Paul Cockshott & Soviet Cybernetics Thread

Chase Reyes
Chase Reyes

Once again, it's the thread about computer-aided economic planning and direct democracy and general Cockshott news I guess (old thread: zigforums.com/thread/2781898/right-politics).

His latest blogpost: paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2019/05/14/input-output-or-harmony-planning/
Kantorovich held that his Objective Valuations, would in the long term converge on labour values, but that in the short run they were useful to ensure that the best use was made of currently available plant and equipment.
I arrived at the Harmony approach whilst thinking over how to come up with a better algorithm for solving Kantorovich’s problem. As it happens I was in Budapest in 89 looking to find a Hungarian publisher/translator for the work the later became Towards a New Socialism and came across a Hungarian planning text in English and thinking about it whilst in a concert, I thought of an improved algorithm…

Read "Towards a New Socialism" by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell, if you haven't already: ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book

Attached: Cybernetic-Empire.jpg (58.85 KB, 500x500)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/j942c
dataorienteddesign.com/dodbook/
microservices.io/
pastebin.com/bPyr7Vau
openstack.org/
b-ok.xyz/book/899907/0135f4
desuarchive.org/gnussr/thread/545/
youtube.com/watch?v=TM-tjs6XSuA
youtube.com/watch?v=Mw_WQRPIBNU
aeon.co/ideas/think-everyone-died-young-in-ancient-societies-think-again
youtu.be/Uxp3I3qTy4M
youtube.com/watch?v=bcLvDZKp17I
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf).
youtube.com/watch?v=LM49VWXaaj4
marxistpedia.org/wiki/Social_labour
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_07_11-abs.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=_6TNF854Xmo&list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m&index=1
twitter.com/rechelon/status/1134660796678492160
forbes.com/sites/julianvigo/2019/01/08/the-united-colors-of-cryptocurrency/
youtube.com/watch?v=44grUtq6D98
commonspace.scot/articles/14300/watch-drastic-adaptation-climate-change-we-need
commonspace.scot/articles/14227/beyond-noise-market-vs-planet-case-planned-economy
sfecon.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=-U4CZ92ftE4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_medical_internationalism
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2018/06/19/more-flim-flam-about-cantor-from-the-austrians/
youtube.com/watch?v=DgYz8p32Cho
mronline.org/2019/04/23/socialism-in-the-economic-report-of-the-president/
youtu.be/DgYz8p32Cho
docs.google.com/document/d/1gGCcCl_nOfFMk0WT3mzkSnI1XkGim9ouz2mtL-zqK4Q/edit?usp=sharing
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/bitcoin-is-not-what-socialism-needs/
c4ss.org/content/52231
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-1):
bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838
feministcurrent.com/2015/10/26/are-we-hearing-sex-workers-when-we-listen-to-them/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Linear_Programming_Kit
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2019/07/04/critique-of-althussers-theory-of-ideology-part-1/
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2019/07/06/critique-of-althussers-2-1-definition-of-ideology/
rocket.rs/
designing-history.world/theory/simulating-socialism-3-valuation
nypost.com/2019/01/25/george-soros-calls-xi-jinping-the-most-dangerous-enemy/
boards.4channel.org/sci/thread/10816535
youtube.com/watch?v=ubRAfy_Y4VY
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/separation
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subdivision
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/what-then-is-the-escape-from-capitalism/
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoZNiItBbuVvKQBdE80tsyhx
youtube.com/watch?v=Q0Mbjv7q9F8
boards.4channel.org/g/thread/71991719#p71996761
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-1/
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-2/
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/23/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-3/
youtube.com/watch?v=p23gG5lT0hU
youtube.com/watch?v=4tovsC3-Vdk
youtube.com/watch?v=x-oRmcYR5cM
youtube.com/watch?v=Y1bGkgpYVao
desuarchive.org/marxism/thread/7/
khanacademy.org/math
monthlyreview.org/product/how-the-world-works/

Chase Williams
Chase Williams

So which in countries can you implement any of these ideas, taking into account their political realities?

Attached: 1280px-Whole-world---land-and-oceans-12000.jpg (121.85 KB, 1280x640)

Benjamin Stewart
Benjamin Stewart

North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, China, Bolivia, Vietnam? Roj*ava?
These are all the most "socialist" countries out there, I think those have the best chances. Obviously it isn't in the interest of the bourgeoise to do this.

Jaxon Baker
Jaxon Baker

Can we also do a meme dump of all cockshott/cybernetics memes I’m especially looking for the vapor wave ones

Tyler Lewis
Tyler Lewis

here's another archive
archive.is/j942c

Jeremiah Smith
Jeremiah Smith

pdfs too

Tyler Ross
Tyler Ross

The better question is, what programming language will the econ planning system be written in? When we did a poll on it back in 2017, the answer was python, oddly enough. Thought I'm not sure python would be the best language for a production level numerical computing program. Probably 95%+ of it can be written in python(backend logic and APIs)and the intense numerical computing parts written in C++.

TBH im not sure about the whole apis thing since REST is now being phased out in favor of things like GRAPHQL. Instead of having a front end app call restful backend services, it makes one graphql query to a graphql api server, which then in turn calls the microservices that provide the info in a serialized format, after which point its returned to the front end app (written in whatever js framework is flavor of the month, or likely in the future as a web assembly).

Bentley Cooper
Bentley Cooper

Probably 95%+ of it can be written in python(backend logic and APIs)and the intense numerical computing parts written in C++
Python has no multithreading, making it terrible for performant servers. As well, it has dynamic typing and lots of runtime errors, meaning it is not really secure.
Slow interpreted languages (IE, all of them aside from Lisp) should be phased out in communism. Compiled languages can be just as convenient and easy. As well, strong type systems are very important.
Go:
- Simple (friendly to workers of varying skill levels), nice multithreading, reasonable speed, compiled, typed. But kind of lame in some aspects. Rejects bourgeois OOP ideology.
Rust:
- Very fast, pretty easy, but complex. Fantastic safety guarantees, type system, etc, and more modern than ugly old ADA. Also rejects bourgeois OOP.
Java:
- Current dominant corporate language. Familiar to all worldwide. Pretty simple. Has fast modern web library (vertx). Awful OOP shit. Cockblast's POC program is written in it.

Jeremiah Walker
Jeremiah Walker

Lol, I'm using ada.

Easton Wood
Easton Wood

I'm a brainlet, why is OOP shit?

Thomas Russell
Thomas Russell

More power to you. It's great for what it is.

Virtual function table causing lots of cache misses
"everything is a reference" causing lots of cache misses (issue does not exist to same degree in c++)
encourages packing loads of fields into one struct, polluting cache
huge class hierarchies, most data hiding is just obfuscation
hacky design patterns that aren't needed in other paradigms
outdated type systems
literally Platonic idealism
promoted by managers because they think it makes programmers more replaceable
other stuff too. Look up "Data oriented design."

Eli Russell
Eli Russell

I tend to agree with you, and that OOP is generally shit. Functional all the way and procedural for the low level bits that need optimization.
dynamic typing
agree it sucks, the only reason it became popular is because you didnt have to write the type name in front of variables making development faster. Now with static compiled languages having type inference (C++'s auto and C#'s/Java10+'s 'var' for examples) there really is not much reason to use dynamic typing.

Lisp is an exception to dynamic languages being shit because its uniquely simple syntactic structure makes it have unique meta-programming properties i.e. macros.

just a quick pedantic note: not a golang programmer, but was under the impression that go coroutines were not "muh troo multithreading".

Rust: I like what I see, is likely to slow down development though as you have a very strict type system. Still, good choice for long term production systems.

JAVA: HELL to the NO. I know cockshott likes it but he was a programmer back in the 70s/80s/90s and his whole shtick was a version of Pascal he made, and if youve seen pascal/delphi syntax it looks sortof like a procedural version of java. The JVM is good, but java itself is a dogshit language. eww eww ewww ewwww. Its the COBOL of the 21st century. Maybe a JVM based language though like Scala or Clojure.

One thing I havent heard mentioned is DOTNET CORE. with dotnet 5 coming out in 2020 (supposedly) all of the current disparate dotnet platforms for mobile, desktop, game engines, etc. will be unified under a single, open sourced and free platform of dotnet, phasing out the old proprietary asp.

dotnet advantages:
C# is better than java.
has native functional programming in terms of F#
mainstream language so has all kinds of libraries/frameworks to choose from.

Jonathan Anderson
Jonathan Anderson

bourgeois OOP
8/10 bait
muh cache misses
not real problem
data hiding
hacky design patterns
aka "I can't into proper basic architecture"

Attached: lauging.gif (133.55 KB, 340x340)

Angel Hughes
Angel Hughes

muh OOP is good
ok if you think thats BS what about difficulties with parallel programming due to mutable state

Juan Clark
Juan Clark

ok the bourgeois OOP is obviously a shitpost, but you have to admit that the way OOP has been interpreted by mainstream corporate languages like JAVA is terrible and has lead to bloated terrible software.

Design patterns A LA gang of four arent really necessary in FP, plus immutability makes unit testing easier as you only have to test the function and not also take into account stateful variables. Plus you can more easily parallelize operations

Sebastian Bennett
Sebastian Bennett

ok, I understand your point, except for "terrible" OOP interpretation of JAVA, with which I have absolutely no experience as primary .net developer. Every time I have to work with lot's of data I push all(most of) business logic onto database engine which do this kind of heavy lifting very efficiently.

Jackson Kelly
Jackson Kelly

Ada, Haskell, some Lisp.

Attached: -20190515-124047.JPG (38.52 KB, 671x701)

Brandon Hill
Brandon Hill

not a golang programmer, but was under the impression that go coroutines were not "muh troo multithreading".
It's an async IO/thread pool model. A mix of userspace threads and OS threads. Also called "green threads." There will usually be fewer OS threads than goroutines, since the blocked goroutines can be moved off the OS thread and replaced with a routine that needs to run while it waits for an IO signal.

Rust: I like what I see, is likely to slow down development though as you have a very strict type system.
Well, isn't that precisely a bourgeois mindset? Languages without Algebraic Data Types and memory safety assurances slow development down immensely once the codebase gets big enough, because of all the debugging headaches. But from the capitalist POV, it's just getting venture capital and shipping a half-finished product that counts.
As well, Rust code can be very abstracted and clean. It has all of the nice quality of life stuff people want– iterators, map/filter/reduce/etc, lambdas, type inference… Once you understand the "everything is a move" management model and a few other things, there's no reason it couldn't be great for scripting.

JAVA: HELL to the NO. I know cockshott likes it but he was a programmer back in the 70s/80s/90s and his whole shtick was a version of Pascal he made, and if youve seen pascal/delphi syntax it looks sortof like a procedural version of java. The JVM is good, but java itself is a dogshit language. eww eww ewww ewwww. Its the COBOL of the 21st century. Maybe a JVM based language though like Scala or Clojure.
I agree, but I mentioned it out of consideration for the Java-programming masses. Really, they should be re-trained to better languages (some of which, like Go, are simpler to use).

One thing I havent heard mentioned is DOTNET CORE. with dotnet 5 coming out in 2020 (supposedly) all of the current disparate dotnet platforms for mobile, desktop, game engines, etc. will be unified under a single, open sourced and free platform of dotnet, phasing out the old proprietary asp.
I've heard it's nice, but a lot of C#/DOTNET stuff is still not Linux-friendly. You are right, F# is good, though still has some jank with interop.

David Johnson
David Johnson

muh cache misses
not real problem
Cache misses are making most programs five to twenty or even hundreds of times slower than they should be. L1 cache takes like 2 cycles to move into registers, main memory takes upwards of 300 in many cases.

aka "I can't into proper basic architecture"
read
dataorienteddesign.com/dodbook/

Adrian King
Adrian King

i like the armchair programming experts ITT who act like they know what's what but haven't contributed a goddamn thing to any meaningful open source project

Camden Ortiz
Camden Ortiz

It's neural linguistic.

Asher Sanders
Asher Sanders

Parallel neural cybernetic networks made from dimorphic radiotropic fungi have THZ+ bandwidth.

Eli Ross
Eli Ross

C/C++ or nothing. There would be no free software without the GNU Compiler Collection.
My comrade right here.

Isaiah Foster
Isaiah Foster

Upholds C, yet simultaneously upholds OOP
wtf
your entire precious GNU system is written with barely any function/data coupling at all, and with no type inheritance.
In any case, C is good for what it is, but "everything is a nullable pointer" is one of history's greatest mistakes, it has UB, c-strings are not good, and it is just plain old.
C++ is a travesty, you only have to see one std template compile error barf to understand that.

Aaron Nguyen
Aaron Nguyen

ok, go rewrite linux in Go or some other meme language since you know what's best

Wyatt Taylor
Wyatt Taylor

BBC BASIC

Kayden Smith
Kayden Smith

Attached: talk-is-cheap.jpg (63.89 KB, 1200x630)

Eli Ross
Eli Ross

How are you going to secure the planning algorithm and handivote from hacking and sabotage?

Sebastian Cooper
Sebastian Cooper

I’m a programmer but I haven’t made any open source contributions because I’m too busy writing code for rent money in my 9-5 and porky owns all the code I’ve been making

Evan Bailey
Evan Bailey

In my view, the planning algorithm should be backed up by multiple independent agencies checking each other's calculations. The voting system would require advanced cryptography.

Caleb Watson
Caleb Watson

yeah sure linus, not like actually discussing language choice and architectural designs beforehand is good or anything, better to just start shitting out unmaintainable code in whatever language/platform/framework i feel like and stick the rest of the people who will work on it with those decisions for the rest of time amirite
Good question. The answer is pretty complicated, because there are so many levels of security - network level, physical access, vulnerabilities in the code. Basically the codebase would need to undergo periodic audits, as well as the networks/servers hosting the system which would need security/pen testing.
Rust is the new Ada. Lisp = good for scripting
Haskell = language from 1000 years from the future that i cant understand because i dont have a phd in category theory. Really though haskell is great but every time i try, i just cant into it
goroutines
sounds good
rust vs rails
I agree that startup style hipster development, just shoving an inefficient half baked minimal viable product out the door as fast as possible would not be the goal of an open sourced project. You are really rustpilling me here
dotnet
yes, we will have to wait to see how dotnet 5 does in 2020. If all goes well we will have a performant native dotnet implementation on all 3 major OS's

Wyatt Perez
Wyatt Perez

the bigger question is hosting though, obviously cloud hosting such as AWS, Google Cloud, Azure also digital ocean, ibm, oracle, vultr, and countless others is out of the question as almost all those companies are under the jurisdiction of the US government which means if you have a third world country that tries this they would need to have their own servers and network, 90s style. The only cloud provider even remotely considerable is alibaba cloud because its chinese.

Perhaps the planners would have to buy a bunch of servers/network equipment and implement their own private cloud using something like openstack. This itself is not outside the range of possibility as major corporations (Target, etc.) already do this

Jack Morales
Jack Morales

C/C++ would be great for the performant bits but youre not thinking broadly enough. What about the UI ? wouldnt it be better as a web app and why write that in C++?

Aaron Bell
Aaron Bell

make the database do it
yeah its the same at my work too, though in oracle stack rather than microsoft. Push all the logic into the database in the form of stored procedures etc. The problem is this is an old enterprise architectural style, in a major corporation for example you have not just multiple testing environments of the same app, but multiple apps (for HR, accounting, /whatever) on the same really really buff oracle or sql server because hey, the management shilled out a shit ton of money for it, so every app becomes dependent on it. Then you need a high paid database admin to babysit it, because if something goes wrong, large parts of the whole business critical functions stop working.

Nowdays things are shifting to a MICROSERVICES architecture:
microservices.io/
where every service = a business function and has its own internal data store

William Jones
William Jones

web app

Attached: D1L9EgIUwAAabBY.jpg (97.67 KB, 1024x742)

Owen Sullivan
Owen Sullivan

You can download this html doc with javascript and run in your browser: pastebin.com/bPyr7Vau The purpose of this is to divide up a given amount of free identical cookies among individuals based on what they wish for without giving them an incentive to exaggerate (like would happen with scaling down all stated amounts by the same factor to make the sum equal to what's available). Just a few more features *cough* and we'll have a complete computer-communism package.

Jordan Smith
Jordan Smith

Is this even a relevant question? The way I'm imagining it the architecture of the planning software would be defined in human language, and there would be space for some diversity in how this schematic is implemented. What matters is how the different pieces of the planning system fit together and produce a result. Each node is a black box, what's going on inside doesn't matter as much as its external behaviour.
I'm not a programmer though, so maybe someone could enlighten me.
Probably 95%+ of it can be written in python(backend logic and APIs)and the intense numerical computing parts written in C++.
Something like this is probably how it'd end up working, I think.

Leo Clark
Leo Clark

Yeah, we don't live in the 80s anymore, so something particularly well-optimized isn't needed. The hardware cost really isn't an issue. Every component of the whole thing could be implemented in seven different ways, with different outputs by components dedicated to the same goal decided by a virtual vote among them.

Luke Howard
Luke Howard

Ideally the different implementations wouldn't all be running. Resources aren't as big of an issue as they used to be, but they still matter. What I imagine is different planning agencies regularly checking each other's calculations with their own software in order to prevent fraud.

Isaac Collins
Isaac Collins

Linus himself has said Rust is pretty good and solves important problems, but also that the core kernel code is, in his view, a solved problem. They have coding standards, a history, and procedures that make the core kernel pretty damn safe.
However, the core kernel is only like 200k LOC, meaning it wouldn't be wildly impossible to rewrite it. And as for kernel drivers, many of which are not up to the same standards as the core, Rust is very viable.
Go is GCed so it is not viable for any perf-critical code like a kernel.

The planning system and data (barring military secrets) should be open source so everyone can verify the plans on their own PCs or servers. As for general security stuff, same as any bank or server system. Actually, most banks have awful security from the 90s. The labor credit system would be much more secure. Aside from that, communism would heavily disincentivize illegal hacking, and there could be a great firewall.

If a country has a communist revolution, it can host its planning and banking systems in private servers, not the cloud. Cockshott's system is much more efficient than the modern banking system, as it gets rid of huge amounts of speculation, exchange between producers, service fees, and so on. The cloud is not some kind of miracle, it really sucks in many ways. If you're just making a demo app, the cloud is probably sufficient.

I think we were talking about backend. Frontend definitely should be a functional reactive framework like Elm, ReasonML, Elmish etc. Zero runtime errors. Preferably on WebASM, or we could do as god intended and switch browser scripting to a Lisp interpreter.
Wouldn't hurt to have a standalone desktop app either, so everyone just has it in their package manager. But you could do that in QT, or we could have a new desktop GUI framework that uses FRP and data oriented programming.

I think it just depends on which component. The labor credit banking should obviously have a webapp. The numbers-crunching parts of the program are more suited to a desktop or CLI app.

Yeah, we don't live in the 80s anymore, so something particularly well-optimized isn't needed. The hardware cost really isn't an issue.
Absolutely bourgeois. This mentality is why our programs keep getting slower in spite of hardware speedups. As well, we are at like 7nm transistors now. The age of ever-increasing CPU speeds is over. We need to preserve the environment by making faster, more efficient programs and selling slower, less power-hungry hardware that lasts a long time.
Look how much slower Python, PHP, etc are compared to Go, vertx, actix, etc. Some of the best modern backend systems are literally 50x faster than Django or Rails. That means, if you have a socialist cloud service, Python users are taking up a massive amount of resources other people need.

Juan Morales
Juan Morales

I was more thinking along the lines of one big agency doing the same calculations in several places. You need to have redundancy in that stuff – and not just in software, but hardware, since even when humans do everything right there is always the risk of cosmic radiation flipping a bit; my inspiration is NASA/NGE. Not really a fan of having regional planning agencies.

Brody Jackson
Brody Jackson

it can host its planning and banking systems in private servers, not the cloud.
yeah by making its own private cloud using the computers and networking equipment they have on hand using open sourced software like openstack
openstack.org/
the whole reason for this is to conserve computing resources by using virtual machines and lightweight function as a service. if you have to make each service on an actual hardware then when its not being utilized 100% its basically just sitting there using up power. It saves energy, compute cycles, and is more environmental to make more efficient use of computers/servers by having them as the basis of a private cloud system under open stack and implementing the necessary services on VM's/ FAAS on that. I forsee each socialist country in the future having its own cloud, basically.
WEBASM/LISP
switching browser to lisp (probably scheme in that case) sounds good but it would mean having to roll our own browser or browser plugin to parse lisp and execute it… unless youre talking about clojurescript or something.
le moores law means i dont have to write performant code anymore
correct. Although i will point out that PHP7+ actually has way faster execution that python.
le byzantine generals problem
This is more applicable to embedded software than apps running on normal servers. Unless you plan to be running the software on a satellite in orbit or something I don't think this will be a problem

Zachary Richardson
Zachary Richardson

the whole reason for this is to conserve computing resources by using virtual machines and lightweight function as a service. if you have to make each service on an actual hardware then when its not being utilized 100% its basically just sitting there using up power. It saves energy, compute cycles, and is more environmental to make more efficient use of computers/servers by having them as the basis of a private cloud system under open stack and implementing the necessary services on VM's/ FAAS on that. I forsee each socialist country in the future having its own cloud, basically.
Thank you for pointing this out.

switching browser to lisp (probably scheme in that case) sounds good but it would mean having to roll our own browser or browser plugin to parse lisp and execute it… unless youre talking about clojurescript or something.
For a government project, it would be relatively easy to fork Firefox and give it a Lisp interpreter alongside its JS interpreter. JS was originally just supposed to be a flavor of Scheme anyway. Scheme would be nice for FRP, and a good transpilation target. However, WASM does make transpiling a bit redundant.

Although i will point out that PHP7+ actually has way faster execution that python.
I have heard this about PHP7, but it is still PHP.

Justin Smith
Justin Smith

Gonna share two posts from /marx/ regarding Cybernetics:

Cybernetics was most popular in the USSR in the Khrushchev period, when the CPSU was claiming that Soviet citizens would be experiencing communism in 20 years' time, colonizing planets, etc. But supporters of cybernetics had opposition from both "the establishment" (government ministries didn't want to replace existing planning methods and were concerned about issues like unemployment if so much human labor was no longer necessary) and from supporters of a more market-based approach (who argued that cybernetics was a waste of time and resources which would only result in a further centralization of the economy to the detriment of its efficiency.)

There's a book about the subject titled From Newspeak to Cyberspeak: A History of Soviet Cybernetics, which can be found here: b-ok.xyz/book/899907/0135f4

Here's an excerpt from page 273:

Economic cyberneticians quickly realized that it was impossible to centralize all economic decision making in Moscow: the mathematical optimization of a large-scale system was simply not feasible. CEMI researchers estimated that complete optimization of the Soviet economy required solving a gargantuan system of equations with 50 million variables and 5 million constraints. They admitted that even a computer performing 1 million operations per second, which was much faster than any available Soviet computers, would require one month to solve a system a billionth as large. Besides, economic cyberneticians realized that there were some serious conceptual difficulties: linear programming was suited for the problem of resource distribution, but it did not work well for prospective planning, there were different views on what constituted an economic optimum, and it was difficult to agree on a single criterion for optimization. In 1967 Fedorenko unequivocally stated that "the full formalization of the functioning of an economic system and the creation of a fully automated centralized system of planning and management of the economy is unwarranted.

With issues like that, it isn't surprising that cybernetics was criticized as impractical. Soviet planners and Party leaders did constantly talk about the need to implement the "scientific and technological revolution," but they envisioned it as assisting current methods to plan the economy rather than anything drastic.

Cooper Lopez
Cooper Lopez

The second one is less related to Cybernetics but more about problems socialist countries have faced:

The Chinese and Cubans are still trying to figure that out, and there's no shortage of authors in the West with their own views (e.g. Paul Cockshott.) However, I can quote Parenti for some examples of problems the socialist countries faced. From his "Blackshirts and Reds," pp. 60-61:

1. Managers were little inclined to pursue technological paths that might lead to their own obsolescence. Many of them were not competent in the new technologies and should have been replaced.

2. Managers received no rewards for taking risks. They maintained their positions regardless of whether innovative technology was developed, as was true of their superiors and central planners.

3. Supplies needed for technological change were not readily available. Since inputs were fixed by the plan and all materials and labor were fully committed, it was difficult to divert resources to innovative production. In addition, experimentation increased the risks of fail- ing to meet one's quotas.

4. There was no incentive to produce better machines for other enterprises since that brought no rewards to one's own firm. Quite the contrary, under the pressure to get quantitative results, managers often cut corners on quality.

5. There was a scarcity of replacement parts both for industrial production and for durable-use consumer goods. Because top planners set such artificially low prices for spare parts, it was seldom cost-efficient for factories to produce them.

6. Because producers did not pay real-value prices for raw materials, fuel, and other things, enterprises often used them inefficiently.

7. Productive capacity was under-utilized. Problems of distribution led to excessive unused inventory. Because of irregular shipments, there was a tendency to hoard more than could be put into production, further adding to shortages.

8. Improvements in production would lead only to an increase in one's production quota. In effect, well-run factories were punished with greater work loads. Poor performing ones were rewarded with lower quotas and state subsidies.

Managerial irresponsibility was a problem in agriculture as well as industry. One Vietnamese farm organizers comment could describe the situation in most other communist countries: "The painful lesson of [farm] cooperatization was that management was not motivated to succeed or produce." If anything, farm management was often motivated to provide a poor product. For instance, since state buyers of meat paid attention to quantity rather than quality, collective farmers maximized profits by producing fatter animals. Consumers might not care to eat fatty meat but that was their problem. Only a foolish or saintly farmer would work harder to produce better quality meat for the privilege of getting paid less.

Owen Hernandez
Owen Hernandez

Unless you plan to be running the software on a satellite in orbit or something I don't think this will be a problem
What's the effect of a bug? This is not about software for a factory, it is about software for a continent. Its output does not get an extra check by humans going over it and having a discussion what to do with it, the updates are too frequent for that; so even though it's humans down the line that order other humans and not the Computergod blackmailing you with leaking your nudes, the frequency and quantity of the program output won't leave room for anything but turning the recommendations into directly binding orders. The human control is only changing the parameters for the program, which happens at much lower frequency, between these updates the program plays with itself and generates thousands of short-term plans. How can you be sure a program is bug-free unless it isn't much more complex than Tic-tac-toe? This project isn't like making a smartphone game, it is more serious than writing software for hospitals. That's why there needs to be redundancy with several implementations.

Nolan Myers
Nolan Myers

well, the core calculation algorithms are very short pieces of code. easy to verify and write tests for. of course some kinds of bugs could creep up in the db, interface, network, and elsewhere. However, I think you are overstating the precision of the issue here. The plans are clearly very precise compared to capitalism or soviet socialism, but at the end of the day, we will need to build tolerances for human error and random stuff happening into the way the system is enforced. make a "see something, say something" campaign for people to notice weird things going on in the plan. don't sweat minor cases of overproduction or underproduction. stuff like that.

Angel Bailey
Angel Bailey

What's the effect of a bug? This is not about software for a factory, it is about software for a continent.
the whole byzantine generals issue is because it is embedded software running in a hostile environment, not an air conditioned server in a warehouse datacenter not being hit by massive solar radiation every day. Hardware fault tolerance has been a solved issue for decades now except in quantum computers, the problems like that would have been corrected at a lower level of abstraction, as application level programmers we can largely trust the computer unless you want to make it as an embedded program on custom hardware/plcs designed by electrical engineers specifically

Gabriel Stewart
Gabriel Stewart

What about getting hit by an earthquake or NATO bombing?

Elijah Cooper
Elijah Cooper

sure there should be escrow backup sites, but that is for redundancy and data backup purposes, being geographically distributed. nothing to do with errors in calculation. If the server is bombed it wont give a wrong answer it will just stop functioning altogehter

Carson Baker
Carson Baker

I'll start with basics:
foreach (Citizen comrade in citizens.FindAll(c => c.ReadingList.Contains("Capital") && c.Bunker.Built == false)){
comrade.Bunker.Priority++;
}

Ayden Miller
Ayden Miller

interested in computer aided direct democracy, what's a good book to start?

Luke Perez
Luke Perez

Towards new socialism by cockshott
desuarchive.org/gnussr/thread/545/

Nicholas Anderson
Nicholas Anderson

I used to record the bedtime stories I told my own children. This is one I did for my niece Ruby. The stories were made up as I told them, and hava a strong local Scottish character. This is a first attempt to put one out on YouTube. Not sure if the visual effects are needed, or whether simply a voice is best with the pictures left to the child's imagination.
youtube.com/watch?v=TM-tjs6XSuA
This is just adorable.

Attached: bear7.jpg (89.43 KB, 736x924)

Lucas Walker
Lucas Walker

Managers and innovation
I think managers don't have that much to do with innovation, actually. There's R&D, which managers are usually to dumb for unless they are also engineers, and when a manager who is also an engineer does develop a useful engineering idea I'd say it's mostly not due to management-specific knowledge. There are many ideas from the shop floor. The manager can listen to that and get a fat bonus, the person on the shop floor gets a t-shirt.
under the pressure to get quantitative results, managers often cut corners on quality
Measuring quantity instead of quality is a general problem, not a socialist one. How can you systematically improve and not just by luck if you don't even have a measure? Better scoring rules were developed – the score for the big goal has to be made of of scores for distinct goals which have required minimum thresholds, and what's above that is weighted and aggregated not using arithmetic mean, but geometric or harmonic mean (as proposed by Miroslav Toms and others) – but this is very annoying to do with pencil and paper and using snail mail or phone call. With spreadsheets on a computer reluctance to use something like that is much lower and plants can now also easily send the details about the composition of what goes into these aggregate scores. There is a huge change here towards higher efficiency for socialism without need for a new big-brained theory.
excessive unused inventory
A lot of that can be avoided by a change in the accounting rules. Just like with computers and the internet, we can "steal" from developments that have already happened in capitalism. When you take the historical cost of unused inventory as a given, it appears as wealth in your part of the system, whether it is over-supplied or outdated stuff, you then have some serious extra thinking to do to fix that, and a lot of that is going to be speculation about the future importance of the stuff. If instead you focus on throughput, inventory just looks like 'locked up money (or locked up labor time) which you try to transform into throughput. Inventory is a cost.
Improvements in production would lead only to an increase in one's production quota. In effect, well-run factories were punished with greater work loads.
This is muddled phrasing (probably also muddled thinking). A factory isn't a person. Which individual should be punished or rewarded for what? What are you responsible for? If there are good tools and bad tools and you work with good tools, you should be rewarded or punished based on what one can do with the good tools UNLESS choosing/creating those tools was your achievement. And if you were given these superior tools, why shouldn't you be expected to do better? Of course, places with better technology (whether the responsibility for having them lies there or not) should get higher production quotas, don't call that punishment. To the extent the higher productivity is due to decisions and hard work at that place, we can still reward that with promotion and very quick feedback with a remuneration bonus.
Poor performing ones were rewarded with lower quotas and state subsidies.
Lower production quota is sensible here. If the subsidies are earmarked for obtaining better technology, if the difference in productivity lies in that, that is sensible. This is not a kafkaesque situation. Remember we still got the tool of punishment by lowering salaries/demoting managers and workers, insofar as this lower productivity is due to them and not factors outside their responsibilities.

Ian Fisher
Ian Fisher

managers are usually too dumb
>_<

Levi Gutierrez
Levi Gutierrez

My intention with multiple agencies isn't that different regions will do independent planning, but rather that there are multiple independent observers making sure planners are following the proper instructions. These observers can represent different regional or demographic interests and such, so that everyone is able to trust that the plan represents them as advertised.

If we tie central planning to a single state apparatus, I don't see how the state will ever be able to just whither away. For that to happen planning needs to exist as a free agreement between workers. They negotiate a set of abstract principles that constitute planning, and all these "planning agencies" then do is figure out what the concrete results of these principles are.

In other words, planning should be scientific. If we have just one planning agency we run the risk of it introducing all kinds of arbitrary determinations that do not properly represent the wishes of the working class. But if we have multiple agencies checking on each other, there will be a single equilibrium in which interests of the workers are best represented. Basically it's the equivalent of peer review.

I hope that makes sense. To me this seems like a very important point, although I have difficulty finding the right words for it.

Jose Sanchez
Jose Sanchez

They are, you’ve obviously never worked as an engineer for a non technical manager

Jack Robinson
Jack Robinson

It was a comment on my own typo.

Luke Reed
Luke Reed

Management typically has more to do with being capable of handling people than anything else, unsurprisingly. That's not even close to what it takes for innovation and development.

Dylan Anderson
Dylan Anderson

Looks like Cockshott just made a video on this youtube.com/watch?v=Mw_WQRPIBNU

Leo Cruz
Leo Cruz

I dont want to live under the tyranny of statistics. Men should rule themselves, never bow before gods or machines

Jaxson White
Jaxson White

Not making man both the God and the machine
Lame

Grayson Wilson
Grayson Wilson

Transhumanists get hunted and gathered.

Fear the anprim tribe

Zachary Robinson
Zachary Robinson

I wonder how much Paul enjoys/detests some of the shitposts left as comments under his video. I'm sure he's glad us yung'uns are taking to socialism, but he's also an older man, and our rambunctiousness just might rub him the wrong way. All I'm saying is that pic related is definitely from our little board, possibly on this thread right now, and perhaps not best representing the young communist movement to older, more serious minded ones.

Attached: leftypol-shitposter-on-yt.png (22.37 KB, 890x628)

Josiah Ross
Josiah Ross

enjoy dying at 30

Isaiah Long
Isaiah Long

Yeah that comment looks fucking horrible there.

Daniel Wilson
Daniel Wilson

Nice profile pic

Easton Anderson
Easton Anderson

I wonder how much Paul enjoys/detests some of the shitposts left as comments under his video
Detests. All of them. How is this even a question?
he's also an older man
I'm sure he would have seen it the same way at 20. The big problem is how to grow the radical left. Doing subcultural injokes outside of subculture gatherings is a really bad idea, unless you really only care about your subculture and delight in how people in the mainstream (and even others of the far left) don't get you.

Levi Scott
Levi Scott

Thanks, I made it myself

Well I'm glad yall agree with me. I'm sure there's dozens, maybe a hundred leftypolers watching his videos, and most of them stay quiet, but between comments like this (though I must say Install Gentoo has overall been respectful and fairly well composed, exception being this one comment, and thank god Paul probably doesn't know wtf a trap gf is), but shit like this sticks out like a sore thumb.
I think to some extent, he must understand that the younger generation is undoubtedly going to have some cultural and behavioral differences from his own generation, and there's something to be said for social misfits and weirdos being more likely to adopt a very unpopular political position, but there's no need to go over the top. So it's one thing having a profile pic of an anime boy, and it's another calling yourself "The Hunter x Hunter 2011 Dickriding Association". Must say though, THxH2011DRA doesn't post trashy comments, from what I recall, but one commenter on the early vids did invite Paul to Zig Forums to, and I quote "shitpost with us". And finally, maybe it's time for me to put away that stirner/cheetos-cat OC for my pic, I made that a long time ago and am no longer particularly interested in Stirner.

-self crit over

Samuel Howard
Samuel Howard

Detests. All of them. How is this even a question?
Rhetorical question, but yeah.
I'm sure he would have seen it the same way at 20. The big problem is how to grow the radical left. Doing subcultural injokes outside of subculture gatherings is a really bad idea, unless you really only care about your subculture and delight in how people in the mainstream (and even others of the far left) don't get you.
Totally agree, and few of our jokes aren't even designed as bait to gain interest in socialism. traps and nazbols are just shitpost material. Fuck, man. We need a new website bad. I really fucking appreciate the existence of Zig Forums but we need to advance beyond being one board on a nazi/weeaboo/trap-lover's forum. It's good, in my mind, to keep this board here as long as possible, as a thorn in the side of the aut-right, and as a place for leftists to talk shit without ruining their image, but for constructive discussion and organization, a new format is required.

Ryder Sullivan
Ryder Sullivan

It's always that one retard who is shitposting.

Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas

'cave men' didn't die at 30.

what happened in ancient societies was high infant mortality, which drove life expectancy down.

aeon.co/ideas/think-everyone-died-young-in-ancient-societies-think-again

Zachary Murphy
Zachary Murphy

Well, in that case, I am now an prim. Fuck you, babies.

Jackson Adams
Jackson Adams

Shitposting is infused into the DNA of my soul.

Attached: e65.png (153.37 KB, 200x347)

Jackson Thomas
Jackson Thomas

I think most sane an-prims would go to the nearest city full of trans(sub)humanists for medical care beyond what our knowledge of the forest could provide.

I dont think anyone really believes the whole world will be on board with an an-prim lifestyle, even if it's the only way to save the earth. You can put computers in your brain and live in a robot skin suit, but I and at least a few others would like to live in the natural state that society has deprived us of for so long. Go out an colonize the galaxy in your tin cans and brain interfaces, but I want to live and die here as a natural human excelling at what I'm evolved to do. Ambition will not be my downfall

Joseph Parker
Joseph Parker

There are plenty of voting methods that take rankings or ratings as input and output rankings or scores. Managing makes extensive use of charts and diagrams for planning stuff. Of course, different individuals or small groups can create plan proposals and then a much bigger group can vote to pick a winner from one of these using range voting or whatever. But is there software for more direct and democratic creation of planning diagrams themselves?

Blake Robinson
Blake Robinson

youtu.be/Uxp3I3qTy4M

Did you miss his last video?

Isaac Cruz
Isaac Cruz

thanks, watching it now

Nathaniel Baker
Nathaniel Baker

In Cockshott's lecture here,

youtube.com/watch?v=bcLvDZKp17I

At 00:55:10 he discusses paying Doctors and Workers. Is he saying Doctors won't be paid more under socialism? Apologies for the stupidity of the question.

Landon Cruz
Landon Cruz

Is he saying Doctors won't be paid more under socialism?
Not if they work more hours. Cockshott wants people's pay to be equall to work they've done. his position in the book is a bit different though. To quote from Towards a new socialism

"We can envision the establishment of a baseline level of general education: workers educated to this level only will be regarded as ‘simple labour’, while the labour of workers who have received additional special education is treated as a ‘produced input’, much like other means of production. This notion of skilled labour as a produced input may be illustrated by example. Suppose that becoming a competent engineer requires four years of study beyond the basic level of education. This four-year production process for skilled engineering labour involves a variety of labour inputs. First there is the work of the student—attending lectures, study in the library, lab work, etc. As stated earlier, this is regarded as valid productive work and is rewarded accordingly." The pages 34 to 40 on the book illustrate what he means by that in depth(ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf).

Attached: 56182690-116604416196458-2997019962592634760-n.jpg (352.75 KB, 500x625)

Cooper King
Cooper King

So if a doctor were to perform surgery that takes 5 hours while a worker were to perform the same number of hours work doing menial tasks, they'd be paid the same?

James Bell
James Bell

No, the doctor would be paid more since it takes longer to produce a doctor. I also think the logic Cockshott applies to cigarettes, that their price might be put higher to discourage people from smoking, can be used for people of skills that are hard to get by, with them being paid more to encourage their labor.

Ethan King
Ethan King

In capitalism doctors must take on huge debts in order to finance the cost of their education. These debts are then later repaid out of future earnings. The rationale under capitalism for a doctor's higher pay is precisely that - he must be paid higher because his initial investment of time and resources was higher, so the costs must be distributed via higher prices for his services.

Cockshott & Cottrell's idea was that education should be seen as work and students should be paid for their time spent acquiring skills that can be used in the workplace. So in their model of socialism a doctor, instead of having to pay huge sums to learn medicine, would in fact be paid to study. At an economic level there is no longer any rationale for doctors earning huge sums of money since they received compensation for their time spent in the education process. The basic principle would be that one hour of work = one hour of work. The system would affirm the basic equality of human beings by giving everyone equal access to material goods.

It is still possible that society may choose to reward doctors or other professionals with a higher rate of pay based upon the idea that skilled labor can be quantified as a multiple of simple labor. Or, it could form part of a higher "grade" of labor than otherwise. It's also possible that a shortage of doctors may induce society to offer increased compensation or benefits to attract more individuals to the field.

Jaxson Kelly
Jaxson Kelly

No, the doctor would be paid more since it takes longer to produce a doctor
That isn't the position argued for in TANS. In TANS world, education is covered by the public at large, so somebody who studies to become a doctor doesn't go into debt and even gets a basic salary for living expenses on top of that while studying. Likewise, for learning tasks that are specific to producing specific products that are allocated via consumption vouchers, the training costs of society do not translate into a right for a higher salary (though they can form part of the product price, since the product price (short-term fluctuations put aside) has to justify not only the work directly involved and the work going into machinery used, but also the work going into training). And why should it be a right? It's only something to do if brain drain becomes too big an issue, not because it is right and just according to some weird philosophy.

Isaiah Martinez
Isaiah Martinez

Why should someone who works more hours be paid more than someone who works fewer hours?

Jonathan Ross
Jonathan Ross

Do you think it should be the other way?

Isaac Powell
Isaac Powell

Doesn't the doctor have more labour hours embed into him? Page 36 of TANS says this

"The figure of 0.33, for instance, tells us that our engineer, whose skills are
depreciated over a 15 year horizon, transmits 0.33 hours of embodied labour
per hour worked. Unlike the machine, which only transmits labour embodied
in the past, our engineer also works one hour per hour. The total direct plus
indirect labour contribution of our engineer would therefore be 1.33 hours per
hour, a multiple of the simple labour rate. In other words, if the planners are
contemplating the employment of a million hours of skilled engineering labour
in the context of a long-run plan, they should recognise that this is equivalent
to a commitment of 1.33 million hours of simple labour.
We do not mean to imply that just because a skilled worker is rated as
costing society a third more than a worker of average skill, then they should
be paid a third more. This extra third represents the additional cost to society
of using skilled labour. Society has already met the ‘extra third’ in paying for
the worker’s education, so there is no justification for paying the individual any
extra. Although it has no implications for the distribution of personal income,
the skilled labour multiplier is important in working out the true social cost of
projects. A task that requires skilled labour is more costly to society even if the
skilled workers are paid the same as unskilled ones."

And why should it be a right? It's only something to do if brain drain becomes too big an issue, not because it is right and just according to some weird philosophy.
Don't you think it certainly should be used? If there will be a new large scale socialist country, it will first of all be atacked by capitalist powers, like it happened to every time. Second, the capitalist will raise the living standards of the proletariat and petit bourgeoisie, which will make braindrain harder to counter-act. Third, expect crippling sanctions. I think in such case there will be more urgent matters to care about than equality.

Jace Jackson
Jace Jackson

In capitalism doctors must take on huge debts in order to finance the cost of their education. These debts are then later repaid out of future earnings. The rationale under capitalism for a doctor's higher pay is precisely that - he must be paid higher because his initial investment of time and resources was higher, so the costs must be distributed via higher prices for his services.
Doesn't social democracy fix this tho? We have free University where I live, including medicine.

Austin Wilson
Austin Wilson

The relevant part is here:
This extra third represents the additional cost to society of using skilled labour. Society has already met the ‘extra third’ in paying for the worker’s education, so there is no justification for paying the individual any extra.'' Although it has no implications for the distribution of personal income, the skilled labour multiplier is important in working out the true social cost of projects. A task that requires skilled labour is more costly to society even if the skilled workers are paid the same as unskilled ones.

I would imagine in countries where the cost of education for doctors is heavily subsidized their earnings are also significantly lower.

Elijah Williams
Elijah Williams

let's assume there is a cybersocialist country in the future that implements cybernetic planning. what would the university education pertaining to that look like? would there be a degree just for cybernetics? what would be part of the curriculum?

basically im asking if someone could write down an approximate curriculum for a socialist cybernetics degree. which areas of study would our future planners need?

Zachary Rivera
Zachary Rivera

read marx
read cockshott
stop spamming the thread

James Martin
James Martin

Exactly, the only jobs that should pay more are jobs that people dont want to do/ not enough people are there to do it, to incentivize people to do it. Someone who cleans toilets should make more per hour than a surgeon, because it's very easy to convince someone to become a surgeon, but very hard to convince someone to clean toilets

Hunter Clark
Hunter Clark

because it's very easy to convince someone to become a surgeon, but very hard to convince someone to clean toilets
u srs bro?

Owen Morris
Owen Morris

cleans toilets
youtube.com/watch?v=LM49VWXaaj4

Hudson Morgan
Hudson Morgan

Yes, I am. In a socialist society with free education we would have a surplus of surgeons and a shortage of people willing to clean toilets. Cashmoney incentives seems a lot better than the alternative of using force. It also removes any stigma it might have, you wouldn't know wether the toilet cleaner is just an unskilled simpleton or an engineer who wants a little extra money to go on a nice vacation

Anthony Butler
Anthony Butler

I would have it that a toilet cleaner works less often for similar pay as more "prestogious" jobs. We don't need armies of neurosurgeons, but we do need a ton of people working in sanitation.

Hudson Jones
Hudson Jones

What if you made it a requirement that if you got a job in a certain field you were also responsible for cleaning up your workplace, toilets and all? Also, where has a surplus of surgeons ever came from any nation with taxpayer funded colleges?

Jobs like sanitation should be automated in the future, and sense getting education would be easier, it would be best to just do away with the jobs people don't like doing altogether by automating them.

Carter Jenkins
Carter Jenkins

Anyone can clean a well designed toilet easily according to procedure safely and effectively
Just `value` the labour time, which is the number of labour hours and therefore recieved labour vouchers of a toilet based on a total newb following the procedure sheet step by step including the time spent checking off the step on the sheet including prep like gloves sterilizing and post cleaning hygene like shower, recovery, rest and relaxation etc etc

Shove the cleaning schedule of toilets into Harmony and done

Juan Long
Juan Long

Yeah, cleaning your own workplace is a good solution too. But even with automation there will be jobs people dont want to do. These are the jobs that should pay the most in a socialist economy.

Eli Perry
Eli Perry

I can see your point that you're trying to make but like are we doing payment in labor voucers, fiat currency, or hard materials (gold)? What stage of socialism is this?

Dylan Young
Dylan Young

That's pretty much what I mean, pay more per hour. And having it so anyone with any job can pick up an hour or 2 of sanitation work if they want some extra money would help to do away stigmas towards unskilled laborers/people with low Autism Level.

Zachary Sanchez
Zachary Sanchez

This would be sort of a final step imo, but I like fiat money over labor vouchers because private transactions happen sometimes no matter what and its OK to for instance, brew beer and sell it to your neighbors at cost. It's only a problem you try to get rich and scale up your operation and neglect your actual job. And these transactions would happen no matter what, youd just force people to barter with goods by not having transferrable currency. And in the case that the government bans something you like, you can use the black market. Money is versatile.

But anyway youd have to show people that socialism works and get the masses out of the mindset of capitalist society before people are willing to listen to the reasons why it makes sense that sanitation workers should make more per hour than highy skilled labor.

Jaxson Reyes
Jaxson Reyes

Stafford Beer who developed the Cybersyn system in Chile worked in the field of Operational research. So I assume a cybernetics degree would heavily involve that plus statistics and computational optimisation

Jace Watson
Jace Watson

would there be a degree just for cybernetics?
yes. looking forward to getting my masters of science in cybernetic production engineering

Owen King
Owen King

What programs would need to be developed for a cybersocialist society specifically?

- a graph based horizontally scalable data store which has nodes representing the commodities and their direct labor inputs

- a web interface for analytics

Jason Howard
Jason Howard

There's the option for gold coins here, have a hobby economy running on that parallel to the serious labour voucher system

Samuel Bailey
Samuel Bailey

This would be sort of a final step imo, but I like fiat money over labor vouchers because private transactions happen sometimes no matter what and its OK to for instance, brew beer and sell it to your neighbors at cost
you could operate a small business using labor credits if your business were approved for a budget by the central plan.

if you keep money it is almost inevitable that private capitals (i.e. investment bubbles) will start appearing in the economy. this is why central planning and money are not compatible.

And these transactions would happen no matter what, youd just force people to barter with goods by not having transferrable currency.
then let them barter. the problem arises when these exchanges are transformed into money. this is when value arises. in socialism/communism there can be no value or the whole system falls apart.

Colton Scott
Colton Scott

Is there any way to reverse or maintain the fertility of the soil in the face of climate change if you're a new socialist government in Africa? Would it mostly be stuff like Sankara's planting trees? Or just say fuck it and prepare for a population transfer to Canada/Russia/Greenland?

Attached: sankara-painting.jpg (113.25 KB, 1205x754)

Lincoln Brown
Lincoln Brown

Yes, there is a way to maintain the fertility of the soil. Africa is the most fertile continent on earth, and if that ever stops being the case, there will always be ways to reverse it. Capitalism will not help with this, because such central planning cannot be considered on a continent-wide scale under a capitalist government.
There do need to be massive programs to industrialize Africa, though, in order for such processes to be possible.

Jace Johnson
Jace Johnson

Capitalism can't solve these issues true, but Africa also has a bunch of what would qualify as semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. How do you minimize the damage that the NEPs necessary for these countries to catch up?

Elijah Allen
Elijah Allen

Africanize and make the countries continental.

Angel Cook
Angel Cook

You mean like a Pan African union?

Benjamin Wright
Benjamin Wright

Yes. Same as a Eurasian Union, or a North American Union.

Nathaniel Morales
Nathaniel Morales

Andrew Kliman has shots fired in his r/LSC AmA

Attached: Screenshot-20190529-001036-Reddit.jpg (364.45 KB, 1079x863)

Hunter Stewart
Hunter Stewart

What video critiques is he reffering to?

Isn't kliman the one with the time based solution to the transformation problem? In that regard, Cockshott's solution is much more convincing.

And doesn't Cockshott (incorrectly imo) depart from Marx on the nature of the law of value and (correctly) depart from the volume 3 formulation of the transformation problem?,

Gavin Stewart
Gavin Stewart

THREE MODULES FOR MAKING COLLECTIVE DECISIONS – 3MCD is a combination of three approaches to various decision types.

1. Naive Welfare Maximizer. The NWM module is the most simplistic approach to utilitarianism, attempting to maximize happiness by taking user inputs at face value. For instance, for the decision type "selecting one winner from various proposals" it takes ratings from users and averages them to make a ranking.

For allocation questions, the NWM also follows the philosophy of "when in doubt, go the egalitarian route". Because of this the NWM is also called the "Communist". Suffice to say, by itself this is not a way of arriving at group decisions that is particularly robust against getting gamed (it's called naive for a reason), which is why it gets combined with the module…

Henry White
Henry White

2. Moderately Tactical Cynic. Every question that goes to the NWM also goes to the MTC. Whatever the decision type, the MTC does at least one of the following two actions: 1. It uses a method that is less vulnerable to strategically manipulated inputs (the flipside being it delivers lower utility than the naive method when dealing with overwhelmingly honest people). 2. It uses some of the data of the NWM as a poll of to inform its strategy.

For some decision types, the MTC offers the individual user different strategy implementations. For the decision type "selecting one winner from various proposals", there are at least two: "poll-react" and "just-stretch". Poll-react takes the outcome of a NWM-style poll among all those who choose poll-react and reacts to that by giving the best rating for everything the user prefers to that poll winner and the worst rating to everything the user rated worse than the poll winner. (The strategy creates a risk of no-show paradox, so by excluding from the polls those who don't choose the strategy we protect them from that risk). Just-stretch also transforms the individual's ratings into extreme ratings, but without taking any other information for that than what's on the ballot itself. First it stretches the spaces between ratings proportionally until both ends of the scale are used, then it takes everything that now falls into the scale's better half (which is not necessarily half the number of proposals) and gives the best rating to all of these proposals, and likewise the other way around. The resulting scores of these two strategies are mixed together in proportion to their usage to create the overall MTC ranking for the question.

MTC doesn't compute perfect strategies for every decision type. In the example, it reacts to the poll, but doesn't compute a reaction to its own reaction recursively (it's named only moderately tactical after all, also going deeper can get us into a loop of strategies that beat each other like rock-paper-scissors). NWM is like an honest guy and MTC is like a crook, so MTC is also called the "Gangster". Maybe you already figured out that when it comes to a question of the decision type "selecting one winner from various proposals", somebody who is very good at estimating how other people vote can just directly vote in a strategic way similar to what poll-react does. Knowing what you do so far that makes sense, but you haven't yet considered the module…

Jason Rogers
Jason Rogers

3. Life & Learn. The L&L module searches for compromise between the outputs of NWM and MTC whenever they differ (starting with NWM). For the decision type "selecting one winner from various proposals", L&L can choose from either ranking's winner, as well as anything that gets ranked between the two winners in both rankings. For the decision type "allocating a budget to aggregate topics", it selects something between the lower and upper value of each topic as determined by NWM and MTC.

L&L has access to data from many past decisions and not just the outcome, but details of the NWM and MTC processes. It tries to figure out who has lost a lot in recent decisions and to use that insight to reduce their frustration when choosing the compromise. L&L operates under the working assumption that different individuals might strongly or weakly care about a given question, but that over time, over many decisions, people are affected about the same. It doesn't just look at whether you have lost often recently and whether your inputs have shown extreme opposition, but also if these inputs have been extreme relative to your usual voting patterns. An extreme vote against a winning proposal is better evidence of your frustration if you don't always use extreme ratings.

L&L might also have access to information that is neither available to NWM nor MTC. It's an interesting research topic how to maintain privacy and how to perform operations on encrypted information without losing confidence in the accuracy of the result. Even with a mathematical proof that it works, getting trust from the general population for something like that is hard. Another issue to consider is that machine learning has shown promising developments, but it gets hard to impossible figuring out how a decision is reached with ML, even for the person who writes the code. It stands to reason that for accepting ML into a democratic framework it needs to be kept within controlled bounds. NWM and MTC can create bounds in a relatively transparent way, and since L&L operates only within these bounds we might use ML here. L&L is the most complex of the three modules, it's almost like something alive and thinking, so it's also called "Frankenstein".

Aiden Jackson
Aiden Jackson

is this from somewhere?

Brandon Stewart
Brandon Stewart

Just wrote it.

John Moore
John Moore

Why did Stalin banned cybernetics as bourgeoisie pseudoscience?

Samuel Collins
Samuel Collins

Technocracy is the ultimate cuck

Justin Wood
Justin Wood

Technocracy doesn't mean spooky AI, it means rule by experts (in particular experts in science and engineering).

Gavin Butler
Gavin Butler

Stalin had no science education whatsoever. Even though he declared himself an atheist after years of being a theological student, he still retained some regressive views (in contrast with Lenin) like criminalising abortion and enforcing pseudo-science like Lysenkoism (which in effect criminalised Mendelian inheritance and the study of genetics in general).

Christian Allen
Christian Allen

criminalising abortion and enforcing pseudo-science like Lysenkoism

Abortion is not needed under Socialism, and Lysenkoism is actually correct.

Samuel Bailey
Samuel Bailey

How is this any different from letting the most wealthy make policy, are engineers and scientists somehow more virtuous than capitalists?

Gabriel Brooks
Gabriel Brooks

So Lenin (+ all other Soviet leaders), Mao (+ all successors), Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-sung (+ his son and grandson), Tito, and Castro were all wrong and Stalin was correct about science and abortion?

Jayden Wilson
Jayden Wilson

epic ☭TANKIE☭s owned XD

Robert Hill
Robert Hill

The point of the post wasn't to argue for technocracy, it just gave the definition to show that 3MCD isn't that.

Chase Adams
Chase Adams

he didn't, it wasn't a thing when he was around

Benjamin Bennett
Benjamin Bennett

he still retained some regressive views (in contrast with Lenin) like criminalising abortion
this was voted on by the party

enforcing pseudo-science like Lysenkoism
Lysenko's theories weren't enforced.

which in effect criminalised Mendelian inheritance and the study of genetics in general
Those were not criminalized, eugenics was. The overlap that existed was an indictment of those scientists, not Stalin

Asher Cruz
Asher Cruz

Could anyone explain this to me?
Since in communism law of value won't operate, how would you plan things? Doesn't Cockshott just calculate things by how much labour time is spend in them? USSR just slapped the prices of commodities from the west, which are influenced by the law of value. To me it seems the only way for law of value not to operate would be to abolish labor all together.

Attached: fashion.jpg (492.91 KB, 988x1000)

Luke Hill
Luke Hill

Cockshott takes a revisionist line (even though he claims its not) that the law of value will continue under communism but in a normative not descriptive sense.

Jeremiah Butler
Jeremiah Butler

Alright, thanks. Doesn't seem like bad revisionism though. Certainly not if it's simply impossible with today technology to abolish it. I asked Ismail on /marx/ about it but he replied that commodity production, and with it the law of value, exist under socialism. So it seems like the only way to really abolish the law of value would be to abolish labour altogether then.

