Cockshott and ML

defending
the
soviet union
is
not
a
theory

Post-civvers need to leave.

lol no, sure you can point to things like neoclassical DSGE models but those are a relatively recent development, neoclassical economics is based on calculus, it is a theory of individuals maximizing their individual subjective utilities. OTOH econophysics is much more related to quantitative finance, its about the statistical mechanics of money and the emergent behaviors of such a system. Again this is not the same as the harmonious and comparatively tidy neoclassical view.
OK, then i will clarify, he theoretically defends the notion that the USSR was socialist, clearly this is at least a partial endorsement of ML

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econophysics
That's where you're wrong, kiddo

His argument is that it was different from what Marx or Lenin defined as socialism, but since it was an attempt at socialism, and it defined itself as socialist, and was different from capitalis, you might as well say it is what socialism looks like in real life.
A weak argument, if you ask me.

they're both basically political economy of the type that karl marx critiqued. they are methods of understanding and modelling the economy as it functions now, but not explaining why it exists or how to change it.

The alternative being:

Contrary to what some believe, from it’s earliest days, Socialism has meant a centrally planned, state based economy, which clears the way for a higher mode of production. Engels clearly alludes to this in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

Perhaps the clearest example of this is found in the Communist Manifesto itself, in which it is stated that “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.”.

in order to abolish capitalism, socialists must aim to abolish the ‘commodity-form’, i.e. change society from a ‘commodity-producing’ society into one which produces directly for use. It is often pointed out that the Soviet Union did not fully do this – thus, it is argued that the Soviet Union was not socialist. The problem with this argument is that it essentially reproduces the same fallacious argument from semantics that beguiled utopian socialism. It is well and good to criticize the Soviet Union, for not abolishing markets and wages to the extent that was possible or logical given socialist property relations. On the other hand, the Russian revolution, and its leaders, were clearly inspired by the ideas and ideals of socialism, and attempted, at least, to faithfully implement those ideas. It is not intellectually honest to deny this fact, nor is it good historical materialism. To do so, to quote Cockshott,

This is the fallacy the anarcho-capitalist commits while claiming every capitalist society which has existed so far, is “not real” capitalism due to not being entirely free of regulations, tariffs, or taxes, and thus not comporting with his or her definition of ‘real’ capitalism. The idealist-socialist who admonishes the Soviet Union for not fully abolishing commodity production commits this same fallacy. To again quote Cockshott

While abolition of commodity production is certainly a goal of socialism, one cannot simply define socialism, a priori, to abolish commodity production, and then once imperfect, messy historical reality falls short of this goal, characterize this as ‘not real socialism’. Socialism, like all other systems described by the founders of historical materialism, must be analyzed as it actually came into being and existed in historical reality, not merely in theory. This incredibly weak defense is seized upon and mocked (rightfully so, in my opinion) by opponents of socialism. The failures of the Soviet Union are not irrelevant to socialism, but nor do they preclude the possibility of a reformulated socialism. Instead of being bogged down in endless semantic debates with regards to what constitutes ‘real’ socialism, leftists should instead concentrate on explaining the problems of those societies, why they are more complex than merely being due to ‘socialism’, and what types of solutions and society we actually would like to see.

No they aren't because Marx died before either of them were invented.
thats why we have economic anthropology, created by marx himself: historical materialism
we've been over this

Have you even read marx? He doesn't go over historical materialism in detail in capital, its all about starting with the contradictions of the commodity form and explaining how they unfold into more complex ones

I've always been slightly tempted to get in touch with Cockshott considering he works at the university of glasgow where I'm currently studying but I'm worried that he'll literally just be "to intelligent" for me and he won't think I'll be worth the time.

I know where he's standing in that picture too haha.

A former colleague of mine e-mailed him over his misunderstanding of abstract labor as transhistorical, Cockshott replied something to the effect of "the German misunderstood the Scott" (Adam Smith). He's really not the intellectual you imagine him to be.

