Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Nulla Bellum]

I knew you would waste pages trying to call me a liar. I have read that stupid book, and presented objections to it you are thus far unable or unwilling to address.

Your frustration is self-inflicted, as you have tasked yourself with attempting to present socialism in a way that isn't laughably and preposterously retarded on its face. A task even the arch-hack laughingstock Karl Marx himself never managed to accomplish.

"New" socialists attempt to address the economic calculation flaw that firmly emplaces Marxism in the category of pseudoscientific, farcical idiocy.

On the one hand, it's encouraging that "new" socialists understand and acknowledge that the existence of the economic calculation problem makes Marxism retarded. On the other hand, the proposed solution to the economic calculation problem presented in TANS exacerbates the retardedness of Marxism, rather than solving it.

Good good, they doubled down on retarded. And?

You obviously haven't read the book. You can't fucking say that you've read something when you haven't. The book is a fucking refutation of the economic calculation problem, just read it. The Economic calculation is bullshit, and if you actually read the bits about value and pricing you'd be able to make a more coherent argument against me, at least.

"On the other hand, the proposed solution to the economic calculation problem presented in TANS exacerbates the retardedness of Marxism, rather than solving it."

Stop being so damn smug and condescenditng. The fact that you're saying this at all proves you haven't read anything. The authors of TANS describe very clearly how pricing would be done, how labor values can be computed, and how the economy could be managed in general. I don't believe you've read the whole thing, so please do. You haven't actually criticized any of the points TANS makes other than the 16000 year thing, which Cockshott mentioned and than refuted himself.

Smug and condescending?

I have read Cockshott's proposed solution to the economic calcalation problem in TANS. I have told you my objections to it. Cockshott did not address where his supercomputer would acquire the Godlike omniscience needed to collect the data he proposes it would compile, how it would error-check against false inventory inputs of data collectors missing both hoarded supplies by people maintaining their privacy and property and the exaggerated demands of people inadequately supplied by the inherent faults in the central planning, and most importantly where this fantastic computer exists that is to perform Godlike omniscient data collection in the most socially necessary processing time (heh) possible.

It runs into the same problem the infamous German labor activist Adolf Hitler did with his Ardennes Offensive. His plan was simple and looked good on paper. Take all the men, tanks, and guns that were held in reserve, and throw them at the forces of capitalism that had just liberated France and were pressing towards crossing the Rhine and into Berlin. One big megablast of blitzkrieg to push those bastards back into the Atlantic to facilitate the time needed to achieve Marx's World Without Jews. The problem was that Hitler made his big centrally planned assault assuming his inputs were true. GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) is a motherfucker. All those men, tanks, and guns, and the fuel and ammo for them, only existed on paper (or in Hitler's meth-addled mind). The Ardennes Offensive, also known as the Battle of the Bulge, was a complete and total operational failure of epic disasterousness. The Nazis couldn't get fuel to their tanks via horse and buggy fast enough, if they were lucky enough to find fuel in the first place.

The reason there was so many assassination attempts on Hitler as with Fidel Castro is that both were impenetrably imbecilic once they latched on to a singularly stupid idea.

No where in TANS does Cockshott solve the economic calculation problem. On the contrary, when you say he has "refuted" the economic calculation problem, you show us no computer on this planet that can do that. You don't even give us the source code of the program this God-level omniscient computer will run. Cockshott illustrates the economic calculation problem. He does not solve it. He gainsays his solution by saying "some" free market activity would have to be allowed. TANS is a complete and total ontological failure of epic self-refutation.

"New" socialism has the same problem the "old' socialism did. They're both fucking retarded. You can't "dialectical materialize" that fact away any more than you can teach a mailbox how to tie a shoe.

I may be a "damned smug and condescending" network operations professional for one of the largest internet service providers in North America, but even Joe at happy hour getting sloshed at the bar after a hard day of waxing floors at Walmart can tell you that Cockshott's magical computer and the program it will run DO NOT EXIST. I'm just at the bar knocking back a tall one with him and informing him that Cockshott's machine and computer program does not exist because IT CAN NOT EXIST. It's impossible.

The economic calculation problem that does, as Cockshott acknowledges, totally refutes socialism still exists unscathed.

Disagree? Of course you do. You just can't disagree with any credibility, validity, or intelligibility.

Show me the source code and the machine that will run it, or shut the fuck up, dumbass.

[Reikoku]

And for the record, I love Gandhi.

I disagree with him on some shit, but he was an amazing individual.

America: We won't ban the beef industry.
India:

Joking aside, I wish more people would take his commitment to vegetarianism to heart.

[Albrenia]

And for the record, I love Gandhi.

I disagree with him on some shit, but he was an amazing individual.

America: We won't ban the beef industry.
India:

Joking aside, I wish more people would take his commitment to vegetarianism to heart.

I'd be a vegetarian, but I like eating chicken and beef too much.

[VoVoDoCo]

America: We won't ban the beef industry.
India:

(Image)

Joking aside, I wish more people would take his commitment to vegetarianism to heart.

I'd be a vegetarian, but I like eating chicken and beef too much.

I think this is the one...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jxpd

[Nulla Bellum]

Prove India became free because the British government was fearful of violent insurrection.

That's all I want.

Something that huge, there should be LOADS of evidence, sources, quotes, etc

"Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter. I got a note!"

"Okay, Juan, let's see it."

Mr. Kotter reading aloud "Dear Mr. Kotter, please excuse Britain from its colonialist obligations over India due to post-war rebuilding on the Islands and strings attached to Marshall Plan loans from another former British colony. Signed, Epstein's Mom."

[Orostan]

You're missing my point. I'm saying that these movements were indicative of rising violent currents in India. Ghandi only showed the British that a violent revolution was inevitable if they didn't accept his peaceful protests.

Fucking prove it.

I did. I showed you that the British could no longer rely on Indian Soldiers, and that Indian opposition to British rule was only directed behind Ghandi so long as he was an alternative to violence. If Ghandi couldn't have freed India, there would have been more violence. Ghandi was a great man, but his actions alone did not free India.

You obviously haven't read the book. You can't fucking say that you've read something when you haven't. The book is a fucking refutation of the economic calculation problem, just read it. The Economic calculation is bullshit, and if you actually read the bits about value and pricing you'd be able to make a more coherent argument against me, at least.

"On the other hand, the proposed solution to the economic calculation problem presented in TANS exacerbates the retardedness of Marxism, rather than solving it."

Stop being so damn smug and condescenditng. The fact that you're saying this at all proves you haven't read anything. The authors of TANS describe very clearly how pricing would be done, how labor values can be computed, and how the economy could be managed in general. I don't believe you've read the whole thing, so please do. You haven't actually criticized any of the points TANS makes other than the 16000 year thing, which Cockshott mentioned and than refuted himself.

Smug and condescending?

I have read Cockshott's proposed solution to the economic calcalation problem in TANS. I have told you my objections to it. Cockshott did not address where his supercomputer would acquire the Godlike omniscience needed to collect the data he proposes it would compile, how it would error-check against false inventory inputs of data collectors missing both hoarded supplies by people maintaining their privacy and property and the exaggerated demands of people inadequately supplied by the inherent faults in the central planning, and most importantly where this fantastic computer exists that is to perform Godlike omniscient data collection in the most socially necessary processing time (heh) possible.

It runs into the same problem the infamous German labor activist Adolf Hitler did with his Ardennes Offense. His plan was simple and looked good on paper. Take all the men, tanks, and guns that were held in reserve, and throw them at the forces of capitalism that had just liberated France and were pressing towards crossing the Rhine and into Berlin. One big megablast of blitzkrieg to push those bastards back into the Atlantic to facilitate the time needed to achieve Marx's World Without Jews. The problem was that Hitler made his big centrally planned assault assuming his inputs were true. GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) is a motherfucker. All those men, tanks, and guns, and the fuel and ammo for them, only existed on paper. The Ardennes Offensive, also known as the Battle of the Bulge, was a complete and total operational failure of epic disasterousness. The Nazis couldn't get fuel to their tanks via horse and buggy fast enough, if they were lucky enough to find fuel in the first place.

The reason there was so many assassination attempts on Hitler as with Fidel Castro is that both were impenetrably imbecilic once they latched on to a singularly stupid idea.

No where in TANS does Cockshott solve the economic calculation problem. On the contrary, when you say he has "refuted" the economic calculation problem, you show us no computer on this planet that can do that. You don't even give us the source code of the program this God-level omniscient computer will run. Cockshott illustrates the economic calculation problem. He does not solve it. He gainsays his solution by saying "some" free market activity would have to be allowed. TANS is a complete and total ontological failure of epic self-refutation.

"New" socialism has the same problem the "old' socialism did. They're both fucking retarded. You can't "dialectical materialize" that fact away any more than you can teach a mailbox how to tie a shoe.

I may be a "damned smug and condescending" network operations professional for one of the largest internet service providers in North America, but even Joe at happy hour getting sloshed at the bar after a hard day of waxing floors at Walmart can tell you that Cockshott's magical computer and the program it will run DO NOT EXIST. I'm just at the bar knocking back a tall one with him and informing him that Cockshott's machine and computer program does not exist because IT CAN NOT EXIST. It's impossible.

The economic calculation problem that does, as Cockshott acknowledges, totally refutes socialism still exists unscathed.

Disagree? Of course you do. You just can't disagree with any credibility, validity, or intelligibility.

Show me the source code and the machine that will run it, or shut the fuck up, dumbass.

1) He adressed all of those things. Having a decentralized data collection system based on already existing communications infrastructure ans putting a desktop computer in every factory is absolutly trivial compared to setting up the economic plan. This is done through "competition". By that I mean a more efficient cooperative would get more orders than a less efficient one. Corruption could be "automatically" pruned from the system like this. If a cooperative constantly overestimates requirements, they'll loose their right to participate in the economy, and they can't go into the market themselves because that doesn't make any sense under socialism.

In the first few chapters the computer question is also answered. After the sections on how labor values could be calculated, the authors prove that a supercomputer at the time of writing the book would easily be able to plan an economy.

2) Hitler was backed by German Capitalists and banned trade unions. That's far from labor activism. Hitler also wasn't a Marxist, the Fascists targeted socialists especially violently.

3) The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro 638 times because he was an anti-imperialist symbol and a thorn in the side of American operations in Latin America. They tried to kill Hitler because he was on the wrong side of WW2.

4) I haven't shown you any computers, but in TANS the authors calculate that even on a mid range super computer could handle a Ukraine sized economy. His solution to the inefficiencies of soviet socialism is market like mechanisms, yes, but those mechanisms only behave like their counterparts in the market in a superficial way.

4) So you don't understand dialectics or historical materialism either?

5)
"Disagree? Of course you do. You just can't disagree with any credibility, validity, or intelligibility."

How ironic to hear the person who hasn't read the book saying that.

And I can't show you the source code for it because the system hasn't been made yet. It's like asking me to make a gif of a ball bouncing or say that it is impossible to do that.

Also, working with computers doesn't give you any credibility. Both authors of TANS are computer scientists.

[Nulla Bellum]

Smug and condescending?

I have read Cockshott's proposed solution to the economic calcalation problem in TANS. I have told you my objections to it. Cockshott did not address where his supercomputer would acquire the Godlike omniscience needed to collect the data he proposes it would compile, how it would error-check against false inventory inputs of data collectors missing both hoarded supplies by people maintaining their privacy and property and the exaggerated demands of people inadequately supplied by the inherent faults in the central planning, and most importantly where this fantastic computer exists that is to perform Godlike omniscient data collection in the most socially necessary processing time (heh) possible.

It runs into the same problem the infamous German labor activist Adolf Hitler did with his Ardennes Offense. His plan was simple and looked good on paper. Take all the men, tanks, and guns that were held in reserve, and throw them at the forces of capitalism that had just liberated France and were pressing towards crossing the Rhine and into Berlin. One big megablast of blitzkrieg to push those bastards back into the Atlantic to facilitate the time needed to achieve Marx's World Without Jews. The problem was that Hitler made his big centrally planned assault assuming his inputs were true. GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) is a motherfucker. All those men, tanks, and guns, and the fuel and ammo for them, only existed on paper. The Ardennes Offensive, also known as the Battle of the Bulge, was a complete and total operational failure of epic disasterousness. The Nazis couldn't get fuel to their tanks via horse and buggy fast enough, if they were lucky enough to find fuel in the first place.

The reason there was so many assassination attempts on Hitler as with Fidel Castro is that both were impenetrably imbecilic once they latched on to a singularly stupid idea.

No where in TANS does Cockshott solve the economic calculation problem. On the contrary, when you say he has "refuted" the economic calculation problem, you show us no computer on this planet that can do that. You don't even give us the source code of the program this God-level omniscient computer will run. Cockshott illustrates the economic calculation problem. He does not solve it. He gainsays his solution by saying "some" free market activity would have to be allowed. TANS is a complete and total ontological failure of epic self-refutation.

"New" socialism has the same problem the "old' socialism did. They're both fucking retarded. You can't "dialectical materialize" that fact away any more than you can teach a mailbox how to tie a shoe.

I may be a "damned smug and condescending" network operations professional for one of the largest internet service providers in North America, but even Joe at happy hour getting sloshed at the bar after a hard day of waxing floors at Walmart can tell you that Cockshott's magical computer and the program it will run DO NOT EXIST. I'm just at the bar knocking back a tall one with him and informing him that Cockshott's machine and computer program does not exist because IT CAN NOT EXIST. It's impossible.

The economic calculation problem that does, as Cockshott acknowledges, totally refutes socialism still exists unscathed.

Disagree? Of course you do. You just can't disagree with any credibility, validity, or intelligibility.

Show me the source code and the machine that will run it, or shut the fuck up, dumbass.

1) He adressed all of those things. Having a decentralized data collection system based on already existing communications infrastructure ans putting a desktop computer in every factory is absolutly trivial compared to setting up the economic plan. This is done through "competition". By that I mean a more efficient cooperative would get more orders than a less efficient one. Corruption could be "automatically" pruned from the system like this. If a cooperative constantly overestimates requirements, they'll loose their right to participate in the economy, and they can't go into the market themselves because that doesn't make any sense under socialism.

In the first few chapters the computer question is also answered. After the sections on how labor values could be calculated, the authors prove that a supercomputer at the time of writing the book would easily be able to plan an economy.

2) Hitler was backed by German Capitalists and banned trade unions. That's far from labor activism. Hitler also wasn't a Marxist, the Fascists targeted socialists especially violently.

3) The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro 638 times because he was an anti-imperialist symbol and a thorn in the side of American operations in Latin America. They tried to kill Hitler because he was on the wrong side of WW2.

4) I haven't shown you any computers, but in TANS the authors calculate that even on a mid range super computer could handle a Ukraine sized economy. His solution to the inefficiencies of soviet socialism is market like mechanisms, yes, but those mechanisms only behave like their counterparts in the market in a superficial way.

4) So you don't understand dialectics or historical materialism either?

5)
"Disagree? Of course you do. You just can't disagree with any credibility, validity, or intelligibility."

How ironic to hear the person who hasn't read the book saying that.

And I can't show you the source code for it because the system hasn't been made yet. It's like asking me to make a gif of a ball bouncing or say that it is impossible to do that.

Also, working with computers doesn't give you any credibility. Both authors of TANS are computer scientists.

1.) Speaking of informational data compression and communication efficiency, Ludwig von Mises moved Marxist socialism in to the realm of psuedoscience where it belongs with just 20 words: "Where there is no free market, there is no pricing mechanism: without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation."

Nearly 100 years later, his argument holds. Within those 100 years many adherents of other schools of socialism have also discovered and pointed out the economic calculation problem. Marxist socialism is thoroughly refuted fucktwittery. Everybody with a firm grasp on reality points at the economic calculation problem of Marxism and laughs. But some software file storage compression pioneer from the 1970s with zip nada no knowledge of economics or computer network architecture is going to solve it. With tha soopercomptah that is more omniscient than God. Oh, and some free markets here and there so it doesn't look like a full-fledged bona fide fucktard fail. Bitch, please.

2. Talk about missing the point. Hitler's Ardennes Offensive FAILED because of the economic calculation problem of rational central planning. The only Nazi troops that had any measure of field effectiveness in that battle outright lied to the favomancers about what supplies they had in order to keep them from being diverted to strategically retarded objectives. Hitler thought he had men, tanks, guns, ammo, and fuel that did not exist.

3. Propaganda. How many "assassination attempts" are you counting amount to Castroan bluster and stagecraft? Who cares? It isn't impressive when Donald Trump lies about the American intelligence community either.

4. I understand that you can turn a turd into a candy bar with enough AK-47s pointed at heads.

5. The source code can't be revealed because it is impossible to be omniscient, thus it is impossible to program a computer to meet the necessarily omniscient capacity required to counter the impossibility of rational economic calculation. The omniscience problem is as unsolvable as the scalar networking architecture required to track all economic activity and control it. Cockshott concedes this by offering up that yes, markets will have to determine price. All of that science fiction favomancy schemes just to concede that Mises was right all along. How embarrassing for you!!

The economic calculation problem remains unscathed. Why not give up on trying to rehabilitate Marxism from the annals of incompetent fucktwittery? Obsolete software engineers aren't economic theorists. Neither are failed plagiaristic journalists with chronic hygiene problems. Surely you have hobbies that don't frustrate you.

[Bakery Hill]

BONUS POINTS
if it was even close to the main reason.

Fairly close to the main reason. You'd just had the naval mutiny in '46 proving the armed forces could no longer be totally relied upon, the INA who'd defected fought the British on the side of Japan were being tried for treason against mass public disapproval. This at a time when the country was falling slowly into communal violence and peasant uprisings. On top of all that the British were bombed, broke and starting, and now the arch imperialist Winston Churchill was out and social democrat Clement Attlee was in. It wasn't that Gandhi shamed the Brits into being moral. The UK left India the same reason they left Mandatory Palestine, they had no physical capacity to keep it within the Empire.

[Taihei Tengoku]

the economic calculation problem (and its descendant, the EMH) is largely fatal to Marxian economics--the price system is an inevitable system that also quickly incorporates Orostans tilting at windmills/tractor factories.

[Orostan]

BONUS POINTS
if it was even close to the main reason.

Fairly close to the main reason. You'd just had the naval mutiny in '46 proving the armed forces could no longer be totally relied upon, the INA who'd defected fought the British on the side of Japan were being tried for treason against mass public disapproval. This at a time when the country was falling slowly into communal violence and peasant uprisings. On top of all that the British were bombed, broke and starting, and now the arch imperialist Winston Churchill was out and social democrat Clement Attlee was in. It wasn't that Gandhi shamed the Brits into being moral. The UK left India the same reason they left Mandatory Palestine, they had no physical capacity to keep it within the Empire.

Thank you, I forgot to mention the socdem part and you sum the rest of it up very well.

1) He adressed all of those things. Having a decentralized data collection system based on already existing communications infrastructure ans putting a desktop computer in every factory is absolutly trivial compared to setting up the economic plan. This is done through "competition". By that I mean a more efficient cooperative would get more orders than a less efficient one. Corruption could be "automatically" pruned from the system like this. If a cooperative constantly overestimates requirements, they'll loose their right to participate in the economy, and they can't go into the market themselves because that doesn't make any sense under socialism.

In the first few chapters the computer question is also answered. After the sections on how labor values could be calculated, the authors prove that a supercomputer at the time of writing the book would easily be able to plan an economy.

2) Hitler was backed by German Capitalists and banned trade unions. That's far from labor activism. Hitler also wasn't a Marxist, the Fascists targeted socialists especially violently.

3) The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro 638 times because he was an anti-imperialist symbol and a thorn in the side of American operations in Latin America. They tried to kill Hitler because he was on the wrong side of WW2.

4) I haven't shown you any computers, but in TANS the authors calculate that even on a mid range super computer could handle a Ukraine sized economy. His solution to the inefficiencies of soviet socialism is market like mechanisms, yes, but those mechanisms only behave like their counterparts in the market in a superficial way.

4) So you don't understand dialectics or historical materialism either?

5)
"Disagree? Of course you do. You just can't disagree with any credibility, validity, or intelligibility."

How ironic to hear the person who hasn't read the book saying that.

And I can't show you the source code for it because the system hasn't been made yet. It's like asking me to make a gif of a ball bouncing or say that it is impossible to do that.

Also, working with computers doesn't give you any credibility. Both authors of TANS are computer scientists.

1.) Speaking of informational data compression and communication efficiency, Ludwig von Mises moved Marxist socialism in to the realm of psuedoscience where it belongs with just 20 words: "Where there is no free market, there is no pricing mechanism: without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation."

Nearly 100 years later, his argument holds. Within those 100 years many adherents of other schools of socialism have also discovered and pointed out the economic calculation problem. Marxist socialism is thoroughly refuted fucktwittery. Everybody with a firm grasp on reality points at the economic calculation problem of Marxism and laughs. But some software file storage compression pioneer from the 1970s with zip nada no knowledge of economics or computer network architecture is going to solve it. With tha soopercomptah that is more omniscient than God. Oh, and some free markets here and there so it doesn't look like a full-fledged bona fide fucktard fail. Bitch, please.

2. Talk about missing the point. Hitler's Ardennes Offensive FAILED because of the economic calculation problem of rational central planning. The only Nazi troops that had any measure of field effectiveness in that battle outright lied to the favomancers about what supplies they had in order to keep them from being diverted to strategically retarded objectives. Hitler thought he had men, tanks, guns, ammo, and fuel that did not exist.

3. Propaganda. How many "assassination attempts" are you counting amount to Castroan bluster and stagecraft? Who cares? It isn't impressive when Donald Trump lies about the American intelligence community either.

4. I understand that you can turn a turd into a candy bar with enough AK-47s pointed at heads.

5. The source code can't be revealed because it is impossible to be omniscient, thus it is impossible to program a computer to meet the necessarily omniscient capacity required to counter the impossibility of rational economic calculation. The omniscience problem is as unsolvable as the scalar networking architecture required to track all economic activity and control it. Cockshott concedes this by offering up that yes, markets will have to determine price. All of that science fiction favomancy schemes just to concede that Mises was right all along. How embarrassing for you!!

The economic calculation problem remains unscathed. Why not give up on trying to rehabilitate Marxism from the annals of incompetent fucktwittery? Obsolete software engineers aren't economic theorists. Neither are failed plagiaristic journalists with chronic hygiene problems. Surely you have hobbies that don't frustrate you.

1. In TANS a clear method for determining labor values and accounting for supply and demand is there. The economic calculation problem has been refuted in the book. If you would actually read the book you'd see clear math on how the things could be done laid out for you. The Supercomputer collects data through desktop computers in factories and stores and delivers that data to the computer via a modern communications infrastructure. The authors explain this very clearly in the book.
2. Nazi Germany did not have a planned economy. Even if they had something like a war board that doesn't prove anything about planning, as the US and UK had war planning too, and were able to calculate prices during that period too.
3. All 638 attempts are public and confirmed by CIA files made public.
4. You really don't know what dialectics or historical materialism are.
5. Again, collecting data is the easy part and it's one of the first things TANS goes over. With the market and pricing, no part of the system relies on a capitalist market. A higher price only acts as a method for eliminating excess demand and preventing the development of a black market for goods in short supply. While superficially it resembles a market, the actual operation of the price mechanism Is different than a market's and for different reasons.

In addition to that you don't actually know what Marxism is, even though I've explained it several times. Marxism is just a way of analyzing Capitalism and history. That's it. The most you could say is that socialism has been refuted, or certain parts of Marxism have been proven wrong. Even that would be wrong though, as I have proven,

Lastly, attacking Marx or Cockshott personally is an ad-hominem fallacy.

[Orostan]

the economic calculation problem (and its descendant, the EMH) is largely fatal to Marxian economics--the price system is an inevitable system that also quickly incorporates Orostans tilting at windmills/tractor factories.

Read TANS, it's been refuted.

[VoVoDoCo]

I did. I showed you that the British could no longer rely on Indian Soldiers, and that Indian opposition to British rule was only directed behind Ghandi so long as he was an alternative to violence. If Ghandi couldn't have freed India, there would have been more violence. Ghandi was a great man, but his actions alone did not free India.

THAT'S NOT PROVING IT.

THAT'S CLAIMING IT.

[VoVoDoCo]

BONUS POINTS
if it was even close to the main reason.

Fairly close to the main reason. You'd just had the naval mutiny in '46 proving the armed forces could no longer be totally relied upon, the INA who'd defected fought the British on the side of Japan were being tried for treason against mass public disapproval. This at a time when the country was falling slowly into communal violence and peasant uprisings. On top of all that the British were bombed, broke and starting, and now the arch imperialist Winston Churchill was out and social democrat Clement Attlee was in. It wasn't that Gandhi shamed the Brits into being moral. The UK left India the same reason they left Mandatory Palestine, they had no physical capacity to keep it within the Empire.

All I'm asking for is a source.

[Orostan]

I did. I showed you that the British could no longer rely on Indian Soldiers, and that Indian opposition to British rule was only directed behind Ghandi so long as he was an alternative to violence. If Ghandi couldn't have freed India, there would have been more violence. Ghandi was a great man, but his actions alone did not free India.

THAT'S NOT PROVING IT.

THAT'S CLAIMING IT.

Fairly close to the main reason. You'd just had the naval mutiny in '46 proving the armed forces could no longer be totally relied upon, the INA who'd defected fought the British on the side of Japan were being tried for treason against mass public disapproval. This at a time when the country was falling slowly into communal violence and peasant uprisings. On top of all that the British were bombed, broke and starting, and now the arch imperialist Winston Churchill was out and social democrat Clement Attlee was in. It wasn't that Gandhi shamed the Brits into being moral. The UK left India the same reason they left Mandatory Palestine, they had no physical capacity to keep it within the Empire.

All I'm asking for is a source.

I gave you two sources earlier.

[VoVoDoCo]

International opinion formed against Britain whenever they beat peaceful protesters, which helped shift their attitudes accordingly.

While yes, a reason for Britain leaving was because they didn't have the man power to hold India captive, it wasn't through fear of revolt. It was just mass noncompliance.

[VoVoDoCo]

And I refuted those sources SOUNDLY.

2. There werethese guys and these guys along with some others. The point I'm making is that if the British didn't let India go peacefully, a violent separation would've been inevitable.

:roll:
I understand the point you're "making." But in the sources you provided, where does it say that violence led to a free India?

The organisation moved away from its philosophy of violence in the 1920s, when a number of its members identified closely with the Congress and Gandhian non-violent movement

However, the Anushilan Samiti gradually disseminated into the Gandhian movement.

So actually, violence DIDN'T work, they tried non-violence, and it did work.

As for your second source, it provided nothing. Even in the section titled: "Legacy and assessments of the effects of the revolt," it doesn't even mention the possibility of a free India.

[Questers]

Theres no point in debate between austro-libertarians and marxists. It's like a debate between muslims and buddhists.

[Nulla Bellum]

[/spolier]

1.) Speaking of informational data compression and communication efficiency, Ludwig von Mises moved Marxist socialism in to the realm of psuedoscience where it belongs with just 20 words: "Where there is no free market, there is no pricing mechanism: without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation."

Nearly 100 years later, his argument holds. Within those 100 years many adherents of other schools of socialism have also discovered and pointed out the economic calculation problem. Marxist socialism is thoroughly refuted fucktwittery. Everybody with a firm grasp on reality points at the economic calculation problem of Marxism and laughs. But some software file storage compression pioneer from the 1970s with zip nada no knowledge of economics or computer network architecture is going to solve it. With tha soopercomptah that is more omniscient than God. Oh, and some free markets here and there so it doesn't look like a full-fledged bona fide fucktard fail. Bitch, please.

2. Talk about missing the point. Hitler's Ardennes Offensive FAILED because of the economic calculation problem of rational central planning. The only Nazi troops that had any measure of field effectiveness in that battle outright lied to the favomancers about what supplies they had in order to keep them from being diverted to strategically retarded objectives. Hitler thought he had men, tanks, guns, ammo, and fuel that did not exist.

3. Propaganda. How many "assassination attempts" are you counting amount to Castroan bluster and stagecraft? Who cares? It isn't impressive when Donald Trump lies about the American intelligence community either.

4. I understand that you can turn a turd into a candy bar with enough AK-47s pointed at heads.

5. The source code can't be revealed because it is impossible to be omniscient, thus it is impossible to program a computer to meet the necessarily omniscient capacity required to counter the impossibility of rational economic calculation. The omniscience problem is as unsolvable as the scalar networking architecture required to track all economic activity and control it. Cockshott concedes this by offering up that yes, markets will have to determine price. All of that science fiction favomancy schemes just to concede that Mises was right all along. How embarrassing for you!!

The economic calculation problem remains unscathed. Why not give up on trying to rehabilitate Marxism from the annals of incompetent fucktwittery? Obsolete software engineers aren't economic theorists. Neither are failed plagiaristic journalists with chronic hygiene problems. Surely you have hobbies that don't frustrate you.

1. In TANS a clear method for determining labor values and accounting for supply and demand is there. The economic calculation problem has been refuted in the book. If you would actually read the book you'd see clear math on how the things could be done laid out for you. The Supercomputer collects data through desktop computers in factories and stores and delivers that data to the computer via a modern communications infrastructure. The authors explain this very clearly in the book.
2. Nazi Germany did not have a planned economy. Even if they had something like a war board that doesn't prove anything about planning, as the US and UK had war planning too, and were able to calculate prices during that period too.
3. All 638 attempts are public and confirmed by CIA files made public.
4. You really don't know what dialectics or historical materialism are.
5. Again, collecting data is the easy part and it's one of the first things TANS goes over. With the market and pricing, no part of the system relies on a capitalist market. A higher price only acts as a method for eliminating excess demand and preventing the development of a black market for goods in short supply. While superficially it resembles a market, the actual operation of the price mechanism Is different than a market's and for different reasons.

In addition to that you don't actually know what Marxism is, even though I've explained it several times. Marxism is just a way of analyzing Capitalism and history. That's it. The most you could say is that socialism has been refuted, or certain parts of Marxism have been proven wrong. Even that would be wrong though, as I have proven,

Lastly, attacking Marx or Cockshott personally is an ad-hominem fallacy.

[Nulla Bellum]

Theres no point in debate between austro-libertarians and marxists. It's like a debate between muslims and buddhists realists and solipsists

FTFY

[Questers]

Theres no point in debate between austro-libertarians and marxists. It's like a debate between muslims and buddhists realists and solipsists

FTFY

No you proved my point far better than I could myself.

Incidentally though, Cockshott notwithstanding (I don't know any people who use TANS as a bible, which is definitely something you shouldn't do) there is a whole school of socialist economics based around neoclassical price theory. While Mises did a good critique of non-price planning in Planning in the Socialist Commonwealth, Lange did make a good reply to this based around a mix of neoclassical and marxian economics which Misesians don't usually recognise when critiquing socialist economics.

[Nulla Bellum]

FTFY

No you proved my point far better than I could myself.

Incidentally though, Cockshott notwithstanding (I don't know any people who use TANS as a bible, which is definitely something you shouldn't do) there is a whole school of socialist economics based around neoclassical price theory. While Mises did a good critique of non-price planning in Planning in the Socialist Commonwealth, Lange did make a good reply to this based around a mix of neoclassical and marxian economics which Misesians don't usually recognise when critiquing socialist economics.

You should note that I have consistently mentioned that other schools of socialism have offered their own attacks on Marxism via the economic calculation problem. Trotsky skewered the shit out of Marxism with it. Centrally planned economies are fucktarded.

The "mixed economy" approach may be a "yes, but..." tact of socialist hangers-on, but it's still inherently a concession of defeat to free market proponents. They are admitting Mises (and Hayek, et. al.) was correct all along. Markets set prices.

That mouthbreathing Marxism purists are apoplectic over their self-inflicted comprehensive refutation is a source of schadenfreude. All day long. The idea that their scheme only works by conceding the need for markets (i.e. some mixing / co-mingling with market capitalism) just burns them the fuck up.

We'll leave it to you to deal with the Marxist need to kill you as class-traitors.

[VoVoDoCo]

Lastly, attacking Marx or Cockshott personally is an ad-hominem fallacy.

If that's the ONLY argument he had against Marx and Cockshott, I'd agree with you. But he's provided mountains of legitimate arguments against them. The fact that he makes fun of them, while very telling of how he feels about them, wasn't an argument in itself.

It was just gravy.

[Nulla Bellum]

Lastly, attacking Marx or Cockshott personally is an ad-hominem fallacy.

If that's the ONLY argument he had against Marx and Cockshott, I'd agree with you. But he's provided mountains of legitimate arguments against them. The fact that he makes fun of them, while very telling of how he feels about them, wasn't an argument in itself.

It was just gravy.

Vomit gravy. You should read how Marx "thoroughly debunked" LaSalle by calling him a n*gger.

