user, why aren't you cybersocialist/futureleft yet? computerized planning is literally the only realistic way to implement a labor voucher system for a modern industrialized economy. And even if you produce directly for use, cybernetic techniques would still play a huge role in directly efficiently planning the economy.
The efficiency of technocracy, but also has direct democracy so its classless.
Come on user, join us. We have cookies. And Cockshott books. And electronic labor vouchers.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
marxists.org
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu
marxists.org
investopedia.com
youtu.be
marxists.org
marxists.org
twitter.com
Planned economy is okay for the basics, for everything else it's retarded. As is direct democracy until university level of education is available to everyone.
Because it sounds like state capitalist planning but with computers. Which sounds nothing like what I want.
no thanks.
decided to actually have a glance at this in spite of cuckshit's past in stalinist organizations with stalinist apologetics (even supporting the khmer rouge, rofl: en.wikipedia.org
>Here we base ourselves on the classical Marxist analysis of society. In Marx’s view, the most basic distinguishing feature of different modes of social organisation is the manner in which they ensure the ‘extraction of a surplus product’ from the direct producers. This requires a little explanation. The ‘necessary product’, on this theory, is the product required to maintain and reproduce the workforce itself. This will take the form of consumer goods and services for the workers and their families, and the investment in plant, equipment and so on that is needed simply to maintain the society’s means of production in working order. The ‘surplus product’, on the other hand, is that portion of social output used to maintain the non-producing members of society (a heterogeneous lot, ranging from the idle rich, to politicians, to the armed forces, to retired working people), plus that portion devoted to net expansion of the stock of means of production.
theoretically weak, particularly the bolded part. it is not the rate of exploitation that is different for each social organisation for marx at all. it is the fact that exploitation exists at all. profit is only derived because society is organised for production of profit. if you centralize the means of production and abolish exchange (if you ACTUALLY do it), so that profit is impossible, then you can create another mode of production, not one that is orientated for production of commodities that are produced for exchange.
again, pretty crap. exploitation isn't invisible – people know that they are being fucked over, especially as the rate of exploitation increases and the nature of wage-labour becomes more apparent.
>Soviet socialism, particularly following the introduction of the first five-year plan under Stalin in the late 1920s, introduced a new and non-capitalist mode of extraction of a surplus. This is somewhat obscured by the fact that workers were still paid ruble wages, and that money continued in use as a unit of account in the planned industries, but the social content of these ‘monetary forms’ changed drastically.
belongs to a utopian trash can – why is he talking about this "non-capitalist mode of extraction of surplus", it doesn't make any fucking difference, the USSR still produced for exchange because they still had generalized commodity production. stalin even admits this in his economic problems of the USSR in 1951 where he says:
something is seriously wrong when the "leader" of a """socialist""" country is arguing against engels in anti-dühring. stalin also says this:
cockshott elaborates about this "non-capitalist mode of extraction of surplus", saying this:
how laughable this is. why then did marx criticize Lassalle for talking of the "undiminished proceeds of labour" in the critique of the gotha programme? you can't have production for exchange with "the full compensation of one's own labor". it's almost like the authors of this book are wrong, and are looking to falsify marx for their own gain. marx elaborates and talks a little bit about what communism (or socialism, if you want to call it that) looks like further in CotGP. most importantly however he says this:
>Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution.
remind me why we take this guy seriously again? the MLs i would understand but the rest of the board?
and stop shilling for this guy holy shit. there is already several threads on this subject. becoming almost as insufferable as bookchinposters.
to specify it is here the productive relationship and whether it involves exploitation, and in what form. of course the feudal mode knew exploitation, but it was limited to direct dominion over the serfs, while the rest of the property was communal. industrial revolutions then created an independent bourgeois middle class, which gradually enclosed and socialised all production with its various revolutions (key one being the english revolution) and now exploitation was generalized, but in contractual, wage-laboring form. what comes after capitalism can only meaningfully be without exploitation: the aim is to abolish the capitalist private property relationship which is at the core of the capitalist mode of production, this ultimately includes also the state if it is the last large private proprietor.
Enjoying reading this for the sake of criticism but I'd really like some citations regarding Marx's view on what distinguishes modes of production (and given that I'm shit at reading large volumes I'm almost forced to be a 'help vampire' to understand this while I can keep my attention). However, I'm pretty sure that it is known that the 'socialist' system which Cockshott is proposing is actually transitory as it is with many MLs. Also bump for interest.
The "socialism" he proposes seems to be capitalism but with the state taking the surplus value.
So advanced socdem.
there are many. for marx the basic definition of capitalism is generalized commodity production, which comes through the spreading of private property. throughout most of the world this happened as the rising bourgeois middle class in feudalism became powerful through a thing called primitive accumulation; the privatization of previously (usually feudal) modes of communal ownership through either violent or legal enclosure. the purpose of this was to enable primitive accumulation, the first instance in which freshly privatized property starts to produce commodities. then followed the socialization of individuals, previously peasants and serfs, into this private property as proletarians (defined as "propertyless", it is important that proletarian this way is not synonymous to "worker"), while those who hold ownership are solidified as the bourgeois (propertied) class. this already existed in minor form, but the largest influence on this was the industrial revolution, which made such endeavors highly profitable (machines, unlike land, could be used to truly discipline production, whereas most other forms of means of production had really strict limits) thus upsurging the speed at which the bourgeois middle class could form and become influential. what followed was the increased irrelevance of feudal lords, either becoming mere representative characters for a national capital, getting violently overthrown or sometimes asserting themselves as legitimate and taking on the capitalist mode of production in mercantile form for as long as possible, e.g. through absolutist regimes (basically the non-voluntary form of rule as it was under feudalism, but with the productive relationship producing commodities, this is a less developed type of capitalism known as mercantilism). this guy explains it pretty well: youtu.be
yes, cockshott is a ML, and so his idea of socialism is the "transitional society" idea. but the point is, all he is concerned with is how to make this transitional society "socialism" last as long as possible. he not just forgets to check "is this more than just capitalism except with a cyber-state centralized production?" but what this can lead to. look at the USSR: was the problem the fact that this "socialism" did not work? of course not. it worked great to industrialize russia. but did it show a sign of going anywhere else? no, it didn't. and as such the politics just developed into making sure it kept going on and on. nobody with a "transitional society" like this has done anything but ultimately just disintegrate into regular capitalism, because that's really what it is at the end. so at best cockshott will give us perpetual state capitalism with computers that shows no sign of going anywhere beyond that at some point (not inherently, but cockshott doesn't talk about anything more than this "transitional society" in itself). oh wow.
btw i think this is a good and short section of a text: marxists.org
>>In Marx’s view, the most basic distinguishing feature of different modes of social organisation is the manner in which they ensure the ‘extraction of a surplus product’ from the direct producers.
Did you get your Marx education via "left communists" on tumblr? The parts you quote are the most generic basic Marx stuff: Feudalism is not capitalism. When the serf had to do work for the lord, the amount of surplus extraction was more simple and transparent than with being employed in a huge group of people only doing a very few steps in the production of a thing and having choice between different employers.
Because if all work goes into producing consumable stuff and all that stuff is only consumed by those who do work, this leaves out people to young or old for work, the sick and the disabled, it leaves out trial-and-error work that goes into developing technology, it leaves out work going increasing productive capacity and work going into the maintenance of having any sort of buffer stock for surviving bad harvests, accidents, and natural desasters. That is exactly what Cockshott means by making sure there is surplus production and that the surplus not going entirely to the individual worker to get flimflam with. And you are complaining about surplus existing in the system proposed in TANS? You don't seem to understand the standard Marxist usage of the term surplus.
In other words: Exploitation was more transparent. Which is what Cockshott is saying.
...
...
...
nice picture
Have to lol @ al lthe leftcom butthurt ITT
basically boils down to,
Cockshott is/was Stalinist in the 70s
USSR didn't abolish commodity production.
Cockshottism is just ML with computers
Here the answer:
1) Regardless of his past, Cockshott's current ideas on direct democracy, cybernetic planning etc would have been considered deviationist in the USSR and so he really can't be called a Stalinist any longer. people can change their minds over time and cockshott's TANS was largely a response to the collapse of the USSR to begin with, one can hardly have an intellectually honest reading of the totality of TANS and actually come away with the impression that it's some unreconstructed Stalinist screed, quite the opposite.
2)waffling over definition of mode of production.
as this guy alluded to:
Most marxists including people like Wolff at the total other end of the planned economy spectrum would agree that marx did define MOP to be different types of ways of allocating the social surplus. Fuedalism had a surplus, slavery had a surplus, this is nothing but tumblr tier faux leftcomism. As a side note all of leftcomisms obsession with the commodity form is just a neohegelian misreading of capital anyway which places the commodity as the most important thing, the fundamental category of marx is surplus labor not surplus value. In any case its irrelevant since arguably labor vouchers abolish the commodity form anyway. The antis got BTFO on this and multiple other things in thread after thread yet here they are again
Anyway all of this deals with the first couple chapters where Cockshott argues that ussr was socialist, which isn't even the most important part of the book. Regardless of whether you want to say his definition of USSR as socialist is right its kindof irrelevant since his main contributions are to refuting the Austrian ECP.
3) BTW its not all leftcoms that disagree with labor vouchers, the only ones who would really disagree with it are the communization ones, bordigism and for that matter councilcom are actually compatible with cockshottism to begin with.
It sounds like you never read past chapter 3 in TANS before you had an autistic spergout, try reading the whole book in particular chapter on democracy and you will see cockshott is no Stalinist.
t.
Google Bookchin
is bookchin against labor vouchers?
Not particularly, he acknowledges them in passing, but Communalism doesn't use them.
Instead you contribute all you can to society and in exchange withdrawal all you need from society. No need for labor vouchers.
Hold up here, labor vouchers can be apart of the political program, it's just not the maximum political program. The eventuality is freely given goods and fully voluntary labor, but labor vouchers do not go against the political program as a transitional step
...
Sorry but i disagree then whether labor vouchers or something else, you kindof need rationing.
The thing i never understood about the anti labor voucher/anti rationing people is, do you guys really think i should just be able to walk into any store and loot the place freely? What if me and my buddies while drunk take over the liquor isle and decide we need 24 cases of beer and all of the hard liquor and shove it into 12 shopping carts and run out of the store with it? Now the store has to wait like a week in order to restock and no one else has beer? Even in falc i dont see this as viable, i mean, whats gonna happen even with unlimited production which isnt realistic, goods still need to be transported, for example, which takes time. services are usually done by people. its impossible that 100% unlimited goods and services are available to you 24/7, even under capitalism for a price, much less under socialism for free so obviously some sort of rationing is needed. So what exactly is the 'realistic' alternatives to labor vouchers?
t. dumbass
Wtf. I'm literally sitting next to my copy of "The Philosophy of Social ecology
Labor Vouchers really depend on the size of the community tbh
Alright, here's how I would handle it.
Each citizen would get a secure ID number that identifies how much that citizen has withdrawn from society.
Using AI and central planning you can calculate how much of any category a citizen needs to survive, and then throw on a good couple extra percent for a comfortable margin. This allows the citizen to have the same freedom to select whatever they want, without the wage labor.
If I have to work a certain number of hours per week to afford to live in exchange for a medium of exchange, then it is wage labor.
Couple it with a cultural pressure on withdrawing only what you need, and you have a practical scalable solution that follows Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Not an argument.
Well then maybe you should open it ;^)
Please by all means, where does bookchin, janet biehl, ocalan or any other social ecologist demonize or completely disregard labor vouchers.
...
But this is basically almost exactly what Cockshott says except without calling it labor vouchers. Cockshott goes over taxing the labor vouchers to pay for social programs. Presumably that could include UBI of a sort once high levels of automation are reached. The only difference is that Cockshotts system meters production in terms of labor time but yours doesn't. I mean even in a central planning AI system you still need to measure the natural resources, skilled and unskilled labor time that goes into everything in order to optimize production. There's this misconception that under a labor voucher system you must work to eat, but the thing is, this isnt true - you can tax labor vouchers and redistribute them for public services, depending on what people vote for and are willing to pay
You're fucking clueless but okay.
So social democracy?
You're not making fucking arguments but okay.
No because in social democracy it is still private capitalism but with redistribution, there is still surplus value and taxes only take a small part of that, in cockshotts system its not tax revenue per se which is being directed, but the social surplus is directly being allocated.
But yes, even and perhaps especially under socialism/communism we will do collective management of essential core services such as health and education, or do you deny this is the case?
furthermore the "taxed" revenue would be spent on directly for use public services (health, transport, etc)
So social democracy with worker owned MoP and no private property?
Well what if we collectivize everything instead user?
I feel bad for Holla Forums being this delusional
Then leave nigger.
everything is already collectivized, thats the point of socialism. I'm just saying there is effectively no difference between this system:
And Cockshott's, except that one calls the credits labor tokens and the other doesn't. They effectively the same thing in practice.
Labor vouchers are used for articles of private consumption aka wants, needs are paid for out of the social surplus of taxed labor vouchers aka production for use of needs.
Social democracy is still capitalism, in labor vouchers you have abolished the circuit of capital and exploitation so no, its not social democracy.
No, because one requires you to accumulate a certain number of hours of work per week to be able to eat.
The other has no such requirement, and only serves the function of ensuring that resources are not over withdrawn. Workers work as much as they can, but can rest easy knowing that if they cannot work they can still eat.
First of all, why is this such a problem especially in a situation of a planned economy where there's full employment? And in any case this isn't even entirely true because as has been mentioned before, there is a portion of the social surplus given to people who cant/dont work such as students, retired, etc. Again, if there is a 'socialist ubi' that people vote for, this doesn't have to be the case anyway.
Again, to what extent/level would be directly democratically voted on by the workers themselves.
Again, this is covered by Cockshott. Please actually read that book (the whole thing, not just chapters 1-3) to see why this is wrong.
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu
its only 200 pages.
Start reading the thread anytime:
Currency is rape RRRRREEEEEEEEEEEE STATE CAPITAL CUCKS GTFO
It's not wages user, it's ~labor vouchers~, that's why it's socialism and not capitalism
>On the basis of socialised production the scale must be ascertained on which those operations — which withdraw labour-power and means of production for a long time without supplying any product as a useful effect in the interim — can be carried on without injuring branches of production which not only withdraw labour-power and means of production continually, or several times a year, but also supply means of subsistence and of production. Under socialised as well as capitalist production, the labourers in branches of business with shorter working periods will as before withdraw products only for a short time without giving any products in return; while branches of business with long working periods continually withdraw products for a longer time before they return anything. This circumstance, then, arises from the material character of the particular labour-process, not from its social form. In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.
-Marx.
marxists.org
the use of terms tax and ubi is an analogy here, obviously its not the same as tax under capitalism, its simply directly allocating the social surplus.
wages are bad because they are extracting surplus values from the workers, a labor voucher is the full fruit of their labor. labor vouchers are non transferable while currency can be reinvested into a MCM circuit of capital. labor vouchers abolish the commodity because you can only transfer them for commodities, not the other way around thus they have no exchange value. read marx you illiterate chode, particularly gotha critique
...
butthurt leftcoms ITT
this. this is what ive been fucking saying.
MARX WAS IN FAVOR OF LABOR VOUCHERS, ANYONE WHO SAYS HE WASN'T HASNT READ MARX.
That's where you're wrong kiddo.
I'm a Libertarian Communist with Communalist Characteristics.
Any form of Socialism that involve mediums of exchange, regardless of the degrees of delusion required to believe that they are not currency, are not Socialism in my opinion.
Marx wasn't all seeing and all knowing. He expressed views that I disagree with, and many that I do agree with.
Also detecting some major samefagging ITT.
There will be a future society resembling communism, but
1.) they won't call it that
2.) none of us will be living in it
once we do reach full automation what use does the soylent clique have for keeping us around? There will be an extermination event and they will live peacefully above the ashes. Class antagonism will be resolved, but not in the way we'd like.
You are coming up with your own secret meanings for standard terms of lefty conversation, you are making up your own private language. Of course you can't make sense of what other people are saying, and not because you are better at logic, but because you are equivocation-cucking yourself.
Again for the last time, labour vouchers are not 'mediums of exchange'. You are autistically insistent that anytime something changes hands, it is an 'exchange'.
In order to be a commodity, something must have an:
—EXHANGE VALUE—
which is the RATIO at which commodities exchange with other commodities. In other words you have to be able to convert one into the other and vice versa. A labor voucher has no exchange value, because you can't covert commodities into labor vouchers. Again, if we take this thing here:
By your autistic standards, any sort of rationing token, based on labor or otherwise would be 'currency' since you 'exchange' it for the collectively produced goods.
Honestly go fuck yourself you snobby cunt.
I'll be back tomorrow, it's too late to argue over this shit right now.
nice try, the allocation of labor vouchers between private consumption and social services is done prior to them being given out. At that point, the ones for private consumption are non transferable
Also this sounds like a special snowflake ideology you got from reading wikipedia articles, i doubt you have read marx
Christ alive you people are impossible to argue with.
If you took your exact same labor vouchers and put a dollar sign on the end of them they would be capital to you. But since it has the name 'labor', can't be accumulated or transferred (despite being taxable and redistributable somehow?), and doesn't have a set value it isn't a medium of exchange.
>investopedia.com
Yeah actually. Pretty much.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Literally when?
When I use the term medium of exchange?
I'm using a widely accepted definition. See
There are actually several of us on this board, many just use terms like ancom or communalist as there isn't really a good term to describe a merging of multiple authors.
I doubt you have read anything besides Marx.
But user, if workers get paid the full value of their labor in vouchers, how come there still will be surplus products to be extracted from their labor as proposed here?
then how will you deal with situations like this:
???
without any rationing?
so what, falc is the only true communism?
also quoting investopedia to refute Marx. this is really theorylet tier. basically one step removed from Ancaps quoting google dictionary to 'refute' leftist distinction between private property and personal property
see:
The workers directly democratically vote on what level their labor vouchers will be taxed and what it will be spent on. So they get the full value of their labor, just in an in-kind form. For example public healthcare. It ultimately goes back to the workers, its just that they collectively on how much of their labor is for collective action and on what. You sound like you want mutualism or something
Seems awful complicated when you could instead remove the whole concept of labor vouchers and instead directly allocate labor and resources. Really kills a lot of unnecessary extra steps.
No reason to get nit-picky over a simple semantic issue. See I suppose your beef with is
One can call that the full fruit after deductions for the infirm etc are made. This isn't the same as capitalism, because the etc doesn't contain a boss class. In a sense you can say that the working class as a whole gets the full fruit; though, you might as well say if there is no more than one class, there really is no class at all. Again, it would be pointless semantic games. Like the whole world becoming a nation or there being no nations at all since nations by definition have borders, it's just different ways of talking about the same concept and being a wanker.
So it's basically social democracy but with more voting. Right
You can't use them to obtain means of production and employees working with that and then squeeze surplus out of these employees. Big difference.
'unnecessary steps'
in a complicated industrial system involving long chains of production, 'directly allocating' labor and resources in something really fucking complicated, you're stuck in the 1830s or something where we're a small farming community thats can just sit down at the weekly town meeting and decide how many cows to milk or w/e. How can managing a modern economy that capitalism has created even be remotely close to possible without computers and shit?
...
t. Kruschev
ITT 4 'Radical' succdems try to everyone they aren't succdems
Honestly cuckshott is worse then Sanders
the user who posted that implied rationing.
that implies there will be some sort of (presumably electronic) rationing account. Its not just unlimited shit
samefag detected
Really, this is the level of discourse we have fallen too? By your standards Marx, Engels, Bordiga, Pannekoek, and pretty much every 19th century socialism was a 'succdem'.
Well of course in times of scarcity things will need to be rationed. How does a labor voucher system change scarcity?
If you consider labor vouchers, self described UBI, and taxes as fully implemented Communism, then yes, you are a succdem.
it doesn't, but rationing systems actually deal with this reality unlike your post scarcity utopia
EVERY TIME, IS A TIME OF SCARCITY
from the time man crawled out of the primordial ooze, to today, there are not enough resources on planet earth, it is finite, and in todays age of industrialism, natural resource use must be metered even harder due to environmental concerns. this is the primary problem of all economics and political economy.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING, AS POST SCARCITY, AND EVERY SYSTEM WITH SCARCITY NEEDS RATIONING OF ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.
read some theory you brainlet. No one ever said labor vouchers are full communism.
>marxists.org
>>Distribution in the communist system
What you and Bukharin propose is more bureaucratic than a system of one type of consumption vouchers. Consider the following: If you have specialized vouchers / separate consumption limits for different categories, then it can happen that Mr X hits his consumption limit for category A while Mr Y hits his limit for category B, with Mr X having a superfluous consumption allowance for stuff of category B and would want more of A, while for Mr Y it is the other way around. Isn't that silly? They might swap a bunch of items if they know each other, but how do you handle it when person X wants what Y has and Y wants what Z has and Z wants what X has? I guess if you subscribe to neoclassical economics you can just assume that everybody has perfect knowledge and these cyclical swaps instantly happen whenever in line with preferences, but let's leave such models to people who smoke crack. Realistically, for a given pile of different things the general voucher system allows you more freedom to choose.
That's true. It's not even half communism, just capitalism with a new name
...
Now this is a genuinely good rebuttal. Well worded, and points out a plausible situation that would regularly happen, and shows the advantages of the proposed labor voucher system.
Thank you user.
Oh the irony. How can you be so adament voucher=monnies, even when explained the major differences ? Yeah, you could put a dollar sign on it, and still couldn't exchange it or invest it with anyone else, and it still wouldn't be money
I think it's time to stop trying to argue with a saging retard who can't into reading and can only use buzzword and guilt by association "u succdem"
LABOUR VOUCHERS AREN'T CAPITALIST BECAUSE THEY DON'T RESULT IN M-C-M YOU DUMB LEFTCOMS
Hey OP I was a teenager once as well, but then I grew up.
Futurism is a gigantic waste of time. If you haven't noticed, scientific progress has slowed down massively. All of the "innovation" is in the form of useless fucking apps that "disrupt" shit we already had.
Futurism/Transhumanism/Technocracy
it's all bullshit.
Citation needed
Just look at biotech. An area that was supposed to have exploded with advancements 20 years ago.
Look at our anti-biotics crisis.
Look at our rockets.
Yeah, nah. I'm gonna need more than "look at that" to support the idea that scientific discovery is slowing down.
i used to be part of the futurism blog community and i remember back in 2007 people talking about all the new breakthroughs that were just around the corner. 10 years later and the biggest change we've had is cellphones getting thinner.
now go back to >>>/x/ where you belong.
cybersocialism is just planning socialist economy using computers not some crazy sci fi fantasy, its achievable with current technology
That's still not citation
Idiot just because you don't directly observe scientific discoveries happening in your everyday life doesn't mean they're not.
There are thousands of successful research projects conducted every year, the results of which mostly just get published in scientific and university journals because the majority of the public don't have the knowledge or interest to understand the significance of them.
Nice strawman, dipshit. No one cares about "discoveries" that have little impact beyond academia.
We're talking real world applications, the only thing that matters.
