[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1624564955572.jpg ( 291.35 KB , 1488x934 , dielectrical.jpg )

 No.336051[View All]

Quite a few comments on this video claim that Cockshott is misrepresenting Hegel's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjja-oNyfdI

Is Cockshott correct, is Hegel just doing intellectual sleight of hand?

The video itself seems to be part of a series responding to comments from his blog where he seems to claim that Dialectical Materialism was invented by social democrats to corrupt Marx's work.

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/04/28/please-waste-no-time-on-hegel/
288 posts and 37 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.354116

>>354108
>david harvey is against the labour theory of value
I'm simply shocked
>>

 No.354166

>>354108
It is widely believed that random /leftypol/ anon liked bread with Nutella on top. But nowhere, in fact, did random /leftypol/ anon declare his allegiance to bread with Nutella on top. That theory belonged to Anonymous Coward on Slashdot, who recognized that it was deeply problematic even as he insisted on it. On the few occasions where random /leftypol/ anon comments directly on this matter, he refers to “Nutella on bread” and not bread with Nutella on top.
>>

 No.354209

>>354108
This is correct. Harvey had some stupid takes if I recall correctly but this is historically correct if you study classical political economy.
Smith, Ricardo, etc. weren't just saying "labor is the source of value because it feels right". It was rather implied by a lot of philosophy about what the economic actors (people) were, and what it meant to participate in a market economy or any society in which labor is commanded and allocated. Marx followed in that - remember that Capital was a critique of liberal political economy, rather than a defense of it.
>>

 No.354245

>>354116
>against
It doesn't really sound like it.
>>

 No.354299

>>354209
> remember that Capital was a critique of liberal political economy, rather than a defense of it
Who…who was claiming that it was a defense?
>>

 No.354301

>>354209
I heard you have a podcast now. Care to share a link?
>>

 No.354365

>>

 No.354372

>>354299
The rightoids who think "Marx believed in LTV therefore Capital is wrong because haw haw labor isn't valuable". The whole point is to look at what it would actually mean if labor-power is commodified, to conclude that this arrangement is terrible and rife with contradictions. The reality of wage labor is that it means, very directly, that industrial workers are disciplined by the market, and the bourgeois economists in Marx's time were well aware that labor was very valuable and necessary, hence why it had to be disciplined.

The neoclassical theory is moving away from that stage of capitalism, and moving towards monopoly capitalism and oligarchy. Their answer to classical political economy is "no shit, we want to rule like kings", and they moved steadily towards a more ecological view of value, one befitting an oligarchy of capital that sought to roll back all this talk about commoners having rights at all.
>>

 No.354876

>>354372
Right I get you and I agree with you, but this place isn't mainly inhabitated by rightoids you know
>>

 No.354880

>>354365
>listening to eugenes voice
Well I didn't expect you to sound like that, to be honest
>>

 No.354986

>>354245
The paper is literally called "Marx’s refusal of the labour theory of value" you numbnut
>>

 No.354992

>>354365
I have read your "Notes on Philosophy" and right at the start you make a imo dishonest strawman in saying that:
>"The ruling class is animated by the spooky force of Capital, and not at all by actual people! People do not have agency!"
Why do you do that? The argument that Marx and consequently other marxists make is that and I quote from page 576 of volume 3:
>The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form

So he is saying that a given economic base has direct influence superstructural elements such as statecraft, culture, law etc.
This isn't a landian type of argument that capital is sentient or some shit like that
>>

 No.354995

>>354992
Everything he says is dishonest. He's not a marxist either
>>

 No.354999

>>354995
Not sure yet what this guy's deal is. I sometimes ask what his alliances are, but he is always diverting into some cryptic message. My strong suspicion is that he makes eugenicism this strong central point of his argument, because it is personal for him and we know that people tend to get blinded when shit gets personal. I think he makes some good points though…sometimes
>>

 No.355634

There is one crucial error in your analysis eugene. Marxism as a theory doesn't have any flaws
>>

 No.355691

File: 1625418670439.png ( 38.99 KB , 680x680 , socialismdoneleft.png )

>>354365
Eugene you sound like picrel but fatter
>>

 No.355696

File: 1625418814573.gif ( 1.36 MB , 320x200 , Haha.gif )

>>

 No.355931

>>354986
Not everything is a battle where one side is obliterated. He obviously is doing the classic "standing it on its head" -> value theory of labor
>>

 No.355936

>>355691
>tfw eugene writes more theory than you have written shitposts in your life
>>

 No.355980

>>355936
I'm starting to stop ignoring him. Let's say he brings up an interesting perspective to the table. If only it weren't for his strawmanning of certain marxist arguments, to make himself look better like I mentioned here >>354992
>>

 No.355997

Question, why is Hagel put on such a fucking pedestal? You can shit mountains of turds on Kekegard, Imanuel Can't or Niche, as well as on all the fucking ancient geeks, but attack Gaygel and you'll get an army of Gaygel stans shouting about how "u don't get it" or "u just got filtered". Why put this old idealist german on a pedestal?
>>

 No.356037

>>355997
Because he formalized something people had been saying for 2000 years and no one has surpassed him since. A few people have "completed" him but no one has done something new, you either reject Hegel or are post-Hegelian.
>>

 No.356274

>>355980
>>355936
on the offchance this isn't eugene samefagging, go suck a dick. Eugene is a smart guy but his theoryletry and schizoism puts him squarely in pseud territory, even worse than AW
>>

