[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1cc / asmr / gdpe / hentai / htg / just / kpop / tijuana ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests


Comment *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 957c5cd327a7d41⋯.jpg (313.58 KB, 1148x813, 1148:813, da zdravstvuiet stallman!.jpg)


It's recently come to my attention recently that there are people here interested in the attempts of various computer scientists to introduce cybernetic computerized planning (a model acceptable to most Marxists and anarchists) to the USSR, to improve efficiency and put control in the hands of the workers themselves. We can learn a lot from these pioneers of computerized socialism, seeing as our own society is basically run on the basis of computerized markets - it wouldn't be too big of a leap for most people to imagine democratic planning via computer networks. Besides, even FALC will need some basis for resource allocation.

The problem for Western readers, however, is simply the scarcity of the material in English. Slava Gerovich has published most articles on the matter, but beyond him, details are scarce.

With Google's recent implementation of deep-learning techniques in its translation service between Russian and English, however, it's now feasible to translate whole articles for the most part.

My actual ability to speak Russian is fairly limited in terms of vocabulary, but I've studied a lot of the grammar and verb prepositions. If there's a sentence which you think isn't translating right, I can try to figure it out for you. No guarantees, though.

Here's a good article from Slava, let's start digging up the sources and posting links to the original Russian ones if possible: http://web.mit.edu/slava/homepage/articles/Gerovitch-InterNyet.pdf



We should consider starting a project on this, this is how we take on the world guys.


Here's the first Russian source cited by Gerovich:

Berg, Aksel’. ‘Ekonomicheskaia kibernetika: vchera i segodnia.’ Voprosy ekonomiki no. 12 (1967)

Its title translates to "economic cybernetics: yesterday and today", from something called "Problems Of Economics"

I found their site, but the archive only goes back to 1992: http://www.vopreco.ru/eng/index.html

I looked up Aksel Berg, and did find this article: http://www.unz.org/Pub/AngloSovietJ-1964q1-00013

It's not the one that I wanted, but still useful as a perspective of someone relevant.

I also found this list of sources from a declassified CIA document, not sure how useful it is: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/831939.pdf

What we need are technical details, what the planners specifically thought were relevant problems. I want to see what I can code in Python.

Paul Cockshott's linear optimization of input-output tables is a fine core, what we need are peripheral programs to feed it the right info.


I'm interested, it's really amazing how much capitalism limits people's imaginations. So even if it's really old, there could be a lot of unusual or radical theory in this Soviet cybernetics.


File: c5e4efba3436920⋯.pdf (7.99 MB, 1148x813, 1148:813, [Oskar_Lange_(Auth.)]_Intr….pdf)

File: bcde318d8704cee⋯.jpg (62.11 KB, 850x400, 17:8, quote-when-education-and-r….jpg)

Ever since I stumbled up on the topic of cybernetics, it felt like

my education has cheated me from getting to know this multidisciplinary science.

So I presume that anyone interested has read introductory books on cybernetics.

Ross W. Ashby or Norbert Wiener, Stafford Beer and many others. Oskar Lange was a pioneer of applying cybernetics on the problems of economics.

Regarding specific parts, I have found Czech scientific journal, that has most of the articles in english. And also special issues detailing some specific problems of cybernetics theory are also written in english.


A study group would be good. Also I could help with the translations from russian to english.


Every introductory book on topics of cybernetics written by an author living in Eastern Bloc has an introductory chapter saying how humans have been using labour to secure a living to themselves, but their information processing abilities were sufficient even in the era of the industrial revolution.

Essentially a historical materialistic view on how the topic of information processing and information itself came to be investigated by humans.

Also they extend the materialistic notion of matter in that all matter also has an ordering in space, whether it is random or ordered, and thus it has information. And all information is bound to matter or energy.

So they say that information and matter exist together.



What would be the best on-line tool to create a study group?


And for the programming we can create a Github repository.


Cool shit man

Will be checking it out.

t. CS student


So I would be up for using discord for study group, or a github (although I would need to make another git account to prevent doxing).

But I know lots of security fags here are paranoid about le CIA, even though you can't outrun them no matter how many measures you take, and refuse to use them.

So you tell me what would be the best tool to use.

Github allows for colaborative programming and writing simple pieces, and discord can be used to discuss while also saving the discourse for anyone who isnt online at that time. IRC isnt that great in that way, since it doesnt save what is typed, so if youre offline, tough luck.




Why not something like GitLab or Gogs? I mean, the only valuable thing about github is the social framework it offers, but I don't assume that that's what we're in for.


Stupid question, but could we help the Kurds with this as a real world application?



We could do that.


Kurdistan is a fucking warzone, they dont have good information infrastructure and arent really in the mood or position to build it.


File: 2640627c0955945⋯.pdf (7 MB, 1148x813, 1148:813, Introduction to economic c….pdf)


Cropped the book for easier use on ereaders



Surely there's a smartphone per commune, smartphones are absolutely fucking everywhere.



A smarthpone really isnt enough to centrally plan an economy. You need to have all production connected as well.

But we could try.


I'm very afraid about socio cybernetics so I'm not sure how I should feel about cybernetics in the context of the economy .

Cybernetics is a powerfull tool to create order in society. This also makes it easy to abuse it.

If you establish a chatroom or a mailing list to discuss this topic further and maybe to do some planning, please post about it here. I would be very interested in it .



> I'm interested, it's really amazing how much capitalism limits people's imaginations. So even if it's really old, there could be a lot of unusual or radical theory in this Soviet cybernetics.

One of weirdest things I've seen so far (second only to theremin) was Soviet hydraulic computer from before WWII.





we can create board here on 8ch with similar functionality, otherwise I'm for >>1478288



The problem with an 8chan board would be that it can be raided and shit, its not invite only.

Anyway, im down for this. I think this is one of the first things on this board that really grabbed my attention and made me want to study the theory behind it and shit, in 3 years.



Well it would function like this with a computer anyway from my limited understanding about the subject. Someone fills in a printout on a clipboard, then everyone hands in their results to an office, which then enters it into the server using a computer. A smartphone would be more than capable of that, and the more smartphones a commune has the less people would be using clipboards. Smartphones are incredibly abundant in the third world though because they get all the older models we had for cheap second hand.

Although we would introduce a problem of potential economic sabotage by having it stored on the internet, and this will likely be unavoidable since I imagine Kurdistan is serviced with cell towers rather than fixed lines, which would cost them $200/km just for cabling. Russia might be able to give them a hefty discount though. Just spitballing ideas though, obviously we would need to get it made first and then send the idea off to our YPG contacts to see if any of the councils are interested rather than asking them if they're interested with nothing to show for it and then potentially not getting it done.





I think while cybernetics for kurdistan would be cool, we shouldn't focus our small study group on that alone.



Well they may not accept it like another poster said, but if you get to the stage you have a proof of concept what I'm trying to say is that the level of Kurdistan infrastructure will match the level we produce it to right off the bat.



>8chan board would be that it can be raided and shit, its not invite only.

small boards don't get raided. look at /marx/, even with triggering name like this they are doing ok + occasional recruitment of /tech/ autists would be much easier.



Call me a negative nancy but I severely doubt the ability of 7-10 odd programmers on a chan to be able to produce such a project succesfully.

But I am open to trying it.



Fair enough.



> small boards don't get raided. look at /marx/, even with triggering name like this they are doing ok + occasional recruitment of /tech/ autists would be much easier.

Actually, /marx/ got raided not too long ago - this wiped practically all old threads (except for the stickied ones).



>sticky all the threads

>add max numbers of pages

>create huge post limit

>disable deleting old posts at post limit

>back up everything



At this point you might as well look for a more suitable framework.



The point of changing five options in the board settings?



I know, I lurk it occasionally, this is not really problem. Of course there are autists who would want to raid le cultural /marx/, but cybernetics is not so triggering simple /pol/ minds, it would be closer to /freedu/.

My main point is that if we go full sekrit club we can't have lurkers and we need some means for (very slow) growth, so number of users can at least stagnate, otherwise it is doomed to fail since most people will quit.



So, name it something incredibly boring? Would a board/github combo be ideal?



>So, name it something incredibly boring?

Anything which is not associated with left in american pop culture. tbh even /cybernet/ would work.

>Would a board/github combo be ideal?

I believe so.



Ideally : /leftypol/ + discord + repository




what is so great about discord apart from satisfying redditors need of massive tripfag circlejerk?



Mailing list, IRC and cgit? Public, but invite only. Most people wouldn't even bother reading through such sites, if it doesn't have 5MB css frameworks and every single html5/tag, so there would be some protection though elitism. But at the same time, anyone could use the technology to cooperate.

If the linux kernel can work with this kind of stuff, so can we, tbh.



le emojis! 👌😂💯💯💯


best thread on leftypol by a wide margin. Currently reading the PDF, will read Paul Cockshott after.


What about Riot?



Sounds good.



why not some plain old irc? shit just works



yeah bruv 👌👌👌👌👌👌😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯



>Mailing list

I don't think you can convince people here to give somebody their email addresses + who would manage it? but it sounds good apart from this.


do you mean riot.im? I don't know it, but it looks interesting.



