Why isn't everyone here on the same page?

It is "Much more" developed yes but not nearly to the level of even the Eastern bloc nations that cockshott proposed his system to in the 80s
If you wish to see socialist nations (of which almost universally exist in the third world) then first these nations will need to develop a State-Capitalist economy to a significant degree as to be able to implement a socialist one / Cybernetics

The issue of building infrastructure mainly comes from the uyghur terrorists and Islamic separatists plaguing the area
The goverment is weary of building train networks and roads that can just be bombed days later
Same issue but with CIA backed Monarchist-Theocrats

It has to be possible first

Sortition selected service on law making bodies approved by a separate temporary sortition selected representative body. With the addition of super majority voter referendums allowable every two years.

The CCP should take the hint, there not wanted there.

People here will attack this but also support the IRA…

The IRA are revolutionaries, uyghur terrorists and Islamic separatists are reactionary.
The INLA did nothing wrong but the Rightist sects were the ones who delt with the mafia and bombed civvies.

Marx's model for a socialist economy can only occur in developed capitalist economies

Attached: c62.jpg (960x465, 46.04K)

So what you are saying is that marx was right all along?

Trust me bro the countryside isnt. Unless you are convinced the 70 year old farmers working on their knees in the mud in their slum home when I was visiting is industrialized.

Also

Zizek's a philosopher not an economist. Should have used Wolff for the virgin side.

What about liquid democracy? Everyone gets a vote but they don't have to use it. Instead they can choose another person to be their delegate. It's excellent. Some pros:
- You don't have to involve yourself in the political process if you don't want to. Instead you give your vote to someone your trust.
- People will choose more knowledgeable people than themselves to make expert decisions, giving a perfect union of democracy and technocracy.

We need both Zizek and Cockshott.

And Wolff.
They're all great.

Never heard of this idea. Sounds pretty good/interesting to be honest.

Sounds fine.
It's still technically direct democracy though

Read Deng. Or just listen of Xi's speeches: Last year he made very clear that China is still a developing country. Only the the coastal cities are comparable in development to the west. The rest of the country is still lagging.
It can't even meet critical demands in sectors like healthcare. (Which is partially what the Made in China 2025 agenda is about)
youtube.com/watch?v=X3pc3SqK5jI It's somewhere around the 40-50 minute mark if I remember

Attached: 302b7b95632ac0058444096be8c91189c816a96615cc1a259c173caecad5828b.jpg (595x335, 132.13K)

No. We shouldn't encourage people to throw away political decisions to someone they think is better suited. All people should be directly involved in political life, and we should strive to make it as easy as possible to be involved in it.

SSSEEEXXX

Attached: BIFrMoQkDD_uhM71wDIGSG76PtSih5PMqt0P8gDD1jY.png (900x630 78.16 KB, 423.55K)

epic. You really got us good with your 13 year old tier "shock" gore.

Attached: lame.jpg (244x380, 31.41K)

Attached: epic for the win.jpg (276x183, 7.7K)

Well cause not everyone here is a marxist. That being said though, I see no reason why any self-declared ML wouldn't be a cockshottist.

...

Why did normalfaggots turn the virgin meme into thing i like vs. thing i do not like?

Because Zig Forums is nothing but normalfaggots that idolize Chad

Attached: pepes reaction.jpg (580x741, 90.62K)

SOUL

The meme is just a meme lad, calm the fuck down.

SocDem whores need no apply.

Enjoy gulag.

I know I'm going to regret it, but even Trot would be better than the choices provided.

They are all shit.

Cockshott is a Technocrat, not Marxist. For example, he doesn't accept Marxist approach to productive labour, substituting it with some "objective" productivity. As a consequence, he introduces perfect opportunity to split Proletariat along the lines of "only factory workers are real Proletariat" - or to substitute Dictatorship of the Proletariat with some Petit-Bourgeois rule of "experts".

Attached: wait what.jpg (401x399, 21.5K)

Why would you make such shit up? Not once has Cockshott made a distinction between factory workers and the rest of the proletariat. And his advocacy for direct democracy is effectively a dictatorship of the proletariat that does not risk becoming alienated and bureaucratic.
Stop making shit up, cybernetics + direct democracy is literally a way to free people from rubber stamps and pen-and-paper bureaucracy.

What about his "sex workers cannot be Proletariat"?

Bureaucracy meme is already a red flag - and not a good one

Existence of objective Use-Value is a theoretical basis for Technocracy (rule of experts), as it suggest that democracy is not the only way decide things.

GO BACK TO FACEBOOK
sex workers will not exist under socialism

Which is IRRELEVANT you braindead anarkiddie.

It doesn't matter what the job is, as the same principles have to apply in all cases.
2+2 equals 4, regardless of what you are summing up. Even if it is stuff you don't like, 2+2 still equals 4.

says you
What, do you think that everyone magically gets a person that will have sex with them regardless of their physical attributes and infirmities?
Sex work IS work. Until you have lifelike sex robots, there will be people who will not be able to have sex, sometimes out of grotesque disfigurement, but for a host of other reasons as well. Are you saying that it's morally wrong or somehow bourgeois to consider the basic psychological needs of those people as people?
I don't think so. In fact, I think when exploitation is taken out of the equation entirely, sex work stands to be one of the forms of labor that improves the MOST. Acting like sex workers cannot participate in revolutionary action or deligitimizing their own labor and struggle is just bald chauvinism.

no one needs to have sex you brain dead pervert

Yeah, what nonsense. Imagine if people had developed basic biological and psychological needs to reproduce of millions of years based on reproductive fitness.

I repeat: it is fucking IRRELEVANT whether or not it is chauvinism or if there will be sex industry in socialist society.

You don't get to rewrite Marxist economic theory and pretend to be Marxist.

Interesting, where does it say in Marxist economic theory that sex work isn't labor?

not real schizo

Then why do you keep buying food?

atrocious

What the fuck are you talking about.

Attached: confused.jpg (374x374, 38.63K)

It's funny that you think it isn't

Attached: 1052px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png (1052x744, 42.8K)

maslow hierarchy is the definition of not real schizo

It doesn't. That's my point. Cockshott is not a Marxist.

Good worker. There's no need to feel like you're important or you belong. Unity is a big myth. Loneliness and alienation are just postmodern neomarxist drivel. Sex isn't a need. You only need to fold boxes here see? No reason to ask for more than what you have or act like you need to interact with other people.

neither are
daily reminder anything outside of mainstream keynesianism is bullshit

and this children is why you need to pay someone for sex

No, but if you're really fucking ugly you should just have to "suck it up" just like if you can't fucking feed yourself because of a severe disability you shouldn't just be shit out of luck.
Or do you literally believe that life is a fairy tale and everyone has a perfect SO waiting for them out there somewhere?

When did Cockshott ever say that? He says socialists should oppose prostitution which is obvious.

contrary to popular belief its not hard to be a complete person and not have sex

Prostitution predates wage slavery by thousands of years, maybe more.
Kind of strange how you claim to be a champion of the working class yet denigrate the world's oldest profession tbh.

The problem with prostitution isn't that it's sex work. The problem is exploitation, exactly like with every other type of wage slavery.

maybe if you'd pick up some social skills and get off your computer you'd realize that in the real world all sorts of people are having sex and they don't have to pay for it and exploit women either. you must have a very narrow idea of what actual human relations are like.

fuck off pinhead

you really don't know much about the history of prostitution
and its also strange that a supposed supporter of a revolution would support a practice that has only existed throughout history because of the limitations placed on women's ability to support themselves and outright sexual exploitation and slavery

there is no reason for prostitution to exist in a world where women are not forced into it either directly or by economic circumstances and to argue otherwise is to argue for women to be second class citizens to men

I have social skills, which is why I understand that sex isn't just about how charismatic and charming you are. Actually go outside and look at power dynamics in society for a little while.

Sex work is not inherently exploitative. Your denial that this labor is labor as such and is inherently exploitative is just a way for you to exclude marginalized workers and silence them to suit your own moral predilections. Sex work is work, and it creates value. You're saying it doesn't, and it wouldn't exist in a society where there is no exploitation. This is impossible unless sex work creates no value, that is that it is unproductive labor. This is just a way to ignore the contributions of sex workers because of your own notions about sex and gender relations.

Sex workers are first and foremost workers. They create value. They perform productive labor. They are doing a service for people. Ignoring that is simply hypocrisy, chauvinism, and ignorance.

Every god damn thread, this is why we needed the cyclical incel thread.

Attached: 1410171051826.png (684x477, 255.91K)

Let's take the very first link:
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/01/socialists-can-never-support-prostitution/
He explicitly rejects prostitution as Capitalist exploitation. I.e. not Proletariat.

