing anymore.
can someone explain it for a non-cs dummy what exactly is the "transformation problem" ?
Transformation problem has nothing to do with computer science. It is an alleged contradiction in Marx's capital where Value is unable to be transformed into prices.
(82.53 KB soviet_planning.pdf)
Posting some cockshott PDFS:
"Socialist planning after the collapse of the Soviet Union"
Calculation, Complexity And Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Once Again
Allin Cottrell and W. Paul Cockshott∗ July, 1993
(401.09 KB hayek.pdf)
Information and Economics: A Critique of Hayek
Allin F. Cottrell and W. Paul Cockshott October, 1994
(320.82 KB hayek2.pdf)
Against Hayek
Allin Cottrell and W. Paul Cockshott
Wake Forest University, Glasgow University
Cockshott, P., and Zachriah, D. (2012) Arguments For Socialism.
(88.62 KB cantor.pdf)
Cantor diagonalisation and planning
Allin Cottrell, Paul Cockshot, Greg Michaelson January 5, 2007
(270.29 KB plan_with_AIT.pdf)
Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Economic Planning (Paul Cockshott)
Calculation in-Natura, from Neurath to Kantorovich
Paul Cockshott May 15, 2008
>I give a quick explanation of the theory of rent and how this explains the growing wealth of the British Aristocracy. I finish off by discussing how Brexit will affect it.
Its disgusting that the royal family still owns a third of British land.

Its disgusting not many know about it.
i agree on cockshotts communized living situation probably being too radical, nuclear families and apartments for singles are probably ok. I think direct democracy can work after the revolution is completed.
so your main problem in democracy is that people can be brainwashed by western media? why not just ban foreign social media such as china does, and have our own internal media, that way the proletariat of that country can make its own decisions without being propagandized by outsiders.
Are there any reasoned critiques of Cockshott? I seem to be agreeing with what he has to say, but I am interested in getting a complete picture of the dialogue.
here's an Austrian's take on TANS:
as well as a leftcom critique by Derick Varn:
finally, there's Klimans critiques which were linked in the thread earlier. (as well as those 'power as capital' guys.
most of the rest of the critques of Cockshott seem to be from an Austrian perspective
original source?
its leftypol OC, the original art is from starcraft 1 concept art (from the game manual) see: https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/30346.html#q31139
page 29 of that pdf to be exact
>leftcom critique by Derick Varn
Spergs out about what society two thousand years ago really was like and completely misses the point. Cockshott's argument for sortition is based on very simple math (same as Machover's) and knowledge about 20th century party dynamics, muh Ancient Greece is just a little extra window dressing. That is, if researchers found out that all we know about Ancient Greece was a big hoax, that wouldn't change his position one inch.
(192.96 KB ambedcararticle.pdf)

>The proposed Indian publishers of Towards A New Socialism book asked us a number of questions which they felt would help the book become more relevant to an Indian audience. They asked us
>(1) How do our ideas on socialism relate to those put forward by Dr Ambedkar.
>(2) How do we justify the use of Marxian economic concepts like surplus value in the light of the criticisms that have been leveled at this concept by Baudrillard.
>(3) How do our ideas about hitherto existing socialism relate to those that were put forward by prominent socialist theorists like Sweezy, Bettelheim and Mandel?
>asks for a reasonable critique
>gets given an austrian critique
would you rather he gave that 'cockshott is essentially a nazbol' critique by that random mutualist? lol
On Althusser’s Philosophy of the Encounter
Paul Cockshott
School of Computing Science, University of Glasgow and 18 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, Scotland∗ (Dated: 23 Nov 2012)
The article reviews Althusser’s Philosophy of the Encounter, examining in turn the problem of the Epistemological Break and the idea of matérialisme aléatoire. It looks at Althusser’s critique of the concept of commodity fetishism and suggests a possible response. It goes on to situate the matérialisme aléatoire in the context of the history of atomism with particular reference to the work of Boltzmann. It provides a possible technique of both rejecting teleology whilst retaining the arrow of time.
(906.15 KB infoworkmeaning.pdf)
Information, Work and Meaning
Paul Cockshott & Greg Michaelson September 3, 2005

>We live today in what is called an information economy. The growth in all things computer-related is obvious to all. Shares in companies making information processing products—the “new economy”—have been the stars of Wall Street, London and Frankfurt. At the same time an ever increasing proportion of the workforce in advanced economies has moved into jobs concerned with the handling of information: financial services, telecentres, advertising and the media.
<In the face of this obvious change we want to address some basic questions. What is information? Why is it valuable? What is the relationship between money and information?
>In answering these questions we draw upon three areas of study that were until recently quite distinct: classical political economy, thermodynamics and information theory. Classical political economy links the creation of value to work. Thermodynamics, arising from pragmatic studies of the limits to our ability to perform work, became, with the concept of entropy, a cornerstone of our understanding of the physical world. Information theory, originally another pragmatic branch of engineering, has revealed unexpected links between information and entropy.
<In the process we will show how concepts derived from thermodynamics have proven themselves to be amazingly fruitful in confirming the hypotheses of the classical economists.
bump for the newfags
I agree. I think direct democracy should be tried on some things before going all-in.

2 months until Cockshott's history of the world is out, get hype
>Are there any reasoned critiques of Cockshott?
Several. He fetishizes dir. dem. based on ancient greek society which was a class society.

His dreams about direct dem. are based on the abolishment of representative structures, that is, politics proper. His proposed econ system is workable, while his politics is shit-tier at best.

TaNS can be read two ways: as a working socialist economy; as an utopian political proposal that lacks any kind of concrete basis in what is.
>halting problem

did he actually say that or are you memeing it out of context? just curious wtf does halting problem has to do with linear programming

He also demonstrated rather shitty boomer tier understanding on several societal issues that I will not even mention as they probably belong in gender garbage fire thread . Good thing his economic policies should be agnostic enough to be appropriated by any kind of worker controlled government.
(26.46 KB 960x893 karl marx smiley.jpg)
Don't wanna hijack, but I think this is the place to talk about the Cock.

I am watching and reading hist stuff on economy, materialism etc, but I have seen that he has written quite a bit about transgenderism and so on. His writing seems to really insult trans people and people who support trans people. Because I don't really wanna invest my time in reading this nonsense that shouldn't exist (who the fuck cares if you think you're a woman etc) I am just posing a question (haha lazy fuck) - what is the argument that pisses of pro-trans so much that they call him transphobic and etnonationalist ....
"See...SEE! When youre thinking about shit real hard thats like Odin when hes thinking real hard and seeing all of existence through his ghost eye but when youre in a brawl thats like odin smashing his hammer!"
just ignore what he writes about that shit and concentrate on the non idpol stuff.
actually it was supposed to be read as a concrete policy proposal for the USSR to follow but unfortunately it collapsed while he was writing it
that meme is a reference to a super old debate around cockshott back in pre-old BO purge days where someone said formal logic was a dogma and the rest of the things in that meme to try to say cockshotts proposal could never work.
seperate the work from the Author
yeah he's got absolutely terrible TERF tier takes on trans people but dosent make his economic writings less useful
by the way i like how Bettelheim is so obscure as a Marxist people didn't even know who he was when that meme was posted.
well I read one now and they don't seem that transphobic
Cockshott & Cottrell claim to have empirical evidence for the labour theory. However this relies on a misapplication of regression analysis. Most of my criticisms below are of their papers. Cockshott & Cottrell do regressions of the output of business sectors compared to their labour input. So, total output of the sector is compared to the amount paid in wages. They find a strong relationship between labour input and sector output. The principle problem is the independence assumption in regressions which is being broken here. Industrial sectors that are small in dollar revenue terms employ small numbers of people. Similarly, sectors that are large employ large numbers of people. Marginalism predicts this just as LTV does. Size is a common factor so the axes are not independent and don't really test LTV. So, if you plot total revenue vs total work hours then of course you get a line. In one form or another that's what these papers do. What they should do is weight for the relative size of the sector. The real issue is if how much revenue and hour of work produces and how that quantity changes for different sectors. Two French economists looked at the situation where relationship between labour input and output were *random* for each sector. In that case the LTV certainly isn't true. But, using Cockshott & Cottrell's method stills produce a regression line (therefore "proving" the theory). They had a little app on their website that demonstrates it. Unfortunately, it uses Java which isn't supported by browsers these days. Using regressions, Cockshott & Cottrell compare alternatives to Labour. They compare other inputs such as steel and oil. This is really comparing other types of objective value theory. It says nothing about marginalist economics. The rest of us marginalist economists take the view that finding such relationships is unnecessary. As another poster here has put it (kohatsootsich) puts it there's no need for "conservation laws" in economics. Labour is treated as one input and compared it to specific commodities like oil, etc. Part of the point of us marginalist economists is that it's not reasonable to treat labour that way. Labour is not really all that similar. We measure wages as a whole only because they're the return of workers. It doesn't mean we think workers are similar. That's not to say that Cockshott & Cottrell ignore skill differences, they don't. The point is that buying a hundred hours of a barista's time is not the same thing as buying a hundred hours of a barrister's time. The difference is as large as that between steel and oil. Skilled labour is not merely unskilled labour "intensified". In Classical LTV, capital equipment is supposedly accounted for by "dead labour". As far as I can see Cockshott & Cottrell don't do this. They account only for labour in one period. As far as I can see this doesn't make sense even using the principles of LTV.
>We measure wages as a whole only because they're the return of workers, The point is that buying a hundred hours of a barista's time is not the same thing as buying a hundred hours of a barrister's time. The difference is as large as that between steel and oil. Skilled labour is not merely unskilled labour "intensified"

The difference between skilled and unskilled labour is, how much additional surplus society has to divert on average to support the additional skill training.

You haven't actually attacked Cockshott & Cottrell on the basis of empiricism, you just complained about them not conducting the analysis you preferred.
I don't know who this anon is, but you've posted this several times before. This is essentially a slightly modified copypasta that combines Kliman and that one reddit autist. I'll bite
>However this relies on a misapplication of regression analysis.
ah, this old Canard. Basically the complaint that by comparing labor as an input to oil, steel, etc. Cockshott &C are oblivous to marginalism. Let me repeat for the last time: the reason Cockshott does not talk about marginalism with relation to those measured inputs is because HE IS NOT ADDRESSING THIS TO MARGINALIST CRITICS the multi regression analysis here is intended to address Sraffian and neo-sraffian critiques of those like Ian Steedman, who argued that you can have any commodity substituted for labor and it will still be a consistent theory, therefore there is no need for a specifically labor theory of value (i.e. the corn theory of value critique). Cockshott's answer here is that yes, you can get an internally consistent theory by using other inputs besides labor, however none other give the high correlation of labor. Therefore assuming labor has the highest degree of accurate explanatory power. This has nothing to do with marginalist economics, Cockshott has other criticisms of marginalist economics, there is a very good reason he does not compare this to neoclassical economics, because it is unfalsifiable and does not give empiricially testable prices or price structures like the LTV does. He goes over that here:
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/not-even-wrong/ and here: https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/from-the-sublime-to-the-ridiculous/
Your second points about industry size are essentially kliman/neoclassical copypasta nonsense about the size of industries, which Cockshott addresses here, including your quibbles about the size of industry.
he shows that transgender theory is just idealism, which it is. That's it.

His "homophobia" is simply that gay marriage replicates the legalism of bourgeois marriage and so reinforces homophobia rather than challenges it.

He is correct, but someone, his kid maybe, needs to tell him that he needs to make it clear he fully accepts trans people since they're the new "oppressed group" in western countries.

It’s pretty obvious. He is blatantly saying trans women aren’t women. Furthermore, he seems to consider the whole notion of a “gender” as obfuscating that gender as a set of social regulations of sex is based on the sexed body, and so gender is almost inextricable from “being a woman”. You can rebel against the social regulations of your sex, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t literally your sex. He disagrees with the impetus to remove “womanhood” from the context of a sexed body, and so to return to the start concludes that it is wrong to consider trans women as women. I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he just straight forward considers them cross dressers by a different name.

So trans women dislike Cockshott because he is saying they aren’t women.
> Industrial sectors that are small in dollar revenue terms employ small numbers of people. Similarly, sectors that are large employ large numbers of people. Marginalism predicts this just as LTV does. Size is a common factor so the axes are not independent and don't really test LTV. So, if you plot total revenue vs total work hours then of course you get a line
If LTV was false then there would not be a near one to one relationship between profit and labour input.
If LTV was false then the amount of value produced would be independent of the amount of labour put into it.
>In Classical LTV, capital equipment is supposedly accounted for by "dead labour". As far as I can see Cockshott & Cottrell don't do this.
This labour is already accounted for since it's an investment made by the capitalists. As such it's a cost just like the input raw materials. Only the added value component by labour is taken into account.
>Muh all labour is different so you're not allowed to compare things
No u
Wangbang uses Debian?

Does he even know systemd is malware? Jeez
>Inb4 profitable industry hires more people cus they have more money
That is the stupidest idea ever. No capitalist would ever hire anyone just because they have money left over. They constantly try to cut the amount of workers they need to hire.
Or they hire independent contractors instead of employees
i think roosterexploder uses linux, not sure what distro tho
Well they aren't, since they are men. Even if you cut off your penis, take a bunch of hormones etc, you're still not a woman.

But you can see why trans people don’t like him for that? It’s like how Blanchard and Bailey piss off trans women, even though both have effectively been advocates for their health for years. They’ll go so far as to call them pedophiles and rapists, simply because they hate their ideas on gender dysphoria in men.
>Don't wanna hijack,

Look I even made you all a post to continue this discussion over here --> >>53037

More importantly there's an interesting discussion concerning comrade dickblast happening >>52764
Where are you getting this crap?

These are old and boring criticisms that have been answered already in 2014.


I'm in the habit of making more cynical assumptions than Cockshott when it comes to how people will act in socialism. Is this cynicism more realistic or is my thinking just too restricted by the here and now (having never been to the USSR or GDR myself)? I'm thinking about roughly the same issue that is to some degree addressed by the harmony algorithm, different plants producing different things with fixed coefficients (in econ lingo: the plants have Leontief utilities) from a common pool of resources, the difference is I do not take for granted that the system has accurate and honest information about what these coefficients look like. Instead the plant managers are asked to provide that crucial information, which is then fed into a program.

Suppose the program works like the harmony algorithm, you manage a plant that produces exactly one product with fixed coefficients, and for whatever reason you want to produce as many units as possible – not necessarily the same as the number of units produced you will then report to the center – then it does not look like honesty about what these coefficients really are is always your optimal strategy. When a plant can't make an additional unit of whatever it produces because some ingredient is missing, the other ingredients are put back into the pool. So, if you want ingredient A and you know some other plant needs both A and B for making a unit of whatever thing it produces, you can ask for an exaggerated amount of B and so trigger the situation that the other plant gives back some of A to the pool, which you then have a chance to get.
can someone PLEASE explain me how the fuck would the commodities market work? can I get some insight please?
Maybe read TaNS you pathetic lazy mother fucker?
Basically you just used the marginal utility theory of value as premise for your post, while
Cockshott uses labour theory of value, which is empirically verified unlike marginal utility theory which is just based on assumptions of blackmail. Something has as much value as you can blackmail people to pay you.

