[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / choroy / dempart / doomer / magali / mde / pinoy / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: fde5553d833b8d6⋯.pdf (1.05 MB, Fundamentals of Comm. Prod….pdf)

File: 78cd38b757149e6⋯.pdf (914.25 KB, new_socialism.pdf)

File: ccb23a9008f8655⋯.pdf (3.28 MB, Arguements for Socialism.pdf)

File: 83f03715d241e89⋯.pdf (639.12 KB, Revolutionary Program - Ri….pdf)

File: 4cfe55266d133fe⋯.png (3.68 MB, 2318x3143, 2318:3143, leninreading.png)


Since I couldn't find the Cockshott thread I am now creating a new thread to discuss direct-democracy, cybernetic planning and various assorted socialist ideas for the 21st century.

Post last edited at


File: f575c93eefdede3⋯.pdf (76.75 KB, notesonmcnair.pdf)

File: 83f03715d241e89⋯.pdf (639.12 KB, Revolutionary Program - Ri….pdf)

Also, here is a great book for what to do regarding Revolutionary Strategy and the current modern situation that we and the working-class movement finds itself. Along with it is Cockshott's critique and appraisal.


File: b89d4339acdc24e⋯.pdf (547.1 KB, Macnair-Revolutionary-Stra….pdf)


Whoops, meant this book, not richter's revolutionary program.



File: 5e0b1a58c07230d⋯.pdf (135.46 KB, Transition_to_21st_Century….pdf)

File: 692491f5c6a2528⋯.pdf (3.98 MB, [Routledge Advances in Exp….pdf)

File: 142bc77b684417e⋯.pdf (3.51 MB, W Paul Cockshott_ L M Mack….pdf)

Some more books by him.


Requesting his upcoming histmat book


This is some great stuff OP, as someone new to socialist thought.


File: 7bff32a250987c6⋯.pdf (11.11 MB, How the World Works by P. ….pdf)


I've attached his work-in-progress version of How the World Works.


Your welcome comrade, glad I could help.



Ulrich Krause, Emmanuel Farjoun, Moshe Machover


File: 2d01296f5d163f8⋯.jpg (41.58 KB, 405x344, 405:344, what.jpg)

>Trying to read Classical Econophysics

>Realize very quickly that maybe I should have stayed in High School a year longer and maybe gone to college instead of going straight to trade school.

This is literally one of the fields of research I want to jump into and gain an understanding of so I can better understand and explain Cockshott, and I can't even scratch the surface of it. Fuck.


File: ff973ff8574d145⋯.jpg (1.37 MB, 1711x2549, 1711:2549, soviet-space-program-propa….jpg)


Don't worry about it comrade - that stuff is relatively advanced and you don't need to know it to understand / explain Cockshott to people.


anyone have the archives from the last thread?


File: f72b4633e1bcca4⋯.gif (499.53 KB, 500x333, 500:333, lAiN.gif)


Hopefully one day I'll be able to get it, because it seems like a really interesting field of study that's not really touched upon when most people discuss economics. Like, I can discuss general economic concepts and I like to think sometimes I have pretty solid understanding of the classical view of capitalist economics and the Marxist view of those economics and capitalism as a whole, but this is something else entirely which goes far beyond just merely analysing generalized commodity production and equilibrium prices in capitalism. This is inserting thermodynamics and the like into the mix, and that just simultaneously astounds and bypasses me completely.


File: 82deb2c890f105b⋯.png (14.4 KB, 255x255, 1:1, 82deb2c890f105b2f2cf7c841a….png)

Can anyone give me a simple explanation of how Cockshott economy would work? I'm a brainlet and I need help.



>Let us summarise key features of our conception of mature socialism:

>1. The economy is based on the deliberate and conscious application of the

labour theory of value as developed by Adam Smith and Karl Marx. It is

a model in which consumer goods are priced in terms of the hours and

minutes of labour it took to make them, and in which each worker is paid

labour credits for each hour worked. Th e consistent application of this

principle eliminates economic exploitation.

>2. Industry is publicly owned, run according to a plan and not for profi t.

Retail enterprises for example, work on a break-even rather than profi t

making basis. We envisage the transition to publicly owned enterprises

as being a gradual process that will occur after rather than before the

abolition of the wages system.

>3. Decisions are taken [direct] democratically, at local, national and Union levels.

This applies in particular to decisions about the level of taxation and

state expenditure. Such democratic decision making is vital to prevent

the replacement of private exploitation with exploitation by the state.



This only tells me that the only thing different is the implementation of direct democracy.

How is Cockshott thought different from the labour theory of value?



I wish I could also understand it, but I've come to the conclusion that my work is better served in doing practical things - so for now I've accepted the division of labor which Cockshott has been afforded to be able to produce his wonderful work. However, I fully encourage you to study mathematics (especially applied math / calculus) and physics if you really want to understand econophysics. Its very advanced stuff, but if you put in enough effort you'll be able to get it. Just know that, as Marx said, the road to science is not an easy endeavor.




>it actually works because the austrian economists are complete retards


File: 7fabce36a3983da⋯.jpg (342.24 KB, 1600x1200, 4:3, Women workers (socialist r….JPG)


He is not different from the labour theory of value, and in fact has proven with his colleagues that the LTOV still operates, as the labor theory of value applies to the dual-character of labor under capitalism. Where he is different is that in his book Towards a New Socialism, he has constructed a working model of socialism based on the experiences of the Soviet economies and modern-day economic physics that could actually be implemented by a socialist party. He also has worked out how social labor would be divided, how firms would track the necessary amounts of goods needed and sold, how computers have bypassed the socialist calculation problem, how surplus is gathered under a socialist economy, how to overcome problems that were central in the Soviet economy, how to best implement labor-saving technology while ensuring that labor is most efficiently applied in firms, amongst a host of other things he has worked out. So, if you are interested in questions about how a socialist economy would be ran, then read Towards a New Socialism and watch the videos on his youtube channel.




Shit I forgot my shitposting flag I did actually laugh.




As someone who became acquainted with this work after his university and graduate stuff, I can tell you this: You're more than capable if you're willing to afford yourself the time to learn these matters correctly and comprehensively. It is an immensely rewarding field to work in, despite the difficulties of research. I can only say that should any opportunity arise and present itself, seize upon it - we can always use more motivated persons who are actually interested in the material



Thank you for your kind words comrade. May I ask what your field of study in uni was and what you did to get to a point where you could contribute to econophysics?



Mathematics and Physics, double major, at the start. Added on Political Economy later on. I have always been a Marxist, but I stuck with typical and inoffensive research topics to avoid striking a bad chord with anyone. There is an enormous amount that can be interacted with in the field that doesn't require you to be intimately acquainted with higher methods of approximate analysis. I spent some time doing independent research into methods of computational economics after reading about developments being made in the field for comparative computation (attempting to find a practical application for quantum computation over classical computation) and found this huge cache of Glushkov/Kantorovich/etc. work that seemed immensely interesting. The main thing you get out of applying an existing background to the mix is that you have a better ability to recreate and simulate new results, but theres nothing in there that should stop you from pushing forwards and consuming as much material as you want - just the time is hard to find to sit and read the stuff.



>a model in which consumer goods are priced in terms of the hours and minutes of labour it took to make them, and in which each worker is paid labour credits for each hour worked.

Stupid but sincere question even if it sounds like anti commie propaganda – what would ensure efficiency or productivity? Why would I be trying to get the work done quick and well if dragging it out gets me more credits?



I guess there would still be people checking that you're actually doing your job, somehow you need to know if someone is contributing.


File: 097e0005ead0507⋯.png (1.29 MB, 1024x1343, 1024:1343, radical_action_by_party999….png)


Chapter 2, page 34, in Towards a New Socialism states the following:

We may well wish to argue that socialism should provide favourable general social conditions for the production of a surplus, if workers feel that they are working ‘for the good of all’ rather than for the profits of a ‘boss’. But it would

be naive to assume that this will solve all problems. Aside from making general

use of the strategies of ‘enlightened’ capitalist enterprises (public recognition

of worker achievement, construction of democratic working environment) there

may still be some need to gear individual pay to productivity. Morale problems

can develop if people believe that they are putting in more than the usual effort ‘for nothing’ or that a colleague is slacking, coasting along on the backs of his fellows.

One way of gearing reward to effort would be an economy-wide system for

the grading of labour. For instance, there could be three grades of labour, A, B

and C, with B labour representing average productivity, A above average and C

below average. New workers might start out as ‘B’ workers and then have their

performance reviewed (either at their own initiative or at the instigation of the

project for which they work) with the possibility of being regraded as A or C.

Note that these grades have nothing to do with education or skill level, but are

solely concerned with the worker’s productivity relative to the average for her

trade or profession.

These grades of labour would be regarded for planning purposes as ‘creating value’ at different rates. Rates of pay would correspond to these differential

productivities: grade ‘B’ workers would receive one labour token per hour, ‘A’

workers rather more, and ‘C’ workers rather less. The rates of pay would have

to be fixed in such proportions as to keep the total issue of labour tokens equal

to the total hours worked. The exact rates of pay could be worked out automatically by computers once the number of people in each grade was known.

There need be no stigma attached to being a ‘C’ worker; such a worker

basically chooses to work at an easier pace—and correspondingly accepts a

somewhat lower rate of consumption. Not everyone has to be a Stakhanovite,

and there is no call for resentment of the less productive worker if he makes no

pretense at being anything else. But in this way the highly productive worker’s

contribution is recognised and encouraged, while at the same time the planners

get a more accurate fix on the distribution of social labour.



Also, sorry for the formatting, I just copied and pasted from the pdf.



I studied sociology, with an emphasis in qualitative political economy of globalization - so I don't really have the math background nor am going into a field that requires it either. Is it possible to review the literature or econophysics and gain even w/o a background in maths / physics?



The literature, absolutely. Econophysics, you can definitely keep up with a non-mathematics background. Don't expect to be reproducing proofs and staring at stochastic distributions all the time, there's plenty you can understand about all of it without worrying about the methods and material of the research aspect. That's what people forget when they try to hop into a book like Classical Econophysics , they notice unfamiliar ground and they worry they won't be able to make heads or tails - and that's totally okay! The work was generally intended for a highly specialized audience and those whom have the background to continue the work. That does not, by ANY MEANS , mean that there isn't easily approachable and digestible works that can give the non-field reader an excellent idea of the work being done and its value. I hope you find what you're looking for in the way of information!



That's awesome that I can still gain from it without needing a math based background. Do you recommend any beginner or introductory readings, or should I just dive into Classical Econophysics?



As I'm wont to do with most topics, always see if there are background writings (essay, journal, article, etc.) by the authors with whom you've taken an interest. Make SciHub and LibGen your friends in searching for all the material that you'd like to read. As far as what I'd recommend, I'd say just hop right in, and as you read you'll no doubt find connections and citations of other works which you might interest yourself in



>intimately acquainted with higher methods of approximate analysis

Hey, I got that book too, but I believe it was called approximate methods of higher analysis.



If you're referring to the book by Kantorovich, yes, I believe that was the name. But I was talking about not needing higher levels of mathematical analysis (such as real, complex, and functional analysis) to interact with a lot of the material



Please comrade math-magician, Do you have some specific reading tips for someone who is already aquainted with a reasonable understanding of university level mathematics and probability theory? Also please upload some of the stuff from the Kantorovich treasure trove.



I apologize, there is an excellent compendium piece called Essays in Optimal Planning which I have in text form, but am completely unable to find a pdf form. It includes many shorter pieces, essays, and polemics that Kantorovich wrote since he was engaged in the optimization of a plywood factory, which would lead to the development of linear programming.

In all candor, I am not all too certain of what to tell you as far as what you can do outside of using modern tech (Mathematica, Matlab, etc.) to attempt to create a simulation of the observed phenomena. This is kinda boring and tedious, but it is an excellent exercise, especially since we'll be dealing with a very limited framework as far as parameters and data, given the circumstances of the literature. Since we're both familiar with a lot of the same groundwork, I can assume your familiarity with a lot of these pieces and their format - many truncated and parsed equations passing by very quickly, as we were always used to in non-proofs based mathematics courses. I usually attempt to extrapolate from what is given in the book to attempt to recreate a similar problem, on paper hopefully, that will prove a practical example of how the material works. That, or you could go to the compendium/appendix in the back and work out the proofs of the theoretic material, yourself, just to make sure you're following along! If it is a really in depth text, you can do this in between lines (where applicable), as many of these books will not provide the steps so you can just fill them in for yourself as practice.

Besides that, just keep a notepad or preferable means of recording observations to the side so that you can mark specific areas where needed and also have scratch paper ready if you want to work out the quantitative stuff. There's no magic involved, so just read as you please!



>Why would I be trying to get the work done quick and well if dragging it out gets me more credits?

Because dragging it out doesn't get you more credits. It'd go by the socially necessary labour time, i.e. the average amount of time taken to produce a given thing when working at an average level of effort. Work less, get less.


File: bd39e8b7f32cba0⋯.pdf (7.4 MB, Kantorovich L.V.-Mathemati….pdf)


>>2782349 (me)

And apparently it is taking the server too long to submit these pdfs so I'll just give you a useful link where you can download a lot of the texts, yourself:






Has Cockrifle ever suggested to deal with the inventive problem with equal wages? How is skilled labour going to be "paid"? AFAIK the USSR greatly equivalised wages under eyebrow man which eventually resulted in stagnation.



For skilled labor, the argument for higher pay in capitalist society is money spent on training/schooling and wages forgone while being educated. In his model, and most socialists agree, education is free of charge and students are payed for their labor as students. These two things negate the reasons for skilled labor being paid higher in capitalist society.


File: 58837d671d897f7⋯.jpg (1.14 MB, 878x1275, 878:1275, 58837d671d897f7018659b50fc….jpg)


I wouldn't say that equivalized wages was what eventually resulted in stagnation, it was more an additional problem that led to stagnation (not because equivalized wages is faulty, but because how the Soviet economic system worked). Here's what Cockshott states on the matter in Arguements for Socialism:

It is easier for an economy to grow rapidly during the initial phase of industrialisation

when labour is being switched from agriculture to industry. Afterwards growth has to rely upon improvements in labour productivity in an already industrialised economy, which are typically less than the difference in productivity between agriculture and industry.

Labour was probably not used as efficiently in Soviet industry as it was in the USA or West Germany. In one sense, or course the USSR used labour very effectively, it had no unemployment and the proportion of women in full time employment was higher than in any other country. But a developed industrial economy has to be able transfer labour to where it can be most efficiently used. Under capitalism this is achieved by the existence of a reserve of unemployment, which, whilst it is inefficient at a macro-economic level, does allow rapid

expansion of new industries.

The Soviet enterprise tended to hoard workers, keeping people on its books just in case they were needed to meet future demands from the planning authorities. This was made possible both by the relatively low level of money wages, and because the state bank readily extended credit to cover such costs. The low level of money wages was in turn a consequence of the way the state raised its revenue from the profits of state enterprises rather than from income taxes.



Learning mathematics and physics is easy today. Plenty of online resources to do it. Use Khan Academy and MIT OCW. Download some textbooks from LibGen. Just determine what you need to know and work through it. It's actually pretty fun once you get going.



>All enterprises are collectively owned.

>People who work at said enterprises are paid with labor tokens, representing the portion of the time they spent laboring that doesn't go into social purposes.

>Labor tokens can be spent at storehouses to get consumption goods, at local enterprises to get services.

>Goods are priced at stock clearing prices, so there are no shortages or gluts except when we desire so.

>Labor content is also marked. People are always aware of the amount of labor that went into something.

>We mark down all presently used productive techniques, the amount of goods and labor used as input, the goods that are the output.

>Minimize amount of labor needed to produce goods.

>When price exceeds labor content, we redistribute labor throughout the economy so that more is produced, reducing the price and again equalizing the two values.

>When price drops below labor content, we redistribute labor throughout the economy so that less is produced, increasing the price and equalizing the two values.

>Further planning priorities are set through direct democracy.




>it actually works because the austrian economists are complete retards

Austrian economics btfo forever. This is hilarious.


File: 3f791df98648841⋯.jpg (114.66 KB, 500x340, 25:17, EconomistsHateHim.jpg)


You joke, but that's the crux of Cyber Communism.



Check >>2782263 if you want it straight from the horse's mouth, but I'll give an example. Imagine an economy with 3 workers, who together make goods totalting to 3 labor hours. Remember that in Cybercom, the number of labor vouchers given has to exactly equal the value of the outputs, or you'll get shortages. Ideally in this situation, each worker would do the same level of work and each earn 1 labor voucher, for a total of 3 distributed. If the first worker slacked off, while the second one busted his ass, the labor vouchers could be redistributed so that the first worker earns 0.5 vouchers, the second 1.5 vouchers, and the third 1 voucher.



Not a big fan of the "A B C" scores. The terminology should be different, since letter grades still imply a ranking from better to worse. Something like "intensive, standard, and casual" is better to get the idea across.

Another problem I have is that these grades are only awarded after a worker has shown their performance. It seems better to me to allow workers to enter them according to their own desire, but to set different standards of them. When someone gets employed at an enterprise they'll get the option to choose their grade. If an "intensive" level doesn't work out for them, they'll be able to either get help to improve their performance (if they are motivated for this), or choose to go for another grade instead. That would cause less resentment among coworkers. The extra pay attached to more intensive work would only be awarded after a trial period, to discourage people lying about their intentions.


File: c72133ca359b9e3⋯.jpg (74.94 KB, 507x679, 507:679, programming open source.jpg)

Hey lads just dropping in to support the thread.

Maybe one day I can deal with my focus issues and actually contribute in some way or read a book, even though I have a pretty good grasp on most of this stuff due to my programming education / sporadic add hyperfocus.



(Hopefully this stuff will become much more understandable after I start my masters degree in CS)



>761 pages in Russian




its the only one that didn't error out when I was trying to post :🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧((




I have a question. How such an economy model presented by Cockshott implemented in one country could coexist with other conventional liberal capitalist countries?

Let's say one country decides to adopt this kind of system, their newly elected government follows Cockshott proposals. By using labor tokens/credits instead of money. How the exchange with other countries could be done, or to import/export goods and services?



I know he wrote about this in relation to what to do in regards to hard currency, but it is currently late - so I’ll respond in full tomorrow and also look to see what he says about your question.