Additionally:
Please, note: Marxism is being refuted as "liberal appologia", as in Marxism "being paid for doing things" (if paid by person who intends to profit from this investment) is Capitalist mode of production. This is labour of the Proletariat.

>> Anything that brings in money counts for them [liberal economists] as productive activity.
Again, for Marx productive labour is the labour that permits extraction of surplus product ("brings in money" in Cockshott's vernacular; i.e. profit). Cockshott ridicules this, without admitting that it is Marxist position - while resorting to ad hominem.

>> There is no doubt that these are all are businesses, but not all business is industry, and not all business is productive.
For Marxist economic analysis, it doesn't matter what type of work it is.

>> Take gambling, a moment’s thought is enough to see that it merely redistributes existing wealth, and produces nothing new of value. It is as foolish to talk of a gambling industry or sex industry as it would be to call pickpocketing or bank robbing industries.
And here we have objective Use-Value. There is one step from this to "only material production is real production" and "only those who produce material goods are real Proletariat".

Frankly, I could dig up a lot of stuff in this article alone, but it should be sufficient to demonstrate that Cockshott stealthily rejects Marxism and replaces it with dogmas of Technocrats.

Because it is a litmus test for moralistic revisionists.

critically support marxism-incelism against cockshottian revisionism

Imagine thinking that letting prostitutes, porn stars, and strippers picket with your waitresses and forklift drivers makes you an incel

Attached: shlqyxvgj7r11.png (846x1148, 646.96K)

Let's also let drug runners, online scammers and house robbers picket with us, they're proles too since they work after all

Fuck off, dimwit. Joseph Stalin robbed banks.

oh dear, I forgot that we win concessions from the capitalist class by looking respectable to them instead of by direct action

Sexual exploitation is different than capitalist exploitation. That much should be obvious.
A prostitute who is self employed is not exploited by a capitalist. Cockshott writes here:

Why do you suggest people who clearly aren't employed?

Lets not.

Joseph Stalin robbed banks to support the bolshevik party, not as a lumpen looking to get rich quick

It doesn't matter if they aren't officially employed. Drug runners make profits for drug lords. Robbers often have to share with gang bosses. They're proles according to you

Yes, you're only a worker if you filled out an application and file your tax returns on time, otherwise capitalism doesn't affect you and your exploitation isn't real. Any claims to the contrary are just subversive elements trying to stop democrats from being elected.

I'd suspect it's nonsense criticism by someone who is incredibly bothered by Cockshott being a "TERF" but knows that won't fly because it has nothing to do with his Economics.

Aaaaand I was right lmao they think that Sex Work creates new Value because they don't read absolutely epic.

This is only bit that is actually relevant in your whole post. The rest is filled with intellectually dishonest "refutations".

Marxism does not deal in sexual exploitation.

Not exploited directly. I did not suggest otherwise.

Then it is labour of Petit-Bourgeois. I.e. it is still "work" in Marxism.

>>> Anything that brings in money counts for them [liberal economists] as productive activity.
> No. Receiving money does not equal extraction of surplus value. If my neighbor pays me to mow his lawn, there was no surplus value extracted.
There is no "receiving money". There is "bringing in money", clearly to the employer.

1) You are conflating organization and labour.
- Labour is "productive" if it permit extraction of surplus value.
- Organization cannot be productive or unproductive in this sense.

2) You are introducing some special "value", which is not Marxist value, but "objectively useful" Technocratic value.

Again: you are introducing some special "value", which is not Marxist value, but "objectively useful" Technocratic value.

Woah now, you might want to pick up a book yourself before you start getting slap happy there Mister only real workers need apply

Yes, I got that already.

Also, explain what your "Value" is. Because it is neither exchange-value nor use-value.

...

I don't work and I get benifets. I won't work until the system changes. I won't support an unfair system so I'll just leech to speed up its inevitable demise

...

...

...

Can't wait to see your utopia

...

You miss the point entirely. What will porn contribute to your society? Do you want the kind of people who's only skill is sex being the members of your utopia?

Oh, I think I see the problem

not true, they can roll a perfect blunt too

Oh yeah I forgot about the more seedy aspects of the industry.

...

Nice pun but they get the good shit

So nobody can really answer huh? I guess whores don't form a stable society

Neither do repairmen since they don't create value

That wasn't an intentional pun and why would I imply that pornstars who make good money get shit drugs? Can you not think?

They maintain value. Pornstars contribute nothing