Cockshott Started a Youtube Channel

e.g.

how do Marxists keep getting suckered into arguing this shit when this kind of conclusive proof already exists?

Good to see him active again, he was one of the better posters on revleft back when it was still good. He needs to actually watch his own videos though, he's practically whispering in the LTV video.

excuse me what?

He posted openly on revleft prior to 2013. I thought this was common knowledge.

God I would do things to that woman just because of her accent, I don't know what makes it so God damn sexy.

who was techno tripfag?

Lay off the weed and do some research in the real world one of these days

because most marxists are mathematically illiterate and justify their belief in the LTV based on 150 year old quasi hegelian nonsense instead of modern empirical justifications made by cockshott and hegel. Marx had genius intuitions about political economy but its only recently that hard evidence for the LTV became available. Learn some math and read Classical Econophysics by cockshott and also read shaikh

Is it bad that I use these as ASMR?

What a time to be alive

I eagerly await Cockshots first shitpost.

I take it that was a typo?

he's on Discord?

I want to see him debate somehow. He explians things so well and concise.

tbh i didn't think much of attaching that gif to it i just wanted to share it here at some point

Just imagine the things the Politburo will do for the bants

he's on fucking Discord?
i almost want to guess he's shitposting here alongside us at that point

next time some brainlet comes to shill their youtube channel and does "why won't marxists debate us" we should direct them to get cockshott

yeah i meant and shaikh

Fucking based.

Cockschott isn’t a communist. He’s just applying cybernetics to the science of commodity management.

Does that make him any less right?

Cyber stalinism is the future. It doesn't matter. The dialectic is in motion. All we have to do is seize Amazon and Google and our victory is assured.

...

What makes him not a communist?

I don't really see how this is true if he's advocating abolishing market relations between firms in favour of direct allocation and calculation in kind.

I don't want to sound rude, but you are missing a crucial point, best articulated by Varoufakis recently: economics isn't a science, it is a field of propaganda. In other words: you could prove the LTV empirically, with data, math in under 5 minutes, and you already lost 80% of your audience, while your theoretical enemy utters 2 catch phrases (free market, trickle down, whatever) backed by the bourgeois culture machine and he "won" the debate.

Ok, whatever. I don't want to start another pointless philosophical debate with a STEMfag, so let me just close with saying that winning over that 80% will require critical thinking, critique of ideology, insights into the current cultural sphere, which requires hegelian faggotry as well. Marx didn't by coincidence came from the intellectual background, it is not a coincidence that he does materialist dialectics, similarly with Lenin (and his philo studies).

Having read TaNS I found your notion that we're still talking about commodities (in the Marxist sense) in his proposed system problematic. It's an alternative (arguably non-market) model for allocating products and resources.

He uploaded this just 8 hours ago:
Polarisation of capital
youtube.com/watch?v=tJsHbqdZ6zs

found the autistic leftcom. Basically, Cockshott simply organizes society based on what Marx wrote in critique of the gotha program, but using computers. If you disagree with cockshott you basically disagree with Marx, at least with regards to this (labor vouchers). The only way to think labour vouchers are still commodities is through some hegelian-leftcom brainlet tier unorthodox reading like Dauve's.

But a dialectical interpretation of capital doesn't work, or at least, doesn't justify an LTV. This has been acknowledged by both scholars of Hegel and some left learning economists like steve keen There's no way to derive the idea that labor is the source of value from the opposition of use and exchange value (or use value and value), its an outside assumption that marx takes from smith/ricardo and just inserts into the theory ad hoc. Dialectical materialism is really impossible because trying to apply universal hegelian philosophical categories to a material reality which is contingent is like trying to fit a square block into a round hole. Marx has to be read as a non Hegelian to even come close to making his analysis fit with his stated goals and assumtions

...

It's not really a leftcom thing in general though, as only "communisation" theorists like Dauve actually hold such a position. What Cockshott proposes isn't actually that different from the positions held by both Bordiga and Pannekoek in this particular regard.

Do you consider lab.vouch. to be commodities? If so, why?

I don't. I was stating that such a position isn't universal among leftcoms.

I understand.

(checked)
Send him link to Holla Forumscatalog.html
Telo him to bring memes.

What servers is he in?

What discord? Link?