TANS chapter 10 covers this. TL;DR:

>Trade deficits are actually desirable for socialist states

>Loans from international banks should be avoided like the plague

>Importation of foreign currency is banned

>Imports are exclusively plaid for with labor tokens, with the additional ability for them to circulate among the capitalist nations

>Likewise, exports can only be bought with labor tokens.

>The socialist state doesn't need to maintain a conversion rate



File: 6e87857d8bc5729⋯.png (308.33 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, Screen of Richters Program….png)

File: f7bcde39429a88f⋯.png (182.62 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, Screenshot from Richter 02.png)

I wanted to post the program that Richter wrote and Cockshott agrees with so that we can discuss it.



tl;dr to non-stem faggots?



Its a political program, nothing to do with STEM.


Why oof?


File: 98925b739c81879⋯.png (412.07 KB, 686x915, 686:915, on_the_barricade_by_party9….png)


I'm also a non-stem faggot, so heres the tl;dr: (sorry beforehand for bad formatting, im lazily copying and pasting from the program)

1. The ecological reduction of the normal workweek – including time for workplace democracy, workers’

self-management, etc. through workplace committees and assemblies – to a participatory-democratic

maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits.

2. Full, lawsuit-enforced freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association for ordinary people, even within the military.

3. The expansion of the ability to bear arms and to general self-defense towards enabling the formation of people’s militias based on free training.

4. The expansion of local autonomy on questions of local development through participatory budgeting and oversight by local assemblies.

5. closed-list, proportionally representative political formation in bourgeois states.

6. The combating of the anti-meritocratic personal inheritances of both poverty by children and ruling-class wealth, with the latter entailing the abolition of all remaining nobilities and the

application of all funds derived from public, anti-inheritance appropriations of not some but all the relevant productive or other non-possessive properties for public use.

7. Socio-income democracy through direct proposals and rejections, at the national level and above, regarding all formal and effective tax rates on all types of income & annual plebiscites with the right to create or raise upper tax rates on a steeply graduated basis.

8. The application of not some but all economic rent of land towards exclusively public purposes – such as the abolition of all indirect and other class-regressive taxation – by first means of land value “taxation”.

9. Direct guarantees of a real livelihood to all workers… including the universalization of annual, non-deflationary adjustments for all non-executive remunerations, pensions, and insurance benefits to at least match rising costs of living.

10. The institution of income-based or preferrably class-based affirmative action.

11. The mandatory private- and public-sector recognition of professional education, other higher

education, and related work experience “from abroad,” along with the transnational standardization

of such education and the institution of other measures to counter the underemployment of educated immigrants.

12. he abolition of all copyright, patent, and other intellectual property laws, as well as of all restrictions on the non-commodity economy.

13. The genuine end of “free markets” – including in unemployment resulting from workplace closures, mass sackings, and mass layoffs – by first means of non-selective encouragement of, and unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for, pre-cooperative worker buyouts of existing

enterprises and enterprise operations.

14. Full independence of the mass media from concentrated private ownership and control by first means of

workplace democracy over mandated balance of content in news and media production, heavy

appropriation of economic rent in the broadcast spectrum, unconditional economic assistance

(both technical and financial) for independent mass media cooperative startups – especially at

more local levels, for purposes of media decentralization – and anti-inheritance transformation of all the relevant mass media properties under private ownership into cooperative property.



>Litterally importing more stuff than you export is bad, somehow.

>Getting free shit is bad.



>Class based affirmative action




Basically reserving spots in government, industry, education, etc. for people who are either wage-laborers or from working-class families. Essentially people from the income bracket of the poverty level to probably around 50k (though that number can be debated obviously).



what program is this?



You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Trade deficits aren't the reason why Venezuela is in trouble, otherwise the US would be in a crisis as well right now (the US has huge trade deficits at about 0.5 trillion).

Venezuela used high oil prices to pay for increased public spending. Once the oil bubble burst, then they tried to fix the revenue contraction by printing money, which only made the problem worse.



It’s the Revolutionary Program by J. Richter would I posted in the op. It’s on Cockshott’s reality website.



No, I was referring to the software.



>What do you think happens to socialist states when they have no national industries producing stuff

Okay, I concede you're right here. It seems like this would be a problem. I'm interested in further explanation of the pro-trade deficit position.



Oh, it’s adobe in Linux Mint.


File: 1652fef4e4c0e82⋯.jpg (885.9 KB, 2020x1224, 505:306, spacemane.jpg)






You can read why he supports trade deficits over surpluses, he discusses it starting on page 118. He also goes over ways a socialist government could prevent uncertainties in the economy due to imports. It's ridiculous to think a socialist government would forgo all national production in favor of imports in the name of keeping a trade deficit. Nobody is arguing for striving for the highest amount of imports and lowest national production possible, but that a trade deficit can be beneficial to a socialist economy and raise efficiency of labor and therefore lower total social labor cost.



>Trade deficits are indicative of weak national industry.

Indicate. Not cause.

And you have to be absolutely retarded to think that getting litterally more stuff than it costs you is a problem for a socialist nation.

From investopedia:

>In the long run, however, a trade deficit may lead to the creation of fewer jobs. If the country is importing more goods from foreign companies, prices will go down, and domestic companies may be unable to produce and compete at the lower prices. Manufacturing companies are usually hit the hardest when a country imports more than it exports, and the result is fewer jobs or lower incomes for employees because of the competition from imports. Fewer jobs mean that fewer goods are produced in the economy which, in turn, could lead to even more imports and a greater deficit.

As you see, trade deficits are only detrimental to a capitalist society because they undercut domestic production and thus domestic profit in favour of profit in foreign nations. Since we do not have to compete or make profits in socialism, it makes no sense to try and export our resources, our labour, to capitalist just to keep some numbers on a sheet of paper lower or high.

From TANS:

>The classical economists developed the labour theory of value in a struggle to understand the underlying workings of the economy. They wanted to know what was going on in the real economy beneath the `veil' of money. One of their objectives was to produce arguments against the dominant mercantilist theories which justified restrictions on imports as a way of preventing money owing out of the country. The classical economists argued that this concern with monetary flows was spurious and that it was of no benefit to a country to run a trade surplus. For what did a trade surplus mean but that a country had exchanged useful commodities for gold which was of no use at all? A country that continually runs a trade surplus is giving over to the rest of the world a portion of its annual product for which it gains nothing in return. A trade surplus, far from being desirable, actually impoverishes a country.

>In words, profits are bounded by purchases by proprietors and the trade surplus. The trade surplus allows higher money profits. This monetary profit is over and above what the proprietors spend on consumption and investment (Sp), and via the mediation of the financial system, accumulates as holdings of overseas assets.

A trade surplus only serves to increase the profitability of domestic capitalists. A trade deficit can only hurt the worker (by destroying jobs) if you live under a market system. A trade surplus always damages the workers by removing consumption from them to increase profits.

Trade deficits are GOOD.





>getting useful things is bad

>getting pieces of paper with numbers printed on them is good

^These posts happen when you connect a potato to the internet.

But let's run with the idea. Suppose a socialist country amasses a ton of currency from a non-socialist country as a deliberate policy, to have this buffer of foreign cash for bad times. (Spoiler alert: The non-socialist country isn't on the best terms with you.) The bad times happen, and now what? Do you think a whole bloody country can just plan and act like an unimportant individual person? There is no guarantee that the currency you got years ago will get you now what you could get with it years ago, and I'm not only speaking of inflation. Politicians in the other country can enact export tariffs and outright ban exports of certain categories. The foreign money is like a vague promise by somebody who is not your friend, and there is nothing in that you can rely on. Getting things in the here and now means you will have these things, even if the foreign country's policies change after the exchange.


Does cockshott have an opinion on Stalin?



I see. So, basically, Cockshott's argument is that if you apply the labor theory of value to goods flowing in and out of the country, having a trade deficit means your economy grows in goods without having to spend x amount of labor to create those goods.


cybernetic socialist anons, opinions on this?


I'm unsure if these applications of blockchain technology require the same amount of energy usage as mining bitcoin, but if not could it be used as a way to calculate inputs in real time?




I actually discussed something like this in an email with him a while back. I was confused how he could use the law of value and labor values in socialism given that they emerged in capitalism as a function of capitalist competition. He said that workers would be judged by against the minimum not the average amount of labor required for production. I'm not sure if that contradicts what he says there, but it seems like it. Let me see if I can get the emails.



In terms of global accounting in a socialist planning system, not every country can have a trade deficit. Someone must be producing this surplus for people to use. and if that's the case, is it just because they're more productive? I would have to imagine they'd insist on some kind of extra recompense in return for this, given the political dynamics involved. We saw these dynamics in Nigeria and Yugoslavia, for example, one region is more productive or contributes more to the country's GDP and this produces intense tension between the ethnic groups which inhabited each respective region.


File: bc643f38bd718b1⋯.jpg (531.17 KB, 1626x1758, 271:293, Labor Theory of Value and ….jpg)

File: 1b2e441c9bcaf97⋯.jpg (717.37 KB, 1700x2200, 17:22, Labor Theory of Value and ….jpg)

File: 063fb72d9ad2102⋯.jpg (686.32 KB, 1688x1724, 422:431, Labor Theory of Value and ….jpg)


Here I found them.

See, the issue is that here he implies that as the minimum decreases the average would also decrease, but in the system he describes there there's no material incentive for the top grade of laborers to increase their productivity unless there was some form of discipline or other incentive based on being the top performer.



reminder that you are just circle jerking in your echo chamber



Reminder that this very paper has been BTFO by multiple people, including Cockshott himself IIRC



I am just having my monthly mental breakdown because I can't have a coherent worldview and I always doubt leftism no matter how much I try to reinforce my leftist beliefs and want to read. Help please


File: 3f4ebbeb72b2be0⋯.pdf (120.56 KB, replytobrewster.pdf)


Hello, newfriend. Already read it. Here's Cockshott's response.


File: 5e0b1a58c07230d⋯.pdf (135.46 KB, Cockshott, Cottrell, Diete….pdf)

Outline of an EU-wide transition to socialism - Cockshott has covered a lot of this stuff in his videos and TANS, but it's an interesting read. Thoughts?







>We have outlined a model for the conversion of EU type economies


>that differs from the tradition deriving from German Social Democracy.


>The three stages of transition are shown below as a table.


Why is Dickblast so ridiculous when it comes to actual politics?

>muh "direct democracy"


>muh "conversion of EU to proper communism"


You have to be seriously retarded to ascribe to DickBlast when it comes to actual politics.



this is the same paradigm he was doing with the USSR originally. He wanted to reform it to what he described in towards a new socialism. Fundamentally, however, i think that view of historical transformation is extremely flawed.



I agree completely. His project – while absolutely enlightening when compared to the total lack of "utopian" thinking – is ultimately flawed, because he never went beyond a reactive politics.

His "direct democracy," for instance, based on ancient-Greek fetishism is a FUCKING JOKE for a proper Marxist.

TL;DR: I have a hate-love relationship towards Dickblast. I can't take him seriously beyond his mechanics (how to plan economics).

Such a fucking shame.



don't stop at just politics, tans (in parts) comes off as a book by someone who has never read the 1844 manuscripts, so the book is still pretty good, it's just that with him its more about how he gets to places, and the reasoning he uses, less than the results, so he comes off as a bruno bauer waiting for a marx to use his tools for actual good theory



I think there's a lot that can be learned from Athens in relation to parallels between a dictatorship of the proletariat. but the key issue is that both situations are the result of their historical contexts, and so will any future communism or revolution. While it's an attractive thought for an academic, you can't expect these top down reforms to actually be realized through the existing institutions. Expecting that throws everything marxists know about historical development out the window.



1. The argument in TANS against a trade surplus was about the socialist region's trade with the non-socialist part of the world. 2. It is possible to have a mutual trade surplus of sorts if different countries use different measures. E. g. if country A and country B have different local labor-time production costs, with either country having higher labor-time costs for some stuff than the other, they can both in a sense obtain more hours than they give (each country measuring the products it exports and imports in terms of its local labor costs).








I'll go over your concerns soon. But does anyone have the works of the Soviet Economist V.S. Dadajan, especially his works on a four department reproduction system. Heres the article / book in German, but i'd like to find an English version. Okonomische Berechnungen nach dem Modell der erweiterten Reproduktion, Berlin 1969. Mandel references it in the preface to Capital Volume 2.


I love TANS as much as anyone here, but how does Cockshott think such a thing can get to power? Through democracy? It's absolutely ridiculous.



Why don't you try killing yourself buddy

Alternatively you could read a fucking book



Through a mass, working-class movement that uses the political state as one tactic amongst others (aka original pre-revolutionary Bolshevism and Kautskyism).



Sorry, meant to say pre-Comintern Bolshevism.



>His "direct democracy," for instance, based on ancient-Greek fetishism is a FUCKING JOKE for a proper Marxist.

While he doesn't develop it much in TANS, it could ostensibly be based on sound statistical arguments, which I think is Cock's goal. Also, look at Cuba. They have very unusual restrictions on elections to prevent campaigning and actually make it more democratic in the process. And Cuba is still standing.


File: 26f3c443f140768⋯.jpg (1.76 MB, 3264x2448, 4:3, IMG_20190119_113318.jpg)

Just bumping the thread.

Pic related, requested Classical Econophysics at our national Technical Library, and they fulfilled the request.



Good find. I was thinking about requesting it at the local library, though i doubt they would due to the price. Would Really like to get ahold of a hard copy though.



Nice, I gotta start doing this.


Does Cockshott's work constitute a justified return to Utopianism? Perhaps Scientific socialism relies dialectically on Utopian socialism.

Like, Utopian socialism first imagines a manifold of different socialist social orders until it becomes immediately obvious what "socialism" entrails. Then Scientific socialism comes along to state that the precise nature of this order isn't important, and that we must instead focus on the real historical principles that will create socialism. BUT scientific socialism, in its pursuit of an adequate understanding of the real socialist movement, has now erased the basis provided by Utopianism. What used to be obvious is now impossible to see. We no longer know what socialism is supposed to look like, and the pictures provided in the past seem impossibly naive.

Cockshott creates a new Utopian notion of socialism, incorporating the accumulated knowledge within Scientific socialism. The old Utopian concept of socialism is gone, so we must construct a space of possibilities based on the practical needs of a really-existing economy. Cockshott has given a first indication of where this space is located.



What on Earth are you talking about. The only utopian thing are his politics. His economics is more scientific than any DUDE THE FREE MARKET WILL SORT IT OUT bullturds we have in the West.


File: 2707949bcb7ea55⋯.jpg (165.25 KB, 850x1200, 17:24, IMG_1115.JPG)


>Aka When you read too much continental philosophy.

Lol, this is a nuclear hot take. Not only is it a unreading of Cockshott, but also of Marx, Engels, Lenin and various other socialists. I'll quote Engels," From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly SOCIAL LABOUR. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way (ex: like the Soviet Ruble); daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. Society can SIMPLY CALCULATE HOW MANY HOURS OF LABOUR are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product (common equivalent), in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better, rather than EXPRESS THEM IN THEIR NATURAL, ADEQUATE and ABSOLUTE MEASURE - TIME… society will not assign values to products… stating that they have the VALUE of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of PRODUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS MEANS OF PRODUCTION, which include, in particular, its LABOUR POWER. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will IN THE END DETERMINE THE PLAN."

Now here's Marx," Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common, and expending their many different forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as on SINGLE SOCIAL LABOUR FORCE… Labour-time would in that case play a double part. Its APPORTIONMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DEFINITE SOCIAL PLAN maintains the correct proportion between the different functions of labour and the various needs of the associations. On the other hand, LABOUR-TIME ALSO SERVES AS A MEASURE OF THE PART TAKEN BY EACH INDIVIDUAL IN THE COMMON LABOUR, and of his share in the part of the TOTAL PRODUCT DESTINED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION."



Also, could you state in detail, your main objections against Cockshott's politics? It is actually well constructed and isn't just merely Greek fetishism.



But does he stands for revolution? Or is he a democratic socialist or something?


File: add66d07d98e346⋯.png (45.18 KB, 1713x2717, 1713:2717, 9788498797213.png)

Venezuelan here. I'm looking for this book in particular, anybody has it? I would really appreciate it.



File: 4f4e056c81e42fa⋯.pdf (1.35 MB, tns_spanish.pdf)


La verdad que no, pero si tengo TANS traducido por si te interesa.



Gracias, estoy leyendo, increíble que esto se haya escrito recientemente caída la Unión Soviética. Habría que ver que dirá Cockshott respecto a las computadoras de hoy en día, ya que hablaba de modelos bastante "lentos" respecto a los de hoy en día. Respecto a la traducción de libro en español errrhm tuve que bajarlo en inglés también para el asunto de la gráficas.



>Respecto a la traducción de libro en español errrhm tuve que bajarlo en inglés también para el asunto de la gráficas.

Gráficas? Yo no tuve ningún problema viendo las tablas en la traducción, capaz es tu visor de PDF? O te referis a otra cosa? De todas formas, me alegro que te haya servido. Es muy importante que más gente lea a Cockshott, especialmente en Latinoamérica.




>insertar figura 1.1 pág. 15


File: b0d7153b1d34bc2⋯.jpg (366.52 KB, 1280x1568, 40:49, print.jpg)



forgot image




Ah sí, tenes razón, por alguna razón pensaba que las figuras estaban incluidas pero solo las tablas y algunos gráficos, otros efectivamente tenés que verlos con el PDF original. Lástima.



Lots of talk labor vouchers in that thread. Ignore the Muh Cash Is Better fags.


Are Cockshott's ideas compatible with anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism?



His economic ideas, yes. His ideas for political organization should be taken with a grain of salt, but are an interesting criticism.



Oh yeah, and his upholding of materialism and trying to promote a stochastic/scientific update of dialectics is quite in line with the diamat of Engels and Lenin.



No one in that thread said cash is better.

I read bits from TANS and wasn't impressed, but I do agree with Cockshott's opening statement that the USSR was socialist, and the ruble under the USSR was sort of like a labor voucher. Many of the specific solutions for stuff like skilled labor and labor quality Cockshott describes are not workable though and are bound to run into immediate problems if you tried to impose that onto say a post-revolutionary USA.


File: c7c77e5834a1acc⋯.jpg (203.29 KB, 1000x562, 500:281, c7c77e5834a1accca5faa19dd2….jpg)

Opinions on Cockshott's critique of soviet democracy on chapter 13?


Would proto-cybernetic planning with hydraulics have been possible in the early USSR?



For a short while. maybe. Gosplan initially had only a couple hundred industries under it's direct control so hypothetically you wouldn't have needed a lot of computing power. It would have been completely intractable before long though, once you started adding more. Maybe they could have used it for a couple vital industries and planned the rest conventionally.


File: faa8438ea1f7123⋯.jpg (630.6 KB, 830x830, 1:1, engels woke.jpg)

After WW2, there was a monetarian tendency to reduce the ideas of the enlightment to a dangerous dogmatism. In addition, every revolutionary idea was denunciated as a totalitaristic symptom. So, the postmodern era deconstructed the strong reason. And instead a weak reason pretends to apprehend the real world only by experience, and ultimately put cybernetics on the scientific menu. And Cockshott becomes an accessory to this malpractice.

The discouse of Cockshott's vulgar interpretation of cybernetics and implementation into a socialist society tastes the political correct oppurtinist really well because it doesn't say a thing about the real contradiction and antagonism in this society. The social relations and ecological relations cause oppressive systems like capitalism which is according to Marx and Engels just a symptom of the historical-material situation which stands on the shoulders of the lack of social ecology. With Cockshott's first-order cybernetics one can surely control a commune, but definetely not the global economy, the most complext autopoietic system which evolution originated sofar. Every good mechanic is modestly aware of that.

The entry in science of Cockshott's naive positivism was mainly accomplished by Popper. Many scientist do not conceive, judge, conclude explicitly anymore. The discursive formation is coined by indeterminacy, without the idea of natural concepts. Therefore, the real contradictions and anatagonisms in this world aren't captured adequately. Measurement operationalization and computation - which Adorno and Horkheimer would call instrumental reason - can't be methodological premises for the correction of ethical norms.The interpretation is the apriori for the aposteriori of the data. Thus, Cockshott's draft of a new socialism only supports the status quo as real which is structured anti-socially and anti-ecologically. A description is not a progress but leads to reification. Since every insight is already an effective action, we already have manipulated the real world. However, the insight itself produced the lights and shadows of this world.

With computation and control circuits alone, we cannot overcome the lack of reason. Humans are reduced to instruments of computation. In Cockshott's utopia, humans become alienated and subordinated to the labour fetish. This highly anti-Marxian thought since Marx' premise of communism was to abolish labour and achieve a classless society free of domination. Cockshott's so-called cyber-socialism would institutionalize new classes. Those who can compute have power and insight and maybe the computation evolve momentun with certain independency. Moreover, a new domination of labour token would emerge. Basically, he advocates just another form of state-capitalism. The naive scientific positivism already lead to the biggest culture catastrophes: fascism and stalinism, two materialist versions of a national state-capitalism. To solve economic problems within economics cannot transcend the root of our alienated relationship to our fellow beings and our existential condition. According to an DiaMat anti-positivism based on Kant, Engels and Marx and especially after the failure of real socialists states, we have to acknowledge that first we need to adress how to form our social and ecological living.




>But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

Is rolling forward with it an option?



word salad

shut the fuck up primmie



Neck yourself.


File: 1a21daa956ac578⋯.jpg (91.4 KB, 600x697, 600:697, wat.jpg)


>stands on the shoulders of the lack of



Thanks for the text. Exactly one which I had in mind. Rolling forward with some parts of the proposed mode of production could be even necessary since centralized global infrastructure is needed in times of climate change. However, it is only for transition towards a new society. Cockshott's LTOV is leftist post-keynesianism, therefore use value and production conditions mainly ignore nature. I think he doesn't understand Marx' concept of use value as Cockshott writes

>The point is that these [labour-value] ratios provide a measure of the effectiveness of social labour in meeting consumers’ needs (production of ‘use-value’, in Marx’s terminology) across the different industries. (TANS, p. 104)

According to Marx, use value can be independent from labour and can be highly subjective. Hence, labour tokens are a stupid idea. At least it should be individual adjusted emission tokens. Concerning nourishments and fabrics, a 200cm tall human has a higher demand of basic emissions than a 150cm person. Therefore, tokens shall be individual adjusted. More importantly, the current biggest challenge is to reduce emissions to which production conditions have to be set to. The rate of emissions isn't subjective but can be computated. Therefore, tokens shall grant emissions. By this, spheres of production and circulation can accord to second-order cybernetics.




After gulag you will understand. Maybe it take a couple of decades for special cases like you. [spoiler]If you haven't understood an argument just ask like critical people do. /leftypol/'s discussion culture gets worser every day. I read most stuff in another language so it's hard for me to put such abstract arguments into English. BTW I'm not AnPrim but something between Marxian Engelist and democratic confederalist.



>post-keynesian, Marx, cybernetics, Cockshott, global warming

Why do you feel the need to pretend to be familiar with all of these topics when you aren't with any of them, and on top of that also pretend to have been here for longer (by talking about a downfall in quality) without even knowing how spoilers work?

>use value can be independent from labour and can be highly subjective

Use value isn't subjective, individual satisfaction is, which is not the same concept. For example, five units of a coat are five units of the use value of that coat. The use value of one such coat is what it is known to be useful for because of its known and understood physical properties and their effects, like with other things. The words "known" and "understood" here don't refer to the specific knowledge and understanding of a specific individual, but generic common knowledge (knowledge which has changed through history as Marx remarked, a remark which lead to a misunderstanding by brainlets such as yourself throwing together use value with subjectivity).



How do you go according to Marx and then state that labour tokens would be something Marx wouldn't want, when he explicitly advocated for them? Here's Marx:

>[T]he individual producer receives back from society—after the deductions have been made—exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Cockshott has also updated Marx's critique of Proudhon's Labour Voucher scheme that Marx specified in the Poverty of Philosophy by including how to differentiate between skilled and unskilled labor.



On some image boards you don't need [/spoiler] at the end of a post. The downfall began with /pol/-raids and accelerated with birth of /leftpol/. I just read TANS and Cockshott's suggestions for Europe, so I could be wrong. But Cockshott's theses don't seem to refer to post-keynesiasnism. Sorry, my fault. I don't need recognition or anything (otherwise I would probably be political correct), just wanted to gave my thoughts here and see what others think - like the critical neuroscientist I try to be. In every good 101 seminar of the history of neuroscience, cybernetics is discussed. First-order cybernetics doesn't apply to human nature because the human brain has no hierarchically organized control system, no central node or whatsoever. Consciousness is an emergence phenomenon and thus goes beyond the circular scope of first-order cybernetics. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Marx and Engels knew that. Their vulgar apologists don't. An economic system has to accord to human nature. Anyways, /leftypol/ is much more vulgar than /leftpol/ so I should commit to one board leaving this to the philistines.

Use value is at least intersubjective and thereby still prone to bias. Just like >>2800073 I want to say that Marx' LTOV contradicts with his commodity fetish. Update your Marx exegesis. Value criticism > orthodox Marxism. Read https://libcom.org/library/marx-2000-robert-kurz

Related highlights:

>But if "labor" is the substance of value, and thus the substance of money, one therefore has to describe labor too as an end-in-itself: it is the self-referring and permanent alienated expenditure (Entäußerung) of human energy. The mediating character of "labor" in the "metabolism with nature" and the mediating character of money in the social metabolism of society transformed into an end-in-itself and thus determine the actions of the empirical subjects. It is precisely this tautological, systemic self-reference that renders "labor" to "labor" and money to money.

>Concrete labor stands not for itself, but is subject to the dictates of the "valorization of value," and, therefore, causes also irrational and destructive results on the level of use-value in spite of the better judgement of all participants, who remain fettered to the structural force of the system. Of course, the value-property of the products, which serve as carriers of the expended and abstract "labor-substance", is hallucinatory. This is because, firstly, the aspect of abstract expenditure of human energy of the producing activity can not really be removed from the material-sensory character of "concrete labor". This process takes place only in the "abstractifying" social unconsciousness as an implicit automatism, albeit producing a material result: money. It is through money that society encounters its own unconscious abstraction as an independent, alienated power.

>Within the real society of a commodity-producing system the explanatory power of the marginal utility calculations of use-values is practically zero. This is because, although market participants evidently weigh their subjective utility against the respective money price, they do not do this independent of social conditions; rather, they do this under objectified conditions, which are forced upon them and (a priori) influence their calculation in an unconscious manner.



>just wanted to gave my thoughts here and see what others think

Your "thoughts" here are not appreciated. You are just aping the word flow of people you believe to be deep thinkers and you don't know anything about the topics you bring up yourself while you do that.

>the human brain

Irrelevant. Musings about that in the context of society-wide developments are only compelling to someone who believes in a necessary direct and obvious correspondence between the small and the big, patterns repeating like in some fractal while zooming in and out. Your landlord tells you he's raising the rent because he realized that we are all one social organism maaaaan, and you like the arms and he is like the belly – do you find that compelling?!

>Robert Kurz

Robert Kurz was a total spastic who called everything anti-semtic: https://hollaforums.com/thread/1272194/activism/wertkritik-thread.html (spambot forum that archived a thread from here)





Nice timing, I just got to the part in Vol. 2 that describes the sectors.



Jesus, I've been able to follow literally every other video he's made so far, but this one is a little too big brained for me. I guess I have some reading to do.



Have you read Capital yet?



No, and I think that's the problem



talking neurosciences when discussing economics mark you as a brainlet. marx didnt give a fuck about neurosciences or cybernetics as neither existed yet

also lol at human nature shitshow

you may try to sound smart, but everything you said classed you firmly into the 'ignorant retard that think he got it all figured out' category



Well, get started on it already.


Get an e-reader, pick it up from a store, or petition your local library to get a copy.

It's really worth it, and Volume 1 is not that tough to get into. Only chapter 1 is a bit dense. Vol 2 is what's most relevant to that video though.


>Finally get to chapter 3 of Vol 2

>It's just one giant redpill after another

holy fuck, I guess it was worth wading through all that (admittedly useful) shit about turnover.



LMAO O'Brien got triggered to all hell about this video series about Kliman and is popping OFF in the comments to part 1. Probably because he spent 10 weeks doing a discussion group on Reclaiming Marx's Capital.

He's even contacted Kliman, Freeman & Potts and is saying that there's a very long response video being planned just to part 1, it's looking like this is the start of a serious theoretical battle, we may be standing on the precipice of a huge breakthrough in the understanding of Marx, and it's all going to be played out between a bunch of Academics shitposting in Youtube comments and making response videos. Is this crazy to anyone else? I just find it hilarious to imagine old men angrily shouting in discord like some teenage memer and then uploading it to youtube.



Which book?



God please let this happen



>it's looking like this is the start of a serious theoretical battle

I don't think so. Cockshott and Kliman strongly disagreeing with each other has been a thing for years. If you look around, you can probably find some sperg-out posts by Kliman about exactly these issues that are over ten years old.



Kliman has always made an impression of an OCD control-freak to me. Just look at his site.



Capital, my man.


File: 404035933f4aebe⋯.jpg (125.68 KB, 450x373, 450:373, 1308052842611.jpg)


>went full Ptolemy

Absolute madman.


Why does Cockshott only have a few thousands views at most on his Youtube videos, and is hardly known anywhere?

Oh, that's right, marxist economics became completely irrelevant after the collapse of the USSR. lol



Because he has the shittiest mic in the world



It hasn't been so public and it hasn't happened in video format before though, I think that actually matters a lot, because it introduces an audience that exists outside of blogs and academia.



Tbh we unironically need to fundraise to get him a better mic.



Fucking neck yourself you spineless traitor cunt



> Cockshott

> marxist economics

Choose one and only one.



>argumentum ad numerum

Nothing you say has any value.


File: 3d23c3ba8660ffa⋯.jpg (26.31 KB, 479x479, 1:1, adorno.jpg)

File: 95885a80e8c0d73⋯.pdf (9.33 MB, Brosch, Tobias_ Sander, Da….pdf)

File: fc6fd2d59b64839⋯.png (98.27 KB, 1077x671, 1077:671, value experience.png)


Marx' and Engels' propositions stand and fall with a materialist premise based on neuroreductionism:

>We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. [b]The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises.[/b] Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. [b]Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.[/b] In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.

They were kids of their evolutionary biology time, so according to DiaMat it's understandable that they gelded DiaMat towards neuroreductionism. But recent studies show that consciousness affects life as we see in neurofeedback or long-term meditators. The analysis of capitalist dynamics is still appropriate, and so might Cockshott's. However, noone ITT refuted the essence of my arguments, not even close. You cannot induce a good-fit model from data of an alienating system. And after all revlution is all about de-alienation and de-sublimation. Therefore, we have to understand how humans process value.

Personal values > economic values

Humans act according to the former, and forcing them to act according to the ladder leads to alienation. As I said, use value is highly dependent on your cultural background since valuation differs. Does Cockshott even consider passive use values?

I'm not even close to solve the riddle of how this affects their propositions. But I'm convinced that from a philosophical and neuroscientific point of view, Cockshott's proposal is highly antihumanist and antinaturalist, whereas communism is both fulfilled humanism and naturalism as Marx defined it.



oh dear lord fuck off



final video in the kliman series


File: 1ae1026b1a3aae7⋯.png (409.78 KB, 1280x716, 320:179, 18869399-f697-4907-8788-9d….png)

File: 837bc4d4d5868a1⋯.gif (126.34 KB, 481x481, 1:1, Fenneko_Laughing.gif)


>mfw Kliman can't even do basic math



>section on women's pay

radlibs closing video in 3…2…1…



I don't understand that image either

Might be because I am not *nglo



>marxist economics became completely irrelevant after the collapse of the USSR

I've read skimmed quite a bit of what Academic "Marxist intellectuals" of Western Europe wrote in the 70s and 80s. You'd be surprised how small the role of economics is in all that stuff. Even when titles and headers suggest hard-headed economic analysis, what you mostly get is more like emo poetry. The anti-USSR current dominated. There's a meme that these people changed their tune to "it wasn't real socialism xDD" only after the collapse, but most don't fit that bill.


Can you give an example of a difference between Marx and Cockshott and make an argument for why the change is a mistake?



> Can you give an example of a difference between Marx and Cockshott and make an argument for why the change is a mistake?

We've already had mulitple threads on this.


1) mode of production is understood as material production (electricity is socialism!)

Marxist position is that mode of production is relations of production (i.e. socioeconomic property relations).

2) surplus value (that defines productive labour) has to be expressed in material form

Marxist position is that surplus value materializes in the form of money Capitalist receives.

3) people working in service sector aren't Proletariat

Marxist position is that anyone who sells labour(time) is Proletariat

And so on and so forth (including absolutely retarded screeching about supposed "support" of prostitution by people who do not agree with Cockshott).



dear lord you are fucking stupid, you are lying and dishonest on all three points.



>1) mode of production is understood as material production (electricity is socialism!)

>Marxist position is that mode of production is relations of production (i.e. socioeconomic property relations).

Your position doesn't look more correct than Cockshott's (if that's really his position). In German Marxist texts:

<Produktionsweise = Produktivkräfte & Produktionsverhältnisse.

That is, the way of production (or mode of production as anglos call it) consists of both the productive forces (technology and resources) and the social production relationships (this includes, but is not limited to, property rights).

>2) surplus value (that defines productive labour) has to be expressed in material form

That is correct on the macro level.

>Marxist position is that surplus value materializes in the form of money Capitalist receives.

Of course, surplus also shows up as profit, but individual capitalists do not receive surplus value in proportion to the surplus they directly extract from their workers.

>3) people working in service sector aren't Proletariat

Are you sure that's Cockshott's position or was his emphasis on particular service workers who are self-employed?



>we've already had multiple threads on this

Yes, I can recall. You, exactly the same person whining, were called out for theoretical inconsistencies and accusations of 'technocratic' sympathies, and after the entirety of the thread recognized your persistent intellectual dishonesty - you threw what amounted to a temper tantrum.



> >1) mode of production

> In German Marxist texts:

> <Produktionsweise = Produktivkräfte & Produktionsverhältnisse.

Quotes, please. With sources.

> That is, the way of production (or mode of production as anglos call it) consists of both the productive forces (technology and resources) and the social production relationships (this includes, but is not limited to, property rights).

Are you saying steam power is capitalism, electricity is socialism, and nuclear power is communism?

> >2) surplus value (that defines productive labour) has to be expressed in material form

> That is correct on the macro level.

It isn't.

>> Marxist position is that surplus value materializes in the form of money Capitalist receives.

> Of course, surplus also shows up as profit

It is not "also". For Capitalist it doesn't show up in any other form. This was the whole point of Marx's Theories of Surplus Value.

>> 3) people working in service sector aren't Proletariat

> Are you sure that's Cockshott's position or was his emphasis on particular service workers who are self-employed?

Yes. You can discuss this with the trolls here (though, be prepared for them constantly lying their asses off).



fuck off retard


File: 1d4a74189b5ad9a⋯.jpg (898.36 KB, 1201x1600, 1201:1600, marx-als-prometheus-1843.jpg)



Typical Cockshott's cocksucker shill.


>hasn't even read Marx

>can't even use a search engine

>just states without arguments

>doesn't even cite himself

Also typical shill.

Can you do me a favor, read more theory if you engage in theoretical discussions or just go on the streets if you are not capable to understand the complexity of Marx and left economy theory in the 21st century, please? Also goes to >>2806042

Productive forces imply all productive abilities like psychological skills and knowdledge. Surplus value doesn't need to be fully materialized but only partially to be measured. Also unproductive labour can also elicit surplus value. The theory of surplus value was also extended to population (leaning towards Malthus) and implicitly is the basis for Marx' and Engels' ecologist critic towards capitalism.

>The natural-material use value of human labor itself, in Marx’s theory, resided in its real productivity in terms of the genuine fulfillment of human needs. In capitalism, he argued, this creative potential was so distorted that labor power was seen as being “useful” (from a capitalist exchange-value perspective) only insofar as it generated surplus value for the capitalist. (Foster, 2013; cf. Marx & Engels, Collected Works 30, 55)




It's well-appreciated that you made it clear upfront that you're projecting ideological illusions upon Marxist economics. It saves me the effort of having to read you in any critical manner.



>Quotes, please.

MEW23, 12

<Was ich in diesem Werk zu erforschen habe, ist die kapitalistische Produktionsweise und die ihr entsprechenden Produktions- und Verkehrsverhältnisse.

What I have to investigate in this work, is the capitalist mode of production and its corresponding relations of production and intercourse. In other words, capitalist production has both a technical and a social side.

MEW23, 334

<Es muß die technischen und gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen des Arbeitsprocesses, also die Produktionsweise selbst umwälzen, , um die Produktivkraft der Arbeit zu erhöhn…

''It (capital) must revolutionize the technical and social conditions of the working process, that is the mode of production itself, to increase the productive power of labor…

>>That is, the way of production (or mode of production as anglos call it) consists of both the productive forces (technology and resources) and the social production relationships (this includes, but is not limited to, property rights).

>Are you saying steam power is capitalism, electricity is socialism, and nuclear power is communism?

You should be able to find the answer based on what you just quoted before asking that.

>>Of course, surplus also shows up as profit

>It is not "also". For Capitalist it doesn't show up in any other form.

Reality doesn't begin and end with what a capitalist knows and doesn't know. Do you think a world without production of physical surplus could have surplus value?



Lol you didn't take long to drop the charade



File: 023125ccd5ce81b⋯.png (5.85 MB, 2326x6931, 2326:6931, 526777CC-475F-4784-A1FE-95….png)

Fresh off the press, tell your friends.



uuuugh, where's settlers???



Shit you’re right, I also forgot Frantz Fanon and Hillary Clinton’s Autobiography.



That's a bit harsh on Fanon lad



You’re right, I apologize. I actually like Fanon, I was just making a joke cause our comrade here was making a joke about not having Settlers, and usually people who mention that book also bring up Fanon - so it was part of the joke.



People who bring up Settler & Fanon in the same breath don't understand Fanon tbh



True true, but it is kinda a meme that woketards bring up Settlers and Fanon in the same breath. At least from my experience.



>that method of predicting future ROP

Couldn't we use this to more accurately predict the next recession?


Paul Cockshott & Tommy Sheridan Say HANDS OFF VENEZUELA

Paul Cockshott & Tommy Sheridan Speaking at the Hands Off Venezuela Meeting Organized By Solidarity at Committee Room 9 on the 5th February 2019

Show solidarity with the elected President of Venezuela and the 6.2 million Venezuelans who voted for him last year. Tell American Imperialists loud and clear #HandsOffVenezuela



Schlongbazooka's new video, this time it's lecture.


Sort of a synopsis of what he has talking about in this latest videos.


Anyone read Michael Albert's Parecon? He's more from the anarchist side, but gets to a lot of the same conclusions as Cock. Computing power and social ownership is what we need.



I don't think the Parecon guys actually have developed algorithms for anything or even that they have described exact criteria that an allocation algorithm either passes or fails.



>David Van Reybrouck - Against Elections

that guy's a straight up liberal, and in that pamphlet he promotes the retarded idea of selecting random groups of people from the population (the same way as is done for juries) and let them become policymakers, as if that could change any structural issues. the fact that that guy is on a "Leninism reading list" is pretty laughable



Cockshott supports that too, and for good reason.



in what text?


>>2811287 (me)


Not exactly as policy makers, but as beurocrats who still hold some decision making power but are overerall accountable to the populations decisions.


In TaNS, I think transistion to socialism in the EU, pretty much anywhere he discusses democracy. I think he discusses it in some of his youtube videos as well.


Does anyone have an epub of these?


File: 07143b36fd9687d⋯.pdf (518.01 KB, Towards a New Socialism.ep….pdf)


Here's TANS. Just remove the .pdf at the end.



Not sure which books you're talking about because you didn't quote any post. Anyways, for TaNS there's an epub on the official site





Other books people have posted as PDFs above, and you can convert them with a program called calibre.


Hey, does anyone know which Cock's video talks about Samuelson and the nonsense of marginalist/subjectivist theories?





My understanding is that they're basically the same thing, Cockshott's Cybercom is just a specific implementation of Parecon.


I finished Capital Volume 2!!!

Finally, all those matrices in Cockshott's lectures make sense! Even though it was a lot harder to read than Vol 1, it's definitely necessary.



Nice, I'm just about to start reading Vol 1 myself



Good luck anon, I think you will actually enjoy it a lot! Key to reading Capital is reading it critically, the work is much stronger when you realize Marx addresses all your questions and potential flaws you notice.



I also found it important to read the frenchisestitle anglos and germans afterwards (Reading Capital, Companion to Capital and Critique of Political Economy).




good supplementary reading

>David Harvey

why the fuck even post that shit in a Cockshott thread?





Not that other guy, but I was gonna buy "Companion to Capital". Seeing that link now makes me question if I should, anyone else read david harvey? Is he alright outside apparently somehow thinking marx didn't use / agree with the LTOV?



If you want a companion book to guide you, I’d highly recommend Karl Kautsky’s The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx (you can find it on marxists.org for free). Kautsky’s book was used as an introductory book on Marxist economics in the Soviet Union into the early 1930’s. It’s more important to get through Capital Volume 1 into the following three capitals then it is to spend a long time simply on 1.



I really question the need of reading guides for Capital. Vol 1 is very well written and pedagogical. If you have questions about what you're reading, you can usually google stuff or ask in a thread like this one.



>Goods are priced at stock clearing prices, so there are no shortages or goods except when we desire so.

can someone elaborate more on this point. What exactly are stock clearing prices?



If a good is not selling at its actual labor price, the planning agency will instruct the shops to decrease its selling price in order to sell more. Obviously if a good is selling to fast, they will be instructed to increase its price to limit consumption. Now every item will have a ratio of its selling cost to its actual labor cost. So say a chair has an actual labor cost of 1 labor credits. It is selling to fast so the price is increased to say 1.25 labor credits. It would have a 1.25:1 ratio which would instruct planners to increase production of this chair in the plan in real time. This creates a sort of feedback loop between thr shops and planners/producers to ensure production is a the correct levels for consumption. That is the basic gist of its function.




Penisboom is reading our threads on him. This is a fact. He can not reply to us. This is a fact.

We must act!



Can someone edit the title of the thread then that it doesn't literally say "dickblast"?



Nah, he has a sense of humor, you faggot.


File: 792c1c7727fd3e8⋯.png (208.53 KB, 968x598, 484:299, wut.png)


Who is this absolute snowflake:





Not him but I don't know cockshott personally and chan's "culture" can be a bit off-putting.



>if some older academic doesn't want to be called a nigger faggot he's a snowflake

Dude, have you ever thought about that older people might not get the irony or the jargon right away and thought the person saying this is a legitimate homophobe and racist? My god can you contain your ebin memes and chan lingo when dealing with normal people? How do you function IRL?






>have you ever thought about that older people might not get the irony or the jargon right away

I did, and I instantly discarded the point. "Old people" (lol) are just like young people: they were brought up, developed certain capacities, and will die. Your categorization (especially in the culturally heavily liberal 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧anglo🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 context) is ridiculous and portrays your own prejudices. If comrade Penisblast can read this thread without becoming butthurt about how he is referred to, not to mention his capacity of focusing on the shit that actually matter, he passed the imageboard filter.

I had this discussion like twenty times before, and each and every time my opposition's opinion boiled down to his/her moralism or prejudices.

Go fuck yourself, and please, for the love of God, drop that fucking flag. Lenin would kick you in the fucking butt.






Yeah have to agree with the cigar poster

It's pretty autistic to see older people as frail and naive/innocent. Like honestly, if he visited this place at times in the past, and STILL tried and wanted to post here, that's enough evidence that he doesn't care about this sort of shit.


File: 1a509a9ccdca476⋯.jpg (94.24 KB, 412x758, 206:379, 5825390.jpg)


This is how the moralist looks IRL.


File: 53f45e27b42fca2⋯.jpg (83.63 KB, 512x512, 1:1, FaceApp_1550860924128.jpg)



It's not moralism if it serves a practical purposes to make Cockshott post here. I don't particularly care otherwise. The reason I'm bringing this up is because he has expressed confusion about a meme comment under one of his videos before and thought it was racism. That's all.



File: fba9f7fec6e5754⋯.png (113.41 KB, 196x246, 98:123, fd554de5f594289b473652b7e5….png)

>haha i bet the bolsheviks called each other niggerfaggots all the time, lenin would've been an epic channer if he existed today just like I know cockshott secretly is XD

So did none of you see the thing where he took a comment containing the word "nips" to be "crass racism", or something?



Thank you for putting off your flag. Fuck you for trying to being edgy and portraying your own deficient, moralist, and ridiculous position as that of the bolsheviks.

May you die in a gulag.


File: accaeb2aa596346⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 195.96 KB, 537x613, 537:613, 345.png)


>the bolsheviks called each other niggerfaggots all the time



I never visit this thread, can someone explain what is happening? did the Cockshott guy come here to post or some shit?



That was one faggot who kept spamming his videos and the threads here with that shit. And his autism was much more retarded then the things they're mentioning here and now.


Actually we call him Dickcannon because it's well known he is incredibly well endowed. Nothing to do with his name.


It'd be cool if we could arrange a Q&A similar to how we did it with Doug Lain



Literally not me, but whatever makes you sleep at night you magnificent autist.



>Moralism is when you raise the point that a person may find some things about chan culture to be objectionable based on how they have reacted to even relatively "innocent" remarks in the past

Are you actually retarded? There's nothing "moral" about saying that Cockshott just might be put off by the average level of discourse around here seeing as he's been confused by memes in his video comments before.

>Fuck you for trying to being edgy

Projecting much?


Where's your argument, though?



Did he come?







Yeah he is reading this thread but said he couldn't post because Tor posting doesn't work so the damage is probably done already.


File: 00b2039f826be21⋯.png (21.52 KB, 488x463, 488:463, 00b2039f826be21f6c9b38c6d0….png)


>Some idiot



>supporting the USSR is the same as thinking that people who choose "niggerfaggot" as the hill to die on are good discussion partners

so do you guys talk to people that you don't know like this IRL, or



>not screaming insults at random people who don't speak your jargon is IdPol

I still wonder how you function IRL




wow way to flip out and act like a child


TOR is enabled rn:




Let's hope cockshott will forgive our mental capacity and actually post here.



Holy shit stop arguing over mundane things and start getting back to actual Cockshott discussion.



ok, i hope he helps Cuba develop some computer program or some shit



I'm sick and tired of his shitty fucking microphone. Why does he keep using it ffs



Lets croudfund him a decent mic so he can't refuse.




> In Russia, the opinion of Stalin is overwhelmingly favourable. A recent Levada poll shows that 57% have a favourable opinion of Stalin, 18% having a negative view (with the rest don’t know or no opinion)…

>Garry Maclachlan worries that the ruling class uses Stalin to discredit socialism. That is certainly true in Britain, but they can only do that as the end result of a propaganda campaign running over decades. In the West, it is enough to label a politician like Corbyn as being sympathetic to ‘stalinism’ to discredit him.

>But who has the more realistic view of Stalin, Russians or us?

>Are the Russians right to believe their own memories rather than our press?

>Turn it around. Who will have a more realistic view of Thatcher, people in Scotland who experienced her, or Americans who only got favorable press accounts of her?



lol he has that quote that says 1 in 5 millenials thinks Stalin and Kim Jon Un are heroes. I skimmed the article so I didn't know if he sourced it, but out of laziness I just google searched and found out it was a survey by the "Victims of Communism Foundation". How did they get those results? I so highly doubt that 20% of millenials would say Kim Jong Un is a hero unless they were fucking with the pollster.


New upload


>A look at the world system and some of the feedback loops between environment, capitalism, war and revolt.



good video



Damn, we're fucked.



Fuck, dad posted a 40min video.



It's discomforting to see the doom we've been talking about spelled out for us. Hope we can all study and train hard so we're able to clean up the big fucking mess.

As an aside, I can't help but chuckle at Paul responding to user "The Hunter x Hunter 2011 Dickriding Association". do you hang around in this thread, bud?



if you pay attention, the point of the video isn't "doom," it's that resource catastrophes force revolutions. what he's saying is that global warming is going to force us to adopt communism.



Oh I know. That's been my conclusion for a year now. But that reduction in crop yields. Youch! It's not going to be pleasant.



it's going to be really fucking awful, true. it'll be made worse because porky is going to go full 4th reich in a last ditch effort to protect his property. I'm thinking of moving to Canada or Siberia early just to escape the famines.



I am in Canada. I'd been thinking about preparing to move north and sustain my self with easily farmed vegetables.


File: b926af21b37f0ef⋯.png (288.92 KB, 889x592, 889:592, A88C48AD-8D70-4051-A105-37….png)


Noooooooo, why’d he have to confirm all my worst fears regarding peak resource theory.



The Canadian countryside? Do you want to drive an hour just to get groceries?



If world is a fuck and there's bombs dropping and the stores are empty I want to gtfo and grow my own food. On the other hand, I should participate as fully as I can to agitate for revolution.



That sigh he makes after "but now capital export into China has come to an end" sounded like "if you truly knew how bad things are".

Cockshott confirmed doomposter


File: b701250f99acb63⋯.jpg (44.02 KB, 337x418, 337:418, if only you knew.jpg)


>By looking at the rate of decline in frequency of elite family names in Oxbridge sociologists can show that the inter generational persistence of elite status in capitalist and feudal society are the same





A redditor's critique of Towards A New Socialism. Quoting from TANS:

>>Here we base ourselves on the classical Marxist analysis of society. In Marx’s view, the most basic distinguishing feature of different modes of social organisation is the manner in which they ensure the ‘extraction of a surplus product’ from the direct producers.

And the redditor replies to that:

>It is not the rate of exploitation that is different for each social organisation, for Marx.

Call me crazy, but I don't see any mention of a rate of exploitation in the bit from Cockshott. Different social formations have existed, which can be distinguished by how the surplus is extracted.

>>Soviet socialism, particularly following the introduction of the first five-year plan under Stalin in the late 1920s, introduced a new and non-capitalist mode of extraction of a surplus.

Le ebin critical redditor:

>This belongs to a utopian trash can

I wouldn't call something happening in the real world utopian. One might be disappointed by the living standards in the USSR or whatever, the point is that the extraction of surplus was different in that it was planned in advance and not the outcome of a chaotic back and forth between capitalists and workers. Call the USSR shit if you want, but it wasn't capitalist shit. Le ebin redditor then quotes from Critique of the Gotha Programme, which affirms that some of the surplus has to be set aside, and he somehow thinks this is a counter to what Cockshott said. He also says:

>I read maybe 10 pages of this book…

He got 14 + 7 + 6 reddit points for his comments (also called a meaty critique by some other turd on there).

>Hopefully my critique will help you with the book.



This whole "WHUUUR SURPLUS EXTRACTION = NOT REAL SOCIALISM" thing is absolutely fucking idiotic. How the fuck does one actually read Marx and think that a surplus product always implies surplus value? What the fuck is the "deduction for the common fund", to paraphrase Marx, if not a worker's surplus product? I think these "leftcom" types, in a lot of cases, are people who are still spooked by bullshit about existing socialism and are desperately looking for the "catch" they can use to call it "not real socialism" while still calling themselves Marxists.

I know this because I used to have a similar thought process after finally reading Marx and going from anarchism to "left communism" and I'm kind of ashamed of that



This hurts to read.

>[Cockshott] thinks that the problems of the USSR were to do with technological factors rather than class relations, hence all of the crap about cybernetics.

Left-coms literally btfo mathematics.



And capitalism doesn't collapse because it has better class relations than the USSR. Wow, very cool reddit user!



>Le ebin redditor then quotes from Critique of the Gotha Programme, which affirms that some of the surplus has to be set aside, and he somehow thinks this is a counter to what Cockshott said

These people may or may not sit in armchairs, but they apparently read fuck all. Capital Vol 2 is also very explicit about Marx's proposal for a socialized mode of production having labor tokens and surplus.



Indeed, surplus extraction is a necessity for civilized life. The young and old live off the extracted surplus. The key is who decides how the surplus is extracted, how much surplus, and where the surplus goes.



>Talk looking at why the gender pay gap exists and why it is tending to close with the development of capitalism, but that this goes hand in hand with increased exploitation of both sexes.



Requesting bullet point TL;DW. (Shit internet access atm.)




Not to mention the sick, those who go under (legal, psychological, etc.) rehabilitation, the handicapped, and so on.


So is Cockshott banned in China? If so, what's the source?



Cockshott is the source



He says it somewhere in this video I'm 99% sure, don't have an exact timestamp:




Beginning of a series of articles by Jan Philipp Dapprich about building a socialism simulator similar to what is in TANS:


>I suggest using a system of mathematically derived values instead of the labour values which Cockshott and Cottrell rely on (Dapprich 2018, ADH Manifesto). I call these values Mathematically Derived Valuations (MDVs) in reference to a similar (but different) concept proposed by Kantorovich (Objectively Determined Valuations, Kantorovich 1960, Kantorovich 1965). The MDVs I use represent the opportunity cost of a single unit of a product.

I hope he fleshes out that part later with some examples. I don't quite understand what he means, despite being already familiar with marginalist concepts and opportunity costs.



Sounds interesting. Would it work in the same way in regards to the credits being cancelled out, rather then being exchanged (like money)?



Yes, in Dapprich's model consumption points are destroyed upon usage like in TANS.


File: b701250f99acb63⋯.jpg (44.02 KB, 337x418, 337:418, b701250f99acb6356f35559289….jpg)





Also, wtf, is there someone vacuum cleaning in the background?



sounds like cpu fan



Excited to be frightened of the future.


File: 459ab5960dd3686⋯.jpg (5.87 KB, 300x168, 25:14, nuclear bomb.jpg)


>we need to stop using fossil fuels by 2037

All Day I Dream About Nuclear Power Plants


File: 107686f1346b931⋯.png (248.74 KB, 771x338, 771:338, trotsky train.PNG)



>our transport energy is overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels

All Day I Dream About Trains


File: 1f166d76e8689a9⋯.png (358.85 KB, 961x382, 961:382, ClipboardImage.png)





How small can a nuclear reactor get? Could it power a train?



Maybe, I'm not sure, but I think he suggests building high speed electric rail along with local electric rail. Unfortunately I think small scale nuclear reactors, while possible to make, are too expensive to base mass means of transportation on. Even shipping would be too costly with it, as expensive as building a ship already can be. I've actually been spending the last couple of years travelling internationally at least once a year because I anticipate it will actually be required, if we EVER really do something substantial about climate change, to end cheap air travel. I mean, I like travelling anyways, but I actually fear it would get prohibitively expensive if we start making large adjustements to avert ecological catastrophe so I figure now is the best time to do it.



I dunno about that. Superbarges are definitely worth considering making nuclear power just because of how much fucking CO2 they're putting out from burning bunker oil.

The other alternative is nuclear powered air travel using mega-sized supersonic aircraft. Embrace the nuclear Tu-144.



Honestly it is the weirdest parts of the UK that get flooded: Pembrokeshire, the Humber and Holderness coast, the Thames Estuary, the Fenns, Lancashire. The thing I worry about is that the losses from this could be absorbed, which may make people care about it less…


Biofuel bitches



Niks van waarde wordt verloren.



Biofuel is carbon neutral and requires dedication of farmland for crops to be instead used for fuel. If agricultural output will be severely reduced then all farmland will need to be used for food production, not for fuel.


I feel like no one's talking about how those climate change charts show that everyone is going to have to move to Canada, Siberia, New Zealand, and possibly Argentina if the most optimistic predictions come true. With every ethnicity and language living in such compact spaces, I'm fairly sure this means the death of the Nation State, that is, unless we have ghettos that are sovereign nations. The idea of the latter is really terrifying.



i'm mexican, should i go up to canada or down to argentina? both sound lovely



it's only the most optimistic climate predictions that show Argentina getting more fertile, Canada's getting more fertile even in the most pessimistic models, I trust you can do the calculus.


File: 1a0e9964a1e6453⋯.png (311.43 KB, 1244x524, 311:131, 1a0e9964a1e64537e4707b0cbe….png)





File: 16334f88aa13195⋯.jpg (35.99 KB, 412x612, 103:153, gettyimages-81420899-612x6….jpg)


Come to Finland, we could use some Mexicans. Our boxing is going to shit.





There was a compact nuclear fission reactor revealed about a year ago intended for a moon colony that was about the size of a refrigerator. Too big for a car, but perfect for a bus or a semi. You could very easily fit a reactor on a train. Nuclear cargo ships would also be a massive improvement. A nuclear plane might be pushing it though, I'm not sure you could overcome the weight.



Wouldn't every crash just result in a mini Chernobyl if we put a nuclear reactor in everything?



>Nuclear cargo ships

My dude, shipwrecks are already catastrophic enough. Do you really want to introduce nuclear reactors into the equation?



>end cheap air travel

There are multiple solutions to this problem that don't involve the total abolition of air travel, the most obvious of which is using nuclear or solar power to extract hydrogen from water and using that to fuel planes (yes, there are problems with using hydrogen, but they aren't intractable problems). It would however be somewhat more expensive and more dangerous than current hydrocarbon aircraft.

The other potential solution, especially for airfreight, is to use large scale airships, which use far less fuel than planes due to its lift coming from a passive source. It'd be slow as fuck compared to a jet though.




There's plenty of nuclear subs out there and they've been wrecked before without the world ending.




No, because that's not how reactors work, nor is it how they fail. Please look at the least into the basics of nuclear failures.


I've had a thought about using huge powered gliders for replacing a lot of airplanes, using the idea of modern engines but with substantially larger wing area to allow the craft to simply glide through the air for a significant portion of the journey. The biggest problem is that it becomes very vulnerable to wind, but it might be something that can be worked out.



>I've had a thought about using huge powered gliders for replacing a lot of airplanes

A novel idea, I've actually never heard that suggested before.

>The biggest problem is that it becomes very vulnerable to wind

Size might be a problem as well. Airships have the same issues in this regard, though in the case of airships this can mostly be solved through infrastructure (mooring masts and large clearings with appropriate docking mechanisms). For your gliders I imagine you'd need a damn large runway, unless of course the glider itself can alter its shape.


>>2851187 (me)

>I imagine you'd need a damn large runway

I should clarify that I'm assuming a larger wingspan, therefore the runway would need to be wider.

Sage for double post


File: 3d1378990ebe9b9⋯.jpg (56.23 KB, 620x349, 620:349, flying boat.jpg)


You could make flying boat style gliders.

At one point flying boats were thought to be the air travel of the future specifically because you didn't need to build a runway and could thus use any sufficiently sized body of water to land and take off from. This means that most places near a lake or the ocean coast could section off an area for takeoff and landing of these giant gliders.

If the wings were made to fold up in some way, you could greatly decrease the area needed. This might enable for large amounts of mid-density cargo to be transported long distances cheaply, or passengers relatively quickly (though considerably slower than modern airliners, faster than many other methods)



>You could make flying boat style gliders.

Yeah, this could work, though rough seas may be an issue in some places.

>If the wings were made to fold up in some way, you could greatly decrease the area needed.

Yeah this was what I was getting at, though I have no idea how this would work in practice. There are military planes that change wing shape/angle, but I don't know how practical it is on a much larger scale.


File: 7e7b17b3230210f⋯.jpg (292.51 KB, 2500x638, 1250:319, Tu-160.jpg)


It seems the soviets made a largish variable wing bomber. You'd need proportionally larger wings for a glider though. I'm uncertain if it would be best to use a hinged wing design like the Tu-160, or to use some kind of partially inflatable wing, say with rigid elements that fan out like a bat wing and expandable elements that inflate between them.


(sage for double post)



If there is enough surplus electricity from non-carbon producing powerplants it would make more sense to extract hydrogen to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuel rather than produce pure hydrogen fuel. The synthetic jet fuel would be carbon neutral and can be used in existing aircraft. The fuel would still be more expensive so air travel would have to decrease. However this solution removes the need for designing and building new aircraft.


Is there any overlap between Cockshott and McDonnell's Economics For the Many?


File: 7d333317f3e33e0⋯.jpg (353.83 KB, 800x533, 800:533, Cosco_Vancouver.jpg)


Train networks do need to be massively expanded and overhauled, and a great thing about them is that they can be hooked up to already existing electrical infrastructure on land. Hundreds of new nuclear reactors will have to be constructed though, plus renewable sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric wherever practical. But for overseas shipping, I'm 100% on board for nuclear container ships. There's no other alternative to petrol fuel with the needed torque and power output. Even when global capitalism screeches to a halt and trade stops, mass logistics on the scale of what we have now will still be necessary for new eco-stalinist megaprojects



>a good version of the B1

that's actually pretty awesome.

Also the hinges should obviously go in the middle of the wing and fold upwards.


File: dc788964e683cbb⋯.jpg (5.09 MB, 3594x2699, 3594:2699, nasa_hwb_full.jpg)


>Also the hinges should obviously go in the middle of the wing and fold upwards.

As long as weight (of the hinged section) doesn't become an issue, we are talking about really large wings after all.

There's also the option of blended wing aircraft, though like your glider idea they also have a fucking massive wing span (probably not as big though). Nasa designed a concept for one that uses a kind of hybrid electric distributed propulsion (jet turbines powering many electric fans). They seem to think they could potentially halve fuel usage.



File: d4af6aa5db33964⋯.jpg (266.09 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, 1280px-Museu_TAM_-_Jahu.JPG)

File: 27feec4968ad2e6⋯.jpg (52.63 KB, 700x482, 350:241, Tupolev_ANT-22.jpg)


I was actualy thinking maybe a twin-fuselage design.

We have two pictures here, the Savoia-Marchetti S.55, a twin-hull flying boat that was apparently very popular and successful in the interwar years, and the Tupolev ANT-22, the russian version of the S.55 that was considerably bigger and heavier but failed due to its exceptional weight dragging down performance in the prototype stage. The major advantage here is that because its a twin-hull design, it's capable of staying far more stable on rough water. I also envison the use of some kind of initial launch system to help it get off the water where its own relatively smaller engines are going to have difficulty getting it up to speed in the water, the space between the two fuselages allows for natural placement of some kind of centralized propulsion.

The only thing is that having a permanent launch system is that it kind of cancels out some of the advantage of the flying boat design's lack of a need of runway, but on the other hand a powered glider might have trouble no matter what getting off the ground.



Also I suppose when I'm talking about these things it's kind of important to note that I'm still imagining that they'd probably have decently sized turboprop or turbofan engines. But where an airplane primarily relies on its forward velocity and the geometry of the wings to create constant lift, I'm suggesting that the primary thing holding these powered gliders in the air to be their large, lightweight wings creating large amounts of air resistance to moving downward and very little going forward.



>It's kind of important to note that I'm still imagining that they'd probably have decently sized turboprop or turbofan engines.

Yeah I understood what you were getting at. You're talking about a lower speed airliner with a *much* higher glide ratio than current airliners, which have a glide ratio of about 15:1 or so. Your typical leisure glider has a glide ratio of about 70:1. I very much doubt you could get it this high for an airliner (simply because of structural constraints), so you're probably probably looking at something somewhere in between.



Is Paul Cockshott's theoretical analysis compatible with Marxist-Leninism? From what I've read of him, his mass-democracy ideas seem to be blatant violations of Lenin's principles of the vanguard party and central democracy.



Some of his voting scheme proposals basically seem utopian, there are some good ideas worth thinking about though.



What about biplanes or other older setups? I know I'm grasping a bit here but I'm just trying to think of ways to hang big heavy bulks from glide wings while also making it possible for them to be self-launching.



How so? If anything his ideas regarding how one should implement proletarian democracy are even more centralist than the delegational pyramids of the soviets. Besides, Cockshott has very clearly stated his support for leninist principles in regards to the party as the main organ of struggle for the communist movement, supporting both vanguardism and democratic centralism. I think the distinction he makes is that the worker's state and the workers party doesn't necessarily need to be organized along the same lines, as they are organs of different purposes.

And even if it's in contradiction with ML, it's clearly meant to address some of the issues that ML states failed to address, such as the danger of small cliques of revisionists or capitalist roaders in top level positions, be it a Deng or a Gorbatjov. Formalized proletarian democracy is needed to remove the need of periodic purges and "bombarding the headquarters" as the main way of dealing with this, and it is something that ML states have (in the grand scheme of things) failed in. The specifics of Cockshott's proposals can be debated but the issues they are attempting to address are still there.



A leninism reading list without a single book by Lenin?



He seems to say that direct democracy is the solution, but ML says that the vanguard party educated in communism needs to lead the people until the state withers away. How can the vanguard party operate in this role if cockshott's direct democracy is implemented. If you believe that these two ideas are compatible, please explain how.



What the fuck do you think Marxism-Leninism is if not democracy for the masses? Democratic Centralism applies to party organisation not to the building of a proletarian democracy on a state level. The Soviets had mass democracy, albeit flawed, that was the overall goal. May I remind you Lenin said socialism is Soviet power + electrification? May I remind you Stalin was organising mass referendums to decide over the 1936 constitution?



I think you have to look at it in a few ways. One is Cockshott's proposal to do lots of direct referendums. I can't think of a single way that this would actually be incompatible with existing socialism. It's also compatible with "mass line" work. The other part of Cockshott's democratic ideas that makes a lot of sense is his suggestion that planning can be fully democratized when it becomes cybernetic. It would become so easy to calculate plans that there's no reason not to put it up to votes. Overall, cybernetic planning combined with free software and blueprints would go a very long way to destroying the bureaucrat clique, and would simultaneously strengthen communism.

The part of Cockshott's proposals that I find iffy and in need of modification is the randomness in getting elected. I think this straight up can't work when you are in a process of de-Nazification or de-Yankification and there's a danger of fascists getting put in positions of power. I think we need a "Supreme court" or "Supreme leader" who are very well-versed in Marxism and can override unconstitutional decisions from the bureaucrats. However, adding an element of randomness to elections while maintaining barriers and qualifications against reactionaries would help keep out opportunists/careerists. Cockshott's proposal for doing this is not the only way. Cuba's elections have rules to prevent usage of "social capital," and the result is a very resilient and representative socialist democracy.



So basically we should stick with central democracy and vangaurdism until capitalist culture is fully destroyed, and then switch to direct democracy? I can't see how direct democracy would work when people are still in the process of unshackling their minds from capitalist thought; counterrevolutionary decisions may occur.



Which lead to power grabs by revisionists and capitalist roaders. Just repeating what the old guard did when the end result was capitalist restoration is foolish. We need to avoid dogmatism.

You don't need direct democracy over every little thing, but the people need a say over certain policy. Letting the people decide over one percent more or less of the economy going to consumer goods or whatever is just formalized mass line work. Or just look at Cuba, where popular assemblies is the reason why references to communism stayed in the constitution.



Not everything needs to be direct democratic. Of course shit like privatizations and the like would be off the table and there would be constitutional defences of socialism. Also the whole process of unshackling the mind from capitalism would be one of democratic training of the workers for their new role as the ruling class of society.



To my knowledge Mao didn't actually read Marx and Lenin, so shouldn't his theory not be considered when discussing Marxist Leninism?



I find that highly improbable. What do you even base that on. Besides, keeping in touch with the will and wishes of the people has been standard communist practice well beyond the Maoist movement, mass line is just a term to describe just that. Do you have anything to say about the actual point of the post?



But the mass line clearly didn't prevent China from falling to capitalism even though computers were beginning to become increasingly powerful around that time.



>Computers in China in 1980s



Holy fuck it's like you are deliberately being obtuse. No of course the mass line didn't prevent the clicks of revisionists and capitalist roaders seizing power. The lack of formalized proletarian democracy did. Besides, as previously stated: There's nothing uniquely chinese about the concept beyond the term. All communists have done it. Where do you think the bolshies got the idea for "Peace, Land, and Bread"?



Being a net importer requires you to either

1. be an imperial power exploiting other countries, or

2. be a poor country who can beg for development gibs (but also accept all the strings attached, making you weak and easy to control by foreign powers), or

3. take on debt or

4. hand out a bunch of your currency without amassing equivalent value foreign currency, essentially another form of debt

While it might be worth being a net importer in the short term if it gives you access to value you can use to grow, if you are just consuming all your imports and not using them for capital accumulation, you will eventually have to pay up or be at the mercy of your creditors.

Producing things others want is the more peaceful and just way to gain wealth relative to the rest of the world in the long run.

Look at the PRC. They become a global economic superpower via their exports, pretty much without firing a shot at any other country. They could let the yuan float at true market rates instead of artificially pegging it low, and at any moment buy up a good chunk of the rest of the world. Instead, they keep it low, keep exporting, and keep growing and gaining relative power.


File: 07c84aab50612b1⋯.jpg (392.73 KB, 1920x1176, 80:49, couldhavebeen.jpg)


IBM's blockchain project is called Hyperledger. This distributed ledger architecture is designed for business networks where companies partially trust each other and can verify each other with certificates/digital signatures. It is not designed for anonymous/pseudonymous participants (like many cryptocurrencies).

Since it does not have the requirement of supporting anon/pseudonymous actors, it does not have as intense computational/power resources for determining consensus as bitcoin does.

Consensus can be implemented in different ways such as through the use of lottery-based algorithms including Proof of Elapsed Time (PoET) and Proof of Work (PoW) or through the use of voting-based methods including Redundant Byzantine Fault Tolerance (RBFT) and Paxos.

Apache Kafka in Hyperledger Fabric, RBFT in Hyperledger Indy, and Sumeragi in Hyperledger Iroha use a voting-based approach to consensus that provides fault tolerance and finality within seconds. PoET in Hyperledger Sawtooth uses a lottery-based approach to consensus that provides scale at the cost of finality being delayed due to forks that must be resolved.

Distributed ledgers are massively overhyped. If entities can trust each other, consensus is easy. Establishing trust is the interesting problem, one that cryptographers and democratic theorists have been working on for a long time.

A ledger is used for recording transactions in a market.

The whole point of a communist planned economy is do do away with the market.

Inputs in an economic plan can be determined with software like (if we are sticking with IBM here) CPLEX for integer programming, linear programming, quadratic programming, and convex quadratically constrained programming.

See: https://console.bluemix.net/catalog/services/decision-optimization

If you want to play around with this.



Doesn't take direct democracy to sign peace with Germany, take land from Kulaks, and provide food to all through collectivization



>To my knowledge Mao didn't actually read Marx and Lenin,

Your "knowledge" is worth less than dogshit then, you chauvinist retard.



No, you need it to prevent palace coups and to oust revisionists. You need it to prevent Gorbatjovs and Yeltsins and Dengs.



Thanks, very interesting read.

They provide some further details here: https://designing-history.world/concept/postcapitalism



>Being a net importer requires you to either…

>hand out a bunch of your currency without amassing equivalent value foreign currency, essentially another form of debt

A region is a net importer of rubber ducks during some period if during said period more rubber ducks enter the region than leave it. During the same period, the same region can be a net importer of some things and net exporter of some others. Whether more rubber ducks going in than out is bad is not something the rubber ducks themselves can tell you, it depends on the overall technical-economical-cultural-political context. A sovereign state that issues its own currency can make that currency just come out of a printer. How much of that going to this or that is too inflationary is an important question, but issuing doesn't logically imply the state going into debt. The act you describe as creating "essentially another form of debt" doesn't do that by itself, only if the state pegs its currency's exchange rate, that is if the state makes the promise of exact and specific convertibility. The vouchers in the TANS proposal aren't pegged to a foreign currency.



>I suggest using a system of mathematically derived values instead of the labour values

Why? Crotchblam proves rather effectively in TaNS that planning based on labour hours is what can accelerate us towards a completely automatized economy. After that, sure, have your Objectively Determined Valuations.


File: ced5462886ea116⋯.jpg (62.84 KB, 640x347, 640:347, dutch-ns-sprinter-electric….jpg)


Why would you put a fucking nuclear reactor on a train? For a nuclear submarine it makes sense, but trains already run on electricity they pick up conveniently on their predetermined routes. Just build nuclear plants to generate the energy.



Deng literally didn't do anything wrong. Deng is just Gorbachev done right.



New website, work in progress (where's the https?): paulcockshott.co.uk – It's just links to the usual stuff, the point is if anything on YT or elsewhere gets deleted, you will still be able to find a copy.


File: c8931628b437e01⋯.jpg (36.86 KB, 299x300, 299:300, image.jpg)


Wow this is surprisingly well made. Godspeed Cockmann



Hoxhaist rants don't prove anything about what Mao read. You should shut the fuck up.



Godspeed, comrade Malereproductiveorgandetonation!



>One is Cockshott's proposal to do lots of direct referendums. I can't think of a single way that this would actually be incompatible with existing socialism. It's also compatible with "mass line" work.


>To my knowledge Mao didn't actually read Marx and Lenin



That is very critical of Mao, but not in the way that would support what some claim here in this thread. From there:

>Mao Zedong deserves his place in the hall of the fame of the greatest revisionists of all time, right alongside Bakunin, Bernstein, DeLeon, Kautsky, Togliatti, Trotsky, Browder, Tito, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Kim Jong-Il, Nagy, Dubček, Deng Xiaoping, Ceaușescu and Sam Webb.

Surely that blogger knows some of those did read quite a lot of Marx. Somebody being a terrible revisionist doesn't logically imply never having read Marx. I'm sure most people here can agree that Kautsky 1. did read a ton of Marx and 2. became a terrible revisionist. And here is what the link says about the mass line:

>The mass line makes analysis of what the people need, what is on their minds, and so forth, and then takes those needs and gives a Marxist approach in order to help the masses understand their class interests. The mass line theory is indeed Marxist, but the problem is that Maoists seem to attribute the theory in it’s entirety to Mao. All Marxists have supported the same ideas, and the very idea of going to the masses can be attributed as early on as Marx himself.

Sage for offtopic.


Only after watching Cockshott's latest video have I realized how well and truly fucked we all are. It's amazing (and not accidental, of course) that the environmental trajectory of society isn't common knowledge.

By the way, speaking of rapidly changing the economy for environmental reasons, does anyone have opinions on the specific brand of "ecosocialism" espoused by Mélenchon and his party in France? One very central part that raises an eyebrow from me is its call to roll back "productivist" industrialized farming in favor of peasant agriculture. He's gone so far as to chill that there are lots of young people who love to get into small organic farming (I'm not French, do I have no way to gague this claim). Is this a) viable and b) necessary or desirable in light of the environmental situation. Or is it just a populist policy? Why wouldn't it be better to just have state-owned industrial farming?



gone so far as to claim*



Peasant agriculture is less efficient and productive than industrialized farming so it would be impossible to maintain France's current population using only peasant agriculture.



We shouldn't go back to fucking peasant agriculture, but we need to stop using pesticides, and in many cases we can't use agricultural vehicles anymore. We need to use a modern understanding of crop rotations, soil regeneration, crop mixing, gene editing, etc. in order to produce the food we need while also restoring the soil. Cuba and the DPRK are both actually model countries in this respect, though not totally out of their own choice. Also, we need to severely reduce meat consumption.



>small organic farming

Small farming is inefficient. I don't see the appeal of making food in an "organic" or "natural" way. Imagine a politician shilling for "organic" and "natural" surgery, done in the open air. If there is strong wind and hail, then so be it. That's just how it is when you live the natural way… I wonder what people a hundred years from now will say about open-air farming.


>Also, we need to severely reduce meat consumption.

In Germany, you can get soy/seitan meat alternatives everywhere. Recently, some supermarkets (Tegut, Rewe) have started selling bug meat patties. When you think about it, making burgers from bug larvae is not more disgusting than how silk is made. What's really bizarre is how insanely expensive that stuff is in comparison with buying meat from cows, when it should be the cheapest stuff. The usual explanation for that is rich hipsters being the target group, but I believe the main factor is the small scale.


File: 35276530f5ab858⋯.png (142.01 KB, 572x611, 44:47, 1.png)


Some issues at the foreign language papers section.



>we need to severely reduce meat consumption

As if diabetes, obesity and heart disease wasn't already rampant in the West. If you look into it, the last half year saw a huge decrease in the numbers of Youtube vegan influencers exactly because of the absolutely devastating health effects of high fiber, carbs and fructose vegan diet.

Socialist governments should first and foremost look at the health effects of food groups and adjust agriculture to it. What's the point of reducing animal protein and fat intake in favor of carbs and such if it leads to the overloading of the national health system?

Also, simply put, animal meat is much more nutritious than any other vegetable or fruit nutrition sources, hence they eat less of it. Just look up the daily food intake of vegans on Youtube. They try to balance out their lack of qualitative nutrition with quantitative intake. This retard Freelee, for instance, eats 2 kilograms of banana a fucking day.

I'm not trying to deny that there are obvious effects to the environment due to cow farts and such, but I'm saying that these are vastly over exaggerated by vegan lobbies. Cows are part of the ecosystem and its natural cycles while factories and cars are not. There are already experiments ongoing on how to reduce methane production of cows with bio-engineering and with the introduction of alternative gut bacteria to their bodies. There's also the alternative of using non-native animals for nutrition that don't produce methane, like emus.

Fun fact: if you eat a plant-based diet, you yourself fart out much more methane than if you'd base your nutrition mainly on meat.



Same with German :/

>Der Kapitalismus verfügt über theoretische Grundlagen, die ihn bis heute zusammenhalten. Die Arbeiterklasse kann daher nur revolutionär sein, wenn sie eine politische Ökonomie der zukünftigen Gesellschaft entwickelt

>Unerwartete Quelle Die Physik bestätigt den Marxismus

>Ökonomisches Übergangsprogramm zum Sozialismus des 21. Jahrhunderts in der Europäischen Union Dieser programmatische Artikel versucht die wirtschaftlichen Schritte zu skizzieren, die notwendig wären, um eine kapitalistische Wirtschaft wie die der EU in eine sozialistische zu uberfuhren. Wir untersuchen das Problem anhand sehr anschaulicher Begrifflichkeiten und schlagen gezielte politische Maßnahmen vor. Diese Maßnahmen unterscheiden sich deutlich von der Tradition der Europäischen Sozialdemokratie des 20. Jahrhunderts.

The word "überführen" above looked right on the page, but it seems to use something else than the actual German ü.


As far as I know, people on a low-meat diet live longer than vegetarians who live longer than vegans who live longer than average meat eaters. I don't believe diabetes is particularly common among vegetarians and vegans (most of them aren't youtube weirdos).


File: 3406fa8f1542254⋯.png (131.03 KB, 511x443, 511:443, fuck.PNG)



"invaded" You mean the usual Military Exercise or war game on some island they were allowed to train on? Or were they unauthorized?



It was a Japanese island they had the right to be on, the point was that it is a military drill designed to show they could invade one of China's artificial islands in the area.



>devastating health effects of high fiber, carbs and fructose vegan diet


None of this has anything to do with veganism, it's just eating shit. You can be a meat eater and eat McDonalds all day, do you think that's healthy?

The fact of the matter is a healthy vegan diet is easy. You are an idiot if you follow any of these attention seeking whores on YouTube.


just to verify with people here, the "engine" of capitalism isn't within capitalism itself right? in other words, the force behind M>M2 is not tied to Money. the reason productive forces are supposed to explode in communism is because money holds back progress. the classic example being mcdonalds threatening to replace workers with machines if the minimum wage is increased. replacing workers with machines is a good thing though, its an increase in the total amount of production.

whats really the "engine" behind all modes of production is a reduction in the Socially Necessary Labor Time isn't it? Capitalism can handle this reduction better than feudalism, but communism is superior because it deals with labor time directly. In a sense, money to money prime can be said to be replaced with production to production prime. As labor is mobilized towards the goal of reducing labor time through developing productive forces. this necessitates reproduction of labor so we still get luxury goods or whatever but the goal was never these luxuries directly.

I bring this up because zizek criticizes communism under the idea that subjectivity needs M>M to be fully free, it needs to be alienated from itself to be fully itself. But my response is that production begetting more production fills that role just fine.


A second separate question: is it possible to see the beginnings of communism within the capitalistic world, analogous to how capitalism started emerging within feudalism? I know that ultimately you need a monopoly of force to enforce people to their labor obligations, but presuming people wouldn't cheat enough to fuck it up, couldn't someone develop cockshotts plan to a central server people could opt-into and have some kind of dual-economy?


File: ff9c005a21d67d1⋯.png (193.35 KB, 1080x814, 540:407, cockshott assad quote.png)

File: cbb45d9d938840f⋯.png (603.41 KB, 1080x1010, 108:101, lenin anti imperialism.png)


Has he changed his position on anti-imperialism? Years back he wrote an article opposing anti-imperialism. But in recent years he has a lot of posts supporting the anti-imperialist position on Syria and also shared an article criticizing anti-anti-imperialists.



I don't think he's changed his position, so much as he has a different definition of imperialism to most MLs.




He has never changed position. His position was basically just that there is no anti-imperialism apart from anti-capitalism, and that the era of national liberation is over and done with. None of that is a capitulation from opposing military or economic intervention by the imperial core.



Stop. Simply stop.


Instead of direct democracy, I think something like a liquor democracy would work better.

Liquid democracy is a modern approach to voting in which voters can either vote directly or delegate their vote to othervoters. In contrast to the classic proxy voting paradigm(Miller 1969), the key innovation underlying liquid democracy is that proxies — who were selected by voters to voteon their behalf — may delegate their own vote to a proxy,and, in doing so, further delegate all the votes entrusted tothem. Put another way (to justify the liquid metaphor), votesmay freely flow through the directed delegation graph until they reach a sink, that is, a vertex with outdegree 0. When theelection takes place, each voter who did not delegate his voteis weighted by the total number of votes delegated to him,including his own. In recent years, this approach has beenimplemented and used on a large scale, notably by eclecticpolitical parties such as the German Pirate Party (Piraten-partei) and Sweden’s Demoex (short for Democracy Experiment).



Can I get a better explanation of the "consumer goods market" that he proposes? Would there be a limit to how many goods can a given individual buy? How would you control an individual holding lots of goods with the objective of rising up prices?



I've heard a lot about liquid democracy in theory but have yet to see any concrete proposals, do you have any?



The text I posted has two examples: In recent years, this approach has been implemented and used on a large scale, notably by eclecticpolitical parties such as the German Pirate Party (Piraten-partei) and Sweden’s Demoex (short for Democracy Experiment).


File: 3c9bd2ce80f059f⋯.png (293.68 KB, 769x511, 769:511, 2024e28459ecc23d70e60976f1….png)

When is the real left going to stand up for women's rights against the trans lobby?



I gotta be honest. I've only just the last few days have gotten into the gender crit stuff, and I actually find them pretty convincing. They're autistically materialist in a sense which I find rather refreshing.



Trans ideology is absolute nonsense. "Feeling" like a woman makes you a woman? They can't define womanhood without resorting to sexist stereotypes or tautologies.

Of course gender critical materialism is compelling. It is compelling because it is obvious.



transsexuality isnt real because jender isnt real



Leftoids won't even condemn the Jewish patriarchy, the only system that meaningfully defends the rights of white women is White Nationalism



>Trans ideology is absolute nonsense. "Feeling" like a woman makes you a woman?

We've been over this already idiot. You can't discount the existence of trans people just because liberal trans activists are idealists. There is no material evidence that trans people's brains aren't actually of the opposite sex to their reproductive system, and there is a lot of evidence in favor.


File: 0e982cf744e17fc⋯.png (86.4 KB, 540x406, 270:203, 1525810016906.png)


>"Feeling" like a woman makes you a woman?

is this a critique of gender crit itself or some invented strawman of "trans ideology?" have you read any such theory of "trans ideology?" even just one article, anything at all?

both sides (because both sides have idealists) use essentialist arguments and also engage in biological determinism and essentialism which is not materialist at all… gender crit really didn't exist in feminism until janice raymond, and if you haven't read the bulk of feminist lit you are being totally misled about past and current critiques of transgender existence by feminists. feminism- let alone sociology itself- is for the most part influenced entirely by dialectical materialism so i dunno what you people mean when you call them materialists yet that's what feminism is in general? and deeper into that issue is, they're not particularly materialist when it comes to articulating how transgender people aren't fulfillment of abolishing gender roles. how exactly does an obviously fake woman "colonize the female body?" how is being a woman having a womb and mythology about periods not ideological, idealist, irrational? agreement with these ideas isn't due to argument, it's absolutely sentiment.

>It is compelling because it is obvious.

okay, but again, have you actually read any primary sources on these topics? if you read even just janice raymond, you'd not say this is "obvious," since her arguments are the root and basis of many idpol mythologies that actively combat class consciousness even now. considering how much shit trots get on this board for being neocons, it's ironic to see someone supporting trans fixated feminists who work directly with- seemingly their opposition- neocons. any cursory look into these topics can tell you enough that individual actors in both sides -if they can be called "actors," since the actual advocates and theorists are few and far between- are far more interested in personal grudges than advancing any feminist revolution. to sum up the most poignant disgust i have for this mindless consumption of anything supposedly critical of idpol: terfs and gender critical aligned feminists have worked with right wingers to the expressly anti-revolutionary purpose of spiting transgender people through public policy. it is idpol, and no matter what, it's not going to fit into your canned NPC script of smarty-pants party trick rhetoric.

saged for bordering on off-topic and also check my sweet terf shitpost pic


File: 8019c96abf302ea⋯.jpg (37.2 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 8019c96abf302eabd738863d46….jpg)


lol trannies are gay



i need to follow up my previous post by replying to your biological/neurological argument… who fucking cares? honestly? do you need biological essentialism to allow them to live their lives? does it affect the end goal of marxist-leninist thought?

the answer is: no, it doesn't fucking matter, that's more gay idpol bullshit.

even some of the most hardcore anti-transgender theorists and those who glossed over it in the past no longer care and likely, that's because sectarian bullshit competes with genuine revolutionary efforts, sabotages their inroads. strange bedfellows are bedfellows nonetheless; though terfs would find that a crass double entendre- Rated PG Parental Guidance- since they often think trannies want to make lesbian transgender sex mandatory. when certain 'people' want to ban abortion it is better not to be working with counter-revolutionaries who are working with those same 'people' in other venues to try and close medical treatment off from trannies who are nominally just other 'women.'

it's a great way to collapse a movement— exactly the crit one has for idpol usually. any terf or tranny who wants to get in the way of women's liberation and the improvement of their daily lives in practical issues is just a shitty 'woman' all the same. abolish gender, etc



A great way to collapse the movement is catering to the delusions of fetishists over women and looking like idiots to the majority of people



Just use greentext to quote so it's actually fucking readable.



>i need to follow up my previous post by replying to your biological/neurological argument… who fucking cares? honestly?

Marxists should care if they care about transgenderism at all. If they can't uphold basic materialism on the topic, they should just shut up about it. Trans people should care since everyone is going to view them as delusional idiots if they persist with "cuz I say so" or "nothing's real, sexes aren't real lmao."

>do you need biological essentialism to allow them to live their lives?

You can't just slap the "essentialism" label on something and dismiss it. Biology is the science of organisms! The mind doesn't come from magic! It's a phenomenon of the brain, which is a part of human biology! Either trans people are suffering from delusions (akin to schizophrenia), or they literally have opposite-sexed brains. It's one or the other. I'm arguing the latter.



Unironically this


File: b58d087817c46b4⋯.png (558.12 KB, 1024x663, 1024:663, 1528901602235.png)


>A great way to collapse the movement is catering to the delusions of fetishists over women and looking like idiots to the majority of people

the women arguing against transgender people as valid human beings are willing to sacrifice abortion rights if it means spiting them. so no, supporting transgender people does not run contrary to feminist, materialist concerns. transgender people exist, unless you'd like to make them un-exist by murdering them all. in which case, you're not a marxist.


> If they can't uphold basic materialism on the topic, they should just shut up about it.

go read some radical feminist theory before you comment about "upholding basic materialism." the idealism of especially those in the gender crit camp is plain.

>delusional idiots if they persist with "cuz I say so" or "nothing's real, sexes aren't real lmao."

terfs say they are women because they say so all the same; yet, they also argue for the abolishment of gender roles, which also means abolishing certain inconvenient realities about sex characteristics. these are all mutually exclusive and do not mesh together in sum, which is exactly why mainstream radfems have discarded biological essentialism, accepted sexual differences, and reconciled the former two with the goal of abolishing gender roles.

>Biology is the science of organisms! The mind doesn't come from magic!

one of the main contentions throughout feminist literature is that gender is socially constructed. feminists invented that critique.

>Either trans people are suffering from delusions (akin to schizophrenia), or they literally have opposite-sexed brains

gender itself is the delusion. it is entirely ideological; women do not as such exist and only exist as a historical class not as a discrete "gender." i can tell you think sex and gender are equal, and that's how i know you don't read any feminist lit, even the gender critical theory. even they contend that gender ought to be abolished and that trans people be compassionately allowed to exist as gender-nonconforming members of society. whatever that dumb fucking shit means, trannies are already gender nonconforming because none of them are passing themselves off as natal versions of their desired sex.



>go read radfems

It's very low on my reading list because it's going to be a search for gold in a sea of shit. I did recently read Engel's Origin of the Family though. I plan to read other Marxist feminists like Silvia Federici and Chris Knight much sooner than radfems.

>terfs say they are women because they say so all the same; yet, they also argue for the abolishment of gender roles, which also means abolishing certain inconvenient realities about sex characteristics. these are all mutually exclusive and do not mesh together in sum, which is exactly why mainstream radfems have discarded biological essentialism, accepted sexual differences, and reconciled the former two with the goal of abolishing gender roles.

This reads like word salad. You can't make a good case for your theory like this. Why should I give a fuck about TERF theory, when it is also clearly idealist nonsense? What am I supposed to get out of your description of "mainstream radfem" theory? You are claiming they've made some great breakthrough with no evidence.

>>Biology is the science of organisms! The mind doesn't come from magic!

>one of the main contentions throughout feminist literature is that gender is socially constructed. feminists invented that critique.

Feminists didn't invent shit. It is standard Marxist theory that social roles of the sexes are socially determined and not "human nature." However, it is ALSO standard Marxist theory that the superstructure is shaped by a material basis. The material basis for sex roles is the mode of production AND human biology. Saying "gender isn't real" is like saying "the church isn't real" or "the law isn't real."

>gender itself is the delusion. it is entirely ideological. women do not as such exist and only exist as a historical class not as a discrete "gender."

Women are NOT a class. Engels:

"And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male."

>i can tell you think sex and gender are equal,

You thought wrong. Get your brain out the radlib gutter and read some damn Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

>even they contend that gender ought to be abolished

More brainrot. "Gender" as in social roles of the sexes will always exist. Period, the end. However, it will change corresponding to the mode of production. Communist "gender" will be very different from bourgeois gender, and it will not be a tool of oppression for women, but of liberation.



>that's more gay idpol bullshit

i've been thinking about this a lot the last few days. Can you really call it idpol when the fact is that women have been historically subjected not because of any identity, just because of the fact that they are the people who get pregnant. That's entirely material.

>often think trannies want to make lesbian transgender sex mandatory.

I have definitely seen a lot of people trying to shame lesbians into sucking "girldick", even mainstream stuff. With reasoning bordering on gay conversion therapy tier reasoning. Like this shit for instance


>when certain 'people' want to ban abortion

But that's like the main point of the gender crits though. Women's liberation should be focused on issues specific to women, like abortion and shit, and not on the issues of people with dicks.

>close medical treatment off from trannies

Bottom surgeries should be illegalized. They lead to massive amounts of complications, often result in loss of sexual pleasure, and after bottom surgery there's still a huge amount of suicides after the surgeries. It's not a cure for dysphoria. I don't know about the hormone business.



