Economic Planning for the Future: An Interview with CibCom
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- In this video we are joined by guests from CibCom, who will be telling us about cybercommunism and the future of economic planning. How has economic planning evolved over time and what does it have to offer as an alternative to market systems?
--------
CibCom Links:
Website:
cibcom.org/
Mathematics to plan an economy booklet:
cibcom.org/mathematics-to-pla...
Twitter:
/ cibcomorg
Econophysics Server Link:
/ discord
CibGlobe Server Link:
/ discord
--------
Animated intro by Jack, co-host of the Auxiliary Statements podcast @AuxStatements on Twitter.
Intro music by Charles Tristan:
/ charles-tristan
--------
The Marxist Project:
Patreon:
/ themarxistproject
Twitter:
/ marxistproject
--------
00:00 - 03:31 Introductions
03:32 - 07:09 Why CibCom?
07:10 - 15:55 Economic Planning: Markets and the Alternative
15:56 - 19:30 Economic Planning: Mistakes of the Past
19:31 - 22:55 Economic Planning: New Directions
22:56 - 27:56 The Road Forward
27:57 - 31:55 CibCom's Future
31:56 - 34:11 Conclusion
Cibcom 🤝🏼 Marxist Project
Two of my favorite entities, wonderful collaboration!
The lack of education on true leftism in the US is ridiculous. I've been a communist for years and didn't realize it, or understand why I felt isolated and frustrated in my liberal groups. Spreading the reality of socialism far and wide is so important. Also culturally getting people to lose their authoritarian mindset.
Thank you for the video : D.
Communism is bad lol
Thank you for the interview! I believe this question of planning will only become more pertinent as the current systems contradictions and class warfare intesify.
My gf's grandma told me one morning that we have to have a plan for the economy. I was shocked lol. Apparently it is common sense
@@JosephFuckinStalin A completely planned economy is not good.
I love this topic
Doesn't get discussed enough!
@@JosephFuckinStalin it thankfully gets discussed more and more but i still agree. It's hugely important imo.
@@judgemcnugget7110 It has been a bit more on "BeardTube" ahem lately. Thankfully. Unfortunately most of what makes up "left-wing" content on this platform seem adverse to the idea of a planned economy
17:58 there is something interesting about the Soviet production management approach, the product was centralized, the production wasn't, as for the example of the pants, they didn't had variety of pants, but they did had variety of clothes industries.
I know more about the vehicles industry, you can take a look how many car companies the USSR had and be surprised to know that they have more than the US, take into consideration that the US had a oligopoly between Ford, GM and Chrysler, that's not the case in the USSR, the companies were independent, that was a bad idea, the production of a base product, be it clothes, cars whatever, must be centralized, since those took the same materials and the same industrial matrix, what must be different is the end product, which needed a variety.
I took the example of the car industry, but pretty much every other industry in the USSR was like that, the aerospace was one of the craziest, but when you look how the capitalist system became hegemonic you understand they necessarily needed a production monopoly, which is different from the market monopoly, if you take a closer look at the fund management system you understand how deep the capitalists goes to secure a centralized economy, I'll take the Samsung example, Samsung isn't just a tech company, Samsung is a everything company, but the base of Samsung is the fund management, don't be confuse with a bank, is not the bank, is above the bank, the fund management is the organization that manages the investments and market shares for the other branches of Samsung, when you look at Samsung you should look right there, that is a prime example of centralized economy, used to exploit indeed, but secured, and that was the fatal flaw in the USSR, they didn't have anything like that, guess who did? China, Cuba and the DPRK.
I know that the Chinese government subverted the system to exploit the workers, and that's the other problem more akin to us, the lack of a democratic decision over the economy because of a hierarchical bureaucracy that created an autocracy and eventually became the burgesoir, guess who didn't have that? Cuba.
There is always a bourgeois headquarters and we have to fight it. Its not about cuba didnt have and it and ussr did, every anything ever has one.
Expropriating all of the technology Amazon uses would give a big head start 💪🏻
yeah the technology Amazon uses helps though it will have to be reworked before used in a new system. Currently Amazon is a pain in the ass to work with if you are a producer that relies on it even though it is profitable to work with.
This is amazing!! All of you are doing great work!🎉
Another great video as always!
Appreciate all this. Thanks everyone. Look forward to hearing more.
So I'm for some central planning in large industry and strongly regulated markets for everything else.
I just don't believe one way fits all. Life is complicated and it's tempting to want to boil it down to some simple principles and just one basic template but I just don't believe life works like that. I'm a both/and not an either/or kind of person. I believe we need multiple approaches to get the best results.
Plus I believe business is a very valuable thing and can be a force for good *IF* Labor and our community rights - and our common environment - are protected. With those protections in place enterprise can be a positive thing that serves everyone.
Thanks for doing this interview! ☭ 🖥
The belief that planned economies have become possible only 30 years ago is pretty wild ngl
Building new cities from scratch is the most efficient way to unite cybernetics and socialism and to make the socialist revoluiton in most countries.
You can't build any city without military control of the land it would sit on. Ugh.
@@fun_ghoul so? Where did I say we couldn't have it?
I think calculated planning can work when it comes to food and utilities such as water and electricity. But as for consumer goods such as clothing, cell phones, etc., I think there should be a system in place where orders could be placed, and then the goods would be produced in batches when the demand threshold is met. In this way, the former assures food security for all and that our collective needs are met, while the latter assures we aren't overproducing and generating waste in the process.
Don't forget about recycling and redistributing any excess. It's called just don't waste. We are a sorry wasteful throwaway society but we can change that by creating a circular economy. We can have laws and policies in place to this effect that provide easy plans and pathways for individual households and businesses alike to always reuse, repurpose, or donate their excess. We can have CCCs/NCCs, county or neighborhood collection centers where excess from business and home alike can be taken to be redistributed for free and/or very low cost to the community. So long is the excess isn't wasted, overproduction isn't a major issue, altho businesses should still try to minimize it because of environmental impacts, and we can work more on that over time.
@@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipes Good point. Some overproduction is usually better than just the right amount or falling short.
@@politika8087 I think so. I mean I think we've swung way too far to the right where everything is grossly overproduced now and then half of it ends up in the landfill and that is shit so if we can try to bring back to a more reasonable centerpoint with more degrowth and less mindless production, and then whatever happens to be left over at this point, and I'm sure there will be a fair amount because there's so much about consumption that can't be perfectly predicted, we can have redistributive pathways in place.
My super secret two step process for a better economy is™️:
> Sensible production
Plus,
> Full redistribution of all products coming off New Production for the purposes of re-use, salvage or resale by the public or industry. There's no reason why we can't have multiple steps of redistribution for industrial products and components. Some of these are already in place but I believe we can do much more. Most things can be reused in constructive ways.
@@politika8087 @politika8087 I think so. I mean I think we've swung way too far to the right where everything is grossly overproduced and then half of it ends up in the landfill and that is bad so if we can try to bring things back to a more reasonable centerpoint with more degrowth and less mindless production, and then whatever happens to be left over at that point (and I'm sure there will be a fair amount because there's so much about consumption that can't be perfectly predicted) we can have redistributive pathways in place.
My super secret two step process for a better economy is™️:
> Sensible production
Plus,
> Full redistribution of all products coming off New Production for the purposes of re-use, salvage or resale by the public or industry. There's no reason why we can't have multiple steps of redistribution for industrial products and components. Some of these are already in place but I believe we can do much more. Most things can be reused in constructive ways.
@@politika8087 test
So the mistakes that happened in the soviet union were due to the material conditions back there , because there weren't the technologies of computing at that time .
Unfortunately when the soviet scientist victor glushkov presented the computerized system of planning the economy in the soviet union his contribution wasn't taken .. just imagine how we would be right now if the soviet union applied this scientist's ideas !!
Is there material on this? Any links
Hakim made an episode about soviet planning economy efficiency in the era of stalin and after but due to the growing complexity between all sectors the soviet vikor glushkov announced his invention or ogas system to develop the central planning of the ussr as a whole by series of nationwide computers connecting the entire state sectors to make the calculations very quickly instead of on hand .. also paul cuckshott made a book about it called towards new socialism . And there is a great channel called politsurm international where it mentions the success of the planned economy and the inefficiency happened due to not implementing computerized planning
There is a channel called second thought which made an episode about walmart and amazon computerized planning but not in socialist goals instead for maximizing the profits extracted from the workers , distributions and allocations ... this episode is very interesting as it shows how computerized socialism will be massively superior than capitalism .
That Glushkov wasn't taken seriously and that his ideas weren't implemented is actually false. The recent (2019-2020) Vladimir Kossov interviews indicate that Glushkov's ideas were implemented in the automated economic Kontur system, Glushkovskaya, which lives on in the Russian Federation to this day. Should Russia be invaded or be involved in a major war it is likely we'll see this system activated.
