Surely I can’t be the only one here who stands for the burgeoning of the surveillance state under the control of the proletariat? While the surveillance state under the control of the bourgeoisie has reactionary intentions, under proletarian control it is operated to extirpate reactionaries and counterrevolution alike. Thus we have the concept of the Proletarian Panopticism, transferred from Bentham’s prison to the whole of society. From factories, to schools and beyond this system should be applied for the general good and likewise for anti-counterrevolutionary purposes. The latter is of course desirable, but why for schools and workplaces? This is the beauty of the panoptic effect – an eye which can observe without being seen. An eye known to all, but no one knows when and if it watches from above. It is all-seeing and omnipresent, creating the semblance of God. The best surveillance is where one polices themselves, and what better way than through the pervasive methods described above? Discipline in schools would become the norm, labor productivity would sky-rocket, capitalists could be located and weeded out as soon as they are detected. In our modern technological society the once-unthinkable has become possible, the construction of a truly impregnable proletarian state is possible, a state where dissent can be located before the would-be dissenter themselves knows of their possible dissent.
Other urls found in this thread:
So you are basically saying extreme surveillance it's good when absolutely everyone can be surveilled? even those who surveil? i guess i agree.
1984 was a shitty critique of Stalinism, not a manual
please kill yourself
i could hardly call a surveillance state "proletarian" because it subjects the proletariat to fear and subjugation
fuck off, the best way to deal with counterrevolutionaries shouldn't involve getting innocent people caught up in it all
1984 wasn’t the originator of this concept and the book as a whole plays off liberal stereotypes of “muh totalitarianism”. The benefits of this type of technology heavily outweight the negatives of the construction of socialism. If you’re doing nothing wrong and are true to the ideals of the revolution there is no need to fear the panopticon.
How does the whole "if you are doing nothing wrong you shouldn't worry" differ from a capitalist surveillance state excuse for surveillance?
it doesn't, that's the problem
Chairman Yang PLS GO.
Fear and subjugation? Hardly. The proletarian state is by definition democratic to the extreme, this is no “subjugation”. Surveillance of this kind will induce a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assure the automatic functioning of power. Correct behavior will become habit, then second nature.
One form of surveillance is in the favor of exploitative and reactionary ideology, the proletarian state is, as I’ve said, highly democratic and under the control of the proletariat (in a truer sense than has historically occurred, ideally) and is utilized in service of the construction of socialism
ah yes, true liberation is when everyone is subject to a surveillance state
it's funny how people who come to imageboards to (presumably) be anonymous come up with hot takes like this
Nah, fuck that. It's not the workers that should be under surveillance, it's the party.
Place two to five cams in each room of the communist party HQ and have a 24/7 live broadcast. General secretary shouldn't be able to take a shit without the proletariat knowing about it.
I say this stuff in real life, for I know its beneficial effects if put into practice. I find the entire concept beautiful, actually, it fills me with a feeling of joy. Like I’ve said, the old adage rings true where if you’re doing nothing wrong there’s no need for fear. Why are you afraid of being watched by a dictatorship of the proletariat with the interests of all in its very conception? Liberal remnants or something to hide, clearly. The only things the panopticon will fail to “liberate” is reaction and counterrevolution. There will be no freedom for them
The beneficial effects are far more interesting than surveillance for the sake of surveillance. Only reactionaries need have fear
just don't say these things out loud, okay? can't get people on your side by talking about the stereotype of communist dictatorships violating your privacy all the time.
It actually wins many people over, believe it or not. Mass-surveillance in the service of good has limitless potential, not for maintaining socialist hegemony alone but for the many other social reasons which have been outlined previously in this very thread. It is cowardice to hide your opinions. The only opinions which should be kept to oneself are those which you cannot properly back up with arguments or facts.
it's good you're making your public views known so real communists could kick your ass
You are offering me a lot of emotional bluster, but little substance. Is this the power of Mao Zedong Thought? My ass has yet to have been kicked, quite the opposite. Many of the comrades I know IRL were at first skeptical, but now they too see the many merits of this imperative proposal.
how the fuck? did you surveil your entire party and they were all like "oh shit man i'm glad we kicked mike who would've thought he was a CIA nigger we should have noticed since he was very glowy that one night thank you based Zig Forums pot comrade you saved us from idpol by putting all of those cameras in the bathroom"
look you're probably being an Epic Troll but could you at least not be completely retarded on here you dipshit revisionist
And so appears the lack of argument.
Discussion would quickly bring to light the benefits of this system. It seems the mods of anchored this though, further damaging this slowing board. Moralism has no place in Marxism and anyone against this truly misunderstands the purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat
Can you bring the light to the benefits that outweigh the nightmareish totalitarianism then, you beutiful turboautist?
Last time I checked it wasn't the wrong think of proles that brought down USSR, but revisionism and opportunistic machinations within the party.
Completely foolproof and not at all dystopic.
Not like this is the exact same argument China is using yet the billionaires don't seem concerned while the proles are losing social credit for not looking at ads, hmmmmm.
I wonder who is behind this post?
Many of the benefits were already summarized in the OP. Of course we have the obvious goal of curbing counterrevolution from both within and without, but there is also the stated “panoptic effect.” At any time they would be subject to observation, but due to the nature of the system it is impossible to know when or if you are being watched. The watcher can see all. The watched, not knowing whether he is being watched but aware that he could be being watched, will behave as if he is being watched. This is the semblance of God. Subject to this constant feeling of surveillance in all areas from factories, the streets and in educational facilities (as a few examples), the would-be counterrevolutionary or slacker is, after a short time exposed to this state of events, forced to conform. The best people can be molded this way – people loyal to the revolution, people diligent in work and study, people not lazy and active. Yes, it is “totalitarian” by design, but the power of its universal scope and totalizing embrace is its very power. Everyone is bound, hand and foot to the logic of this panoptic apparatus. Used for the construction of socialism, the construct of the communistic man, the homo sovieticus becomes truly possible
One man’s dystopia is another’s utopia
Love the Peoples Eye
Love the Peoples Ear
This is a shity idea, no one would support it.
Not to be rude, I really like reading your posts, but if your system of governance requires such a pervasive repression apparatus, that's a pretty good indicator that your system is fucked. It's not the average citizen we should be worrying about but people in positions of power ie. party members. Stalin had the right idea with the purges, he just went a bit overboard.
We want to abolish exploitation and class, not create a cult of braindead drones ruled with fear. Pictured: your idea of collectivism.
Slavery advocacy is why “lefty”pol is such a shallow, uncreative fake. Learn truth, you miserable slagbags. Reality is the most persuasive thing of all - it’s powerful, beautiful, and kind.
There are so many problems with this concept that some fascist punt just tried to fake into leftist thought. Firstly, the unseen eye can’t be wielded by the proletariat. Secondly, sousveillance is so reliably opposed by surveillance that sousvellors oppose each other, even though the practices are of one ethical stature. Thirdly, panopticon societies always collapse. It’s physically impossible to pry limitlessly without hitting the limits of capability, processing, and/or understanding.
Give up the theocratic bullshit and come back to shared materialism.
The fuck is this shit? Who the fucks need the surveillance system you described if the system works for them? You call that a proletarian dictatorship?
Are you the same alcoholic trot from the Cuba thread who never offers substantive critiques and just calls things “dumb”?
Of course, but there is no need to fear surveillance if you have done nothing wrong. This system functions within the limits of rigorous proletarian democracy, by no means is there on one hand the party with all the power and the people abjectly dependent on them. The party and the people are one and the same. The whole point of using surveillance to inculcate proper behavior conductive to socialism is to ensure the automatic functioning of power. With the panoptic effect the vast majority of people will go through the motions automatically, there is no need for repressive force except as when circumstances call for it.
Thank you user, no offense taken at all.
is not trying to be rude but this has to be dialectic. I will be >>2827306's antithesis (I know thesis-antithesis-synthesis is a misrepresentation, but still) get off Zig Forums and think about what you said. We need a system you describe if the workers do not have control but are controlled. Then only will they revolt.
I do not advocate for slavery, as you would know if you took the time to read this thread and my responses. Quite the opposite. Such a knee-jerk reaction is at first natural, until you critically think of the wonderful opportunities this apparatus would provide for the construction of socialism. I was taken-aback at first when I first discovered this concept, but now I am beginning to regard it is as completely necessary and indeed beneficial.
Accusing me of fascism is yet another kneejerk reaction. I have over a year of activity on Zig Forums and moderation, if so inclined, could easily attest to my frequent activity on this board.
I disagree. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the proletariat organized as the ruling class. The ruling class shall wield the power of the panopticon. Not collectively of course.
There has never been a society constructed how I envision.
I have never advocated for theocracy. Perhaps you read into my metaphor of “semblance of God” too much
So sick of this, is it you every time? You twat.
It is an apparatus to ensure proletarian hegemony, ideology and the rapid building of the new socialist human.
Indeed. In the Foundations of Leninism Stalin talks of the DoTP waging ruthless war against reaction and counterrevolution. The party is like the general staff of an army. Troops need whipped into the shape, the socialist man molded meticulously away from his bourgeois habits and character. The Eye will accomplish both tasks. I only wish I could see it in action on a grand scale
Let me break it down, I don't imply I will be correct but I want to hear your arguments against it.
1. The revolution was waged because we had mass support.
2. We establish DoTP not as a separate class above the proletariat (and peasants) but as THE proletariat themselves.
3. The system is socialism. This is DoTP so this has to work.
4. Proletarian form the majority. The system works for them. This is true democracy. Masses are in control.
5. Counterrevolution why? And even if the counter-revolution is not proletarian in nature, how big then do you think it would be? The proles will take care of it themselves.
As the system changes, wouldn't the stripping away of bourgeois habits and character follow naturally?
I think this proletarian panopticism, even if assumed to be necessary, is just a talk of tactics (short-term solutions roughly). If we are successful in establishing DoTP in the truest sense of that, in conclusion, this tactic becomes useless.
I want to add that this would be violent of course and that they'd take care of counter revolutions because they are opposed to their interests (and they've established DoTP because they have recognised their interests, full class-consciousness).
Also checkout the Maoist concept of cultural revolution, it takes care of the same thing (revolt, counterrev) but is more democratic. The masses wage that themselves, do not need a surveillance system.
Ideally. One cannot, especially in the first world, underestimate the power of false-consciousness and the millions of exploiters, their families and all sorts of assorted reactionaries (the religious, etc). But for a revolution to succeed you will need at least a good percentage of the politically active population.
Of course. The DoTP can never become a “separate class” so long as it does not exploit the proletariat through owning the means of production – no one in any bureacracy can “own” the MoP, just as how the conductor of an orchestra does not own the instruments.
The DoTP is for the consolidation of socialism and fighting against threats to socialism, from both within and without. I don’t know why there would be a counterrevolution in this scenario, but it is not impossible as history shows. The Russian Civil War was not all landlords and former Tsarist officials fighting against workers and peasants. False consciousness exists. Bourgeois and feudal ideology is not to be underestimated – which is why it must be smashed. In a counterrevolution the DoTP and the working people (as one) would counter the counterrevolution.
One would expect, but vulgar materialism is unmarxist. Both Hoxha and Pol Pot recognized the need to fight bourgeois habits, character and ideology as a fundamental part of the construction of socialism.
This tactic would not be permanent, all of this discussion centers around the lower phase of socialism (provided we don’t jumpt straight into Pol Pot-ist barracks communism)
Such a common theme on this board. So many retards driven by moralism and knee-jerk reactions. You will sacrifice the end goal in pursuit of a “comfortable” route to socialism. Meanwhile, I look to the glorious future and propose we march forward, never stopping in our way, cutting down and marching over any obstacle in our method, not barring any method, no matter how “totalitarian”, how “brutal”, no matter how many “human rights” must be trampeled upon, because I know the ends justify the means.
I’m sad that I cannot find the quote, but either Pol Pot or another said something the effect of that no matter how many died, socialism could be built in Kampuchea with those who remained. This holds true for the Earth as well
If I am not wrong, isn't vulgar marxism the belief that only material conditions affect ideas and not the other way round? If that is true, I apologise for this mistake.
Of course we are in mutual agreement on this. That is why I recommended that you check out cultural revolution concept.
This is a true concern. The bourgeois propaganda machine is really strong. I am a beginner Marxist, so please correct me if wrong, but don't you think all this brainwashing breaks down eventually when what the lies comrades are fed don't match with their reality? Isn't this what we are seeing in the US, with the rise of a left, even if socdem, but that is a good
Yes, Mao talks about it. Having bourgeois infiltration in the party is not as much a problem to revolution as is bourgeois ideology gaining hold among the party members. This is why he stresses the importance of constant struggle against this line, waged by the masses themselves. This is the essence, but of course I have more to read. How to teach the masses to recognize this still I am learning, but I think masses can at least recognize, using their previous experience living under capitalist regimes, where they start to be fucked with. I don't know if people under Khrushchev recognized this, so this lack of knowledge of mine is a strong point for you in this debate.
Do you something to read on your concept as well? Probably arguments against cultural revolution? I think our argument boils down to the fact of whether your idea is needed at all, is its requirement a result of poor execution of DoTP, whether its 'democratic' or not.
I feel I haven't said much, sorry for a long post.
It's not out of moralism you namefagging twat, no one wants excessive surveillance, much less workers (at least in my country, it's probably the same in the US too). What you do by suggesting this garbage idea is alienating workers and anyone who might be interested in socialism, this is why no one likes us ffs. No one takes you seriously, this is why workers keep voting for rightwing parties, cause because of retards like you we are associated with totalitarianism, surveillance, and censorship. But hey maybe you'll enjoy being spied on by the gov as your uncle rapes you, to each their own.
I reiterate this concern.
Also, can some comrade draw out the line of balance between material conditions affecting ideas, and ideas affecting material conditions?
I think this statement by Marx holds relevance to my question:
No one wants bourgeois surveillance, myself included. Proletarian panopticism is in the interests of all for the benefit of all. I want it with all of my heart.
Alienating? No. I think many people who truly think over the benefits will see my point. I talk about this to people in real life. At first they are skeptical, but soon they see why I have adopted such views.
You imply that the concepts of “totalitarianism”, “surveillance” and “censorship” are bad. Quite the opposite. You are infected by bourgeois ideology if you think these are bad. The construction of socialism isn’t a game. Exploiters and wreckers should get out of the road or get ran over.
Was this supposed to be witty?
keep your mouth shut and keep writing the Panoptic Manifesto in private you dumb fucking piece of shit, maybe after the revolution and years of actually getting people used to beautiful socialist motherland we can try to ruin it with massive surveillance.
Please address my previous arguments as well but I want to add that
seems like a charity work, and these 'interests' and surveillance seems a 'break' away from the masses.
Take another analogy:
If your child does something wrong or will do something wrong in the future (every child does, out of learning and curiosity), will you increase surveillance and control over your child, or raise them to be think for themselves, and occasionally guide your child yourselves too.
This analogy is not stressing the parent-child relationship to be party-masses relationship, keep in mind, but you get the idea.
Revisionists absolutize the importance of the objective factor, of the material conditions and of economic considerations and slip down the slope of vulgar materialism and economism. In line with Lenin’s teachings, as held to by Hoxha, true Marxists recognize, especially under socialism, the role of the subjective factor, the need to continuously revolutionize the superstructure and in particular the party and state. Politics is in command, the education and molding of a new man and new culture is paramount. Reactionary habits do not simply vanish under socialism, they must be uprooted and wiped out. Class struggle does not end under socialism
While I am currently in the process of setting up a pro-Pol Pot and pro-barracks communist youtube channel, I am not currently writing a manifesto. There will surely be videos on Proletarian Panopticism and its benefits, though. Your hostility towards me leads me to think that you have something to hide, some reason to fear the Eye.
Ruin it? No, PERFECT socialism. You LARP about beauty and “motherlands”, I objectively observe the tasks to be done and lay out concrete solutions to reach these goals. Hence my threads on the labor army, my threads on mass-surveillance, my arguments against alcohol in favor of prohibition, the revolutionary genocide thread, etc
It would be good for production, poor for morale.
Thanks for reinforcing it! I am new, so can you recommend me something to read more vulgar materialism and economism?
I recognize that. That's the point of cultural revolution, Mao talked about it, but Chinese revolution failed (Deng, but debatable, and we have yet to see where it heads under Xi). Hoxha stressed this too? can you point me towards his writings where he does? I am interested in learning more about the Albanian socialist state and theorists.
Oh uh so hey guys yeah I'm a self-identified pol-potist, I'm living in a first world country though and have unfortunately never seen a rural countryside in my life, but once Year Zero comes I'll be a rural commisar and I'll execute all urbanite counterrevolutionaries ha ha! Oh and yeah I've also been diagnosed as a highly disfunctional autist which means I have 0 conving skills and 0 charisma but hey I'll lead the revolution one day! I'm also in favor of a massive surveillance state so I can always know for a fact the perfect time to call over my uncle to give those surveillance workers some nice viewing if you know what I mean ;D he he. Hey guys don't leave Pol Pot is still relevant right?
Check out chapter 14 of this work on Albania:
It discusses the Albanian Cultural Revolution as well
You have derailed from the discussion tbh. Do you want to continue or not, or do you want to WEAPONIZE your 'AUTISM' before wasting 10 minutes of your Zig Forums comrades, comrade?
Amazing… and downloaded! Thank you again.
CTRL + F “uncle”
Hmm…someone is butt blasted
You are here, will you please respond to our actual criticisms, please?
No problem, comrade. Always investigate the truth for yourself, Zig Forums is infected by liberalism and imperialist propaganda.
Enjoy this song:
I’ve been doing that the whole thread, it can be hard to keep up so if I missed something post the post number so I can get to it
Sure thing, there ya go.
what the fuck is that
Hmm not sure how I missed that many. I guess I was multitasking. I may break this into several posts or it will take me a while to respond since I’m typing this on a phone
There is no reason to tell people lies. There is no brainwashing. There will be education or re-education into people of socialist ideology, an ideology, of course, backed by science as all Marxists are well aware.
I am very much in support of cultural revolution as Pol Pot and, to a different degree Hoxha were. Pol Pot was more uncompromising than them all, though
The full-scale industrial elimination of the exploiters. The scale would depend on whether full exploiters would be targeted or everyone benefiting off of it (families, the wealthy in general, etc.). For example if we were to eliminate the top 10% of the American wealthy, 32 million people would be liquidated. With the 1%, it would be some 3.2 million. Whether this is practical or even beneficial or not is highly debatable and would depend on the revolutionary conditions. The physical removal of exploiters is always an option. A clean, socialist slate would be all that remains. A true “year zero”
oh, well call it classicide for christ sake, genocide it's exclusively for a race.
not even revolutionary sacrifice
The other posts you listed I had already replied to, scroll up and look, you must have missed them.
Charity work? Perhaps. Holding with the vanguard as the general staff of an army analogy used by Stalin, we know that the vanguard is more theoretically advanced and in-tune with the objectives of the construction of communism than the average Joe on the street. Just because the masses want or feel something doesn’t make their wishes or desires correct or conductive to societal well-being. Hence the vanguard. It may break from the masses occasionally, but the vanguard is not a closed system, it constantly imbibes new blood from the proletariat and functions through democratic centralism. The panoptic proletarian state may indeed be paternal, but the end, as always, justifies the means
That’s the point of the panoptic experience. The observed will, due to their potential observation spontaneously adapt themselves to the socialist norm. This is the guide you speak of, it is not direct control. Through this apparatus direct intervention is rarely needed
Etymologically you’re correct but the term has undergone semantic change to some degree. Just see how Wiktionary defines it alongside with the more original definition you mentioned:
Revolutionary genocide would target people for political beliefs, social status and perhaps religion, falling under the above definition. “Classicide” is more specific but it doesn’t quite have the same ring that revolutionary genocide has for me.
whatever man, some niggas call the landlord classicide in China a genocide so might as well call it what you want
I don't think I did, just that I felt that the answers were inadequate.
Obviously the vanguard comprises of the most class-conscious and learned comrades.
Of course. That'd be mob rule. When I used the phrase 'interests of the masses' I want you to distinguish it from 'what the masses think is right for them'. I instead meant what is actually in the interests of the masses. And if not properly educated the masses are, the least they'd be able to recognize non-proletarian policies is when they don't work for them (here I want to stress that policies like NEP might seem to be counter revolutionary to the masses, but it isn't in the short-term, so it is also the matter of education again in how to get the masses to go beyond the surface of the matter, to its root) The problem is how to get the masses to recognize their interests. So really our debate has gotten down to 'education' and constant struggle against bourgeois ideas. Our methods differ of course, you want what I feel a very restrictive way of handling these things, feels spoon-feeding tbh. This is very conflicting for me, the balance between teaching masses and letting them take anti-bourgeois actions themselves, and leading them. Tailism vs commandism anyone?
I really have my doubts about it rn, Trotsky said
If we take this for granted for a moment, our end is justified (via scientific socialism, not just moral rage against capitalism), but Trotsky and your position imply ANY means.
What would Marxists say about invading other countries for 'socialism' what brainwashed workers didn't ask for, like america invades for 'freedom', except that invading for socialism is freedom unlike american 'freedom' (oil-grabbing genocide basically)? Answer to this may solve my 'end justify means' dilemma but at this point this thread seems dead so I am probably just talking to myself
I think educating the masses and having them participate in the building of socialism is very important. I am a preponent of the mass-line and proletarian mobilization in pursuit of our goals. All policies taken should be comprehended by the masses, standing TOO isolated theoretically is dangerous to success, though of course, as we both agree the vanguard will be more theoretically advanced. The mass-line principle can still hold with discipline and ubiquitous surveillance. Nothing can be left to chance, all chance must be abolished and controlled. This is indeed totalitarian, in that it will embrace all irrespectively. Conformity to the revolutionary norm will be ensured. As an example of a disciplined army of workers, read Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” and see what wonderful possibilities exist.
I think the old adage that revolution cannot be exported holds firm here. I think the masses need a certain level of socialist consciousness before moves can start to be made.
Okay, Wikipedia says it is 'utopian science fiction, so reading this is not a top priority, but I will. Thanks.
I don't know if this nature of mine, and of many people I know offline and online, a result of living under a capitalist system. But I have experienced that if something is forced down upon me and I am not allowed to learn by experiencing and experimenting, I tend to lose interest even if what is being forced down is prerequisite to success in this capitalist society. I do not want conflate this individual matter with a revolution where too many chances cannot be taken, but still want to keep this observation in mind. Your method of absolute surveillance-control-guide seems antithetical to what I think is the way to revolution and class struggle under DoTP. I don't know which is a correct Marxist position on this, but your approach seems very disconnected from the masses.
Instead of a centralised surveillance system though, if the party members regularly mingle with the masses (massline) like friends really, correct them at their mistakes, and Marxist education centers, etc. then this seems the more natural way to struggle.
I'll stop here. Thanks for the discussion.
here I mean arbitrary and casual chances, not chances that are Marxist or the party have arrived at through democratic centralism and 'concrete study of concrete conditions'.
We need a completely transparent economic sphere and well-protected private sphere.
Although maybe we should allow workers to pick their own level of surveillance at work. Either you work in private with strict quotas or you work under strict oversight without these quotas. We can also give workers the choice between working as freelancers under public scrutiny or as co-operands under scrutiny by their enterprise only. In the first case we track the productivity of the worker by himself, in the second we track the productivity of the entire enterprise.
The freedom to determine things like this would not only give workers more control over their work process, but also make the socialist economy much more dynamic.
One thing I've been thinking about is how we can ensure a transparent economy while also making people's consumption patterns private. If you want to insert a big fat dragon dildo into your ass this should remain possible under socialism, but obviously you wouldn't want everyone to know about it. Nevertheless we do want to keep check on people's labor tokens. Maybe there are some cryptographic tricks that could resolve this issue, or maybe we can have discrete "banking" organizations that reliably keep track of people's labor tokens without it having to be public. I don't know.
Oh, and read your OP
Ah, this could be problematic. If the dissenter if a worker, despite of socialism working and no bureaucracy, then their ideas have to be handled and corrected in a friendly manner.
Hey, if by 'surveillance' you mean if the workers opt in that when they engage in say online discussions their posts be read by learned comrades and discussed and criticised then it is actually good. But we have gotten to point of being deeply rooted with the masses themselves. So this debate I think is meaningless.
Read Paul Cockshott? Check out his videos on YT for a starter.
Also you have made me think if the Amazon and Google-style content and product recommendation by tracking your online and offline activities, while frowned upon in capitalistic society because of being profit-driven and intrusive, could actually be beneficial to people in a socialist setting because
And instead of being centralised, this AI could actually be available for download (open-source too ofco) and be used locally by the user.
if there's one thing I'd change about Zig Forums it's that anons would give even brief summaries of their recommended thinkers position on a given matter instead of just sayin "read X" and fucking off.
I'm also interested in this question but I'm just slugging my way through basic ML stuff and don't have the time or brain capacity to just go read everything Cockshott has written. And yes, you Cockshott faggots are especially prone to doing this. If you want people to know what he's all about and why we should all become Cockshottists then explain his fucking ideas reeeee!
TL;DR help a dumb brother out and don't just hit us with the entire body of work of some commie author
basically cock nigga wants to put us in the matrix
Comrade, that is why I quoted you.
Paul Cockshott discusses this in his book 'Towards a New Socialism'. At least check out its Table of contents:
Skim through his short introduction to it:
Same here. Plus I have a shit brain along with concentration problem (even fail captchas so there's that. I have only read relevant segments of his work tbh and summaries by various comrades online.
His short videos you can see (he takes lots of long pauses and is a little slow so you can skip using 'L' key or play the video at x1.25) which are relevant to your question:
1. Why labor theory of value is right (15:12)
> Explains the empirical evidence for the labour theory of value, youtube.com
2. Going beyong money (26:28)
> Explains Marx's idea for the use of labour certificates in a communist system, youtube.com
3. Getting down to details of communism (25:52)
> Looks at how a labor credit economy would actually work, youtube.com
I'm actually not the user you quoted, but I sperged out cause I thought it was a good question. Thanks comrade, I'll check this stuff out.
Damn, didn't notice. But no problem comrade, am glad to be of help! If you want to begin with his work, you might want to go through Marx's marxists.org
I currently don't have a source but iirc labor vouchers have been used before and to cancel them out of circulation there were if you guessed paper punching machines before modern tech.
There Wikipedia article discusses them:
For a quick summary of how labor vouchers would work IRL think of how credit card and debit cards work – we will utilize this tech ofco.
There have been Cockshott threads before but here is a vulgar rundown for you:
1. Say I work for 8 hours (socially-necessary labour time (SNLT), remember, do not bring mud pie argument)
2. I get 8 (hours worth) labour vouchers.
3. Labour vouchers can only be used once.
4. So they do not circulate like money does.
5. Also to prevent further hoarding, they expire after a certain time. Plus, there is no transfer of vouchers. They are bound to you only, cannot give it to your friend.
6. Also this is done all electronically now that we can utilize the technology of credit cards and debit card and internet banking.
7. Say a chair takes 2 SNLT to in total manufacture, transport, deliver, etc. So I can use 2 vouchers to buy a chair from a local warehouse.
8. If my job is harder, the society decides the multiplier of how many vouchers I get. For example for a wood worker this multiplier could be x1 and for a doctor x2, so for working 8 hours, the former gets 8 LV and the latter gets 16.
9. Also remember that students while their study get LV too because their time spent studying is SNLT. So doctors, engineers, philosophers all are paid (not out of obligation/favour of the state, but what they actually DESERVE, they are producing value while they study).
10. For products which practically require no SNLT for production, they become free.
11. Plus, a planned economy, so full democratization and production is for consumption not profit so there is no wastage or middle-man.
12. There would be, by the nature of socialist society itself, full employment as more number of people into jobs, the less amount of SNLT to create products so working hours reduce for everyone as well as the costs. The same happens as we do more automation.
13. Notice how in capitalism there has to exist unemployment but not here.
So this is really the system that works for everyone.
If a learned comrade can correct me please do.
Plus now I get the full fruits of my labor. This explanation seems problematic but you get the idea.
first drink drano
You don't though, taxes get taken out so infrastructure can be maintained and people who can't work get taken care of
Thanks for the correction!
I have reading to do tbh ;p Is there any other correction in my summary? Can I at least say, ofco, that I get more fruits of my labour than I did under capitalism, no?
considering I now don't consider taxes to be theft because now I pay taxes out of the consideration and compassion for my comrades who may be less able due to whatever reason, infrastructure, etc.
Are you sure it's because you've persuaded them and not just so you'd stop looking at them like pic related?
Sorry I can't help myself, that film just comes to my mind when I listen to barracks communists, still love your posting. You seem like you're looking for some kind of absoute dialectical zero point. I can't help but respect that and it's a fucking trip to watch.
But here is exactly the problem. The surveillance system you propose can't help but create an atmosphere of conformism and fear, where no one dare oppose the political dogma of who ever controlls the panopticon.
I remember the moment when I flipped over to the Communism. It was a history class where they talked about my countrys civil war, and despite the bourgeoise presentation something clicked in my head and I just knew the communists where in the right. I remember the rush of adrenaline when I realized I was finally thinking with my own brain and I saw through the bosses ideology that saturated every aspect of daily life. The thing is, unless you believe a perfect purity of thought can be achieved, and achieved before the creation of the panopticon, you'll kill any chance of the politics developing, since every new idea will be killed in its cradle by the person who has it in the fear of seeming unorthodox or counterrevolutionary.
*pic related here
Plus the workers will have a very negative reaction to it, they would already be recovering from the effects of a similar bourgeois system. No way they'll accept it.
The point is that you and your comrades are in complete control of how the fruits of your labor are invested. It isn't up to a separate owning class anymore. You may decide that you want more of the fruits of your labor as labor tokens, but this will come at a cost in investment into new productive means and directly social goods. It could be more valuable to invest in new machinery. It could be more valuable to invest in a communal swimming pool, or a theater with interesting performances, or a communal kitchen with free meals, or the development of new free video games.
This needs to be decided before people are given labor tokens, because if we make it function on donations you run into the free-rider problem, and if we make people pay for these things we are just commodifying them, with all the negative effects that ensue.
Or, perhaps, over-surveillance breeds contempt for the power surveiling, especially if the system capturing and judging the information gathered is less than perfect in judging the information it has (whether doing x implies a lack of discipline, or that one is insufficiently contributing labor, and that one is truly in favor of capitalism). Having more information is not equivalent to having more useful information.
It's entirely specious to say that these methods are people "policing themselves" when this surveillance is fundamentally a policing method used by the state.
I find the only concrete result of expatiating upon the benefits of the surveillance state (under socialism) is to prop up the actual surveillance state (under capitalism).
This was insightful. I really like how this'd bring us together as a society again.
I see that I totally missed the social aspects of this system and gave too much focus on the individual. Thanks for showing me the big picture, more to learn and think about!
You sure are demonizing the state a lot, what are you, some sort of infantile anarchist? The state is a force for good. Surveillance methods enacted in this way will lay the foundations for a harmonious, classless society. Any lasting resistance to this system will be gone within a generation as people are born into a system use to ubiquitous surveillance. Your assertions about over-surveillance breeding contempt completely ignores the class-character of the surveillance.
They are not demonizing the state. Your system and > a state where dissent can be located before the would-be dissenter themselves knows of their possible dissent
Very appropriate response against the system you propose
My system is wholly in line with these positions.