Wait is cgit a host or just an api? Would we need to host our own server?



One could either use something like cock.li to create anonymous addresses, or, since I don't trust VC, one could run a mail server on a server. Downside would be the required maintenance.


>Wait is cgit a host or just an api?

It's a cgi program, that displays local git repositories hosted on a server. Suckless have their own here: http://git.suckless.org/

>Would we need to host our own server?

Yeah, but I'd suppose a $5 could server (eg. DigitalOcean, Linode) would do.



IRC doesn't save conversation that take place when you're logged off.


I like it. It runs on matrix, wich is free software, while also being easy and shiny. It's also not locked down to third party clients, unlike discord.



>IRC doesn't save conversation that take place when you're logged off.

Server side logs?



If you're he'll bend on hosting everything yourself, sure


File: 6b6e0d926bf5031⋯.pdf (2.88 MB, 1148x813, 1148:813, how-to-not-network-nation.pdf)

This PDF might also help.


IRC shouldn't save the log publicly, it's instant and linear messengering. If more important stuff is being discussed or something is being announces, it better to use something like a mailing list, with parallel conversations and threads. I personally always hate having to read through chat logs to see if anything important happened while I was off, and then not being able reply to a message without interrupting the current conversation.





I think he's trying to say if I'm hell bent on storing a text file myself, I can do so at my own peril. Just put it on the server you goofs.




M A T R I X is the best option




No I just don't get why you are so hell bend on hosting a server yourself when you can use free publicly available alternatives. Just setup abother email if you don't want o be doxed, use one of the many irc severs there are and just use github or some other existing git site. I don't see why yu would want to host a server.



There's a matrix-irc-bridge not unlike XMPP transports which you can use with any IRC client. Also you don't have to read chatlogs, but you can if you wish.

I agree with you in principle, but there's a reason why most people prefer accessible, shiny interfaces like Discord and Slack and so on.



















Ultimately, it's mostly irrelevant what we use. Shouldn't this thread be used to discuss theory and cybernetics? I mean, we can use IRC and matrix, if we want to. If it becomes more serious, we can switch to more serious solutions.


Control? But as I already mentioned, we shouldn't focus on such meta-issues, at least for now.


I'm not knowledgeable about this at all, just dropping by to say this looks really cool and that you should check out decentralized web technologies (saw this a while ago and figured it might come in handy sometime) it figures you will have to look into this kind of thing if you intend for your network to sustain an attack by Porky.



(warning: this one page is heavy loaded with videos so it will take a while to load)



>not endlessly arguing over the chat client until interest tapers off

Get a load of this guy.



>How not to Network a Nation by Benjamin Peters

I've read 80 % of that so far and unless there is a miracle at the end, the book is shit. S H I T. Here is my review of the first 80 %.

If you want to know anything about economic planning, keep on searching, because this "work" does not describe a single algorithm nor a single criterion for judging algorithms related to planning. (It only mentions Pareto efficiency in passing without giving a definition.) You don't need to be a programming wizard to figure out the author is weak when it comes to computers and math because of just how weak he is. Being an interested lay person should be enough to see right through the blahblahblah.

Look at this waffling:

>Because computational methods do scale, the economic cyberneticists enthused that maybe the principal question for economic reform (who should control the command economy and how?) might be resolved without either the price of politics of the politics of price. It might, the cyberneticists reasoned, be solved with computers.

This looks a bit strange because of a typo: "either the price of politics or the politics of price". So, with the typo fixed, let's read it again. Do you feel you know more now? "Because computational methods do scale…" Whether some method scales well or not certainly depends on the method. You can't say something scales well just because some small-scale version happens to work on a computer. Who writes like that? Somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about. It looks like the entire book is like that. Do you want more waffleshit quotes?



Is it just me or is the first bit of this book really simple? im on 30 right now and the book is explaining highschool tier feedback loops to me.



He needed to reach his word count and it was one day before deadline, no bully.



I'm on a stone-age connection and didn't download that, but I did read a book on cybernetics by Lange. So if that is the same, I can tell you that it is really dull and simplistic, and it just tells you about the Pareto criterion and that if you are risk-averse and don't know about probabilities of different scenarios, you should choose based on performance in the worst-case scenario.



So that entire 200 page book doesnt really delve into math or anything? Its just 200 pages of introductory stuff to how feedback loops work and how you can use to to approximate optimality?



I only skimmed parts of the book myself, but I thought that it might offer helpful insights as to what they did wrong, and future projects should avoid.



It is written by a liberal guy who cannot think mathematically. He talks about linear programming, but then fails to give a proper example of it. He is only talking about word games, like how translators of American thinkers fiddled with specific terms to avoid being accused of being full of capitalist ideology and stuff like that, and how different bureaucrats dissed each other.

Here, have more waffleshit:

>Unlike market behavior, any deviations from the plan could send culpable ripple effects down or up the chain…

Different producers are dependent on each other in real life, independence and responsibility for you own success is a capitalist legal fiction.

>Kharkevich’s article is remembered among some technologists today not for proposing the ESS but for formulating what became known as Kharkevich’s law. This law holds that the quantity of information in a country grows proportionally to the square of the industrial potential of the country (N^2 ). The original formulation of his observation in the article is perhaps less elegant than information technologists might remember: “Given a large number of factories, the number of paired links between them is approximately equal to half of the square of the number of factories.” The law, in effect, prophesies a power law connection at the macro level between an industrial society and an information society.

I thought a power law is a relation that is independent of size? I don't know if the original article is like that or whether the translation is screwed, but this law just seems to describe the number of different ways of making a pair when you have N things: N*(N-1)/2

>These sibling laws (Moore’s 2^N and Kharkevich’s N^2 ) diverge interestingly in complex systems (when N is larger than 4). They also backlight their micro and macro focuses—Moore on microscopic industrial production and Kharkevich on informational industrial society. The result is different framings of the national network as a sort of central processor.

I'm pretty sure that the 2^N and N^2 already diverge in case of N = 1, mate. Waffle, waffle, waffle. It causes me physical pain when people write like that.

On Viktor Glushkov:

>His intense persistence of mind rendered possible his mathematical achievements, and his vision was shortsighted since youth due to his voracious reading habits. It is not known whether this contributed to his protracted struggle with a fatal brain tumor.

Can you get brain tumors from thinking too much?! Well, I guess if that's a problem, it's one the author of this book doesn't need to worry about.

>The hidden networks governing the Soviet state were far too complex and heterarchical to have had any single cause. (Most multiactor networks involve complexities that are impossible to express in linear form.)

Eureka, MULTIACTOR NETWORKS, you guys! Today I learned that the social networks and relationships that formed USSR society had more than one person in it!



So appearantly this introductory book is far too simple.

What else is interesting?



So it I see it correctly, one first has to learn Russian, to study anything worthwhile regarding Cybernetics?

>where to learn russian



I think the point of this thread is to have google translate it with their new translator while rusfriends help us with edge cases.

OP needs to post though.



You can find them too, just go into the link that I posted in the OP, look down into his bibliography, and start digging.

Finally found something in Russian on one of the researchers mentioned, Liapunov


It mentions that his main work is "Теоретические проблемы кибернетики", or "Theoretical Problems Of Cybernetics"

Looking for the book, I did find this pdf:



File: 4d0767df5f8edd5⋯.pdf (3.9 MB, 1148x813, 1148:813, Pioneers Of Soviet Computi….pdf)

Here's a full-length book on the topic in English, no translation required.



OK, this is good shit!


File: ffbc550c8549d90⋯.pdf (97.02 KB, 1148x813, 1148:813, Upravleniye Nauchno-Tekhni….pdf)

Management With Scientific-Technical Progress

This is an article actually written by the man Viktor Glushkov himself, the guy most often mentioned in conjunction with "Soviet Cybernetics".

Google translate has a function of translating pdfs: https://translate.google.com/?tr=f&hl=en

Download pdf and translate it. If there's a problem, just post the original phrase in Russian here.


File: acf83691d656ac1⋯.jpg (16.73 KB, 615x410, 3:2, robot-social-Robots-turn-h….jpg)


What was the soviet stance and your stance on robowaifus? This will determine if I help you or not



Does it matter? Robowaifus will presumably not be banned in the instance of anarchy. I don't know if anyone in the USSR ever considered it.

If there were Russian hikikimori though, they probably would've provided state-appointed wives to get them back to work. From that, we can extrapolate the possibility of a Soviet robowaifu project.


File: 6be62b77ec21d61⋯.jpg (256.44 KB, 585x707, 585:707, 6be62b77ec21d612973162dbd4….jpg)

Heya, I guess I posted with you in a thread a few days ago.

I honestly think that in the next cycle of leftist revolutions and governments, this "decentralized plan" by way of iterations in a real-time computer network will inevitably be attempted by at least one nation. It has the potential to be the X factor on making socialism stick for good.