The trouble I have with what is presented here is the focus on reform without revolution being addressed.
Yeah well spotted, very similar to paul Cockshots conception of planned economics .... makes you think even more.
@@comrademartinofrappuccino Paul's research and study in planned economics does not reject revolution. Paul talks about various revolutionary struggles and strategies ua-cam.com/video/C319X8x90mc/v-deo.htmlsi=CTo3NGaNixinBJOg
I don't think they're advocating reform over revolution. They are bringing their research to various political groups to have it be part of their strategy. I do hope more revolutionary parties take this seriously.
@@comrademartinofrappuccino paul cockshott is in favor of revolutionary approach
How do you guys respond to the essay anarchy and planning Jasper Bernes?
Git?👀
This was a pretty nice discussion/interview. Some (laugh) notes, though...
When talking about a leftist economy vs a rightist economy, the difference between left and right first needs to be understood or else it's just a catch-word to justify whatever. The thing that separates left from right is hierarchy: the left seeks to destroy/undermine hierarchy while the right seeks to create/support hierarchy. Notions like empathy, loyalty, duty, tradition etc do not separate left/right because both have those things, but while the left is more inclusive in their expressions the right is more exclusive; the right feels empathy and has loyalty for those who fall above a certain value within the hierarchies, but not those below that value.
Taking this difference into consideration, you have to look not just at the ideas/values of the left/right, but also the methods. If the methods of the left do not reflect the ideas of the left, then you have leftist ideas enforced by rightist methods. That's where you get "left-statism," which even many self-identifying Marxsts/socialists/communists conflate with socialism/communism/Marxism etc. The people in power say the "right" things and may even have their hearts in the right place, but they're taking their own individual ideas and using top-down organization to enforce them. That's leftist ideas enforced by rightist methods. A leftist idea enforced by leftist methods would reject the notion of leaders making these decisions, even elected leaders, and put it in the hands of the people via democracy. Democracy is not merely the right to vote, but the full participation in decision-making that starts with identifying problems and the bulk of which consists of discussing them and formulating possible solutions; voting is just one small sliver of democracy, but without the rest is not democracy at all.
When people talk about leftist economics, it has to be understood that leftist economics is a democratized economy, not an economy planned by a few "in the best interests" of the many (sorry, Michael Parenti fans, but "in whose interet" is only 1/3 of the equation. "Who does it" and "how do they do it" are the other 2/3). *It's sounding like these people are saying something along the lines of a democratized economy,* but I'm still skeptical because every "communist party" member I've heard speak or seen write inevitably falls back on a central authority doing all the things, but oh, they were elected sort of.
Market socialism: socialst economics in a market economy....in other words, capitalism, but with democratic businesses that operate for profit in a for-profit system where instead of bosses fighting each other for dominance, groups of workers are fighting each other for dominance. The system itself doesn't change from capitalism in the slightest. Market socialism might be a possible low-end transitionary phase between capitalism and socialism, but I wouldn't trust it to actually transition towards socialism. *I like the responses these people are giving on the topic.*
15:45 I can't agree with them on this. The ability to have a democratic planned economy has always existed, but computers and complex software just make it easier, especially for a modern global system...which is far from historically normal, and therefore can't be compared to what was necessary 200 or 800 or more years ago. Because of post length I won't go into it (you can read my thoughts on the website/blog linked to my profile, but be warned that it focuses on how to build socialism starting with community organizing rather than focusing on theory or economics), but the important thing to note is that a "democratically planned economy" is not what the USSR or any other country had or currently has. Their systems were models of democracy that they based on other models because that's what other people did. The introduction of the soviets was a step forward, but they were implemented to follow more or less the same model as before. That old model of democracy is bulky and unwieldy.
A model that isn't designed to be optimized for a thing won't be optimal for the thing. The failures of planned economies are due in large part to their being optimized for something else: top-down control. If you want to see democratic planning (with or without computers), you first need to have a system optimized for democracy in which the masses themselves are the decision-makers. The systems of the USSR, China, Cuba etc were/are top-down systems optimized for a leadership class (we can't mince words: they were a political class in control of a state and its bureaucracy) to control things according to their individual agendas and beliefs/ideas, even with the "mass line" and other "but we talk to the people" gimmicks. "Wise rulers" are still rulers. Even "some" autonomy to self-regulate still presupposes an authority above the people which directs them. The system must be optimized for common democracy, which does NOT mean hundreds of people in a single room shouting at each other, but smaller and more manageable groups that work out their small portion of the problem locally before sending representatives to work it out further with the other small groups, up through a system much like a tiered cake.
The other side of the problem is that economics isn't just consumption fo commodities by individuals, but also includes the logistics to make it happen, the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, etc. All of it needs to be the product of planning done democratically by the masses, not a central authority. That is the REAL failure of planned economies; the planning wasn't done by the masses, but by an authority above them. That's not to say that the masses won't make mistakes, just that they must be the ones to do it if we're going to insist on talking about socialism, communism and/or Marxism.
19:30 Hah! That's what I get for commenting as I watch. Well played. This is a pleasant surprise for me. Most self-identifying social/commun/Marxists (of all stripes) fall back on "the state," which really rankles me as someone who has read enough of Marx to know he rejected their nonsense.
23:00 Re-plugging my own blog (no monetization. Not set up for it, don't plan on doing so), but check out the link attached to my profile for how to build it. Hint: if you want a democratic system, you can't create it from the top-down, but MUST start at the bottom. With you, the individual living in an atomized neoliberal capitalist community. If you try to do it from above you'll only build a system based on a central authority above the people. My approach isn't the ONLY possibility, but if we're after systemic and fundamental change, it should go something along those lines. If nothing else, it follows the Zapatistas and everything I've read of Marx (and Lenin).
Again, great content. Definitely going to check them out.
For whatever reason, the following response was removed:
Gordon replied: Samuel your critiques are just you stating you know better because you've read more Marx. Could you substantiate your claims?
Which critiques and which claims? Not everything I said comes directly from Marx, but what I did write is synthesized from Marx (by me, not some other author that I use to tell me what to think about Marx. Interestingly, I've talked to others who came to the same general conclusions). There are several things Marx wrote which support the synthesis:
The Civil War in France: Marx described the Paris Commune and how it was meant to function. It was a bottom-up system which utilized a similar representative system that I outline in my blog, and which the Zapatistas also use, except that Marx's description uses elected bodies whereas mine and the Zapatistas do not. This is one of multiple occasions in which Marx rejects the notion of top-down control in favor of bottom-up control.
Critique of the Gotha Programme: in section 3, Marx makes clear that a co-operative society, and its economy, is only meaningful "insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois." This is one of multiple occasions in which Marx rejects the notion of top-down control in favor of bottom-up control.
Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy: considering the fact that the concept of statism was known well enough to Marx and Bakunin that both wrote explicitly about it, arguments about statism and socialism/communism being the same are bunk. They understood the differences back then, so people since then (Stalin and his interpretation of "Marxism-Leninism," as well as Mao and his interpretations) have actually argued AGAINST Marx's core ideas of a future socialist/communist society while claiming to be Marxists working towards those things. There are several passages where Marx responds to Bakunin's accusations of Marx being a statist...well, beyond the fact that the whole document is written for that purpose...which stand out from the rest ("B" and "M" indicating who is writing what. That's only differentiated by indentation in the original work).
1)
B: The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
M: Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.
2)
B: ... in the election of people's representatives and rulers of the state -- that is the last word of the Marxists, as also of the democratic school -- [is] a lie, behind which is concealed the despotism of the governing minority, and only the more dangerously in so far as it appears as expression of the so-called people's will.
M: With collective ownership the so-called people's will vanishes, to make way for the real will of the cooperative.
3)
B: and look down on the whole common workers' world from the height of the state. They will no longer represent the people, but themselves and their pretensions to people's government. Anyone who can doubt this knows nothing of the nature of men.
M: If Mr Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers' cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers' state, if he wants to call it that.
These three specifically (but pretty much the whole document, which I HIGHLY recommend reading. In fact, you MUST read it so that you see that I'm not pulling this from some third-party interpretation that cherry-picks quotations...which most self-identifying ML/MLMs and Marxists/socialists/communists tend to do IN MY EXPERIENCE. In my experience, because I've not heard from most of them, but that's the trend) point to Marx's conception of socialism/communism being one of common democratic control "since the whole thing begins with the SELF-GOVERNMENT of the commune," similar to the concept of "a workers' cooperative factory" with managers functioning according to the same principles, and according to the "real will of the cooperative" which can only be determined through common democracy. This is one of multiple occasions in which Marx rejects the notion of top-down control in favor of bottom-up control.
The Nationalisation of the Land: at the end Marx makes a particular declaration, that there "will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself." That state of existence can't happen through top-down systems because the government/state power will always be distinct from society itself if it has any sort of autonomy from the society. Only through a system based on common democracy can any of the predictions/proclomations of Marx and Engels be realized. The state "withers away," or "becomes obsolete," by the masses themselves taking on the functions of the state via community-based democracy, not by the state concentrating its power over the people who are merely allowed to elect some officials. This is one of multiple occasions in which Marx rejects the notion of top-down control in favor of bottom-up control.
Any particular document that you read where Marx/Engels talks about "the state" in terms of a socialist/communist system, you have to take into account what he explicitly wrote about it. In The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx had one brief qualifier attached to it: "the State, i.e., the proletariat organized as the ruling class." There was another, as well, concerning how that state would come into being: "raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy." Transposing these declarations into any example of Marx talking about "the state/government" in a socialist/communist society changes the meaning that Maoists and Stalinized MLs revise it to be, away from a central authority over the people "but elected by them," and to some sort of system employing common democracy for "the self-government of the commune."
It isn't just a case of "I'm holier than thou because I read more Marx," but one of "I actually read Marx myself, without being guided by the cherry-picked quotations of others to tell me what his ideas were." Lenin read Marx and came to basically the same conclusions (there are many places where he spells it out, in fact). The problem is that a lot of people ran with the revisionist version that made the state out to be a central authority over the people, and by their arguments demonstrated that they actually subscribed to anti-Marxists positions because they were fundamentally anti-democratic. I've had too many conversations with Maoists and Stalinists (they call themselves "Marxist-Leninists" without any sense of irony) where they unerringly fall back on the argument of (summarized by me) "we can't have democracy because the people can't be trusted, they're incompetent, there might be reactionaries among them, etc, so we need to limit who is allowed to participate in government in order to achieve our ideals."
There is zero comprehension of what those ideals are, though, because when pushed they can't explain how a system is supposed to transition from such tightly controlled top-down government "oh, but the people are allowed to elect some of the officials, and didn't you know that the working class would make up most/all of the government?" to a "stateless, classless, moneyless society." Their only notion is the immediate steps taught to them by authoritarians: improve the immediate conditions through whatever means necessary, and use policies to guide society towards class consciousness that will result in socialism. "And we'll call that 'real-existing socialism,' because we're desperate to claim a victory for socialism. ANY victory, no matter what it is." It is, to repeat myself, taking leftist ideas and employing rightist methods to achieve them, but without the understanding that doing so will bring about totally different outcomes that only resemble the originals in certain ways. While Marx didn't provide a blueprint for "how to socialism," he certainly argued against approaching it through statism, but instead through "the self-government of the commune" etc.
Is that substantiation enough?
'Narkist trash. Aren't you kids supposed to be against dogmatism?
@@fun_ghoul this is a dumb response. Is that all you got???
How do the goals of CibCom differ from e.g. The Zeitgeist Movement? Last I checked they were also building some kind of library of information and trying to build the foundation for some kind of technological post-monetary solution, although their term for it is NLRBE (natural law resource based economy). I wonder to what extent the community is fragmented, and how groups with seemingly aligned goals exist out there in isolation.
[EDIT: I checked and it seems TZM is pretty quiet these days, maybe it ran out of steam]
I believe NLRBE is the future imo but I don't believe we'll get there for quite some time yet, at least 100-200 years. IMO....
We eatin
Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented.
Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Don't the Laws of Physics affect the economy in the acts of making things wear out? Marx used the word 'depreciation' 35 times in the first two volumes of his major work. But neither Adam Smith nor Karl Marx ever saw a planned obsolescence economy.
There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the United States in 1994. Where did the depreciation go? If you examine the Net Domestic Product equation that Western economists do not talk about, you will find that Depreciation only applies to Capital Goods. Consumers are supposed to be stupid and charge up credit cards to buy junk designed to become obsolete. Paying interest on depreciation is quite rational.
If you search Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for "and account" you will find multiple instances of "read, write and account". He used the word 'education' Eighty Times. When did economists stop advocating for mandatory accounting/finance in the schools?
👍
Be careful when talking about this stuff, i was drugged and harassed for making a documentary on this subject.
Holy crap what happened???
I guess you need to know the only real condition when you can have a planned economy.
All economic enterprises MUST BE IN PEOPLE'S OWNERSHIP
Otherwise you can not plan the whole economy.
If you talk about partially or incomplete planned economy, what's the value of it?
It's communism and planned people's owned or capitalism and chaotic private economy.