If you want to have a debate about different value theories try this thread:
instead of derailing the cybernetic thread
can someone PLEASE explain me how the fuck would the commodities market work? can I get some insight please?
>Maybe read TaNS you pathetic lazy mother fucker?>>53586

if you are too lazy to read you can listen to it here:
doesn't cockshott go over everything in his own videos?
Well he has touched on a lot in his videos, i would still read the book it's not very long and and well written, it contains a lot of info for the size. Only the tech-related examples are a bit out of date.
>Basically you just used the marginal utility theory of value
Basically you are functionally illiterate.
>If you want to have a debate about different value theories
Basically no.
>derailing the cybernetic thread
Basically go fuck yourself. It was literally a question about the harmony algorithm.
Basically I like this poster's style.
Half-shitpost, but how would the military work under Cockshott's direct democracy? Do the people vote on whether or not to declare war? Do the people vote on battle plans, or what cities to defend?
Full-shittpost: Yes, soldiers get a helmet-cam that gets streamed over the internet and people type in the chat at what the soldier should shoot his rifle at.
> Do the people vote on whether or not to declare war? Do the people vote on battle plans, or what cities to defend?
A socialist state is still bound by alliances. The people should have a say in whether or not to invade a country, but more likely there will be military support for resistance fighters rather than full on invasions, or military support of them if enough people are down with it. I imagine it might go on a more volunteer basis (international brigade with actual supplies).

Also battle plans and shit are still mostly top down since they require a full picture view to win the overall war. It will be unlikely to ever be a "send soldiers to their death" scenario unless its a fight for survival like the nazi invasion of the ussr. More likely its going to be support or tactics more in line with what nato now practices, only send ground troops when you have the technological upper hand, avoid area with gorilla warfare, support local troops and fighters with arms and airstrikes.
I wouldnt call it a market, it just looks a bit like it because it has free moving prices, rather than set in stone prices like in traditional rationing systems.

Its easy.
You make product.
Product takes X hours to make in total. Put it in store.
Change price to Y to make sure you sell all product, but not run out prematurely, independent of production cost.
Also mention actual production cost on price tag.
If Y is higher than X, it means you made too little. If Y is lower than X, it means you make too much. Change production to try and make Y match X more closely next time.

Thats the whole idea. Using this, the market tends towards perfect distribution (where the price said is equal to the cost, IE products are produced in the right quantity for what people "voted for with their wallet"). Of course tastes and industry changes over time to the perfect distribution also changes every cycle, but you just change production to try and approach it.
(1013.76 KB 629x323 1442352115695-3.gif)
>MyPayrollHR, a now defunct cloud-based payroll processing firm based in upstate New York, abruptly ceased operations this past week after stiffing employees at thousands of companies. The ongoing debacle, which allegedly involves malfeasance on the part of the payroll company’s CEO, resulted in countless people having money drained from their bank accounts and has left nearly $35 million worth of payroll and tax payments in legal limbo.

It begins
>Singaporean meritocracy
It's exactly the same as other meritocracies, Anon. Porky deserves his millions, and the proles deserve destitution and penury.
How do I even use this file?
you would need a epub reader
for example Okular document viewer

or you can use the pdf version of TANS i attached to this post
(594.48 KB 878x900 your new home.png)
>snail version
Dis gun b gud
A method which involves parachuting useless failsons into positions of power, who continually fail upwards. Can you elaborate the positives of Singaporean meritocracy? In my experience it's almost wholly a paper-thin veneer which keeps porky and pals firmly in control. The proles, on the other hand, are paternally chided, and reminded that they deserve to be poor.

An article which claims that the economic calculation problem is still relevant because computers can't calculate infinate sets of data and, as we all know, there are literally an infinate amount of commodities in the world. So take that you stupid socialist.

Cockshot can never recover.
Leftcom theorists note, if you close read this it creates a connection between your theory and cockshots that solves a contradiction between the two
Cockshott on class conflict from hunter-gathering to agricultural development.
Does >>63847 make it easier to transition to a cockshott planned economy in the future?
(262.27 KB 499x405 marketsocialiststfu.png)
I just read that article and while she clearly cites a few of cockshott's works one wonders whether she actually read them. She takes hayeks position for granted when cockshott has actually refuted hayeks ideas on local knowledge using information theory:



Furthermore the version of the paper on diagonalization she cites is the draft version, not the real one which is found here: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/publications/ccm.IJUC07.pdf
Furthermore she doesn't even engage with Cockshott's arguments at all. She simply cites them as examples of "yes, some socialists have tried to use AI to argue for central planning" and then proceeds to basically just explain cantors diagonalization argument, then re-iterates hayeks and murphys arguments. She literally doesn't quote Cockshott even one time. don't believe me go read it again, there is literally no engagement with Cockshott's arguments against Hayek or Murphy, the only reason she cites them is to lump them in with liberal advocates of using AI to do data-driven policy analysis (she does seem to have something to say about that).
(3.84 MB 353x201 crabrave.gif)
This books is going to be so BASED
a modern version of engels 'the origin of the family private property and the state'
Honestly I love pre-capitalist class relations so this entire series of lectures is gonna be right up my alley.
(151.04 KB 1098x1693 HTTW-seattle-riveter2.jpg)
Does anyone have a copy of the draft version of this book that was posted on 8ch about a year ago? A friend needs it for review purposes and I can't find it in my downloads.
Zombie lenin is a good pic choice for this thread.
I got you fam
>i am not a materialist
Cheers bruh, I didn't expect a reply so soon.
(23.30 KB 336x188 rextczvg.jpg)
This is good stuff. The history and anthropology of how human society evolved from hunter gatherer into agriculture and then into slave societies is fairly well studied and shows the usefulness of historical materialism. Having all this in a single book is nice too, saves time hunting down different sources.
Check out Chris Knight's lectures and literature if you like modern Marxist-Engelsist anthropology:
I watched some (on shitube not vimeo), Chris Knight has some good stuff to say. Does he have a lecture series recorded? I want an in depth course.
Paul Cockshott is a computer scientist, not an anthropologist. No serious anthropologist, Marxian or not, would seriously espouse historical materialism (since the actual historical evidence falsifies the theory, that is if it's even a scientific theory that can be falsified to begin with, Karl Popper certainly doesn't think so). Mainly Marxism contribution to anthropology lies within value theory and the nature of commodities etc.
>all the serious scientists say it's wrong because it is falsified and it also can't be falsified and that makes it double-unscience
Wow you really know logic and science and stuff.
who are you quoting?
Have you even watched the video? What stuff he says is wrong?
>No serious anthropologist, Marxian or not, would seriously espouse historical materialism
that is 100% wrong, there are plenty of modern anthropologists who believe in a version of historical materialism
was an anti communist
>actual historical evidence falsifies the theory
not really and to the extent it does the theory has been modified (see: cockshott's stochastic materialism).
>Does he have a lecture series recorded?
Not really I think. For that you should check out his books. Several of them are on libgen. His criticism of Chomsky is also very important, though it is politically muted. For the whole picture on Chomsky I recommend these articles:

lmao fuck off retard. Historical materialism is heavily supported by the facts in anthropology. Read Engels.
Just got to chapter 5 of (towards a new socialism) can someone help me with the mathematics in the first few chapters? like I believe I got the gist but if someone can put a little icing on my cake Id love that.
the parts I'm wondering about are the end of chapter 2
wow is this brainlet
what specifically do you not understand
>and proceeded to pull down their pants and shit on the floor quite publicly while screaming about being TRUE REVOLUTIONARIES LIKE THE BOLSHEVIKS

I laughed so hard
Part two of the video on slave economy.
based, gonna watch soon
Considering Cockshott deals a lot with breaking down political economy with materialism of both capitalism and previous modes of production, and draws conclusions for socialism, has there been any serious critique of Cockshott from Leftcommunists? Especially his video about surplus would seem to trigger them. A lot of the arguments Leftcommunists make to argue that Marxism-Leninism is state-capitalis seem to be replies to specific Soviet works on the economy but Cockshott comes at this from a different angle.

I was actually convinced that the USSR was state-capitalist for a long time until Cockshott talked me out of it. I re-read Marx and came to the conclusion that a lot of arguments Leftcommunists make are incredibly dishonest
>financial crisis of 33 A.D.
>states steps in to bail out the moneylenders
Emperor Tiberius was NEOLIBERAL GANG
theres a leftcom critique by derrick varn written here:
Kliman also has critiques of cockshott written which are from a marxist-humanist perspective which is sortof close to leftcom but not really
>Considering Cockshott deals a lot with breaking down political economy with materialism of both capitalism and previous modes of production, and draws conclusions for socialism, has there been any serious critique of Cockshott from Leftcommunists?
I don't know, what in particular are you looking for a critique of?
>Especially his video about surplus would seem to trigger them.
>I re-read Marx and came to the conclusion that a lot of arguments Leftcommunists make are incredibly dishonest
I don't want to go off-topic here, but I will say that over the years Cockshott has essentially contradicted himself on the nature of the USSR. He resists any attempt to label it non-socialist but also wrote in 'Computers and Economic Democracy' in 2003:
"In the countries of hitherto existing socialism the decision as to how the social working day was to be divided between necessary and surplus labour time was taken by the government. As, over time, the government became alienated from the working class, the process became exploitative. The state as an alien power was depriving the workers of the fruits of their labour."
He continues:
"The contradictory character of socialist representative government is banally evident. The representatives of the proletariat, through their control of the plan, and thus the method by which unpaid surplus labour is pumped out of the direct producers, become effective controllers, pro tem, of the means of production. As such their individual class position is transformed and their ability to go on representing the proletariat, compromised."

Ten years later one can find Cockshott debating on an internet forum stating that the elites in the USSR were essentially just public servants administering property owned by society as a whole, just like Marx had envisioned. Now, I wouldn't call Cockshott dishonest but I do see him as someone who is incredibly equivocal on the topic when he feels it's necessary. He seems to hold the attitude that the legacy of the USSR is intimately tied up with the future of socialism and, for that reason, is reluctant to call a spade a spade. That said, he does have extensive critiques of the USSR.

>Karl Popper was an anti-communist
The real argument against citing Popper's ideas is that Popper was basically a charlatan and a fraud. He deliberately edited quotes from figures as famous as Plato, Hegel, and Marx to make them look bad and to shoehorn them into an evil "historicist" conspiracy to create a totalitarian society. At the time that he wrote his most famous work he didn't even have access to many of the works he was quoting and relied upon secondary sources. Walter Kaufmann even wrote an essay about Popper's shoddy scholarship.
How the World Works must be a bad book, it only has a one-star aggregate on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44676165-how-the-world-works based on one text-free evaluation by an account with nothing else
Somebody share that video from that lolberg conference where they school people to do mass astroturfing on literature and movie websites
fucking ancaps
Theres nothing contradictory about that unless you think socialism = utopia. I think Cockshott wants to criticize the USSR without using the "not real socialism" argument which he considers dishonest (which it totally is).
Wait. What's this stuff about "Math is reactionary"?? Sorry, I don't know who are those guys on the left, except for Bookchin.
My sides
its a meme from the old days of 8ch leftypol (pre-BO purge) where there was a debate between cybernetic socialists and some other people. Some guy said in the debate that formal logic was a dogma (brainlet take). The people pictured in the meme are Adorno, Bettleheim, and Bordiga (and gilbert strang, a non political mathematician at the bottom whos famous for his books on "Linear Algebra" a type of math used in economic planning.

Bettelheim is an obscure french marxist. Adorno, most people know

it comes from a statement of cockshott where he says

>In this task 20th century Western critical Marxists like Cliff, Bettleheim or Bordiga will only take us so far. Whilst they could point out weaknesses of hitherto existing socialism, it did this by comparing it to an ideal standard of what these writers thought that a socialist society should achieve. In retrospect we will see that these trends of thought were a product of the special circumstances of the cold war, a striving for a position of ideological autonomy ‘neither Moscow nor Washington’, rather than a programmatic contribution to Marxism. The very psychological detachment that such writers sought, deflecting from their own heads the calumnies directed at the USSR, prevented them from positively engaging with the problems faced by historically existing socialism. It is only if you envisage being faced with such problems oneself, that one would come up with practical answers

Cockshott vs value theory (oldie but goodie)
I feel like Cockshott has some kind of love-hate relationship with Althusser.
he totally does.
(51.61 KB 581x593 1306723735001.jpg)
>cockshott takes literally the "anatomy of ape" quote from Marx
Got it. Glad it's a meme.
Tried to confront Muke with it
Can someone explain what exactly the value theory is? As far as I understand it is the only non-retarded alternative to LTV, right? So what does it suggest? And how prominent is it in modern politics (widespread or niche)?
Value theory isn't something anti-Marxist, but a bunch of people have decided that class struggle is irrelevant and we only have to focus on exchange-value as the primary contradiction.