Juan Torres
Juan Torres

Since in communism law of value won't operate, how would you plan things?
by calculating the cost* of everything in terms of raw materials, living labor, and producer goods (like machines or tools).
*cost in this sense means the same as when you prepare a meal. you measure the ingredients and the time it takes to prepare them. it is not monetary.
Doesn't Cockshott just calculate things by how much labour time is spend in them?
In a word, yes.
USSR just slapped the prices of commodities from the west, which are influenced by the law of value.
hmm… I'm not sure about this statement… the idea that the law of value continued in the USSR's economy is based on a few reasons, but I've never seen evidence they copied prices from the West.
To me it seems the only way for law of value not to operate would be to abolish labor all together.
Value arises as a regulating function of trade. Trade happens in societies where labor is social but only indirectly social. If this labor becomes directly associated, i.e. different individuals work and plan their activities in common, there is no need for value because there is no need to trade the items you produce. This is why retaining the use of money or "value" doesn't make sense in socialism.

marxistpedia.org/wiki/Social_labour

I don't know which work by Cockshott you're referencing but he probably meant that the total social distribution of labor will need to conform to different production costs. This is a natural law of human society mentioned by Marx. Only in certain circumstances does this distribution take the form of a law of value. But I'll let Marx explain himself:

Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the masses of products corresponding to the different needs required different and quantitatively determined masses of the total labor of society. That this necessity of the distribution of social labor in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode of its appearance , is self-evident. No natural laws can be done away with. What can change in historically different circumstances is only the form in which these laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional distribution of labor asserts itself, in the state of society where the interconnection of social labor is manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of labor, is precisely the exchange value of these products.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_07_11-abs.htm

I asked Ismail on /marx/ about it but he replied that commodity production, and with it the law of value, exist under socialism.
Ismail is great if you have questions about Soviet history but I have never seen any indication that he has read or studied Marx in depth. Marx's theories directly deny that commodity production or value exist in socialism. Not only does Marx say this directly in Critique of the Gotha Programme, but this is touched on by Engels in Anti-Dühring. The point isn't what Marx or Engels said but rather why they said this and how it fits into the overall logic of the theory they developed.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm

So it seems like the only way to really abolish the law of value would be to abolish labour altogether then.
See above.

Attached: egyptian-estate.jpg (89.08 KB, 600x461)

David Jones
David Jones

cost in this sense means the same as when you prepare a meal. you measure the ingredients and the time it takes to prepare them. it is not monetary.
Yeah, I know but that's what law of value more or less means. That value of commodity will be equal to the amount of time it took to produce them. What can be debated is whenever commodities under socialism exist, or rather, exist in their capitalist form.
hmm… I'm not sure about this statement… the idea that the law of value continued in the USSR's economy is based on a few reasons, but I've never seen evidence they copied prices from the West.
"In the Soviet bloc’s price system: the price for oil, as was the case also with
other commodities within the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON), was
set using a price based on the international (i.e., Western world) price of the previous
five years and fixed for a subsequent five-year period. COMECON had"
From "East German Economy" by Hartmut Berghoff, page 136

By the way thank you CyberSynGANG (It's you, right?) for writting in Marxistpedia. You wrote great stuff. I recently stopped writting there because I don't have the time right now. I half-assed the article on GDR, which I intend to complete when I have time. I guess I could also write about Mao's China a bit. I'll see when I have time. Thanks for the effort post.

Attached: FACTORY.jpg (474.98 KB, 984x737)

Leo Richardson
Leo Richardson

Yeah, I know but that's what law of value more or less means.
Only in a roundabout way. I would define the "law of value" as being the distribution of social labor as a function of the value of commodities being exchanged in a market. In every society there is a distribution of labor but not all societies turn this distribution into a function of value. This is what the Marx quote basically says above.

We could imagine a planned system based on Cockshott's ideas where social labor is distributed as a function of labor productivity. In this case the economy would operate based on the "law of productivity" and not the law of value. Or, we could invert this law and create a "law of minimum labor" where the the goal of production is to reduce human labor inputs to a minimum. In all of these cases there would be some rational principle distributing social labor throughout the economy but it wouldn't be value.

the price for oil, as was the case also with other commodities within the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON), was set using a price based on the international (i.e., Western world) price of the previous five years
Ah, but this sounds like they used international prices to determine prices of goods between COMECON countries. Inside the USSR I don't think that was the case. Nice tidbit tho.

By the way thank you CyberSynGANG (It's you, right?) for writting in Marxistpedia.
CyberSynGANG is another person, but you're right he is doing excellent work.

There are small sections on some pages that need work. If you ever have time you can fill those in with a short sentence and a cited quote.

Brandon Taylor
Brandon Taylor

Here is a yt playlist on Bohmian mechanics,
youtube.com/watch?v=_6TNF854Xmo&list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m&index=1

which also featured in cockshott videos on materialism

Asher Roberts
Asher Roberts

Wait what? Marx himself suggested to measure the distribution of goods under socialism by labour time. Marx argues this labour however won't appear as (exchange-)value in the products because there is no exchange, just distribution. Thus, the law of value does not regulate production because goods aren't produced for their exchange-value.

Whether or not you call this the "operation of the law of value" or not is a semantic debate, whether or not you believe this was the case in the USSR is a historical debate.

Attached: 1b58a4b05143d4d99c9ef425bc750985d39a1cc18234e0c620e3b5f58e250138.jpg (257.08 KB, 635x635)

Aiden Miller
Aiden Miller

COCKSHOTT BTFO BY MARKET SOCIALIST-ANARCHIST!
twitter.com/rechelon/status/1134660796678492160
EVERYONE THROW AWAY YOUR COPIES OF TANS, COCKSHOTT IS DONE FOR!

Attached: vQcGkjRJ-400x400.jpg (8.11 KB, 256x256)

Landon Long
Landon Long

looks like kliman has been reading too much derrida

Jonathan Sullivan
Jonathan Sullivan

Nooooooooooooo!

Attached: scrnshot.png (674.98 KB, 1880x938)

Ryan Rogers
Ryan Rogers

tldr: calls cockshott names/brings up muh terf, then proceeds to make a bunch of bad arguments against TANS saying that 1. its still market socialism because muh consumer goods market and 2. muh hayekan local subjective knowledge and derived arguments.

Nicholas Lewis
Nicholas Lewis

Getting around information issues through simplification

Imagine simply stating an explicit purpose and benefit of the model and thinking that this is somehow a counter-argument. Also isn't the whole retarded case that market cucks make against planning that we need money as an information simplifier.
Authoritarian
The purpose of the proletarian state is to crush bourgeois and petty bourgeois opposition. Like the proprietarian tendency of mutualism. Why does this fucking retard keep stating benefits as if they were counter arguments.

Jacob Thomas
Jacob Thomas

What's wrong with state planning?

muh hayekan local subjective knowledge
Ah, of course.

Attached: 5d46bdd7f7ac0f3eeca3807acd438a1482b7d5c538974f6b141d66411ee1d014.png (90.63 KB, 385x374)

Elijah Hernandez
Elijah Hernandez

What the fuck does "authoritarian" even mean when it's used to attack a guy advocating direct democracy and election by lot

Eli Hall
Eli Hall

Imagine being some dude who thinks sex industry abolitionism is reactionary. And using trans-shit to oppose someone on economic questions. This guy would support US imperialism as long as trans people got to shoot random arabs too.

Benjamin Martin
Benjamin Martin

I've seen this William Gillis guy before, twattering about what a sensible pro-sex-traffickingworkers guy he is, with well over a decade of experience at being a brave online anarcho-liberal.
Fools still out here citing Cockshott as a takedown of markets in the year of our lord 2019.
1) he supports consumer markets
Correct.
2) his models are authoritarian state planning
Coming from a confused anarcho-radlib, that doesn't mean anything. Some would say that having any standards whatsoever for who can become a dentist is authoritarian state planning.
3) his toy models are obviously constructed to get around the information issues through simplification.
Gillis has a half-decent point here. What is in TANS is only a starting point and actual planning will have to be far more complex. One example from an earlier thread is that some consumer products are modular and exist in variations where some are objectively superior to others. While consumers can remain flexible, something can and should be fixed about how they move relative to each other, so that any any given time and place an objectively superior variant isn't cheaper.
4) incidentally he's also a giant flaming reactionary re shit like trans and sex workers, in case anyone cares about that.
If you think that being critical of a society dominated by markets and being against prostitution is a strange combination, you must live in a distinctly anglo-"left" filter bubble. It's not hard to find anti-prostitution lefties in Spain etc. Nothing weird about that. And the "pro-prostitution" lefties in the non-anglo world are usually that because they believe it's hard to impossible to prevent prostitution and that the measures against it have bad side effects, not because they buy into the neoliberal story of sex-work = individual choice and freedom.
While C&C's vision is terrible it's not a complete abolition of the market. And further the consumer market cannot be removed from their system – it plays a critical role measuring demand and even defining the "socially necessary labor time" they see as central.
The market doesn't define that in general. Labor time gets allocated to various activities like teaching and hospital work, only with tangible things for individual consumption do you have that. And even this part is subordinated to coordinated planned decisions, like when there are a big externalities. Only what is allowed to be so is market-like, the market-like parts don't move forward on their own and swallow other parts (as they would in the yugo-rehash that American self-identifying radicals find so compelling).
Their goal is essentially a giant company town (…) run by athenian style democracy
Sooo, not really like a giant company town. Does he have ADHD from too much twitter?
The cost of this calculation is immense…
He then just repeats the usual Austrian assertions about complexity and muh human subjectivity. He's really paranoid about centralization. Of course, in computing terms decentralizing is a challenge. Untangling a complex issue into semi-independent parts can be hard or impossible. Centralization is easier and faster. He talks about the failure to account for the "infinite array of *potential goods*". But somehow, neither a tie-wearing shill of the ruling order nor a supposedly radical anarchist actually makes any sort of perfectionist demand like that on capitalism.

Joseph Sanders
Joseph Sanders

forbes.com/sites/julianvigo/2019/01/08/the-united-colors-of-cryptocurrency/

COCKSHOTT'S TAKE ON BITCOIN AND CRYPTOCURRENCIES. COCKSHOTT IS IN FORBES NOW APPARENTLY

Attached: k0iaATmgZq8FVNOkMPPczvB77atmalkng0bDMf-uESc.jpg (34.81 KB, 711x372)

Lincoln Harris
Lincoln Harris

Cockshott's interview with environmentalist publication 'Common Space'

youtube.com/watch?v=44grUtq6D98

commonspace.scot/articles/14300/watch-drastic-adaptation-climate-change-we-need

here is another interview/podcast he did with the same magazine earlier (its on soundcloud):

commonspace.scot/articles/14227/beyond-noise-market-vs-planet-case-planned-economy

Carter Barnes
Carter Barnes

Budget allocation: This is for the decision type "allocating a budget to aggregate topics", meaning the budget doesn't go to concrete projects with concrete financing thresholds, but rather vague themes with concrete projects yet to be decided on. This procedure could be used to allocate shares of one big budget to ministries. Each voter indicates what percentage of the budget should be allocated to this or that topic.

NWM process. Just take the average (arithmetic mean). This is very vulnerable to the strategy of estimating what the result looks like without your input and then exaggerating the difference in opinion to move the result more towards what their real opinion is.

MTC process. This should be very different from the NWM process to reduce the power of the exaggeration strategy. One way of doing that is the following: Think of the topic budgets as vertical columns that grow. Assign the first unit of the total budget to the topic where the biggest number of people agrees that this amount or more should go to this topic. Exclude anybody who disagreed with that. You do this repeatedly, always assign the next unit of the total budget to the topic where the biggest group of people who haven't been excluded yet agrees that the topic's budget should be at least as high as current state in the assignment process + that additional unit, then exclude the naysayers, then assign the next unit from the total budget like that, and so on.

Live & Learn. We can use different measures to estimate how happy an individual has with a particular budget allocation. We can think of how many units would have to move around within one chart of columns to make it equal to the other chart. We can also use some marginalist thinking.
Silhouette score: Putting one chart layer over the other, what is overlap / total area?
Ratio score: The topic with the biggest disagreement in terms of smaller amount / bigger amount
Putting both together, for the budget-agreement score: (S + R)/2. Identical allocations will get a score of 1, lowest possible score is 0.

When it comes to finding an allocation within the boundaries set by the NWM and MTC, we give more weight to the preferences of those who had a low budget-agreement score the last time the budget was voted on. The L&L module also uses information from budget voting for the decision type "selecting one winner from various proposals". If your voting record shows an unusually high budget for a particular topic, you probably also care more than usual about voting on issues within that topic.

For both decision types discussed so far it's true that if a majority makes the same inputs, the result of the MTC will be in line with that. But whether that is the end result depends on L&L, which will shift weight towards the MTC if a distinct minority is constantly voting in an extreme way. Therefore, 3MCD can be summarized as a system of soft majoritarianism.

Ryan Phillips
Ryan Phillips

It means whatever you don't like cuz red flag bad black flag good plus a little yellow

Owen Jackson
Owen Jackson

plus a little yellow
well he did literally use hayeks mu hsubjective local knowledge argument

James Gomez
James Gomez

It doesn't take much to get an article into Forbes. Forbes is more like a blog site, anyone can write for their website. You could write up an article about leftypol to get it into Forbes.

Jason Foster
Jason Foster

The part with the ratio score gives a lot of importance to the disagreement about just one topic, so when the number of topics is high, this score doesn't work as well as when the number of topics is low.

Alternative measure: for each topic take the ratio smaller amount / bigger amount , multiply that by the sum of what both statements allocate to the topic. Add the resulting values for each topic together. The higher the score, the higher the agreement.

Leo Rivera
Leo Rivera

Somebody mentioned the "SFEcon algorithm" in another thread: I haven't heard about this before. I found this site: sfecon.com/ It seems to be a spreadsheet procedure for arriving at an equilibrium of prices and quantities, being mostly inspired by neoclassical economics.

Wyatt Perry
Wyatt Perry

bump

Connor Cook
Connor Cook

youtube.com/watch?v=-U4CZ92ftE4
New one.

Ryan Gomez
Ryan Gomez

nvm, been posted already

Cooper Kelly
Cooper Kelly

To the people complaining that doctors won't be paid enough under Socialism, you need to understand why they are paid so much under capitalism. Some posters have pointed out the student debt issue, that's part of the problem.

When reactionaries go on about "muh free market" in healthcare, it's actually one of the least free markets in contemporary capitalism. The biggest reason doctors are paid so much is that the doctors' cartels (eg. the American Medical Association) restrict the training of new doctors. I can assure you that even under capitalism, if the AMA were to be broken up, healthcare costs would come down drastically.

In Cuba, there are no artificial constraints on the training of doctors. Under Socialism, workers are trained on the basis of future needs, and not a conspiracy to rip off the public.
Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_medical_internationalism

Brody Walker
Brody Walker

The Drastic Adaptation to Climate Change We Need
youtube.com/watch?v=-U4CZ92ftE4

Attached: 23572457.png (332.13 KB, 641x764)

Michael Robinson
Michael Robinson

Attached: gangweed.jpg (96.32 KB, 1280x720)

Nicholas Miller
Nicholas Miller

That was already linked in

Jayden Torres
Jayden Torres

I know that this video has better production quality than Cockshott's own videos but there is no need to post it three times.

Daniel Bell
Daniel Bell

Attached: dbi76kg-b491421a-a695-4537-a7d0-301d20179a4f.jpg (43.54 KB, 400x367)

Aaron Jackson
Aaron Jackson

commonspace.scot/articles/14227/beyond-noise-market-vs-planet-case-planned-economy

well since no one has listened. maybe i should shill this soundcloud interview of cockshott again

Connor Gomez
Connor Gomez

infinite array of *potential goods
this is basically the le cantor diagonalization argument cockshott destroyed back in 2007 and again HERE:
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2018/06/19/more-flim-flam-about-cantor-from-the-austrians/

Caleb Ward
Caleb Ward

Can someone give me the TL;DR on Cockshott?

Owen Howard
Owen Howard

For the most part a centrally planned computer economy, with labor tokens replacing wages.

Brody Turner
Brody Turner

Information Technology and Socialist Construction (2014) by Daniel E. Saros is a book about socialism debates of the 20th century and his proposal of "decentralized planning". After a very thorough discussion (too long) about various thinkers' takes on capitalism and socialism (Marx, Mises, Lange, Hayek, Schumpeter, Friedman and more, but not Neurath) and some stuff about ParEcon, finally in chapter 7 we get to the actual proposal of the author (still doesn't shut up here about Ayn Rand and other lolberts and it gets reeaaally tedious).

Saros proposes that individuals provide rankings of individual use-values (a rank position being one unit of something, several units of the same thing can appear in several spots in a ranking). These are then weighted in a simple way: Your top-rank position gets the most points, 2nd place gets a weight one point lower than top, 3rd place gets a weight two points lower than top etc. This is completely arbitrary, he just claims that
it seems unreasonable to argue, for example, that the difference in the weights between successively arranged use-values would be extremely significant (…) Second, it is unreasonable to argue that two different individuals might have extremely different weights assigned to their first and second use-values.
Wishful thinking. The author also proposes that the weight of the first place is determined by whoever makes the longest ranking. Imagine a small group implementing something like that: The weight of the second place as a percentage of the first is variable and based on that one guy with the super-long list. Again, completely arbitrary. That the rank-weighting varies based on that one guy can be easily avoided by having the first place be worth an amount fixed regardless of that one guy's list length, the second place being worth a certain percentage of that, the third place being worth a certain percentage of the second place and so on. And that would be just the default and individuals could change their personal weighting. Even with this modification, one should be conscious that allocating a collection of things based on a ranking or rating implicitly assumes that there is no substitution, treating happiness you gain from a thing on the list as independent of what else you got from it. A more realistic approach would be to register what you ask for in the ranking as also indirectly asking for something in the same product category or to use something more complex than a ranking or rating.

Back to what Saros proposes: Purchases divergent from your profile are possible, but keeping close to your profile gives you a bonus. The author also takes into account here that a long consumption ranking puts more strain on other people than a short ranking, though the particular way the author goes on about that is again pretty arbitrary. The profile statements are also used to give points to suppliers who obtain their supplies with that (and the suppliers of the suppliers get those points). If I got the author right, when there is too high demand for a resource towards different production lines, the available supply is to be split up in proportion to the use-value points asking for this or that. This means for different people, the discrepancy between their wish list and what they get can be extremely different, but being treated in the system as exactly like two lists that get met halfway. Shouldn't the goal be to minimize the size of the worst discrepancies?

Michael Ramirez
Michael Ramirez

Cont. Saros fetishizes working in the same place for a long time and thinks there should be an automatic salary increase for that. Prices of consumer items are variable, but don't affect the bottom line of firms or salaries of those producing those things. There's also something about purchasing health insurance (I suppose he's read to much lolbert literature). There's an interesting little idea about producing two types of cigarette packs in starkly different colors: one for consumption at home and one for consumption in public. The one for consumption in public comes with a higher sin tax. This encourages smoking parents to poison their kids more. Maybe tweak that idea.

Jessica Azulay (2008: 306) has described her experience working for several years in a ParEcon-based workplace producing The NewStandard (TNS), which was a daily, online news publication. She explains how some unorthodox voting procedures were used to make important decisions (2008: 309). Among these procedures was one that she refers to as “proportional outcome.” This procedure involves ranking possibilities from favorite to least favorite, adding up the scores assigned to each item, and using the items with the top three scores. She explains that this method was frequently used when choosing among new features for the website. The procedure is of interest here because it bears a close resemblance to the use of needs profiles to allocate resources and guide production in a socialist economy.
Nothing proportional about that. The smaller the point-weight difference between rankings, which are dictated in a completely arbitrary way by the method designer, the more homogeneous the results will get. The alternative is to use range voting with reweighting.

If the distribution outlet is short of the required amount, however, then the individual’s points are used in combination with the points of others to determine the precise quantity to which he or she is entitled.
Meaning that even if your income is very low, for undersupplied stuff that is very high on your wish list your demand counts more than that of a high-income person who marked the same thing as low or no priority.

The author realizes that just giving one rank position to a bloody house is a bit silly, so he proposes to give several rank positions to a house, like for each square foot. But surely a distinction should be made here with a "rural inch" being bigger than the standard one and an "urban inch" that is smaller. And what about those with kids? If they just get points for raising kids they might use them for this. But I think housing as a completely distinct needs-based allocation procedure makes the most sense, linked to questions of where you work or study and whether you have kids, and whether you are too old to climb hundreds of stairs, and using market-like procedures only as a tie-breaker concerning people within the same needs-based tier.

All in all, this is pretty underwhelming. The author wasted his time and the time of the reader by focusing too much on what right-wingers have to say (not saying that you should completely ignore that) and too little thinking about the math and logic of his own model.

Noah Foster
Noah Foster

(me)
I don't want to sound too negative. Pro-capitalism shills tell different stories. Sometimes, they want to tell a story about prices helping with planning. In these stories you need stable prices, so they provide some. Sometimes, they want to tell a story about prices giving you updates about change. In those stories, you need flexible prices, so the story-tellers provide those. But if prices are super-flexible, how can you use them as a stable foundation for planning? Asking money to really do both well is asking for too much. It's like describing a creature that only has one leg and expecting it to do well in the wild world. If we are creating a new creature together, socialism, it makes sense to give it more than one leg: one leg for stability and one for playing. And some proposals follow that insight. Takis Fotopoulos proposes to have two types of labor vouchers, for basics and for luxuries; and when it comes to using natural resources, those productive activities that cover basics have right of way. Daniel Saros also follows the insight, but in his own way.

As a consumer, you give information that influences production before you consume the results and your information has a certain strength whether your income is low or high. The basic idea is sensible, but it needs more development. Saros talks about ranking things, but then treats the rankings like ratings with arbitrary weights. As an alternative to that I mentioned to allow ratings. But that's not the only alternative. It's also possible to read the rankings in a completely ordinal way. The weight difference between two adjacent ranking positions wouldn't be one point or any number of points, but infinity.

On page 179, Saros describes what to do when there is a conflict between using an input for producing different use-values, meaning there isn't enough to cover everything ordered via the rankings. The formula he proposes is to divide the amount between the different use-value production processes in proportion to the points from all users' rankings going to this or that thing. If we used ratings instead of rankings with arbitrary weight, we could just use the same formula here. After that, it continues in a way similar to the harmony algorithm C & C propose. Things are made from a combination of inputs, usually in fixed proportions, it is unlikely that we get exactly these fixed proportions, so all the over-supplied inputs go back into a common pool (mathematically speaking, we don't move stuff back and forth in the real world for that), we take out of the common pool, give over-supplied stuff back to the common pool, and so on.

If we go full ordinal, we can handle the conflict over the input in this way: First, we assign it to things ranked in first place (to the different things in proportion to their first-place votes). Do this for all inputs and then do the pool thing. Only if there is some input stuff left after that do we assign it to things ranked in second place. After doing this for all inputs, we do the pool thing again. Only after there is some input stuff left after that do we assign it to things ranked third place, do the pool thing, and so on. So the vote of one person ranking something in first place that needs a particular input counts for more than the vote of a million people voting something else in second place that needs the same input. Taken alone, this is pretty crazy. A thing X getting produced that takes a million times or a billion times the amount of some input than what producing one unit of Y needs because one person ranks X first and the rest of the world ranks Y second and gets none of Y produced? But when combined with catalog prices that prevent you from ranking stuff that adds up to more than some limit, it works.

Connor Walker
Connor Walker

… to have two types of labor vouchers, for basics and for luxuries …

labour-vouchers denote labourtime. It is correct that this is not sufficient for an economy, because labour cannot produce resources. So you need to measure that as well. And for planning you probably need a bunch of additional information, like for example environmental concerns, and of course democratic input over economic surplus. While you can have a variety of qualities in goods production, you cannot have special luxury tokens, because that would be devaluing the labour hour.

when it comes to using natural resources, those productive activities that cover basics have right of way

Consider that luxuries are based on exclusion and prioritisation, this seems to be proposing something else.

Landon Myers
Landon Myers

labour-vouchers denote labourtime.
No need to tell me that.
While you can have a variety of qualities in goods production, you cannot have special luxury tokens, because that would be devaluing the labour hour.
Not necessarily. What Fotopoulos proposes is that every able individual works in the basic-producing sector and gets basic tokens for that; and people can choose to also work in the luxury sector to obtain tokens for luxury consumption. So the luxury-hour token or whatever you want to call that isn't more powerful than the basic-hour token, they are for access to different things.
labour cannot produce resources
when it comes to using natural resources, those productive activities that cover basics have right of way
What this means is that natural resources are first used to ensure covering the basics, and only what's left after that is available in the luxury sector.

Mason Cruz
Mason Cruz

Not necessarily. What Fotopoulos proposes is that every able individual works in the basic-producing sector and gets basic tokens for that; and people can choose to also work in the luxury sector to obtain tokens for luxury consumption. So the luxury-hour token or whatever you want to call that isn't more powerful than the basic-hour token, they are for access to different things.
This has two separated economic spheres, it'll have different values for a labour hour, there literately is no other reason to have two different tokens, Period !
Let me hammer this home, if a labour hours is a labour hour it requires only one unit of measure.
What you seem to be attempting to do here would be better solved with rations based on resources for special items, payed for with regular labour hour-tokens.
What this means is that natural resources are first used to ensure covering the basics, and only what's left after that is available in the luxury sector.
"Luxuries" is a reified category, it doesn't just mean unproductive, it is based on social exclusion, also there is no "left-over". Luxuries mean a decrease in other sectors, if not for quantity then for quality, because it draws more R&D capacity, transport for fancy exotic materials, …
There is an additional complaint, that i have here, i don't want people to look at objects in a reified way like they do now in consumer culture, it's causing retarded behaviour(attached mp4 file), and epic excess waste streams.
In your previous comment you mentioned something along the lines of creating room for play and experimentation, well go have a look at products that have a modding community, some gadgets had something like an open-source community that formed around producing a modded firmware, that's the direction you want to go in.
If you consider luxuries in terms of quality, then consider that low quality products in former Socialist countries were a concession to material conditions, not a production principle.

Attached: mallfight.mp4 (169.1 KB, 480x262)

Julian Evans
Julian Evans

How the hell would I train and educate someone on firearms if they plan on shooting me/ backstabbing me sometime in the future?
I don't trust like that.
I really wish left unity was probable. Maybe it is but those who are making these claims are COINTELPRO trying to create a schism in the org. That's what I'm hoping.

Attached: tenor-(4).gif (251.6 KB, 480x296)

Austin Lopez
Austin Lopez

left unity should be possible with constant communication with the different types of leftists to at least explain why were making the choices were making. Also if its possible, we should assist anarchists. The reason they don't trust us is because they think we'll just stab them in the back. There's no reason to fight if we have a similar goal. We can bicker about all this other shit when the revolutions over.

Henry Garcia
Henry Garcia

I ment this to be posted in leftytrash.
For context it was like three or four anarchists saying that they will shoot "tankies" after the revolution.
I'm not really aligned nor do I feel like aligning myself to any tendacy if it means my comrades will just shoot me in the back after a decade long civil war full of blood and sorrow. Heck maybe they'll shoot me anyways because they think I'm too "authoritarian". This shit makes me feel unsafe.

Jacob Stewart
Jacob Stewart

I'm not really aligned nor do I feel like aligning myself to any tendacy if it means my comrades will just shoot me in the back after a decade long civil war full of blood and sorrow.
As long as you help revolt against all the porkers there should be no reason for any leftist to get shot. Honestly we all want the same fucking thing in the end, we just have different ways of getting there.
Heck maybe they'll shoot me anyways because they think I'm too "authoritarian"
Anarchists do be like that sometimes

Im here for you, don't worry. As long as leftists share a common goal we can actually possible achieve it.

Kayden Edwards
Kayden Edwards

This has two separated economic spheres
Kinda, but not really. Technically, the basic products are independent of the non-basic products and not vice versa. Though what is basic is not just some physical minimum proven by hard science, it is politically decided, so psychologically in the long term experience with non-basics will have a psychological effect and some of these will get recategorized.
it'll have different values for a labour hour, there literately is no other reason to have two different tokens
The other reason is that in Fotopoulos' proposal the luxury sector is more variable. The individual decision to do work in that sector or not and where and how much can be made in the very short term, because that stuff being supplied is less important. Both "currencies" are stable in terms of the labor-value of their respective product baskets.
What you seem to be attempting to do here
What Fotopoulos proposes
It is not my favorite proposal, but I do think it's workable and has merits. I think we can all agree that food is a basic need. My favorite kind of luxury are luxury foods. So living in Fotopoulos World would be a bit annoying for me. I would perhaps do some luxury work for obtaining luxury food and a good fraction of my income from the basic sector would just expire unused as I wouldn't need so much normie food then. In general, the idea has problems with luxury use-values that aren't completely distinct categories from basics, but over-kill versions of things that cover basic needs.
"Luxuries" is a reified category, it doesn't just mean unproductive, it is based on social exclusion
If you are so stuck up with certain words regardless of context they are in, just go with non-basics, sheesh.
also there is no "left-over"
That's just reading current capitalist relations into that. Basics can be defined in a way that 100 % achievement is pretty much guaranteed. In this world, there is no technical reason why anybody should starve, for example. Imagine the non-basics get the steel, electricity, and so on that is not needed for 100 % plan achievement in the basic sector (or make that 150 % to be sure), and if there still is any screw-up in the basic sector, resources are moved back from the non-basics to it. This gets extremely transparent to everybody with the two-voucher system, though a two-voucher system is not strictly needed for doing it.