Meant subjugated, not subjected.



>when it is also clearly idealist nonsense

Can you explain how it's idealist. They want to reduce the term woman and man to mean adult human female and male respectively and get rid of all the spooky shit around it. Sounds bretty materialist to me.

>The material basis for sex roles is the mode of production AND human biology.

That sounds just like something one of the gender crit people would say.

>Women are NOT a class.

I also take issue with gender crits call women a class.

> "Gender" as in social roles of the sexes will always exist.

I think so too. But I do believe that the main point of the gender crits is that they want people to be able to not conform to those roles without social stigma. I can appreciate that even though I am a pretty normative masculine man and comfortable with it.



>How would you control an individual holding lots of goods with the objective of rising up prices?

Nobody would have ten times the median income, so how much could an individual hoard? With the electronic consumption budgets in TANS, you can't even send payment from person to person. So, some person could maybe hoard some stuff and clumsily barter with that.

If some people are recognized as service providers of a type not paid out of taxation, but by individual customers, this can be a loophole: The service provider can sell hoarded goods and get paid for that, while officially recorded as performing some service corresponding to each transaction of consumption budget points. This gets especially tricky to prove when the service provider does perform some service for the customers, it just gets exaggerated. Or imagine some guy creating and selling the shittiest paintings you have ever seen as an official job…

But I don't see that becoming a big issue. In the TANS proposal, things are not offered at subsidized low prices outstripped by demand. So, even with cash there wouldn't be much incentive for black-market activity. The electronic payment system adds another hurdle.

A third hurdle could be created for items where it's really hard to estimate what demand is going to be and hard to impossible to react to demand by changing supply, like with tickets for an event: Such an item can get a very high initial price that quickly falls over time, and people who obtained it at very high early price get points back making their payment equal in the end to that of the latest buyers.



>Can you explain how it's idealist. They want to reduce the term woman and man to mean adult human female and male respectively and get rid of all the spooky shit around it. Sounds bretty materialist to me.

Because they outright deny that the human mind is a material phenomenon, and that human brains have sexes just like the rest of the human body. There is a load of other idealism in TERFism but I'd have to take it case-by-case.

>That sounds just like something one of the gender crit people would say.

Ok?? Your point?

>I think so too. But I do believe that the main point of the gender crits is that they want people to be able to not conform to those roles without social stigma.

Of course that is fine, but people shouting "abolish gender" are bordering on fascist delusion. It goes completely against Marxism.



>gender itself is the delusion



>But the real problem is a much deeper one. Contemporary neuroscience is unable to give the answers we really need. We know a lot about the structure, arrangement, connections and variations in individual nerve cells (neurons). We also know something about which part of the brain does what (though recent progress has been less). But the brain is not a pile of individual neurons. They form assemblies, and it’s these assemblies that produce the functions we all know about: thoughts, emotions, perceptions, memories, self-esteem and so on.

>Now here’s the problem: We just don’t know how neuronal assemblies do these things. There isn’t even a generally accepted theory. Until we have one, we can’t even speculate how the brain might encode gender identity, along with all its other functions. So even if we find a plausible site in the brain that might be responsible for gender identity, we wouldn’t know how it did it. Therefore, we wouldn’t know why it was that a person’s idea of him/herself or their social role etc. was at variance with their body. To describe something is not to explain it, though it may be the first step.

>Those who take up vociferous positions on the social position of transgender people, or the best way to help them, should recognize the limits of their knowledge, and maybe adopt a more humble and tolerant point of view. There are many uncertainties, much ignorance, and plenty of topics rich for genuine disagreements. No one has the complete answer, certainly not neuroscientists, though it continues to be a topic of intense interest.



why does this discussion always bring the retards out? a brain's sex is not the same as how it "encodes gender identity."



>More brainrot. "Gender" as in social roles of the sexes will always exist. Period, the end.

I’m just swinging through this thread, but what do you mean here? Like in the dominant sense of what is most pervasive? It seems in reality that sort of conventional gender has already been abolished for many western cultures. It was associated with biological sex before, but now you have a highly visible margin that could be butch lesbians, femme twinks, trans people, drag queens, etc.



>It seems in reality that sort of conventional gender has already been abolished for many western cultures

What you're referring to as "conventional gender" is a hangover from mid-upper Barbarism and lower Civilization. "Gender" certainly existed in tribal and gens societies that had mother-right or equality between the sexes, but bears little resemblance to later sex roles. Sex roles still plainly exist, and the evidence is overwhelming that they existed and do exist in socialism as well.

>you have a highly visible margin that could be butch lesbians, femme twinks, trans people, drag queens, etc.

This says very little about the supposed disappearance of sex roles, especially since most of these examples are actually sex roles.


can we stop talking about the subject that got Cockshott banned from that conference in the Cockshott thread


File: b57f90819497324⋯.jpg (200.77 KB, 1280x1440, 8:9, 1550528334588.jpg)


>Women are NOT a class.

i agree with you, but engels is only right in his overarching theory of this. women were once emancipated and existed in an egalitarian society with men. i said "historical class" because it only exists as something gender crits read into history. it is an ideological projection that is a part of their claims and identity: women are always oppressed, everywhere, because of some biological, essentialist truth that makes men patriarchal and women victims. it is a total distortion that doesnt advance dialectical materialism; that is exactly why i see it as no different than some tranny woo about biology being the basis for transgenderism, both are deterministic readings of sociology. if it is inevitable and linear, then it isn't dialectical analysis. radfems outside of gender crit are far less interested in trying to cherry pick science to fit their purposes, not to mention their theories of gender can live beyond having "hard" sciences validate their theories.

>"Gender" as in social roles of the sexes will always exist.

engels was wrong about sex roles. in prehistoric societies that he wanted to model his ideas on, there wasn't some biological division of labor. women hunted. there was gender nonconformity. your view of gender itself is ideology placed in the european traditions that run right along side this capitalism you want destroyed. your view that it is immutable is ideology. if you have proof of your arguments, you wouldn't just invoke engels and the limited information he had in his day as fact. i take it you have no other information or even current anthropology to support your claims.


>Can you really call it idpol when the fact is that women have been historically subjected not because of any identity, just because of the fact that they are the people who get pregnant.

at least the other dude had the backing in engels to at least budge on his orthodoxy about gender. are women just wombs? so what happens if you can take away that unique characteristic of women (you can)? do they stop being women if they are infertile? are they not women then in this mindset, even when they look like men and take up entirely male roles? worse, are they men simply for taking on male roles? women at one point were egalitarian memebers of the power structure and enforced class society on their own gender. does that mean women forced oppression on themselves because of some disdain for their own pregnant bodies? that defies explanation. it is class society which makes gender structures, not sex that makes gender which then makes society. that is exactly the kind of thinking that demands hierarchies as a natural structure, not calling artifice what it is.

>low hanging riley j dennis fruit

so? one youtuber and some twitter wannabe celebrities? who cares? is this the rigor you bring to the table…? then you should really look at what you've gathered up as a critique and think hard about whether this isn't just looking for excuses to reinforce your bias.

>Women's liberation should be focused on issues specific to women, like abortion and shit, and not on the issues of people with dicks.

trans issues align with women's issues. that's exactly why working with antagonists just to spite part of feminist movement is backwards and regressive. either trannies dont affect abortion, or they are active supporters of it. mostly the latter; so alienating them is conscious sectarianism. you probably don't have a strong attachment to abortion except in a secondary leftist sense, where vaguely it is part of revolutionary struggle. all of these struggles matter.

>Bottom surgeries should be illegalized. They lead to massive amounts of complications, often result in loss of sexual pleasure, and after bottom surgery there's still a huge amount of suicides after the surgeries. It's not a cure for dysphoria. I don't know about the hormone business.

again, nice hot take buddy. you don't know much at all, but it's great that you think you do. i don't need to get into debunking the specious backing information you've used to get to these conclusions, since i'm well aware of gender crit's arguments and propaganda. you are being totally irrational and arguing from your feelings; you haven't even done the sursory research to critique these ideas, accepting them at face value because you like how they mesh with your feelings. i get that propaganda about trannies is hard to avoid despite them being a very small part of the population, but getting all your information from online sources and gender criticals is like joining the fbi to learn about communism. you're a stooge.



>They want to reduce the term woman and man to mean adult human female and male respectively

all they are doing is conflating gender and sex and then engaging in sophistry to try and simplify them to mark women as perpetual victims and men as inevitable rapists. terfs would lose all of their value and power as aligned to right wing benefactors (and thus as tools of patriarchy and capitalism) if they "got rid of the spooky shit" built into gender. their expressed goal is incompatible with their actual goals. transgender people are living embodiments of gender nonconformity; that only makes them even more disgusting to terfs.

>But I do believe that the main point of the gender crits is that they want people to be able to not conform to those roles without social stigma.

terfs and gender crit want to be the arbitrators of what is and isn't gender conformity to their own ad hoc purposes, not for the sake of liberation.


please see:


gloria steinem:

'So now I want to be unequivocal in my words: I believe that transgender people, including those who have transitioned, are living out real, authentic lives. Those lives should be celebrated, not questioned. Their health care decisions should be theirs and theirs alone to make. And what I wrote decades ago does not reflect what we know today as we move away from only the binary boxes of “masculine” or “feminine” and begin to live along the full human continuum of identity and expression.

Obviously, there is much similarity among the challenges of transgender people and all women — from health care to harassment to discrimination in the workplace. And there is always the basic patriarchal bias against any sexual expression that can’t end in conception, which is why kids on campus are sometimes mystified by the fact that the same groups oppose both, say, contraception and lesbians. I also think we have a lot to learn from original cultures that often didn’t even have “he” and “she” in their languages, taught girls how to control their own fertility, and routinely accepted and had special roles for the “twin-spirited.” These facts may remind us that patriarchy, racism, and nationalism have been dominant for less than 5% of human history. Maybe they are an experiment that failed.'


yeah though bruh nice ad hoc arguments, got any sources of engels and marx talking about the femme twink "sex role?"



>women were once emancipated and existed in an egalitarian society with men.

When was this?



Hunter-gatherer societies



Genuinely curious, is there any evidence for this?



Wouldn't those societies be the ones where women would have less equality? i always assumed the lack of resources made them literally obliged to be mothers and take care of their children. I mean it's hard to tell what kind of equality people at that stage of society can enjoy in the first place.


File: 8ceef9337f27b76⋯.png (93.2 KB, 533x506, 533:506, Screenshot from 2019-04-04….png)


AFAIK, yes, broadly current nomadic hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian. Sedentary hunter-gatherers tend to be patriarchal, however. Wikipedia has some citations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure, and Cockshott has a bit about the fact in the pic.



What use is this information for us though? We're not going to return to a nomadic lifestyle.


File: 1884422fb000fbe⋯.png (364.54 KB, 712x529, 712:529, Screenshot from 2019-04-04….png)


I imagine that there's really no relative lack of resources for hunter-gatherers compared to other modes of production since their population density is so much lower. The gathering aspect of hunting-gathering essentially allows women to acquire resources independently from men, too, compared to later agricultural societies. While they do certainly have to devote quite a bit of resources to raising their children, from a young age their children can gather food too, and even with a child the mother still potentially has an arm free for food.



Surely, but these are practically the only examples of truly egalitarian societies, which you requested. I'm not >>2856161, to be clear.



if this seems to be derailing, then i guess any discussion of someone's beliefs and criticism of it must be cordoned off to its own thread. i am not opposed to that at all since this is only going to get more and more into general idpol bullshit soon enough.

dont forget though: this started because cockshott got deplatformed for the same ideological stances a bunch of former /pol/ folks are eager to accept uncritically.


have a marxist feminist article about it:



what? why would you think that?

they often labored while they were pregnant because having everyone be laborers was vital to survival. they were most assuredly egalitarian. engels guessed this right, just not to the extent known now by anthropologists.


so we should be chauvinists because it makes factory work easier? idgi, is that what you're saying?

"what use is knowing how class society formed and what alternative societies were like?" it's very useful when the social structure emulates aspects of the goal… establishing communism.



Communism will make most societies heavily mechanized, and the people sedentary by the nature of the efficient mode of production that can engender communism. People won't be labouring just to survive under communism, that's the whole point.



>gloria steinem

Cointelpro person who literally admitted being on alphabet soup's payroll on TV.



It is a bit hard to hunt if you are nursing an infant though, no?



And I what I mean by this post is not that women's subjugation to men is now eternal, it's that it may lessen because resource acquisition wont be as tied to survival or status under ACTUAL communism as it was in antecedent systems.



is that all youve got? just engaging in lazy dismissals and hand waving… that's it? the main advocate of decimating trans healthcare in the 80's was janice raymond; she penned papers to that very end for the government's health care policy think tanks ultimately at the behest of the reagan admin's agenda of gutting social services. this wasn't one event for her, she made a career of collaboration, like her anti-sex work efforts that advocate alongside religious groups in encouraging abuse and illegality to intimidate women out of sex work. prostitution is a condition forced by patriarchal capitalism; making it illegal and more dangerous only hurts women.

if you don't care about steinem's work as a whole, you can easily look to one thing and dismiss her entire work, how critical and rational of you. she also jumped on board with hillary in the last election, despite being a lame demsoc… so what? she has done a lot for womens lib and labor regardless of either objection.

terfs have all made habits of collaborating with capitalist structures to produce bad outcomes for their ideological opponents. yeah, feminists have been co-opted before, okay so? demonstrate the flaws, point to how this affects steinems theories, her advocacy work. if the water is poisoned by this cointelpro claim of yours, demonstrate it.

judith butler isn't cointelpro and she has the same sort of sentiments about transgender people:

'I have never agreed with Sheila Jeffreys or Janice Raymond, and for many years have been on quite the contrasting side of feminist debates. She appoints herself to the position of judge, and she offers a kind of feminist policing of trans lives and trans choices. I oppose this kind of prescriptivism, which seems me to aspire to a kind of feminist tyranny.

If she makes use of social construction as a theory to support her view, she very badly misunderstands its terms. In her view, a trans person is “constructed” by a medical discourse and therefore is the victim of a social construct. But this idea of social constructs does not acknowledge that all of us, as bodies, are in the active position of figuring out how to live with and against the constructions – or norms – that help to form us. We form ourselves within the vocabularies that we did not choose, and sometimes we have to reject those vocabularies, or actively develop new ones. For instance, gender assignment is a “construction” and yet many genderqueer and trans people refuse those assignments in part or in full. That refusal opens the way for a more radical form of self-determination, one that happens in solidarity with others who are undergoing a similar struggle.

One problem with that view of social construction is that it suggests that what trans people feel about what their gender is, and should be, is itself “constructed” and, therefore, not real. And then the feminist police comes along to expose the construction and dispute a trans person’s sense of their lived reality. I oppose this use of social construction absolutely, and consider it to be a false, misleading, and oppressive use of the theory.'


File: fc8fd998411eed1⋯.jpg (69.41 KB, 1138x400, 569:200, trans facts.jpg)


>Just another lazy dismissal of yours. So what if Goebbels worked for the German government in some capacity? You have to put food on the table.



>exactly why i see it as no different than some tranny woo about biology being the basis for transgenderism, both are deterministic readings of sociology. if it is inevitable and linear, then it isn't dialectical analysis

Here you go again calling everything essentialist as if that's an actual argument.

>engels was wrong about sex roles. in prehistoric societies that he wanted to model his ideas on, there wasn't some biological division of labor. women hunted. there was gender nonconformity. your view of gender itself is ideology placed in the european traditions that run right along side this capitalism you want destroyed. your view that it is immutable is ideology

More bullshitting and accusations. There clearly was sexed division of labor in prehistoric societies, childrearing being an obvious example. Just because women could hunt, doesn't mean men didn't hunt more or go to war more. To point these things out is not to argue for some immutable gender.


>CIA Steinem

I give up, stop posting any time. Yes, you are not fucking allowed to cite Steinem in an argument here, we will laugh at you and ignore you.



It's useful to communists because it's true and we stand for the truth, and also because it proves that capitalism and muh housewives and nuclear family are not "human nature." Read Engels.



Read Engels and THEN read Chris Knight, or at least watch some of his lectures. There is substantial evidence that communal childrearing is actually what caused the apes to evolve into humans. The reason women had power was that they organized collectively to protect all of their offspring and control the men by witholding sex, and that bloodlines couldn't be traced by the father (too many possible fathers).



i'm quite dominant in bed and with my pillow, yeah



idk what to say man, seems you want to believe what you believe regardless.

biological ideologies are ideologies all the same. essentialism is when you make normative claims about some inherent biology that don't line up with actual science.

>Just because women could hunt, doesn't mean men didn't hunt more or go to war more. To point these things out is not to argue for some immutable gender.

it is when you're making assumptions and actually portraying those societies completely wrong to justify a purely ideological system of "sex roles"

>Yes, you are not fucking allowed to cite Steinem

oh, so you get to arbitrate truth now without further justification?


hey bro i asked you to provide your reasoning. if hitler says the sky is blue are you gonna fight him on it? you're putting the ideology horse before the dialectical materialist cart my nigga.



>hey bro i asked you to provide your reasoning. if hitler says the sky is blue are you gonna fight him on it?

If Hitler says the sky is blue, do you fucking cite him as proof the sky is blue? Moreover, even that specific quote from Steinem is bullshit:

>Those lives should be celebrated, not questioned

We should question everything.

>Their health care decisions should be theirs and theirs alone to make.

And doctors…?

>as we move away from only the binary boxes of “masculine” or “feminine” and begin to live along the full human continuum of identity and expression

The idea that man and woman are "binary boxes" is ridiculously ahistorical and undialectical. The man/woman categories clearly have encompassed thousands of different sets of sex roles (genders?) throughout history and different societies. As well, there are also individual expressions. It's radfems more than anyone else I hear spouting this bullshit about a binary on-off switch for gender, but it is a complete fabrication.

>These facts may remind us that patriarchy, racism, and nationalism have been dominant for less than 5% of human history. Maybe they are an experiment that failed.'

So societies and civilizations that were organized around a material basis and lasted thousands of years are now "experiments" that "failed." And what does she offer instead? Not communism. She seems to indicate that we can just selectively take superstructural and linguistic elements of primitive communism and graft them onto capitalism to arrive at a CIA feminist society.

Not only have you cited Hitler, but you've cited him saying the sky is green.


All of this gender shitposting needs its own thread, it's not relevant to Cockshott's theories and only get bought up because of one fucking article Cockshott wrote.


File: a073b6029c6a797⋯.jpg (42.56 KB, 400x600, 2:3, dasd.jpg)


then who dis nigga ova here?



>nobody cares about commie bullshit

This is a commie board, if you're not interested you need to fuck off (or be banned since I doubt you will leave on your own).


File: f425be31bd2204d⋯.jpg (571.23 KB, 1000x750, 4:3, 0503marx.jpg)


you think this guy could rape somebody?




A rapist from Bangladesh. Islamig gommunism confirmed


File: 2d8fed8658fe41f⋯.jpg (766.29 KB, 3000x1750, 12:7, Mumsnet-1.jpg)


I have made a containment thread for the gender crit shit. If there's anything else to say about that crap bring it over there so we can stop shitting up the Dildorocket thread.

It's here:




Awesome, maybe there can be some actual discussion in this thread again.



I know there’s a containment thread but I just have to reply and point out the glaring contradiction here.

>There is no material evidence that trans people's brains aren't actually of the opposite sex to their reproductive system, and there is a lot of evidence in favor.

So then there are sex and thus biological differences between men and women? Also, doesn’t stating that trans people have sex differences, or a sexed brain, thwn further imply that gender characteristics are intertwined with sex characteristics? Which goes completely against 2nd wave feminism and the struggle against attaching socially reproduced gender differences to biological characteristics.

Also fucking trannies stop shitting up every fucking Cockshott thread. You have endless organizations and forums to discuss your bullshit with.



>So then there are sex and thus biological differences between men and women?


>Also, doesn’t stating that trans people have sex differences, or a sexed brain, thwn further imply that gender characteristics are intertwined with sex characteristics?


>Which goes completely against 2nd wave feminism and the struggle against attaching socially reproduced gender differences to biological characteristics.

Sounds good to me. I'm a Marxist, not a feminist. I'm opposed to the capitalist superstructure and in favor of a new proletarian superstructure. I am not in favor of some kind of fascist fantasy of forcing people to wipe gender from their minds, memories, and histories.




Take it to the other fucking thread for ffs




FELLAS, Cockshott is gonna give a live talk on FinBol's discord this monday at 8PM GMT. It'll also be recorded and uploaded to FinBol's channel.


When the fuck are we gonna arrange something with the man? A Q&A or something, idk.



2nd part of Dapprich talking about the socialism simulator: https://designing-history.world/theory/simulating-socialism-2

>for reasons of simplicity, economic growth is not yet considered

>The production possibilities for this sample economy are specified by tables similar to Leontief-style Input-Output matrices.

>While the simulation only considers linear relationships, some non-linearities can easily be represented as such (…) The decreasing marginal yield of agriculture due to varying soil quality can be represented by specifying distinct agricultural production methods depending on soil type.


File: 080befab212a086⋯.png (59.37 KB, 144x181, 144:181, paul.png)








>When the fuck are we gonna arrange something with the man? A Q&A or something, idk.

Cockshott has read this thread but didn't come back to it because the user who informed him about it was a turboautist who talked to him like he was an oldfag channer



>Cockshott has read this thread but didn't come back to it because the user who informed him about it was a turboautist who talked to him like he was an oldfag channer

Why did you need to remind me?


File: 6b53d279005d4d5⋯.png (254.66 KB, 494x298, 247:149, wat.png)


>tfw the revolution fails because a random spastic on a mongolian basket-weaving board couldn't act like a normal person at a critical point in time.


File: 858c386889e5d08⋯.jpg (21.05 KB, 266x285, 14:15, 858c386889e5d08212eab02f96….jpg)



>he missed it

Most of the guy's posts got nuked, but it started around >>2821351 and with the corresponding spergouts in the mod thread more or less


File: 260fca0c4557557⋯.png (69.03 KB, 252x396, 7:11, Th14Cirno.png)


Literally just could have gotten him to use a free proxy



It's obvious that the "proxy problem" was just an excuse to not post.


Does Cockshott have any particular formulation for how centrally planned investment functions? I think he has basically said “a mix of democratic oversight and proposals by specialists” which may be the best you could say without getting too utopian.


Would the USSR, particularly in its earlier stages, have done better politically under a democratic system as Cockshott describes? I'm reading the section What can be learnt from the failure of Soviet socialism?, and it seems that he makes the case that people should effectively have replaced the bureaucracy – but I'm also wondering, just how capable are people? Bureaucrats, corrupt as they may be at times, have gone to institutions, read books, gained experience, and all such for their positions – what is the extent to which ordinary people should replace these individuals?




Ah I was wondering where I could get that book. I've been reading laws of chaos a bit lately and was super impressed and wanted to follow up on where these ideas led.



I don't believe he goes much into detail. The labour vouchers just ration already produced things to end-users and what consumers get at which prices can also be used to adjust the quantities, as C&C also propose. This daily information from consumers together with the input-output matrix can be used for basically automatic adjustments in day-to-day operation.

But long-term planning is something else. For that, there's the proposal to have normies voting on aggregate spending categories and the taxation level (spending and taxing being linked, so an individual can't simultaneously vote for high spending and low taxes), and maybe five or so big plans are worked out by teams of experts (what or who makes you an expert here?), and then the general population can vote to implement one of them. I think everybody would prefer a modular plan to that where it's possible to change parts in a relatively independent way from the rest of the structure. But how to make a plan modular? Doing that seems to make aggregation and abstraction necessary, which destroys a lot of information (that is, you'll have to plan more with simple one-dimensional money-like abstractions rather than the actual material properties of things and the material input ratios). Perhaps using something like Piero Sraffa's "standard commodity" can help here (a mix of inputs that enters directly or indirectly into the production of everything).




Don't know if you anons are still around, but I'm gunning for a job as an econ research assistant for the government.


As I mentioned I'm only just getting into this stuff via Laws of Chaos and the handful of empirical studies I've gotten my hands on. I have a background modeling in R and taken plenty of econ, I'm just not very good at the math sides of things. I'm hoping I use this kind of analysis subtly in my work. Any advice?


On the section Differential payment for education/skill?:

I don't think Cockshott's analysis of equivalency of jobs is correct because they each have different socially-necessary demands. One less doctor is going to be a much bigger loss than one less McDonald's worker. Wouldn't it make sense to incentivize doctors and other such professions more because of the sheer amount of work required to attain such? It seems the toil needed to become and maintain one's position as a doctor, on top of the stresses that come with such an important job, are more than a person toiling at the construction site all day. How does Cuba do this? As in, how is the situation with their doctors?



>Wouldn't it make sense to incentivize doctors and other such professions more because of the sheer amount of work required to attain such?

The amount of work required to become a doctor is reflected in the recognition of attending school as socially useful labour, i.e. he proposes we pay people to go to school because it is work.

>are more than a person toiling at the construction site all day.

Many people with the skills to become doctors would much rather become doctors than construction workers, regardless of the pay difference, ime.

>One less doctor is going to be a much bigger loss than one less McDonald's worker.

The value contributed to the economy, that of one labour-hour, is nonetheless the same between them. In the doctor's case, you could argue that the loss of a doctor is more significant because the hours that went into training them are also lost, but the future value lost by the death of both is in principle equivalent, as there is no fundamental difference between doctor-hours and cashier-hours.



>It seems the toil needed to become and maintain one's position as a doctor, on top of the stresses that come with such an important job, are more than a person toiling at the construction site all day.

I find this belief very silly. A good indication of the stress at this or that job would be the average life span of people with these careers, don't you think?


is famous for being filled to the brim with doctors and regularly sending them to other countries for humanitarian reasons or in business deals.


Could Cockshott's teachings, and in particular this book, be applied to any country? Turkey, Latvia, Niger?




I was just making sure they could be applied to any country regardless of infrastructure or otherwise development, and regardless of worldwide influence.



Cuba could do it but from my knowledge they have legalized restricted markets so it would be seen an unnecessary in many ways. They also have low availability of computers but I heard this is changing.


his concepts are applicable on eastern 3rd world countries or not?



His economic planning concept requires a supercomputer and essentially universal internet or some other way everyone can be connected quickly, so building that up would probably be a priority. However, simpler economies would also be easier to plan (since they have less commodities), so it is probably not too much of a challenge on that front.

Certainly this idea in particular is independent of worldwide influence, although its implementation would all but guarantee a US invasion.



>guarantee a US invasion

How about if the country first arms itself with nukes like the DPRK? Are they good then? If they get treated as a pariah by the west they could at least still trade with other nations, provided they aren't landlocked or anything. If so, why don't more countries do this? Central planning either way is the way too go forward – are leaders just too ingrained with older methods and their officials?



>His economic planning concept requires a supercomputer

No it doesn't, any modern desktop can do it. That's the whole point.

>essentially universal internet or some other way everyone can be connected quickly

This is the more real obstacle. While universal internet wouldn't be needed, you'd at least need it functioning at almost every point of production, as well as almost every point of sale (for the credit cards).

As an aside, you actually could still have paper labor tokens in his scheme. They could have cryptographically signed QR codes or something on them and behave like gift cards, getting invalidated after use. Also no need for them to be made of very durable paper. This way they don't circulate, but you can trade them to vendors in a certain time limit. As well, no fear of counterfeits, as they are linked to a specific allotment of labor that's in a central bank account.



You can't do it with privately owned MOP or free markets. The tech should be cheap enough for any country.



assuming theres no embargo



lmao this reader

>Is a civilised white man really to be compared with a (small voice) n-blank-g-g-e-r fresh out of the bush?



While his point is sound, tbh Cockshott could have used negro there: although both words are weird since South Africans said "blackie" as the derogatory term of Africans.


There’s a question that’s been on my mind lately regarding a planned economy. Let’s say in the future that all the rare earth minerals are used up and thus there are no computers in which to organize the economy. Does the socialist calculation debate thus prove that without computers a planned socialist economy is not feasiable? Would it have to be some form of market-socialism with planned characteristics? Would it have to be a much less complex economy? Are there any books / articles dealing with this?



Rare earth elements are not rare, they require polluting processes to refine which means not every country is willing to produce them. Even if it were possible to run out of new sources, old hardware could still be recycled for the elements. For example gold is extracted from computer hardware waste today. If gold can be extracted, other elements in the waste can be as well. Now I highly doubt we will run out of rare earths in the next 500 years but even if we did there is plenty of garbage to recycle. For now, it is far more important to devise plans on how to produce food and energy in a sustainable way.



I love silly questions! I am worried about a lot of issues, but not whether we are running out of computers.

Mathematical optimization as proposed by Kantorovich can be done by hand (he did it), it depends on how many variables you have. The less computing power you have, the more you have to rely on aggregates, so the more and more abstract your model gets, and what you are optimizing is just that abstract model. So the usefulness increases with increases in computing power, usefulness doesn't just switch from off to on.

Older texts about planning were made with less computing power in mind, not because of envisioning a post-apocalyptic future, but because of what the technology was back then. With less computing power, you have to group similar things together and treat them as basically one thing, a product group gets treated as one thing in your model, and even groups of groups might have to be replaced by one virtual thing. There are more and less silly ways of doing that. The dumb way is to just sum up accounting prices and the quantities of things into a big score, because doing that assumes that combinations that have the same cost are perfect substitutes for each other. In an ideal world, you would know everything about to which degree things are substitutes. Lacking that, the next best thing is humans guessing to decide on minimum amounts for some important distinct things in the pile and come up with various scenarios passing these hurdles. The next step is to use geometric weighted mean rather than weighted arithmetic mean to score these scenarios and take the winner. Using the geometric mean has the effect that bad results in parts of a scenario have a stronger tendency to pull down its overall score. (To minimize computation work, you don't actually use the geometric mean, but something that works out the same: logarithmic addition.)

I like the idea of using simple machines, mechanical or hydraulic, to compute things. An electronic computer is a black box, having instead a dedicated hand-powered machine that works out things in a transparent physical way could be great as an education/propaganda device, to get the public's understanding and trust. I think it's sad that so-called voting machines are usually full-blown computers that can be manipulated into doing anything (for example, playing Chess). So I've been thinking for a while about mechanical or hydraulic devices for voting/distribution algorithms, but I've built nothing yet.


File: c95a99d1da52bb7⋯.png (402.36 KB, 680x703, 680:703, cockshottfeels.png)



Haha holy shit, did you make this?




Aaaand looks like Cockshott got the banhammer on Facebook.



He posted an hour ago, just checked



Anyone else notice how one of the guys wanted to ask a question about agriculture, but couldn't speak English for shit and Cockshott ended up answering a question about OGAS instead?


Fucking saved, nice



Somehow, I imagine him still using a CRT and floppy disks.



>Let’s say in the future that all the rare earth minerals are used up and thus there are no computers in which to organize the economy. Does the socialist calculation debate thus prove that without computers a planned socialist economy is not feasiable

if there's no more computers, the porkies won't be able to use them either, leading to a drastic decrease in efficiency of capital as well. It would be back to Stalin-era USSR vs Great Depression USA. The calculation debate would be moot.



someone explain the joke..?



I don't know myself, bumping to get answers.


File: 013a21870e27edb⋯.png (1.13 MB, 717x960, 239:320, newsocialism.png)

So what's happening to Cockshott's new site? He commented it got hacked.



yeah thats wordpress security for ya



New blog post, basic article about labour vouchers:

>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.



File: 0343236d1bb223c⋯.jpg (40.42 KB, 445x297, 445:297, cybernetics presentation.jpg)

Bumping with a new article:


>For a start, the state does not know what the optimal level of carbon taxes would be in order to get the firms to act.

>A carbon tax would hit those on low income having to heat their houses in winter more than anyone else.

>If you have to restrict consumption, rationing is the fairest way to do it. Each citizen would get the same fuel ration. Rich people would only be able to continue to use their SUVs, and firms would only be able to operate diesel trucks, if they bought ration tokens off other people.



socialism never successfully eliminated the monetary system, it's why immediate full communism is the only authentic revolution



What do you mean by "full communism", total expropriation of the ruling class plus labor vouchers and planning or something else? Do you consider labor vouchers as too similar to money?



Cockshott debunked!


File: 0b5d773774737dc⋯.jpg (93.17 KB, 397x295, 397:295, oh-he-mad.jpg)


>that voice




I dont want to watch some libertarian youtube autist drone on about shit can someone take one for the team and TLDR his shit, i have a feeling its gonna be some dunning kruger tier bullshit like esoteric entity when a fucking neckbeard libertarian youtube tries to btfo a senior academic with more knowledge on math and epistemology than that guy will ever know in his life



>adding to eceleb's yt viewcount

webm pls



>No class division under capitalism.

>LTV of Smith was cost theory of value.

>Marx removed capital costs.

>Subjective theory of value is right.

>Transformation problem

>Diamond on ground is more valuable than galon of water.

I can't watch longer since his voice is so annoying. Seriously, who the fuck can watch this? He rambled a bit about how USSR fell because it used output-input tables.



Don't forget:

>Marx rapes his maid and considered the child a proletarian bastard that is to be despised


File: a71b19a8b5b3852⋯.jpg (185.52 KB, 1500x1126, 750:563, IMG_20190504_164500.jpg)


Btw, I'm going to buy a better mic, but I'm seriously starting my YT career debunking this asshole. Give me one week, I'll make a thread a bump this one :)



>>Subjective theory of value is right.

>>Diamond on ground is more valuable than galon of water.

So to sum up, the subjective theory of value is good because subjective importance determines the price and a great example of that is the high price of something that is not important, but requires a lot of work?

>He rambled a bit about how USSR fell because it used output-input tables

Now I really want the webm.



>Transformation problem

I guess this guy hasnt read much Cockshott or literally any marxist economics made after 1980 if hes still falling for the muh transformation problem meme



Reminds me of browsing Quora. Somebody asks a specific question about Marxist thought and gets a big post


by somebody who got entrepreneur in his bio. I look up the lyrics discussion for a Stereolab song and it's the same thing. These posts always get upvotes from their fellow freethinkers.




Scroll to the end of the page for summary.



Saw the previous posts, apologies: I thought you held this position. Anyway a good debunk for those who haven't read on this topic, though it is obvious that Marx never did any kind of that thing.



Fuck posted this in the wronng thread



Hmmm… which thread though? Btw thanks for boosting the morale of our troops o7 sass ass


In Cockshott's vid on leadership and democracy, he makes negative statements about having a recall mechanism (starts at 16 minutes into it), namely that it has high inertia because it requires getting many signatures and then a ballot, so it's very rarely used in places where it's legal. But it seems to me that this is the consequence of the particularities of the implementations, and not the idea in principle. Instead of signatures, juries selected by lot could do regular reviews of campaign promises and what the elected actually do, and trigger a new election out of regular scheduling.

What could also work like recall is just having elections at higher frequency (like annually, as originally proposed by the Chartists) and the mentioned juries set temporary bans on running again.



How about we have continual elections? Give people the ability to grant and retract support to representatives at any time. Something like that should be possible with the proper digital infrastructure.



Some stuff about prototyping the hardware for socialism back in the 80s.



I think a lot of Cockshott's planning system moves power away from individual politicians and parties, and towards the "platform" itself. IE, people would be voting on proposals for the entire 5-year plan, including military budget, healthcare budget, budget for economic expansion, etc. There could be basic procedures to investigate and remove bureaucrats and politicians who don't adhere to the plans.


File: cda7a6c87ad6672⋯.jpeg (12.64 KB, 296x422, 148:211, marx4.jpeg)


>As it happened, despite me agreeing, my Chinese comrade discovered that although foreign CS experts were being invited to China, the planning ministry was out of bounds for foreigners.

<tfw we could've had cybernetically planned China since the early 80s


File: dd9f9148dae7445⋯.png (12.32 KB, 255x143, 255:143, 4e15221d59129c949c21a5bec0….png)

can we do a cybernetics/cockshott meme dump, does anyone have the cockshott vaporwave stuff?



Funny, Anwar Shaikh said he visited the PRC in the 80s too, and he gave them one of the world's first portable computers as a gift.



IMMORTAL SCIENTIST now has a leftypol wiki page. we should insert some images



>using fandom for a wiki

that's gonna get taken down quick



Wjere does the "immortal scientists" come from? He isn't that old.



its a reference to "the immortal science of marxism-leninism" meme


Who is going to make the new thread and archive this one?



classical econophysics in action >>2890161


new thread: >>2891312


Where can I buy Towards a new Socialism? Even my local lefty bookshop didn't have it. I'm from the UK

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / choroy / dempart / doomer / magali / mde / pinoy / vichan ]