The name is somewhat misleading.
(34.36 KB 655x527 apu_reader.jpg)
I still don't really understand, could you elaborate more to a semi-theorylet?
>What we have here is a set of rather weak arguments that lead up to [Heinrich's] real purpose of reinstalling a theory of supply and demand as the basis of value (…) But at other places Marx talks of commodities selling above or below their value – something that would be meaningless if value was constituted in the process of exchange
That should have been the end of it, but I'm sure the "debate" will continue for years with passive-aggressive and semi-offtopic nitpickings by those taking the side of muh value-form.
copy paste from the book not anons
Illustrative calculation of skilled labour multiplier

This appendix explains in more detail the calculation of the skilled labour mul-
tiplier discussed in the text. We first illustrate the calculation of the total
embodied labour content of skilled labour.
(1) On the part of the student. Assume 4 years of study at 40 hours per week
for 45 weeks per year.
Total: 7200 hours.
(2) Classroom teaching. Assume 15 hours per week, 35 weeks per year, for
4 years, distributed across an average class size of 30 (average of large
lecture classes and smaller labs, seminars etc.).
Total per student: 70 hours.
(3) Tutorial work. Assume 2 hours per week, 30 weeks per year of one-on-one
Over 4 years, total = 240 hours.
(4) Educational overheads. Let us suppose this amounts to a contribution
equal to the classroom teaching labour.
Total 70 hours.
Now examine the breakdown of this total labour content into simple and
skilled. The student’s own contribution is simple; the teachers’ contribution is
skilled; and let us assume for the sake of argument that the ‘overhead’ contri-
bution breaks down 50:50 skilled and unskilled. We then arrive at the follow-
ing: total labour content of skill production equals approximately 7,600 hours
(rounding up), of which skilled labour makes up around 5 percent (rounding up
The total embodied hours figure quoted above is a first approximation (in
fact an underestimate, as we shall see). Let us denote this approximation by
TH 0 . Using TH 0 we can construct a first approximation to the transmission
rate of embodied labour on the part of skilled labour:40
Chapter 2. Eliminating Inequalities
R 0 = TH 0 /AH.D
where AH represents the annual hours the skilled worker will work once qualified,
and D is the depreciation horizon in years. We can now use R 0 to re-evaluate
the total hours embodied (on the assumption that the transmission rate for the
teachers and others who supply the skilled input into the production of skilled
labour is the same as that for their students, once qualified). If the proportion of
TH 0 accounted for by skilled labour input is denoted by SP, our revised estimate
of the total embodied labour is
(1 + R 0 )SP.TH 0 + (1 − SP)TH 0 = (1 + R 0 SP)TH 0 .
But this new figure for total hours embodied can now be used to re-estimate
the transmission rate, permitting a further re-estimation of total hours-and so
on, recursively. The resulting successive approximations to the total labour
embodied in the production of skilled labour form a geometric expansion, the
nth term of which is
(1 + R 0 SP + R 20 SP 2 + R 30 SP 3 + · · · + R n 0 SP n )TH 0 .
Letting n tend to infinity, we can deduce the final limiting value of the total
hours estimate, namely (1-R 0 SP) −1 TH 0 , and the corresponding final estimate
of the transmission rate for embodied labour:
R f = (1−R 0 SP) −1 TH 0 /AH.D.
Remembering that R 0 = TH 0 /AH.D, R f may be rewritten as
R f = TH 0 /(AH.D−SP.TH 0 ),
enabling us to calculate the final transmission rate directly. Using the above
illustrative figures of TH 0 = 7600, AH = 1575 and SP = 0.05 we find that
R f = 0.50 for D = 10,
R f = 0.33 for D = 15,
R f = 0.24 for D = 20,
as quoted in the text. In each case the skilled labour multiplier is simply 1 plus
R f

a rough copy if you have it pages 46-48
im writing a series of blogposts explaining tans in order and i will get to your section when i can :) - CM
I went into that article thinking "shit, nigga, dont do dis," but he concludes appropriately:
>The only effective ‘reparation’ that can be made for past exploitation is to socialise all of the economy and totally eliminate property income. Only that communist approach holds out the prospect of eliminating the poverty and pauperism to which the bottom half of the US population are subjected.
and from the second article:
>But the demand for reparations is a bourgeois reformist demand and the bourgeois politicians advocating it will try desperately to eliminate and reference to class and class relations. They will shy away even more decisively from any prospect of forcible confiscation of property from part of the ruling class since that throws the safety of the entire class into question.
I have actually started studying value theory not long ago and it's pretty horrific all around. If you ask me it's the ultimate end result of the Western Marxist intelligentsia's pessimism during the existence of the soviet union, followed by the complete burying of class struggle (politics as such, I'd say) with the USSR's collapse. It's also the perfect armchair theory for eternal ultras and leftcoms.

Their characterization of the USSR ranges from the dismissive and simplistic "state capitalism" meme to actually acknowledging that it did in fact abolish private property and the market to some extent, but there's a catch for the latter group (Postone and his followers): none of this matters! You see, everyone in the 20th century actually misunderstood Marx (about being explicit of the DotP and abolishing property and markets), because what Marx wanted is to abolish labor altogether! With this move they throw out the window all gradualism (or stages of communism) when it fits their agenda, but they reassure us that the changes towards communism will take decades if not more when they try to look realistic about their own forecasts.

It's a series of badly constructed coping mechanisms, masked as the "TRUE™ interpretation of Marx." You see the main issue with communists according to them is that they affirm instead of negate labor as such. Did you build a DotP? Fuck you, that's developing the productive forces and glorifying the oppressive proletariat position instead of abolishing labor altogether!

So where does political change comes according to them? Capitalism will provide it through its contradictions, you just need to sit back and watch. But political change needs some kind of collective subject to actually do that? Okay, says the value theorist, let me just import some vague liberal sociological categories as "oppressed identities" and "those demanding democracy" -- there! They will bring down capitalism for you.

It is actually hilarious how they claim to be the true Marxists while pretty much ignoring Marx's whole series of theoretical and polemical struggles throughout his life. People like Gorz propose some kind of confusingly mixed economy with markets, UBI, a minarchist state, labour vouchers, AND gift economy, and we are going to get there, he argues, by constructing autonomous spaces outside of capital. It's textbook Utopianism in the Marxist sense of the word.

Their only valid claim is that the law of value applies only to capitalism, but even this they overdo to the point that completely eradicating the historical formations (from slave economy through feudalism to capitalism) value formation itself. As far as they are concerned value just popped into existence with capitalism and it pops out existence with communism.

As a Marxist you can not read these texts not feeling angry at them or at the very least baffled by them. What is actually interesting is to see how very intelligent people completely lose any kind of sense of proportion, measure, touch with reality when their fundamental beliefs are in crisis (fall of communism and failure of the project in general), leading them to hastily grab onto anything that could explain what's going on.
(44.51 KB 500x514 porkyafrican.png)

>The dialectical, comprehensive view, the consideration of the Whole is accordingly to be understood in the sense that here every separation between the objective and subjective historical factors is rejected, since these are always influencing each other and thus are themselves always changing. The one cannot be understood without the other. For science, that means that its concepts are not only objectively given but are also dependent upon the subjective factors, and these in turn aid in determining scientific methods and their goals.

This is residual idealism, there is no dialect between the subjective and the objective. Because subjective comes from subject, as in somebody that is subordinated. In feudalism you have a dialectic between the subject and the lord, in bourgeois society you have dialectic between a legal subject and the law. These relate to the mode of production, the feudal subject relates to a legal duty to work the land of the lord, in bourgeois society the legal subject relates to a legal ability for buying and selling of commodities. The category of the subject is not the same as a human, it's a legal category. Suggesting that the subjective relates to humans and their experience is a reification of bourgeois legal categories that are the result of commodity production. As in I buy & sell , therefore i am. Brains are biological systems not bourgeois legal categories.
On which day is his book coming out?
the 22nd supposedly
Some anon on /int/ said back in 2015 that rich would eugenic us, then replace us with robot just to get killed by them later when robot revolution happened, after that for hundred or thousand of years later they would get bored, and create humanity 2.0 which is worker race with super intelligent, and serve us exploring among the stars.
It's hilarious to see Cockshott's ignorant takes on basic philosophical concepts replicated here but made even worse. Makes me suspect that he himself got them from a primary or secondary source that might actually be semi-decent that he misunderstood. I know this might sound unbelievable to STEM folk, but there is such a thing as them Sokal'ing hard into fields and topics they are unfamiliar with.

But don't get assblasted by my subjective take, because subjective doesn't even exist, since it comes from serfs and lords.
Engels was always talking about the juridical origins of philosophical concepts, I think the 'origin of the subject' insight is pretty useful even if undeveloped, and what you posted is not an argument.
I can't remember where Cockshott talks about the word "subject" but he seems to have conflated two common definitions. In philosophical language the 'subject' is more like an agent, but if we look at grammar the 'subject' is really, based on the latin root, the "foundation" or "basis" of the proposition. I'm not sure exactly where 'subject' changed meanings in philosophy but it seems to have happened during the 19th century or before.
(123.49 KB 788x271 benin.png)
>Engels was always talking about the juridical origins of philosophical concepts
And that's completely valid line of investigation, if a bit too reductionist, especially in the eyes of diamat, since a legal apparatus that could "subjectivize" (in your sense of the word) already presupposes an economy of higher complexity which the origin of the concept of 'subject' predates. Leaving aside our primitive animistic ancestors' (inverted*) version of it, the ancient Greek daimon (δαίμων) could be considered to be its first (although still mythic, but) definite form, which you could argue was much later captured and secularized by Roman or feudal law, reshaping it to fit its socio-economic purposes. But parallel to this a non-secular version of it (Christian soul) survived, and a much slower process of secularization (that wasn't legal) went on in philosophy, the Cartesian res cogitans being one of the stepping stones. If you put these three (legal subject, Christian soul, res cogitans) alongside each other and compare them you could definitely point out that a dual structure (lord - serf, God - soul, res cogitans - res extensa) is characteristic of all of them, but since 'subject' proper predates all of these I don't see how you could claim that from these three the legal was the determining, or original, or only version.

By this all I wanted to prove is that Cockshott's account of this is little more than a stirnerite saying "spooks" dressed up in Marxist gowns. There is clearly something 'there' in human experience pertaining to the individual that was tried to be captured throughout all of these epochs (even if you think it's ultimately just spooks) that had to do something with his relationship with his (natural, social, legal) environment that had different degrees of secularized/obfuscated versions.

What I'm trying to tell you is that there are dialectical materialist versions of the subject - object relationship and one of the problems of this Engelsian style easy dismissal is that no matter what the problems that philosophy (in its idealist, proto-materialist, and diamat versions) uncovered will come back to haunt us with a revenge. You can not seriously engage the pairs of class consciousness - hegemonic ideology, freedom - authority, worker - collective, proletariat - party, individual commune - DotP, soviet citizen - bureaucracy, etc. without bumping into a pattern that is best described by the philosophical concepts of subject - object.

Attempts to flatten out the difference (by denial, or by transforming these into arbitrary either/ors) bear actual tragic results in praxis, Lenin's (otherwise consistently orthodox) conception of the DotP in The State and Revolution and its failure at adopting it IRL lead to hasty mistakes becoming solidified and inbuilt features at the very beginning of the USSR. And no, I'm not attempting to deny here the unfavorable historical conditions of Russia at the time, instead, I'm trying to point out that there were already theoretical errors made relating exactly to this topic that could have been avoided.

This is one of the (if not the) main problem(s) of the 'direct democracy' as imagined in TaNS. You might dislike them, but Marxist philosophers like Zizek and Jameson with their proposals (bureaucratic socialism, universal conscription) attempt to offer alternatives.

* To clarify by this I mean that they projected it onto their environment (trees, animals, etc.) instead of locating it 'inside' the person.
Protip, the meaning never changed now reread the german idealists with this in mind
Protip: read a fucking book.
*outside your comfort zone, that is.
(33.64 KB 1280x720 dr6zftu.jpeg)
In grammar it is the agent, too. I don't see the difference.
(496.22 KB 787x914 lenin_cook.png)
And here's a little extra to our resident radlibs.
>What I'm trying to tell you is that there are dialectical materialist versions of the subject - object relationship

Well then make up new word, preferably not one derived from subordination, or else this anon is going to start talking in the third person about it self.
>Well then make up new word
Don't you think that it is a tad arrogant to tell as an outsider to the oldest discipline of systematic organizing of knowledge (philosophy) to bend to your wishes?

I think math, should like, drop irrational numbers, dude, cuz they are like, irrational and shit. Why can't they solve that shit already?
>the erwin schrodinger vs bill nye one
idealist propaganda? on bunkerchan? more likely than you'd think
The point is, smartass, that the people in the left column (actual revolutionary scientists) engaged openly with philosophy, regardless of what kind. They didn't pull out hot brown takes out of their arse and smeared it on a strawman, like the people on the right.

Cockshott is somewhere between the two columns. It is already commendable if a STEMfag engages with the humanities to some extent (which is already above the norm today) and vice versa. You can go and take geometry lessons from a literature professor with an origami hobby, but you can't go too far with it, now can you?
i know exactly what point you were trying to make, but this doesn't excuse your uncritical regurgitation of idealist propaganda. bill nye's naive realism is just a plainer form of your materialism and seeing it (and by extension, the average non-philosopher's intuitive materialism) mocked pisses me off
>In grammar it is the agent, too. I don't see the difference.
Only sometimes. In grammar the 'subject' isn't always an agent. It can also be an action or the thing acted upon by an agent.

Also, from some very scant information I can find online it seems like the subject-object dichotomy was first used by Kant, but I'm not familiar with his work so maybe someone else can verify that.

I'm not the anon you're replying to but I want to add something...
>bill nye's naive realism is just a plainer form of your materialism
Alright, but Marx would have said:
"But all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided."
Separating appearance and essence is one of Marx's main tasks in Capital. He constantly attempts to move beyond superficial answers in order to arrive at some kind of deeper truth.

I'll give you a good example. In Capital, Marx looks at capitalist production and says basically, "If we assume that on average products of equal value are exchanging at equal rates, i.e. consumers on average are paying "fair" prices for goods, then how does a capitalist make a profit?" Does he cheat his workers? Well, no, because he's paying them for their work and there's no reason to assume, a priori, that the work is paid at lower than its "value", esp. if we assume that value is ultimately derived from labor. So where does profit come from? Marx then has the insight (which is obvious) that workers aren't paid for their labor. They are paid for their ability to labor, i.e. their labor-power. But the value of labor-power is not necessarily equal to the value of labor actually performed, i.e. the products created. And here is where Marx discovers profit. The capitalist pays workers for their ability to work but produces more than required to sustain them. This is the surplus. And the surplus is owned by the capitalist and is the source of his profits.

This is a profound insight and it's obvious when you think about it. But it's NOT obvious unless you're willing to look past superficial appearances.
Question for cockshotfags: what incentive does a workplace have for following the cyber plan? Let's say the widget factory is making too many widgets, and the democratic widget union wants to keep overproducing. What mechanisms will prevent similar issues between local workplce democracy and the central plan?
i get your point, but i'm not arguing against skepticism, but there has to be the right amount of skepticism. the whole trick of the idealists is that they take skepticism up to 11, they LARP as positivists and claim to be the most scientific for rejecting the "fiction" of physical matter. you want to encourage this shit? you want to mock the average person, who already has the right answer - that idealism is bullshit - right from the get go without needing any philosophy, and use him as a stepping stone for celebrating how philosophical you are? such lukewarm attitudes against idealism, do you know the kind of vicious, merciless polemics marxists launched against it?
>people type in the chat at what the soldier should shoot
glorious, imagine the cyber-athenian imperialist wars
You are using words you don't understand.
>Question for cockshotfags: what incentive does a workplace have for following the cyber plan? Let's say the widget factory is making too many widgets, and the democratic widget union wants to keep overproducing. What mechanisms will prevent similar issues between local workplce democracy and the central plan?

If they make more widgets then the plan asked them to do, clearly that means too many raw materials got allocated to the widget plant
show my error
Here's a test for you: google and wikipedia all the big words you used and see if you can figure it out. I'm not your dictionary, dude.
>what incentive does a workplace have for following the cyber plan?
That's something you have to deal with in any planned economy, but it's ultimately political in how you solve it. I would assume their would be a system of audits, and whatever else that would be deemed necessary by the public.
>Let's say the widget factory is making too many widgets, and the democratic widget union wants to keep overproducing.
They would only be allocated materials for what they targeted to produce. Of course they could lie about the amount of materials needed but the planning agency would have data on other units producing similar things as well as the audits done.
>What mechanisms will prevent similar issues between local workplce democracy and the central plan?
Well workplace democracy would rule so much as the internal operations, but they would obviously still have to be subjected to the plan as far as production targets and what they are allocated. These aren't really specific to Cockshott's proposal, they would be problems to overcome in any planned economy.
Also: consider googling and wikiing BEFORE you press the Reply button next time. It's a really good habit, trust me.
yes very good sarcastic reply, but show my error or stop posting
in fact i'll make it easy for you, you post one word, a one word post, and i'll do the heavy lifting and demonstrate my usage was appropriate
(80.44 KB 227x272 1784654.png)
>it is on YOU to do MY homework otherwise GTFO
>Don't you think that it is a tad arrogant to tell as an outsider to the oldest discipline of systematic organizing of knowledge (philosophy) to bend to your wishes?