Aaron Gray
Aaron Gray

Technically, the basic products are independent of the non-basic products and not vice versa.
this will make production less efficient, it will mean duplicating capacities needlessly.
Though what is basic is not just some physical minimum proven by hard science, it is politically decided
Insane politics caused by making people argue about whether or not they have to work extra to get their special treat.
so psychologically in the long term experience with non-basics will have a psychological effect and some of these will get recategorized.
What the hell does this mean ? are you attempting to make luxuries a medical need ?
the luxury sector is more variable. The individual decision to do work in that sector or not and where and how much can be made in the very short term, because that stuff being supplied is less important. Both "currencies" are stable in terms of the labor-value of their respective product baskets.
This is reintroducing a job market, for a pseudo labour aristocracy. And I don't know why you keep bringing up multiple tokens that represent a labour hour, You have not given any explanation as to how you would prevent devaluing the labour hour, so I'm considering that this is possibly a bad faith argument.
there is no "left-over" - That's just reading current capitalist relations into that. ….Imagine the non-basics get the steel, electricity, and so on that is not needed for 100 % plan achievement in the basic sector
This is creating a incentive to both shrink the basic consumption, and have overproduction to supply the non-basics. On a social level, there will be a competition with regards to getting access to the non basics production, which will be won by a faction that will then seek to entrench their hold over non basics, by basically introducing barriers to entry, like for example we have now a barrier to entry for higher education. This will lead to stratification and with that comes the risk for reintroducing class.

Overall I want to design a system based around negating the possibility to reform class society, i want classless to be the no-effort default, that is reproduced without anybody having to think about it, and reintroducing class society must seem like an unachievable goal, for that everything in society has to take class negation into account. When organizing production there obviously are limitations to how far in advance something can be planed, quite often newly introduced technologies require experimentation, which might need subsidising. You may need to have bribe incentives in early stages of socialist constructions because obviously the capitalist mindset isn't going to disappear overnight. What you seem to be proposing here at best seems to be a way to mystify these relations, and at worst you could be attempting to recreate some of the relation of the status quo.
There is a dialectical relation between class based product segmentation and production limitation trade-offs regarding quantity and quality. There are legitimate reasons to stray from optimal configurations, for example if you need special sauce for scientific research, but i don't think we should seek out product diversification beyond use-case-scenarios. Consider that socialism has to outcompete capitalism in overall efficiency, and there are limits with regards to how far personal items can function in that regard. It might be more effective to divert efforts into infrastructure at some point, especially if you consider democratic decision making, where infrastructure functions better as type of collective property….

If you wish to advocate this separation into basics and non basics, then you have to explain why you think this is important, and what are the social consequences of not doing that. Also consider that at the moment budget options usually are a bad deal because they are compromised by overly aggressive cost cutting measures, and luxury options usually are a bad deal because they are to far into diminishing returns territory. I think your proposal represents a continuation of this. At the moment very few items actually correspond to optimal configuration, which is what I would advocate for production.

Ethan Reyes
Ethan Reyes

As long as leftists share a common goal
OMG that is soooooo funny! You made my week, user.

Asher Nguyen
Asher Nguyen

this will make production less efficient, it will mean duplicating capacities needlessly.
Can you give an example of that?
Though what is basic is not just some physical minimum proven by hard science, it is politically decided
Insane politics
As if that were new. Most countries in Europe have more than one value-added tax level for different things. Germany has a lower value-added tax for most movies, but not for very brutal or pornographic movies, for example.
in the long term experience with non-basics will have a psychological effect and some of these will get recategorized.
What the hell does this mean ?
The things people want are not the direct outcome of genetics, people are influenced by society around them, and over time will change their view of what common basics should be. Interaction with things in one period that are categorized during that period as non-basics will have a psychological influence over the categorizing decision for the next period, even though during a period whatever is categorized as non-basic is secondary in importance for planning.
are you attempting
What FOTOPOULOS proposes
This is reintroducing a job market, for a pseudo labour aristocracy.
Example for what you mean here?
You have not given any explanation as to how you would prevent devaluing the labour hour
The time it takes to produce the stuff in the basic sector will have a correspondence in the aggregate price of that stuff as well as the aggregate of tokens for it. If few hours are put into the non-basic sector, the things produced by that sector will in sum represent a low amount of society's time and have a low aggregate price in non-basic tokens and there will be a low amount of non-basic tokens corresponding to that. If many hours are put into the non-basic sector, the things produced by that sector will in sum represent a high amount of society's time and have a high aggregate price in non-basic tokens and there will be a high amount of non-basic tokens corresponding to that. Either way, and any way in between, there is a direct correspondence of time in the pile of products and time represented by the pile of vouchers.
This is creating a incentive to both shrink the basic consumption, and have overproduction to supply the non-basics.
How much there is in terms of non-basics is obviously affected by how many person-hours are put into that. If you don't want non-basics for yourself, you can decide to not work in the non-basic sector at all.
What you seem to be proposing here
What F O T O P O U L O S proposes
at best seems to be a way to mystify these relations
It clarifies because demand for basics is not in a bidding war with demand for non-basics when it comes to natural resources or labor, instead the basic-coverage plan has lexicographic priority. It clarifies because other socialist systems will also have some fundamental prioritizing, but without that distinction spelled out in your own budget and work.
I think your proposal
>>>F O T O P O U L O S

William Diaz
William Diaz

this will make production less efficient, it will mean duplicating capacities needlessly.
Can you give an example of that?
You said the luxury sector had independent production, that means duplicating capacities.
As if that were new. Most countries in Europe have more than one value-added tax level for different things.
How on earth would you have a value added tax in a socialist labour voucher economy ?? Labour is directly social, since you can't really tax things, who would pay it, and what happens with the vouchers afterwards, you do realize that vouchers aren't money, so the "tax income" gathered in distribution can't be spend, which means you are really just deleting labour vouchers, which means your economy will have over production. good grief what a mess. what does this have to do with having a political rope pulling context about definitions of basics and luxuries.
The things people want are not the direct outcome of genetics, people are influenced by society around them, and over time will change their view of what common basics should be. Interaction with things in one period that are categorized during that period as non-basics will have a psychological influence over the categorizing decision for the next period, even though during a period whatever is categorized as non-basic is secondary in importance for planning.
This is crypto jargon to me, why are people motivated to pursue the non-basic sector ? Describe the differences of the stuff you get in basics vs non-basics.
This is reintroducing a job market, for a pseudo labour aristocracy.
Example for what you mean here?
You said "The individual decision to do work…" that's code for jobs-market.
The time it takes to produce the stuff in the basic sector will have a correspondence in the aggregate price of that stuff as well as the aggregate of tokens for it. If few hours are put into the non-basic sector, the things produced by that sector will in sum represent a low amount of society's time and have a low aggregate price in non-basic tokens and there will be a low amount of non-basic tokens corresponding to that. If many hours are put into the non-basic sector, the things produced by that sector will in sum represent a high amount of society's time and have a high aggregate price in non-basic tokens and there will be a high amount of non-basic tokens corresponding to that. Either way, and any way in between, there is a direct correspondence of time in the pile of products and time represented by the pile of vouchers.
So it's worse than i thought, not only will the reified commodities return and with that devalue the labour-time of basic sector, you also allow for a significant amount of labour time being spend in the unproductive sector which would lead to stagnation.
How much there is in terms of non-basics is obviously affected by how many person-hours are put into that. If you don't want non-basics for yourself, you can decide to not work in the non-basic sector at all.
The reason that socialists advocate for society to allocate surplus on the level of society as a whole and not an individual level, is precisely to avoid isolating people leaving them defenceless against stratification.
It clarifies because demand for basics is not in a bidding war with demand for non-basics when it comes to natural resources or labor,
Of course the two sectors will be in a bidding war for labour and resources. It might even produce a hole new kind of political economy.
the basic-coverage plan has lexicographic priority
this is from set-theory ?, and a lexicographical order is usually defined by convention, now who defines your priority set, how is this done ? political fiat ?
your proposal….F O T O P O U L O S
Ok i looked him up, he sees history to be a struggle between autonomy and heteronomy, rather then a struggle between classes. I wonder how this relates to this luxuries. I still don't quite understand what motivates this luxury sector, if a socialist system works as intended, work will be more or less not alienated, and people will see objects in a mostly instrumental way.

Liam Campbell
Liam Campbell

You said the luxury sector had independent production
No, I said that in Fotopoulos' proposal for planning the basic products are independent of the non-basic products and not vice versa.
As if that were new. Most countries in Europe have more than one value-added tax level for different things.
How on earth would you have a value added tax in a socialist labour voucher economy ??
I didn't mean to shill for a value-added tax. Look at the context. You said that the categorizing of products into more or less necessary would introduce "insane politics". The word "that" in the answer above refers to the fact that countries already have thorough categorization schemes for products, which shows by having more than one VAT level.
why are people motivated to pursue the non-basic sector ?
To obtain products categorized as non-basics, they have to put in work in the non-basic sector.
Describe the differences of the stuff you get in basics vs non-basics.
It's not up to me to make these lists and the lists change over time, but the starting point would probably look similar to what exists in VAT regulations already.
you said "The individual decision to do work…" that's code for jobs-market.
That's like saying the "individual decision to marry" implies a bride-slave market. You also claimed it would introduce a "pseudo labor aristocracy", whatever that is, and you were asked to provide an example for that. You haven't done so.
not only will the reified commodities return
If that's so according to whatever implicit definition you work here, by that definition the lower phase of communism in CotGP also has commodities.
devalue the labour-time
In his proposal, the two aggregate prices are fixed in relation to the time worked in both sectors and the two vouchers issued are also fixed in relation to the time worked in the two sectors. What follows from that.
you
Fotopoulos
also allow for a significant amount of labour time being spend in the unproductive sector
If by "unproductive" here you mean the non-basic sector, yes. It's a decision up to the people themselves.
which would lead to stagnation.
Proofs?
Of course the two sectors will be in a bidding war for labour and resources.
No, you still don't understand his proposal. A bidding war between the two would happen if the points going to both types of consumer items would be compared with each other when it comes to how to allocate some natural resource, perhaps with a 1:1 hour value or some ratio where basic consumption points count for more. This is not done. Lexicographic means absolute priority, a ratio that doesn't exist when comparing positive bids in a market, a ratio that isn't really a ratio of existing sums: ∞/1

Lincoln Brown
Lincoln Brown

No, I said that in Fotopoulos' proposal for planning the basic products are independent of the non-basic products and not vice versa.
this seems wrong If the basic sector does longer term planing, and the non basic sector is what you call more variable then you get interference with planning. We do not want to have intermediate goods stockpiling like in the soviet Union. To be fair I do sort of get why one would consider having a second system to use up left-over stuff, but come on we no longuer live in the 20th century we can now make really really detailed plans where production chains inter-mesh extremely well.
I didn't mean to shill for a value-added tax. Look at the context. You said that the categorizing of products into more or less necessary would introduce "insane politics". The word "that" in the answer above refers to the fact that countries already have thorough categorization schemes for products, which shows by having more than one VAT level.
I still think you will get broken politics, if you make a two tiered system, just picture the radian mindset, people are going to fight to get their personal luxuries codified as basic while redefining vital needs of others to be in the non-basic non resrouce priority system. This is a potential situation where we get a double blackmailed into sacrificial politics again. No thank you.
Why are people motivated to pursue the non-basic sector ?
To obtain products categorized as non-basics
Circular reasoning !
It's not up to me to make these lists and the lists change over time, but the starting point would probably look similar to what exists in VAT regulations already.
Vat regulations are made by experts, functionaries and burocrates, do you want to import that from the current system ? Not implying that is bad, I don't know a hole lot about this , just curious ?
That's like saying the "individual decision to marry" implies a bride-slaves ….
No it doesn't employment is not comparable with partner selection
… You also claimed it would introduce a "pseudo labor aristocracy", whatever that is, and you were asked to provide an example for that. You haven't done so.
Fair enough with pseudo aristocracy i meant stratification without forming a class that has formally codified class privileges, a bit like in the later Soviet Union where technical intelligentsia, mangers and party functionaries managed to get priority treatment, while this wasn't particularly relevant from an economic point of view it did tarnish political legitimacy. Leading to political mockery like everybody is equal and some are more equal.
not only will the reified commodities return
If that's so according to whatever implicit definition you work here, by that definition the lower phase of communism in CotGP also has commodities.
I'm complaining about reification of commodities, I don't want to objects to take on social meanings.
In his proposal, the two aggregate prices are fixed in relation to the time worked in both sectors and the two vouchers issued are also fixed in relation to the time worked in the two sectors. What follows from that.
Yeah I don't think this is possible, you make two different time counters people are going to compare them. Sorry but this is an unbridgeable impasse for me, You can only have one unit to measure time, and if you must have this other sector let people have rations for it.
also allow for a significant amount of labour time being spend in the unproductive sector… which would lead to stagnation.
Proofs?
So you don't know what unproductive means ? How is large parts of the economy doing unproductive labour resulting in stagnation a controversial suggesting ?
No, you still don't understand his proposal. A bidding war between the two would happen if the points going to both types of consumer items would be compared with each other when it comes to how to allocate some natural resource…
Yes I cannot imagine how this works, could you point me to some lecture or text where this is explained in more detail.

Aiden Roberts
Aiden Roberts

youtube.com/watch?v=DgYz8p32Cho
mronline.org/2019/04/23/socialism-in-the-economic-report-of-the-president/

Jacob Morris
Jacob Morris

Cockshott debunks Trump with facts and logic

youtu.be/DgYz8p32Cho

Julian Mitchell
Julian Mitchell

Short but sweet. I like this new format he's going for. Also
Thanks to Vivien Cockshott for filming and asking the questions.

Andrew Phillips
Andrew Phillips

If the basic sector does longer term planing, and the non basic sector is what you call more variable then you get interference with planning.
Again, the "weight" of the basic sector relative to non-basic is lexicographic, that is: infinite. In any unforeseen big event happens that interferes with plan fulfillment in the basic sector, people can be drafted from non-basic production into it, and not vice versa.
I still think you will get broken politics, if you make a two tiered system
Again, prioritizing already exists in capitalist countries. And that sort of hierarchy necessarily plays a bigger role when the market plays a smaller role in determining how much of what to produce. Fotopoulos doesn't introduce it, he puts it to the forefront and makes it more transparent.
This is a potential situation where we get a double blackmailed into sacrificial politics again.
We live in a society. Production is social and there were, there are, and there will be conflicts over how much to produce of what and for whom. With the end of class society, there will be a drastic reduction in conflicts here (in GDR lingo, society will move from "antagonistic contradictions" to "non-antagonistic contradictions"), but it won't be zero.
Why are people motivated to pursue the non-basic sector ?
To obtain products categorized as non-basics
Circular reasoning !
Again, the proposal has two types of vouchers for distinct sets of products and services. An individual who wants to obtain something from each set (in the legal fashion) has to do work in both sectors.
you said "The individual decision to do work…" that's code for jobs-market.
That's like saying the "individual decision to marry" implies a bride-slave market.
employment is not comparable with partner selection
Statements of the form A is to B as C is to D do not logically imply that A and C must be very similar, so that isn't a rebuttal.
with pseudo aristocracy i meant stratification without forming a class that has formally codified class privileges, a bit like in the later Soviet Union
Whether something like that happens depends on how "hiring" and differential remuneration works. I don't see Fotopoulos' proposal as more or less vulnerable than a single-voucher system here.
In his proposal, the two aggregate prices are fixed in relation to the time worked in both sectors and the two vouchers issued are also fixed in relation to the time worked in the two sectors.
Yeah I don't think this is possible
The math is trivial.
you
F😬T😬P😬UL😬S
make two different time counters, people are going to compare them
Individuals compare what thing from the non-basic sector they can consume for doing some hours of work in the non-basic sector with the alternative of just having more leisure time. This doesn't constitute an exchange ratio between currencies, in particular the indirect demand for natural resources through these vouchers doesn't work like the vouchers had any sort of exchange rate.
you don't know what unproductive means ?
I don't know what you mean by that.
I cannot imagine how this works
Then look up what "lexicographic" means.

The particular proposal the thread is supposed to be mainly about is what is in TANS and putting in details, Fotopoulos only came up as a side remark in a review of yet another proposal (Saros). I get it that you are very opinionated about that thing that you don't know about and I'm not an advocate of, so let's leave it at that.

Austin Brown
Austin Brown

she sounds cute

Adrian Gonzalez
Adrian Gonzalez

woohoo new vid

Ian Rivera
Ian Rivera

docs.google.com/document/d/1gGCcCl_nOfFMk0WT3mzkSnI1XkGim9ouz2mtL-zqK4Q/edit?usp=sharing
I made a draft for how a cybernetic planning center could be organized. Critique welcome.

Dominic Watson
Dominic Watson

google
You can attach pdfs to your posts here.

Alexander Diaz
Alexander Diaz

This could have potential.

Bentley Hernandez
Bentley Hernandez

chart
The connecting lines between the things on an organisation chart should have different looks visualizing different types of relationships and a legend should clarify what these relationship types are (like one type of arrow meaning A monitors B, an arrow for messages (variations can be further specified), an arrow meaning A sanctions/rewards B, one type of arrow meaning A sending resources to B, some other arrow type meaning A sends delegates).
crypto currency
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/bitcoin-is-not-what-socialism-needs/

Sebastian King
Sebastian King

Marxist Economist Paul Cockshott Is a Reactionary" by "Black Cat": c4ss.org/content/52231
I'm not posting this in the dedicated LGBT-and-so-on thread because the article is also about a lot of other things like immigration and planning with labor hours and calling all of these topics reactionary.
<Paul Cockshott, the author of Towards a New Socialism, is essentially a NazBol. Everyone seems to ignore this, and I have no idea why. He is quite open about his hatred of gay men, sex workers, immigrants, and trans women — and his policy proposals are filled with horrific implications and unworkable ideas.
Referring to this passage from an article by Cockshott and K.A. Cortes (paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-1):
Both conservatives and feminists have objected that laws, originally meant to protect women, are in danger of becoming ineffective; if men who claim to be women are treated as legally being women this not only goes beyond the intention of the original law, but it may place women at a disadvantage4.
<If you follow that footnote (the one on “disadvantaged”) down, you’ll find this:
Examples cited are the risk to women in prison if male sex-offenders are able to be reassigned to such prisons after taking on a female persona or unfair competition in women’s sports.
<This is not his only anti-trans essay — it’s actually something of a theme with him.
How does calling it a "theme with him" address the claims made there? Both things have already happened. Athletes born male and identifying as female are now winning women's competitions and the author surely know that, as that is treated as an epic win for trans activists on Twitter where "Black Cat" also hangs out. As for the prison thing: bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838
Trans inmate jailed for Wakefield prison sex offences
A transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted two inmates at a women's jail and had previously raped two other women has been given a life sentence.

"Black Cat" also has a problem with the article Class and the LGTB lobby where Cockshott points out:
Not only are gay couples financially better off, they also, in the main, often opt out of the socially necessary unpaid labour that is at the root of the disadvantaged position of women/wives. The establishment and normalisation of gay marriage will tend to increase the inequality of men and women in this respect. Insofar as a portion of the male population were once covert homosexuals, who would have hidden their preferences, married women and helped to bring up children, they can now move directly into a respectable gay marriage where they are statistically very unlikely to do any unpaid child raising work. The net effect is obviously to accentuate the disparity between men and women, and shift even more of the burden of raising the next generation onto women.
The economic basis of marriage is not love. As both experience and the tradition of romantic literature tell us, you do not need to be married to love, and many marriages continue despite an absence of love. The legal institution of marriage regulates, on the one hand, rights and duties with respect to children, and on the other, the sharing of various juridical assets. These include both direct ownership of dwellings, instances where there are heritable tenancies, and personal rights to other public and private benefits: pensions, insurance, citizenship. In the early stages after the legalisation of homosexuality, gays were relatively uninterested in marriage, and, if anything, disdained it as a mark of respectability.
"Black Cat" doesn't make an actual argument against this (because it is correct). There is only an anemic attempt at sarcasm:
<Yeah, that’s right. Our boy Paul takes Stalin’s line on gayness.
Being against childless gay couples getting subsidies and tax breaks that were originally created to help with child-rearing is not the same as wanting them go to prison.

Colton Johnson
Colton Johnson

cont.
"Black Cat" links to the article Trades Unionism and Migration as proof for Cockshott's hatred of immigrants. If you bother to read the whole thing, you get to this at the very end:
An important feature of this old programme is the heavy emphasis that it lays on the self administration of labour legislation by the worker’s own organisations: supervision of apprentices, workers statistical commission. The corresponding political demands in the context of preventing the import of low paid migrant labour would be something like:
•Enforcement of the laws against the exploitation of migrant labour to be the responsibility of the local Trades Councils who would have the authority to shut down all employers found to be breaking these laws;
•Work permits to be issued by Trades Councils when people join the appropriate union;
•Full legal immunity for mass picketing, secondary actions, blacklisting etc, used in enforcement of the regulations.

"Black Cat" is also pro-prostitution and as such takes issue with Cockshott's anti-prostitution position. BC refers to prostitutes as "sex workers". That word reminded me of this article: Are we hearing ‘sex workers’ when we listen to them? by Penny White.
Amnesty International recently voted in favour of adopting a policy supporting the decriminalization of pimps and johns based on advice from the Global Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP), an organization whose Vice President at the time, Alejandra Gil, was recently convicted of sex trafficking. Amnesty International defended their decision to reject the Nordic model, stating, “a large number of sex worker organizations and networks, including the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, support the decriminalization of sex work.” But the reality is that, according to Amnesty International, it’s not only “sex workers” we must listen to, but also pimps.
feministcurrent.com/2015/10/26/are-we-hearing-sex-workers-when-we-listen-to-them/

"Black Cat" on economics:
<Sure, to people like you and me, an hour of a janitor’s labor is not worth the same as an hour of a doctor’s labor — one produces more value in an hour than the other does.
And according to the free market, high-end escorts actually produce even more value than doctors. And when medicine is organized in a way that allows customers to vote with their wallet, a bored millionaire can augment his wiener while a regular guy can't get insulin. The market has spoken and now you die. An economy that uses money will tend to generate extreme inequality over time and it would even do that if everybody were a clone. This insight is the result of Econophysics, something which Cockshott is also doing, and which threatens to erase any hope for such a thing as "free market anarchism", which is the ideology of the website this was published on.

Given how much "Black Cat" knows about Paul Cockshott it seems highly likely "Black Cat" has heard of Econophysics and if that's the case, I wonder what reason "Black Cat" could have for not mentioning it 🤔

Landon Jones
Landon Jones

Ok i just skimmed that article by 'black cat' and its pretty GARBO tier.

black cat is a market anarchist, and market anarchists are at the top of criticiszing cockshott.

Basically TLDR is the same as that william guy from before (another market anarchist):

1. Cockshott is a terf/nazbol/reactionary
and
2. Muh Diagonalization argument

apart from that they make a number of nonsense statements and accuse cockshott of ignoring services and only talking about goods.

Alot of it is a combination of rehashed right wing criticisms of marxian economics and kvetching about muh TERF.

god, market anarchists are the worst

such brainlet tier statements as
As a better question, would such a system of central planning even produce HRT, kosher food, or Muslim prayer mats?
Shows they don't even have a basic understanding of labor voucher based economics.

the guy literally praises VENTURE CAPITALISTS in the article.

Face it, market anarchists are basically WOKE ANCAPS at best

Bentley Howard
Bentley Howard

would central planning even produce HRT, kosher food, or Muslim prayer mats?
God, I hope it won't.

Jordan Lee
Jordan Lee

Markets and those that push them are reactionary and will be shot.

Attached: 2fcdead03886090bfd5d235e4f76c3932b27380abb3e8751116771f40d52ab0d.jpg (7.21 KB, 272x185)

Luke Ross
Luke Ross

Lol and Anarchists will still pretend that AnCaps are in no way related to the rest of the movement.

Bentley Nguyen
Bentley Nguyen

As a better question, would such a system of central planning even produce HRT, kosher food, or Muslim prayer mats?
Jesus are these people for real?
This reminds me of those retarded anarkiddies that when I said "women had better rights, opportunities and life in the USSR than now" they screamed MUH GAY AND TRANS PEOPLE DONT YOU KNOW STALIN KILLED ALL THE TRANS PEOPLE?!?!? Like that doesnt still happen in russia. These people are so fucking braindead sometimes.

Attached: i-cant-stand-life-anymore.png (685.56 KB, 946x946)

Sebastian Adams
Sebastian Adams

Both things have already happened. Athletes born male and identifying >as female are now winning women's competitions and the author surely >know that, as that is treated as an epic win for trans activists on Twitter >where "Black Cat" also hangs out. As for the prison thing: >bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838
Trans inmate jailed for Wakefield prison sex offences
A transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted two inmates at a women's >jail and had previously raped two other women has been given a life >sentence.

Lets face the facts, this is about cultural hierarchies, and cultural power. Feminine men are granted the privilege of bullying women without consequences, in exchange for submission to the current economic order. Women that defend them self's against this are ostracised by being othered as "terf". This is no different then in the 1950's when women got othered as "hysterical" when they didn't want to be housewife's.

the guy literally praises VENTURE CAPITALISTS in the article.
Face it, market anarchists are basically WOKE ANCAPS at best
Anarchism is economically a sophisticated batter system, anarchists view money market schemes as a hierarchy they object to.
The basical neoliberal pattern is economic conservatism coupled with social liberalism.
Let's face it this is might just be grifter crypto neo-liberalism.

HRT
HRT basically is chemical castration light (pic)
The entire gender ideology debate can be sidestepped, by basically asking the scientific question, whether or not there is medical merit to proposed medical treatments and procedures regarding alleviating dysphoria symptoms. Obviously Judith Butler made no scientific claims as she did not provide empirical evidence. If she or her followers were to attempt to impose their views on the scientific process on would have to ask whether or not this constitutes theocratic oppression.

kosher food
This appears let a set of dietary rules , for example only allowing land animals with cloven hoof that chew their cuds, or fish that have both fins and scales. Since the future is likely going to mean laboratory meat that does involved growing feet or fins, it will probably depend on mental gymnastics of someone re-interpreting holy texts.

Muslim prayer mats
A socialist economy would still produces thin slices of soft material to put between people and the ground, with the notable difference of assuming that mats do not possess the mental capacity to hold religious believes.

Attached: hrt-chemical-cstration-question.png (83.09 KB, 861x654)

Asher Moore
Asher Moore

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Linear_Programming_Kit

Cooper Torres
Cooper Torres

thread theme

Attached: Francis-E.-Dec---Worldwide-Mad-Deadly-Lava-Powerhouse-Computer-God.webm (6.34 MB, 320x214)

Lucas Stewart
Lucas Stewart

I wrote some pseudocode for labor value calculation so I could respond to this post in a different thread:
// Log Linear time, multiple iterations estimation of labor values
map<ID,commodity> laborValCalcIteration(map<ID,commodity> commodities) {
for (c in commodities) {
double deptotal = 0
for (depIDQuantityPair in c.dependencies) {
commodity dep = commodities[depIDQuantityPair.ID]
total += (dep.deptotal + dep.directlabor) * depIDQuantityPair.quantity
}
c.deptotal = deptotal
}
return commodities
}

map<ID, commodity> laborValCalcForNIters(map<ID, commodity> commodities, int count) {
for (int i in 0...count) {
commodities = laborValCalcIteration(commodities)
}
return commodities
}

If I was prototyping this, I'd have it just load the entire database into a map like this. It would work because each entry is just two doubles (deptotal and directlabor) and then a list of dependencies (which are ID and double pairs). Say there are 500,000 commodities in the test data and dependency count ~= 10logn. Then each loaded dataset is like 200MB in memory. The total number of loop iterations for laborValCalcForNIters(c, 10) is 250,000,000.

Christian Barnes
Christian Barnes

The set of commodities is also the set of dependencies correct? And this is log linear due to each commodity C not having a fairly small set of dependencies when compared to the whole set of dependencies?

Nathan Perry
Nathan Perry

The set of commodities is also the set of dependencies correct?
Yes, as this line shows:
commodity dep = commodities[depIDQuantityPair.ID]
Dependencies are stored as an array of commodity IDs. To get the actual data for each dependency, you go get the data that matches the ID. This way it doesn't waste space.

And this is log linear due to each commodity C not having a fairly small set of dependencies when compared to the whole set of dependencies?
The matrix of commodities and their dependencies is a sparse matrix. So for example, the bakery doesn't need cyanide or iron ore. The bike factory doesn't need textiles or corn. Some of Cockshott's grad students did a study where they proved that the relationship between total commodities and the dependency count of each individual commodity is logarithmic. So if there are a million commodities, the total number of dependencies of each commodity will be just log(1mil)*(some const) = 6(some const). From a computing POV, the constant doesn't wildly effect computation time unless it is really big. Say it's 6*100 = 600, which is unrealistic for a lot of things (does a soccer ball really have 600 direct dependencies? How about shirts? Baked goods? etc). Then you just do 600million loops. That's certainly far preferable to 1mil * 1mil, which would take a while to run. And what if you had 500 million commodities and intermediate products? Then you really want the log linear algorithm.

also sidenote,
total += (dep.deptotal + dep.directlabor) * depIDQuantityPair.quantity
should be
deptotal += (dep.deptotal + dep.directlabor) * depIDQuantityPair.quantity

Alexander Hall
Alexander Hall

Has anyone else here read Red Plenty? I enjoyed it and it made me think about the viability of computerised planning.

Attached: images.jpeg (38.32 KB, 317x499)

Xavier Mitchell
Xavier Mitchell

Given some longer/clearer variable names due to feedback from


// Log linear time, multiple iterations estimation of labor values
Map<ID, Commodity> laborValCalcIteration(Map<ID, Commodity> commodities) {
for (c in commodities) {
double totalDependencyVals = 0
for (depIDQuantityPair in c.dependencies) {
Commodity dependency = commodities[depIDQuantityPair.ID]
totalDependencyVals += (dependency.totalDependencyVals + dependency.directLabor) * depIDQuantityPair.quantity
}
c.totalDependencyVals = totalDependencyVals
}
return commodities
}

Map<ID, Commodity> laborValCalcForXIters(Map<ID, Commodity> commodities, int count) {
for (int i in 0...count) {
commodities = laborValCalcIteration(commodities)
}
return commodities
}

hopefully this one doesn't need more revision unless it was actually going to be changed into real code

Jaxon Sullivan
Jaxon Sullivan

hey fam, came from the other thread. new to dick blastt threads. what's the dilio here?
is the code just for educational purposes or is the intent to have real working software?
cockshott's code is not very "software engineered".

Chase Perry
Chase Perry

Cockshott is an academic and his code is basically more like a proof of concept/prototype than a properly 'software engineered' codebase.

A real industrial strength application which did planning would have to have a whole process/pipeline with unit/automated testing, QA, multiple branches/test environments, code reviews, etc.

Nolan Edwards
Nolan Edwards

IDK, I have kind of been wanting to start building a cyberplanning suite for a while, but I am lazy. This pseudocode would really work though. Labor value calculation is really insanely simple.

Jaxon Anderson
Jaxon Anderson

Requesting help from comrades
I'm currently implementing this algorithm in Rust, and I'm testing it out right now. There seems to be a problem either with the math, or the nature of the random data sets I'm generating.
I think that cyclical dependencies are causing my naive approach to go to infinity. EG, when a commodity depends directly or indirectly on itself, or two commodities depend on certain amounts of each other. However, IRL, there are limits to this. For example, a pound of steel can't take two pounds of steel to manufacture, or its price would approach infinity.
So, either my algorithm is missing something (and I am not good enough at numerical methods to immediately think of an answer), or my randomly-generated data is impossible IRL. If it's the former, please fill us in on the correct implementation. If it's the latter, then this implementation would work fine for real data, but it's somewhat harder to create test data for. Or it could be a mix of the two.
Here's the whole code:

use rand::Rng;
use std::collections::HashMap;


fn main() {
let data = generate_labor_graph();
let data = labor_calc_for_n_iterations(data, 10);
for (id, c) in data {
println!("id: {}, direct_labor: {}, dep_count: {}, indirect_labor: {}", id, c.direct_labor, c.dependencies.len(), c.indirect_labor);
}
}

#[derive(Clone)]
struct Commodity {
direct_labor: f64,
indirect_labor: f64,
dependencies: Vec<(u64,f64)>
}

fn generate_labor_graph() -> HashMap<u64, Commodity> {
let mut rng = rand::thread_rng();
let mut commodities = HashMap::new();
for i in 1..1000 {
let c = Commodity{direct_labor: rng.gen_range(1.0, 50.0), indirect_labor: 0.0, dependencies: vec![(i, 0.1)]};
commodities.insert(i, c);
}
for i in 1000..1_000_000 {
let mut deps = Vec::new();
for _ in 1..rng.gen_range(5,20) {
let id = rng.gen_range(1,1_000_000);
let quantity = if id == i { 0.1 } else { rng.gen_range(0.001,2.0) };
deps.push((id, quantity));
}
let c = Commodity{direct_labor: rng.gen_range(0.01, 2.0), indirect_labor: 0.0, dependencies: deps};
commodities.insert(i, c);
}

commodities
}

// Note: No commodity can depend on 1.0 or more of itself.
fn labor_calc_iteration(commodities: HashMap<u64, Commodity>) -> HashMap<u64, Commodity> {
let mut commodities_calced = HashMap::new();
for (curr_id, c) in &commodities {
let mut indirect_labor: f64 = 0.0;
for (dep_id, quantity) in &c.dependencies {
let dependency = commodities.get(&dep_id);
indirect_labor += match dependency {
Some(d) => {
quantity * (d.direct_labor + d.indirect_labor)
},
None => 0.0,
};
let calced_c = Commodity{ direct_labor: c.direct_labor, indirect_labor: indirect_labor, dependencies: c.dependencies.clone()};
commodities_calced.insert(*curr_id, calced_c);
}
}
commodities_calced
}

fn labor_calc_for_n_iterations(mut commodities: HashMap<u64, Commodity>, count: u32) -> HashMap<u64, Commodity> {
for _ in 0..count {
println!("starting iteration");
commodities = labor_calc_iteration(commodities);
}
commodities
}

Robert Phillips
Robert Phillips

Now for performance characteristics:
- this implementation does not mutate values in the hashmap, meaning it is very inefficient in terms of memory (using twice as much as it would when mutating the hashmap) and also slower due to all the copying
- in spite of this, a data set with 1,000,000 commodities and an average of ~12 dependencies per commodity only takes ~550,000MB of memory.
- doing ten iterations on the big data set takes ~8 minutes on my PC, and that's with a significant startup time just generating and loading the data. So if the algorithm is correct or only requires a bit of modification, then it proves that labor value calculation is not hyper-computational and is perfectly doable even on a consumer PC.

Colton Bell
Colton Bell

oh yeah, and these perf metrics are without optimization flags

Levi Jones
Levi Jones

For reference, here's Cockshott's description of labor value estimation in TANS:
"The idea here is that as a first approximation we ignore all inputs to the production process apart
from directly expended labour. This gives us a first, approximate estimate of each product’s
labour value. It will be an underestimate because it ignores the non-labour inputs to the
production process. To arrive at our second approximation we add in the non-labour inputs
valued on the basis of the labour values computed in the first phase. This will get us one step
closer to the true labour values. Repeated application of this process will give us the answer to
the desired degree of accuracy. If about half the value of an average product is derived from
direct labour inputs then each iteration round our approximation process will add one binary
digit of significance to our answer. An answer correct to four significant decimal digits (which is
better than the market can achieve) would require about 15 iterations round our approximation
process.
The time order complexity of this algorithm is proportional to the number of products times
the average number of inputs per product, times the desired accuracy of the result in digits. On
our previous assumptions this could be computed on a supercomputer in a few minutes, rather
than the thousands of years required for Gaussian elimination."
Did he ever go into it in more detail anywhere?

Michael Reyes
Michael Reyes

Anarkiddies only deserve to be shot

Nathan Lee
Nathan Lee

To clarify, the units of the dependencies are labour hours? So producing 1 hour of A depends on 0.5 hours of A? You description mixes labour hour units and mass units but I am going to assume all units are labour hours.

What happens if you input a 1 commodity test set where A depends on more than A. What about when A depends on less than A (eg. how things exist irl). And what about when one A depends on exactly one A. Before that test we should evaluate if the expected outcomes.
For ratios larger than 1.0 (invalid test data) I think your assessment of value approaching infinity is correct.
A = 2A = 2+ 4 + 8 + 16 …
A = 1A = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 …
In the best case of 1.0 dependency ratio which we can see easily adds up infinitely.

For valid test data such as A depends on 0.5*A,
A = 0.5A = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 … = 1
A = 0.6A = 0.6 + 0.36 + 0.6^3 + 0.6^4 …. = (larger than 1)
A = 0.4A = 0.4 + (0.4^2) + (0.4^3) + (0.4^4) … = (smaller than 1)
In the 0.5 ratio case, he expected outcome is equal to 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … etc which converges to 1. This is an economically invalid outcome since that means 1 A requires 1 A of labour hours to produce. Does this imply that a commodity that depends on itself must have a dependency ratio of less than 0.5 because ratios larger than 0.5 will converge to values greater than 1?

What happens in a 2 commodity scenario where A depends on A and B depends on A?
I'm assuming A depending on A is explained above and that the dependency ratio must be less than 0.5 (this assumption needs scrutiny).

The ratio between A and B should be able to take any value. The largest possible value of B occurs when the A to A ratio is close of 0.5
B = 2A is 2 + (some number less than 1) = value of B must be less than 3
B = 1A is 1 + (some number less than 1) = value of B must be less than 2
B = 0.5A is 0.5 + (some number less than 1) = value of B must be less than 1.5

Someone check this over.

Dominic Morgan
Dominic Morgan

To clarify, the units of the dependencies are labour hours? So producing 1 hour of A depends on 0.5 hours of A? You description mixes labour hour units and mass units but I am going to assume all units are labour hours.
All labor variables are labor per unit. "Quantity" is number of units, and can be a fraction or a whole number (eg, a fraction of a gallon of water, or two gallons of water).

What happens if you input a 1 commodity test set where A depends on more than A. What about when A depends on less than A (eg. how things exist irl). And what about when one A depends on exactly one A.
Here's the commodity I'll be testing, with 15 iterations like Cockshott suggests:
Commodity{direct_labor: 5.0, indirect_labor: 0.0, dependencies: vec![(0, quantity)]}
quantity = 1.0:
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 75
^ Bad but to be expected since it's not realistic.

quantity = 2.0:
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 327670
^ wew lad

quantity = 0.5:
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 4.999847412109375
^ It is converging on five indirect labor hours. Good or bad?

quantity = 0.9, with 15 iterations:
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 35.7348990557408
with 100000 iterations:
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 44.99999999999998
^ this shows that really wasteful production of things would require more iterations (realistically like 35 iterations) to converge. But even though this converges at a certain value, is it correct?

In the 0.5 ratio case, he expected outcome is equal to 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … etc which converges to 1. This is an economically invalid outcome since that means 1 A requires 1 A of labour hours to produce.
Well, in the above, we've said that A has 5 hours of direct labor and .5(A) worth of indirect labor, but the amount of indirect labor is unknown in the beginning. In the end we arrive at a total labor value of 10, with an indirect labor value of 5… so it still depends on .5(A), which is correct, no?

What happens in a 2 commodity scenario where A depends on A and B depends on A?
I'll do that one tomorrow.

Cooper Bell
Cooper Bell

Thanks for running the tests. The results look mathematically correct (or at least my paper math is doing the same thing your algorithm does). In my calcs I set direct labour to 1 but if direct labour were 5 then I would have produced the same numbers as in your tests.

this shows that really wasteful production of things would require more iterations (realistically like 35 iterations) to converge. But even though this converges at a certain value, is it correct?
It is correct… Interesting that 0.9 took more iterations to converge than 0.5, I'm not sure what to make of that or if it has real world consequences (a commodity with fewer input quantities has a higher direct labour composition and converges faster). Worth looking into more I think.

In the quantity = 0.5 scenario, the total value of the commodity is ~10. I'm still trying to determine if that value is a plausible/acceptable for a real economy.

A more concrete example, producing 1 ton of corn requires 5 hours of labour and 0.5 tons of corn input (which is 2.5 hours of labour and 0.25 tons of corn of input (which is 1.25 hours of labour and 0.125 tons of corn input)) etc… This will work out to 5 direct hours and 5 indirect hours to produce 1 ton of corn. As well as .5 tons of direct input corn and 0.5 tons of indirect input. Society can only appropriate 0.5 of the 1 ton produced since the other half needs to go back into producing more corn.

Is the cost of reproducing the labour power counted in the indirect costs?
If not then we must assumed that labour power needs to be reproduced using the 0.5 tons of corn not reinvested into the production cycle. Unfortunately we don't have a set value for labour power so can't say if 10 hours of labour require more or less than 0.5 tons of corn to sustain.

If the cost of reproducing labour power is counted then the 0.5 tons of corn becomes surplus that can be used freely without affecting society's self reproduction ability.

Regardless if labour power is already accounted for in the indirect costs, we can say a lower ratio is better since it means the product can be produced with less labour time and more of the output can be used as consumer goods rather than as raw materials in production.

So my initial idea that the quantity ratio must be less than 0.5 is wrong, the ratio must be less than 1.0. In a simple 1 commodity example the 0.5 ratio is the line between when society can enjoy the majority of its hard work vs. reinvesting its hard work into sustaining the next production cycle.

This is getting ahead, but when there are mutual dependencies such as:
1 ton Corn requires 5 direct labour + 0.1 iron and 0.5 corn
1 ton iron requires 5 direct labour + 0.1 corn and 0.5 iron.

Corn requires 5 indirect from corn and ~1 indirect from iron (only did 5 iterations)
Iron requires 5 indirect from iron and ~1 indirect from corn.
So in both cases total labour is now 11 for corn and iron and the 22 hours of labour of society needs to be sustained on 0.4 tons of corn and 0.4 tons of iron.

Brody Ward
Brody Ward

Could blockchain technology play a part in this process?

Wyatt Barnes
Wyatt Barnes

I'm now going to do an example where two commodities depend directly on each other (and thus indirectly on themselves).
data.insert(0,Commodity{direct_labor: 5.0, indirect_labor: 0.0, dependencies: vec![(1, quantity)]});
data.insert(1,Commodity{direct_labor: 10.0, indirect_labor: 0.0, dependencies: vec![(0, quantity)]});

Note that they have different direct labor values now.
First, with quantity = 0.5:
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 8.333333333333332
id: 1, direct_labor: 10, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 6.666666666666666
^ Like last time, they converge around these values even at 15 iterations.

Quantity = 0.9:
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 68.68238617760274
id: 1, direct_labor: 10, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 66.31402803354747
^ It takes even more iterations to start converging at these values. About 100 iterations. But this is a convergence.

Quantity = 1.0, 100 iterations:
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 750
id: 1, direct_labor: 10, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 750
Quantity = 1.0, 10000 iterations:
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 75000
id: 1, direct_labor: 10, dep_count: 1, indirect_labor: 75000
^ As you can see, there is no longer any convergence.

I'll do a mutual dependencies example later, but overall I think that this shows that there's a law of commodities that makes it so that a commodity can't directly OR indirectly depend on 1 of itself. The first is obvious, but I haven't seen anyone mention the second law anywhere. I'd be interested to know if there is any literature on this!
Assuming the calculation code is correct, I'll just need to think of a good way to generate a test data set that doesn't allow commodities to depend on more than 1 of themselves. I have some simple ideas for this.

Thomas Watson
Thomas Watson

didnt you guys take linear algebra?

from what it looks like your quasi randomly generating the dependencies, there is nothing guarenteeing your commodity vectors are linearly independent/non overlapping - you are going to have problems because there are nontrivial solutions to the system of equations

Dominic Martinez
Dominic Martinez

Rust
Also good luck though. Been programming for a job for hours on end and then some more so i cant help.
I really should get back into this whole thread anyway, since I saw you guys post my screencapped replies.

William Davis
William Davis

didnt you guys take linear algebra?
I did but the class was poorly taught and I didn't pay attention anyway.

randomly generating the dependencies, there is nothing guarenteeing your commodity vectors are linearly independent/non overlapping
Not sure what you mean, but from my layman POV, if even one of the commodities that's randomly generated ends up depending on >=1 of itself, it'll cause a cascade of wildly inflated indirect labor values. I think I'll just get rid of the random indexing stuff and make sure that can't happen. The point is just to stress test the algorithm and prove that it really is trivial to calculate labor values, like Cockshott has argued. A practical implementation would also need some way to detect those kinds of cyclical dependencies to prevent obviously bad/poisoned data being entered.

Austin Martin
Austin Martin

Sounds like a topological ordering problem, though im not sure how you would detect if the value of a circular dependency is greater than 1, rather than just detecting a circular dependency.

Luke Fisher
Luke Fisher

there is nothing guarenteeing your commodity vectors are linearly independent/non overlapping
That's not quite what we want.
What we ultimately want to do is solve
D = (I-A)T
where A_ij is the amount of commodity j required to produce 1 unit of commodity i, and D_i is the direct labor required to produce commodity i.
Which obviously has a unique solution whenever A does not have an eigenvalue of 1.
One way to ensure this is to ensure the sum of the requirements for every good is less than 1.

William Lewis
William Lewis

Request:
Does anyone have a simple, correct (like, three or four sector, with man hours) input-output table I could enter treating sectors as commodities?
Here's a test I'm currently doing:
data.insert(0,Commodity{direct_labor: 5.0, indirect_labor: 0.0, dependencies: vec![(1, 1.0), (0, 0.001)]});
data.insert(1,Commodity{direct_labor: 10.0, indirect_labor: 0.0, dependencies: vec![(0, 1.0), (1, 0.001)]});
let data = labor_calc_for_n_iterations(data, 100000);

The results:
id: 1, direct_labor: 10, dep_count: 2, indirect_labor: 191974379588118400000000000000000000000000000000
id: 0, direct_labor: 5, dep_count: 2, indirect_labor: 191974379588118400000000000000000000000000000000

So as you can see, commodity A depends on 1(B) and 0.001(A). B depends on 1(A) and 0.001(B). Yet it still goes to this ridiculous number. This can't be right, can it? If I set the ratios to 0.01, it even goes to infinity. Whatever's going on here is the source of the problem IMO.

One way to ensure this is to ensure the sum of the requirements for every good is less than 1.
IDK if this is practical since you have to have a unit of measurement for each commodity, and many commodities require more than one unit of measurement of their inputs.

though im not sure how you would detect if the value of a circular dependency is greater than 1, rather than just detecting a circular dependency.
Maybe recursively search the dependencies while multiplying by each quantity until you find the same commodity again, or something like that? Otherwise, an inefficient hack method is just to calculate the whole thing each time data is entered and then reject the new data if the values don't converge.

Chase Anderson
Chase Anderson

No, that's correct.
1(A) requires 1(B) and .001(A)
1(B) requires 1(A) and .001(B).
Substituting that in, we get that 1(A) requires 1.001(A) and .001(B), which is obviously bad.
IDK if this is practical since you have to have a unit of measurement for each commodity, and many commodities require more than one unit of measurement of their inputs.
Yeah, but for testing purposes it's fine.

Hudson Wood
Hudson Wood

No, that's correct.
But couldn't something like this exist IRL? Like you need an axe that has a wood handle to make wood?

Alexander Rivera
Alexander Rivera

That looks more like
1(axe) requires 1(wood)
1(wood) requires .001(axe)
Which should converge just fine.

Christian Torres
Christian Torres

That's true, but I guess more due to my lack of imagination for an example. Now that I think about it though, maybe it's not possible to use Thing to get More Thing without first turning Thing into Transformed Thing. lol

Wyatt Sanchez
Wyatt Sanchez

1(oil) requires .1(oil) is perfectly possible and should also converge.

Elijah Gonzalez
Elijah Gonzalez

1(oil) requires .1(oil)
In the operation of the machinery? Isn't that going into machinery maintenance, if we're being precise?

Joseph Clark
Joseph Clark

Maybe recursively search the dependencies while multiplying by each quantity until you find the same commodity again, or something like that?
Thought about that too, but if you wanna calculate the dependency of a commodity on itself you can get into an infinite loop, if you run into the following situation
A -> B
B -> C
C -> A
C -> B
You would just loop between B and C if you loop for A since both depend on A

Brayden Bell
Brayden Bell

Like another user mentioned before, if you want some simple data to test without doing complex checking:

Make sure that the total scalars + the constant are < 1. IE
Some_thing = 0.4 + 0.4 B + 0.1 C
This means that you could never get circular references where something costs more than one of itself.
Other way is to generate data without circular dependencies, though that isnt as "realistic".

Blake Rodriguez
Blake Rodriguez

Well, you could do that while checking to see if it's converging on a value or not?

Make sure that the total scalars + the constant are < 1. IE
Some_thing = 0.4 + 0.4 B + 0.1 C
I guess that's fine just for testing perf. Still would like to have a realistic data set.

Xavier Taylor
Xavier Taylor

On the whole "detecting corrupt commodities" thing. Its pretty simple. If the increase of a cost of a commodity in step_n < step_ n+1 then one unit of a commodity is circularly dependent on more than one unit of itself, or on a commodity that is. If step_n > step_n+1 then it might be circularly dependent on itself, but if it is then its dependency is less than one unit of itself. If step_n == step_n+1 then one unit of the commodity is dependent on one unit of itself. See python script below.

def writeline(output, costs):
output.write(";".join([str(x) for x in costs]) + "\n")


products = {
0: (1, [(0,0)]),
1: (1, [(1,0.25)]),
2: (1, [(2,0.5)]),
3: (1, [(3,0.75)]),
4: (1, [(4,1)]),
5: (1, [(5,1.25)]),
6: (1, [(6,1.5)]),
7: (1, [(7,1.75)]),
8: (1, [(8,2)])
}

cost = [x[0] for x in products.values()]

runs = 20

output = open("convergence.csv","w+")

for i in range(runs):
for productid in products:
tempcost = products[productid][0]
for ingredient in products[productid][1]:
tempcost += cost[ingredient[0]] * ingredient[1]
cost[productid] = tempcost
writeline(output,cost)

replace products with

products = {
0: (1, [(1,0.5)]),
1: (1, [(0,3)]),
2: (1, [(3,0.5)]),
3: (1, [(2,1)])
}

to see it work on indirect dependencies.

Note that you only need one step to do this, so if you wished to verify this on a gigantic dataset of size N that you iterate over T times, you could check it batches of N/T items to conserve memory.

Anthony Morales
Anthony Morales

Critique of Althusser:
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2019/07/04/critique-of-althussers-theory-of-ideology-part-1/
The reproduction of labour power thus reveals as its sine qua non not only the reproduction of its ‘skills’ but also the reproduction of its subjection to the ruling ideology or of the ‘practice’ of that ideology, with the proviso that it is not enough to say ‘not only but also,’ for it is clear that it is in the forms and under the forms of ideological subjection that provision is made for the reproduction of the skills of labour power. But this is to recognize the effective presence of a new reality: ideology.
Whilst, at first sight, this seems plausible, is it correct?
Whilst Althusser makes a smooth transition from
1. the physical reproduction of labour power,
2. to training in techniques,
3. to training in social role or boss or worker,
we should realize that step 3 is down to him. It is not from Marx. Marx makes no assumption that workers need to be trained by schools to submit. He did not, for the very good reason that when he was writing it would have been blatantly counter factual.

paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2019/07/06/critique-of-althussers-2-1-definition-of-ideology/
In what follows I will try giving Althusser the benefit of the doubt. I will see if, by paying close attention to the specific way he defines ideology, any logically coherent account can be derived. Since I am teasing out definitions I give a fairly formal analysis. I use concepts from formal relational analysis, something that developed in the 1970s when IBM needed to concretely represent capitalist production relations and property relations in computers. This gave rise to relational algebra and relational database systems.

Daniel Peterson
Daniel Peterson

Excellent, i was waiting for this

Robert Gomez
Robert Gomez

Back with the labor value program from here . First off, I made a couple small optimizations in the code:
let mut commodities = HashMap::with_capacity(count as usize);
and
let mut commodities_calced = CommodityGraph::with_capacity(commodities.capacity());
Previously, I wasn't pre-allocating the memory for the hashmaps, meaning a bunch of cycles were wasted resizing them over and over while the data was generated/entered.

With those two code optimizations, a debug build takes ~4 minutes to generate and run through 1,000,000 commodities for 15 iterations on a single core (Ryzen 1600). This is an improvement from ~10 minutes.
With a release build, that same random generation + calculation takes 0m23.977s.
I'm going to hazard a guess and attribute the speedup primarily to rustc making use of copy elision and other memory tricks, and secondarily to optimized arithmetic. I don't really know what rustc does though!
The fact that EVEN WITH my code taking double the amount of memory it could with mutation, it can run that fast, is really cool. This is one of the supposedly impossible "calculation problems" of communism!

Finally, I have a new function for random generation. Half of the commodities depend on nothing, and half depend on random elements of the first half. This guarantees no impossible dependency cycles. While this is still unrealistic in a different way, it is sufficient for a benchmark: fn generate_labor_graph(count: u64) -> CommodityGraph {
let mut rng = rand::thread_rng();
let mut commodities = HashMap::with_capacity(count as usize);
for i in 0..(count / 2) {
let mut deps = Vec::new();
deps.push((0,0.0));
let c = Commodity{direct_labor: rng.gen_range(0.01, 10.0), indirect_labor: 0.0, dependencies: deps};
commodities.insert(i, c);
}
for i in (count / 2)..count {
let mut deps = Vec::new();
for _ in 0..7 {
deps.push((rng.gen_range(0, count/2), rng.gen_range(0.01, 10.0🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸;
}
let c = Commodity{direct_labor: rng.gen_range(0.01, 10.0), indirect_labor:0.0, dependencies: deps};
commodities.insert(i, c);
}

commodities
}

For my next task, I think I'll implement this as part of the calculation process. One downside of this approach is that I think it will only detect the whole dependency cycle, meaning it could be hard to "single out" the problem data.

Jeremiah Ward
Jeremiah Ward

Also, I had a thought about these dependency cycles that make values go to infinity. They actually could happen IRL in exceptional circumstances. For instance, say you are planting corn and had a really bad drought or crop infection. It could be that it takes 500 planted corn seeds to grow one good corn cob. Or to put it the other way around, you could have only a few good kernels per cob. Then you really could have these crazy dependency cycles. If people were desperate enough, they probably would try to keep planting for a while before giving up. As well, if the self-dependency stayed below 1.0 but was still high (say 0.8), people might keep planting anyway, but prices would rise a lot.

Here's another thought: a socialist planned economy that either used labor values without computerized calculation, or used money prices that were dislocated from the real value through state intervention, could actually have these kinds of cycles just accidentally emerge in production. Maybe if the bureaucrats are really fucking things up, it could persist for a while too. The cycles could also happen accidentally in capitalism, but would lead to a company going out of business pretty soon.

Luke Thompson
Luke Thompson

Update: I replaced the hashmap with a plain Vector, since I decided I had no reason to use anything but an integer for a key. Now it takes 2.3 seconds for a release build to do 15 iterations on 1mil commodities. It uses about half the memory as the hashmap as well. I bet using mutability would bring it below 1s.

Ryder Baker
Ryder Baker

based and COCKPILLED

Lincoln Rogers
Lincoln Rogers

Here it is with mutating values. Way simpler now that it's just a Vec. Doesn't use fancy iterators or any map/filter type stuff, but w/e:fn labor_calc_iteration_mut(mut commodities: CommodityGraph) -> CommodityGraph {
for i in 0..commodities.len() {
let mut indirect_labor = 0.0;
for (dep_id, quantity) in &commodities[i].dependencies {
let dep = &commodities[*dep_id];
indirect_labor += quantity * (dep.direct_labor + dep.indirect_labor);
}
commodities[i].indirect_labor = indirect_labor;
}

commodities
}

Performance:
1,000,000 commodities for 15 iterations, generated using this :
- runtime 0m 0.758s
- max memory usage: 114.4MB

50,000,000 commodities, same setup:
- runtime 0m 43.256s
- max memory usage: 6.3GB
^Note that the increase in both memory and runtime isn't exactly linear (it's slightly worse). There could be a number of reasons for this. However, it is definitely not quadratic.

I'll stop posting benchmarks for now. I have a couple questions for any other programmers ITT:
- Do you think that it would be useful to implement an "external" iteration method that reads and stores values to disk during calculation in order to minimize memory usage? Say it was running on a server and it had to run a few iterations every time someone updates a value, just to determine if there were infinite cycles. If the server wasn't beefy enough, the users could hammer its memory. On the other hand, making a bunch of those iterations run off the database could hammer the database and disk IO instead.
- Does this seem like a case where multithreading is useful (say around 5 or 10 mil commodities)? IMO it might not be needed if it's just run as a kind of batch job. If I wanted to make the mutating iteration multithreaded, I think I'd have to put a bunch of write locks in each element. Even then IDK if Rust would play nice.

