Economic Calculation Debate

Seriously, why do ANCAPS n such even bring up the calculation argument anymore, like it hasn't been BTFO time and time again, its like their stuck in the past regurgitating the same old arguments Hayek and Mises made in the 20s/30s without any acknowledgement of the theories of modern economic planning. Are they fucking illiterate?

Other urls found in this thread:

It inspired Cockshott to make this essay to eternally BTFO them and set the stage for programmers to create an app for planning economies. It has helped us tbqh.

Because its still relevant and still keeps creating even more market socialists among the left?

They're cultists drowning in pure ideology who don't want to put on the glasses.

see and also fuck off forever

More counter-revolutionaries is not a good thing you market cocksucker

The first video, that guy at least mentions cockshott etc but its more like a history of economic planning than a polemic.

muke and finnish OTOH, don't even seem to understand the ECP or mention cockshott, so i guess its a wash

Just remind them that companies like GM have the GDP of medium sized countries and still manage to coordinate global systems of production and distribution in what is effectively a planned economy roughly equal in size to a country like Poland or Norway.

Regardless of how right you might be, it does still not make it consensus for long as there are humans involved in the process without suppression of their opinions. People are easily convinced even by the dumbest of arguments.


But running the macro economy like it's just a scaled up version of micro is part of the ancap retardation

how so, i mean not really, its the opposite: ancaps want a planned economy inside a corporation but a market between them

muh balanced budgets, goldbuggery etc

yeah but they don't advocate market relations inside the workplace though


Can you keep you autism to one thread please


Read the damn essay, would you? He argues for in-kind calculation (without a homogeneous measure of social value) in it, and shows mathematically how it checks out. All you need to fully flesh it out is a system of non-circulating currency (paid out on a system where in-demand jobs are paid more) and to then direct the optimization of the program to drive all costs to 0 or as close as possible. That would be instant communism.

There's a reason why they don't imagine every little piece of it, by the way. Tell me, did Locke imagine how this piece and that piece of capitalism would work? Did Smith? No. Ideas don't create modes of production, modes of production create ideas.

His first name is William, but he goes by Paul. Don't just shitpost, refute the lolbert!



No, you silly buns, he argues that there will be an objective goal of society first, which will intrinsically required everyone to work for no rewards other than what this plan came up with. (assuming the central planning is total.)

It's the same totalitarian broken model of the USSR, which failed catastrophically and as CIA exposed, ended up with them copying prices from surrounding capitalist economics in their ODV system.

ITT ancaps who haven't read a damn word of cockshott

I'm sorry, but if a libertarian economist ever met him in a discussion, he would wipe the floor wish Paul Cockshott.

I've read almost all of the written austrian critiques of his work and they are pretty much 100% weaksauce. They have no comeback. That kid in the email isnt worth their time to respond to, especially when their views are already known, if that kid would have read TANS, he would know that his arguments are fucking nonsense

I'm an anarchist, you fuckwit. We're arguing for a decentralized network wherein the production of free associations of workers is directed to best meet the market-like demands of the people.

Have you not read anything from the cybernetics thread or Towards A New Socialism? On a second thought, don't. You're so dumb you'll sperg all over it and shorten its lifespan by bringing it closer to the bump limit with your shitposting.

Yes buddy, this guy who defends to failed totalitarian Soviet Model that was dismantled by the Soviet themselves, and which requires total monopoly of resources and unconditional control of the population, truly would destroy anyone in a debate /s

Oh wait, you he can't even explain the calculations he's proposing, and he's defending a totalitarian command economy.

Then why are you using the vague proposal of a command economy, you fuckwit? Oh yeah, that's right, in a true anarchist society, everyone would work towards whatever the central computer said we should do unconditionally, and then have goods distributed to us by the anarchist government.

Totally an anarchist society:
Anarchism sounds awesome.

I never said anything about officials or a command economy. Cockshott argues for direct democracy based off Athenian sortition. There are no officials - only a distributed computer network akin to eBay for determining what must be produced so everyone can enjoy a high standard of living.

What comes to mind when you hear "free association of producers"? It means what it says - instead of a firm where you have to sign regulations and everything, you just get together with some other producers and make something which the system says someone needs. You get it to them, by yourself or through using the system to ask for transportation, and you get back some credit to buy scarce luxury goods. Most goods cost nothing because society today already overproduces.

It's like Bitcoin, but anarcho-communist. IDK what's so hard to get about that. Can you not think outside of a market-statist dichotomy?

Except he doesn't he advocates for democracy

I think you mean to say total and unconditional control of resources BY the population - not understanding socialism

Not to you, because you're a braindead austrolibertarian who probably doesn't even know math.

lol, 'can't explain', We told you to read the book, im not here to teach a class on numerical linear algebra over a fucking imageboard.

Work towards whatever was democratically voted on + what the labor voucher market demands.

Lol, i mean just reverse that 'unconditionally follow the plan', by that logic why should people unconditionally follow the market and their boss at a capitalist corporation? At least with the plan they voted and have democratic control over it

Woah, what type of magical system are you guys making here? Sounds pretty cool.

That sounds very retarded. Like, very. Because everything society produces today has a cost, even a glass of water, despite the fact that most establishments give you that for free.

Sure, actually, I think this system looks pretty cool. Can I give some suggestions? How about if people just sold their work for the highest price and demand and to cut to the chase? Plus, transporting is actually work, and it costs. People have to dedicate their lives to that. How about we let them also sell what they produce for the highest price they can get? So the places with the highest demand for better transport can get better transport?

Ok, this system is sounding pretty awesome right now. Now, hear me out, I think that since we already directly buy what we need if we need it from ourselves, how about we scrap the computer thing altogether? After all, we don't want to make some totalitarian thing of to force people into having no choice but to supply resources to some computer central planning.

I think this sounds like the best communist society I've seen so far. Pretty cool guys.

Obviously, everyone in society would choose the latter. So there's obviously no need for totalitarianism here.

There's the difference here that you can literally choose whatever you want to do and that you can literally decide for yourself if a good or service is worth its costs or not and not buy it if you don't want it. As opposed to having your body as a resource to be allocated in a massive state that has to control every aspect of the production of everything.

But wait, there's more.

How do you make an objective decision on what's need to be done in such a system? How can you know what you want, if you don't know the costs of anything? How do you democratically make any decision whatsoever? Do we want higher quality beds? That can only depend on the costs of such a quality increase. Do we want more clothes? Do we want more food varied? Depends on how much it will cost us. You see, this magical model completely assumes someone can figure out an entire economy and then vote on what he wants. It is essentially "we can solve the economic calculation problem with a system that assumes the economic calculation problem was already solved."

It's an app to organize things which the /leftytech/ collective is working on - worker-run cooperatives today, communist free associations tomorrow.
Systems with currency are very complicated once you have circulating currency, to the point that it can be simulated (as Cockshott demonstrates in "Classical Econophysics", markets always tend towards a power distribution of wealth as seen in the real world, regardless of how equal actors start off in wealth and ability) but not explained. At this point, I'm practically certain that all economic analyses of how the market works are utter bullshit (other than that capital does exist as a force which extracts value from the proletariat, as this is analyzable within market-free firms) and no one will ever understand how markets work unless we discover that P=NP and we can solve a lot of otherwise unsolvable related equations.

We can easily reduce the prices of many things to 0 if you eliminate every firm's desire for profit. I realized this when shopping at the Dollar Tree and looked at the price of all the canned vegetables. They were all the same, $0.79. Then it hit me - I had once been told that Dr. Dre's headphones ($300 at the time) only costed ~$18 to make, and remembered reading that most, if not all, prices are mark-ups. What if the market is systematically inefficient past a certain point of industrial inefficiency and thus never reaches the absolute efficiency required to drive Marx's dialectical predictions to their ends of revolt? We already have the conditions to reduce the prices of almost everything to 0 if we want. Just get rid of markets and plan rationally with computers.
No. Then it's no longer communism and it reintroduces the essential feature of capitalism - the stripping away from the individual all but his labor power to be sold on a capricious market ready to exploit him.
Then the linear optimization of the whole thing is worthless.

My solution in the Soviet cybernetics thread was to incorporate the solutions of this unrelated author's article on calculation in kind:
It's fundamentally a supply and demand system, automated with the best mathematical and computational practices gained over the centuries. Your pet problem has been BTFO.


Implying we don't account for that

If I need to buy something, doesn't that mean by definition, i *don't* already have it? why the fuck would you buy something from yourself

Except then you still have capitalism with all its flaws. A computer system is better than a market. Its faster and more responsesive unlike price signals which have to wait for humans to adjust them, a computerized system pretty much instantly can change the prices across the whole economy in real time. Plus a market system represents a destruction of information because the whole matrix of inputs and outputs is crunched down to a price vector

Labor vouchers.jpg

So democracy is totalitarain, but ancapistan is fucking freedom? gtfo

You can still do that, you buy what you want with labor vouchers and don't buy what you don't want.

Lol, your skills and labor are already a resource to be allocated by the market, you just have a choice over which boss you work for. In socialism though you have democratic control over the workplace, rather than merely getting to choose your master.

This is why we said RTFM. Costs are calculated in terms of labor time.

Voting. Its not that hard

No he doesn't. The prices of goods are set at market clearing prices and the supply is adjusted upward or downward depending on if its a surplus or shortage. People work for labor money, which is what they use to buy those commodities.

You couldn't even address a single point I made. Stop LARPing into 4 paragraphs of vague claims.

So, basically, I produce something, I can either
Tell me, what type of idiot would do the latter?

Furthermore, I already explained to you, there's no one capable of making those economic decisions. There's no "app" here, you guys are fucking delusional. Your magical system lacks the fundamental human judgement and decision making to work, and the more you "fix" your ideas, the closer it gets to free market capitalism.

Are you fucking retarded? Are you seriously mentally retarded? Do you think that people in this firm want to be paid 0? Do you think that workers there don't feel like eating and earning money? What about the captains of the ship, the people who take care of the capital and make sure it doesn't go obsolete? Do you think they would be working there for free as well? Quit the delusional LARPing sessions where you pretend you know things you actually don't. Address things directly.

Also, I should mention that there are actually two economic calculation problems. The formal one posited by Mises and addressed by Cockshott is the organization of production. The informal one posited by Hayek and addressed by Robin Cox (author of the SPGB article which I posted above) is that there must be a system for gathering relevant information in a useful way to carry out planning.

Don't get the two confused.

When i work at a capitalist factory, I can either keep the car I built or give it to my boss for free

When I work at a software company I can either keep my program or give it to my boss for free

When I work as a cashier I can either keep the money in the cash register for myself or give it to my boss for FREE.

Which would you choose?

Woah, such a magical society.

What should be done to the people who defy that and want to decide the prices they are willing to pay for themselves?

Your system in a delusional best-case-scenario is already worst than even the worst most crony corporativist states.


labor vouchers can't circulate, so there would be no way to 'sell' your labor for any price other than the state, which would set your wage = to everyone else. Theres no need for gulags.

Cockshott does address hayeks information argument as well, look at that first YT vid in OP, he goes over cockshott addressing hayeks argument

My merchandise can circulate you bumbling idiot. Scarce resources that can be used as currency like gold can circulate you fucking idiot.

Sorry for bringing up how unrealistic all of your assumptions are.

Another prime example of commie delusional. They think that saying the solved something is the same as solving something. They claim over and over, and when you check to see if its true, instead of explaining what they mean, they make even more claims that they totally did it.
I explained why this is all nonsense already:
Nobody can magically decide what they want. There's no magical perfect plan to be followed. You idiotic faggots claim you solved the economic calculation problem with a system that already assumes the economic calculation problem as solved.

You seem to be missing something which I took as a given that we both recognized. Which would you rather take, something which costs 0 or something which costs [insert positive value]?
Why would they want to be paid anything if everything costs nothing? You might as well hand out monopoly money. Humans were communist for most of their history. People will work a minimum. If there is a collective action problem to bring all prices to 0, then you get people together and ask them to work 10 minutes longer each day so prices are, in fact, 0.

Furthermore, it's not even a firm. It's a free association of producers - it is formed for a single purpose and dissolved when that purpose has been fulfilled. It may continue on in name to fulfill a different purpose, but the original one is in character gone. That's what freedom looks like.
There are none. The system manages the means of production. Capital as a concept is eliminated. You're still thinking within the limits of today's world when today's world has barely existed in its general format for 200 years. Read "Debt: The First 5000 Years". I've posted it here for your convenience.

They don't make anything - they just move around money and accumulate the revenue of what's sold, giving you back scraps in the form of wages. If they weren't defended by the state, you'd take back what was yours. Work autonomously!

Also, I speak of reducing prices to 0 precisely because that conditions implies the complete and final elimination of your mistakenly-beloved markets. It is the fulfillment of the maxim "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", the most libertarian of distribution methods. There's nothing "free-markety" about this system - it's full-blooded communism, just as imagined by both anarchists and their critic Marx.