The anon, through tapping it's fingers on the keyboard, formulates the argument about the irrelevance of your statements, pointing out, that neither perception of sentiments such as arrogance nor the nature of the snideness of previously mentioned in typing engaged anon, changes the ambiguous meaning of the word subject.

>I think math, should like, drop irrational numbers, dude, cuz they are like, irrational and shit. Why can't they solve that shit already?

Fine use non-terminating continued fractions.
amazing, such laziness. it's one thing to ask me to do my homework, but this is literally a non-criticism. you won't even tell me what bothers you. what if i'm actually wrong but blind to my own error, due to some systemic defect or whatever? you won't even do me the courtesy of pointing out a direction so that i may educate myself?
>words have multiple meanings
>words mean different things in different contexts
>the same words can denote different concepts of different disciplines
>e.g. "irrational" in psychology vs. "irrational" in mathematics
Such a complicated world we live in, don't you think?
This is what people mean when they say the quality of leftypol has gone down.
Are there any modern socialist parties who advocate for cockshottian cybernetic planning? Do these ideas have any traction in Cuba or North Korea (or vietnam)?

The anon briefly considers your reply, before typing out that the conclusion that can be drawn from this exchange, is that your philosophising may not reach beyond mere interpretation of the world, and as such may need external inputs, and hence forth proposes a preliminary expression thusly:

The dialectics of the object and the self-deliniating emerging cognitive pattern.
The short answer is that planning needs to be based on consumer demand and total prices must equal total investment.

This means that if the workers in some factory want to produce more, they can, but if the extra production goes unsold then their budget will be reduced the following time. They can also argue for keeping the same budget but producing less - but they'll need to charge more per widget sold. This keeps a balance between investments and prices which leads to accurate consumer demand. In an ideal world, factories would obtain exactly the investment they need to produce exactly what's demanded by consumers. But since these things constantly change I would argue it's better to let people "haggle" within the system while keeping everything balanced to avoid certain sectors of the economy from absorbing huge amounts of investment while producing little that people want to buy. (This is also a good argument against things like price controls and subsidies, since it artificially raises demand for products and leads to shortages in the long-term.)

The only flaw in the system would be "accounting fraud" where enterprises claim to be selling more products than actually sold but this would be unlikely in a system where everything is owned in common and could be displayed in a public database.

>Are there any modern socialist parties who advocate for cockshottian cybernetic planning? Do these ideas have any traction in Cuba or North Korea (or vietnam)?
Sadly, no. Cockshott's work was being translated into Chinese by a group he called "The Young Left" but he was told that if he continued to associate with that faction he would have difficulty getting a visa to visit China... He has given talks in Venezuela and Vietnam, if I recall correctly. I'm not sure if anyone supported his ideas in Venezuela (I don't think so), but in Vietnam he was given a somewhat skeptical reception. The reality is that most socialist countries are managed by people who aren't really interested in building a communist society or implementing a modern planned economy.
just an outside observer here.
i don't understand why you are mad at >>82852. >>82852's post is clearly still in response to the image posted in >>82749 in which schrodinger's quote is clearly very much in line with idealist philosophy, which we are right to oppose. your post >>82827 is not idealist, but rather states that the subject - object dichotomy obviously exists and it has to be navigated through when defining your philosophy. that sort of position is one you can find in many materialists including marx who you use as a great example of your point here.

so from my outsider point of view >>82852 is talking past you because he doesn't disagree with you necessarily (though he is inflammatory with 'you want to encourage this shit?' when clearly you don't, but he's using the royal you as far as i can tell, more aimed at >>82749 than yourself), he disagrees with schrodinger. what is the problem exactly. explain yourself. why are you mad at >>82852.
i see this meme reposted a lot but you have to understand that all those scientists on the left were active during the first half of the 20th century. The philosophy they were addressing is absolutely not the same as the subjectivist/idealist and poorly constructed drivel you see after WW2, especially in the 60s/70s after.
pfff. Is this what leftypol discourse has devolved to? the insult used to be "read a book", now it's "you don't understand the words you're using". A one liner that manages to be both smug and at the same time conveys literally zero substantive critique.
I think there is one small socialist/communist party in scotland that actually does scotland, i can't find the link right now tho
Agreed, theres work to be done when it comes to the discourse here,
>Let's say the widget factory is making too many widgets, and the democratic widget union wants to keep overproducing
Overproducing relative to what? Demand at production-covering price? In that case, people will empirically experience that they produced too much by observing that the buffer stock increases, more going into it than gets to consumers. The goal is to equalize the flow from factory to buffer with the flow from buffer to consumer at the cost-covering price. If the flow from buffer to consumers at cost-covering price is lower volume than the flow from production to buffer, that's a signal to lower production. If the flow from buffer to consumer at cost-covering price is higher than the flow of production to buffer, that's a signal to increase production. These signals are not secret information only known to the people at that factory.

If the buffer gets very big or very small, the price gets changed to equalize the flows. This strategy is secondary to adjustment of produced quantity. We try production adjustment as much as possible and the price change is a crutch. We could use very flexible prices reacting to any buffer change, no matter how small, but we aren't doing that, instead there is a dead zone where the buffer can change somewhat without changing the price signal. Why? The ideal situation is to know the quantity demanded at the cost-covering price, but when you change the actual price away from that, you have to guess more. For example, if the actual price is 30 % above, you can guess that demand would probably increase somewhat when returning to the cost-covering price, but you don't know the quantity.

The formula for the size of the dead zone is not quite as simple as just looking at the size of the buffer stock and quantities going in and out, but it also depends on guessing how quickly the factories in question can adjust product quantity. Here, the input from local knowledge plays a crucial role. If the verdict is that adjustment is slow and limited, we'll have to rely more on price flexibility for rationing the output. So, if people in a place conspire to downplay potential for increasing production, this translates to demand-adjusted higher prices. However, since we are using labor vouchers and not money, the conspiring gang won't see that price increase turning into a salary increase.
>incentive does a workplace have for following the cyber plan?
that question could literally have been asked by anyone of any kind of non market socialism "muh incentives"
>why you are mad
Several factors, really, that are all but different versions of celebrating ignorance and defeat.

>You [...] distinguish between a science and a philosophy in Marxist theory? As you know, this distinction is often contested today.

<I know. But this ‘contestation’ is an old story.

<To be extremely schematic, it may be said that, in the history of the Marxist movement, the suppression of this distinction has expressed either a rightist or a leftist deviation. The rightist deviation suppresses philosophy: only science is left (positivism). The leftist deviation suppresses science: only philosophy is left (subjectivism).

<[...] The great leaders of the Marxist Workers’ Movement from Marx and Engels to today have always said: these deviations are the result of the influence and domination of bourgeois ideology over Marxism. For their part, they always defended the distinction (science, philosophy), not only for theoretical, but also for vital political reasons. Think of Lenin in Materialism and Empirio-criticism or ‘Left-Wing’ Communism. His reasons are blindingly obvious.

<[...] The crucial tasks of the Communist movement in [these two fields inside Marxist] theory [is to] to struggle against the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois world outlook which always threatens Marxist theory, and which deeply impregnates it today. The general form of this world outlook: Economism (today ‘technocracy’) and its ‘spiritual complement’ Ethical Idealism (today ‘Humanism’). Economism and Ethical Idealism have constituted the basic opposition in the bourgeois world outlook since the origins of the bourgeoisie. The current philosophical form of this world outlook: neo-positivism and its ‘spiritual complement’, existentialist-phenomenological subjectivism.

Positivism and phenomenological subjectivism can be read as two different approaches at aiming to collapse the aforementioned antinomy of object and subject, the first in favor of the former, the second for the latter. Now reread >>82852. As far as I can decipher what is said there, the poster thinks that materialism=positivism (and not a crude deviation from it), and that any philosophy is "idealist" and our enemy instead of one of our crucial weapons to be taken up. As I said: ignorance and defeat (voluntary disarmament).
Idea for allocating natural resources or whatever to different ministries: There's a fixed pile of things to be distributed and each ministry is represented by an AI agent with a budget of tokens, the prices and budgets are fixed in a way that the aggregate price of the total pile equals the sum of the budgets and the existing price levels are 1, 2, 4, 8 and so on (doubling) and that each individual budget is divisible by the highest price an item in the pile has. Every agent has to exactly exhaust the budget. Obtaining an item means obtaining the usage right to it, storage and recycling and so on are handled by somebody else, so having more budget to blow is not a burden. The agents "visit the store" one after another, each agent only visits once, and prices stay the same throughout. The visiting order is a ranking fixed in a way that an individual agent has a budget that is either higher or equal to that of any individual agent visiting later.

What the procedure is guaranteed to deliver is rank-prioritized envy-freeness (one with a better rank would not prefer any bundle of things one with a worse rank obtains) and budget-prioritized envy-freeness (one with a higher budget than some group would not prefer what that group together obtains), but not Pareto efficiency.
You're pulling all the crazy assumptions of game theory with you. Including but not limited to:

- Utility exists, as in, preferences can be measured and be a total order.
- A rational, value- or utility- maximising intelligence is even possible (there's been none found so far).
- The utility of one agent is independent of the rest: you can't be happy _because_ someone else is.
- All agents are aware of this so they don't trust each other.
- Maximising individual utility leads to somehow optimal outcomes.
- Communists are evil and will kill us all with their nuclear bombs.

Delete game theory from your head, Austrian economics may be irrelevant now but the tumor that came out of it somehow won't die.
>You're pulling all the crazy assumptions of game theory with you. Including but not limited to:
>Utility exists, as in, preferences can be measured and be a total order.
There is no measuring or even an attempt at measuring going on. It's like this: You go into a store, you are the only person there, and you empty your pockets buying things there. After that, another person enters the store emptying their pockets, and so on, until nothing is left there anymore. The store does not adjust prices to demand or anything like that. The AI bots bit is only there so everything can happen at Warp speed times Benny Hill, and is only really necessary if there are many "players". I don't set the preferences of the AI bots, I do not make assumptions about what items are substitutes or complementary and the system does not establish a binding categorization of that sort via voting or whatever.
>A rational, value- or utility- maximising intelligence is even possible
I don't think an all-purpose utility-maximizing AI is possible. But for smaller, more specific, goals, the answer is yes, and they already exist.
>The utility of one agent is independent of the rest: you can't be happy _because_ someone else is.
You're talking gibberish here. Being unhappy because of how somebody else is doing means your utility is dependent.
>- All agents are aware of this
What does this refer to here?
>- Maximising individual utility leads to somehow optimal outcomes.
I don't make such an assumption. Also, a ministry isn't an individual.
>- Communists are evil and will kill us all with their nuclear bombs.
An ebin reference to John von Neumann like you were an insider doesn't make up for being shit at math and logic, son. If you had more than two brain cells to rub together you would see that the procedure completely avoids game theory or any other theory of how human minds tick, the few guarantees it has (somebody with a higher budget has access to everything in the pile somebody with a smaller budget has access to and gets the opportunity to grab it earlier and everything in the pile is assigned in the end) directly follow from the rules and not assumptions about psychology.
>Delete game theory from your head, Austrian economics may be irrelevant now but the tumor that came out of it somehow won't die.
I don't believe you are familiar with either since these are very different things.
I know what envy-free cake-cutting is. It's the premises that are wrong, not the method or the conclusion.

The AI bots bit is actually only there so you can abstract away from the most important part of the algorithm, which is the rules the bots follow and how those are determined. Programs that follow rules are not intelligences. They borrow the intelligence of the programmers. Actually existing creative AI, like GANs, are not shown to have preferences that are a total order, thus breaking game theory even if they were somehow applicable to economic planning. So let's take AIs out and tell me if I'm understanding the protocol right:

First we divide the sectors and rank them by "budget". I'm not sure how this is possible a priori given that assigning the budget is our goal, but let's say we either vote on it with a sophisticated voting system (another huge can of worms) or better use # of workers in the sector which is a material measure common to all of them.

Then we have to assign a price to various kinds of land, oil, water, CO2 production, electricity, radio bandwidth and other scarce resources, and normalise it so that Σ prices = Σ budgets = 1. Let's use floating point and normalise to 1 since they this way they are already powers of 1/2 (the token being the machine epsilon) and because factoring to find the GCD is NP class in digital computers. How are we supposed to do this in the first place? The point of socialist planning is to end calculations in money!

Whatever. Then agricultural sector, which had the highest budget, enters the virtual store and sees piles of arable land, oil, water, etc, and consumes all its budget. But it doesn't do it arbitrarily, it has to pick what it likes. It consumes almost all the arable land.

Then the energy sector comes in. They had planned to build solar arrays, but all the land is gone, so they go for oil

Then manufacturing comes in. Manufacturing would like to make plastic trinkets for export, but the oil is being burned by the energy sector. "Good thing we are third in the ranking", they say, "for we wont' envy those below us".

You see all the hidden assumptions you're making?
> You're talking gibberish here. Being unhappy because of how somebody else is doing means your utility is dependent.
Usually when you think someone is talking gibberish it is you that is interpreting what they say in a way it doesn't make sense. I was saying that it is one of the premises of the theory that the utility of an agent is independent from the other's, in other words, that within game theory you can't be happy because someone else is.

> > - All agents are aware of this
> What does this refer to here?
I meant that all agents know that all the others are selfish. Again, central to the theory. You can't derive envy-free cake-cutting without this assumption. However to show you this I'd have to delve into my course notes from years ago and see exactly how it was derived, and I've got better things to do.

> I don't believe you are familiar with either since [Game Theory and Austrian economics] are very different things.

<literal Austrian economist
<Rockefeller Foundation
<Student of von Mises
<succeeded Hayek in the Institute for Business Cycle Research in Vienna
<Co-author of Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, published in 1944, which is recognized as the first book on game theory.