I think I might build a little web UI + database for this as propaganda. Eventually I could incorporate Cockshott's harmony algorithm too.

Julian Peterson
Julian Peterson

runtime isn't exactly linear (it's slightly worse).
thats about right, the theoretic worse case for a iterative matrix solver is n squared/quadratic, being somewhere between that and linear is probably about right.

ps if you're going to write it in RUST, check out this web framework: rocket.rs/

Say it was running on a server and it had to run a few iterations every time someone updates a value, just to determine if there were infinite cycles.

you mean as validation for new inputs? theres no reason not to just run that on the app server, and have the front end display some loading/waiting bar or something that says 'validating commodity input' or something while waiting for the recalculation.

Yes its an expensive algorithm but its fine to run that on the app server.

At scale, when you presumably have 10's of 1000's of enterprises, most likely a few dozen will be modifying commodities at any given time. You could have a dedicated commodity validation 'microservice' that spawned a thread per commodity being added/modified and ran this validation on it. Once complete it would add it to the database, or not. the ui can check the tables to see if a update is 'pending' 'accepted' or 'rejected - blah blah blah explanation'

Attached: cockshottfeels.png (402.36 KB, 680x703)

Matthew Sanchez
Matthew Sanchez

ps if you're going to write it in RUST, check out this web framework: rocket.rs/
leaning towards trying Actix for speed.

You could have a dedicated commodity validation 'microservice' that spawned a thread per commodity being added/modified and ran this validation on it. Once complete it would add it to the database, or not
I agree. Ultimately, I guess a disk-bound iteration algo would be so much slower that it would invalidate any memory gains. There must be tons of websites that run much heavier jobs all the time. Youtube for example, processing video uploads.

Ethan Hill
Ethan Hill

You should definitely try both. Being able to run the algorithm with 50 billion+ commodities in a reasonable amount of time (with enough ram and/or disk space) would be useful, as you could get some extreme nuance in the commodity definitions. And any more than that would definitively crush any possible concerns.

Tyler Scott
Tyler Scott

I found this anti-Cockshott meme on halfchan /biz/ (just went on there to see their reaction to Trump disparaging tweets about Bitcoins).
It shows that Paul Cockshott is getting (relatively) popular and reach people outside Zig Forums and related communities and that /pol/ lacks the mental ability to understands anything that isn't a meme or a source-less infographic (well that's not really new).

Attached: 1562898059256.jpg (270.28 KB, 971x1302)

Parker Bailey
Parker Bailey

Hohoho
Welcome to /pol/ newfriend the ride never ends

Aiden Thompson
Aiden Thompson

Part 3 of Jan Philipp Dapprich's Simulating Socialism: designing-history.world/theory/simulating-socialism-3-valuation
In this part we will see how linear programming can be used to determine what I call mathematically derived valuations (MDVs). MDVs are meant to represent the opportunity cost of a consumer product. In other words, they give the answer to the question “How much other stuff could be produced if we had to produce one unit less of this?”.
I'm not sure I understand this. What if the unit size changes? For example, some beverage brands are available only in packs of six. Suppose the unit size shrinks, shrinking to 1/6 of the original size in the example here, meaning now you can buy a single bottle of the beverage. Suppose further that both the price of six bottles and the consumption pattern basically stay where they used to be before the unit change. Shouldn't a sensible measure of "natural price" or "equilibrium price" or whatever you want to call that also tell us that the state of affairs is basically the same as before? Sure, a new smaller unit size that does not result in higher costs in terms of manufacturing & packaging & transport & storage when measured in the old way (in the example, comparing m&p&t&s per six bottles as of now with m&p&t&s per six bottles as before) is already an improvement because it allows more precise dosage on the consumer end, but it looks like you have a systematic bias in marginalist measures that will even tell you it's getting cheaper when there is considerable extra work involved with doing smaller units.

Hunter Lopez
Hunter Lopez

So what's yours cybercommies opinion on Enterprise Resource Planning, Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning modules in popular software solutions like SAP, Oracle etc?
I'm reading a book about SCM and AP, and I just can't wrap my head around it, it's simultaneously detailed and vague. Sometimes it reads like a user manual - click this button here, use this custom optimizing software solution by IBM for production scheduling here. Other times it's full of some kind of corporate speak and diagrams spanning several pages.
I expected a top-down approach - master plan first with some profit maximizing objective function handled by AP module, then disaggregation into production plans, procurement plans, demand plans etc, each covered by a specific software module.
What I got is a fucking mess, a patchwork of theory bits, terms, software solutions™ that you don't know how they work inside, and corporate diagrams and charts. God, fuck corporations and their fucking diagrams and charts.
So what I really want to know, is how exactly advanced is Advanced Planning? I have nowhere else to ask, my professor's idea of advanced planning is an MS Office Solver.

Samuel Lopez
Samuel Lopez

A lot of it uses the same techniques Cockshott advocates. The algorithm he put together for planning is not some kind of wildly complex innovation. Linear programming, interior point methods, iterative estimation, etc. A lot of supply chain stuff is probably graph searches/shortest path stuff. The thing is, on a fundamental level, they are trying to solve a slightly different issue than whole economic planning. They do not seek to build the same kind of data set or do the exact same set of estimations that we do. However, a lot of the software is clearly still going to be useful for micro level planning in communism.

I'm reading a book about SCM and AP,
Any book recommendations?

Ayden Baker
Ayden Baker

How would we determine the labor content of a product when the labor used to make it produces multiple outputs? (examples, cows produce both leather and meat, oil refining produces both gasoline and kerosene.) I read Cockshott a long time ago and I don't remember him addressing this.

Christopher Roberts
Christopher Roberts

I don't quite understand what you are asking here, so i'l go over your examples.
cows produce both leather and meat
cows would be the output of the animal farm, and the input of the butcher, who would produce the meat and untreated cow-skin as outputs, the meat would become the input of food distribution, and the cow-skin would become the input for the tanner whose output is leather. There would be labour time calculation involved in all of those steps, the butcher would have to "spend work" to separate the cow-skin and hand it to the tanner.
oil refining produces both gasoline and kerosene
crude oil would be input of the cracking process which has as output among other chemicals, gasoline and kerosene,(ignoring several other steps in refining here), those can then go to distribution as end product for direct use by people, or can become the input of other industry like road transport or aviation. Again there would be a labour time number attached towards producing and running the cracking equipment as well as the numerous other steps in the refining process.

In one of his videos Cockshott said that there wouldn't be something like soviet firms, so you don't actually have a category where what labour does is mystified.

Aiden Nguyen
Aiden Nguyen

Yeah, I was a little unclear. I was asking about how Cockshott plans to price joint-products and by-products. I'm an economic brainlet apart from reading Capital 1 and some short texts, but I figured that joint-products are just a rare case where supply and demand influence the prices of each individual output, as otherwise the proportion of their total labor-value they occupy is arbitrary.

So in Cockshott's plan, you may need to price something like .75 tokens for 1 hour's beef output + .25 tokens per 1 hour's cowskin output, with all saleable outputs adding up to 1 token/hour, since the beef/cowskin production is simultaneous when tending the cows. I was just asking how you guys plan on pricing that.

After writing that, I see no option other than to determine this .75/.25 ratio than by adjusting it through experience, making unused goods relatively cheaper and used goods relatively more expensive, in hopes that the cheaper goods will be used more liberally, but that is also an entire extra calculation in addition to just calculating the total labor-time which I don't remember Cockshott mentioning. I guess I just answered my own question.

Levi Morris
Levi Morris

you can always ask him on facebook or the comments of youtube

William Turner
William Turner

I have no clue whatever this means. What's their problem exactly?

Matthew Ross
Matthew Ross

This is a good question. I was thinking about this exact issue. AFAIK Marx doesn't handle this case.

In order to determine how this works, I think you'd have to study real life examples. What is the initial price of these byproducts in ratio to the main product? Is it solely commensurate to the labor of skinning the cow (got the byproduct "for free" like cutting a tree in a natural forest), or does it include… like 1/1000th of the value of the cow according to weight? Do you split the labor of skinning the cow between the beef and the skin? Duplicate it (seems like a bad idea)?

Landon Jones
Landon Jones

but I figured that joint-products are just a rare case where supply and demand influence the prices of each individual output, as otherwise the proportion of their total labor-value they occupy is arbitrary.
No there is no supply and demand in this, you cannot change the meat to skin ratio of the cow, and you cannot change the chemical composition of what comes out of the oil-well.
Imagine lots of people changing their diet to low meat consumption and then responding to this by attempting to genetically modify the cow to have extra skin flaps for leather production.

Instead you would go for a substitute for cow-leather, there is some promising production techniques that use fungus to make a material similar to leather.

So in Cockshott's plan, you may need to price something like .75 tokens for 1 hour's beef output + .25 tokens per 1 hour's cowskin output, with all saleable outputs adding up to 1 token/hour, since the beef/cowskin production is simultaneous when tending the cows. I was just asking how you guys plan on pricing that.
For the labour time calculation you never go beyond the input-output of each step, you don't have to know what part of farming labour is responsible for cow skin and what part for cow meat, to be able to calculate a price. The labour voucher payments at the point of distribution do function as market-ish feedback, but that is a reality check for the planning system. You are not telling the system what to produce via your spending. What is to be done with the surplus is decided at a time before production happens, do you understand that it's not a reactive system.

Attached: wrinkly.jpeg (32.28 KB, 475x288)

Julian Cruz
Julian Cruz

I guess I just answered my own question.
Yes, the joint process has to be justified by the sum of each price*quantity of the different products jointly produced. Can anything else be said about the balanced prices (when consumption rate = production rate) of the products that come out of the same joint-production process? If something can be produced not only as part of a joint process, but also separately, the separate production price sets the limit to how much its price can be raised in order to "subsidize" something else in joint production. I suppose a product that can be produced in various joint-production processes should not be more expensive than what it would have to cost in order to cover fully one of these processes (the process that yields the cheapest price for A assuming all other products produced by it are given away for free).
you cannot change the meat to skin ratio of the cow
You completely misread the post. It's about prices, not physical quantities which are taken to be in a fixed ratio.

Kayden Baker
Kayden Baker

why are you a leftard? honestly you dont belong to Zig Forums

Justin Gonzalez
Justin Gonzalez

=?=

Attached: 1-0.jpg (72.13 KB, 717x717)

Gabriel Anderson
Gabriel Anderson

=?=
are you really a leftist??
lol how stupid can you be?

Jonathan Cook
Jonathan Cook

Who are you talking to?

Cameron Gutierrez
Cameron Gutierrez

everyone who is a leftist

Xavier Young
Xavier Young

Then the answer to your question is yes. I think everyone, with the exception of few, is a leftist.

Blake Torres
Blake Torres

how could you be such?
there is no sheeple mindset welcomed here

Jose Davis
Jose Davis

Good thing then no one of us here has that mindset.

Grayson Davis
Grayson Davis

ok good but you need to preserve identity and culture, women and children from violence.

Luke Powell
Luke Powell

Religions who has God Satan in disguise

Grayson Murphy
Grayson Murphy

Kultural Margsists such as we want nothing more than to destroy every drop of white women and childeren.

Christopher Taylor
Christopher Taylor

what the Hell!!??

do you want to go to a country for example china were culture is very well preserve you can eat really good food and dimsum you feel me.

Jordan Williams
Jordan Williams

you want your country to be mixed with all the shit?

Nicholas Anderson
Nicholas Anderson

China kultur is burguse! We unite aaginst the foses of reaktion to purge China of white influence.

Jayden Baker
Jayden Baker

you china people to go there getting all your jobs and pooping everywhere

Christopher Rivera
Christopher Rivera

china is no where near white influence but CCP

Adam Perry
Adam Perry

have you been there?
cuz ive been there. you little bitch in mom basement

Henry Campbell
Henry Campbell

Yeah, I hate white people. I can't even explain it. When I see an ethnic Hans walking down the street to buy sausages I feel sick in my mind.
CCP is white. Don't believe me? Why do they wear suits? Aren't suits a western invention?

Parker Thompson
Parker Thompson

is that your only evidence.. its because their bank is controlled by the Jews?

Aaron Jackson
Aaron Jackson

No, it's by white amerikkkans in Isreal's goverment.

Blake Nelson
Blake Nelson

▶good.

John Reed
John Reed

have you tried dimsum?

Angel Ward
Angel Ward

youll not be a leftist anymore after you eat it

Samuel Russell
Samuel Russell

not yet.
I like eating ass

Hunter Clark
Hunter Clark

by the sound of it
you are a retarded 17 year old kid

Brandon Richardson
Brandon Richardson

you must be gay
im dead serious

Christopher Harris
Christopher Harris

I'm not. If you could see like me what's happening to the Asian race - the poor asian race - being replaced by the white one. Look at China's immigration. It's a net negative. Our women are leaving our lands for rich white guys in silicon valley. How can a respectable person not weep in such circumstances?

Henry Williams
Henry Williams

there are billions of asians you stu pid cunt? white people dont like asian shit

Ayden Lee
Ayden Lee

white people dont like asian shit
Explain weebs on 4chan then! Fuckign whiteboys ruining everythign asian. Fuckers copying our animes to jerk off their tiny cock in their rooms.

Attached: futureofasianwomen.webm (2.42 MB, 1280x720)

Landon Johnson
Landon Johnson

2943694
That's true. The Jewish man fears the Dengist.
nypost.com/2019/01/25/george-soros-calls-xi-jinping-the-most-dangerous-enemy/

Attached: F.png (436.65 KB, 646x701)

Juan Howard
Juan Howard

2943699
A big one at that.

Michael Green
Michael Green

2943703
Sho-lah, offworlder!

Attached: DUbi1A-UQAAfvGG.jpg (13.61 KB, 271x332)

Hunter James
Hunter James

You completely misread the post. It's about prices, not physical quantities which are taken to be in a fixed ratio.
Well "supply and demand", contains the premise that supply adapts to demand and vice versa. So you are talking about something else.
There there is no separate non-physical dimension for prices.
If in capitalism you were to increase prices enough for leather production than you could farm cows only for the skin and throw away the meat. The reality here is that this is so ridiculously wasteful, that we don't want that economic mechanism. Do you understand that you cannot solve material limitations by playing around with prices.

the joint process
It's not, the farmer produce a cow, the butcher produces the meat the tanner the leather. You will only produce the quantities of cows where you can both use the skin and meat. And then substitute with other production processes to full-fill the production plan. You only have to figure out a share of the cow-cost ratio for leather vs meat if you diverge from optimal resource allocation, where the tanner and the butcher compete for access to cows.

to make this simpler lets invent a "cow-splitter", which is a services paid for by taxes, that separates the cow in to the 2 inputs for butcher and tanner.

Samuel Lopez
Samuel Lopez

You are still completely misunderstanding what is said. Go back to post and read again from there.
It's about prices, not physical quantities which are taken to be in a fixed ratio.
Well "supply and demand", contains the premise that supply adapts to demand and vice versa. So you are talking about something else.
That doesn't follow. If A and B can only be produced in a fixed ratio because of technical/biological constraints that doesn't imply that the total amount is rigged. For example, if one unit of A is always produced together with two units of B by technical necessity, that could be 100 A units & 200 B units or 5000 A units & 10000 B units or whatever, it's just the ratio between the units of A and B that is invariant.
there is no separate non-physical dimension for prices
What the other poster and I are talking about are physical units of things produced in combination in a process with a technically determined ratio. We can change the quantity of A, but it is in a fixed ratio to the quantity of B. Think of different parts of a flower. We can change the amount of that flower to be produced, the ratio between its parts doesn't change. Both the other poster and I agree that the prices of all the outputs of the same joint process should cover it, but that doesn't tell us how this aggregate price should be split up between the different outputs of the joint process.
You will only produce the quantities of cows where you can both use the skin and meat
The cow is just an example for a general problem, you can't say that with generality. You can't magically know a priori that no joint process will have so much of a useful byproduct that some if it has to be destroyed, even in equilibrium.

Wyatt Flores
Wyatt Flores

Maybe drop the cow example.

Consider water desalination.
This directly separates salt water into fresh water and salt, in essentially a single step.

If we're in a situation where the only fresh water and salt we can get is through desalination, what is the value of fresh water and salt?

Matthew Scott
Matthew Scott

Well since you have X amount of water and Y amount of salt through this action, I wouldn't see why the labor time price shouldn't just be split in two. This might be a brainlet logic, but assuming you produced a commodity and that's could be split in half, let's say a toy jelly that could be molded, if you had just a half of it, you'll would price it by half.

Camden Bailey
Camden Bailey

Since they're different products it wouldn't work if one of the outputs isn't completely consumed. Perhaps you have water .5 tokens/hour's output and salt .5 tokens/hour's output, if you don't manage to sell all your salt all you'd be doing is selling underpriced water. You'd pay your workers 1 token/hour, and then they spend .5 tokens on water which costs 1 labor-hour to produce and none on salt, resulting in a surplus of salt and a slight shortage of everything else.

If the cheapening of a good results in increased usage of it (this would be more plausible in the leather example), then it's possible that adjusting the prices to .9 token water and .1 token salt would create a equilibrium where all the outputs are created at the rate at which they're consumed. It's also possible that so much salt is produced that it would be best that the desalination plant prices water at 1 token and exports salt for free (excluding transport costs), in this case they would have to be still discarding some of the salt they produce as it would be a waste product. Ultimately we need the central computer to determine what the equilibrium proportion is, .5:.5, .9:.1, 1:0, etc

Jason Sanchez
Jason Sanchez

If 1001 kg of salt water is transformed into 1000kg of water and 1kg of salt in 1 hour we say 1000kg of water = 1 kg of salt = 1 hour of labour. Anything wrong with that equivalence? Remember that you cannot desalinate water into arbitrary proportions of salt and fresh water. It depends on the initial concentration of salt in the water. So technically the ratio of the values of fresh water and salt depends on the average salt concentration in the water source.

It is a legitimate question to ask what happens if the demand for water exceeds the demand for salt or vice versa. I don't have an answer though.

Chase Howard
Chase Howard

If 1001 kg of salt water is transformed into 1000kg of water and 1kg of salt in 1 hour we say 1000kg of water = 1 kg of salt = 1 hour of labour. Anything wrong with that equivalence?
Yes, because it screws up accounting. Now you have one hour of labor as an input, but two hours of labor as an output. Instead, you could just do a ratio. So 1/1001 labor hours went towards the salt, and 1000/1001 labor hours went towards the water. It seems a bit arbitrary though.

Jacob Fisher
Jacob Fisher

Maybe drop the cow example.
Consider water desalination.
This directly separates salt water into fresh water and salt, in essentially a single step.
If we're in a situation where the only fresh water and salt we can get is through desalination, what is the value of fresh water and salt?

If you run a desalination plant you usually want the water and consider the brine as waste.
You have to spend labour power to produce and run the desalination plant, and would consider that the labour cost for producing fresh water. There would be additional labour cost implicated for the process for crystallising brine into salt.

I have no idea what you want with this. You seem to think that there is a type of labour that in a single indivisible step produces multiple things at once. This might be a interesting thought puzzle, but it doesn't happen in reality. You always have to do a additional step to capture a by-product and/or do further processing.

Brandon Ramirez
Brandon Ramirez

In that model you're turning salt water into fresh water and brine.
The brine clearly has a labor cost. The total labor cost of the brine and the water should add up to the total labor required for the desalination process.

If you're claiming that the brine has literally zero labor cost, then you're claiming the total labor cost cost of salt is simply the labor cost to crystallize the salt from the brine.

Nicholas Clark
Nicholas Clark

writing imperialist code
come on now

Attached: 1.png (36.74 KB, 1419x205)

Hudson Thompson
Hudson Thompson

I think I might build a little web UI + database for this as propaganda.
IMO this should be your primary concern. Having a proof of concept easily approachable to plebs like us would spread the idea much faster, even hopefully recruiting more programmers faster.

John Price
John Price

it was the wordfilter for 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸parentheses🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

James Anderson
James Anderson

It seems a bit arbitrary though.
For two things only available in one joint process that produces both instantly it is completely arbitrary aside from what the prices add up to. With joint production, we have to figure out by trial and error the price ratios that make consumption rates compatible with the output ratio, at a combined price justifying the joint process. When there are multiple processes for producing something, it gets less arbitrary, see You seem to think that there is a type of labour that in a single indivisible step produces multiple things at once. This might be a interesting thought puzzle, but it doesn't happen in reality.
Just about anything involving animals and plants.
You always have to do a additional step to capture a by-product and/or do further processing.
The parts of the joint process that can be clearly attributed to just one thing set the lower bound for what its price at the stable production-consumption situation should be.

Connor Rogers
Connor Rogers

If you're claiming that the brine has literally zero labor cost,
yes the point of the labour involved with the desalination plant is to produce freshwater. Brine is toxic waste, that is not freshwater.
then you're claiming the total labor cost cost of salt is simply the labor cost to crystallize the salt from the brine.
Yes.
You are literally thinking in terms of market exchange value, for brine and how it would change once it turns from waste to a useful input of a process.
That's however money mystification nonsense that is useless for a fully planed economy, If you already have brine then you only have to calculate the labour cost for the crystallising it into salt.
Consider the following, adding the brine-to-salt-conversion step, will not change the amount of labour necessary to produce the freshwater.
labour for the desalination process -> freshwater-water
labour for the brinecrystalisation porcess -> salt
the same goes for the capital goods of both processes

if you are suggesting that some of the labour used for the desalination plant should be attributed to salt, then you are effectively proposing to consider a desalination-plant for salt production, which is outrageously inefficient, nobody would ever build a desalination plant to produce salt. Sea-water salt-farming is done via the crystallisation process. Brine will yield more salt per given amount of cistalisation-process-equipment, and that means you have a variation in productivity for salt-production, and Cockshott already dealt with topic of varying yields in production.

You'll always have additional steps to harvest by-products, if only for testing whether it's any good, there are no true joint processes.

Jace Hughes
Jace Hughes

With joint production, we have to figure out by trial and error the price ratios that make consumption rates compatible with the output ratio, at a combined price justifying the joint process. When there are multiple processes for producing something, it gets less arbitrary
I think I'm beginning to see what you mean. So since desalination won't be the primary source of salt in any case, we take the labor value of salt in normal salt production and use that in the accounting instead?

Joshua Jackson
Joshua Jackson

I liked the clovers one more.

Adam Wood
Adam Wood

/sci/ is having a debate about DiaMat
boards.4channel.org/sci/thread/10816535

Julian Moore
Julian Moore

why does it feel like everyone on that board would unironically suck off a gnarly 90 year old with ebola if they had 10 more autism points

Leo Sanchez
Leo Sanchez

/sci/ needs regular econophysics and dickblast threads

Anthony Ward
Anthony Ward

Yes it does.

Austin Clark
Austin Clark

Do you guys use GNU/Linux? How do you deal with all the botnet shit out there?

Jace Roberts
Jace Roberts

I don't understand your question. I just use Foss on my hardware but I grab stuff from propriety sofware like 8 chan if I can post stuff pseudo anonymously. I also only hang out on forums and dosé social media wifi the exceptions of some orgs I'm involved with.

Jace Smith
Jace Smith

I have been trying to make Shaikh threads because his textbook is very STEM friendly but they get no replies. Maybe I'll try Cockblast next.

Thomas Morales
Thomas Morales

Linux + LUKS + VPN + Firefox + uMatrix + uBlock Origin

Ayden Robinson
Ayden Robinson

You are thinking of joint production as a process where one thing is the intended effect and another is a positive side-effect, with the side-effect being so small that it can be practically neglected. This joint process is almost indistinguishable from something that is not a joint process, and the difference is something for neurotic hairsplitters to argue about. But it is just a particular case of joint production, the least complicated one, and you are unable to adequately address joint production in a generalized way. You are running away from the problem.

John Baker
John Baker

I mean how do you guys avoid using botnet shit without making your daily life really inconvenient? I'm not really in a position to abandon windows and completely abandon Google/FB due to school and their retarded programs.

Jason Taylor
Jason Taylor

Compartmentalization. Don't mix revolutionary work and the rest of your life together, either on your computers or off of them.

Jordan Ross
Jordan Ross

This is what i'm planning on doing really, I have two laptops + a good gaming computer.

Andrew Barnes
Andrew Barnes

You are thinking of joint production as a process…
I'm not thinking in term of join production at all, that is something you made up, and have yet to prove that this a valid theoretical category. I can only see individual capitalists asking them self's this question about the ratio about the outputs they produce.

From the perspective of society as a hole, where you attempt to allocate resources and labour in the most efficient way, one would compare the labour cost for equivalent processes, like different methods for salt production, and different methods for fresh-water production, and for this you are going to look at additional cost for additional processes, even if you are deploying an entire industrial chain in parallel, you would still have a number of priorities that will change the equation that influences what production processes are used, you might even decide to deploy a production process not to harness a by-product but to avoid discharging waste into the environment. I don't see how you could get a general case out of this.

I'm somewhat suspicious about your motivations for this so if you could frame your query from the perspective of allocating surplus from society as a hole, that'd be great.

Gabriel Stewart
Gabriel Stewart

I'm not thinking in term of join production at all, that is something you made up, and have yet to prove that this a valid theoretical category.
Oil refining.
Fractional distillation of air.
Rare-earth metal separation.
Many other chemical processes.

Attached: Pyrometallury-for-rare-earth-metal-extraction-from-bastnasite-ore.jpg (109.74 KB, 964x1194)

Blake King
Blake King

Still not sure what you mean. My life is really inconvenient under capitalism. I use foss to make it less so.

Asher Bell
Asher Bell

trying to argue with one who believes positive side-effects don't exist

Daniel Ramirez
Daniel Ramirez

looking at your diagram, why can't i treat this as separate steps and calculate the labour time and resource requirements for each of those steps ? Consider that your diagram is technically incomplete, in the sense that it doesn't show all the possible processes, so bending over backwards to accommodate your point of view: What makes or breaks your joint process category is whether or not the extra steps are worth doing or not. Why do i need that extra category and the new variable ( labour-time ratio ) it produces ?

Austin Hernandez
Austin Hernandez

why can't i treat this as separate steps and calculate the labour time and resource requirements for each of those steps ?
You are asking why you can't tread the act of SEPARATION of different substances taken from what occurs in a mix in nature as DISTINCT STEPS for EACH substance? When I cut hair, should I also think of that as two distinct steps, 1. cutting off the hair from the point of view of the hair-havers' head, 2. cutting off the head from the point of view of the hair that falls to the ground? SEPARATION is an act that happens SIMULTANEOUSLY to at least two things BY DEFINITION.

Henry James
Henry James

I'm not sure i understood this correctly, but for your example, you count the labour for cutting hair, for the service of having hair with the correct length, and if you find a use for the hair-clippings you would count collecting the hair-clippings as a separate process, and measure the labour time for that as well.

Parker Reyes
Parker Reyes

SEPARATION is an act that happens SIMULTANEOUSLY to at least two things BY DEFINITION.
I'm not sure i understood this correctly
Kindly go separate your reproductive organs from the rest of you.

Zachary Turner
Zachary Turner

youtube.com/watch?v=ubRAfy_Y4VY
sounds like COCKSHOTT

David Williams
David Williams

SEPARATION is an act that happens SIMULTANEOUSLY to at least two things
it's one hair before you cut it, and two pieces after you cut it, Clearly your example didn't match your definition.
Kindly go separate your reproductive organs from the rest of you.
that would be subdivision not separation.

Anthony Morales
Anthony Morales

Kindly go separate your reproductive organs from the rest of you.
<that would be subdivision not separation.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/separation
The act of disuniting two or more things
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subdivision
A division into smaller pieces of something that has already been divided.

Julian Mitchell
Julian Mitchell

The act of disuniting two or more things
My body is one thing

Josiah Johnson
Josiah Johnson

muh computer communism
Pure idealism. Antithesis is capitalism and thesis is worker ownership.

Juan Nguyen
Juan Nguyen

read TANS before your mouth off, in any case cockshott is in favor of workers coops as a transitional step

Jacob Carter
Jacob Carter

Maybe focus on revolutionary workers ownership and after that we can read books about your utopia.

Charles Long
Charles Long

fuck off ancap

Kevin Foster
Kevin Foster

worker ownership is capitalism
communism total statism

Attached: DnxgltxX0AAOflp.jpg (21.47 KB, 500x263)

Michael Parker
Michael Parker

markets are anticommunist

Leo Ramirez
Leo Ramirez

Statist slavery of the working class is anti communist.

Jeremiah Baker
Jeremiah Baker

capitalism without money
socialism

Nolan Sanders
Nolan Sanders

abolishing a state for 2 weeks of statelessness before being destroyed is anti communist

Nathaniel Roberts
Nathaniel Roberts

There is money in socialism.
Thank god nobody trust marxist-leninist about the control of the state anymore. Trillions dead when warlords think they can control the economy with state control. It will wither away but only with democratical control.
(USER WAS SLAPPED ON THE WRIST FOR THIS POST)

Adrian Morales
Adrian Morales

2946520
There is money in socialism.

"Any attempt to introduce a reformed monetary economy leaves the basic logic untouched. The underlying tendencies implicit in the monetary economy re-assert themselves. The experience of hitherto existing socialism which altered property ownership without eliminating money and monetary calculation are a testimony to this inner logic. There was a constant pressure to re-introduce more and more capitalist elements to the economy since these capitalist institutions are an inner necessity of monetary logic."

paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/what-then-is-the-escape-from-capitalism/

Wyatt Diaz
Wyatt Diaz

you can also listen to TANS, dessalines recorded a Audio book

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoZNiItBbuVvKQBdE80tsyhx

David Evans
David Evans

Not post-division.

Carson Perry
Carson Perry

Not post-division.
I disagree with that.
I'm kinda bored with the castration symbolism. I kinda stuffed you into a mental stereotype box because "that's the place where your mind goes?!?"

Anyway I don't think we can agree on the fundamentals for this, however is there a benefit to planing a economy, by introducing a joint-process-category ?

Attached: choppy.jpeg (188.89 KB, 1300x956)

Noah Cooper
Noah Cooper

most soviet tech was just for show

while look what elon musk is achieving thanks to markets

Anthony Stewart
Anthony Stewart

2946970
Sending cars to space or making the ones on earth explode?

Christian Wilson
Christian Wilson

I don't think we can agree on the fundamentals for this
"We"… it's you versus everybody else. You are not able to turn into your own words what the posts you "disagree" with are saying. It's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of you failing to parse the text. Is French your first language?
is there a benefit to planing a economy, by introducing a joint-process-category ?
It's not a category that we choose to introduce or not, it is something that actually happens out there in the real world. The discussion was about how to reflect such processes in socialist cost accounting.

Nicholas James
Nicholas James

argument from social exclusion, personal attacks & speculation, asserting the subject of the debate as premise.
Anyway all you did is say your point is self evident. Which it clearly isn't or we wouldn't have this conversation.
Maybe try explaining what the difference is if we do not use this category and instead use what i proposed, where by-products have labour-time accounting based on the additional steps necessary for it to become a product or a useful input for something else.

Juan Kelly
Juan Kelly

muh personal attack ;_;
Technically, any statement of disagreement with another person is a personal attack. You'll have to live with that.
Maybe try explaining what the difference is if we do not use this category and instead use what i proposed, where by-products have labour-time accounting based on the additional steps necessary for it to become a product or a useful input for something else.
A model Y that needs only a subset of assumptions that model X needs in order to be true is more general, that is: superior to model X. Rule B that needs only a subset of assumptions that rule A needs in order to work is more flexible than rule A. When producing multiple useful outputs in a joint process, having an accounting rule which absolutely requires a distinction into primary output and secondary is less flexible than one that does not need that. You add an element which demands that it always has to be only one of the substances coming out of a simultaneous separating operation that has to "pay" for it in the end (as if the distinction between primary product and by-product were always clear and permanently fixed by God). A joint process makes bix and nood; say you call bix the primary output and nood secondary, your accounting rule then tells you the joint process is economical; call instead nood the primary and bix the secondary output all else equal, and your accounting rule now tells you the process is not economical anymore.

Liam Edwards
Liam Edwards

Technically, any statement of disagreement with another person is a personal attack.
No, you attacked my character, that made it a personal attack, you can disagree with somebody without doing that.
A model Y that needs only a subset of assumptions that model X needs in order to be true is more general, that is: superior to model X. Rule B that needs only a subset of assumptions that rule A needs in order to work is more flexible than rule A. When producing multiple useful outputs in a joint process, having an accounting rule which absolutely requires a distinction into primary output and secondary is less flexible than one that does not need that.
You also have to define priorities, you just call it a ratio, and technically you have more variables, because you have a distinction between single and joint precesses.
You add an element which demands that it always has to be only one of the substances coming out of a simultaneous separating operation that has to "pay" for it in the end (as if the distinction between primary product and by-product were always clear and permanently fixed by God
No what is fixed is the labour-time the system associates with a specific production process. If you change your ratio in your joint process you are technically saying that amount of associated labour-time has changed even-though nothing in material reality has changed, given that we consider labour-time to be a measurement and not defined by somebody , you created a contradiction.
A joint process makes bix and nood; say you call bix the primary output and nood secondary, your accounting rule then tells you the joint process is economical; call instead nood the primary and bix the secondary output all else equal, and your accounting rule now tells you the process is not economical anymore.
If you change the priorities, it's likely that the this would render the process uneconomical, so what ? All this does is cause a faster rate of depreciation of capital goods during periods of change, why would that matter ? Nobody personally owns the capital, so nobody cares.

Julian King
Julian King

tl;dr but you who have read, has Cockshott ever addressed and solved the input problem, i.e. best plan(ned economy) is only as good as its data? If comrade Sukhov inputs to system there are 7777 ignots but actually there were just 7 well that's a problem don't you think, doesn't matter jack shit after that first step what miracle plans Electrobrain conjures after that initial fuckup. And it's a problem all planned economies (and private businesses) experience. And it has cascading effect.

Attached: pleasee.jpg (180.81 KB, 750x750)

Owen Ramirez
Owen Ramirez

You collect a lot of data and try to detect inconsistencies. Ingots don't pop up out of thin air. If there are a lot of ingots these ingots have to be accounted for, if they can't be then we know something went wrong.

Joseph Phillips
Joseph Phillips

Ahh, so nothing changes in that regard. Problem not solved.

Jordan Sanders
Jordan Sanders

RFI tracking or whatever the fuck the planned economies of amazon or vertically integrated corporations do or some shit like that?

Caleb Robinson
Caleb Robinson

The potential for someone to lie about inventories exists in all modes of production. Cybercommunism would have several advantages for detecting it:
- You can compare new inventory data against past data, the plan, and labor time estimates to detect anomalies like suggested. This could be done with some simple algos. Some could be legitimate, so they require investigation. You could even conduct a lot of review over livestream.
- You can/should make all inventory data (other than natsec stuff) open to workers to double check and "peer review," also making investigations easier
- Electronic tracking of various sorts as suggests
- Reporting mechanisms for upstream/downstream points of production so they can alert the whole system to shortages and bottlenecks

IDK what you think cybercommunism is. It's not an inhuman system. It's the organic unity of workers and modern planning technology. There is nothing "wrong" with human oversight and feedback in the cybernetic system, in fact that's the whole point.

Cameron Miller
Cameron Miller

Technically, any statement of disagreement with another person is a personal attack.
No
Que sí. Even stating a small disagreement implies something about the other person's knowledge and reasoning abilities. And in your case, pointing out how wrong you are makes you look like an idiot, whether you get called that explicitly or not.
You also have to define priorities, you just call it a ratio, and technically you have more variables, because you have a distinction between single and joint precesses.
The output ratio in the joint process is not something defined, it is something that is observed out there in the real world; and likewise the distinction between joint precesses processes is not something introduced following somebody's priorities, it is observed.
You add an element which demands that it always has to be only one of the substances coming out of a simultaneous separating operation that has to "pay" for it in the end
No
Que sí. You see the separation act as something only one substance coming out of that has to "pay" for in the end. Why that is, you don't say. And you don't know. And you don't know because you don't have a reason.
what is fixed is the labour-time the system associates with a specific production process.
The "system", you mean yourself. You make a binary distinction, completely arbitrary, that exactly one of the outputs of the separation process has to fully cover for the separation work in the end, and that the separation cost doesn't go into the prices of any of the other outputs at all. Then you "justify" that with the non sequitur that there's additional work going on with the other outputs of the separation process, and at least that work is reflected in their prices, so their prices won't be zero. But that doesn't make them reasonable.
If you change your ratio in your joint process you are technically saying that amount of associated labour-time has changed even-though nothing in material reality has changed
You still don't get that the ratio is a physical one. A joint process with a different ratio is not a change in cost-accounting procedure, it is a different process existing out there in the real world with an output being an observably different ratio of physical quantities.

Angel Jones
Angel Jones

new video on Althusser
youtube.com/watch?v=Q0Mbjv7q9F8

Carson Flores
Carson Flores

Here you go

Attached: The-Cockshott-Crew.mp4 (1.44 MB, 704x396)

Daniel Smith
Daniel Smith

this is fucking amazing

Angel Bell
Angel Bell

Here's the banner from the beginning if anyone needs it.

Thanks. Spent 2 hours for a 14 seconds vid. Where's my 2 fucking labor vouchers?

Attached: banner.png (97.64 KB, 704x396)

Hunter Bennett
Hunter Bennett

here you go comrade

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (155.12 KB, 360x204)

David Mitchell
David Mitchell

brb, printing

Joseph Moore
Joseph Moore

boards.4channel.org/g/thread/71991719#p71996761
Help us out comrades

Carter Cox
Carter Cox

His Althusser series (2 vids, 2 articles) have got to be the stupidest shit he's done so far. He is unfamiliar with basic concepts in philosophy but rolls with his misreadings anyway. I want my economists to stick to economy and my philosophers to stick to philosophy. When economists transgresses onto that unfamiliar terrain of philosophy we get fedora-tier debunkings (what Cockshott is doing right now), and when philosophers transgress onto that unfamiliar terrain of economics we get hot leftcom takes. It would take too much time to demonstrate properly how clueless Ck is in this context and I can't be bothered to do it.

Isaiah Nguyen
Isaiah Nguyen

I want my economists to stick to economy and my philosophers to stick to philosophy.
*goes to board with lots of Marxists and enters thread with especially high concentration of Marxists*

Jaxson Wright
Jaxson Wright

lmao

Christopher Parker
Christopher Parker

It would take too much time to demonstrate properly how clueless Ck is in this context and I can't be bothered to do it.
Well, I am interested to know why you think he's wrong. I think he's wrong on a number of other things. But if you can't be arsed, why post? Please consider.

Isaac Fisher
Isaac Fisher

what other things?

Landon Robinson
Landon Robinson

Absolutely bizarre (borderline neolib) interpretation of political economy when it comes to imperialism
Doesn't even admit possibility that trans women are women
Needlessly promotes his highly-specific Greek-inspired form of democracy, even though there are probably a number of different frameworks that can prevent elitism/opportunism/revisionism (such as Cuba's system)
Proposes reforms and transitions in a pretty vague way, not clear how they relate to a genuine revolutionary party

Grayson Lopez
Grayson Lopez

youtube.com/watch?v=Q0Mbjv7q9F8
stupidest shit … I can't be bothered to do demonstrate my claims
this is just ranting
Absolutely bizarre (borderline neolib) interpretation of political economy when it comes to imperialism.
he said 1world proletarians didn't benefit from imperialism like they used to
Doesn't even admit possibility that trans women are women
these are the relevant articles:
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-1/
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-2/
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/23/genders-or-sex-stereotypes-part-3/
He says that gender as proposed by Butler is not empirically verified.
Needlessly promotes his highly-specific Greek-inspired form of democracy, even though there are probably a number of different frameworks that can prevent elitism/opportunism/revisionism (such as Cuba's system)
What he promotes is called sortition, and the argument he makes in his Book Towards a new Socialism is that representative systems of democracy do not adequately represent the population and hence damage the political project because people feel powerless. The strategical aspect of making elitism/opportunism/revisionism fight against the odds is not the only aspect of this.
Proposes reforms and transitions in a pretty vague way, not clear how they relate to a genuine revolutionary party
He made Socialist strategy videos, that granted mostly apply to the UK
youtube.com/watch?v=p23gG5lT0hU
youtube.com/watch?v=4tovsC3-Vdk
youtube.com/watch?v=x-oRmcYR5cM
youtube.com/watch?v=Y1bGkgpYVao

Nicholas Scott
Nicholas Scott

he said 1world proletarians didn't benefit from imperialism like they used to
He actually argues that there is no value transfer at all from 3rd world to 1st world. Leaving aside theory, you have to actually ignore the reality in front of you to think this. But there is plenty of theory to explain it as well. He seems to lean on flaws in Lenin's argument ("monopoly stage"), Ricardo's debunked trade theory, and a ridiculous idea of free and equal trade.

He says that gender as proposed by Butler is not empirically verified.
I actually agree with him on this in a sense, he makes a good point against "gender"'s use as a term. However, he doesn't contend with the possibility that trans people literally just have sexed brains that don't match their reproductive systems.

What he promotes is called sortition
He made Socialist strategy videos, that granted mostly apply to the UK
Yes, I'm aware of this. I think the amount of time he spends delineating how he thinks the revolutionary party (which doesn't exist in the UK yet in any major capacity) should act and how the revolutionary upheaval should take place is much more utopian than his proposals for the planning system, because these things are just going to arise organically out of the interaction between the revolutionary party, the masses, and revolutionary conditions. There is really little point making specific proposals for the form of these things. I think he has some interesting proposals on democracy and strategy, but they should be done in a more speculative way that invites alternatives and focuses more on the problem.

Chase Collins
Chase Collins

You guys try to reconcile the contradiction between one labor hour, but two outputs both of value of one labor hour. That's is impossible. The whole things only makes sense if you see it as a contradiction. Those outputs indeed share the same hour, but their process is inseparable. Here's the things boys

There exists one hour which they both share and have embodied in them. This should be counted as "production hour" if you will. From that you create two outputs, who have both two distinct values of one hour - which come from the shadow of the "productive hour" - embedded in them. So what does it take to produce output A and output B? The same productive hour. Yet they both have two distinct labor hours. You can't just sum them up and say it takes two hours to produce them, since those aren't "productive hours".

Attached: hegel.jpg (38.6 KB, 309x400)

Owen Edwards
Owen Edwards

He actually argues that there is no value transfer at all from 3rd world to 1st world.
There's no exploitation through commodity exchange, a first world worker cannot exploit a third-world worker by buying stuff, that's just ethical consumption with extra steps. People cannot possibly tell how a product was produced once it sits on the shelf of a store. The wealth transfer of of imperialism happens through finance, and Cockshott doesn't see any responsibility on part of the working class with regards to what happens in finance.
However, he doesn't contend with the possibility….
He's an empiricist, this is about evidence, and frankly Butler is a post modern philosopher , which means the subjective experience is linked to truth, that makes Knowledge dependant on a specific group of people this is a avenue for theocratic domination, at that's where it stops. There was the episode with lysenko-ism, something like that won't happen again.
because these things are just going to arise organically out of the interaction between the revolutionary party, the masses, and revolutionary conditions.
Yeah this is foolhardy, this is about changing a system, it won't happen organically.
democracy and strategy should be done in a more speculative way
speculative democracy ? this is just word salad !

Ryan Cox
Ryan Cox

The question how to deal with joint products got already answered in It just appears more controversial than that because of many very confused posts after that which are all by the same person.

Isaiah Flores
Isaiah Flores

wait what do we use for accounting, the production hour or the labour hour ?
it's not solved, how do we compare one of the outputs of a joint process to the output of a single process, how do we figure out which one uses less labour-time.

Gavin Hill
Gavin Hill

And there is the retard again.

Julian Gray
Julian Gray

it appears that single processes without ambiguous labour-time inputs could be used to derive information for making comparisons. If particular inputs defy measurement, it's always possible to compare the overall labour inputs of different combinations of sets of production processes and solve for the missing data.

Thomas Morgan
Thomas Morgan

all by the same person.
I think you're the retard.

Ryan Hughes
Ryan Hughes

This is silly. Hegel man answered correctly and succinctly - it is a contradiction, there is no way to bifurcate the two commodities and assign each a separate cost of production.

This is one of the many reasons why using the LTV as a rubric to plan your economy is a really bad idea. It is intended to be a way to understand the laws of motion in a market economy, and it runs into problems when you attempt to bifurcate a joint production process into quantities of abstract labor-time that can be doled out in a artificial market-like distribution mechanism. The labor-time invested in a joint production process is put into commodities that are inextricably linked to each other, because the "raising sheep" part to make the wool and mutton cannot be split into a "making wool" part and "making mutton" part.

Lucas Miller
Lucas Miller

I like the sheep example. There could be sheep that are raised, get their wool collected, and then get made into meat. There could also be sheep that are just made into meat. So the value of raising the sheep gets embodied twice if sheep produces both wool and meat but only once if the sheep is turned into meat directly.

Brayden Rodriguez
Brayden Rodriguez

the "raising sheep" part to make the wool and mutton cannot be split into a "making wool" part and "making mutton" part
I don't see the problem. From an economic POV what was raised isn't a cutesy lovely little sheep but certain amount of wool and mutton. Just for demonstration:
10 hours work = muh_sheep[1 kg of wool + 9 kg of meat]
1 labour voucher can buy you 1 kg of wool or 1 kg of meat

John Perry
John Perry

Why don't you comment under his video, he usually responds to every comment. If he's so wrong surely you can make a succinct criticism of his video? Also congratulations on saying nothing outside of "hurr durr he dumb xD".

Justin Baker
Justin Baker

Absolutely bizarre (borderline neolib) interpretation of political economy when it comes to imperialism
He's merely asked what sense anti-imperialism that basically consists of supporting every tinpot dictator who hates America makes after 1991. He hasn't supported any imperialist coup, in fact he spoke at multiple Venezuela solidarity events. Imperialism is not a subject he has studied so he doesn't talk about it; but to accuse someone who actually upholds the DPRK and shares articles about gas attacks in Syria being hoaxes of a "neoliberal view of imperialism".
Doesn't even admit possibility that trans women are women
lol, what he has said is that it is completely bonkers to put transwomen on a committee that is supposed to talk about abortion rights. And guess what, he's right on that, because whatever gender you assign to a transwomen, they can't reproduce.
Needlessly promotes his highly-specific Greek-inspired form of democracy, even though there are probably a number of different frameworks that can prevent elitism/opportunism/revisionism (such as Cuba's system)
lmao, how is Cuba preventing revisionism? Cuba has plenty of revisionist elements, and one can ask if Cuba ever was not revisionist.
Proposes reforms and transitions in a pretty vague way, not clear how they relate to a genuine revolutionary party
Is he supposed to give you a step by step manual as to how to create a communist utopia?

Ethan Davis
Ethan Davis

It's not literally every post, but these are all by the same person:
Copy the part of the thread starting at "How would we determine the labor content of a product when the labor used to make it produces multiple outputs?", remove these posts, and you see that the solution emerged in conversation, there is just so much trash on top of it. (Same person was shitting up the thread earlier accusing another user of being a shill for the proposal by Takis Fotopoulos.)

Julian Sanders
Julian Sanders

He's merely asked what sense anti-imperialism that basically consists of supporting every tinpot dictator who hates America makes after 1991
No actually, he's not that retarded. He supports Assad, KJU, Maduro, Milosevic, etc. His retardation is in his discussion of the economic theory of imperialism. Honestly I'm not sure exactly what you're saying in this part.

what he has said is that it is completely bonkers to put transwomen on a committee that is supposed to talk about abortion rights
That's reasonable but he's said more than that. That said, why shouldn't even normal men get on such a panel– say if they're abortion doctors who have an important contribution?

lmao, how is Cuba preventing revisionism
Cuba (and the DPRK) maintained their socialist systems after the fall of the USSR. In Cuba, this was due to Cuba's system of democracy. Even recently, during the constitutional amendments, working class power forced them to keep communism in the constitution.

Gabriel Campbell
Gabriel Campbell

FUCK LANDLORDS!

How will rent work under cyber socialism?
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Attached: 160810-asiablog-C45-28-Mao-Tse-Tung-(Zedong)-toasts-Egyptian-Attache,-Egypt-National-Day,-Peking-(Beijing)-China-1956-(small).jpg (26.08 KB, 416x448)

Luis Lee
Luis Lee

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
what

Parker Wood
Parker Wood

I can do it too. Observe:

(USER WAS FELLATED FOR THIS POST)

omg mods are gay

Eli Davis
Eli Davis

guess im retarded

David Nelson
David Nelson

Either completely eliminated, or a small amount corresponding to people's demand for a place / extra amenities / utilities / space. It would be impossible to have insane rent only rich people can afford, because there'd be no rich people. As well, the massive penthouses and mansions would be broken up and turned into reasonable communal housing for individuals and families (thus sating demand). And people would be prioritized for living near their workplace.
There'd also be much better maintenance and tenant's rights of course. The distinction between property tax and rent wouldn't exist, so you could even just make it a flat tax. There'd be permanent residence for tenants if they wanted it. And of course, every available home would be listed on a single central database, making home hunting much easier.

Alexander Myers
Alexander Myers

Well you would be provided with your own apartments.
I doubt there would be much of a need to provide rentable apartments, but I can see every city having a publicly owned guest-house of sorts (for workers who travel from place to place (say some sort of researchers or data collectors) and for other visitors (sat diplomats or administrative officials).
Apart from that I'd imagine there would be state ran holiday hotels / apartments established in certain holiday destinations (which would require you to pay in labour tokens, since you are consuming in this case, and not staying there from necessity, however the prices would be affordale for most regular visitors, since these wouldn't be too luxurious).

Brandon Ramirez
Brandon Ramirez

Thanks for the response. I wondered since the eastern bloc didn't eliminate rent, but had just made it very low. Also thanks mods for the edit.

(This user is based and redpilled)

Parker Sanders
Parker Sanders

This is one of the many reasons why using the LTV as a rubric to plan your economy is a really bad idea.
Well subjective theory of value is refuted, and so is marginal-ism.
So there is nothing left but the LTV, supply and demand only works for aesthetic properties of end-user products.
The labor-time invested in a joint production process is put into commodities that are inextricably linked to each other, because the "raising sheep" part to make the wool and mutton cannot be split into a "making wool" part and "making mutton" part.
We definitely know the exact labour-time for sheering and butchering and we know the labour time involved for rasing sheep, we just don't know much of the sheep-raising-labour got embodied in wool and meat respectively. We can't make models that have variables that do not correspond to data points. However we an calculate the number of sheep that have to be raised, to meet production quotas. Cockshott has prosed "market-lite" feed-back system for correcting prices on end user products, so figuring out prices isn't a problem either. What needs to be solved is how to select production processes. Let's say you invent a way to produce artificial sheep-hair that is equivalent to hair from actual sheep: Some bioreactor that only grows the sheep hairs on a substrate, this will eventually become cheaper then animal husbandry, do to technical improvements, the labour-time requirements will drop, but you can't actually pinpoint the exact point where the new process is cheaper then the old one. But it will eventually be significantly cheaper, where it's possible to know for certain which process is cheaper. So you could say that this constitutes a political matter that involves a range where you decide whether you want to lean towards early adoption of new tech or would rather lean towards traditional "tech".
I don't see the problem. From an economic POV what was raised isn't a cutesy lovely little sheep but certain amount of wool and mutton. Just for demonstration:
10 hours work = muh_sheep[1 kg of wool + 9 kg of meat]
1 labour voucher can buy you 1 kg of wool or 1 kg of meat
Actually yes, this is the simplest solution.
Why don't you comment under his video, he usually responds to every comment. If he's so wrong surely you can make a succinct criticism of his video? Also congratulations on saying nothing outside of "hurr durr he dumb xD".
You are the second poster who suggested this, and it appears like the post you were referring to wasn't made entirely in good faith.
BASED
Even recently, during the constitutional amendments, working class power forced them to keep communism in the constitution
pic

Attached: castro.jpeg (153.43 KB, 1160x629)

Michael Price
Michael Price

No actually, he's not that retarded. He supports Assad, KJU, Maduro, Milosevic, etc. His retardation is in his discussion of the economic theory of imperialism. Honestly I'm not sure exactly what you're saying in this part.
Strange, where are you getting your information from? Because I have explicitly asked Cockshott about imperialism and he responded to me that he hasn't studied the subject so he can't comment or make a video.
men on the panel
Agree, but then it should either be open to all men, not just to transwomen, which is the problem here. I don't know what else he said that upsets the trans community so much, but it's a highly toxic community that cancels itself all the time, even people like Blanchard are considered transphobes.
Cuba (and the DPRK) maintained their socialist systems after the fall of the USSR.
Gorbachev tried to save socialism and the USSR too and was he not a terminal revisionist? Cuba is - ideologically - shakey to say the least, which is because the Cuban Revolution was from the very beginning a national liberation movement first and a socialist revolution second. Don't get me wrong, I still support them against American aggression, but let's not kid ourselves that they are a bastion of Orthodox Marxism.

Christian Ross
Christian Ross

You are the second poster who suggested this, and it appears like the post you were referring to wasn't made entirely in good faith.
Because Cockshott became popular now some people have taken on contrarian positions to utterly hate the guy, but it's almost always in bad faith because if he's so damn wrong you can just fucking comment under his videos. There is this account "Learn Social Justice" who basically nitpicks the most stupid shit/deliberately misinterprets Cockshott, and he gets a response from him all the time.

Matthew Price
Matthew Price

Gorbachev tried to save socialism and the USSR
He wanted it to be succ dem.
but let's not kid ourselves that they are a bastion of Orthodox Marxism.
When has orthodox Marxism accomplished something?

Matthew Clark
Matthew Clark

Because Cockshott became popular now…
Wait people shit on him because of a competition for attention ?
Do we have to take into account a attention economy for socialist theory ?

Attached: exasperated-bear.jpeg (15.1 KB, 681x450)

John Cox
John Cox

Or you can build an alternative concept of value that doesn't revolve around market exchange. The LTV was intended to explain the equilibrium prices of commodities in a market economy, and to explain the concept of value in an environment where market exchange is generalized. I guess you could separate the production process between "raise sheep" and "produce wool" and "produce meat", but these processes are usually taking place in the same facility, and internally firms don't engage in market exchange in the way we do in the marketplace (divisions in a company aren't in market competition with each other, unless the firm is really dysfunctional, firms that do try to operate this way run into serious organizational problems).

It is very likely a planned economy, out of necessity, is going to need some objective measure other than labor-power in order to assign value (if we're even going to bother assigning this "value" to commodity-like objects). I find it more likely we'd simply distribute basic resources, and account for their environmental costs, without working through a market mechanism as such. Perhaps you could work out some sort of price-type scheme for something like food products and say "you get x food credits to spend however you like", but such a scheme would essentially involve arbitrary prices or prices assigned by some scheme worked out by whoever plans the distribution mechanism, rather than trying to find some fundamental theorem concerning the value of nutrients. Use-values have to be distorted to be reduced to a linear heuristic like that, that's the problem of using a heuristic like price or utility functions.

Blake Powell
Blake Powell

Joint production, post one billion.

A system consists of parts. If a part has much influence on the state of the system, it stands to reason that it is a rather unusual part or the part is in an usual situation. A part usually has not much influence on the whole system. How could it even be that many individual parts have strong influence alone, given that strong or weak here is relative to other parts in the system. The influence between system and part usually goes strongly from system to part and not so much the other way around.

For example, prices. What happens in price formation is less a part telling the system something, it's more the system telling the part something. Some unit of a mass-produced product gets damaged in an accident during production and gets repaired to the point of becoming again identical in quality to the standard. That unit, in terms of its individual history, had more work going into it than another unit, but both are priced the same, because pricing is an averaging process going from the whole to the parts; and it's not just within a factory, there's averaging between the factories producing the same product.

Likewise with joint production. The price of the product basket of what is produced in the same joint process has to cover that process for it to be repeated. How the price of that basket is split up between the products in it is determined by demand and the price of a particular product within it can be up to 100 % of the basket – unless there are alternative production processes for that product where the entire basket containing the same amount of that product would be cheaper. The upper limit of the product's price is 100 % of the cheapest doable basket containing it (the comparison can include processes for single-product "baskets"). I'm not saying anything here that wasn't already said.

Christian White
Christian White

Well resources are rationed, that however has to be a separate measurement, and needs a separate unit of measurement. Labour cannot make resources, it can only transform resources. There can never be a trade of labour for resources, this creates an error in accounting, it would be the accounting equivalent of claiming a miracle, where you made something from noting.

As for habitat/environmental stuff, this becomes trickier, labour can produce some aspects of habitats but by far not all of it.

I don't think you can get around LTV, there has to be a equilibrium between time contributions, in principle people should get out as much time as they put in, from the economy. There are reasons to deviate from this, like for example healthcare and that should be handled via taxation, which also serves as the basis for democracy features and as a way for allocating surplus.

The economy i described does not have companies, in the legal sense of company being something that can be bought and sold. Also the Soviet concept of firms isn't really necessary for cybernetic socialism, from the point of the system there's resource flows that show up as input and outputs for different processes, there are labour inputs, capital goods like equipment for production. The usual categories that people invent that goes beyond this, serve the purpose of reducing information, do to historical lack of computing power beyond stuff like slide-rulers and tables, i don't think that's really necessary any-more, it's also strategically prudent to not have something that can easily be privatised, like the soviet firms could be privatised.