This guy is a step closer, but not the whole way there.
Stirner's line of thinking eventually leads to ansyn

I didn't watch it. I can't bear to watch long videos - I'd rather read arguments.

It costs nothing? Are you fucking retarded? You are seriously so dumb that I don't even have to debate you. There's no way you have any valid economic plan when you are ignorant to this level. Do you think workers work for free you fucking idiot? Do you think these firms get materials and resources for free? Do you think nobody there has to earn a wage?

Yes, a system that assumes everyone will work towards it unconditionally, violating their own self interest. No, actually, this is not what freedom looks like.

Yes they are. Being delusional is not a fucking argument.
Except that's fucking supremely dumb. Because capital exists as a matter of fact. So what the "concept" is eliminated you idiot? You still have billionaire facilities to manage, and if you do it poorly, it only causes harm to society. So capital managers will still exist.

No I wouldn't because I'm not a barbarian. Quit LARPing. That's not how the world works.

And you make ridiculous arguments that are completely illiterate and even the people over at would never make. How about actually reading some of the linked material before making ridiculous claims that have been refuted in advance. Theres no way to even debate someone so fucking stupid, who gets all of their information through debating and does no reading or research. READ A BOOK. Specifically, read THIS BOOK IN ITS ENTIRETY BEFORE YOU MAKE ANOTHER POST HERE.

This is a delusional I find it interesting to explore.
Do you seriously think that without a state you would be able to just steal whatever you want? Do you seriously think that without a state, you would be able to just walk into your workplace and take ownership of all the revenue? And then the dozens of pensioners and investors who put money on that enterprise will just go "aw shucks, I guess they can have it."?

No, what would actually happen, is that you are now an enemy with dozens of people. What would actually happen is that the other enterprises which you depend on now see you as a rogue criminal faction that just stole a couple millions of bucks in resources, and they don't judge you to have the same credulity as before. What would happen is that literally everyone but you would see you as an enemy of society.

So barter, then? So you're going to rebel again the evol socialist state by bartering ancap video rants for toilet paper and churros? give me a break. In any case its not the end of the world if two guys trade lunch at work or a cigarette for a beer. In any case, if the state is already producing commodities that people want, why would there be a need for private industry in the first place? the only reason is if the state wasn't producing or underproducing the things people want. Which again, we have mathematical ways to measure and deal with, you are basically projecting the soviet system = what were proposing, which isnt even remotely close to true.

God damnit, why the fuck are ancaps so retarded.

I explained to you idiots why you are delusional so much, and you keep on fucking claiming I was totally refuted.
Please, tell me about these refuted claims. How do you plan on forcing everyone to follow your computer system as opposed to sell their labor for the highest price, without the use of a totalitarian state?

How do you plan on having an objective plan to tell your magical computer what to do, if you, yourself, has no knowledge of the economy as a whole and you do not know which costs your society wants to incur?
In fact, it seems that so far such a system doesn't even exists, and it's just some abstract vague claim. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wait, I thought it was meant to be an anarchic order, now its a massive socialist state. Oh, that's right, anarchists get confused sometimes.

And yeah, the state would just magically figure out everything, and literally 100% of the postulation would supply all resources they produce for the state for free. Except they wouldn't, except this is absurdly retarded. And let's not forget, your whole magical system is nothing more than an abstraction that can never come true for intrinsic reasons, which you failed to explain. There's no democratic method of making such economic decisions because nobody can decide for the rest of the whole society what costs they should incur. Nobody can fit the entire economy into one's head to tell what your magical computer should then command the population to produce.

If a worker makes a commodity which goes for $50 on the market, sells it, and a guy assaults him for $35, it's theft. But if the worker hands it over to a capitalist who sells it for $50 and gives him back $15, it's a fair exchange, even if the worker had to sign up because he would otherwise starve and couldn't make the commodity because he had no capital. Investors are just as much exploiters as the boss. They even admit to not actually making anything or providing a service to fulfill a human need. Why shouldn't the worker who wants to not have his NAP be violated not work towards automating away their jobs with the calculator? This understanding, unlike your fantasy, is consistent with the reality of how capitalism was founded - by forceful conquering of India and subsequent slave labor under the EIC for raw resources, by forceful enclosure of peasant lands to provide a dispossessed workforce with only their labor power to sell. You cannot have private property without a state to defend it. There has never been an instance where it preceded the state and its violence. If we were to faithfully apply your arbitrary principles down to reductio ad absurdum, we come to something approaching what anarcho-communists have reached.

It's you who is delusional. You're projecting current conditions back into the past and into the future as if they were universal laws. Humans never followed barter except for where there had previously been market economies. Money as we know it today (and from it market economies) developed from both the bureaucratic accounting in silver of Mesopotamia and the collective repayments in gold of Anglo-Saxon moots to narrowly avert violence.

Gee, what would you know, not everyone on Holla Forums has the exact same opinion! You clearly came here from a thread on /liberty/ and didn't even bother lurking because then it would be clear that MLs and anarchists can never stop fighting over what socialism is and what it should look like. Most of your criticisms are tailored to MLs, and even then they can blow your arguments to pieces because they hear them every day. You ancaps are a hive mind, but we aren't.

uh… yeah?

Why do you assume we would have to force them? Obviously achieving socialism is contingent on a political movement to convince the majority of people to agree with this idea.

I explained it already in a previous post, but ill explain it again: the state owns all the firms, and costs between alternative means of producing things are compare on the basis of the amount of time in labor put into them.

Workers would not work for free, they would recieve labor voucher wage representing the amount of work they have done, allowing them to buy back commodities from the system

As for capital, that will have been forcefully seized from the wealthy during the revolution and become public property.

We vote on a flat tax which is fine because everyone is effectively in the same income bracket. That tax revenue is spent on social services like healthcare etc just like in social democracies

ugh, do you not understand computers? why does 'one' guy need to understand the whole economy THEN put it into the computer. The data will be gathered from each firm and then sent to a central database.

I mean really, would you say google is impossible because one guy can't understand the whole internet and then program the search engine with the knowledge of every single website?

If you can make the merchandise yourself and earn more than in an enterprise, than why would you sell your labor the an enterprise you delusional commie faggot?

It's fair exchange, precisely, because you reached the judgement that by utilizing the investments of other people, you would be able to make the most money with your skills at the period of time. It's IMPLICIT.

So, investors, which provided you with a means to make more money than you could otherwise make, are exploiters? The people which are explicitly helping you to make more money are exploiting from you?

By the way, nice LARPing there. Literally 70% of what you wrote was complete unrelated nonsense.

You are seriously brain damaged.

Like I said, because the workers lack the capital. 96% of startups fail. The system is rigged against the little guy. Furthermore, this happens systematically, as I mentioned above with my reference to "Classical Econophysics". It's a literal inevitability of markets.
Actually implicit in your argument is that capitalism is a meritocracy. This is refuted by empirical data such as the simulations studied in "Classical Econophysics". It's a mathematical tendency of markets to create inequality and extract as much value as possible from those who create it.
They didn't make anything, they didn't put in any elbow grease. They just moved around a few numbers. They're paper-moving bureaucrats by definition, very overpaid ones as well I might add.
That's not what that word means. LARPing on Holla Forums would mean that I'm justifying ML by referencing the USSR or an ansyn doing so with Catalonia.

I'm going to bed now. You're an illiterate autist obsessed with markets and boot-licking. I recommend seeking help for your case of terminal classcuckery.

No value production, no exchange. Just want to make sure the correct side of this debate is staying on track.


So, again, with the computer thing, how does it work again? You tell the computer in your workplace that you want more of everything and at a higher quality, and that you want to work less, and then the computer will tell everyone else to produce more of everything and will cut you hours of work. Right? Like magic.

There will be no conflict of interest, the computer will decide which one of us should be taking certain costs or not. Because this mathematical formula you are making is so good, it will literally figure out entrepreneurship and what products people might want in the future, and how to optimally invest on them. And of course, it requires unconditional cooperation and you cannot ever violate the order of the central system, because otherwise it would never ever fucking work.

And this is a delusional best-case-scenario. A totalitarian system.

You idiot, if you lack the investment/you don't want to invest, than how the fuck is it the fault of the people who invested for you?
No, the system is rigged against people who don't save and invest in their future, against hedonistic impulsive people, in fact, not the "system", the real world.

So, basically, if I invest in capital myself, and I give you a chance to make more money with less investments than you would otherwise be able to without me, that means I'm exploiting you? How do you fucking even begin to justify this fucking logic? Because I'm not sure if you didn't notice, you haven't justified this at all since the beginning. Why do you deserve investments you never fucking made?


I don't think you understand what a system that requires absolute cooperation of a whole nation implies. Fascism is authoritarian, what you want is totalitarianism.

You clock into your job like normal and that is used to measure how much labor goes into the commodities your company is making. You are paid labor-vouchers commesurate with those hours. In the aggregate this means the prices in the economy = the wages paid out.

Measuring the time you clock in at work isnt computer magic, its an objective measure which anyone can understand. Whether or not commodities can be produced cheaper or with less working time is more related to things like automation.

Cantors diagonalization meme argument. If this were true, even capitalism wouldn't work, you don't need to predict the future to plan an economy or a capitalist business. Obviously, there's a process of trial and error just like under capitalism, some businesses will fail and some will succeed. If a firm starts producing a commodity that no one buys, that will signal them to reduce or eliminate production of that commodity. If they sell out, they'll produce more. Again, not complicated.

As opposed to your boss handing you a schedule and telling you to show up on certain days and hours? in any case, the scheduling of work is something that would more likely happen at the firm level, if the workplace is run democratically, you would all vote or bid on your work hours.

It wouldn't be a central system any more than following a law passed by referendum is a 'central system', you are acting like the will of the majority is some tyrannical imposition.

Also, there is some tolerance for inaccuracies in the system with regards to optimization techniques.

The reason people aren't writing you a wall of text is because we're not your teacher. Literally every objection you've brought up, from mises higher-order goods argument, to hayek's information argument, to the diagonalization argument, have all been addressed in mathematical detail by economic computability theory.

The fact that you keep bringing them up is evidence that you have not really done your due diligence or research, and for some odd reason you would rather learn about it from some random guy on an imageboard than actually reading a book.

Being ignorant of an argument is not the same thing as refuting it: for you to posture as though you have refuted any of this whilst regurgitating the same old uneducated arguments is extremely tiresome, and I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

In conclusion please watch the videos in OP, and read the sources they recommend (especially the first one), so you can make an informed argument. You're intellectually selling yourself short otherwise.

How about you actually write down to me a counter argument and an explanation for this delusional system, as opposed to telling me to just "go see a video that doesn't actually explain anything".

Oh that's right, because then you would have to actually explain your shitty fucking vague claims which you cannot back.

Really, bro, do you want me to copypasta an entire book here just because you're too lazy to click a link?

No, I want you to explain me in simple terms. Like a normal person having a normal discussion.

Also, do you seriously think I didn't click the link of those brain dead faggots LARPing about how they totally can make a communist society while giving absolutely no substantial information about it?

You faggots are delusional as fuck. You cannot explain it yourself and I know it. I fucking know it. You are telling me to "go find out how I can totally explain everything" precisely because you can't explain anything. You are delusional faggot.

The best part is how even in the videos OP linked, people picked this shit apart in the comments ruthlessly. You delusional faggots aren't even safe in a 1000views video.

I'm not sure you understand the term 'LARPing', but whatever. Now with regards to giving no substantial information about it, the first video actually does give a pretty good overview of the history of the economic calculation debate the the socialist arguments against it, with links to research papers on the topic in the description. not sure what the problem is here. In any case here's my final response.

I'll bite

If we were to achieve a socialist society, presumably, it would be because we convinced the majority of people that it was a good idea. Under these circumstances, I don't think you would 'have' to 'force' most people to follow the system, because they would already prefer it.

Of course, not everyone would prefer it - there would be a minority of wealthy people who would be net losers in such a transition, and those people obviously have a great incentive to oppose such a transition. In my opinion an authoritarian state would be needed, however, it wouldn't be a 'stereotypical, hollywood/hunger games' type authoritarianism where the government simply oppresses the majority by force. that sort of thing is not only undesirable, but also unstable because you can't stay in power by brute force alone, people will get sick of it and overthrow the government. The purpose of this authoritarian state is not to oppress the majority in favor of some elites, but precisely the opposite: to oppress the minority of the wealthy (former) elites in the interests of the working class majority.

Like I said before, goods would be valued on the basis of how much work went into them, see:

Goods are sold at market-clearing prices. If the market clearing price is not equal to the cost as measured in labor time, supply will be either increased or decreased until the labor-cost has achieved parity with the price.

As stated in:

There is a process of trial and error. New ideas are tried out. Some will fail and some will succeed just like starting a new business under capitalism. There is no particular reason to believe that entrepreneurs, as a group/on the whole will achieve better than average success in starting new firms/products than socialist planners. The economy is a random/stochastic process imo, and I don't think entrepreneurs have some inherent genius unknown to the rest of us.

Sargon of akkad 'Oh fucking hell, can you not summarize this in under 5 minutes?' style argument. Ancaps ITT:

Dinky Winks raises two issues:
1. It's important the we evaluate stuff (duh). He isn't aware of (or is pretending to not be aware of) what Cockshott is actually advocating when he talks about how important it is to subjectively evaluate stuff. What C & C say in TANS is that consumer items can be priced higher or lower than labor content based on what the demand is, with target output level balancing labor content with demand. (For the sake of transparency, items can have labor content info on them along with the actual price, which might result in a sort of speculation by the consumers which has a stabilizing effect. When people see something priced strongly above labor content, they get the idea that this is unusual and they can wait for the price to drop, and when many people do that, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Likewise with prices lower than lc, you get the impression that this price won't stay that low, so you better get it now, again, self-fulfilling prophecy. While for a single item, the price may deviate a lot from labor content and you might feel about that as unfair; but when you think of lots of items you get, it tends to average out.)

2. Dinky Winks mentions the issue that it is hard to evaluate the work of people who aren't directly involved with producing stuff, he mentions teachers and scientists. This is indeed a complicated issue. However, how on earth could that be an argument for this society over the one in TANS? That is a non sequitur. This is hard to evaluate, whatever your dream society is. Whether we end female suffrage or not. Whether we make all drugs legal or not. Whether we turn the US into an Islamic caliphate or not. Whether all left-handed people are banned from taking political office or not. It is not an argument for capitalism over socialism at all.

Model in TANS is actually that you do get more consumption vouchers for working over-time, and you can choose how you spend those. The limit to that is rather that you can't actually ever save a huge amount over two decades or so and then buy means of production with that.

Cockshott has serious USSR nostalgia, but what he actually advocates for is sortition and direct voting on plan aggregates.

I think TANS can still be criticized given how little attention C&C give to issues of tactically misrepresenting information, the problem with what you write is that you fail at the level of even paraphrasing what Cockshott's position is. You start with a strong opinion about a person, and what that person actually says is just not important for what you believe, apparently. You = feels before reals.

you people are morons, i swear.

I meant: It's important that we evaluate stuff. Sorry, need coffee.

well he did spend most of the 70s, & 80s as a hardcore ML tankie

I guess he was a good troll

Really, the best I can find are either other marxists making some minor corrections, or butthurt lolberts saying that he didn't interpret the problem correctly, but then fail to provide a correct interpretation.

Perhaps you can stop posting frog memes and make an actual argument.

It's not their fault, it's the fault of the system, they're simply acting in the self-interest with respective to their position in Capitalism. It's the fault of Capitalism because every since the beginning the system has used every method it can to keep enough people into staying as proles, from the English Enclosures were farmers' land was taken from them so they'd have no other choice but to work in the factories, to a literal living wage being the best a worker could get during the industrial revolution, to modern day where people aren't paid enough so they need to go into debt, and where actually getting a decent job is a pay-to-play system where you have to have enough money to either pay the tens-of-thousands of dollars or be willing or capable of dealing with that debt.
It's hard to save and invest when you're living paycheck to paycheck, and that's not because you're constantly buying a new car and clothes, it's because you can't find a good job and modern jobs don't even have to pay a living wage because they're effectively subsidized with welfare. Even if you have additional money at the end of the month, you effectively have to choose whether to enjoy things (Including having a family, they're very expensive) or compulsively save it for 20 years for the future. In reality starting a business is simply not an option for most people, it's only anywhere close to being an option for someone who's already well-paid, but usually they're not dumb enough to try, because guess what, even if someone was capable of saving enough capital to start a business, that business will soon belong to the bank because the vast majority of startups fail.
You make it sound like it's an equal and fair exchange, when in reality, for most of Capitalism's history and still for most of the world, it's literally a choice between either working for someone else or starving. You're not exploiting me by hiring me, you're exploiting me when I produce $100 of value a day but I only take home $60. You could say "Well, if you don't like it, start your own business", which firstly doesn't change the fact I'm being exploited, it's also an absurd suggestion for someone born without any significant capital, who doesn't have any significant connections, and if they are a literal sweatshop worker, then you're literally telling them to starve themselves to save money.
That's the equivalent of a feudal lord asking his complaining serfs why they think they deserve the land they never conquered.

Debating is for the audience, not the participants. He's likely not going to change his mind, but for lurkers the arguments and counter-arguments can influence and educate them.