<John Nash
< Did you have any teacher through your period at university which was particularly a role model to you? How has it been for you?
< I certainly had some good teachers who were very helpful to me and influential. For example, in economics I only took one economics course and I was an undergraduate study in Pittsburgh at what is now called Carnegie Mellon, but by coincidence the person who taught the course, it was a course in international economics, and by coincidence this was someone who came from Austria. So there’s actually to consider Austrian economics is like a different school than typical American or British. So I was by coincidence influenced by an Austrian economist which may have been a very good influence.
These pissing contests aren't more prevalent than before.
>it just so happens that every person and all the animals are born intuitively believing
already very wrong no matter what comes next
>that their sensory experiences correspond to an external and independently existing world.
even wronger
im not your interloctor but i like the image of a dog and a cat laughing at their owner having to read descartes instead of just intuitively believing it
>I know what envy-free cake-cutting is.
You don't know shit about anything. The method presented is not a cake-cutting algorithm and is not envy-fee in general, but only in the direction that somebody with a higher budget is not envious of somebody with a lower budget. Like a shitty AI, you only react to key words in a text and make (lousy) guesses about the actual content of a post.
>The point of socialist planning is to end calculations in money!
I love taking the piss out of people by writing more retarded versions of what they are saying, but it looks like you've reached the maximum of stupidity just being yourself. Counting things and using math is not the same as having money. Marx and Engels used the term money in a very specific way, and we follow that way here. Systems of budget points that are used up at once and do not circulate are not money systems.
>I was saying that it is one of the premises of the theory that the utility of an agent is independent from the other's
It's a premise in some models, and not in others.
>I meant that all agents know that all the others are selfish. Again, central to the theory.
It's relevant in some models, not in others. Here's the actual claim about what the procedure guarantees, once again, because you are thick: Somebody with a higher budget has access to everything in the pile somebody with a smaller budget has access to and gets the opportunity to grab it earlier and everything in the pile is assigned in the end. None of that relies on any assumptions about the psychology of the people using the procedure.
>muh Nash studied Austrian economics for five minutes so there!!
The biggest names in Austrian economics weren't game theorists. Game theory can be used on the left, e.g. G.A. Cohen. How much crack do you have to smoke so that when you read a proposal with completely rigid prices fixed by a central agency your reaction is:
<I bet a fan of Austrian economics wrote that!!
I was hoping invoking some keywords would lead you to engage with the argument but sadly I was mistaken.

Yes, it should not be a cake-cutting algo (but I think that as you presented it it is, feel free to show me wrong), it's obviously not envy free, budget points are not a medium of circulation nor a medium of savings even though they are a medium of pricing and this is what's important in economic planning, whatever. You win the semantic argument, I don't care.
Cyber-utopianism is nice and all but we should focus on current economical problems of socialism and how to fix them.
Cybernetics is how we fix current economic problems
>Yes, it should not be a cake-cutting algo (but I think that as you presented it it is, feel free to show me wrong)
You really are a dishonest piece of shit. YOU referred to cake-cutting. You still don't know what cake-cutting is? Like… *breathes* it's actually related to cutting a cake, that's where the name comes from. Most simple form, two people, one cuts the cake, the other chooses. And you are too stupid to understand what the point of that is? An allocation mechanism for discrete items that are neither cut into pieces nor resold with sharing the income from that cannot guarantee general envy-freeness. This is all super-basic bitch stuff. It's not about semantics, it's about you having no clue about the topic at hand, yet being extremely opinionated about it.
>a medium of pricing and this is what's important in economic planning, whatever
Why are you even posting here in the ECONOMIC PLANNING THREAD? You are an anti-Marxist, maybe of an anarcho-feels "communist" sort. But you don't openly talk about what you actually believe (it's either muh free access or spontaneous feels isn't it, or maybe you are an enlightened anarcho-feels centrist who believes one thing on the even days and another on the odd days) because even your walnut brain is capable of having an intuition that people will think you are insane.
>Most simple form, two people, one cuts the cake, the other chooses.

That's the envy-free part of envy-free cake cutting. It's called a cake because it is a single dense (every region contains a point) and heterogeneous allocation space. But again this is retarded semantic posting. Forget about the cake-cutting, pretend I never said that because it was never meant to be an argument on my part.


So, functions of money, as seen by Shaikh:
- Medium of circulation / exchange
- Medium of safety / store of value
- Medium of pricing

Out of these, the only one that's relevant to planning theory (not necessarily socialist planning theory) is the last one. You know how the bourgeois economists like to turn this last property of money up to 11: they say that money is the only possible medium of pricing and/or that not using a medium of pricing is doomed to fail because there are too many kinds of things to make the calculation. This is not my view, and of course this is also not Cockshott's view, because Cockshott wants to do calculations in kind, not in money. So back to you protocol >>85534:

>There's a fixed pile of things to be distributed and each [sector has] a budget of tokens, the prices and budgets are fixed in a way that the aggregate price of the total pile equals the sum of the budgets.

You're introducing a medium of pricing: the tokens. These tokens form a single heterogeneous and practically dense allocation space. Question 1: do you disagree with this? Question 2: How do you determine how many tokens is each resource worth? Question 3: How you do determine the budget of tokens?

Please go have a walk or listen to music and calm down, because I honestly want to understand your idea.
*Question 3: How you do determine the budget of each sector?
Maybe in the future. Nobody takes this seriously or it would have been implemented in socialist countries eons ago by real economists.
yeah but unfortunately by the time cyber socialist theory was developed the USSR was collapsing and the rest of the socialist states in asia went full DENG. By that point the party members had basically become businessmen and were making too much money to care about actually implementing socialism.
What compels you to constantly use words you don't understand? Is that how you hope to learn them? Either use a dictionary or don't use these words. And don't pretend you know anything about Cockshott and Shaikh aside from memery.
>Nobody takes this seriously or it would have been implemented
That amounts to saying that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Bureaucrats who expect a loss of power from a reform are unlikely to be enthusiastic about it.
related thread: Michael Roberts, Cockshott, David Harvey: >>88031

an episode of swampside chats where they talk about TANS
TANS deals with adjusting product quantities and resource dependencies, it does not deal with changing the products themselves. Some time ago I read some books from the GDR about exactly that.

Suppose a team designing something gets a feedback of the form "6 stars out of 10", with the demand to improve the thing to reach at least 8 stars, whatever that means. That isn't really helpful. The team might believe it's the ergonomics aspect that needs to change, but that aspect was fine and the new version they put out is now worse in that aspect. The obvious idea presented in those books is to have explicit ratings of aspects as well as an explicit rule for turning that into an overall score, with some aspects being rather subjective (like aesthetics), but also many being entirely unambiguous (like energy usage or how loud a machine gets). This isn't just used for comparing things in the prototype phase, but also existing products (domestic and foreign) are put into this evaluation scheme to give designers reference points.

The whole product has a bunch of aspects, and not every atom in it contributes to every aspect to the same degree. The engineers can relate the quality of aspects to various components and these components have costs associated with them, so you can figure out where some improvement would only slightly increase the overall quality score but would be overkill considering the costs and what better components would make a drastic difference in quality score.
Would this tech make cybernetic socialism real?
great talk but im a bit confused as to why he went into parrallelism in the end there. was there a seperate point or was it just to drive home the point before about human labor as the aource value? anyway the part about humans as robots was interesting
Socialized source code / blueprints (like GPL but stronger) would go a long way to improve the quality of products.
No cybernetic socialism is not about turning people into cyborgs. It's about using computers to calculate the allocation of resources.

QC isn't magic, if you give people the right tu return shitty products, as well as use an open-source design process where people that are interested and knowledgable in a particular product range can form communities that can formulate grounded criticism on stuff, or maybe even participate during design process. You will get decent inputs for improving quality. As far as aesthetics go a modular system to make it user configurable is the way to go.
>>95957 cont.
What the GDR authors proposed was to describe the product-feature targets in terms of useful functions and to avoid talking directly of specific materials, so the designers' outlook doesn't just narrow down on slightly improving existing designs.

Perhaps they had some more advanced texts, but from what I remember from the books I had for associating features with costs the writers only proposed one-to-one pairings, this part of the product which costs X is responsible for that aspect. That's certainly not the right way to go on about it. Why do multiple useful features even exist combined in one thing? The particular combination in one object reduces at least one of the following: space, weight, production cost. That means it is normal that one physical part of the object adds its support to multiple aspects. Example: A multi-tool has one handle, and the multi-tool can have an obscure function that cannot by itself justify the cost of the fancy handle, it is because the handle is shared between functions that the obscure function can "afford to live there".

Under the magnifying glass even a product that doesn't seem to come out of a joint process combines in it several useful effects, meaning it is a jointly produces bundle after all. This means we have to use insights from joint-production processes pretty much everywhere, even though economists tend to treat joint production as the exceptional case.
new vid from cockshott, this time on feudal relations.
>yfw feudalism is more efficient than capitalism
The absolute state of capitalism
Hes done it again. Absolute Cock.
(26.66 KB 151x200 Porky_chad.png)
Yes, and?
That dude has produced more worthwhile content within a month than the entirety of Breadtube all year with their hundreds of thousands of subs and Patreon millionaires.
And absolutely nobody watches him. Half of his views probably come from /leftypol/ alone. Sad!
That's because most people are retards that only care about high production values.
>give people the right tu return shitty products
The idea isn't just for consumer products, but also means of production and tools used at work.
>use an open-source design process where people that are interested and knowledgable in a particular product range can form communities that can formulate grounded criticism on stuff, or maybe even participate during design process. You will get decent inputs for improving quality. As far as aesthetics go a modular system to make it user configurable is the way to go.
That's all very nice, but what I'm after is a formal procedure to integrate product differentiation and design improvements into the formal apparatus of quantity adjustments as presented in TANS.
(10.89 KB 527x232 direct_indirect.png)
Reading TANS right now and I have a question about the chart related, and the idea that capitalism stops innovation in particular. The chart demonstrates why a capitalist would choose the more labour wasting instead of the more automated, and less overall labour costing one. If I understand correctly, the capitalist has to pay full labour value for indirect labour because he would need to buy the tools from another capitalist that would sell it for its full value, right? In that case, wouldn't it mean that a state-capitalist or some kind of mega-corp (I think that would be Landian hyperfascism, if I understand that idea correctly) system would be able to alleviate this inefficiency that leads to stagnation of technology? Because if the capitalist then owns both the factory that makes the tools / tech / fuel for the tech and is also the one who has an excavation company, the indirect labour would cost just as much as the direct labour (since the price of indirect labour would now be only what you need to pay the factory workers in wages), meaning that just like if you were doing accounting based on LTV, the more progressive option would be chosen, as it would bring more profit. So does this mean that at least on the technology side of things state capitalism is as good as socialism, or am I making some kind of mistake in this thinking, which wouldn't surprise me since I am only now really getting into theory of Marxism.
You are correct in pointing out that state capitalism cuts out other capitalists and hence increases efficiency compared to market capitalism, but it still suffers from money mystification. So there still is no rational allocation of surplus, because labour time isn't directly measured and hence it's not possible to fully optimize technology deployment with regards of reducing the nessecairy amount of labour time nessecairy for a specific task. Also state capitalism can still have a capitalist class that wastes resources and labour time on super luxuries. So state capitalism still lags behind a socialist mode of production.

check out the lecture on production schemes to understand the point about luxuries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6jM8yhzSmA

check out the lecture on surplus value to understand the point about money mystification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3lTJ9sba8A
Hey guys, I want to translate some of Cockshott's content (mainly his videos). What would be the first video you would translate? In other words, what is the most "to the point" and best explained video of his?
Not sure what you are looking for, is there a reason why you wouldn't start with the first video he uploaded and then continue in chronological order
It is implemented by firms. Firms' internal organisation is centrally planned. Read Coase.

Unless you think that firms have an internal market that determines the allocation of paper across depts, etc.
This thread makes my brain hurt
I think just Ubuntu in a VM.
Cockshott's How the World Works has been published.
his earlier videos have abysmal audio quality. It would be perfectly reasonable to do it reverse chronological order (non-polemic ones) to increase the chance of exposure
not on libgen yet. anyone want to buy it and give us the pdf?
i saved the pdf a long time ago, but I'm not sure he'd want me to share it on here.

i once posted links to some of his published works in a youtube comment and he deleted it.
the pdf is only the draft version, there is not yet a pdf of the full version out.

BTW cockshott said he doesnt get any money from it so feel free to pirate away
pdf or epub is good
I'm waiting for it to be shipped to me right now.
I'm grabbing this along with >>11220 because I'm a big dummy.
Imagine if Lenin did, that would be hilarious.
has anyone that pre-ordered from monthly review gotten any shipping updates or anything?
very excited for the book. the youtube videos are also very valuable. I think cockshotts new book might be the first recommendation to anyone interested and coming into leftism in general. better introduction material than just telling someone to read capital
Nope, I will post pics when I get it.
So Monthly Review has pushed back the publish date to January 2020. This really fucking blows.
wtf? why
according to cockshott they've had it for a year now. any idea why?
(90.34 KB 480x360 Bouge28.png)
they are afraid
Okay, new years gift for me it is.
weird. MR has really been sucking dick lately.
>British economist, Paul Cockshott, has worked on the history of technology in the banking and insurance sectors in a book co-authored with Lewis M. Mackenzie and Gregory Michaelson in Computation and its Limits (2015) in addition to Cockshott et al in Classical Econophysics (2009). Cockshott tells me:

<Banking is entirely a matter of maintaining information that records property relations. It has this in common with for example land registry offices and patent offices. Since it has always only manipulated records, and since the basic social relation involved, debt, only exists in records, it is not surprising that it can be automated. Indeed the development of certain key computing technologies was driven by the need to automate. The rotating disk drive was invented by IBM in the fifties explicitly to meet the demands of financial and insurance firms. It was the spread of this technology in the sixties and seventies that made it possible to spread checking accounts and then credit cards out to the general population.

(29.00 KB 480x360 hqdefault.jpg)
Project Cybersyn [Trailer]
An upcoming documentary
that's a blog
the furfag did it again
>supply and demand is falsifiable because if you show me an inverted curve it would be proven wrong
Demand going down when prices go down (not very common): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
Supply getting cheaper per unit when a bigger quantity is produced (the norm): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
Low tech cybernetic communism
While the labor time calculation (for prices) and the central planning algorithm can be done on basically smartphone hardware, there are still reasons to figure out how to implement Marx's communism without computers.
One good reason is to make a backup system for when infrastructure is down (disasters, war).
Another is to support building communism in countries where computers are very rare and expensive.

Rural communes
GPCR era China proved you can practice communism at a certain scale without doing all the calculations Cockshott advocates. It's still an option! Not desirable in all circumstances, but appropriate for some conditions.

Labor time calculation without silicon computers
This is the basic algorithm for an iteration of labor time calculation:
for i in 0..graph.len() {
let mut indirect_labor = 0.0;
for dependency_info in &graph[i].dependencies {
let dependency = &graph[dependency_info.id];
indirect_labor += dependency_info.quantity * (dependency.direct_labor + dependency.indirect_labor);
graph[i].indirect_labor = indirect_labor;

Note how it is an iterative estimation, and effects of the calculation propagate up through the dependencies (through their indirect_labor being updated), meaning if you had a single person per labor product performing this calculation, they would only need to get information on their direct dependencies. If you do ten to twenty iterations, you get pretty accurate results. Obviously money prices are a chaotic implementation of this.
But in communism, you don't want money prices, you want labor times. So if you don't have the internet and computers, you could have a few days per month where a few workers per factory just do twenty iterations of this calculation. They could use phone lines or even radio. Just broadcasting their current direct and indirect labor, and receiving or calling for the direct and indirect labor of their dependencies. This would not give them national average labor times, but rather somewhat localized ones. But it would still suffice for getting rid of money.

Paper labor credits
These can be implemented in a variety of ways. The main thing is you need to prevent forgery.
You can try giving people hard-to-forge punch cards (ie, with watermarks, etc) like the old scheme Cockshott mentions.
Here's another suggestion. You can give people cryptographically-signed denominations of labor credits (with minutes, hours, 12 hours, and days on them) that correspond to a deduction from a bank account. They could also have personal ID info printed on them (name, photo, etc) to match the bank account they're supposed to withdraw from. They expire in, say, a few months, so they can't circulate. The shops that accept them check them against the internet banking system and finalize the deduction from the bank account. Places with low levels of computerization and internet can print these from banks and ATMs.

Central planning
Aside from just doing this the Soviet way, I don't have any ideas. How could we make non-computerized central planning more like linear optimization?
>Paper labor credits
You have to be mindful about the systemic behaviour.

The a labour voucher system with punch cards has the advantage that goods are cheaper because the distribution unlike in a monetary system does is not produce wealth concentrations and hence there is no loss of surplus do to elite luxury spending, finance gambling, status preservation services,...

How ever a punch card system has a slower transaction rate and scales up worse, because in order to produce complex goods you will also have an increases in social complexity, while the material cost for social complexity is much lower than in a monetary economy, you will get a penalty in transaction speed, and more importantly a increasing delay in price adjustments. Which will cause you to have increasing trade-exchanges with an external monetary economy where you loose added value.

So you really need to race up the tech-ladder because you basically only get an initial head-start over a monetary system, and then you need to quickly upgrade you calculation infrastructure in order to not get bottle-necked.
Imagine you are a retired professor, decide to put some of your lectures online, and get dragged into some drama with literal furry AnCaps
I doubt that this Furry will get under the skin of Cockshott, considering that he spend a lot of time teaching he probably can't be phased any-more by hot-takes . Besides the video in question does nothing but argue the premise that if something is socially discredited it is untrue, because he believe ideas in people's heads are the prime mover of reality.

It's sort of understandable for ruling classes to have miss-conceptions like that because getting other people to do their bidding is sort how they act upon reality, it's a flawed model of reality that is semi functional. The furry ancap probably believes that copying this might cause some of the ruler status to rub off on him.
On the other hand, he did have a flimsy excuse not to come on /leftypol/ after people bombarded him with chan lingo.
(11.03 KB 750x750 5dr6ft.gif)
Maybe we're the baddies, there's probably better ways to communicate with some grandpa who has better things to do than shitpost on the internet.
Everybody unambiguously agreed on this, it was just one autist who couldn't contain his autism.
(61.93 KB 784x445 VictorGlushkov.jpg)
Who the fuck is SFMRDDE LEIII
That video is definitely directed against the type of "anti-work" crowd like Muke etc.
The first 10 seconds just consisting of a shitty intro slide and the sounds of a creaking chair and breathing into the mic is peak Cockshott
My housemate, a neoliberal Econ Student, says this is the problem with Central Planning:

"There is no better mechanism than the Market for aggregating and using decentralised knowledge and preferences to coordinate behaviour and allocate resources effectively."

Is there truth to this or should I just tell him to read Cockshott?
no make him explain what gives rise to all encompassing monopolies if decentralization beats planners even more so without government intervention
The familiarity of your housemate with the issues at hand is not better than skimming wikipedia and some memes from reddit. The position in life he's jockeying for means not only is he ignorant about the topic, he has strong incentives to espouse an hostile position. Students in the humanities in general are doused with pro-capitalist bullshit. There is no point in trying to convince them of anything because they are invested in the system and they have no good skills for anything anyway. The only students worth talking to are in STEMM.

You can tell him to read Cockshott, but he is just asserting this. He is probably an undergrad that doesn't know anything. That whole statement is extremely loaded.
(28.68 KB 478x368 circular market logic.jpg)
Econ courses usually use circular logic to assert the divinity of the holy market, If you can make him recited a full circle write it down, make him go for a few round trips, than pont out the absurdity of it the market fundamentalism will disappear in a puff logic

You want have a piece of paper that looks like this.

>the market is the best mechanism for allocating resources and labour because

>extra steps
>extra steps
>extra steps

>the market is the best mechanism for allocating resources and labour

If you want to de-program somebody like this than the only chance you got is for him to see the circle of Bullshitt
Read cockshott yourself until you can explain it
(540.78 KB 2560x1920 517510main_PIA13728_full.jpg)
>"There is no better mechanism than the Market for aggregating and using decentralised knowledge and preferences to coordinate behaviour and allocate resources effectively."
We need to reframe this issue from "planning vs markets" to "private property vs common ownership."

Let me explain. Even in capitalism planning happens inside private firms. Big corporations engage in huge amounts of planning. These corporations allocate resources to separate internal departments hoping that, as a whole, the firm will operate on a profitable basis. Each firm is like an island of central planning in a sea of market exchanges. If that's the case, and it is, then why wouldn't this be viable on a much larger scale? It would. Going back to my first point, if we speak of a fully planned economy we're essentially talking about an economy which has abolished private ownership and operates like a big corporation at an internal level. This is why the issue needs to be seen from the perspective of private property vs common ownership, rather than planning vs markets.

The question is whether or not such a system would be viable on a societal scale. In principle this is very achievable. But it would require certain objective abilities. First of all, a corporation can engage in central planning because it can fully measure its assets, machinery, available power, etc. It can also calculate costs based upon those measurements and market profitability. This ability depends on having the right tools and technology. For example, it would be impossible to plan production beyond a very small level without written records. Expanding the scale of production requires expanding the ability to measure, count, and calculate. Today, thanks to modern computing power, we have a far greater ability to calculate than ever before. And electronic databases allow us to store truly vast amounts of information that can be used to track units of inventory, available labor-power, etc. So in practical terms the problem of societal-scale planning has been overcome.

"Markets" in a general sense would still be compatible with a planned economy. This is especially true in the sphere of individual consumption. Individuals would acquire personal items of consumption from stores which then generate data on consumer preferences that can be used to guide production. Enterprises may engage in "market-like" behavior by being able to acquire specific means of production in order to fulfill consumer demand. But everything would be coming from the same "pool" of common ownership. Profiting from ownership of those goods would no longer be possible, nor would things like economic rent.

Short answer:
1. Corporations engage in planning in capitalism.
2. "Markets" would still exist in socialism.
3. The difference would be private property vs common ownership.
(8.49 KB 225x225 cyb-soc.png)
>We need to reframe this issue from "planning vs markets" to "private property vs common ownership."
No socialism is about abolishing the economic monetary logic with a economy based on labour time logic.
<If you go back to the 19th-century socialists like Marx they saw the elimination of a monetary economy as being absolutely essential. One can read the whole of Marx’s Capital as a prolonged argument to the effect that a monetary industrial economy leads inevitably to the whole set of capitalist institutions. From money and industry comes the buying of labour power, from this comes exploitation and the class system. From exploitation stem all the other evils of the system.
<Any attempt to introduce a reformed monetary economy leaves the basic logic untouched. The underlying tendencies implicit in the monetary economy re-assert themselves. The experience of hitherto existing socialism which altered property ownership without eliminating money and monetary calculation are a testimony to this inner logic. There was a constant pressure to re-introduce more and more capitalist elements to the economy since these capitalist institutions are an inner necessity of monetary logic.

>Big corporations engage in huge amounts of planning...if we speak of a fully planned economy we're essentially talking about an economy which has abolished private ownership and operates like a big corporation at an internal level.
Yes and that does prove the ability to plan but we are definitely not going to organise a society like one giant corporation, corporatism begone !

>"Markets" in a general sense would still be compatible with a planned economy. This is especially true in the sphere of individual consumption. Individuals would acquire personal items of consumption from stores which then generate data on consumer preferences that can be used to guide production.
Yes we would use a feedback system like that, but consider that markets mean commodified labour power, and socialist are definitely not going to do that outside of compromises like the NEP. But not as a description of the system goals, exploitation would be outlawed.
(8.49 KB 225x225 cyb-soc.png)
>Enterprises may engage in "market-like" behavior by being able to acquire specific means of production in order to fulfill consumer demand. But everything would be coming from the same "pool" of common ownership. Profiting from ownership of those goods would no longer be possible, nor would things like economic rent.
You are here in the Cockshott thread and he is very adamant about cybernetic socialism not having something like soviet firms or enterprises that could potentially be re-privatized. There's just going to to be material resources flows that people transform with their labour-power, to produce goods and services, and there will be labour-time accounting for that, the cybernetic systems is responsible for both the material inputs and labour inputs and unlike in markets there will be not a single unite of account for everything like with money. because Labour can't produce material, instead there will be many measurements, which also include environmental factors and many other things relevant to economic activity.
People will be able to interface with the cybernetic system with more than one node and as such would not be a employee like in capitalist firm as a human resource captured by this specific entity. The reasoning behind this is that unlike in markets where a certain amount of people are rendered unemployed as a reserve labour so capitalist have supply of labour-power they can buy for starting new companies, this will instead have a gentle gradual transfer from one work place to another when production is changed.

Please be considerate that planed cybernetic socialism is different from markets, it will not reproduce anything from markets except the consumer feedback.
Specifically what will not be replicated is the aspect where labour power is payed according to bargaining power but rather according to labour time. And if there are to be extra incentive payments for specific types of labour, those will be financed via taxation and subject to political decisions making. This amounts to everybody being payed the same hourly rate, in order for the system to be able to calculate efficient use of human labour time. And the social aspect of rewarding certain contribution above that of others is dealt with separately.
>top notch editing
>perfect music choice
>original video stock
That looks very promising. Let's hope they don't fuck it up with an incompetent narrator.
(18.88 KB 480x480 1574127151565.jpg)
Project Cybersyn: Chile & the Socialist Internet
Hey so don't know where I got this but when I was looking through my ereader I found this. It's a pdf of Cockshott's 'how the world works' but from 2015.

