Do you have it? I've been wantiong to read it again for ages
/empirical marxism/
Gavin Barnes
Austin Barnes
this isn't even different from what cockshott wants, in fact in towards a new socialism all industry is run by syndicates, and there is no concrete planning board, labour assignments in the different sectors of production are done by popular vote, and all task neccesary to complete this are done by different soviets composed of people who know what the fuck they are doing
Robert Thomas
i think it was this one
mises.org
Jace Long
Thanks, but no it was not this one, and now that I've remebered more, I'm quite sure it was made by Ancoms not Ancaps
Hunter Miller
i can remember it actually, was the one speaking something about that if cybernetics were implemented, then you would have to simplify everything in life, and he used the example that in cyber stalinism people couldn't have two jobs, and have to cam to sustain their children
John Young
That's retarded. How does someone even arrive at such an idiotic conclusion?
Owen Peterson
It was quite funny, I really want someone to have it , but it seems difficult
Jonathan Morgan
What we need is indeed some way of communicating the essence of the systems of knowledge which we're trying to spread. Of course, we need to talk about self-causation and self-reflection. What we are dealing with is actually, in a sense, pre-Kantian (yes, I'm borrowing some of what I say straight from Rafiq). We need sciences which involve ourselves as struggling and self-causing rational subjects alongside our own praxis and history, and nowhere is this more important than in economics which is, again, precisely related to how we organise the world and practicality itself (it is crucial to note that I am not speaking in a utilitarian sense). FED (suspect name, I know!) attempts to provide some new axioms and systems using new kinds of algebra with different contexts (generic; synchronic/current; diachronic/historically-cumulative), meta-numbers (I still have no idea as to what these are!) and 'quanto-qualitative' algebra. They even claim that they have found a way to make division of real numbers by zero meaningful. A lot of this involves notions of how these things are related to our praxis and how thought itself is historical rather than fixed in its meaning and practicality as we are led to believe.
Right-libertarianism is indeed trash. I believe that some have compared it to conceiving of individuals as gaseous atoms (I am not sure if the comparison of free market capitalism to an ideal gas in a container seen in Laws of Chaos is quite in the same spirit and for the same purpose). Individuals are presumed to act 'naturally' and 'rationally' in a certain way and this is assumed to have some sort of meaning which is not based on praxis itself but on ahistorical laws to which humans are bound to in conducting their praxis (this is their application of praxaeology). This ignores the social and intersubjective nature of reason; in the case of the theorists themselves, they did not have these concepts in their minds when they were born. No genes and no movements of atoms whose limitations we know quite well from the current empirical sciences can code for the innumerable thoughts which we can come up with, and this is only cemented by what I discuss in the next paragraph just below this one. There is no evidence that we are caused by anything to think these thoughts, hence practically the fact that we do anything at all leads to the conclusion that we cause ourselves and we set the terms of what's practical or not. This is where Marxism's importance is at its greatest, not at the level of empirical data itself but HOW WE RELATE TO IT. Marxism need not introduce any new empirical claims and test for them (hence even with countervailing tendencies, it still holds despite becoming unfalsifiable and unverifiable for the present empirical sciences; Marxism becomes meaningless as an explanation for our present empiricists).
The mathematical systems which the right-libertarians use are assumed to be fixed, when it is actually that we created these mathematical systems in the first place and there's no reason as to why we cannot create more (linking this again: adventures-in-dialectics.org
I do remember the whole deal about communist egoism. Only communism leads to the greatest fulfilment of individual aims and also of the continued (re-)organisation of the world for the sake of struggling to (re-)organise it. Everything else is narrow and ultimately collapses into the politics of identity in the broadest sense - if not that which is based on characteristics which are deemed as being essential and inherent to us humans with variations across in-groups, then that which is based on humans being subject to some sort of eternal law and this being an essential part of the identity of humans. (Stirner shows this very well! One can even say that he performs an abstraction of the presently-inapproximable rational part of humans away from all sense data and physical forms; this is what it means to be unique.)
Cybernetic planning must be able to work with the terms which we use for the new mathematical systems. For the time being, it will require our input since we haven't yet built self-causing computers. This will take some time.
Thomas Ramirez
paulcockshott.wordpress.com
Also pic related.
Liam Diaz
You seem to be quite gaseous yourself here. I believe the comparison of individuals with atoms in a gas stems from from the correspondence between a macro pattern in the economy (wealth distribution) and the distribution of energy in a gas. The point is exactly that the atoms don't act with any foresight whatsoever, and making an analogy between that and individual wealth in the economy is as far away as one can be from meritocratic wealth explanations that are popular with the right.
Is planet Saturn not subject to objective laws if the planet is unaware of its own movement? It doesn't follow.
Don't post in a thread named empirical marxism, post in a thread named abracadabra divide by zero bixnood.