Jordan Morgan
Jordan Morgan

I don't think you can get around LTV
What you are saying here then is that there is no getting away from wage labor, because the LTV implies the quid pro quo where "you do labor, you get x amount of stuff", i.e. a wage labor relationship. You'd just be dressing capitalism in the appearance of a planned economy.

Ayden Gonzalez
Ayden Gonzalez

By your logic, somebody stranded on a lone island and planning what to do with his time is doing wage labor.

Bentley Brown
Bentley Brown

He's exploiting his own time, but he is producing objects for utility, since he has no one to trade with.
Bear in mind that Marx cited SOCIALLY NECESSARY labor time, rather than just labor time. It is possible, as Engels noted, for labor to have no value whatsoever, if the product is worthless or shoddy, or someone pisses off and doesn't actually do what he's paid to do.
The model of the lone man on the island is purely concerned with utility, and his time is just one of many resources at his disposal. Nor is lone man obsessed with hoarding capital necessarily, and the only reason he has to use the whip on himself is if something is quite unpleasant but necessary (in which case he's making a more complex calculation than just the abstract labor-time involved).

The point is that the LTV is meant to describe societies where market exchange and wage labor (or something akin to wage labor, like slaves that need to be fed x resources to remain useful) are the norm. It was never meant to be the final word on what is valuable and what is not, but labor-time was selected because it was politically significant and accounts for much of the economic activity humans undertake. Thus it is useful for studying political economy, whereas something like an energy theory of value or corn theory of value is less useful.

Asher Sanders
Asher Sanders

The point is that the LTV is meant to describe societies where market exchange and wage labor (or something akin to wage labor, like slaves that need to be fed x resources to remain useful) are the norm. It was never meant to be the final word on what is valuable and what is not, but labor-time was selected because it was politically significant and accounts for much of the economic activity humans undertake. Thus it is useful for studying political economy, whereas something like an energy theory of value or corn theory of value is less useful.
You keep saying this but never explain why or point to any sources to support this argument. If this is true, why did Marx propose this system of labor credits and labor time accounting?

Joshua Peterson
Joshua Peterson

As points out, you're making a category error. You're assuming the "sheep" is a part of the physical category of wool and mutton. You are allowing the sequence of production to warp your ontology, that is, you are claiming wool and mutton are produced out of the sheep at different intervals, when those things in fact are the sheep.

The labour in joint-production is directed towards the separation of materials. The labour in the case of the sheep is directed towards the separation of the mutton from the wool (which is equivalent to the separation of wool from mutton). Since there is an equivalence from this separation there is no duplication of labour time.

The sheep is not producing two materials, the sheep is in fact the unity of two materials. Your problem is rooted in your assumption of the prior unity of the sheep. Labour-time is not invested into the production of the unity 'sheep' which then produces wool and mutton, rather labour-time is invested into the production of wool and mutton whose unity we call 'sheep'. It seems like you're making a category mistake, and so trying to duplicate the sheep instead of halving it.

Don't put the cart before the horse.. err.. I mean sheep.

Attached: sheep.png (11.6 KB, 300x250)

Asher Jones
Asher Jones

The LTV doesn't apply to a labor-voucher economy because LTV deals with commodities which are exchanged for each other. With labor-vouchers, there is no exchange as the vouchers do not circulate to the seller (instead they are destroyed upon use). As such, labor-voucher goods cease to have values, because they cease to be exchanged commodities. The use of labor-time in vouchers is a product of a communist society being "stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

I also did a quick search, and whenever Cockshott mentioned LTV in Towards a New Socialism, it's only when he's describing a capitalist economy.

Attached: goth.jpg (82.81 KB, 804x1200)

Nathan Clark
Nathan Clark

What said. Basically, you'd expect people to continue to want the kind of pay they were getting before, so the terms of the labor vouchers would be at first similar to the wage.
It's the kind of system you would expect before the modern, huge state bureaucracies that we have now, and before industrialism reached a point where scarcity of basic resources was no longer a concern. We are at the point now where we produce so much food we don't know what to do with it, and could produce huge quantities of just about anything else, so if there were a labor voucher system, it would probably be very short-lived as part of a transition towards something more organized that takes into account natural resource limits (something that didn't apply so much in the 19th century, but looms large over us now).
Basically, Marx was making up something when he was finally being called out on not offering specifics of what socialism would look like, and picked the first thing which was plausible (as something like "labor-money" had already been a feature of other conceptions of socialism). In the 19th century it would have been science fiction to talk about huge bureaucracies, and most likely his readers would be wary of such large bureaucracies as people were when they were introduced in the 20th century, and as they continue to be to this day.

Wyatt Bailey
Wyatt Bailey

Cockshott explicitly says the "law of value" applies in communism.

Zachary Gutierrez
Zachary Gutierrez

We are at the point now where we produce so much food we don't know what to do with it, and could produce huge quantities of just about anything else
You're forgetting about environmental crisis.

Colton Robinson
Colton Robinson

If you're facing an environmental crisis where there is literally not enough food to go around, your perfectly rational system of planned allocation will fall apart when an angry mob disagrees with who is selected to be worthy and who is not. People don't like starving and being told by the central planner that some other asshole is more deserving by some perfectly rational method you've devised (which already doesn't work for a variety of reasons).

Ian Morales
Ian Morales

Cockshott is wrong, then (as was Stalin and the later USSR). We don't need markets or exchange value to do anything at all. It is the case that there is no way to force people to not create markets, and those markets behave in predictable ways whether they are legal or not. The point of socializing production and distribution would be to build something that people actually want to participate in as an alternative to market exchange, rather than having everything revolve around this beast, the market, which cares not whether millions of people starve or suffer for no particularly good reason. If you're just going to recreate the mentality of market exchange but in some purportedly rational scheme, you're not really accomplishing much, nor is such a scheme truly necessary in the long term. In short, it is not a given that someone gets from the system what they put in. It isn't that way in capitalism, and there is no reason to assume or believe that the point of socialism is to meter out everyone's labor and pay a "fair" value (because you wouldn't be using SNLT for that, you'd be using a lot of managerial methods and looking at what every worker is doing on their job to meter out exactly how productive they have been, just as managers manage operations under capitalism).

Jeremiah Wood
Jeremiah Wood

What you are saying here then is that there is no getting away from wage labor, because the LTV implies the quid pro quo where "you do labor, you get x amount of stuff", i.e. a wage labor relationship. You'd just be dressing capitalism in the appearance of a planned economy.
I think you are missing the point, the most important thing, is where the surplus goes, does it return back to workers and society or does it disappear in the hands of a tiny few.
As for the relations between people, for all the precarious workers, a wage-job is still an upgrade, besides, the work-relations here are quite different, firstly you would have workplace democracy. And also you don't have to be tied to a specific job, it's quite conceivable, that you could contribute labour input for many different workplaces to avoid monotony.
Your comment about laboring for stuff seems to point towards alienation, well there's too parts: 1 the soul crushing dread of capitalism comes from exploitation, this part will go away, what remains is that you can't always work on your personal projects. But that can't be helped, we lack the necessary productivity to forgo rational allocation, without a stupendous drop in standards of living and quite frankly life expectancy. We are at a level where a socialist mode of production is possible, however what you seem to be hinting at wont work until means of production are developed enough to enable communism.

Luis Wood
Luis Wood

read Capital Vol 2.

Jason Stewart
Jason Stewart

<Cockshott is wrong, then (as was Stalin and the later USSR).
t. leftcom

Brayden Turner
Brayden Turner

I'm not a leftcom, I'm just trying to cure this particular autism where you think communism is about building your perfect system where everything will automatically work and everyone obeys your edicts and puts up with your constant cajoling. If I were trying to plan an economy, I'm not going to get into a meticulous plan of compensation (and as I tried to tell you, Marx was working with socially-necessary labor time, so your calculations get thrown off if anyone decides to piss off, gets sick, works halfassedly, etc., and then you have to crack the whip and adjust your calculations… that is, he's trying to explain what, generally, happens in capitalism in the aggregate, but trying to isolate value in this way to develop a compensation scheme is arduous and unnecessary and misses the point completely, and it doesn't even work.

Brody Bailey
Brody Bailey

Labor-time accounting also applies to socialism. See CotGP and there are also a few comments to that effect in Capital 1 & 2.
meter out everyone's labor and pay a "fair" value (because you wouldn't be using SNLT for that, you'd be using a lot of managerial methods
Yes and what's wrong with that. If a hippie co-op in capitalism isn't a small socialist society (and it isn't), likewise a factory using some methods of managing time and productivity that are similar to those used in capitalism doesn't logically imply society is capitalist. You need to look at the big picture.
I'm not going to get into a meticulous plan of compensation
Cockshott doesn't have a meticulous plan set in stone for that either.

Ayden Rivera
Ayden Rivera

I'm not a leftcom, I'm just trying to cure this particular autism
Lol what ? The people i disagree with are sick and need a cure… What a toxic way to express disagreement.

Your argument seems to be about the difficulties of planing for unforeseeable aspects of the future, this could be a really fruitful avenue to explore potential problems, so props for bringing this up.
But the examples you give like health-related fluctuations of productivity is really easy to compensate for(without any whip cracking no less), because there is good data and statistical analysis on this.

develop a compensation scheme
this seems like you are referring to a insurance system, Cockshott has said something along the lines of this being a artifact of monetary logic that doesn't apply to socialist systems.

Lincoln Cook
Lincoln Cook

desuarchive.org/marxism/thread/7/
desuarchive.org/marxism/thread/7/

Owen Walker
Owen Walker

1169
"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor."
He is saying that value (and exchange) specifically doesn't govern allocation of resources among producers, IE between different points of production. This doesn't contradict Marx's other proposal that workers should use labor tokens/credits to buy products of equal value for consumption (but not production).
This makes more sense when you read Capital Volume 2, schemes of reproduction. He goes into great detail about the ways that the various sectors of production circulate their value and their products among each other (and within themselves) through exchange. In his proposal for "the co-operative society," there is basically just one giant productive sector that allocates its resources according to a plan.

Owen Reed
Owen Reed

This doesn't contradict Marx's other proposal that workers should use labor tokens/credits
I agree, but it does contradict people who say that value continues to exist in socialism.
to buy products of equal value for consumption (but not production).
There's no value involved here. This was the entire point of those two posts. People are conflating labor-time with value and this leads them to conclude that value still exists in socialism.
In his proposal for "the co-operative society," there is basically just one giant productive sector that allocates its resources according to a plan.
Exactly.

Camden Fisher
Camden Fisher

There's no value involved here. This was the entire point of those two posts. People are conflating labor-time with value and this leads them to conclude that value still exists in socialism.
I guess what you're saying is that in this scheme, instead of talking about the "value" of the commodities, you'd just talk about the "labor" in them directly, completely demystified. So instead of saying "the value of this computer is one labor hour," you'd say "the labor of this computer is one hour."

Like one of the above posters said (possibly you) this is mostly a semantic thing. However, I suppose you could try to draw a distinction:
- In modes of production where the law of value applies, the value of the commodity is the "center of gravity" of its price, around which the prices fluctuate through a continual process of adjustment (both in the price itself, as well as supply, etc), overshooting and undershooting. This value is determined by the (abstract, socially necessary) labor time spent in the commodity.
- In communism, the ASNLT of the product is directly computed and printed directly onto the label that you see on the store shelf. These "prices" could be updated daily, weekly, or monthly. The process of turbulent equalization no longer takes place, and even supply/demand discounts proposed by Cockshott would not change the base "price". Therefore, value as conceived of by Smith, Ricardo, and Marx is no longer regulating distribution. Instead, the underlying ASNLT that determined value is now exposed.

My question then is this: isn't it the case that in commodities, Value == ASNLT? Or is it just that "Value" is defined by its relation to turbulent prices?

Eli Clark
Eli Clark

The point though is that this scheme of compensation is a bad way to judge prices, and we could obviously do better with the means we have at our disposal than the method Marx thought of basically at the last minute of his life in the 19th century. I don't know why this particular form of autism persists now, considering we have examples of people who tried to put socialism in action and we are well aware of what happened in the USSR.
Additionally, natural resource limits which weren't really a factor for Marx are a huge factor for humanity in the 21st century. Shortages of labor aren't really the problem, we have lots of labor. The problem is arable land, water for irrigation, depletion of fossil fuels and uranium, and so on. Any planned system is likely to take into account natural resource limitations before it worries about labor compensation.

Anthony Torres
Anthony Torres

The point though is that this scheme of compensation is a bad way to judge prices,
why?

Additionally, natural resource limits which weren't really a factor for Marx are a huge factor for humanity in the 21st century. Shortages of labor aren't really the problem, we have lots of labor
That's what central planning is for. You don't depend on the price mechanism to handle allocation of resources to industry. The labor time calculation is just for buying stuff at the store.

Parker Miller
Parker Miller

So instead of saying "the value of this computer is one labor hour," you'd say "the labor of this computer is one hour."
Exactly.
Like one of the above posters said (possibly you) this is mostly a semantic thing.
It is semantics, but I think the distinction is important.
My question then is this: isn't it the case that in commodities, Value == ASNLT? Or is it just that "Value" is defined by its relation to turbulent prices?
I would argue the second case. The SNLT for a commodity gives it an exchange-value with other commodities and these exchange-values are expressed via money-prices. So there are three distinct "levels" in this: labor-time, value, and money-price. Each of these things coincides with the others in terms of magnitude, but they are separate.

Brody Phillips
Brody Phillips

I thought you guys might be interested in my post linking zizek and cockshott
is there still anyone on that FBI? It was about a year ago, someone made one, and i was the one who asked for it but i've been out of it for the past year and if it still is even around i'd like to get back to it

Aaron Jackson
Aaron Jackson

FBI?
lol, wordfiltered di.scord. ill just assume no though. probably for the best, place was dead during the time i was there

Camden Reyes
Camden Reyes

Its still around but dead as ever

Thomas Watson
Thomas Watson

I don't know why this particular form of autism persists now, considering we have examples of people who tried to put socialism in action and we are well aware of what happened in the USSR.
The USSR didn't have labor vouchers as Rubles could be transferred person-to-person. People in socialist governments have held a mix of more or less egalitarian sentiments, time and again these different sentiments have met at a compromise policy of big income differentials and feeling guilt over that and so subsidizing a lot of things, mystifying the economic relations from two sides.
Shortages of labor aren't really the problem, we have lots of labor.
Haha. Go enter a random factory or office and tell everybody to just work for free.
You write like a teen who discovered philosophy and weed two months ago.

Jose Jones
Jose Jones

Cross-posting this:

Jack Reed
Jack Reed

I modified the code and added a function to detect the goods who depend on 1.0 or more of themselves:// Added a bool to turn on tracking changes in indirect_labor
pub fn labor_calc_iteration(commodities: &mut CommodityGraph, track_increments: bool) -> Vec<f64> {
let mut increments = if track_increments {
vec![0.0; commodities.len()]
} else {
Vec::new()
};

for i in 0..commodities.len() {
let mut indirect_labor = 0.0;
for (dep_id, quantity) in &commodities[i].dependencies {
let dep = &commodities[*dep_id];
indirect_labor += quantity * (dep.direct_labor + dep.indirect_labor);
}
// If we're tracking the changes, we put them in the vec
if track_increments {
increments[i] = indirect_labor - commodities[i].indirect_labor;
}
commodities[i].indirect_labor = indirect_labor;
}
increments
}

pub fn detect_impossible_cycles(commodities: &CommodityGraph) -> Result<(), InfiniteValueError> {
// Cloning to prevent unwanted mutations of what's passed in. IDK if this is best.
let mut cloned_commodities = commodities.clone();

// increments in first iteration may be smaller than the next due to doubly indirect labor
labor_calc_iteration(&mut cloned_commodities, false);
let increments1 = labor_calc_iteration(&mut cloned_commodities, true);
let increments2 = labor_calc_iteration(&mut cloned_commodities, true);

let mut commodities_in_cycles = Vec::new();
// If the most accurate approximation is reached soon, the changes will be 0.0 and not a problem
// Otherwise, the second increment set should have a lower value than the first
for i in 0..increments1.len() {
if increments1[i] <= increments2[i] && increments2[i] != 0.0 {
commodities_in_cycles.push(i);
}
}

if commodities_in_cycles.len() == 0 {
Ok(())
} else {
Err(InfiniteValueError{commodities_in_cycles: commodities_in_cycles})
}
}

This simple cycle detection algorithm has some interesting properties. If you do more calc iterations before taking the two samples, it will be less precise as it takes multiple iterations for the effects of the infinite value stuff to propagate (IE, it will show you the full scope of the effects of the infinite cycle thing on everything that depends on it). It's also less precise if things that depend on the problem commodity depend on it in higher quantities.
IDK how ugly or idiomatic this code is, I know I could pass in some kind of enum instead of a bool for the increment tracking flag. Or maybe there's some better way other than coupling these two functions. I also have an annoying problem with detect_impossible_cycles where the cloned graph isn't freed/dropped for some reason.
I still think it could be possible to check for a cycle on a single commodity by recursively visiting its dependencies while keeping track of the quantities. Not sure exactly how though.

Dylan Murphy
Dylan Murphy

Is it possible to use Cockshots proposals for a socialist society and apply it to an incremental process of gaining political and economic influence.

For example create a party and organise it like a cockshotian centrally planed economy, just that in the beginning you treat political objectives as the stuff that is being produced and the labour inputs as the political work that has to be done.
Let members spend labour vouchers on new political objectives they got for doing political work.

I don't know if you can do a sortitian democracy at the beginning, because the beneficial statisitcal effects probably only work at greater numbers.

Another aspects would be the economical stuff, the neo-liberals operate with a clan system, where they get their power-broker-type members into organisations they want to "harvest", and act on behalf of their clan interests against the interests of the organisation they entered. They do this for example with government institutions for the purpose of eroding democracy and privatisation. Well we might be able to appropriate this strategy and do the same with corporations where power-brokers inside a corporation stear those to support initiatives for democracy, co-ops and publicly funded services.

Cockshott advocates for winning the battle of democracy for government control, and I think of this as sort off additional process to pursue in parallel to improve the odds a little.

Attached: mobious.jpeg (16.78 KB, 480x360)

Charles Gray
Charles Gray

Article is gone. I'd like to think it's because the author went into an existential crisis after reading the comment, but it's not the only recent article that vanished, I suspect a bug. I still don't get MDVs. My impression is anything with small unit size in terms of labor and other inputs will appear in the marginalist measure as costing basically nothing in terms of lost output of other things, even if its total quantity is extremely overshooting any sensible target. The marginal tack is cheaper than the marginal truck, as far as I'm concerned just that fact by itself does not imply we should increase the number of tacks. Perhaps I misunderstood what he meant.

Austin Wood
Austin Wood

where do i even start with learning math?
i've ignored it since high-school and don't even really remember the level of my ignorance.

Ian Sanchez
Ian Sanchez

khanacademy.org/math

Asher Fisher
Asher Fisher

Is it possible to use Cockshots proposals for a socialist society and apply it to an incremental process of gaining political and economic influence.
Probably not in the manner you're talking about. Cockshott basically proposes a kind of co-operatist approach to abolishing capitalism: first outlawing exploitation, rendering all firms defacto co-ops, then implementing a planning system on top of that, and finally abolishing money/introducing labour vouchers when the system has expanded to the point that it's viable. He's pretty adamant that labour vouchers can only be introduced once commodity production has already been abolished.

Jordan Watson
Jordan Watson

Attached: old-man-posts-own-meme.PNG (806.93 KB, 505x844)

Ayden Walker
Ayden Walker

lmao he's starting a personality cult!!!

Oliver Flores
Oliver Flores

Just checked his Facebook page, he really needs to stop with this trans shit, he's just alienating the majority of the leftist community.

Levi Moore
Levi Moore

he really needs to stop with this trans shit, he's just alienating the majority of the leftist community.
While I think he's wrong, if he alienates a bunch of radlibs unable to separate the good from the bad, I don't think it's a big loss. How are these people supposed to read Marx and Engels (who literally believed in bourgeois race science) if they can't even deal with Marxists taking possibly incorrect stances on things that effect like 0.5% of the population (and barely even, it's not like he's saying to send trans folk to gulags)?
The communist parties around the world are very mixed on the issue as well. Some are and have been very forward-thinking, like the Cuban Communist Party, KPD, Vietnamese Communist Party, CPIM, etc, and others are backwards, critical, or even just plain silent on the issue, like the WPK, KKE, CPGBML, CCP… Are these radlibs really going to renounce serious communist parties with mass support based on their theoretical stance about how transgenderism, again, an extremely small minority issue, fits into diamat?

Ryder Rogers
Ryder Rogers

GOOD
I have literally nothing against trans people, but mein gott, do the SJW leftist get my blood boiling.

Austin James
Austin James

CCP
serious communist party

Kayden Young
Kayden Young

I still don't fully understand what his contention is exactly. Like, I get that he thinks the performance of gender doesn't constitute being the gender, but I'm not sure why he gets hung up on it. Admittedly I haven't read all of his big three blog posts on gender, but what are trans people doing that is making them a threat to materialist leftists? Even if you accept everything Paul has been saying about how the feminine gender role is based in what is beneficial to the ruling class (for instance: the propertied who want more workers, as well as children for themselves) and so trans people are basically deluded into wanting to fulfill gender roles that are meaningless outside of this context of their development, what is the issue with calling somebody "she" if they ask you to? Or allowing people to go around wearing dresses and makeup because they want to perform the feminine gender role? Is it just that Paul is upset that people have false beliefs?

Suppose we have a socialist revolution and the bourgeoisie cease to exist, there is only the mass of working people reproducing their way of life collectively. There will absolutely still be the remnants of old culture just as there is now, anachronisms that peoples till cling to like weird pagan rituals and superstition. People will still go to renaissance festivals. People may also fulfill strange social roles long bereft of any formal power they may have once had. Maybe gender continues to be this, with people of the male sex behaving in old gendered ways and giving themselves names. Is it really worth anybody's time or energy to come down hard on this practice?

Jose Price
Jose Price

If you're re-starting with algebra and shit just note it is going to be really boring. I'd encourage you to actually find some kind of applied math too for assisted learning purposes. Like learning physics alongside calculus or something like that. I think it helps you think through why certain techniques are useful. At least, if you're like me at all. When math is too divorced from any concrete application I think it doesn't stick in my head as well, but if I see instances of its use it starts embedding itself in my brain as a new concept. I'm probably just a brainlet.

Brandon Myers
Brandon Myers

IMO there needs to be an absolutely ruthless Marxist criticism of liberal gender theory, including the ideas they have built up around transgender people. At least 90% of the shit libs say about gender is idealist bullshit. This is part of why some Marxists, especially vulgar materialists, have a knee-jerk reaction against trans folk. So we have two problems: radlib theory, and people approaching Marx&Engels with poor reading comprehension (for instance, the incorrect reading of Engels that concludes sex is a class, or not recognizing the material basis of consciousness).
Just because the current body of theory around transgenderism is idealist, doesn't mean refuting the theory is a refutation of the existence of trans men and women. Rather, Marxists need to develop their own approach to the topic. If you admit that there is such a thing as sexual dimorphism, including in the brain, and that people can be born with mismatches between their reproductive system's sex and their brain's (more obvious with hermaphrodites), then there is no reason for a Marxist to conclude that trans folk can't exist. This doesn't mean, eg, jumping on the crazy train of transitioning confused and possibly gay kids, or validating every possible identity people can dream up (often resulting from schizophrenic delusions or other mental illness).

Jose Flores
Jose Flores

Rather, Marxists need to develop their own approach to the topic. If you admit that there is such a thing as sexual dimorphism, including in the brain, and that people can be born with mismatches between their reproductive system's sex and their brain's (more obvious with hermaphrodites), then there is no reason for a Marxist to conclude that trans folk can't exist.

It's very clear they can exist, as is most obvious with intersex people like you pointed out. But I am curious what the science is on why someone in a male body would self-report feeling like they're a "woman", when what that typically means is they feel like they want to have breasts and a feminine form etc. Since we have cases of intersex people who live their lives as women only to find out that actually they have male chromosomes and underdeveloped gonads or something like this. They don't apparently feel driven to "be a man" or anything like that, which seems to make sense because what does that really mean? Do men and women have different instinctual preferences related to their sex differences, for instance some kind of desire for a woman to show off her breasts or breastfeed? Would someone in a male body then have some kind of hormonal condition or something that would cause them to feel those desires, which would in turn make them confused as to why they don't have breasts?

And that is just in the case of physical attributes of the sexes. But then you have gender, which is largely historically contingent. How are trans women who act particularly fem understood? Why did they decide they were women rather than just fem gay men? And this isn't me being argumentative against the notion that any of this is based in real physiological mechanisms, but I'm genuinely curious if there is a place in the brain where dresses, long hair and being "girlish" are located. It seems to me like women may have certain, distinct average traits as compared to men like experiencing differences in color more sharply, or being more sensitive to social cues, but I don't understand the majority of gender expressions as being hardwired into the brain.

Charles Moore
Charles Moore

But just to be clear, as far as I understand it (very limited, I don't know shit about neuroscience except pop science snippets) the brains of men and women are so similar that a large minority of each sex has brains that are more "feminine" or "masculine" than the average of the opposite sex. So something like 30% of men have brains that have some stronger female traits than the average female brain, and vice versa. Because of this great similarity, I find it hard to believe that there is a switch somewhere or a threshold you cross that makes you suddenly feel like the opposite sex in a substantial way beyond maybe just being gay or maybe acting a little fem. IT MAY EXIST, but I just find it hard to understand what that mechanism would be. So by default, I kind of understand transgenderism to exist in the space left by deterioration of gendered social norms. Which as far as I'm concerned is fine, I don't see why somebody shouldn't be able to take hormones and grow tits anymore than somebody else shouldn't be able to take HGH to grow their muscles exceptionally large.

Noah Diaz
Noah Diaz

but I'm genuinely curious if there is a place in the brain where dresses, long hair and being "girlish" are located
The problem with this is that aside from certain behaviors there are no real universal gender traits of this sort. Go tell a scotsman that wearing a kilt is feminine and you're liable to walk away with a few less teeth. Or that a yakuza's floral tattoos are girly. Or go back in time and tell a viking raider that his hair makes him look like a woman. You see where I'm going with this.

Caleb Reed
Caleb Reed

If you admit that there is such a thing as sexual dimorphism, including in the brain, and that people can be born with mismatches between their reproductive system's sex and their brain's (more obvious with hermaphrodites), then there is no reason for a Marxist to conclude that trans folk can't exist.
The first question is whether what you're talking about has much of a relation with the actual diagnosis of dysphoria, and the answer is that it does not. The diagnosis has nothing to do with one's brain sex (which has slight validity at best), but with self-reporting as to how one feels.

I wouldn't say that the brain and the identification are necessarily disconnected, but, supposing that gay men were found to have more "feminine" brains than straight men, would they then be transgender? Or is there some dividing line between "gay men with 'feminine' brains" and "transgender women"? If so, what would the distinguishing characteristic be insofar as the difference is physically concerned? Also, if someone were reporting feeling themselves to have dysphoria yet the brain demonstrated no signs of atypical sexual difference in the brain for the body of that person, would that then make them not dysphoric? Because, currently, in practice, the answer is that the brain is irrelevant.

One other point is that, even with a physical basis in a more female-like brain, having a basis in some physical characteristic is not equivalent to that characteristic's expression being the same as its expression socially. Say, for example, someone in medieval France has a certain defect in the brain causing him to imagine he's being pursued by demons; with the same defect, in modern France, that man believes he's being pursued by a secret society. While "imagining non-existent phenomena" is held in common, the two specific expressions are each functions of the epoch in which the defect expresses itself socially. That the physical basis for what we call "transgender" demonstrated itself socially in many societies as other sorts of (quite different) phenomena is, I think, not subject to dispute. The question then becomes whether the physical basis for it is being truly described now more than it has in the past, and I don't believe that this is at all clear.

While you condemn "vulgar materialists," the vulgar materialist equating the physical directly to the social is not necessarily the one who rejects gender dysphoria as incoherent. You may want to examine your own conceptions here.

Owen Hall
Owen Hall

COCKSHOTT'S MASTERPIECE COMING OUT IN OCTOBER. GET HYPE
monthlyreview.org/product/how-the-world-works/

Attached: HTTW-seattle-riveter2.jpg (151.04 KB, 1098x1693)

Matthew Adams
Matthew Adams

Labor
Why's he's pandering to murica?

Aaron Murphy
Aaron Murphy

Publisher pressure I'd assume. On his FB he was talking about negotiating the cover image with them.

Easton Harris
Easton Harris

based, looking forward to reading it

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit