/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1833259
If you're referring to cybernetic planning, it's simply an attempt at trying to find a way to actually implement in-kind calculation, something that is required for a moneyless planned economy to actually function. I fail to see how his recommendations in TANS are utopian, given that they are based on a critique of the soviet union - something that actually existed. He isn't simply conjuring a blueprint out of thin air as the utopians did, he's analysing something that actually existed and then making recommendations as to how that thing could be made to move away from commodity production.

Also fuck Hegel.

>>1833698
ive come to the conclusion that i misjudged hegel because there's so much disinformation around hegel and his works are hard to penetrate. at his core, he's just interested in thinking about thinking and is more open to the future than hegelians and pseudomarxists with their teleologies would lead you to believe :/

>>1834519
i think you kind of misunderstand cockshott, cybercommunism etc. TANS for example wasn't about projecting some society of the future or imagining it out of nothing like Auguste Comte, it was written in the late 80s to the 90s when the USSR was falling. So it was one hand written as a refutation of anti planning anti communist arguments both in their classic form (right-libertarian ECP) and newer arguments by people like Alex Nove.

On the other hand it was actual a policy prescription for the USSR that would have been meant to literally be implemented to save the USSR economy from descending back into capitalism. However by the time it got published the USSR had already fallen. So it wasn't a hypothetical but rather an actual policy paper for what was at that time a contemporarily existing polity.

I don't think most cybercommunists think that its inevitable rather its just a series of good arguments against right wing libertarians who claim socialism is impossible. Cockshott's strength is in these arguments not as an analyst and I wouldn't take his sparse ideas on praxis very useful either.

The Markov process shit is just him trying to find an alternative to modeling change over time to hegelian dialectics as he regards it as unrigerous and pseudo-rational. This is a holdover both from his own background as a natural scientist in an english speaking country and the background positivism that comes with that training as well as the fact that he's heavily influenced by Althusser who is sort of the poster child of marxist anti-hegelianism.

>>1835122
Right but this is my problem, trying to 'fix the USSR' is a stupid endeavour because in historical hindsight it was obviously doomed. Cockshottians, like other marxists who are stuck in the past, are only interested in eternally critiquing 'what went wrong with the soviet union' instead of looking at the conditions of today's society. In this way the 'multipolarists' are at least a bit more respectable than Cockshott.

The Markov process shit (modelling change) is fine as a scientific endeavour, but it isn't a valid alternative to a science of logic (dialectics is just one part). There's nothing really reflexive about the logical rules there which is the important thing about Hegel's method. I think Marx's use of dialectics is probably unrigorous, but to dismiss Hegel is to dismiss a Science of Logic itself.

In fact even to say 'Hegel is unrigorous and pseudo-rational' is already thinking thinking about itself and is already to engage in dialectics.

>>1835365
>Cockshottians, like other marxists who are stuck in the past, are only interested in eternally critiquing 'what went wrong with the soviet union' instead of looking at the conditions of today's society.
Would you say the same of marx critiquing the paris commune? I mean that was obviously doomed as well. Why not learn from mistakes of past attempts? Besides, as >>1835122 pointed out, the point of Cockshott's writings aren't so much to provide a new strategy for overthrowing capitalism, but to refute anticommunist bullshit - something which is necessary as anti-communist rhetoric creates a barrier to communist organisation.

>>1835365
>Right but this is my problem, trying to 'fix the USSR' is a stupid endeavour because in historical hindsight it was obviously doomed. Cockshottians, like other marxists who are stuck in the past, are only interested in eternally critiquing 'what went wrong with the soviet union' instead of looking at the conditions of today's society.

Yes but in the neoliberal era of 1991-2016ish a Cockshott like figure was absolutely needed to refute end of history neoliberal and other right winged american libertarian bullshit.

Basically the left had no answer to the calculation problem and that actually made Cockshott's work MORE important because while the USSR existed, people didn't really take that sort of shit seriously, because how can you claim socialism is impossible while there's still this supposedly socialist USSR/eastern block which is also a huge threat to the west.

But after the fall of the USSR american rightoids started doing victory laps and claiming this proved Mises/Hayek were right and along and no one should ever try socialism ever again. You even had supposed socialists and members of the left/labor parties not only advocating market socialism rather than planning but even starting to argue against social democracy.

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2024/04/26/marx-communism-and-the-fateful-species/
guest post by Heinz Dieterich, I think

Are Barristas Productive

Cockshott arguments against Heinrich and value form theory

>>1837912
hazoids on suicide watch

A 'planned' economy in the communist sense cannot produce commodities. The market is nothing but the 'sphere of exchange' (Grundrisse), commodity production is by definition production for the market.

>>1837956
Hazoids are in denial as usual. Just go to Cockshott's twitter to see the idiotic crap these retards are spouting.

>>1838242
I agree, but who was this in response to?

what does /cybercom/ think of this post?:
>>1835333
>Seems to me that we are talking at cross purposes here. The main difference between "mechanical" materialism and dialectics is that dialectics sees change and movement as the result of the clash of internal oppositions which necessarily lead to a climactic resolution while mechanical materialism sees all change as being externally impelled, like billiard balls on a pool table colliding. The thing is these things aren't incompatible depending on the level of ontological abstraction. It could be true that at a micro level things are atomistic but this can lead to macroscopic change. Hence the heat/thermo analogy cockshottists use which itself is reminiscent of the sorts of analogies Mao uses in on contradiction/on practice which isn't surprising since Cockshott is basically a 70s maoist combined with a stemlord hence cockshottists are just maoists in the grand scope of things and so was althusser basically. I guess the only difference is hegelian marxists would ascribe the macro changes to the dialectic-logic contradictions whereas cockshottism uses the atomist/statistical physics metaphor of a writhing morass of agglomerated individual irreducible elements which interact in an atomic and mechanical sense leading indirectly to macroscopic change much as heat is merely atoms speeding up and colliding and eventually producing a state change (ex: water to steam). The problem isn't that cockshott is some scientistic anglo-positivist as many of the braindead posters here seem to think but rather the opposite. its that Cockshott wants to drag Althusser halfway back to "normal" marxism by on one hand acknowledging the Althusserian view of history as radically contingent, and that historical materialism is simply a backwards looking structure we place on history, not a model with predictive capability the same way evolutionary biology only explains the previous evolution of one species into another but doesn't predict future species. And this is where cockshott jumps in to say you can combine randomness with necessity by splitting the difference and thats where the autism with markov chains and stochastic materialism come in. But rather than an attack on marxist historical materialism as many here seem to think its actually an attempt to save it. One can just as easily take the atomist metaphors provided by Althusser in the philosophy of the encounter in the opposite direction. So unlike what OP seems to think the solution isn't to retvrn to hegel, but rather the problem is that even Cockshott is too Hegelian and not materialist enough. He's attempting to save historical necessity, or at least as much as he can in the face of radical contingency and destabilization. The fact is neither scientific positivism or marxist materialism (including cockshottist atomist versions) truly escape idealism or the idea-matter duality, but thats not a reason to simply declare everything "idealism-with-more-steps" like some AW-tier pseud, its a reason to become even more materialist. I think the Bataillean notions of base materialism are helpful here. Matter is no longer a monist ideal form like the mirror image of Spinoza's substance, but instead has been liberated from all ontological prisons, that is to say base materialism replaces ontology with non ontology. The difference for example between neoplatonists and spinozists on one hand and practitioners of, for example, advaita vedanta in hindu philosophy is that while neoplatonists posit "the one" i.e. the superform and spinozans "substance", these are "still things in themselves" in the kantian sense, while advaita vedanta posits non dualism. Non dualism is not the same as oneness but rather itself is the negation of oneness as nonbeing is the negation of being, and in this sense what nondual hinduism does to idealism, base materialism does to materialism. One thing these eastern (and other) spiritual traditions seem to share with Bataille's thought, though obviously very different, is the inherent inarticulability of the ground of being/base. By definition base materialism is what allows us to truly escape idealism and the byzantine labyrinth of linguistic signifiers.

>>1838230
>>1838247
repost from other thread

Cockshott rejects Hegel because he's a Maoist and Mao's dialectic wasn't Hegelian. Hegelians will claim this is because Mao didn't understand Hegel, while Maoists will claim that its only in the application of Marxist dialectics to the situation of the Chinese revolution that dialectics are truly concretized and Marxist dialectics reach their full flowering, i.e. Mao's dialectic is superior to Hegel as it is more materialist.