Can we dispense with the ad hominem policing so Orostan get get back to calling his betters "parasites?"

[West Leas Oros]

Books are a statist lie made so they can give us more taxes

You're a statist lie

is calling someone a statist lie the libertarian equivalent of a Stalinist calling someone a Trot, or a nazi calling someone a jew?

[Farnhamia]

International opinion formed against Britain whenever they beat peaceful protesters, which helped shift their attitudes accordingly.

While yes, a reason for Britain leaving was because they didn't have the man power to hold India captive, it wasn't through fear of revolt. It was just mass noncompliance.

There was also that mutiny during WWII.

You also haven't refuted anything. I've given you evidence that Ghandi's efforts only turned violent efforts into peaceful movements. You admit that the British could not hold India anymore with the manpower they had. I'm trying to tell you that if the British could have held on to India violence would've been inevitable.

And I refuted those sources SOUNDLY.

2. There werethese guys and these guys along with some others. The point I'm making is that if the British didn't let India go peacefully, a violent separation would've been inevitable.

:roll:
I understand the point you're "making." But in the sources you provided, where does it say that violence led to a free India?

The organisation moved away from its philosophy of violence in the 1920s, when a number of its members identified closely with the Congress and Gandhian non-violent movement

However, the Anushilan Samiti gradually disseminated into the Gandhian movement.

So actually, violence DIDN'T work, they tried non-violence, and it did work.

As for your second source, it provided nothing. Even in the section titled: "Legacy and assessments of the effects of the revolt," it doesn't even mention the possibility of a free India.

And I explained further why I disagreed with this statement in my earlier responses to it.

1. In TANS a clear method for determining labor values and accounting for supply and demand is there. The economic calculation problem has been refuted in the book. If you would actually read the book you'd see clear math on how the things could be done laid out for you. The Supercomputer collects data through desktop computers in factories and stores and delivers that data to the computer via a modern communications infrastructure. The authors explain this very clearly in the book.
2. Nazi Germany did not have a planned economy. Even if they had something like a war board that doesn't prove anything about planning, as the US and UK had war planning too, and were able to calculate prices during that period too.
3. All 638 attempts are public and confirmed by CIA files made public.
4. You really don't know what dialectics or historical materialism are.
5. Again, collecting data is the easy part and it's one of the first things TANS goes over. With the market and pricing, no part of the system relies on a capitalist market. A higher price only acts as a method for eliminating excess demand and preventing the development of a black market for goods in short supply. While superficially it resembles a market, the actual operation of the price mechanism Is different than a market's and for different reasons.

In addition to that you don't actually know what Marxism is, even though I've explained it several times. Marxism is just a way of analyzing Capitalism and history. That's it. The most you could say is that socialism has been refuted, or certain parts of Marxism have been proven wrong. Even that would be wrong though, as I have proven,

Lastly, attacking Marx or Cockshott personally is an ad-hominem fallacy.

Are. you ever going to get around to addressing my argument? You keep telling me to read a book that I already have read and presented my objections to, which you obviously can't answer. Is there some dosiometrics involved in your line of attack, that say I read that stupid book 3 times a day and I'll fall prey to the stupidity therein? Maybe you overdosed?

Mises' economic calculation problem destroyed Marxist socialism. Other socialists have abandoned Marxism because of the same problem. Even Trotsky demolished Marxism with an economic calculation problem argument of his own. Why do we need a "new" Marxist socialism? Because the "old" Marxist socialism was thoroughly routed and vanquished. Destroyed.

Even Cockshott conceded this, which is why he proposes technology that does not exist today nor back when Marx was in a drunken stupor and forcing his abused children to live in vomit and filth. Cockshott concedes the need for a subjective value market mechanism to determine price, even after his theoretical privacy-violating omniscient data computing science fiction is somehow realized by Marxists that can't do basic math.

Nope, dope. Favomancy is bunk. Cockshott has obviously wasted a lot of your time just to prove Mises was right. He's a cheeky computer nerd prankster, with the easiest marks at the carnival.

Sorry he played you.

1) I answered your objections by explaining sections of the book you haven't read and telling you to go read them.
2) The economic calculation problem doesn't even make any sense in the first place. If a planned economy cannot determine prices, then how can a Capitalist economy be any more rational?
3) I said this at least twice before:

Cockshott proves that a mid range supercomputer, at the time of the writing of TANS, could handle an economy the size of Ukraine. He explains how a computer system can do this very clearly. There are no subjective market systems involved because they don't exist. There is only labor, supply, and demand involved in the pricing mechanism. If you could stop being so damn smug, you might understand this. Mises got proven wrong, especially in our modern economy where large capitalist firms function as small command economies.

Theres no point in debate between austro-libertarians and marxists. It's like a debate between muslims and buddhists realists and solipsists

FTFY

If you aren't interested in debate, why are you here?