You could say that about anything political, whether it's anarchists, Tories, etc. It's true that Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell describe a system without saying how to get there in TANS. That work is based on what they advocated in the late 80s for the USSR. That's not the same as saying that Cockshott never talks about how to go in that direction, however these writings are vague and uncertain. (I don't know any author who writes about that change in a way that is both precise and sane.)
You believe that centralized administration somehow happened and wasn't something ever talked about? Do you think Marx or Lenin had a boner for federalism and decentralizing?
>1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a united, indivisible republic.
>7. All baronial and other feudal estates, all mines, pits etc. shall be converted into state property.
>10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.
>11. All means of transport: railways, canals, steamships, roads, posts etc. shall be taken in hand by the state.
-Demands of the Communist Party in Germany, 1848
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm
-Lenin, State and Revolution
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm

i cant tell if this is shitpost due to flag, take it off if you want to be taken seriously

Are you an academic?

do it, he responds to alot of people, hell he responded to eastern marxist when he was a marxist. if he gives some 15 year old the time of day youll probably be fine.

don't listen to this shitposter.

I did for a brief while but decided against it as I want to normalize it. It really did happen though.

I'm an adjunct

Damn dude. I wasn't concerned enough with this topic to warrant a response that large, but now I would feel bad for you if I just went away without arguing.

One then runs into the question of whether such a system is even diserable for the proletariat. You may verify that a lot of them don't see a difference between being exploited by the bourgeoisie and being exploited by the socialist state. Your ideology is irrelevant to them.
What is desirable is democratic control of the economy. Not control of the economy by the beaurocrats of the state.

This strange idea that an entire class can simply take over the state aparatus, without placing people to do the ruling for them, is ridiculous.
The only way this would be possible is if the state were made up of a federation of workers assemblies, and there were plenty of control mechanisms for the delegates to make sure that they only do what the assemblies decide.
This would, however, be seen as "impractical" by the MLs, who aparently think it is more "practical" to restore a ruling class, as long as that ruling class claims to be communist.

What did you do to him, shebeast?

It's like trying to normalize nazbol. People will eternally be left wondering exactly what layer of irony are you on.

Actually that was a pre written essay i was in the middle of writing, so you didnt actually have to respond. thanks tho
I would argue that it does matter. This is actually pretty good analogy because no one would deny that the inquisitors were christian or inspired by christianity however, we also don't say that the fact of the spanish inquisition barred all possibility of christianity ever being positively interpreted for the rest of time.
Actually the opposite. Its taking responsibility for the failures of socialism, not hiding behind some idea that it wasn't real socialism and therefore socialism isnt responsible.
Yes we have. Most modern socialists even ML's if they read Cockshott are now in favor of direct democracy.
Again, this isn't what we're saying. Just because we are intellectually honest enough to admit that the USSR did represent a failure in classical marxist theory, does not mean we want to re-implement it without any modification.

Is this a "taxation = theft = capitalist exploitation" meme? How will your magic proles fund kindergartens?

Because the anarchist non-bureaucrats of the anarchist non-state are clearly preferable to an honest system.

I don't believe you. Can you give a cite of Analytical Marxism using probalistic models? Furthermore, AM explains a lot from the actions of individual agents and their incentives. This is about as different as it gets.

Again, neoclassical economics explains things based on individual preference and intentions. And it usually assumes diminishing marginal returns, whether that makes sense or not. Econophysics uses probalistic models with conservation laws and people acting randomly.
demonstrations.wolfram.com/StatisticalMechanicsOfMoney/

he alredy got BTFO on that here:

This isn't what we are doing, but I have noticed that people assume that. In fact, our position is even more negative for us, because it says socialism has never been implemented.
I have been trying to break through this by telling people that the USSR was "ideologically socialist", but not "economically socialist". It seems to do the trick.

Good. Maybe this time we won't fuck up as hard as before, then.

Well we do say that too. We say it was an attemp that didn't go well.

I imagine they will do it in a moneyless form, given that communism is moneyless.

Personally, I don't have the habit of dogmatically trying to justify and rationalise the actions of past revolutionaries.

probabilistic models of political economy are still models of political economy. you could just as easily use them to trade stocks and solve economic problems in capitalist society, in the same way neoclassical economics are used. at best it's a replacement for neoclassical economics, but can't ever transcend political economy beause it exists, right now, only in those terms

which is fine, and a fine way to plan a socialist economy if it works, but calling it a revolutionary theory is pure revisionism

Ah, yes! The "after the revolution we are in full communism" koolaid.

Neither to learn from them, it seems.

You realize that labor vouchers can be taxed too? You haven't read Cockshott, for sure.

I've just started, actually.
That's why I still don't really have a position for or against labour vouchers.

WOW I didn't know models are models!

modelling political economy is the opposite of what marx was trying to do!

the lack of coherent arguments is amusing, your butthurt is pretty obvious mate

The Soviet Union was the only genuine socialist revolution that was largely successful and that took 30 years of cuckdem sabotage

Get on our level, faggot

congrats but defending the USSR isnt an actual ideology

Right… Piss off.

Actually it is: Marxism Leninism

JUST

No, Maaxism Leninism is not defending the USSR

But the USSR was ML, though, and most ML's like it

he's critiquing you stupid shit. he's saying "hey this entire field is fucking bullshit"

thats the point. Marxism-Leninism is just defending the USSR, it has no actual theoretical component.

What field, political economy? Because Marx was a social scientist. What do you think, Because Marx btfo classical political economists we can just sit on out hands for all time, not critiquing newer bourgeois economic theory or developing Marxism any further? weak

If you really believe this your'e fucking illiterate. Really? "NO" theoretical component?
Lenin's Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism:
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
Lenin's 'The State and Revolution':
marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf
Stalin's explanation of dialectical materialism:
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
Mao's On contradiction explaining dialectics:
marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm
Mao's On practice:
marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm
Mao's On Guerilla Warfare combining dialectics and military strategy:
marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/
Not only does ML have theory, its some of the most widely read and influential theory there is. Again, adding to this list I would also add Althusser and Post/Althusserian Philosphers such as Badiou, not to mention Cockshott himself. ML is not a dead tendency and it has a metric ton of theory behind it. Do you know how much of leftism is inspired by Lenin's essay on imperialism? a lot. Just because you have a political grudge against ML doesn't mean it has "no theory"…

YOU CANT STOP THE IMMORTAL SCIENCE OF MARXISM-LENINISM-COCKSHOTTISM!

First one: Marx btfo classical political economists, replacing their political economy with new political economy fucking defeats the point

Second point:
M-Ls don't fucking own Lenin or even Mao for that matter. Lenin rules and I look to him on all things State and Imperial. Mao's "On Contradiction" is admittedly excellent but is distinct from Lenin's dialectics.

Stalin's dialectical & historical materialism is full of theoretical errors and mostly useful as an example of being wrong.

Are you really saying we need to stop all Marxian economics, because Marx refuted not just bourgeois economic theory, but the need for any economic theory at ALL? This is silly, the whole point of leftist economic theory is to critique capitalism, how is more of it 'defeating the point'?
Lenin and Mao are ok, but Stalin is bad? nice cognitive dissidence there, Lenin and Stalin agreed on most things and Mao was also a Stalin fanboy. Its pretty inconceivable that you'd like both of them but not Stalin, even Mao himself said Stalin got things 60% right. ML is a whole tradition which includes a ton of thinkers, saying its dumb because you don't like one is a silly reason to dismiss the entire tradition. Just as Lenin expanded Marx and Engels, Then there was Stalin who largely continued Lenin, writing a pretty essential Text, "The Foundations of Leninism", also his 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR'. Mao expanded Marx, Lenin and Stalin, though he critiqued them he was also an extension of ML.
Saying MLs don't own Lenin or Mao is ridiculous, seeing as both of those people actually were ML's.
citation needed

Why do you feel the need to tell the world all these opinions about works you haven't read?

lool

this is your brain on tanks

shut up tankie bitch. my opinion is on ML as a theory

and for that matter

???? wat

His philosophy is the foundation for Marxism-LENINISM, its literally named after him because its based on his philosophy.
PIC RELATED

by that logic, this makes Marx a Marxist-Leninst but also a Libertarian Marxist. do you see how fucking stupid you sound?

congrats on your wikipedia introduction-tier understanding both i suppose

also the concept of "marxian economics" is the most fucking absurdly revisionist shit i've ever heard. it's funny that hte guys who are obsessed with being anti-revisionist misunderstand marx this badly

read gothakritik retards

wew
its on wikipedia because its common knowledge. OR do you deny that Mao took the works of marx/engels, lenin, and STALIN as starting points in his own work? this is simply common historical knowledge.
We have, and so has Cockshott, which you would know if you bothered to read him.
Marx wanted to write 12 books about political economy unfortunately he died after writing vol 1. while vol 2/3 were edited together from his notes by Engels. As a result a lot of the things such as world trade, finance, and crisis theory weren't covered adequately in capital. Thus there is a need for Marxists to expand and complete his economic theory. For example the issue of the transformation problem, the transformation of values into prices is incomplete and logically inconsistent in Marx's original work because he died before working it out.

Do you really think any developments to Marx's critique of Capitalism which happened after he died are "absurdly revisionist shit"?

No, but he offers something more important. How to organize a socialist society.

For anyone joining just now, heres a TLDR of this thread so far.
this kid (OP) got BTFO by the tankies and now hes assmad.
slapped down
slapped down
slapped down
slapped down
slapped down by lenin, stalin, mao, etc.
slapped down by history
t. the supreme brainlet

OPs salt in this thread is fucking hilarious he cant admit he just got literally BTFO in like 12 different ways. I'm seriously considering screen capping this thread.

t. never read a single line from Lenin, Trotsky, Mao

dude if you screencap yourself claiming Lenin was a Marxist-Leninist it'll just be a self-own you fucking dipshit. also it seems impossible to me that youre not understanding my point on neoclassical/econophysical models but you must really be that stupid

makes you think

anyway thread proves in addition to no theory tankies think they can copy paragraphs that dont address my points and assume they won. pretty epic. stupid people, would avoid engaging with

...

Lenin wasn't a Leninist?….. Yeah, he wasn't technically an "ML" because Stalin invented the term ML, however most of ML is again, based on Lenins theoretical work to begin with such as his theory of imperialism etc. this is again a minor semantic point.
No, you're too stupid to realize when you got BTFO on that point by multiple people:

What do you think Marx spent 3 volumes of capital doing? Just criticizing smith and ricardo and nothing else? making a model of capitalism. A model is just an abstract representation of how the system works, Marx as well as all the other classical political economists, described actually existing capitalism, I mean the three volumes of Capital are literally Marx explaining the commodity, value, price, etc. How is this not a model of a capitalist economy? The difference is his model has conclusions which are negative about capitalism while the neoclassical/bourgeois ones have conclusions that are positive.
Academic Agent, is that you?

Dude, you're so illiterate it hurts. For the love of God, read anything
Here:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf

dude stop you are humiliating yourself

Yes.

No.

This is fundamentally mistaken. The difference is in methodology (dialectical), not conclusions. Jesus fucking christ.

Yeah Marx has a different method, as well as having radically different conclusions from the other classical political economists. Why are these two things contradictory? Also saying his epistemology is what separates him from other economists, there are different epistemological approaches, for example the Austrian School of economics.
Oh yeah, Marx totally had the same conclusions about capitalism as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Walras, Keynes, Friedman, and Hayek. Absolutely no difference in conclusions there.

SHUT UP JACK, IVE READ ALL THREE VOLUMES OF CAPITAL
ALL THREE

Welp looks like thats the debate folks. To give a short short TLDRL
t. Jordan Peterson
t. user who made this thread

night, folks

stop talking to yourself weirdo

this is the bottom of the barrel in assmad
stay mad kid

lmao nice job with this thread OP

...