Cybernetic Socialism In the 21st Century
Hi Patrons!
Sorry about the low output recently.
Here is a video of a talk I recently gave on "Cybernetic Socialism In The 21st Century".
This was at the invitation of the Dutch marxist group 'De Socialisten' (https://socialisten.org/) in conjunction with INDEP (https://www.indep.network/).
Enjoy!
Comments (6)
Got to end, agreed with much if not most, excellent insight etc. But the Soviet system never told the mattress factory how to make mattresses. Some straw manning there, this idea that actually existing socialism was more alienated than eg Toyota capitalism. But maybe I misinterpreted that piece somewhat. Also, the aim of *rational* planning (see my previous comment) under actually existing socialism, whether markets were used (as in China) or not (as in USSR) was to meet human needs, and in the context of unfettering forces of production this was more important than the more long term focus on alienation, exploitation (consent over expropriation of value). Finally, i know you caught Ian Wright’s friendly critique of the Fundamentals, which I found very sound. Be good to get your detailed response, maybe in the book - happy to wait for the book - looking forward to it!
Apologies if this is a duplication - patreon swallowed my previous reply. We agree that the Soviets never did detailed production plans, as proposed by Cockshott and the modern central planners. The talk was really about the socialist calculation debate, and dealing with the arguments there. TPS-style production is less alienating than Fordist production. As the Soviet system was explicitly designed on Fordist lines, it logically follows that the Soviet system was more alienating than TPS production. Rational planning was meant to unfetter the forces of production, but in reality it added to the fetters, as we will show in the book. We will deal with all the objections of Wright et al throughout the book! T
It’s an interesting project you guys are undertaking, but you have to recognise you’re engaging in a sort of metaphysics, so I think accusing people of not being Marxists is the wrong approach. Reality is compromise, contradictions, etc. which Marx and Engels knew. Cuba is a good case in point, and the practical problems were extensively discussed - I’m sure you already came across this https://dev.pdfhost.io/v/y3HeryLRbH_yaffe2012
Not a single of the AES states treated the labour of all equally. This is a fundamental point. If you do not do so, you have a variegated society, and the retention of wage-labour. Such a society cannot be socialist in the Marxist sense. It's not an accusation, but a analysis. The task for all of us socialists is to be crystal clear about what we are fighting for, and what it implies.
Marx’s concept of rational planning = ‘central planning’, planning is more rational the more complete, ie central, the plan is. Rational lanning arises from Communists experimenting under difficult conditions of revolutionary societies under siege by imperialism. It must be undertaken a different levels and scales, including centrally, strategically etc. Criticise overly centralised planning in certain socialist cases, sure, but it is as impossible to discard ‘central’ planning as to discard production for human needs.
No disagreements that there should be planning at all recursions. But that is not the arguments put forth by central planners, or what people understand central planning to be. Who looks at the world bank and the imf as central planners?