Are people aware this thing exists? And is it an older version of the soon to be released book?
yes, this is a DRAFT version of the book. the real version still hasnt been published yet
(97.11 KB 1280x720 maxresdefault.jpg)
Has there been a concentrated effort on our part to get this faggot to pay attention to Cockshott and TANS? I've been considering becoming a patrion so I can shill Cockshott to his fanbase.
This isn't the right content for him. Rather, get him to watch History is Marching or get the guys from Proletkult on his show.
(21.61 KB 692x786 figure 3.1: forecast.gif)
The following is from Eden Medina's "Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile":
>The Cyberstride software broke new ground in cybernetic management. It was the first software written to implement Beer’s Viable System Model.[32] The program also implemented a new and untried method of Bayesian statistical forecasting known as the Harrison-Stevens Approach, which first appeared in the December 1971 edition of Operational Research Quarterly.[33] Dunsmuir stumbled onto the method while performing a literature review for the project. He convinced Beer that the new method would recognize significant variations in the production data and predict whether these initial data points signified the beginnings of a linear trend, an exponential trend, a step function, or an anomaly that would return to normal (figure 3.1). In this way, the software was able to make predictions; it did not simply record and compile historical performance. Furthermore, when a computer operator input new production values, the software could revise its predictions on the fly.
>32. Beer wanted the software to be sufficiently general that it could operate at any level of recursion specified by the model, from the factory floor to the Ministry of Economics.
>33. According to its authors, the approach could “recognize, and respond appropriately to, transient errors and sudden changes of trend and slope.” P. J. Harrison and C. R. Stevens, “A Bayesian Approach to Short-Term Forecasting,” Operational Research Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1971): 341.
New blog entry, about correlation between real observed price ratios and the ratios in labour-value models and price-of-production models: https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2019/12/11/prices-of-production-and-the-uk/
thank you anon
(160.45 KB 700x529 111.jpeg)
cockshott vaporwaved meme
>For me, the best book of the year is Classical Political Economy and Modern Capitalism by Greek Marxist economists, Lefteris Tsoulfidis and Persefoni Tsaliki. The book is expensive, so it should really be seen as a textbook for economics students seeking an account of Marxian economics. But each chapter can be purchased or read separately. And it delivers well, better even than Anwar Shaikh’s monumental Capitalism (in 2016). https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/12/18/books-of-2019/
>>168691 Thanks for the book my man
Have you ever wondered what happened to the guys who worked with Staffor Beer on SYNCO/Cybersyn in Chile? Fernando Flores wrote a book with Terry Winograd (creator of the SHRDLU chatbot): "Understanding Computers and Cognition" (1987), which craps on the view of language and thought as basically a simulation of reality and possibilities. Instead they go with John Searle's view of language as speech acts: >Assertives: commit the speaker (in varying degrees) to something's being the case—to the truth of the expressed proposition. >Directives: attempt (in varying degrees) to get the hearer to do something. These include both questions (which can direct the hearer to make an assertive speech act in response) and commands (which attempt to get the hearer to carry out some linguistic or non-linguistic act). >Commissives: commit the speaker (again in varying degrees) to some future course of action. >Expressives: express a psychological state about a state of affairs. This class includes acts such as apologizing and praising. >Declarations: bring about the correspondence between the propositional content of the speech act and reality, as illustrated by the example of pronouncing a couple married. You can't just rely on a word having much inherent meaning. They emphasize how extremely context-dependent the meaning of a word is, the rest of the sentence the word appears in, what was said before, the situation of the people talking… An example they give is just asking whether there is water in the fridge. Clearly, the presence of water molecules isn't all what's meant by that. But how would a computer know that? Does water refer to water molecules over some threshold amount in a bottle? I have a bottle of salad sauce in my fridge, so should I say that there's water in the fridge? You can roll your eyes at how asinine these questions for clarification are, but rolling eyes doesn't hammer common sense into a computer. They give some excerpts from the press and AI researchers gushing about human-like AI being just around the corner, AI that "really understands" the meaning of Shakespeare and so on and say why that's bullshit. Over 30 years later any lay person can see their anti-hype position was correct. It's better to think of computers as communication tools than decision makers. Flores went on to become stinking rich with some business communication software that follows speech-act theory (maybe something we should imitate?) and, perhaps unsurprisingly with that career trajectory, has turned into a total shill for capitalism. What if he hadn't found big success? I have to say the rhetoric in the book – that emphasizes so much that computerized formalisms leave out important informal stuff and that people barely think about alternatives while things are working out and that breakdowns are unavoidable and that during breakdowns you need human initiative – makes it look like the authors never had faith in highly centralized social systems. Maybe there's a parallel universe where Flop Flores is an anarcho-syndicalist.
>>168691 >imagine paying $30 for a chapter pic-related
>>183939 Holy fuck. This is why textbooks are pirated
>>183978 does anyone have PDF?
>>184718 thanks brah
>>83078 Solidarity Scotland Thats the partys name
>>188779 Let's keep the idpol in the idpol gulag and stick to discussing the legal implications of this court decision on anti-capitalist movements in the UK. Cockshott states that this court decision is making precedence for firing workers who voice opinions contrary to the state ideology. This can easily be used to suppress socialists.
>>188779 Wow this is hardcore, a neo-liberal inquisition. But it's also easy to circumvent, just use the medical jargon that refers to biological sex, how about referring to people by their chromosomes, that has no ambiguity. <Are you a XX or an XY ... I think the reason this is even a thing is because language like "man" and "women" are insufficiently materialist and such they are subject to a battle for "interpretation-sovereignty". I think we should look how the scientific discourse overcame theocratic domination historically to inform opposition to resurgent trends.
>>82696 I just skimmed Jameson's ''American Utopia. These are the parts of his "proposal" that actually look like a proposal: >conscription and >a new two-tiered currency system, in which the wealthy—the CEOs, the stockholders, the financiers—are paid in a separate, as it were “foreign tourist,” currency whose use is restricted to internal investment, while the rest of us proceed on with our normal everyday cash and our everyday debts and payments He brings that up quickly and immediately drops it without explaining what's preferable about that in comparison with labor vouchers. And then there's that: >I also propose adoption of Samuel Delany’s magnificent institution (in his utopian novel Triton) of a so-called “unlicensed sector,” where no law exists and anything goes Wouldn't that reorganize into something bigger and rub against the new system? Again, Jameson just brings up a reference and immediately drops it. Most of what he writes there looks like this: >yes, the Law should also be a conspiracy—all collective action, all collective projects, should have the transgressive excitement of the conspiracy; it is the conspiracy which is the strong form both of crime and of the collective If you think that's deep you might as well read Markov bots. Frederic Jameson is a pomo idiot like every other "Marxist" who bows to Freud and the French AIDS guy.
>>26155 >But at least from what I understand, some way of eliminating the human factor what does that even mean? the whole point of planned economy is to, you know, consciously plan shit, take agency of your own fate, not to give up your agency to some divine blind force of nature, to consciously decide, as a fucking society, what to do with our surplus which cannot be divided because of the social division of labor in advanced human society so you want to take away this human decision making component, and what is left? fucking nothing you already have your automatic market mechanism without human factor, why do you care about plan anyway, just become ancap already and let the divine invisible hand guide you
(10.47 KB 360x357 Quiz1_diag1.png)
Hey, industrial engineering student here. It's basically economic planning for capitalists. Let me sketch out a few things. One is that capitalism is not totally anarchic. Marx mentioned that the whole apparatus is held together by the Law of Value, and that's actually a pretty important coordinating mechanism. Cockshott described capitalism as a "dumb controller", but while that may have been true in the days of Marx and Keynes, capitalists today are much more sophisticated. The firm exists in large part to allow long-term methodical planning, and the superprofit mechanism rewards capitalists who get it "more right" than others. The finance sector is now a tightly-linked computer network, and the enormous derivatives market allows for very fine adjustments in capital allocation. That said, the primary problem with this whole system, is that the thing being maximized is profit, not human benefit. While increasing profits can correspond to useful developments (better products, less waste, etc.), the gross misdistribution of the means of production causes the benefits of the capitalists to be much overvalued. Which is basically what Marx said, in short. One additional aspect, is that coordination between parts of different enterprises is almost impossible due to Prisoner's Dilemma and anti-trust issues. One thing you learn in systems theory, is that everything affects everything. Capitalism effectively "silos" decision-making into each firm, and then limits communication to market transactions. This is the cause of the semi-"anarchic" nature of the capitalist mode of production. However, from what I've read, the Soviets didn't do much better. They also siloed decisions into specific ministries, industrial sectors, and regions. Then they only reevaluated decisions on a semi-annual basis. For socialism to surpass capitalism, every source of information must be interlinked, every decision made with regards to its effects on everything else, and "the plan" must be revised weekly, daily, or even hourly. Planning must not be the sole domain of a few government departments, but it is a task which would properly occupy an entire sector of economic activity, with massive investments in computers and networking. Every factory robot, traffic light, checkout aisle, and water meter must be in constant contact with everything else. It's a gargantuan task, but I think contra Hayek, it is tractable, and certainly worth doing.
>>192179 I'm not sure whether the equivalence you draw here is correct the soviet system never had anything resembling a crisis cycle. For your proposal: Have you considered the overhead vs the optimization benefit, and how to find the optimum here ? And the wait equation at what level of technology do you deploy what parts ? Also how far do you go until you run into diminishing returns. What you are suggesting here is the beginning of sensor grid and the question here is what's the optimal resolution.
>>192206 Crisis in the Soviet Union was more of a protracted and secular affair than in capitalist countries. To some extent, the havoc of the Gorbachev era was analogous to the crash phase of the capitalist cycle. The mass of ineffective methods, obsolete equipment, and workers who needed to be retrained, all came falling down at once. As for the resolution of the sensor grid, the problem is in a chaotic system such as an economy, the theoretically optimal resolution is "infinite", because a tightening of the grid does not in general cause a linear change in the accuracy of the solution. In practice, what happens is there is a three-way, non-linear trade-off between sensor density, recalculation frequency, and ultimate accuracy. This is similar to weather forecasting, in that forecasts become less accurate the further away from the forecast date one goes, and more sensors allow for more accurate predictions. What is the exact optimum mix of update cycle and sensors given the cost of both is, I suspect, an intractable problem, because that itself depends on the particular conditions of the system being studied, ad infinitum. For the record, capitalism hasn't really figured this out either, as the ongoing controversy over active (more data, more frequent updates) versus passive (little data, infrequent updates) investment funds can attest to. Side note: On page 84 (PDF 91) of Cockshott's book, he suggests a certain harmony function which is -u^2 for u < 0 and sqrt(u) for u > 0 where u is (output - goal) / goal. However, piecewise functions like that tend to be messy to work with, so instead I suggest the function defined by the ODE f'(x) = 1/x - e^(-x) and f(goal) = 0 (x is output). This has the properties of being negative for shortfalls and positive for surpluses, is defined and has a declining marginal value (second derivative) for all positive x, is negative infinity in the limit of x = 0, and is positive infinity in the positive limit of x.
>>192224 You may want to post your suggested planning function as a comment on Cockshott's blog probably on this article: https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2018/06/25/plan-balancing-algorithms-reply-to-some-criticisms/ This one is newer but less related: https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2019/05/14/input-output-or-harmony-planning/ I want to read why he chose a piecewise function. >Essentially it heavily penalizes falling short of the plan target and modestly rewards rising above the target. Allin pointed out to me later that it performs poorly in the range -1 to 1 because of a discontinuity of the derivative at 0, but for practical purposes, one can eliminate this problem by changing the definition of excess to >excess:= 10000000* (output -target)/target; >so that the excess will almost never fall in the range with nasty derivatives. He only explains how to deal with the derivative at 0 not why he chose a function with that problem in the first place.
>>192227 I suspect he picked it simply because he needed a function that satisfied these constraints, and in 1993 it wasn't as easy to play around with CAS software for two hours until you find what you're looking for. And since he had the rest of the book to write, he chose something easy.
>>192179 >>192224 To say that everything affects everything is not that different from saying everything is important and since "important" is a relative term saying everything is important is like saying everything is unimportant. It is true that capitalism "silos" decision-making into units that have heavy-bandwidth internal communication and sparse communication with the rest of the world, but that by itself doesn't tell me that capitalism is insane or a perversion against nature or whatever, since what you find inside an animal is also compartmentalized in some way. There are inputs from outside the system, outputs of the system that are again inputs within the system, and outputs of the system that are not inputs again. There are things that enter directly or indirectly the production processes of almost everything else and the things that do that are more important and can be thought of as basically one thing. Creating a rhetorical equivalence between economic data and weather forecasts is misleading, since it is suggestive of separation between the world out there and the observers (strictly speaking not even true of the weather). The data isn't for passive reflection, it informs actions that in turn influence the data. So more frequent and more precise measurements will not necessarily make the system less chaotic since they lead to actions within the system itself. (One might find it plausible that, all else held equal, setting the price of one particular good with a program that reacts quickly and strongly to changes in how many units of it are in stock helps stabilizing the quantity in the buffer, but generalizing that to multiple products changing quantities and prices is a leap of faith and that article of faith doesn't become a logical-mathematical argument by illustrating the belief with an abstract diagram.) As for improving the harmony algorithm: I'm against using quantities of produced things as the "atoms" for scoring alternative scenarios. The atoms, if we are going to have atoms, should be rather the useful effects, and the things should be referred to as "merely" the carriers of the useful effects. If A and B are substitutes and X and Y are substitutes, but the other four pairs are not in such a relation, then the aggregate scoring for alternative scenarios should take that into account.
>>168691 started reading this as a humanities fag, and this is my first econ book (disregarding TaNS), and I gotta say it's comprehensible for me, requiring only very basic math (so far)
>>193247 cont. I noticed several grammatical etc. errors prob. due to language barrier, but nothing serious. anyone reading the book besides me?
>>204127 I am still on Capital Vol 3, though I did watch all of Shaikh's lectures.
(1.85 MB 2448x2448 20200109_155534.jpg)
If I could post this I would. My thoughts on the book will be here, https://leftypol.org/thread/116
>>206454 Looks like they unbanned me. I'll still reside over there permanently so if you have any questions ask them over there.
>>206524 thanks, though I won't go to your dead chan
>>206524 very nice was just about to complain it wasn't on libgen yet
(65.39 KB 1024x576 hugggs.jpg)
>>206459 miss u
>>206524 Why the fuck is it in epub format? Why couldn't be just pdf format?
>>206710 fuck off zoomer retard
>>206710 Maybe try a converter? Not sure if it will come out well.
(86.95 KB 900x550 cyber-earth.jpeg)
Could someone attempt a summary explain of what Cockshott is proposing strategically? I won't be able to read his works in surely at least a year since I haven't even read Marx's Capital yet I'm getting to it, I swear on my life I will have read more than the sum of all you fuckers by the time I'm "done" (we'll never be """done""") but I do find that what I've read of Cockshott's thought so far to be quite interesting. From just browsing this /leftypol/ casually I've picked up: He critiques the traditional form of the Party as rather inefficient and that it needs to evolve to be able to contend with the present conditions of capital. Therefore he supplements the Party organization with cybernetics. But what confuses me at this point is that people claim that he's ideologically closest to everything from ML, Maoist to leftcom (basically a bunch of currents that have rather contradictory basic assumptions of how the Party operates) and then there have also been quotes about him advocating for socialist/cybernetic corporations (?) which sounds like some weird Dengism (jk, surely it's not). <TL;DR the direct question: Does he propose that his strategy of a cybernetic Party gets implemented in either a more Bordigist/Maoist "consultation with the base / workers councils" kind of way, or does he propose that it be implemented in a more ML/technocratic "we the Party represent you and have it all figured out; trust us and stop asking so many questions" way?
just jumping around the new book and i came across this excerpt >War was key to the transitions to socialism, whether the revolutionary civil wars in Cuba, China, Vietnam or the great world wars of the twentieth century. The world wars disrupted many capitalist states through invasion or mutiny and fostered war economies which were halfway to socialism. shit. i hope we don't have to have a war where literally hundreds of millions of people die before we get socialism
>>10553 Anon are you alright? Can you breathe Or did die from gagging on cockshott cock?
>>207074 the other Anon is not wrong though
>>10553 Wut. 8ch blocked him?
>> 206745 Oh silly anon, don't you know nobody here has actually read the books they recommend?
>>206745 >gimme a tl;dr, i wont be reading nuffin tho, lol kys
>>206710 because .pdf is capitalist property while .epub is open source, you complete cuck of a person.
>>206524 THIS BOOK'S VALUE FOR COMMIES IN 2020: 6/10 >>168691 THIS BOOK'S VALUE FOR COMMIES IN 2020: 10/10 What's your excuse?
>>206745 >Could someone attempt a summary explain of what Cockshott is proposing strategically? He advocates a few different things. 1. Use referendums to exert popular power economically and politically. 2. Switch from representative democracy to classical democracy, electing people by lot rather than voting. 3. Ultimately move away from a monetary economy, switching to one in which people are paid in the form of labor vouchers for hours worked. This also includes pricing goods in labor-time rather than money. 4. Use labor-time accounting and vouchers as the means of planning the economy. Cockshott gives a long explanation of Soviet political structure here, starts around 40minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtlZys7QOO4 >But what confuses me at this point is that people claim that he's ideologically closest to everything from ML, Maoist to leftcom Cockshott's ideas can't be reduced to a cookie-cutter ideology. MLs tend to like his advocacy of planning but see his support of direct democracy as utopian. Cockshott's labor-time accounting (a key part of his planning strategy) actually owes a lot to groups like the Dutch council-communists, but I'm not sure what else he shares in common with them. Politically, he was a member of Marxist-Leninist organizations and has always taken the perspective that the USSR was flawed but was an example of existing socialism. Cockshott was actually expelled from the old Communist Party of Great Britain for being an "ultra-leftist", according to his own account.
>>207793 >Ed Sard >idiotic leftcom >can't even respond to basic requests
(70.98 KB 275x293 mfw.png)
>>207793 >Opening shot of the video
>>207793 Thanks to >2. Switch from representative democracy to classical democracy, electing people by lot rather than voting >3. Ultimately move away from a monetary economy, switching to one in which people are paid in the form of labor vouchers for hours worked. This also includes pricing goods in labor-time rather than money I'm integrating Cockshott into my primary 'top commies' mega read-through. I was hoping this was the case; so glad he's not a some weird Stalinist-adjacent technocratic cryptofascist ("cybernetics over the proletariat"). Also looking forward to that one anon who is apparently attempting a democratic confederalism x Cockshott synthesis, as I'm beginning to understand that it actually makes a whole lot of theoretical sense now. Although hopefully he's able to critically examine Ocalan's theoretical adaption to third world conditions from the initial first world revolutionary assumptions of Bookchin. We need more theory for the imperialist core, in the present era. >>207801 You ass.
(125.17 KB 414x371 uwotmate.png)
>>207793 >MLs tend to like his advocacy of planning but see his support of direct democracy as utopian. nice generalization there as an ML I think there can be no truly socially necessary plan without issue voting also you can draft an optimal plan, but good luck actually implementing it without validating it as socially necessary through voting I take sub-optimal but validated as socially necessary plan over some optimal but not validated plan any time of the day ML means as I see it, the necessity of a vanguard party to capture the state and a period of party dictatorship to implement the planning economy and safeguard the revolution party must go with all the strata of professional politicians before the first generation of revolutionaries is dead, or it's all fucking over and you have a "vanguard" party full of opportunists ML also means that you have a somewhat favorable view of the soviet union and think it was a progressive force even with all its drawbacks ML also means supporting dprk even tho they don't have a truly socially necessary validated plan, they still have the most potential to actually have them no first world developed "democratic" country or dengist socialism with social credits characteristics comes even near >Cockshott's labor-time accounting (a key part of his planning strategy) actually owes a lot to groups like the Dutch council-communists lol, everyone owes idea of labour-time accounting to leftcoms, everyone knows that it's not like Strumilin was writing about treds (labour-time units) already in the 20s, or even Marx for that matter and it's not like a problem of the reduction of complex labor in terms of simple labor with some coefficients was discussed in the soviet union for decades or something we should just all bow to our leftcom galaxybrain overlords, for we owe them every bit of theory and practice
>>208195 Post more hot pics of the girl photo you posted
(131.54 KB conrad.pdf)
>>208195 >we should just all bow to our leftcom galaxybrain overlords, for we owe them every bit of theory and practice Read the attached letter. Cockshott talks about some of his political history and his involvement with communist organizations in the 70s and 80s. "COBI's general orientation was far more heavily influenced by De Leon and Bordiga than by Stalin. My advocacy of lab our vouchers would make more sense to Jack if he read it in the light of De Leon or the council communists rather than wondering how I derived it from Stalin."
>>206524 this has been useful in spreading the word across various d*scords and subr*ddits. not just about the book and cockshott but also /leftypol/. Very prestigious to have books on here before libgen. You deserve a medal.
>>208983 23 euros well spent
>>206524 Thanks anon
>>209004 where's that from ?
For those who don't like epubic (for me it's an absolutely unbearable format and drives me nuts), here is the pdf.
>>209076 Also, does Cockshott not have an editor? The mistakes in punctuation, the missing words and such really throw me off right at the beginning.
>>209083 yeah, its strange cause the book was held up for a while due to the publisher, presumably to edit it
>>209084 It's fucking frustrating because how am I able to reference this book in any context that isn't an imageboard if the sentences have missing words. Really blame Monthly Review for this.
>>209086 can anyone with a physical copy of the book confirm that these mistakes are present there as well? it might be a case of bad conversion when >>206524 uploaded
I finished his first chapter and honestly it's all a bit crazy honestly. He attempts to find the formula of the world and makes all kinds of weird analogies with fucking termites and the development of spiderwebs. Honestly it reads at times a little bit like a manifesto than a book.
>>209076 Epub is a superior format to the proprietary pdf, stupid grandpa.
>>209088 I believe the physical edition isn't out yet, at least on amazon its still on preorder.
>>210444 someone on the cockshott d*scord said theirs arrived in the mail a few days ago
(22.65 KB 374x252 Untitled.jpg)
>>209617 >I finished his first chapter and honestly it's all a bit crazy honestly I haven't gotten that impression. Its all to introduce how humans are special in contrast to termites and spider but it is a summary of the rest of the book so it is a manifesto in a way. I'm on the second chapter of pre-class societies now. Its very good reading so far. >It is not clear whether in the transition to agriculture Neolithic communities became matriarchies, though they may well have been. This idea was lent credence by some of the artwork excavated at Çatalhðyuk (figure 2.4). >More recent excavations have been interpreted as showing that in Çatalhðyuk there was rough equality between the sexes—equal prominence to both sexes in ceremonial burials, similar diet,11 and patterns of bone wear and tear are cited as evidence for this. Deposits of soot, inhaled during life, are found equally in male and female skeletons implying that both sexes did similar amounts of work in house and outside. In light of the data overall, Hodder [2004] concludes that there is no evidence for either patriarchy or matriarchy. >However, as Ryan and Jethá [2010] point out, anthropologists and archaeologists are not necessarily that good at recognizing matriarchies, being wont to see them as simple inversions of patriarchies. >There also seems to have been no judicial system. The burials show no evidence of anyone having died from violence, and there are no depictions of tribunals, executions, or punishments in the art of the town. femdom bros this is what they took from us
>>210480 alternative caption < This was a ||||||||||/|||||||||| in the neolithic era
>>206524 Oh shit, I missed the fact that it came out. Should I read it first or finish TANS first (read 44% of it). Also, if I wanted to redpill a PMC friend of mine, should I first suggest this book or TANS?
>>210502 they're different enough you can just read them at the same time. TANS is all about a plan for socialism, this is more why we need socialism, what capital is, how it got here, why its going away, what commodities are, etc.. It really is what the title says, how the world works. So if your friend is very unfamiliar with political economy this is a good foundational text, but if they're the kind of person like >>209037 who demands to know what a socialist plan looks like right now, then TANS is the answer.
>>210480 heres a passage about the nice paleo life >Hunting societies also have a universal access to means of violence. Weapons for hunting animals can easily kill people. Any man attempting to dominate another can reasonably fear secret ambush and murder in return. >There is also a universal access to food—up to the effects of a sexual division of labor. Any man can go off and hunt by themself and feed himself if he wishes. Of course in practice people share food, but they are not constrained to do so. A man will expect to be able to feed himself off berries and game when out hunting. A woman will eat most of what she gathers on the spot, only food surplus to personal need is exchanged between the sexes. >This personal independence prevents the buildup of authority—including inter-generational authority. As soon as they are physically able, young persons can hunt or gather by themselves. Fathers have no control over stored food, cattle, etc., with which to exert authority over their children. >Sharing is widespread. When an animal too big for one person to eat is killed, it is divided among the band. There may be protocols in which somebody other than the hunter dismembers the carcass and distributes the pieces. These protocols mean that a particularly good hunter will end up contributing more meat than he himself gets from others. >Further distribution of goods occurs via gambling. Woodburn notes that among the Hadza he studied men spent far more time gambling than they did hunting. Certain basic goods were excluded from gambling, such as bows and wooden arrows. These are enough for a person to survive. < But slightly rarer tools like poison arrows were gambled in games of chance. This prevents any substantial and lasting buildup of possessions. also if you're wondering why people then left the idyllic anprim life behind, the best theory is that people got too good at hunting(the stone arrow was already too much technology) and had to turn to farming to support the population, which then grew and made it impossible to go back to hunting-gathering. farmers reproduced much faster than anprims(cause mothers could just lay back and shit out babies one after the other all day instead of having to wait for them to walk to have another one) and swarmed them all over the world, and thats why so many language stem from indo-european. they all used to be the same group of farmers.
(901.30 KB 2643x3305 if_only_you_knew.jpeg)
>>210538 >heres a passage about the nice paleo life so kaczynski was right all along? paleoterrorism it is then
Excerpts about the transition from pre-class to slave society with patriarchy and religion. >Such societies would still have had potential problems within individual matrilineal households if there were no daughters. But this is not such a problem for a peaceful community. It could be dealt with by adoption of daughters from other families, as occurs among the modern matriarchal Mosuo [Stacey, 2009]. While we can only speculate as to whether this took place in Anatolia, it could account for what seems to have been a long period of peaceful development of these communities, without evidence of either stratification or gender inequality in the archaeological record. >What we do know is that later historical cultures with grain agriculture seem to have been predominantly patrilineal and patriarchal. Meillassoux gives a theoretical account of why this happens: The higher output of settled grain agriculture allows a denser population and at the same time makes the diversion of effort from growing things into fighting less attractive. >Peaceful relations between adjacent small domestic communities allow the nonviolent exchange of young women to make up the deficits that would always occur by chance. Women moving to another community, where they lack maternal support, are likely to be assimilated to the status that was formerly held by female captives: subordinate to their mother-in-law and husband. >Once such transfers become more common, an increasing number of women are in a subordinate status which then generalizes to all brides being subject to the authority of the existing matriarch and the new husband. In the process the general authority of men over women rises. >The exchanges between communities can become quite complex, involving debts over time: if 2 women go from community A to community B this year, then it is agreed that at some time in the future 2 other brides will come back in return. This makes daughters valuable in an exchange process that has some similarities with trade. The head of the family, perhaps initially a woman, more probably a man, views them as a resource that gives them power and influence. As such, the default assumption becomes that all daughters will take partners outside the community, and exogamy becomes general. >Since marriage and social reproduction are the main reason for these external relations, marriage, in order to maintain the elder’s authority, must be prohibited within the group so that nubile girls remain available as subjects of these transactions. Paradoxically, this restriction on marriage becomes increasingly necessary and rigorous in that the group, by expanding, could grow through endogamous intermarriage. >When reproduction becomes statistically possible through the mating of members of the community, the power of the elders, rebuilt on matrimonial management, is threatened by the very effects of this management which makes expansion of the community possible. < Thus political authority depends on a circumstance which it tends to abolish when it reinforces itself. >The authority must, to be preserved, devise and develop a coercive and authoritarian ideology. Religion, magic ritual, and a terrorism based on superstition is inflicted upon dependants, young people and above all on pubescent women; sexual prohibitions become absolute and punishments for transgression increase. >Endogamy becomes incest, and sexual prohibition a taboo. [Meillassoux, 1981, 45]
not gonna post much about the slave economy chapters, mostly cause theres a video going over most of it. i like this part that maybe i missed but didn't see in the book https://youtu.be/ic-VIssclio?t=470 In popular history, by which i mean Dan Carlin. You only get lip service to economic determinism. Followed by a lot of poetic speculation about what cultural or racial essence certain peoples had to not just be romans, but also to later defeat the romans and stop the expansion of the empire.
>>209088 I have the book in front of me, can someone give me a few pages or chapters where typos can be found in the e-book version so I can check?
>>216599 how do you have a physical copy, i thought the printing was delayed?
>>217608 Was it? I ordered it at bookdepository in September, received it yesterday and it's still available there.
>>216599 some words missing at the end of ch1 p. 54 fig.2.6 bottom right: "1MO" & "2MO" instead of MOC (c.f. figures 2.2-5)
(57.28 KB 720x707 1578542616951.jpg)
>>27546 just next to Paci-fist >THUNBERGED ... WHAT DID THEY KNOW!!?
>>217893 In this video Cockshott points out that there is now renewed consideration for sortician democracy. I wonder whether somebody has done some sort of analysis with regard to the kind of polices that would find support in this, at the present stage.
So I asked about this before but didn't really got a proper answer. A few months back I linked to my PMC friend Cocshott's articles about how supply and demand curves are unscientific. Their response was this (paraphrasing): >So what? He is right in saying that it is completely unable to do accurate predictions, but that doesn't matter. S&D is just a basic intuitive model through which you can sort of predict how your, as a producer, actions will impact the price: if you produce more, the price of the product will fall, if a shortage happens you can expect a rise in prices. There is nothing more to it, and no one is trying to use S&D to do predictions, if they were then there wouldn't be such a huge rise in interest in using machine learning for price predictions. So yes, Cockshott is correct, but his argument is completely pointless.
>>227696 >S&D is just a basic intuitive model through which you can sort of predict how your, as a producer, actions will impact the price The STANDARD ASSUMPTION is that you as a producer exist as a droplet in an infinite sea of producers and that you have zero impact on the market price, you are a price taker. >if you produce more, the price of the product will fall The STANDARD ASSUMPTION is that you can sell everything you produce if you sell at or below the given market price, since you are infinitely small relative to the market. >There is nothing more to it, and no one is trying to use S&D to do predictions It's used to justify incomes as they exist as a proportional return based on individual contribution. The reasoning presented to get there is not just unrealistic, but incoherent. Your friend is a bullshitter. He doesn't care about learning anything or having an honest exchange of ideas.
>>227899 based
Any pdfs of How the World Works yet?
>>228805 theres a draft version of it somewhere in this thread, not sure if there are any full versions out yet
>>227899 >not garbage audio Based
>>228824 it appears that this was a recording for an official talk, hence the fancy audio quality
>>228805 >>228807 The full version is out: >>209076 pdf >>206524 epub
>>227899 Sortition could be a good reformist policy to work towards for all of us living in bourgeois democracies. It is an important step for greater worker power, as important as universal suffrage. We should present the idea to some normies and see how they respond. The main logical argument for sortition is that you cannot have effective representation in government unless the representatives are similar to the citizens, and the only scientific way of getting a representative sample of a population is through random selection (cockshott's argument from TANS). Spooked idealists might say it is possible for a bourgeois MP to vote against their own self-interest for their constituents but we can point to the princeton study showing that in reality the rich get what they want. far more often. So run this idea by your coworkers at lunch or something and report back how they respond, especially criticisms. We can craft stronger arguments in favor of sortition that way.
>>229518 >Sortition could be a good reformist policy >>>/OUT/
>>229598 The reform is not the end goal but a way to win more political power for the masses.
(131.66 KB 1460x531 1.png)
Posting it here as well, since this is the other /econ/ thread. Gonna see if I can inspire a shit flinging fest between the two.
>>236423 This will get ugly as Micheal Roberts barely considers Harvey a Marxist and called him recently "a Proudhonist" and he already really doesn't like the whole "financialisation of Capitalism" theory and the "Bad Rentiers VS the Good Productive Porkies" dichotomy and wrote a couple of posts against it.
>>236435 Hudson hangs out with the likes of Graeber and Harvey, not the marxiest bunch.
>>236435 >"Bad Rentiers VS the Good Productive Porkies" dichotomy and wrote a couple of posts against it link plz
>>236442 Hudson thinks industrial capitalists, have to overthrow finance capitalists and rentier classes before the proletariat gets it's turn. this is basically the question whether you prioritize social relations vs level of the means of production
>>236423 >>236813 Thank you so much for this. I hope they first fight, then intellectually fuck and produce a beautiful marxist offspring. Both of them are incredibly based.
(167.97 KB 904x728 1.png)
>>236892 jesus
>>236892 Cringed at shat on you and Literally zero (0). This is the blog of a respectable Marxist economist not your average imageboard.
(please forgive me, I have sinned)
(7.68 KB 439x101 Screenshot_20200128_210521.png)
>>236813 >>236828 >>236892 >>236895 >>236896 >>236897 >>236908 Is this the true power of /leftypol/'s praxis?
>>237031 What is that? Freenet?
>>237031 What is hilarious about this is that he personally approved those comments to appear on his blog. What a legend.
>>236892 GOD DAMN contain yourself. >Cockblast Jesuuuus I laughed so much I'm crying reading this, god damn. >>238225 hahahaha oh god. This is too much. Bless you leftypol, never change.
Does Toward a New Socialism advocate a cybernetic socialism closer to 'centralism' or 'federalism'? Or is it a new synthesis, hence the widespread usage of 'cybernetic socialism' instead of, say 'cybernetic centralism' or 'cybernetic federalism'?
>>238869 Totally centralized. There's the individual and the individual perhaps lives in collective housing with a group of fifty people or so and right above that you have the center of power. (I don't recall anything in TANS about local and regional decision centers.) That's why sortition is so important in that proposal.
>>239308 But that is a new type of synthesis of centralism and federalism. Federalism in socialist theory has always meant a type of direct democracy, something Cockshott references favorably a lot in his videos, the new quirk is exactly the sortition part refurbished from ancient Athenian direct democracy that has become really easy to utilize for a new context today with our contemporary material conditions having allowed for development of computers and cybernetics. That he then takes this sortition, now abandoned in liberal dd contexts (say, the Swiss cantonal direct democracies) and utilizing it in an (organic) centralist revolutionary socialist theory is truly brilliant and personally inspiring. The more general description 'cybernetic socialism' hence makes total sense.
>>239387 Actually a nitpick could be that he should've called it 'cybernetic communism' as he's nowhere close to socdem / demsoc, primarily building on Marxist communism. But then again saying that you're for 'cybernetic socialism' has the benefit of it not coming off as 'politically extremist' as it otherwise would've in normal company.
>>239794 Consider that he published TANS right after the fall of the USSR. I think he said on a blog post or something that he wanted to call it 'Towards a new Communism' but that had zero (0) chance of getting published or even read in the nineties.
>>241049 IIRC he wanted to publish TANS in the USSR before it collapsed but couldn't find any support. The title, like you said, was going to be "Towards a New Communism" but they changed it to be more palatable to readers. I think he mentioned this in a talk somewhere.
>>241266 this, he started writing it with cottrell in the 1980s
>>26172 >Is he really some nutjob who thinks he's the last real Marxist? this is basically every leftcom including muke and most "marxist humanists"
someone pls archive and prepare to make a new thread


no cookies?