He explains everything it with clarity and economic sense.

paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/the-desire-for-a-convergence-of-heterosexuality/

I've seen him on the FinnishBolshevik's discord, he's not very active but he has answered a few questions.

Savage. I really need to read TANS already.

I fucking swear I had a website with list of TANS translations, even a links to .pdfs. A few weeks ago.

Is there anyone who have a link? I forgot to save it. ;_;

All I have is from ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

Towards new socialism translation

how will neoliberals ever recover?

This actually surprised me, there are no studies measuring (or purporting to measure) demand and supply somehow?

Well, it's sort of useful in microeconomics, you know, when you run a business and all that. But it's a useless model for macroeconomics and political economy.

FFS what is this nonsense? Yeah just go tell Venezuela that supply and demand isn't relevant to macro, OH WAIT THAT'S WHAT THEY ACTUALLY THINK AND IT'S THE REASON THEY'RE EXPERIENCING MASSIVE SHORTAGES.

Fuck off, I was talking about the supply and demand curve as an explanatory model. Not the fact that supply and denabd matters, especially when you have shortages

demand*

I sure love our current shortage of high quality products, breadlines in supermarkets and critical shortage of jobs.

lul whatever makes you sleep better at night

If you are a real, old-school social democrat and not some opportunist cuck, you'd know that most traditional big SocDem parties actually did have socialism or even communism as the endgoal in their party program, some still do.

The only difference is that they want to do it via reforms, which is exactly what Venezuela is doing

Neoclassical mainstream economics is literally just a huge farce that the neoliberal establishment has been pushing for the past 50 years. .

I'm curious about which policies are you talking about. Importing fuckton of food and products and redistributing them among population is social democracy at it best.

Um no sweetie socdems evolved to be reconciled with capitalism ages ago.

Wrong. Or if they do, the ""socialism"" they're calling for is some hand wavy wishy washy bs like Blair's "democratic socialism" which meant absolutely nothing, not socialism as typified by the USSR.

Weak argument. Even the USSR imported grain from the West. Where should I start? The abandonment of bourgeois democracy? The nationalizations? The price controls? The military placed in charge of distributing food? The leaders all professing to be socialists and being backed by the homegrown communist party? All this is significantly further left than what socdems propose and if that's not """real socialism""" to you your definition of socialism is so asinine that not even the USSR would fit.(liberals begone)

Yes, in exchange of products created there. Not from taxing private oil companies like Venezuela did.
Perfectly compatible with social democracy and capitalism.
Perfectly compatible with social democracy and capitalism.
Perfectly compatible with social democracy and capitalism.
Perfectly compatible with social democracy and capitalism during crisis.
Liberals in my country are more right-wing than american republicans. Does it says anything about our regime?
USSR was socialism tho.

You are trying to look like some know-it-all faggot accusing me of sophism, yet you are offering just sophist non-arguments. By your definiton of social democracy, whole eurasia lives in socialism now.

The oil companies are state-owned holy shit what year are you living in. The only way private oil companies get in the action is by participating in joint development projects, which is EXACTLY WHAT THE USSR DID TOO WHEN THEY HAD A LACK OF TECHNICAL EXPERTS.

No it's not. Bourgeois democracy is a cornerstone of social democracy. For you to claim otherwise is incredibly disingenuous. There has not been a single(!) social democratic regime in the history of mankind that has abandoned bourgeois democracy.

Socdems are only for nationalization of natural monopolies. You fucking try to find me a manifesto of a socdem party that proposes nationalizing GROCERY STORES or cement plants and car plants like Venezuela has actually done!

Ah, even here you have to add the disclaimer "during crisis" because otherwise it's impossible to find a social democratic regime that utilized price controls during non-crisis scenarios.

Forgive me, I should probably have rephrased this as GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF TOTAL FOOD SUPPLY as in both food production AND distribution. Understand the difference?

Yes it says that your regime is further to the right than Amerikkka. Likewise, we can equally take the measure of Maduro et al and state that Venezuela is further to the left than any social democratic state in existence.

Not Asia but most of Europe, yes, which is a non-controversial statement.

...

wew. Nice try, r/the_donald

...

