[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / bench / bleached / dempart / klpmm / pinoy / vg / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 72rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - The Church of Otter

February 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.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

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

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / bench / bleached / dempart / klpmm / pinoy / vg / vichan ]