 No.356551

>>356274
>even worse than AW
That's a tough verdict if I ever heard one
>>

 No.356561

>>356274
In your opinion, where or in which situations does his theoryletry come through the most
>>

 No.356649

>>356561
When he relates literally everything to some eugenist conspiracy by the bourgeoisie. See http://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/
>>

 No.361243

Ok, I am a big fan of Cockshott, but I think his big ego lets him sometimes say shit that is completely misguided.
Like his last vid, where he applies the same categories of socialists that Marx and Engels conceived in the fucking 1840s in order to describe currents that were present in the workers movement at this time. Most of them, are completely dead now and he still applies them to our modern context like some platonist. Why is he doing this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AjbWWvdIEI&t=454s
>>

 No.361278

>>361243
He's a computer scientist, expect massive amounts of autism.
>>

 No.361291

>>361278
In some portions it definitely starts to feel like it.
Like for example, he says the greens are reactionary socialists. Who's gonna tell him that not only are the fucking greens not even socialist in name, nor are they advocating for some sort of agrarian patriarchal society. Anglo box moment sadly for Cockshott.
Maybe his rejection of dialectics can be partially blamed for this rigid reliance on categories and definitions(when it comes to anything outside economics and cs atleast)
>>

 No.361383

>>361291
>Maybe his rejection of dialectics can be partially blamed for this rigid reliance on categories and definitions
Yes, literally. He is like the vulgar materialists Lenin Engels and Marx describe, who see things in a metaphysical way, as totally static. Doesn't understand (at least in lots of things) that he should look at things as they develop
>>

 No.361431

>>361243
>>361383
This is a misscharacterization Cockshott's position on dialectics, he said that the aspects that are derived from Hegelian logic should abandoned because the same philosophical concepts can be expressed much better with newer schools of thought.
>>

 No.361446

>>361431
Maybe, but man is he mechanical. I was like, ok you want a modern manifesto? Great, but then don't start the video by literally applying 19th century political currents in Germany to modern day China, Russia, Spain etc.
What was he thinking
>>

 No.361475

>>361431
> because the same philosophical concepts can be expressed much better with newer schools of thought.
This doesn't sound like him but source? What concepts?
>>

 No.361501

>>361446
I didn't find anything objectionable with his video
<On the need for a programme
>>361475
It's spread out over his many videos where he touches on the subject from time to time, where he also recommends many writers who have outdone Hegel in terms of explaining these things clearly. I don't know how i would retrieve all the information you ask in a timely fashion. It's well worth watching his videos, and you could take notes as you go along.
>>

 No.361513

>>361501
>I didn't find anything objectionable with his video
The video as such isn't that bad, but he should be careful in drawing analogies or applying long outdated categories to modern society
>>

 No.361548

>>361513
>The video as such isn't that bad, but he should be careful in drawing analogies or applying long outdated categories to modern society
I couldn't see any wrong categories, what are you talking about ?
>>

 No.361590

>>361501
>outdone Hegel in terms of explaining these things clearly
But explain what clearly? He doesn't think the ideas that Hegel talks about - the philosophical concepts as you call them - are worth anything at all. He says that stuff like Turing supersedes it, though it's clearly a separate project.
>>

 No.361591

>>

 No.361593

>>361548
>>361591
It's mainly the "reactionary socialist" section, because the bourgeois and democratic socialists are in essence just our modern day reformists.
>>

 No.361743

>>361590
Cockshott said that reading Hegel isn't worth the time for leftist that are now getting into Marxist theory and should instead read more modern stuff. Because Hegel was wrong about some stuff (you can't get 2 kilos of theory from one kilo of axioms) and also was superseded by later thinkers.
>>361593
>It's mainly the "reactionary socialist" section, because the bourgeois and democratic socialists are in essence just our modern day reformists.
Ok I'm going to watch that part again.
>>

 No.361902

>>361743
> Because Hegel was wrong about some stuff (you can't get 2 kilos of theory from one kilo of axioms)
Utter nonsense. Prove it. Also see >>337918
- we already talked about this here
>also was superseded by later thinkers.
Specifics please, what and who
>>

 No.362383


>>361501 sounds like a peterson tier "you wouldn't understand unless you watched all 42 lectures" non-argument.

>>361431
I've been watching Cockshott since his first video in 2018 and I haven't seen
>the same philosophical concepts can be expressed much better with newer schools of thought.
at all.
If you are referring to him sporadically telling people to read Turing and Darwin then I completely disagree. He does not refer to the same concepts he rejects them and claims there is no need for them because science has superseded all other knowledge. I'm also a fan of his work but he really doesn't understand philosophy.
>>

 No.385418

File: 1626599102437.jpeg ( 249.67 KB , 1920x1080 , 1626403569293.jpeg )

>>

 No.385798

>>385418
As far as I know computers play go at the top level.
>>

 No.385804

>>385798
playing go better than humans is not the same as solving go
>>

 No.385822

there is a very good german video with english subtitles explaining hegelian dialectics
>>

 No.385836

>>385804
what does "solving go" means?
>>

 No.386868

>>

 No.386877

>>385836
Imagine the strategy needed for tik tak toe, 3x3 board alternating turns. It's extremely simple for us to tie every single game, because we have solved it.
Go is 19x19, so it's a bit bigger and requires quite a few more calculations than even chess.
>>

 No.409451

bagel;

Unique IPs: 25

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome