Future Left/Cybernetics memes

Wow the butthurt brigade already arrived that was fast

But that's wrong.

Isn't the point of the critique of political economy to go beyond the political economy, instead of creating a more efficient version of it? Cybernetic socialism could end up being an alienating authoritarian technocratic system if it lacks true democracy.

Should I read this first or Capital? I don't know about Keynesian, Austrian economics (I only have read Wage Labour and Capital by Marx)

Anybody can learn to code, don't be so buttblasted non-STEM comrades you can contribute to the dream of soviet cybernetics.

Isn't political economy just analysing economic activity in conjuctiom with political and social relations? I'm not sure socialism or any economic organization can move beyond that.

How could an algorithm deciding for you what to do be considered democratic in any sense?

BASED Bodganov, actually Cockshott talks a lot about him

Actually Cockshitt main point on the book about the USSR colapse is arguing that it's lack of democracy whats it's biggest failure.

*Cockshott

I did and it hurt my brain. I didn't understand a single thing they where saying and that is coming from a fan of Invisible Committee. Either way i'm not going to read Cockshott because I don't like his bloated face that keeps showing up here

That's why I'm somewhat unsure about some of the cybernetic socialism proposals on here. It's all about finding some perfect algorithm to administer society for all time. While I don't question cybernetics might be useful I don't think that's the ultimate end of socialism

It's impossible to imagine a society that exists beyond the political economy. But I think that was Marx ultimate goal, people forget Marx was influenced by the visions of Fourier and the utopian socialists, he just thought they lacked the means to bring them about. The situationists also theorised about what a post capitalist post pole on society might look like, it will be something to be discovered in practice

What do you mean by political economy?

ITS
H-H A P P E N I N G
GUYS THE MEME IS UNIRONICALLY WORKING

Tiqqun is trash, anyone interested interested in communisation should read Endnotes and Théorie Communiste. Steer clear of wooly-headed anarcho-activist bullshit trying to pass itself off as communisation.

...

I would say Capital first, but have you read any other of Marx's more introductory texts?

Me, too.

Btw. I watched your AMA and wanted to help a comrade out. Here's a copy of Classical Econophysics

Bought one copy for me and then bought a copy for my brother when I finished this masterpiece

There is a massive cybernetics thread talking about the implications. Also it worked for Bookchin as proven by the recent polls here.

just read this book
a good read, very inspiring even if I disagreed with a lot of it
and it is quite dated, the edition I read was from the year 92 so basically everything written about computers is massively outdated

Right whoever the fuck keeps pushing this book (and I think I have an idea who that is) needs to FUCKING STOP AND READ MARX, UNLIKE COCKSHOTT.

Seriously. Just. Stop.

You're corrupting the minds of leftists who don't know better, resorting to literally Marx was wrong or doesn't apply to today when you're shown DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY quotes to the shit you're pushing

Like what?

...

What is the context? Where is this from? What does it contradict?

It's from critique of the gotha program, the context is pretty self explanatory in that he's describing a Socialist society, and it contradicts that production for exchange would take place under lower-stage communism as cockshott suggests.

I can understand this sort of thing with authors like Bookchin who are having a tangible effect on the left right now, or with historical figures, but the OP seems like a shameless attempt to sell their book.

LMAO imagine it is actually Cockshott trying to sell his book

But in the very next paragraph Marx writes:

So I am not sure what Marx means with exchange, but the latter quote certainly does not contradict Cockshott.

It's clear you don't. Production for exchange for Marx is commodity production - producing something to sell on the market for surplus value. Cockshott says that this would still, to some degree, happen under lower-phase communism, but it doesn't.

hence "shilling"

The fuck is your problem?

I know what Marx means. My question was what it meant in this context relating to the latter quote and how it contradicts Cockshott.

How would that even work with labor vouchers? Can you quote Cockshott on that?

...

No, it fucking isn't. This isn't at all what I created the SovCyb thread for and this is never what it's been about. We want to reduce the control that algorithms have over the daily lives of people by reducing them to democratic input-output machines where people know what they're putting in and getting out. Take a look at Facebook if you want to see the technocrat's wet dream alternative becoming a horrifying reality. Take a look at the algorithms guiding actions on the stock market. It's us or them because this is already happening. Get with the program!

For the last fucking time, labor vouchers are NOT production for 'exchange'. Production for exchange implies a CIRCUIT of capital. read capital volume 2. Generalized commodity production involves producing goods and selling them in a market at the SNLT, there is no averaging process like under the law of value/capitalism since integrated labor content is computed directly and not thru a process of market competition.

He can't because he hasn't even read Cockshott, just heard characterizations of his work secondhand. All these memes, unironically, you innumerate gusano.

No he doesn't he advocates the labor voucher scheme marx gives in critique of the gotha program, read chapter 4 in this, its short:
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/calculation_debate.pdf

These meme attempts are all terrible, like the ones with Bordiga. Take the Pepe under the blanket, why does he have that pedo smile? Why couldn't it be the comfy yellow face? They aren't funny and they don't explain anything. If you aren't funny (spoiler alert: you are not), you could at least try to make informative graphics. Futurama's Fry is a doofus, why would anyone take a recommendation by him?

If you believe Cockshott hasn't read Marx, you are wrong. He has talked about the Critique of the Gotha Program several times. Btw. learning another language was heavily encouraged in the political sectlet he was in during the 70s, and he picked up German. There's even a video of him speaking at one of the Rosa Luxemburg conferences in Germany and answering some people in (rusty) German.

What is proposed in TANS is entirely in line with that text by Marx. In TANS, people do not work in self-financing co-ops competing in the "free market". Data processing and economic planning is centralized. If two places produce the same thing and one has more up-to-date technology, this doesn't have the effect that people in that place get a higher income for their luck. Training costs are priced into products while avoiding increased remuneration for that (you don't go into debt for studying/training and your living expenses during that time are covered by society). How would that even be possible without some degree of centralized planning?

This shit is why Holla Forums says we can't meme. You can't just force these things

I'd be more inclined to read something if many people were actually talking about it so I could join in the conversation.