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.
Cockshott and ML
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
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!