Now fuck off >>>/x/
...
list major ones that have happened in the last 10 years
no they're not, that's my entire point.
Off the top of my head
sounds like utopian bullshit
Is not because of people like you that we will make this future a reality. You will sit in an armchair while we invent the shit we need.
...
...
If this has any real world applications it won't be within our life times. It's purely an academic discovery. Astronomers were already working with the assumption that it was real anyways.
Complete meme. It's one of the branches from AI that AI engineers came up with to justify their existence since they had been promising huge AI breakthroughs for decades and had come up empty.
If this has any real world applications it won't be within our life times. It's purely an academic discovery. Astronomers were already working with the assumption that it was real anyways.
Nothing new there. The only reason we don't have reuseable rockets by now is because government space funding was pulled back massively since we went to the moon.
meme bullshit with no real world applications outside of labs.
teenager detected
Marx was being extremely Utopian in that passage. I understand what he means when he says that the vouchers are not money but I also notice he neglected to think through how these vouchers would be utilized. He simply ignores the problem and leaves it up to the society to decide, as if this were a simple matter of political will and not material incentives. This is probably due to the act that these are unfinished notes which is also why people should stop citing them as an authority.
wew
Why does Rojava use money then? Does Democratic Confederalism only use the political aspect of Communalism (Libertarian Municipalism) and not the economics?
Democratic confederalism isn't the same as Bookchin's Western communalism. The former is specifically intended to by applied organically to the context of the Middle East and the war there, and the latter is specifically intended for the context of the United States. Something a lot of people don't understand about communalism, is that it isn't a rigid ideology, but that it is a process to be applied through dialectical naturalism according to the ecological, cultural, and historical context of specific places. Communalism in the ME will look different than communalism in the US, which will look different than communalism in Europe, etc.
Does Bookchin wrote anything about how communalism would look like in Europe?
You would have to reason with dialectical naturalism to determine that. It would be different depending on where in Europe you're talking about.
Err, those are very cheap mini satellites actually in use.
This has fuckall to do with utopianism. It's a matter of definitions. The distinction between vouchers and money stems from how Marx defines those concepts. These vouchers surely have something to do with material incentives, since you get more for working more. It is not the only passage in Marx and Engels where these vouchers come up, see also Critique of the Gotha Program. The way they talk about it is consistent.
It's Utopian in every sense of that word. As a materialist, I don't care about how Marx or anyone else defines labor vouchers. I care about how they would actually be developed and used in day to day life.
Did you forget about quorum sensing attacks and genetic engineering attacks on bacteria?
Like seriously… the CRISPR revolution is here. They're already beginning to eradicate certain diseases with it. CF has less than 10 years left on this Earth.
We've got re-usable orbital boosters now. That's a big fucking deal.
Forget to mention this footnote from Capital Volume 1:
marxists.org
That should be enough to show that Marx was consistent in his distinction between labor vouchers and money.
How is it possible to have a sensible discussion about concepts you don't share the definitions of? When it is clear somebody has a different definition, you do understand that arguments working from your personal secret definition don't necessarily make sense to them? Equivocation is a logical fallacy.
If by that you mean that you do understand the money-voucher distinction by Marx, but think that building such a system as a mere legal act would be easily subverted (like paper tokens with declarations about what is not allowed printed on them, enacted without asking how popular the idea is, without any means of checking whether people follow the instructions, nor means of punishing criminals), then you are of course right. But that is not what Marx or Cockshott or anybody in this thread so far has proposed. See above quote. Vouchers are not to be introduced into capitalism. The context for their introduction is society after the expropriation of the means of production by a huge and popular movement.
bump
sorry, kid. It's neo-Hegelian fascist vaporwave or nothing
He has a point tho, in as much as it's looking increasingly likely that mankind won't live to see the end of capitalism.
Bemp
Fuck off
Does anybody have the image of jimmy dore pointing to cockshott's towards a new socialism?
what makes you so mad?
...
Bump
Made me vomit inside.
What exactly is revolting to you about it?
Bump