I messaged Paul Cockshott on facebook and he said he might join my discord. Also please fucking join I need more quality people here.

discord.gg/8yzH9Gq

...

edgy name tbh

ok fine you spastics
Holy shit this is the worst hot take of any hot take I've seen in years. Just what the fuck? No. There isn't even free higher education in China or free healthcare. Social democratic lmfao where the fuck is the welfare state?
Wrong.
Then you've given me inaccurate information to work off of. If your liberals are further to the right than American Republikkkans everything would have already been privatized. So there's something up with the picture you've drawn me.
No.
Bourgeois democratic society that respects private property rights and has a welfare state. How fucking "special snowflake" is that?

If you want more readability, space it like I do it in this post.

Not even the most deformed mainstream SocDem parties would agree with that definition. Jesus Christ, you know things are really fucking bad when I defend SocDems against your bullshittery.

Two give just two examples of two mainstream socdem parties that would agree with the definition:

SPD:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godesberg_Program

NDP:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Declaration

is his book in econophysics good?, i like the notion of it, but the whole concept seems a bit pseudo-scientific to me, is any of this peer reviewed?, is it any relevant to marxism today?

How come? I live in free market social democratic country. Liberals want to destroy "social democratic" part of it. I was pointing out that that member of party with same name act differently in every country.

litteraly every european country, russia, china, USA or venezuela

Grover Furr isn't peer reviewed yet I've never heard a single argument against his investigations.

Ok so since Maduro's party is the socialist party it doesn't count since they could just be gritters, fair point, but they've also been endorsed by their home's communist party and when you take a look at their policies you can't claim they're anything but a left wing regime bent on creating an alternative model from capitalism.
Eh don't think Estonia or Greece would count, for example but a lot of European countries do.
None of the above are democratic states. Three out of four (excluding Venezuela) do not have a welfare state. And only Russia, China, and the US respect private property rights. So no matter which of the four you pick none of them can be honestly classified as socdem.

Russia, China (except Hong Kong) and the US have a massive welfare state. Check the budget diagram of these countries.

Top tier sophism tbh famlam. Maduro's party is the socialist party it doesn't count since they ‘’’did not collectivized the means of production’’’

Why?

From marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm

sperg

Budget expenditures are misleading because a single payer healthcare program, for example, actually ends up costing less than a free market solution such as Obamacare.
But beyond that:
None of the three have universal higher education.
None of the three have universal healthcare.
Russia cut the scant spending it had on healthcare to boost its military. China is phasing out its "iron rice bowl" system. The US, well, just look at people like Trump and Clinton who actively attempt to shrink social expenditure.

Estonia and Greece don't count because they don't have a welfare state.

I can’t imagine that it is possible to have capitalist country without welfare and not dissolving into military junta, but let’s pretend you are correct. Also, nationalized industry is something different than collectivization. Tell me, aren’t you, as socdem, also for nationalization? Where is the line, based on your special snowflake ideology, when nationalization is good (capitalism) or “too much” (socialism). How do you even define terms such as “socialism” or “capitalism”?

way to go

Worldwide all-seeing network in control of the entirety of the economical activity of humankind soon.

What is realisation of value?

Doesn't the probability distribution for price / integrated wage look more log-normal than normal?

This but unironically

German version is called Sozialismus ist machbar (Socialism can be done), translated by Helmut Dunkhase and available on his site: helmutdunkhase.de/haupt.pdf

Well, you can track what sells at a particular price, but the demand line or curve of standard econ-theory texts shows how many units of something people would be willing to buy at various prices. And in real life you virtually never ask people how many units they would buy at price A, price B, price C, and so on. As a rule of thumb I think it's a sensible assumption to say people would buy more at a lower price, but we don't actually know the quantities. The standard supply curves are absurd as a rule of thumb, since usually you can produce at equal or lower per-unit costs when producing a higher quantity. When you optimize for a very specific quantity and then you try to go over that in the very short term, then the the standard curve makes sense, but this is a rather specific situation. The reason this is presented as standard in the text books is that it seems to give you an elegant sort-of technical/objective answer where prices and quantities are going to be (and wages!), and you don't get ideas about big companies outperforming small ones.

youtube.com/watch?v=ypJ_tcnfaWA
Another upload

wtf, don't they do testing/polling for this purpose? maybe not for all products, but at least major ones?

He keeps dashing out videos, phew

Read Kliman. His data collection method is very flawed.

I think cockshott dismisses supply and demand too quickly. When there is scarcity, it has obvious predictive value.

We had a thread about that in December last year, it got archived by this spambot fake forum: hollaforums.com/thread/2287033/activism/andrew-kliman-debunked-this-labor-theory-of-price.html Can't make sense of Kliman. Can you tell me what "corrected for firm size" means and how you measure firm size and how you avoid circular reasoning here?

thank for Marxist ASMR

Amazon and Walmart prove that central planning can work even without muh cybernetics. I don't see why Cockshott is seen as being so revolutionary.

Scarcity is usually accompanied by increased labor expended on the product. IE when there is a drought, it takes more labor to create one unit of the crop, since more labor was wasted on planting failed crops, cleaning up dead plants, etc.

He's probably just recording videos of his already released material (which happens to be a ton and on many diverse topics)

He's among the few Marxists that actually argues for a return to central planning using current technology. The rest of the "left" are either market socialists or outright neoliberals economically

Should I read all of Capital (i.e. up to volume 3) before reading TANS? About halfway through volume 1 right now. Would reading TANS without reading volumes 2 and 3 impact my understanding at all?

no. And even if you would have some questions during reading, you can post them here.

Is it true that i need to understand Calculus to read hotcocks?

True. I think I'll start TANS after I finish vol. 1 and maybe read it concurrently with vol. 2, though I'm a slow enough reader as it is right now - 400 pages over 3 months isn't exactly my personal best.

I read TANS before I read Capital and I had no problem whatsoever.

People should just read whatever they want to read.

No - you'd be far better off understanding matrix algebra and linear programming since his proposed planning algorithms are based on L. V. Kantorovich's models and input-output analysis. Here's some books that might help you, pick one of the linear algebra books and work your way up to right before vector spaces. Then skim through Ferguson's intro to linear programming just to understand what the algorithm actually does.

Some articles where Cockshott writes about the application of the linear programming model:
academia.edu/35712859/Returning_to_Kantorovich - a rewritten and far more complete version of his old Calculation in-Natura, from January of this year
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e3a/443d6fb314eb8b160576faa9928aa151d6fb.pdf - Calculation in-Natura, from 2008
carecon.org.uk/QM/Papers/ - more papers from various authors arguing for a quantitative Marxism, all are pre-2010 though

Didn't he say that the scale was loggarithmic? I'll leave the study /ourguy/ is presenting in the slide in PDF related.

Do they ask people if they would buy 15 or 20 pizzas at this or that price level?

I meant the slide from the "Transformation problem and beyond" video, "price to wages ratio 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - (…)" is certainly not logarithmic. Anyway it was just an idle observation; it's just that the distribution looks like it extends into the higher ratios more, and it would also make sense to drop to zero when price reaches zero, and never extend into negatives (which regular normal distribution has to do, as it is infinite in both directions).

HAPPENING

I just imagine him clicking on some thread and the first thing he sees is like a r34 pic of Alunya getting rammed or the webm of """BO""" sucking dick.

Great, you just made him read two pinned threads filled with nothing but shitposting

Who thought this was a good idea?..

It's a terrible idea.

Wasn't me, I just saw it on Cockshott's newest video

the absolute madman.

are you sure? pic related. inb4 not blocking ads

why

Oh fuck, wait. Cockshott's gonna see those fucking sex toy ads and close the tab

this board fucken gay

lurk moar newfag

Mr Cockshott, are traps gay?

...

I don't see problem with ads, but we do need to use new css. If you send me badly-drawn or commented screenshot in paint I will try to make it during weekend.

Towards new socialism translation
Try to google it in language you can speak, there are probably more translations but under different name.

I meant that in the context of inviting a respectable old gentleman to have a look at our merry cesspool, of course.

whyyyyy

SOMEBODY HELP HIM OUT?

A spectre is haunting old Bolshevik minds – the spectre of Holla Forums.

send link to conversation

under his latest video
youtube.com/watch?v=ypJ_tcnfaWA&t=4s
under the comment which invites him to Holla Forums

Dear god does he still use internet explorer?

comrades, fix this

nah, directly linking https can fuck it up

there's no internet explorer on win10 though

He probably uses some sort of Linux distribution

COCKSHOTT POPULARIZER FRONT REPORTING IN

reddit.com/r/communism/comments/80uo5z/paul_cockshott_neoricardian_marxist_economist_and/

reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/819ixp/paul_cockshott_the_author_of_towards_a_new/

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/819lsv/marxism101_the_falling_rate_of_profit_what_it_is/(>>>reddit)

Does Cockshott have any contacts with any political movements?

They aren't going to like him when they hear his social views.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Organisation_in_the_British_Isles
this, supposedly ML party that split from another ML party in the seventies.
wait holy shit is Cockshott a trot

HAHA, they're the Loyalist Marxist-Leninists. Topkeke.

I wish a wasn't banned from all of these for saying the word "stupid".

relatable

Language policing is the first step to tear apart an organization. Just assume all the mods are COINTELPRO, or liberal idiots so useful, they might as well be COINTELPRO.

linear algebra is actually the same thing as calculus

Read Capital first, because Cockshott is lowkey revisionist and might be some kind of crypto-Trot. He has good stuff, but you should read it with a critical eye.

But is it a scientific kind of revisionism?

lel the party he was part of wasnt trot, he has said negative things about trotsky before

not always though

Give one concrete theoretical reason why you need dialextixa for anything. I guarantee you have never once thought anything dialectical.

FUKKEN SAVED

I've not been over to his channel yet, so perhaps this addressed over there. However looking at the posted video on UBI, his argument seems to ignore the trend of mass production to reduce costs. Thus, the capital outlay and subsequent maintenance costs for deploying automation will tend to gradually fall irrespective of the movement in wages. Cockshott seems to be arguing that wage controls and low productivity gains mean that improved machines will never be deployed, whereas it seems more logical to me that wage controls simply delay the inevitable tipping point where capital decides to replace humans with technology. Why else would Foxconn be deploying machines (see: theverge.com/2016/12/30/14128870/foxconn-robots-automation-apple-iphone-china-manufacturing ) if that was not the case?

Foxconn is in China. In China wages are rising, thus proving Cockyboy's point.

your assumption is that automation costs will keep falling at the same rate regardless of economic conditions, in fact if ubi was implemented, pretty sure that capital would move away from automation research, and into industry and wage labour, that are now cheaper and thus more profitable, also capital doesn't want to replace humans, since capital needs wage slavery to perpetuate itself, read marx

No, my argument is not contingent on a steady decrease in automation costs. The machines are commodities; commodity production does not need to produce a steady fall in prices to reduce prices over time.
Doubtless. Further decreases in wages would of course further delay automation.
Which was the whole point of bringing in a ubi.

...

tehnological stagnation is UBI's aim?

has anyone checked cockshott's ideas against tiqqun(dude who inspired the invisible committee)? they seem really incompatable.
for instance, what does cockshott say about our devices? about surveillance and control systems that we already have? right now it seems like cybernetic capitalism is already in place, and anything which seeks to break the closed loop is classified, surveilled, disenfranchised, etc.

only in a super abstract sense, sure you can express for example a derivative as a linear transformation, but I mean in numerical/applied math the two rarely overlap. Most of the LA Cockshott uses is actually numerical LA, various iterative methods for solving systems of linear equations. This has nothing to do with applied calculus

underrated post

not sure if Cockshott knows about that guy, nor does he write about theories of the state or oppression in general, most of his writing is about economics

Is this the final boss of English comprehension?

yes

I think win10 already did.

They actually ask people how willing they would be to purchase at certain price level

Source: Your Butthole Weekly. This is not done in a systematic and thorough way and you have no incentive to be honest when polled.

AW YISS

This is called marketing research. I suggest you use a google to find out more about that term.

You don't need to invite the poor man here, he has experiences enough shit in his life, he doesnt need this clusterfuck in addition to it.

...

lmao have you heard about a thing called "consumer behavior"? You can make a PhD in that. Jesus Christ.

Fuck my apartment looks exactly the same as his office. Spooky.

This is the true face of cyber socialism.

You are moving the goalposts. The point is in real life companies do not have access to the demand curves neoclassical economics treat as obvious knowledge.

The Spanish version (apparently from a Venezuelan edition) is pretty awful and it's missing tons of images - I haven't had the time to look into that and fix it.

(me)
To elaborate: Suppose the product is a durable thing that a person either buys or doesn't buy, the quantity per consumer is either 0 or 1 (there is virtually no additional utility by having several units in one household), and supply is oligopolistic/monopolistic. The supplier can make a huge profit per unit or a smaller per-unit profit and maybe sell so many units more that the overall profit is higher. So, according to econ101 magical thinking, the supplier somehow finds the profit-maximizing point. Tell me, how would you figure out where that point is? Imagine you control a market through patent BS and don't worry about competition. Suppose you ask me, a potential consumer, and the truth is I love the thing in question so much, I would give an arm and a leg for it. But I can make an educated guess about how very low the material costs really are for you. Do you think I have much of an incentive to honestly tell you how high the price can be without losing me as a customer? No, I have an incentive to pretend to be much more stingy than I am.

If your approach is figuring out the quantity by actually changing the price back and forth for real, this has an effect on the expectations of people, that is, the effect of probing minds like that changes what's going on in these minds. That e. g. Nintendo keeps prices high of games even a year or two after launch while others quickly reduces the price has the effect that for a game by a hysterically price-changing company that I would be willing to get at the high launch price if that were the only permanent price I wait until they drop the price, and them dropping the price and seeing their sales going up seems to prove to them the importance of getting different consumer groups at different parts of the demand curve, when in reality they themselves have to a large extent created these behaviors by conditioning.

Shit now that I know Cockshott might be on here I feel like I need to tone down my usual language.

Hello mister Cockshott, we are all children of Marx here. Koombajah.

Right lads, I think I just discovered something: a scottish cabal of cyberneticians. So a mate of mine introduced me to a writer called Ken MacLeod; who is a sci-fi writer who writes about transhumanism and future ancapistan & communism.
NOW, you know when he was at university? Glasgow in the 1970s-80s, You know where Paul Cockshott was at uni? Glasgow in teh 1970s-1980s. Cockshott is two years older than him. Turns out they were both studying computer science.
Then I find a blogpost from Ken MacLeod saying he has read Cockshott… and Cockshott comments on it.
I think I have just hit some esoteric shit here guys.

This is Iain The Culture Banks mate, isn't it?

It appears so, yes.

Holy shit, can you post the link for the blog?

kenmacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/red-plenty-debated.html

I'm very anxious of mistitling him now. Is he a professor?

Cheers

Who was the madman that linked Cockshot to >>>Holla Forums and why?
Guys, most of the time I feel embarrassed about you all and I wouldn't want to be associated in real life, with any of you.
Leave Cockshot alone, I'm ashamed that he is going to witness, all this madness in here.
seriously guys you fucked up.

Oh come on if Wolff could why not Cockshott? Not to say that I am not embarrassed by this place, but it's not that bad, user.

Came here to post this, what where they thinking? It's the equivalent of trying to get a politician to read 4/pol/ they probably have no use for image boards.

I'd take it.

It's alright, I don't want to be associated with you, either.

where did he do this exactly

SOURCE NOW

What are his social views?

read thread - it's from Cockshot's new youtube channel youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ

Watch his video about the LTV, the source he used is the hyperlink in the presentation.

He's not a social conservative.

Gay marriage is reactionary, trans people are men in dresses, sex work is bad. Probably dislikes immigration.

Yeah I'll need a source for that. I don't know what's in any way desirable about economic migration, this is the worst excess of capitalism.

Why? Does he agrees with that "homos are fascists" bs?
What a TERF.

If what the user above is saying it's true then he probably is.

Sure, just go ahead and smear people based on hearsay, what a fucking toxic community the left is. Again with this paranoid "TERF" bullshit

He said "gay marriage movement is fundamentally conservative, aimed at the securing of relatively privileged property ownership and it makes the relative position of women in society slightly worse"

Read his 'Corbyn moves right' blog post. He says "They are men who take on a female persona" and "factual observation that women don’t have d**ks." and calls them "cross dressers".

I think most of his views are common in older communists.

He's not wrong. Gay marriage helps to promote the absolutely disgusting petty bourgeoisie mindset that is commonly found among married het proles.

How the fuck does it worsen the position of women.

Men make more money than women on average. Having kids costs money. Many countries tax married couples a bit less (also consider how inheritance of wealth is regulated), so if such a country changes the definition to allow same-sex couples, this means increasing inequality.
Cross-dressers is an appropriate term here, because it captures how broad Labour's "modern" definition of women is. From the blawg:
Men are extremely over-represented in politics. The trans people this is about are very overwhelmingly of the type male-to-female, and the change is not about the introduction of a specific position for trans/intersex reps (and given how tiny a fraction of the total population they are, would there really be a need for more than one such position in the entire party?), instead this change will reduce representation of born females.
His position on these issues is entirely based on trivial and obvious facts, and literally the entire world outside of the Anglo/Burger "progressive" twitterfacebooktumblruniversity dumbfuck circlejerk is able to parse what he is saying here and agree with him.

Make women have the same salary as men, things are solved. Some people are always trying to find reasons to justify their bigotry.

M8, you havin a giggle or brain problems? The British government can't make women have the same pre-tax income as men, what it can do is apply some taxes and subsidies. Why should a socdem party advocate for a shift in that system towards more inequality?

How? Women have to plan their life differently than men under capitalism, especially in the lower wage sector, only in socialism you can pay women the same as men when there is community planned equilibrium between work and child care.
More like people are always going to find the stupidest thing to nitpick on that contradicts their extremist views about a specific identity.

No, I'm pretty sure he is saying that the whole point of UBI is that it provides a mechanism for demand to continue expressing itself, for "exchange value to be realized" in more Marxist terms, without wage labor being necessary. The corporations can automate and get rid of wage labor, but the UBI theoretically allows unemployed people to perpetuate market forces acting on production.

Yeah… but their rate of profit will kaput without human input. There's no escaping that. The only way a capitalist economy can work without human workforce is if the rate of accumulation is zero (or even negative) and that's an impossibility by itself.

Well, Heinz Dieterich has called the Cockshott/Cottrell pair a Scottish School of economics before, and undoubtedly there's many others bound to have ideas close to theirs: reality.gn.apc.org/econ/chavez2.html

Also from what little I've seen (since I'm Latin American and thus a complete outsider), Glasgow seems to be a pretty based uni - on one hand they have some other notable people such as Helen Yaffe, whose investigation focuses on the history of economic theories in Latin America, particularly the political economy of Che Guevara[1-4], and on other hand, their lecturers have just recently joined an UK-wide education strike against pensions, with 57% of the union's vote (keeping in mind that a 25% of lecturers are members of this union)[5-6].

So rather than some esoteric shit going on, I'd think that Glasgow just happens to be a good place for "heterodox" (i.e. non-neoliberal) and critical economists to prop up.

[1] researchgate.net/profile/Helen_Yaffe
[2] gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/news/headline_564202_en.html
[3] youtube.com/watch?v=3ZKOpUkmVZ8
[4] gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=B0DC913921BFD34A9B1B3F8EBF0502CF
[5] gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/news/headline_571214_en.html
[6] glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-universities-join-biggest-ever-14322203

youtube.com/watch?v=ZgkWnODtS6g

NEW VIDEO

...

I am watching this right now and I am sure this video is going to piss off Leftcoms and MLs alike.

...

fucking good video though

forgot shitposting name from earlier

Good. It won't piss off actual Marxists

I disagree with him on the wage labor issue. See my comment beneath his video. The rest seems to be more or less correct.

This title is extremly… pretentious. If it can live up to it, I'm willing to add Cockshott to the ML pantheon of Marx - Engels - Lenin - Stalin - Mao

He's not a ML.

neither is Mao
or Hoxha
once can still appreciate others contributions

he has rejected at different times the following things
do you think those are ml views?

When has he explicitly rejected the first two? This reading list compiled by him on an old website might be indicative of his political influences, which happens to include the main works where Lenin's doctrine of the State and of revolutionary organization are exposed, as well as some works by Mao and Althusser: reality.gn.apc.org/Readinglist.htm

towards a new socialism has a section called "democratic centralism" in which he calls it "a failure", he goes on about the reasons why, i can't remember them very well though, another thing is that in the section about international socialist planning he talks about the party and internationalism, saying how the interest of a party are always going to be mantain sovereignty, and that internationalist planing undercuts that's, and how planing across countries is the future, now he stopped short from saying "a party system is bad", but i think it is very telling that his society doesn't have one, and the fact that he rejects representative democracy in another chapter, i think makes it very clear he doesn't like parties

Jfc.

Towards a new socialism, chapter 13. Cockshott advocates the complete dismantlement of parliamentarian and other modern forms of "democracy" including autistic Leninist shit in exchange for the classical Athenian model of actual democracy based on the technical descriptions of Aristotle, in what he terms an "acephalous" state – a state with no executive.

Administration, where practicable, would be carried out according to department and subordinate boards whose members are decided by lot. Some of these boards might have a certain percentage of their members chosen by lot from the population of related professionals, but the majority would always be in the hands of totally random members of the local population. These offices are rotating and regularly involuntarily vacated to make way for new members, probably on a yearly basis.

This system would extend to the judiciary, to the legislative powers, to all public sectors (which are represented by local autonomous branches allocated a budget), and in principal to all aspects of foreign and domestic administration probably with the notable exception of a national military. Many important national decisions such as the income tax rate would be subject to direct vote in highly accessible referendums.

This means an effective end not only to parties (including even the idea of an effectively organized and practical communist party), but the entire class of professional politicians and much of the bureaucracy. Campaigning for anything but issues would be pointless. No more platforms. No more politicians.

So, yes, Cockshott has very little to do with Leninism. Even economically, the introduction of labor vouchers and computerized planning means that Cockshott is totally divorced from Leninist theory. His proposed model has NOTHING to do with Lenin's besides that they both involve state ownership.

What is that supposed to mean? I don't think he ever pushed the line that the USSR was basically just capitalism or a "non-mode of production" (nonsensical concept by Hillel Ticktin) or that they didn't industrialize at an impressive rate.

TANS:

realisation of value is what happens when the labor content of a good is exchanged. The 'value' of the labor content embodied in the commodity is yet to be 'realised' until it is exchanged.

uh yes they were?

...

they are about as ML as nazis were genuine socialists

I've skimmed through the table of contents and it looks interesting, thanks user. i see that cockshott's struggle against bourgeois capitalization continues

I've spoken to Cockshott before, the theories outlined in his work were never meant to be implemented during the revolution because shit is still unstable on the national level, and outright thinks that the labor credit system can't be implemented until a government has the capability to create a fully socialized economy. In example, if a country still depended on imports and industry of a capitalist state it would take on the model of government as defined as a transitional period in this booklet
reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Berlinpaper.pdf
He thinks democratic centralism is a good mode of organization as long as the country is in a state of emergency but that it creates a danger to socialism itself if it is kept for extended periods of time, as it basically gives an organ of power to political opportunists with little way to regulate it from the bottom.

Who the fuck is this Leftcom autist? What an asshole

tfw you internalized chan lingo so much you can't speak english any more

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Cockshott's analysis of bourgeois democracy is mostly based on 20th century developments in Britain and the US and Europe, and what happened in the USSR. And some very simple math. He decided to present that in a particular way, using word choices of some dead Greek and in following that naming convention of concepts calls elections undemocratic and sortition democratic. Likewise, since modern mainstream meaning of democracy entails elections, another person who advocates for sortition might call himself anti-democratic for that reason. If two people are essentially putting forth the same position, and you say you strongly disagree with one of them, you either are so daft and superficial that you fail to understand something over non-standard use of a few terms or you deliberately misinterpret it. I suspect that's exactly the kind of intellectual giant that poster is. Does he maybe just ctrl-f and skim to find things to pretend to be offended about?

When Cockshott claims that it is known that recall procedures where they exist are virtually never triggered, the reason he says that isn't because some philosopher said so in a book 3000 years ago, or to trigger anarcho-syndicalists, but because that's what experience has shown. When people like Cockshott or Machover tell you that electing delegates that elect delegates that elect delegates that elect delegates that elect delegates in stacked single-winner elections is vulnerable to gerrymandering on steroids they say that because of simple math, and not because they deny slavery existed in ancient Greece. The existence of slavery in ancient Greece is completely irrelevant to the point made.

GentleGinjeet thinks these are two separate concepts. That's a typical point of view among dumber liberals new to politics.

Fuck off.

...

lel smh tbqh famrade lad.

you're giving poor leftcoms a bad name. Not even leftcoms are this fucking autistic. This bloke's just a liberal

Jesus, whoever this is, end thyself.

But my political positions are backed up by simple math. Not all of them, obviously, but certainly some stuff about voting. Why does it surprise you that math relates to that?

Is it this one?