The structural Marxism of Louis Althusser attempts to purge Marxism of Hegelianism and humanism. Althusser holds that Marx's primary philosophical antecedent is not Hegel or Feuerbach, but Spinoza.

Althusser's whole project of rejecting Hegel for Spinoza, etc. is basically just a rationalization of Mao as he turned away from orthodox marxism-leninism in favor of Mao. There's a reason Cockshott's only interview with doug lain for example is on the cultural revolution.

There's an annoying tendency of people who don't like Cockshott to ascribe stances to him which he did not originate but are instead just bog standard Marxism or are attributable to his adherence to 1960s/70s MZT and its full rationalization in western Marxism in the form of Althusserianism.

I have a feeling the accusations of Cockshott being scientistic or positivist are literally just due to a combination of posters not being well read and the fact that he's literally a british scientist. Alot of the criticisms of him here for example rejecting the notion of a philosophical subject mirror 1970s and 1980s commentaries on Althusser that regularly accused him of dogmatism or functionalism, closing down Marxist analyses of history and change while emptying political struggle of a historical actor: the subject of history itself.

99% of the time people shitting on Cockshott don't really have a problem with Cockshott they actually have a problem either just understanding basic Marxism or what their problem really is, is with Mao, Althusser, or any other number of figures that Cockshott is basically just repeating anyway.

>Althusser was fascinated by Spinoza’s philosophical strategies, in particular the transformation of a medieval conception of a transcendental God as the cause and origin of all things into an infinite Substance that was able to think God and Nature simultaneously. For Althusser, it was this novel principle of Nature’s infinite diversity and non-totalizable form, expressing or producing itself in every finite existence, which helped him think the question of structure anew. No longer could structure be thought as simply containing, in a latent form, its various elements (however distinctive these might appear in themselves). Now it had a form of complexity and causality that was only understandable through its effects, thereby engendering these elements with a degree of autonomy, singularity, and specificity of their own.

>In Spinoza’s Ethics, Althusser also claimed to discover the matrix of every possible theory of ideology: Spinoza offered an answer to the question of why men fight as bravely for servitude as for freedom. By refusing to treat ideology as simply ignorance or superstition, he chose to examine this world of the imaginary in relation to the materiality of bodies, which he viewed as aspects of thought and extension respectively. In so doing, Spinoza avoided every illusion of an originary, constitutive subject and so helped furnish Althusser’s own quest to develop a science freed from subjectivism in all its forms. What some critics identified as Althusser’s erasure of the subject, or its sheer absorption by a powerful structure, has been viewed as a kind of Marxist heresy in some circles because in Althusser’s account the agent of political change appeared all but lost.

<When in his later writings Althusser suggests that the materialism of the encounter is “a process that has no subject,” does he not implore us to combine this image of the conjunction of elements, “raining down” like an infinity of atoms, whose singular relations and individualities constitute the subject merely as their ideological (or imaginary) effects? It is these concrete yet seemingly transitory combinations that the materialist philosopher studies. Historical materialism does not commence with an original abstract picture of man, or with a conception of human essence, as do theories of the social contract. Marx, like Spinoza, precludes essentialism by understanding the essence of any “thing” as that which corresponds to its actuality and concrete relations, and thus to a form of materialism. Social relations, economic relations of exchange (of wealth, of capital) cannot be reduced to relations merely between subjects, since they involve relationships with many different kinds of thing (in nature, technology, society, etc.), each of which reproduce and shape social relations of production, as well as the forms of struggle emerging through them and unfolding within the materiality of ideology… In this image of materialism, anything we might call “the subject” is found only within this social morphology of relation and combination where forms of struggle commence and where politics constantly reshapes itself in the process.

>>1838255
>>1838270
Your comments are off-topic and you should be deeply ashamed.

Anyway, just wrote an essay working out details of an idea that has been popped up in these threads time and again: fixed prices & Queue Points (TM) for addressing shortages. This is of course superior to just having fixed prices with no way of dealing with supply-demand discrepancies other than a massive buffer (which just looks unworkable). But is this better than just having fluctuating prices for consumer items? Well, here is the essay:

Fixed Prices & Flexibility: Dated Consumption Points & Queue Points

Under socialism, should prices for consumer items fluctuate? Socialism is supposed to be less chaotic than capitalism. The organization of production and distribution will shift towards doing more planning before and less adjusting after, but there will still be some need for adjusting. Mismatches between production and what people actually want will continue to exist, though hopefully on a smaller scale. Price adjustments can quickly deal with two problems:
1. reducing excess stock of consumer items by lowering price
2. preventing running out by raising price
We are told a story about some situation where dynamic prices make everything work out. This is possible, but is it likely? It’s a common thing in capitalism that firms rather destroy excess inventory than sell it at a lower price. Socialism can have regulations against such destruction. But there are more problems: There is no fixed ratio between how much a price increase of say twenty percent reduces the quantity demanded. There is not even a guarantee that increasing the price reduces demand at all. People can take the price increase as indicating a trend of more price increases to come and so they ask for more units.

Flexible prices can help, but they also cause annoyance. Having wildly fluctuating prices is not popular. Are there alternative ways of dealing with the two problems?

1. An alternative way for dealing with excess stock: People obtain consumer items with Dated Consumption Points. The consumer items have “release dates” and each consumption point is only valid for items from a certain date and older. (Note the subtle difference to saying the consumption points expire at a set date. Even if people broadly agree with the idea of expiring consumption points, they will quarrel over the proper “life-span”. In contrast, in this proposal it’s almost like the things themselves are telling people what the situation is.)

You can think something is too expensive, hold on to your DCPs in the vague hope for nicer new things to be released. But then the day comes when everything newly produced cannot be obtained with the old DCPs. Meanwhile, the old pile shrinks because other people use their old DCPs (or new DCPs) to obtain things from the old pile and also some stuff in that pile just rots away. So there is no strong need to lower the prices. Over time, it automatically happens that people look to get the less attractive stuff with their old DCPs before there is nothing left to get with them.

2. An alternative way for dealing with excess demand: When the buffer stock of an item runs very low and it does not look like production is catching up fast enough, the item’s availability is restricted with a waiting queue. This is not as bad as it sounds because you don’t have to stand in the rain, it is a simulated waiting queue online. Even better, you can jump the queue by bidding Queue Points. Highest QP bids go first. When it’s your turn, you pay with DCPs as usual and the DCP price might as well be a fixed price. (If you want more than one unit, you have to do the queue thing all over again.)

It might be too big a change in way of life to require that all consumption has to happen through an online interface, so is there a way to dampen demand for something without moving it to the online world and without raising its DCP price? Yes, it could be one of the ways how people get QPs: Refrain today from grabbing in shops items marked as high demand and in thirty days you receive some QPs for that.

By the way, this makes me think of old “crank” proposals to price everything by labor content.
Any proposal claiming that pricing things by labor content would be a sound way to organize society invites incredulity: “What about mismatches between supply and demand?” We dealt with that above. “Should nature have no price?” Well, that follows from the idea. “But we can’t just let some random person grab everything in nature!” Fair enough. We can make labor content the standard for DCP prices. For some things, their DCP price can be zero while access to them is rationed by QPs.

>>1838242
this is why we say "products"

>>1838317
>What about mismatches between supply and demand?
this isn't a problem since it's only labour that is demanded that adds to the value of a product. any excess supply has zero SNLT embodied. we can account for this ex-post

is Systems Engineering relevant at all to cybernetic communist planning?

>Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary field of engineering and engineering management that focuses on how to design, integrate, and manage complex systems over their life cycles. At its core, systems engineering utilizes systems thinking principles to organize this body of knowledge. The individual outcome of such efforts, an engineered system, can be defined as a combination of components that work in synergy to collectively perform a useful function.

<Issues such as requirements engineering, reliability, logistics, coordination of different teams, testing and evaluation, maintainability, and many other disciplines necessary for successful system design, development, implementation, and ultimate decommission become more difficult when dealing with large or complex projects. Systems engineering deals with work processes, optimization methods, and risk management tools in such projects. It overlaps technical and human-centered disciplines such as industrial engineering, production systems engineering, process systems engineering, mechanical engineering, manufacturing engineering, production engineering, control engineering, software engineering, electrical engineering, cybernetics, aerospace engineering, organizational studies, civil engineering and project management. Systems engineering ensures that all likely aspects of a project or system are considered and integrated into a whole.

>The systems engineering process is a discovery process that is quite unlike a manufacturing process. A manufacturing process is focused on repetitive activities that achieve high-quality outputs with minimum cost and time. The systems engineering process must begin by discovering the real problems that need to be resolved and identifying the most probable or highest-impact failures that can occur. Systems engineering involves finding solutions to these problems.

is this a field worth studying if I want to contribute to cybercom in the future?

>>1838381
Why are you pretending that post >>1838317 actually asked that by removing the “” only for you to give a glib non-solution while post >>1838317 answered exactly that question in detail?

>>1838317 (me)
Need to fix a sentence:
But then the day comes when everything newly produced cannot be obtained with the old DCPs.
But then the day comes when nothing newly produced can be obtained with the old DCPs.

Dealing with a few additional questions one might have:

“Some things can be stored for months, but a salad bowl from the supermarket expires after a few days. Your alternative scheme for dealing with oversupply does not work with such a short time span. You have to lower the salad’s DCP price, don’t you? So you have to give up fixing the DCP price strictly by labor content.“ I WILL NOT BE DEFEATED BY A SALAD. If people who take the old salad instantly get QPs for doing that, the salad’s DCP price can stay fixed over the days.

“This proposal feels very similar in effect to just having one currency and prices that fluctuate. Aren’t you just playing word games without changing anything?“ You will see it is a different system when you think about it for a while.

Within capitalism, when it comes to a mass-produced thing with long shelf life, an improvement in production method leads to a necessary change in value for both new units as well as units already on the shelves. Socialism with non-dated budgets needs a corresponding procedure for reassessment, which gets complicated when things produced by new cheap methods are not strictly identical to older things. With DCPs such reassessments are not a pressing issue. We may do without them.

Within socialism, the center will use some in-kind planning for allocating resources between ministries, but doing this exclusively (assuming that’s even possible) would amount to micro-managing everything from the center with no decision-making power left for the ministries. Money budgets on the other hand lead to chaos and inequality over time. Two-dimensional budgets of DCPs and QPs allow for nuance. Suppose some ministry gets tasked with something that requires not much labor, but is very important. So the center allocates to that ministry a low budget of DCPs and a high budget of QPs.

“How do foreign entities interact with that system?” I do not have a full answer, but I can tell you the two-dimensional system allows for fine-grained control. I believe that as long as we are stingy with handing out QPs to foreigners, we don’t need to worry much about them wrecking havoc by what they take.

>>1839420
>the center
>ministries
where does this idea that we want to reconstitute the Soviet system come from? not that this is even remotely how that system worked either
>Suppose some ministry gets tasked with something that requires not much labor, but is very important. So the center allocates to that ministry a low budget of DCPs and a high budget of QPs
this sounds like khozraschet and the retarded system of planning in the late USSR in general
>two-dimensional system
>not advocating for billions of dimensions
you might as well be advocating for the single-dimensional system of exchange

>>1839420 (me)
Forgot to mention: DCPs are in electronic accounts and cannot be transferred between citizens. They are used up in consumption and do not circulate. For foreign trade however, the government issues a type of DCPs that can be traded between foreign entities. (So far, this is like the LVs in TaNS.)

QPs are also like that, with one more restriction: The QPs issued to foreign entities cannot be traded between them.

Entertainingly naive (non-socialist) reading of the history of work with concepts such as "social contract" and "regular vs. psychopathic capitalists".

>>1838382
Absolutely. Marxist dialectics is sort of a systems theory and process philosophy streamlined for revolutionary action.

>>1839561
Nostalgia, romance, online Marxism being taken over by bourgeois econ students looking for an esoteric advantage

>>1839561
>where does this idea that we want to reconstitute the Soviet system come from? not that this is even remotely how that system worked either
If this is not "even remotely" like the Soviet system how could one read into this an intention to be like it.
>you might as well be advocating for the single-dimensional system
Might as well? Consider two people at the same time and place in a society with two types of consumption vouchers. (It does not matter for the argument I will make here whether the prices of one thing can be combined of the two types like in >>1838317 or things are grouped in two separate spheres for voucher type like basics and luxuries as Takis Fotopoulos proposed.)

Is it that these vouchers are a mere formality and that exactly the same pattern of who has access to which combinations of things "might as well" be done by having consumer budgets in one voucher type only? Is it that we only have to find some conversion rate to get into the one-dimensional system with the same pattern of access possibilities? Or would conversion need a more complicated formula?

It is possible that simultaneously person A has a higher budget than person B in voucher type X and a lower budget in voucher type Y. That means A has access to things B does not have access to and vice versa. If there is only one voucher type this vice versa between two people and what their budgets can access does not arise. That means 2D-1D conversion is not just complicated, it is mathematically impossible. So much for your "might as well".

>>1844283
>Nostalgia, romance, online Marxism being taken over by bourgeois econ students
You would have to explain to me how you see any of that in >>1838317 because I'm not seeing that.

>>1844252
historia civilis is a comrade. I don't get why you're being negative
>concepts such as "social contract" and "regular vs. psychopathic capitalists"
there are degrees in hell. the point of the video as I recall is to point out that medieval peasants worked less than we do now

>>1844365
>If this is not "even remotely" like the Soviet system how could one read into this an intention to be like it.
the point is that people seem to think the CC-CPSU(b) or whatever sat around and made decisions about what should be made. then people go around dunking on this notion, which has nothing to do with how Soviet planning actually worked. it's a strawman critique
>Consider two people at the same time and place in a society with two types of consumption vouchers
you weren't talking about final consumers, but of "ministries". here's what you said:
>Suppose some ministry gets tasked with something that requires not much labor, but is very important. So the center allocates to that ministry a low budget of DCPs and a high budget of QPs
an economy that coordinates units this way is an exchange economy
if we're talking about final consumers then yes, you can have multiple vouchers. look at WW2 ration books for example
>It is possible that simultaneously person A has a higher budget than person B in voucher type X and a lower budget in voucher type Y. That means A has access to things B does not have access to and vice versa. If there is only one voucher type this vice versa between two people and what their budgets can access does not arise. That means 2D-1D conversion is not just complicated, it is mathematically impossible. So much for your "might as well".
you were talking about inter-unit coordination, not final consumption. it is perfectly reasonable that for example adults and children have access to different goods, and that this could be handled via various types of vouchers

>>1846964
>the point is that people seem to think the CC-CPSU(b) or whatever sat around and made decisions about what should be made.
The USSR is not referenced at all in the posts you refer to. Of course one can analyze people based on something else than the words they produce, but only if one has opportunity to observe them doing something else.
>you weren't talking about final consumers, but of "ministries"
Only in one paragraph. Or do you think the guy getting a salad bowl was a ministry.
>an economy that coordinates units this way is an exchange economy
If you mean capitalism by that, say capitalism. And you have to make an actual argument for this rather than just asserting it.

>>1847153
>If you mean capitalism by that, say capitalism
capitalism is not the only economy that relies on exchange. we are talking about planning in this thread, not exchange

>>1844764
I was kind of curious and I did a bit of googling and redditors seem to think the video is bad history, and it does seem a bit thinly sourced. I admire the spirit but not sure the video is totally true. Love the guy's videos still though.

What's your explanation for places like the DPRK not adopting this, even if it is much more efficient?

>>1844365
I didn't read "unlimited dimensions of exchange" as entirely facetious, since we are dealing with several thousand dimensional embeddings in language models on tiny machines already. There are at least 1 billion EANs and we can assume that most of them would be redundant under a planning system; 1×10^9 SKUs * 8×10^3 dimensions * 4 bytes for fp32 = 3.2×10^13 bytes = 32TB, not extremely onerous to distribute, easy enough to offer individual or mass product lookups via an automated service. It's not so far from what actual customs documentation uses to identify items in UN-regulated international commerce.

>>1847624
That efficiency is a false god that serves the standpoint of an economy, not its relations.
And that "cybercommunism" is equivalent to the well-studied problem of capitalist enterprise resource planning and at least three major software systems that perform it.
And that DPRK is a monarchy, not a socialist state.

>>1847624
The country still hasn't evolved past the monarchy, I don't believe they have computers yet.

>>1847866
They have enough computers for some professional-class adventurer to take down
https://www.wired.com/story/p4x-north-korea-internet-hacker-identity-reveal/

>>1847866
>Le monarchy
I expect better from this general

>>1847963
You're talking to a bot posting via TOR. Just ignore all Glownonymous posts they're easily the worst posters on the entire site (bar the porn addicts and /pol/ tourists hanging out on si/b/eria)

>>1847887
It's cool that they can afford computers for their top brass, a shame they aren't widely distributed. Perhaps even under the monarchy this could be achieved.
>>1847963
This is just cope, what do you believe the government structure is if it's not a monarchy?
>>1847968
Rude much, sorry that you had a bad-ruin with a TOR user, but that's no excuse to discount my argument, which you have not refuted.

Let's explore solutions for each problem without relying on market reforms:

<1. Inefficiency: Implement a system of dynamic feedback loops within the planning process. This involves regularly gathering data on resource utilization, production output, and consumer satisfaction, then adjusting plans accordingly. Additionally, introduce cross-training programs for workers to increase flexibility and adaptability within industries, allowing for smoother transitions during production shifts.

>2. Lack of Innovation: Establish innovation hubs or research centers within key industries, where experts collaborate to solve industry-specific challenges. Offer incentives such as recognition awards, career advancement opportunities, and access to specialized resources for employees who contribute innovative ideas. Foster a culture of experimentation and creativity by encouraging workers to propose and implement novel solutions to production problems.

<3. Shortages and Surpluses: Develop a predictive modeling system that analyzes historical consumption data, demographic trends, and seasonal variations to forecast demand more accurately. Utilize decentralized decision-making with local councils or committees empowered to adjust production levels based on real-time demand fluctuations. Implement a system of incentives for efficient resource utilization, rewarding units that minimize waste and maintain optimal inventory levels.

>4. Bureaucracy: Streamline decision-making processes by reducing unnecessary paperwork and approval steps. Implement a digital platform for streamlined communication and collaboration among government agencies and industrial sectors. Encourage innovation in administrative processes by hosting regular hackathons or brainstorming sessions to identify and implement efficiency improvements.

<5. Lack of Consumer Choice: Establish consumer feedback mechanisms such as suggestion boxes, community forums, or online surveys to gather input on desired products and services. Organize consumer cooperatives or guilds where members collectively negotiate with producers to meet their preferences. Encourage small-scale entrepreneurship by providing training, microloans, and access to shared production facilities for individuals interested in producing niche goods.

>6. Corruption and Favoritism: Implement transparent auditing processes and regular public reporting of resource allocation decisions to increase accountability. Establish an independent ombudsman office tasked with investigating allegations of corruption and ensuring fair treatment of all stakeholders. Promote a culture of integrity and ethical behavior through education campaigns, workshops, and community outreach programs.

<7. Difficulty in Coordination: Develop a centralized information-sharing platform accessible to all relevant stakeholders, providing real-time data on production schedules, inventory levels, and distribution networks. Create interdisciplinary task forces with representatives from different sectors to address cross-cutting issues and coordinate response efforts during crises. Foster a spirit of cooperation and mutual support among industrial sectors through regular networking events, joint training programs, and collaborative projects.

>>1848698
How about solutions that marginalize to the greatest possible extent the salience and role of managers and their social creativity, and instead
>9. take preorders

>>1848709 (me)
*or additionally
Yeah, I am nostalgic for parecon, what of it?

>>1848710
I'd be more sympathetic to parecon if they didn't hang the entire idea on people planning their consumption in advance
some preordering could be done of course, and we could offer a discount for it since it makes planning easier

>>1848731
LLMs automating managers out of a job, what a timeline!

>>1848755
True, parecon doesn't work so well for things like food, where production and consumption might vary unpredictably for a million reasons. In general, slight overproduction of food consumes far less inputs and effort than repairing the consequences of underproduction, does not usually damage the resource, and in any case can be substantially recycled through composting. In other foods, it's overproduction (overfishing, seed unsaved) that carries the risk of resource destruction, and a miserly approach is preferable for those commodities.
But, with such computing power as we have available now, the amount of computation consumed on a rolling one-year or even n-year plan updated daily using Cockshott's algorithm would be negligible.
The value of venues like KickStarter or CrowdSupply is in the unrealized new consumption needs uncovered. In another time, blue jeans and boom boxes might have raised a bright red flag in the demand tables, and might have prevented a historical tragedy.

>>1849077
I just don't see myself committing to consuming exactly 16kg of butter this year

>>1849331
you'd better have eaten all that butter come December 31st or else you'll be spending another 400 hours in planning meetings next year

>>1849448
wtf I love US tax paperwork now

>>1849596
I did my taxes the other day, which I feel is still more pleasant than the kind of hell Pareconists imagine for the future

>>1850004
>I did my taxes the other day
pb