It recently hit me that, before reading up on cybernetics and AI, it might be better to start by reading up on how the socialist economies did come up with their plans. The amount of data involved, the time and manpower it took, the ability to change data on the fly or not, and of course, all the practical details, because seriously, how the fuck do you even start planning out the economy of a fucking continent? I'll start making a list for this material. I suppose that, unsurprisingly, the juicy stuff is in Vodka, but the material in English should be more voluminous than the one about cybernetics.

Incidentally, there already exists something akin to this "decentralized plan" we're dreaming off. Electrical grids are monitored in terms of flow of power between a number of nodes, some generating electricity, most of them consuming. It's like a very simplified version of what we have in mind, but it's a standard technology used the world over for decades. Some key terms for googling are "power-flow study" and "one-line diagrams".


I don't think there should be much problem finding material in English on Lyapunov. His work was very, very important for control systems, to the point of being basic teaching material in the West even during the Cold War.


File: 8bcf8efa1146285⋯.png (329.04 KB, 540x360, 3:2, make america green again.png)


Was waiting for you to show up! Really excited to see what you have on hand!

>Some key terms for googling are "power-flow study" and "one-line diagrams".

Cool, will google those things.

>His work was very, very important for control systems, to the point of being basic teaching material in the West even during the Cold War.

So I can look up the names of his books in English?

> it might be better to start by reading up on how the socialist economies did come up with their plans.

IIRC, they used something called "material balances".

> in the next cycle of leftist revolutions and governments

With climate change putting a hard cap on how long humanity can survive with capitalism, we need to do this now.


Paul Cockshott is a computer scientist at the university of Glasgow, one of his primary research topics is cybernetically planned economy.


"Towards a new socialism" is downloadable for free and seems to be quite relevant.



Decent book, already read it. He has considerable ideological baggage, spending a not-insignificant portion of the book trying to rehabilitate the USSR as truly socialist without even knowing the proper definition of the word (an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production)

His essay "Calculation In Natura: From Neurath To Kantorovich" has the relevant details of rationally planning an economy via computers, without the baggage. The first 6 pages are milquetoast and irrelevant (talking about the death of socialism in the West), but the remainder of the 41 are nothing short of epic. They truly convinced me that computerized planning is the way forward for socialists.


What would be the goal in research of cybernetics, aside from of course having a proposal? I think it is the case that proposals essentially already exist, though obviously the real infrastructure and application likely wouldn't even be considered under current capitalist conditions.

Is there any value in creating simulations in order to indicate the way the system could work? At least as an experiment or proof of concept that might drum up attention among lay people, allowing them to not only conceptualize, but actually see the system in action?


File: 11869d8083239b3⋯.pdf (256.84 KB, 540x360, 3:2, Calculation In Natura - Fr….pdf)


Scroll down to Pg 25 to see example 2, Cockshott gives a good example of how this planning system works mathematically.

The main reason why I'm so interested in Soviet cybernetics specifically is the peripheral aspect of the whole thing - the algorithm for a program is relatively easy to develop (it's just linear optimization of input-output tables), the questions are "how do we get there from raw info", "how do firms input this info efficiently", etc.

I want to know what they thought were relevant issues with regard to the actual implementation, in short.



The "internet of things" should be useful in the peripheral aspect so we should be researching that area too.




The internet of things is a buzzword. All those toasters and fridges connected to the internet is not going to give us usefull information, its only going to give privacy issues.



"The Internet of things (IoT) is the inter-networking of physical devices, vehicles (also referred to as "connected devices" and "smart devices"), buildings, and other items—embedded with electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and network connectivity that enable these objects to collect and exchange data."

I think it is perfectly useful, and of course security might be the hardest part.



Its litterally just linking shit to the internet. The word itself is a buzzword, just like synergy.

Everything has to be "smart" but 90% of the shit they make smart will not produce any useful data and are just gimmicky. It will die down eventually. Being able to turn on your toaster downstairs with your phone is the definition of gimmicky.

No doubt that some things, like cars, can help in traffic control, but all of industry is already connected to the internet. Consumer electronics are not going to give a socialist state any useful information regarding industrial logistics and demand.



It would help tuning up the models of society in real time having the most accurate information on the status ( position and any parameter) of everything.



Do you have any idea how much computing power that would take?

Also what the fuck is the use of tracking where every fridge, toaster or phone is? We want economic planning, not fucking NSA cranked up to 11. It has no benefit to the planning of the economy and the cost to create such a massive model of society would be immense.



We need NSA cranked up to 11 In The Service of Communism.



Very funny, stalin.



Cyber Marxism-Leninism will win :P



>where they are

You're right, that could probably be discerned more generally by a kind of labor token price mechanism or something similar, like has been stated before. Though I already forgot what the paper said about that, because prices don't rise in a vacuum. Somebody raises the price, and if there is no profit to be had why raise it to check if there is still a demand for it? It seems like it would just stay at it's fixed price of cost and run out.

But either way, I think something can be devised to discern what people want in a region at the point of distribution. Even if it were as simple as having a sort of request system for anybody who couldn't find what they wanted at a store. That is useful data about demand.

But ultimately it seems like having more information is almost always good for planning. You can definitely be inefficient about how you are collecting information, since there is cost to it, but we already do collect a shitload of information that just happens to be isolated by different companies for their use.


File: 5bac4c371be218c⋯.png (106.66 KB, 1530x863, 1530:863, AASSTV1.png)

My autistic screeching, tell me watch you think tovarishes.




fuck off


>>1482566 checked

I don't understand it




If you're interested on the Western version of cybernetics, Operations Research is what you have to look for. Although resource planning in particular is not the main focus of research, actually more complex results were found, such as ways to solve non-linear systems.



>decentralized plan

>Electrical grids

try again

>Electrical grids are monitored in terms of flow of power between a number of nodes, some generating electricity, most of them consuming.

wew, you mean like it was monitored already in the fifties?

Soviets were monitoring reactive power coefficient on the level of the whole country

periodic reduction of this coefficient was one of the rare instances of planning actually working

electric power industry was one of the first to be significantly automated

mechanic relay systems did the job even before your "wew internet dude, new age!" mentality

personnel sits on their ass most of the time, and only when relay defense goes off they identify and fix the problem


>it's just linear optimization of input-output tables

great, you answered question of how to produce shit

but the real question is what to produce and what should be the structure of the end product

Cockshott's answer is inherently contradictory

it is in society's interest to keep prices of goods as close as possible to their values

it is in enterprise's interest to keep prices of its goods as far away from their values as possible



>Cockshott's answer is inherently contradictory

>it is in society's interest to keep prices of goods as close as possible to their values

>it is in enterprise's interest to keep prices of its goods as far away from their values as possible

>enterprise's interest

You are projecting capitalist relations. If short-term some products are under-supplied relative to demand when priced according to labor costs, the price is increased (consider that people have similar income, so this roughly does ration according to need), but this increase doesn't land in the pockets of the people in the unit producing that thing. It doesn't land in the pockets of anybody.


File: 414fd9203606211⋯.gif (1017.8 KB, 325x203, 325:203, you will never know unless….gif)


>So I can look up the names of his books in English?

AFAIK he wrote no books, only academic articles, and extremely technical ones at that. But you could literally fill libraries with literature that teaches or expands upon his discoveries. I think the theories that would most concern our magical decentralized plan would be the functions and the stability theories that have his name. It's quite fascinating stuff, rendering real-life systems into numbers then checking if they're stable or will collapse given X time and how you might fix that and whatnot. Mind you, Lyapunov's material is not for novices, it's the sort of thing they start teaching midway through engineering degrees. And I figure that if someone does manage to get a prototype for the decentralized plan going, Lyapunov and other control systems material wouldn't be needed anytime soon, because there would be a lot of work in software design, modelling, data acquisition etc. that needs to come first, even if an existing power-flow study software was used as a basis.

>"material balances"

Hmm, apparently it's effectively what our algorithm would do: reduce all commodities to numbers (usually weight), and then measure its flow. I like that word. It's possible those early planners were using a cruder version of what we call control systems now. Cruder in method, but on an absurdly large scale.

>With climate change putting a hard cap on how long humanity can survive with capitalism, we need to do this now.

Well shit. Look man, I know it's great we're brainstorming and sharing very interesting texts and all, but this is a very long-term project for a real-life group/task force/superhero squadron, working full time, and more importantly, with a lot of academic background. Maybe one of us will manage to kickstart a pre-pre-pre-alpha version as a postgrad project, God willing. Maybe a hundred years from now, a curious soul begins to research the history of MARX Mx.II the AI that allowed mankind to end poverty despite still having scarcity, and he will find traces of a Chinese cartoon board where plucky dreamers dared dream of a better future long before it became reality.


File: 475a70073103e20⋯.jpg (17.75 KB, 600x342, 100:57, ea07_periodic_genius.jpg)


So we basically run simulations of Bolshevik Parties, until we reach the optmized Party?

Fucking brilliant. Someone give this man a Stalin Lenin Prize.



You have shitposted before in other cybernetics threads, haven't you? Your style feels really familiar.



I will try my best if I ever make it to university.


File: 11869d8083239b3⋯.pdf (256.84 KB, 600x342, 100:57, 11869d8083239b3cad10bc9c85….pdf)

File: 33ccc7a6fa62b5a⋯.jpg (302.83 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 33ccc7a6fa62b5ad8445101baf….jpg)


Are you guys doing your homeworks? I'm trying to create a very small program in Perl with this, page 25 example 1:



this looks fun


I have finished the book by Benjamin Peters and can now tell you that it is indeed shit all the way to the end. He also promotes the horseshoe model:

>the ruinous rise of socialism (whether Soviet, German national, or other form)

That's not to say that one should avoid all conservative or liberal writers (Neumann was a conservative, but his insights are so general that they are useful in general), I just want to say that this book is the perfect turd. It really has nothing going for it.

I'll check out Mikhail Botvinnik next, USSR chess guy that researched computer chess and apparently found something in that for a more general purpose, including economic planning.




>fridges connected to the internet is not going to give us usefull information

Have a good think about this statement and then realize why you are wrong.


File: 448f0cf24b738e2⋯.jpg (49.21 KB, 640x480, 4:3, C0Lpio4WEAAF586.jpg)


File: bb73d50fb4af2f0⋯.jpg (12.1 KB, 250x263, 250:263, lenin-photo19.jpg)


God damn it, so much stuff to read it's ridiculous, even without this cybernetics binge now.

Some guy in another forum mentioned he discovered a Soviet mathematician with interesting ideas about rendering processes into mathematical models. I misplaced his name and will have to ask again tho. Maybe it's someone we already mentioned here, maybe not.

Oh, and it seems no one posted these, but here are a couple of great links.

http://bookzz.org/ for a shitload of pirated books

http://sci-hub.cc/ so you can pirate virtually any academic paper


So out of all this shit, which book would you recommend to a second year CS student who already knows whats in this paper








Fuck off cunt



Nigga this is "Conjure the level of data the Soviet Union had for the sake of wanking off in a 🍀🍀🍀study group🍀🍀🍀" not ????

Weasels have already shit all over this project by rejecting real life applications and opting for unusable "testing". A project like this can only exist in the real wold with real applications, made possible by real data from a real, willing, able, body which requires our help.

There was potential at the start when people were thinking big but it is now a mockery of all the previous ideas. People did their best to think as peabrained as possible and shit all over this as much as they could as early as they could and instead opted to go back to shuffling papers at the J. Edgar Hoover building making greentext frogthreads. What I'm trying to say is, for example, automating Kurdistan is far more likely than creating a system based off the internet of things which shovels hamburgers in your mouth. And there is a reason that has happened. One benefits a poor state in the ME, another is prime data. Wake the fuck up.



Jesus christ, take a fucking chillpill, dickhead. I just asked what, out of all the large papers and pdf's posted here, are most appropriate for my level of understanding. Don't project your anger against "muh internet of things" faggots onto me. I just asked for a fucking recommendation, if you can't even handle that you should consider killing yourself.



Wasn't trying to bully fam, was just making clear how much people hate this project.



So why would you direct that anger at me? Do you expect me, a fucking scrub who just manager to program a silly half-broken app together, to "just go to kurdistan and automate everything" or "just go to kurdistan and do big data". I haven't even learned the basics of fucking program structure because my school is retarded. Thats why I asked for a recommendation on this topic because it is interesting and I want to learn what smart people wrote about it, and how they might have done it.



Because I am drunk and angery, angery at everyone who doubts us in the thread.

Saturday night leftypol fever bitch!


File: 900e60c96d614e9⋯.jpg (80.78 KB, 950x960, 95:96, homer jubilant russian wor….jpg)

People please don't fight, it's highly unoptmizing. Also you know what they say about arguing with drunkards.


Honestly man, we're all learning as we go along too, reading a lot of shit before we can even put it all in a proper order – that is, even if we can read it all, because this is some arcane shit. So I can't say for sure what's the best introduction yet, but my best guess would be >>1481551



Fuck yeah dude I'm drunk too

Solidarity my comrade


File: 5e9753fc9a7f616⋯.jpg (289.43 KB, 1280x1792, 5:7, feets37.jpg)


>It doesn't land in the pockets of anybody

on the balance sheet of enterprise this increase in price in accordance to the level of demand will result in the profit

so you have two ways

1 center takes those profits from enterprises

2 enterprises pay rent to the state for the use of the MOP, and keep the rest of the profits, reinvesting them as they see fit

Cockshott is not very clear on the issue

his main concern is manipulation of prices around their values and calculation problem

anyway, there's no third way around this

as long as prices fluctuate around values, you have to somehow deal with profits

and as soviet example shows, enterprises very much don't like when the state takes their profits

and they will fight tooth and nail to keep them


>it is indeed shit all the way to the end

his book has some valid points

ARPANET was a centralized effort at its core

Soviet military and ministerial networks were scattered and disorganized

more so, they were incompatible on the hardware and software level

proposals for the shared military-civilian network and standardized unified data transfer protocols were shoved under the desk

this is facts, you can't just ignore them

why ministries were so isolated from one another? why are they often tried to sabotage each other?

only answer I can think of, is that because they had different antagonistic interests


don't bother with the fancy cybernetics

do yourself a favor and read some solid book on operations research and solve all problems in it

like this one http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=9FD4DCDC1C7DB6CAB9774B7AC6DF1633

also another interesting book by the same author http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=E258CE40E4E969BDA57D9B44A71CC882




Nazdarovya! Comrades!




Thanks friends




Post the rest? :3


Non-slide bump.



Read Towards a New Socialism by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell, if you haven't yet.



>as long as prices fluctuate around values, you have to somehow deal with profits

Do you picture the income spent on products as physical bills and coins that go to the shop, and then wander from the shop to the factory and from the factory to the state? Same recommendation for you as above.


Here is one simple example of linear programming in python


I would suggest using Jupyter Notebook for python, you can even use it interactively online


just create a new python notebook, paste code inside and play with numbers



The west had analog computers as well. Britain had a simple economic model made visible with water flows called the MONIAC, Monetary National Income Analogue Computer. It was more of a didactic gadget than a device for planning.






So I've started reading Botvinnik's chess program book ("Computers, Chess and Long-Range Planning" which is the English translation of "An Algorithm for Chess") and got an idea useful in designing a program for chess and other board games, and I don't even play chess myself. The hubris, eh? But it's a simple and general idea, that I believe applies to economic planning as well: The medium-run goal of the program shouldn't just be to get nearer to what the specified end goal is, but it should aim towards creating situations it can comprehend well. Indeed I believe this is such a simple idea that many other people must have had it and I wonder whether there is a specific word for it.


So how are we going to get the data to model this?



Good question.



Depends on what exactly you want to test. best thing I can test is small web app, not worldwide economic simulation.


File: 48090111065607a⋯.jpg (73.94 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 1348010282557.jpg)


Holy fuck I cant even solve the problem with calculating the maximised surface of the square in the first problem set.

Am I retarded? How can you calculate the derivative? The function for the surface is

>S = a*b

and this is also true for the total length of sides L

>L = 2(a+b)

But if you substitute, say, a in function for S for

>a = 1/2*L - b

Then you get

>S = (1/2*L - b )*b

>S = -b^2 + 1/2*L*b

Which doesn't help you any further at all.



>Am I retarded?

I am. Holy shit.



Finished the book. Despite what the introduction promises, it really does not go beyond being about chess programming, there is a vague claim that it does and some very vague words, but no example. Not recommended.



Thanks these books look interesting



Let's start small then. How about simulating the national economy of Nauru? Climate change will make it cease to exist, further simpifying the simulation.



>Am I retarded

No, that's just maths for you. At first you don't get it and it seems completely impossible, and then at some point it starts making sense and it's easy as pie.

I'm not sure, but I think you're on the right track. Remember that L is a constant, even if it's not a defined value, so you can work with it. So:


What you can see is that S'=0 when b=1/4L. S' is a linear function, and a falling one, so you know that S will be rising in value until b=1/4L and then start falling again, which means that S has its highest value when b=1/4L. So:







So the square has the highest surface when the length and width are equal



To make the middle part more clear:







Yea someone explained to me that L was a constant. Its been 2 and a half years since I actually used derivatives to I forgot you can do that.



>Climate change will make it cease to exist, further simpifying the simulation.

Thank god, without the need of calculating weather we need one supercomputer less to accomplish this simple task!


Nice and easy bump.


File: 674316555f33c32⋯.png (158.84 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, OGAS.png)






haha I love the cold war propaganda tone of that article


Read some essays by Stafford Beer. These were good for getting hyped about cybernetics (Beer must have been amazing at motivating people in person), but I didn't learn a damn thing about it. Perhaps it's better to just read up on logistics and voting theory / game theory to get an idea how to get not too dishonest data from self-interested humans for the logistics.


File: 5dcc45964146be9⋯.jpg (67.78 KB, 500x339, 500:339, cyb.jpg)


Beer is the shit. Project Cybersyn, yo. Fuckin' Pinochet crashed that shit. It was gonna crack too. I think if Allende had gotten a chance to launch it, it would have triggered mass revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn


File: b4dec8511cdd587⋯.png (49.42 KB, 672x760, 84:95, b4dec8511cdd587bb9004a07c3….png)


>the closest the world ever got to democratic socialism and computer-aided planning

>of course both had to be ruined by an Porky ball-licker

We truly live in the worst timeline.



Is in our hands to make it real comrade.



problem is that nobody here have a clue what we need to create.

Should we create some (almost) game AI which would try to create some town/country/commune/…? Or some protocol for consumer-producer communication, maybe even with self-destructive currency? I don't know…


Where could an aspiring anon go to study this subject in more detail? Are there any universities still doing research into cybernetics?



The meaning of "cybernetics" is different here and now than it was then and there. Currently, it's just anything that involves hi-tech crap, but originally it meant something like studying processes and things as systems, and how they could be interfaced and controlled. The key thing that has been (possibly) lost here is that these systems used to include virtually any kinda of systems instead of just electronic gizmos, including biological, psychological etc. and more importantly for us, economical systems. (Of course, the brunt of the operational aspects, the "under the hood" parts, always was STEM, but its applications on fields other than STEM are what has decreased.)

Of course, I can't tell for sure if there are or not any universities out in this big wide world that still teach this broader cybernetics. But I can tell you that, "mainstream-education-wise", the remit of old cybernetics has been kind of parcelled between various STEM disciplines (which again demonstrates the putative abandonment of biological, economical etc. areas).

Control systems is an important field within electrical and automation engineerings, among similar courses. Some places have the more specialized course of control engineering and, of course, just plain cybernetics. All of these courses are commonly found. I imagine that the amount of non-STEM applications involved varies a lot by university, and there might be plenty of programmes that teach oldskool cybernetics, but the trick would be finding those from amongst the "mainstream" ones. I suppose you'd have to ask in specialized communities of enthusiasts, engineers and such about which places might have the programme you're looking for.



So is there going to be anything done about this? Who would be interested in starting something?



>Who would be interested in starting something?

lot's of us are, but there needs to be a few ideas what exactly is "something"



>some protocol for consumer-producer communication, maybe even with self-destructive currency?

Something like that. And before doing that, start with reading about voting-system research and auctions to get inspiration for criteria or directly copy them.


File: 7f807d848dac31c⋯.jpg (100.79 KB, 600x840, 5:7, tumblr_lh8x3rTN2J1qz6f9yo1….jpg)




I don't want to be a wet towel, but let me point to my 3rd paragraph here: >>1483509

Even just a proof of concept would be a massive undertaking, not the sort of thing started by a group of ancoms who met on the internet. This AI/network/algorithm/Deus Ex Machina might one day bless mankind with unerring economic guidance, but I'm afraid its genesis won't be at our dear /leftypol/. Altho if you want to start a group so we can keep sharing information, I'm all for it. Or maybe we could have periodic threads here on /leftypol/? Once every 2 weeks or something?

For now, I'd say inform yourself and read as much on the topic as possible, and seek academic guidance on the topic. Not becoming a postgrad student or anything, but just talking to professors and their students about further reading and whatnot.

But of course, if you want to learn programming and start simulating a town or something, don't let me stop you. You'll learn a lot with the experience. In fact, any projects that deal with the many topics of our super-algorithm (flow study, programming in general, power grid diagrams, simulations, control systems, computer networks, software design etc.) is the sort of thing that makes for a cultured individual.

Oh yeah, was about to post when I remembered something that would be extremely valuable: translations from Russian, or acting as an interpreter between us and Russian academics. Like mentioned before, the vast majority of the material on Soviet cybernetics hasn't been translated yet, with >>1479201 being a perfect example. Of course, translating books and articles is no simple task either, but it's more doable by humble anons on the internet.

And to finish things up, some more links:




There was at least one American periodical of Soviet cybernetics: Soviet Cybernetics Review. Also another general periodical called Joint Publications Research Service Reports occasionally had articles on the topic. Unfortunately, both of them are behind paywalls. Fucking Porky standing in the way of muh knowledge REEEEEEE An interesting sidenote is that the idea of a Soviet economy-optimizing national computer network had the CIA shitting its pants in the 60s.



We should start translating all those articles by date and putting them somewhere all together classified the best we can. A collective dropbox or something.


File: b4fd6d45d129d90⋯.jpg (33.59 KB, 600x338, 300:169, your brain on reformism.jpg)


Where is this from? I'm very interested.



The Soviet GOSPLAN already did computer-assisted economic planning in the 60s and 70s, but due to the limited power of the processors that were then available it could only calculate a few thousand key products of the economy. I imagine the Chilean Cybersyn would've fared even worse, only improving efficiency in some few sectors of the economy, and certainly not "triggering mass revolution". See Elab. 2.1 (pp.7-8) of: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/quito.pdf (another great text by Cockshott and Cottrell, elaborating on the thesis of socialism based on computerized in-natura calculation)

All in all, the mistake of Allende and the Chilean socialists back then, was their naive trust in the bourgeois political system and their unwillingness to let the proles rise in arms. They pretty much demonstrated that the pretensions of a "democratic way to socialism" are a meme and forever will be. The correct line was held by the MIR all along; by '73 it reached thousands of militants in size, led the seizure of farms and factories all over the country (much to the dismay of the reformists), and managed to build a primitive military structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Left_Movement_(Chile)



>Some guy in another forum mentioned he discovered a Soviet mathematician with interesting ideas about rendering processes into mathematical models. I misplaced his name and will have to ask again tho. Maybe it's someone we already mentioned here, maybe not.

Leonid Kantorovich?


File: ffc1154cf497095⋯.jpg (184.09 KB, 640x629, 640:629, ffc1154cf497095f55d28887af….jpg)


Speaking from experience, a good translation is more time-consuming and tiring than you think. It's the sort of freelance work that ends up being better remunerated than most people imagine. We would be extremely lucky if we found a Russian translator willing to do it for free.


As I understand it, the GOSPLAN computer assistance was effectively just a souped-up calculator, not an actual simulator like what we're talking here. My notion is that the apparatchiks limited the use of computers for the same reason they pulled the plug on cybernetics as a whole: they would lose power.


>mfw he could have proclaimed socialist Chile 3 months earlier thanks to the Tanquetazo, but still took the high road




Hey now, not all of us are retarded.



At least a chat (IRC or Discord) or a periodic thread on the topic?



let's go with periodic thread. let's make it… every even week's saturday? IRC/discord is circlejerk.



Correction: wanted to say cyclical thread, like the /rojava/ one.



The allocation system should react in a monotonic way to inputs. So, with a single-winner voting system, comparing two situations that are only different in that in the second situation some thing X is ranked higher on some ballots, in the second situation the winning probability of X shouldn't be lower (the criterion is called mono-raise in voting system analysis).

Likewise, in a system for allocating multiple resources to people who bid on it, comparing two situations that are only different in that in the second situation one actor bids higher on some item X, in the second situation the probability of that actor obtaining X shouldn't be lower. Now, where does the actor got that extra "money" to bid more in the second situation? If the allocation procedure uses some point system that has no usage outside of it, and no points are saved up for later usage inside of it, it's just all used up and when the system is used again at a later date everybody gets a new endowment of points for bidding, that means the actor got these points by reducing their other bids. We can split this criterion into two variants: One where the other bids by the actor are shrunk proportionally by some factor that frees up points for increasing that one bid compared to the first situation, and a stronger more general criterion where the other bids by the actor are just any combination of same or lower amounts as in the first situation to free up some points for that one higher bid.

Further variations are possible: instead of a bid for one unit of a thing, it can be a bid for multiple units of the same thing, and the guarantee the criterion asks for is that the higher bid doesn't result in getting less.


Continuing from >>1517799:

Another import from voting system analysis is clones. Clones are similar candidates. A voting system is robust with respect to clones if shrinking or increasing the size of a clone set has no effect on whether the winner comes from the clone set or not; and furthermore, if the winner is outside the clone set, it shouldn't change either. How to properly define clones, then?

For rating ballots, clones can be defined as candidates lumped together in the same rating on every ballot: So, if we do a poll on the best video game ever, and everybody who rates Virtua Street Kombat at three stars also rates Mortal Samurai Fight at three, and everybody who rates VSK at four stars also rates MSF at four and so on, we call these rating clones. Average ratings is robust with respect to rating clones. This is also true for median ratings. For ranked ballots, clones are defined as sets of candidates that are always ranked together without another candidate between them. This is quite different from rating clones in that subsets of clone sets are not necessarily clone sets themselves.

Both variants leave something to be desired in that the clone definition is so narrow that you are unlikely to encounter them in the wild (adding a single ballot not following the pattern destroys these clones), but it's a starting point. Rating methods that aren't even robust with respect to rating clones should be avoided and likewise with ranking methods.

Inspired by this for our analysis of systems handling allocation requests, let's call ratio clones things that are requested in fixed proportions. So, suppose Alice wants 30 X and 20 Y and Bob wants 12 X and 8 Y and everybody else wants these two things in this 3 : 2 ratio, then X and Y are a ratio clone set. A second situation that is only different in that now X and Y are only available in a package called Z in the aforementioned ratio, with people making their requests as before, should leave the allocation basically unaffected.


cont. from >>1517950

The participation criterion states that adding ballots shouldn't make the results worse from the point of view of what is stated on the ballots. So, if your ranking is A>B>C>D, then adding your ballot to the pile shouldn't change the result from B to C , for instance. I doubt it's a good idea to insist on it, as it is a very restrictive criterion. Many voting methods, like instant-runoff voting and all Condorcet methods, fail this criterion.

Median ratings fails here as well, and that's the method I would like to see for councils determining prices and quantities (and for juries determining penalties). I'm particularly partial towards a version of this with deliberation. Instead of instantly setting the median, there would be two voting rounds. In the first round, people are asked to specify an upper and lower limit (you can put in the same value twice if you are already sure), then the upper limit is set by deleting the highest quarter (rounded down) of stated values and taking the highest one from the remaining ones, and likewise the lower limit is set by deleting the lowest quarter (rounded down) of stated values and taking the lowest from the remaining ones. The final value has to be within these limits. There is a discussion, and then there is a median vote for what the value is going to be.

Giving a median rating to a single thing doesn't fail participation, but when rating several things it can happen that in the aggregate X is rated higher than Y, you add some ballots also rating X higher than Y, and the aggregate changes so that now Y is rated higher than X. This problem can arise when the resolution of the ballots is higher than three grades.


What if we create a website? And make it a virtual political party with communist cybernetics as it's constitution?

We could create and manage it from here in the /leftypol/ cyclical threads.



>Giving a median rating to a single thing doesn't fail participation, but when rating several things it can happen that in the aggregate X is rated higher than Y, you add some ballots also rating X higher than Y, and the aggregate changes so that now Y is rated higher than X. This problem can arise when the resolution of the ballots is higher than three grades.

Which is why Top-Flop voting got only three grades.


Finally got the name of the Soviet mathematician: Vladimir Arnold. His work seems to be too rarified even for our goals, tho he did study the stability of control systems, as well as something magnificently called catastrophe theory.



I'm against cycling, because old and possibly valuable information gets lost. Look at how much interesting information and links we have in this thread that would eventually be lost. A periodic thread is more straightforward, we can just archive it when it reaches X posts and keep track of the links.

As for a website, dunno, I don't think we have enough material to fill one up.


So, I wrote a little something:

>By Man, For Man

>It's official: capitalism doesn't work anymore. Not only does it continue to push its workers to work harder in a never-ending race to the bottom against machines, a race which only benefits those who own capital in the first place, but in this perpetual rat race, it has begun to consume more of the world than humanity can afford to for the sake of its own survival and it approaches full automation of human labor, which will unfortunately bring starvation and abject poverty to most under capitalism rather than the abundance promised by those who once dreamed of it. An organizational opposition to it and an alternative vision must be articulated, now or never.

>By gradually expanding itself through struggle and commerce, an international confederation of worker-run unions, mutual aid societies, and workers' cooperatives could replace capitalism and implement a computerized system of democratically planning the economy between worker owned firms and consumers according to what people actually need, but where does one even begin?

>Bitcoin's blockchain system [1][2] provides an extremely democratic and decentralized basis for storing and organizing data for a people's direct planning of the economy, but it must be modified, for Bitcoin still shares the shortcoming common to all market economies (operation according to the Law Of Value, which concludes that capital expands for capital's sake, more value-producing mass begets more demand for labor and more use of scarce resources).




>Start off with an agglomeration of 3 blockchain systems - one for storing past logs of what was produced and to where it goes, one for verifications that assets were delivered to their immediate next destination according to the plan, and one for currency compensation logs (as while most goods, under an automated system of production for use, would have no price at all, there will always be some scarce goods - it is thus necessary to reward more greatly that work which is in demand by the system itself to determine who can then buy the most expensive products, even if most people do get a certain allowance of currency for luxury goods).

>As for the actual interface, it is to be programmed in Javascript and rely upon a system of verification of possession - that is, that a particular individual within the system has an asset and that who they got it from can verify that they gave it to them. This is for the recieving side of assets. For the sending side, rely upon a stock control method as described by the Socialist Party Of Great Britain in their article "Beyond Capitalism" [3] - "Decentralized production entails a self-regulating system of stock control. Stocks of goods held at distribution points would be monitored, their rate of depletion providing vital information about the future demand for such goods, information which will be conveyed to the units producing these goods. The units would in turn draw upon the relevant factors of production and the depletion of these would activate yet other production units further back along the production chain. There would thus be a marked degree of automacity in the way the system operated." (Paragraph 25) This system is ideal for blockchain systems of information storage, as one transaction (that is, a good being taken from the stock) can easily be transmitted from a center of distribution to all centers of production and all sites of the decentralized planning network of computers.

>As for more removed problems, namely that of deciding which production process to use to make a good where there are several options, an addition of Paul Cockshott's calculating mechanism outlined in "Calculation In Natura: From Neurath To Kantorovich" [4]could easily be integrated into the whole scheme of things - it would read the first blockchain system's logs of what was produced, read the second blockchain system's logs of what is in demand, and use the latter to determine what is still available to be used (by assigning every product a serial identification code, a number for a particular size of screw or a specific type of Mexican mangoes, inputting these numbers and their quantities produced and consumed into a spreadsheet, and then subtracting what was consumed from what was produced) and then performing, based off knowledge input by each firm on its productive processes available, a calculation of what particular resources should be allocated to which particular pieces of capital for processing and transportation, and when. It does this by spitting out relevant numbers to firms, now worker owned and managed for lack of need for a capitalist to plan production.

>What if the planning process, even when optimized to make full use of currently available resources, cannot bring down all the prices of goods to zero by creating a super-abundance of them? Well, once again, the pseudo-monetary currency saves us again. In the event that more than one good cannot be provided in excess and thus both goods will have to have prices, it's trivial for the system to calculate all possible plans which maximize productive capacities in the name of meeting demands and having it use a secondary algorithm to select the one with the least difference in prices. This makes sense because the prices here are objectively determined, mathematically derived from supply and demand (unlike markets - let's be honest, no one really understands how they work in terms of exchange-value determination).





>Pay is to be determined by a tertiary algorithm's determination of where bottlenecks lie - that is, it takes the first blockchain system's information of what is produced and how and combines it with the second blockchain system's information on who gets what to determine which human occupations could use extra people in them to increase production. For those, the pay goes up. For fields with an excess of people, the pay goes down. Because everyone gets a certain amount of luxury spending currency anyways as both a buffer and a basic necessity, doing the work most demanded by the system (that which other people haven't already taken) will mean more luxury goods, or those of higher quality. If people really don't want to scrub the sewers, then those who do take on that hard work will be the ones who can buy Bugattis and eat gold-plated caviar.

>By instituting production for use along rationally planned lines and making use of the optimization of resources made possible by modern technology, this system provides an alternative to the long-ailing system of capitalism and makes a utopia of minimal work with high living standards a definite possibility. Not only would it fix the problems originally identified by anarchists and Marxists in the middle of the 19th century, but it could also have environmental health and difficulty of work criteria factored into it, thus eliminating the concept of an externality from economics once and for all. Either humanity implements such a system with utmost immediacy or lets itself be killed by the capitalist monster of its own devise.

>[1] - https://medium.com/the-intrepid-review/how-does-the-blockchain-work-for-dummies-explained-simply-9f94d386e093#.f64cwykg8

>[2] - https://blockchain.info/

>[3] - http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1993/no-1066-june-1993/beyond-capitalism

>[4] - http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf

So, what do you guys think? It avoids running on the Law Of Value, addresses many relevant problems not typically considered in these discussions, is based off already existing technologies, and is enough of a pseudo-market that normies might be comfortable with it. Plus, it removes any room for accusations of lurking state tyranny by lolbertarians.



Bitcoin is pointless nonsense similar to having a gold standard.



>If people really don't want to scrub the sewers, then those who do take on that hard work will be the ones who can buy Bugattis and eat gold-plated caviar.

I have been mentally constructing such a system in my head, I am fully on board for this.



Have you even read what he wrote? It doesnt say "use bitcoin", it says "use the blockchain technology in bitcoin to ensure lack of fraud and stuff"



Anyway how would one start to even construct such a system? Would we need to create a simulation of factories, demand, resources etc and build a robust scalable system on that? I would be willing to sink lots of free time into this if someone with some more experience than me (ie more than 2 years of practice-focussed CS education) is working on it. I dont think I would be able to design an entire system like that, but if someone is able to do it, I would be willing to chime in on the designing as far as I can and help implementing is.



But Blockchains are very inefficient, at least resource wise, and over time lead to centralisation, since weaker miners can't compete. And more generally, it's a real waste of electricity. One-Computer-One vote might be better, but I', still sceptical, even though it does sound nice at first.


Why would you calculate every part of the economy on one level? Wouldn't it make much more sense to have multiple levels of abstraction, from within a workplace up to inter-national or even inter-continental coordination? Then one only has to work with these "black boxed" of the economy, which are given expectations and resources and give feedback and products? The faster this cycle, the faster the economy can adapt to changes, and I don't really see why a global planning system should care about a local road being built, as long as everything stays within the system.



Well I don't know much about this stuff, which is why I said I would be willing to do codemonkey work if I can watch over the shoulder of someone who is more experienced than me and ask questions/make suggestions



No one wants to mine anything. The block chain is simply a decentralized ledger that cannot be overwritten or edited.


File: f7f139b8d4345ec⋯.png (650.09 KB, 1000x1002, 500:501, f7f139b8d4345ec894f7191ef4….png)


>>As for the actual interface, it is to be programmed in Javascript

>it is to be programmed in Javascript

>shilling for your preferred language in manifesto

I don't see other flaws, but it might be because I'm running very similar line of thought like you, but you are a few books ahead of me.



Yes, and to ensure a certain chronology one needs a certain NP problem that has to be solved, or at least attempted to be solved, by miners in the network.You can't have a blockchain, without any form of mining (Crypto currencies usually use reverse-hashing as the problem that requires a certain time to be solved on average by a nondeterministic algorithm) you don't have a blockchain, and if you do, it's not a blockchain but some other distributed storage system.



Brainlet here. Can anyone explain what this is all about?

It sounds very fancy.



egonimic blanning

with gombutars



It doesn't say "use bitcoin", it says "use the pointless nonsense technology similar to having a gold standard". You are projecting capitalist notions of privacy onto socialism, but production unit 954735498 delivering 10 000 kg of steel to production unit 75498378957983 won't be a private b2b matter. It's like somebody asking you to implement an online voting scheme, and your brain breaks while thinking about how to combine reliability with secrecy of the vote, but the concept you are asked to implement doesn't have any anonymity whatsoever. And in that case, verifying that one's vote is counted is trivial.



Shit you may have meant this to be snarky but you actually blew my mind a little bit.

I should really find a way to step out of this tunnel vision. I just realised you could do electronic voting by assigning everyone an ID, then putting all votes publically available by ID and show the totals. This way everybody can check the legitimacy of their own vote and the total tally.



Well, I saw the blockchain as a potential base because it clearly works and because I want to avoid any chance of people gaming the system. Notions of the pursuit of profit might not immediately disappear. I doubt that it will be a problem, but it can't hurt to have things be ironclad by a degree of anonymity, decentralization, and sender-reciever verification. It's meant to be a ledger as >>1523161 points out. Rather than forming a consensus on what is to be produced and how (as it does in a market like with Bitcoin), it's a tool for decentralized consensus of how to produce what goods are decided on by a combination of consumer demand and voting via syndicates and popular assemblies (both of these being modes of organization which develop organically in the absence of state power). The two interact with each other to a degree - the actual organizations of people and their autonomous actions determine by what criteria productive processes are selected to best meet demand - but they are overall two separate systems.



It's what I know and it works for building interfaces. I'll remove that, there are probably people who know this topic better.


I actually don't know that much about other distributed storage systems, do you know of any other common models? I just need something that's well-proven, easily computable, and secure.



This is a good example of what you're suggesting, developed into a foolproof system.


Bumping this thread… with no survivors!



Javascript is literally the only language that matters luddites. You can now run a full stack with nothing except javascript and a DBMS of your choice.


Just finished reading Cockshott's 'Calculation in natura', that is some heady shit my comrades.

One bit I thought was interesting was how he states that a price-calculating system is just a less-general version of a full calculation-in-kind one. That is, any system of prices is just a system of calculation-in-kind where you have lost all the information about everything but the labour costs.

That got me thinking: could we create a working system for co-ordinating production based on calculation-in-kind and sell it to porky? Such a system would be able to optimise for any production goal you chose (using Kantorovich's method). Porky would of course use it for maximising profit. But if enough porkys have this system running their production, the next time there's a general strike the workers could switch the very same system over to co-ordinate all of the factories where the system is installed over to needs-based production goals. Boom, socialism without the bureaucracy.

The other thing I was thinking is that there's tons of places even in first world countires where you could run small-scale pilot tests of these economic systems. Post-industrial places abandoned by porky have a decent amount of arable land, lots of resources to recycle, and unemployed labour to spare. If we figured out most of the kinks in these post-capitalist economic systems we could give those communities the real economic ability to rebuild themselves on a socialist basis. Some might say that's utopian but utopianism is the expectation that people will change their lives based on your good idea alone. By contrast I'm saying that the development of a fully worked-out post-capitalist form of economic organisation would be a concrete change in material conditions. Combined with our existing capacity for abundance, I think this alternative economics is the missing link we have required to actually be able to make the jump to socialism.

Now I can already hear a lot of armchair-lounging leftcoms taking offense to the idea that we could possibly work out how a socialist economy before the revolution, but consider this: are we more likely to figure out how to actually run a socialist society now, or in the middle of the inevitable civil war that will follow any revolutionary movement?



You're going to have to elaborate what exactly you mean with

>a working system for co-ordinating production based on calculation-in-kind

since I didn't read the book. Unless I absolutely have to read the book, then just tell me and I will read it.


File: af954b763a25b0d⋯.png (954.13 KB, 1304x892, 326:223, af954b763a25b0ded190426bdb….png)

>comrades sharing literature and even writing mini articles




Also can you explain how such a system would benefit abandoned post-industrial cities and towns?





why are you bumping so soon? It's alright to let thread fall to 6-10th page


Also bumping fills up the reply cap so dont do that please.


File: 11869d8083239b3⋯.pdf (256.84 KB, 1304x892, 326:223, Calculation In Natura - Fr….pdf)


It's not a book, it's a 41 page essay. It really is an enlightening read - you'd be surprised at what it shows to be possible.


They already have similar systems for resource allocation probably. It could, however, give cooperatives a method of working efficiently. Of course, what commands the program spits out would really be the will of the market made material via a mechanism different from a boss, but still the same ultimately. Combine these with unions and grassroots councils like the ones suggested by communalists, however, and you'd have a pretty good basis for both structures to actively agitate for revolution and the foundations of a new mode of production to arise spontaneously out of the current one as it fails again and again.


Someone posted a link to this thread in a discussion about them. They're not against all action, just opportunistic action.

>Post-industrial places abandoned by porky

You mean left-behind former industrial powerhouses like Cleveland and Detroit? Yes, that's the perfect area for the kind of structure-creating which I'd like for the calculator to be the basis of.

It's interesting to see people independently coming to the same conclusions that I did some time back.



>Yes, that's the perfect area for the kind of structure-creating which I'd like for the calculator to be the basis of.

is that sarcasm?




We can best prove to people the fundamental contradiction between exchange value and use value and why it matters in imagining a better world by creating the actual structures of a future society in those places where the people have been left for dead by capital.



In-kind calculation means having a gigantic table of what goes into producing X and how much X goes into producing this or that other thing, for all the things. In-kind means the things are counted as they are, and not in money form. Suppose some place makes one type of jacket that has twelve buttons, with the buttons coming from a different supplier. If you make jackets according to the blueprint, the recipe, for this particular jacket this place is making, whether you make three or three million, you need twelve buttons of a particular sort per jacket. When you mix ingredients in ratios that are independent of the scale, there is a particular jargon for describing that: fixed input co-efficients.

Suppose the prices of all your inputs are perfectly rigid forever, then you can just record these things in terms of money cost. You can look at the blueprint for the particular jacket and say, you need such amount of rubles for these buttons per jacket. So, you want to make two thousand of these jackets, multiply the specification's button entry by two thousand, and likewise for the other inputs. But if input prices change, this doesn't work out. Looking at the blueprint in physical terms still works. You can say, 12 of these buttons for one of these jackets means 24000 of these buttons are required when producing 2000 of these jackets.

When you produce one particular thing and your task is just to put together as many units of that thing as possible, and you have fixed input co-efficients, you can look at your storage room and tell which input you run out of first if nobody re-stocks anything in there. And you can also tell, if you had an unending supply of that particular input, what other input you would run out of first then, and so on. You can make a scarcity ranking without referring to any sort of market here. The bottleneck, the limiting factor, determines your output. Where these dependencies exist, a planned economy can directly deal with these as what they are in physical reality, instead of the clumsy indirect way of market calculations. However, this doesn't really solve all economic questions. (Do we really want to produce as many of these jackets as physically possible? How many do we want then?) So this has to be combined with administrative lexicographic distinctions about what products and services are fundamentally more important and a consumer feedback mechanism that is pretty similar to what we have in capitalism, though on a more equitable basis.


File: cec18268f5a9f60⋯.pdf (143.36 KB, 1304x892, 326:223, ccm.IJUC07(2).pdf)


Ah, yea ive read about that in related pdf.

But if we want to create such a system (which in theory shouldnt be that difficult) you need to make it so it somehow works in conjuction with a monetary market for resources you cannot make yourself.



>Ah, yea ive read about that in related pdf

No you did not. The post is about some simple relations in production that correspond to Liebig's law in growing plants. Did you intent to post another pdf?

>But if we want to create such a system (which in theory shouldnt be that difficult) you need to make it so it somehow works in conjuction with

… a consumer feedback mechanism. Already mentioned.



If we produce any worthwhile content I believe that bunkermag would be happy to host such articles.



I think I may misunderstand entirely what you are talking about.


File: 5fb88ee04f88183⋯.gif (92.62 KB, 429x650, 33:50, IMG_0490.gif)


File: 11869d8083239b3⋯.pdf (256.84 KB, 429x650, 33:50, Calculation In Natura - Fr….pdf)


Just read the damn article



>Why would you calculate every part of the economy on one level? Wouldn't it make much more sense to have multiple levels of abstraction, from within a workplace up to inter-national or even inter-continental coordination? Then one only has to work with these "black boxed" of the economy, which are given expectations and resources and give feedback and products? The faster this cycle, the faster the economy can adapt to changes, and I don't really see why a global planning system should care about a local road being built, as long as everything stays within the system.

Could someone give me some feedback on this idea?



This is pretty much guaranteed to happen no matter how you do it because of delegation.

Abstraction and delegation are important concepts in human organization as well as writing good modular programs




Remember. Don't let good threads disappear!


Holy shit, I can't believe this is still here!


>>1534233 checked

why sage?


I'm giving another shot to western cybernetic writers. Should I go with Ashby or Wiener?


File: f63517729410506⋯.jpg (56.59 KB, 680x510, 4:3, givi.jpg)

just a note to the newfags who didn't go to the bunker during the blackout, we recreated thread at http://bunkerchan.xyz/left/res/2517.html . much conversation didn't happen, but there are some screencaps from this thread + a few bonus links to some articles. check it out, comrades, I do not want to split conversation between boards, but at least take note where to go if this thread goes 404



fuck me, i forgot to turn off my shitposting flag



Likewise, I'll copypaste some of the interesting stuff for the lazy:


No. 2564 (basically a brief overview of what was in this thread):

interesting mentions, needs edit!

>Finally got the name of the Soviet mathematician: Vladimir Arnold. His work seems to be too rarified even for our goals, tho he did study the stability of control systems, as well as something magnificently called catastrophe theory.

>There was at least one American periodical of Soviet cybernetics: Soviet Cybernetics Review. Also another general periodical called Joint Publications Research Service Reports occasionally had articles on the topic. Unfortunately, both of them are behind paywalls. Fucking Porky standing in the way of muh knowledge REEEEEEE An interesting sidenote is that the idea of a Soviet economy-optimizing national computer network had the CIA shitting its pants in the 60s.

>If you're interested on the Western version of cybernetics, Operations Research is what you have to look for. Although resource planning in particular is not the main focus of research, actually more complex results were found, such as ways to solve non-linear systems.

some links:





http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/ [towards new socialism]

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=9FD4DCDC1C7DB6CAB9774B7AC6DF1633 [operations research, excercises]

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=E258CE40E4E969BDA57D9B44A71CC882 [operations research, excercises]


something in Russian on one of the researchers mentioned, Liapunov


It mentions that his main work is "Теоретические проблемы кибернетики", or "Theoretical Problems Of Cybernetics"

Looking for the book, I did find this pdf:


No. 3092:


also a few interesting links from thread a few months ago:

some information about OGAS:

1) https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-soviets-invented-the-internet-and-why-it-didn-t-work

2) http://sovietrussianow.blogspot.com/2013/01/project-ogas-unfulfilled-future.html

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGAS

Additional texts in russian language:

4) https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D1%83%D1%87%D1%91%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8

5) http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_333.htm

6) http://ru.uacomputing.com/stories/ogas/


1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

2) http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/project-cybersyn/

3) https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/allende-chile-beer-medina-cybersyn/

4) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/planning-machine




No. 2750:

OP of the original thread here, was considering whether I should start a thread here or not.

(replying to >>1522294)

Haha, I like how you replaced "JavaScript" with "Haskell".

Could someone maybe rewrite it to make less references to socialism and anarchism? I want to get something which I can publish to normies and not scare them off. You need to lure them in, you know?

You can't shout "Kulaki zasluzhili! Nichego Stalin ne sdelal plohoi!" while singing the Internationale in French and expect to get anything but "human nature" arguments or, worse yet, be ignored. You need to present yourself as advocating a reasonable solution to a relevant problem.

(replying to >>1483509)

I think he overstated the complexity of it. We already have commonly-used programs for solving sparse systems of linear equations such as GLPK. It can't be that hard to modify it to work automatically when given inputs from a secondary program which organizes the given data (what needs to be produced, what resources are available, and what productive methods are available) into a usable format. I'm teaching myself a lot about this in my spare time because I really want to try this. For one, I'm finally teaching myself C beyond Arduino. I have high hopes.

No. 3092:

I don't think that one C library is going to bring us central planning, and I don't really think that we can reduce problem of implementing it to just writing "npm install central_planning" into console.

Main difference between you two is that you both see it from absolutely different degree. Try to make specification of what exactly you want to accomplish, you'll either find out that there needs to be done more than you think or, if you manage to make it "simple" enough, we might help you with coding it.

No. 3203:

The way I see it, what we need to do is precisely that and have it write information to a decentralized ledger of some sort (any alternatives to Bitcoin's blockchain?). This, in turn, must be accessible by an easy-to-use interface which allows individuals to input, for each workplace, what productive method is available (material cost per unit of final product, environmental cost), how productive exactly is it (labor intensity, how many units of final product can be created per hour), and what materials are already available (therefore allowing us to determine what needs to be brought). To determine what needs to be brought to production and distribution sites, you need to plot the relation of goods left in the surplus stock versus time, plot the best fit line, and take its derivative to extrapolate how many goods will be needed to satisfy demand in the future.

If you have those basic components, then the rest of the stuff mentioned in my article will become trivial to implement. I'm looking to create an application that is fundamentally useful in the immediate world. All the syndicates and cooperatives and mutual aid societies will arise spontaneously around it as more and more people hopefully use it.

No. 3208:

well, you described what exactly should be on front-end, we can do that very easily. I'm willing to kill some of my time on fun stuff like this.

All problems are in your first sentence which will need to be designed in very clever way in order to make this whole "decentralized central planning" thing work.


bumping this thread because unbelievable amount of forum sliding happening rn


Well, I think I've found a potential candidate to replace blockchain for the decentralized ledger proposed: Druid, an open-source distributed data store

Here are some notes from Wikipedia:

>Druid is designed to quickly ingest massive quantities of event data, and provide low-latency queries on top of the data.

Ideal for running an entire economy imo

>The name Druid comes from the shapeshifting Druid class in many role-playing games, to reflect the fact that the architecture of the system can shift to solve different types of data problems.

This is perfect - in my mini-article, I outlined 3 problems for which we could have separate blockchains. With this, we'll potentially only need 1 system to address all 3 tasks.

>Druid is used in production by technology companies such as Alibaba, Airbnb, Cisco, eBay, Netflix, Paypal, and Yahoo.

Wow, so it's /really/ widely used. This is probably a secure system by virtue of its redundancy or some other mechanism if it's really this widely used. If there's a way to anonymize the data inputs and have linked timestamping between 2 parties making a transfer and a backup of what both are sending to make sure that no tampering was done, all the better.

If we can combine this Druid system with a stripped-down, modified GLPK to solve for the objective function of linearly optimizing production out of all possibilities and have Druid organize the data as needed for it to do that and then give it back to production centers, we just need to make a flashy interface for end users to input their data and bam: economic planning of fully automated luxury communism? There's an app for that.


Well, Wiener's the one who started it, Ashby's the one who really gave it the principles off which all later works are based. I haven't read either because I don't think they addressed economics IIRC, but I probably should read them anyways. Anyone who's read them can tell us which one is better to start off with? I'm pretty new to this whole cybernetics thing.


The assumptions going into standard voting theory are an issue, so when we take ideas from there he have to look at whether the context is similar enough to the original habitat where the ideas make sense.

One assumption that is very common in models, though there is some awareness of that not being quite right, is that voters have opinions about every issue/party/person on the ballots. The reality is of course often different. Now we could investigate how the hyper-informed individual is part of mainstream economics and the liberal capitalist myth building that has been going on for over 200 years now, but I think it's more to the point to deal with the issue at hand.

Voters who have the option to rank or rate lots of candidates or things or proposals will often not actually bother doing all that if they don't have to, and if they are forced, a lot of their inputs will be random. So, if the method to determine one winner uses rankings it should allow truncated rankings and also to give several things the same rank. Default meaning for not ranking something should be bottom rank. If the method uses ratings, the default meaning for not rating something should be bottom rating. This makes sense when dealing with ballots.

When the context isn't that voters are presented five or ten things in a survey, but rather there are thousands of things and a user only rates a few of them, confidence in results is a big issue. Would you take a product with a five-star average over one with a four-star average, if the first comes from three users voting and the other from three thousand? What's interesting here also is the spread of ratings an item gets. A risk-averse economic planning system would prioritize doing something with a very high probability of being decent over doing something with a non-trivial risk of being crap, even though its average assessment looks better.

Another common assumption in standard voting theory is that the voting happens in an instant and delivers a result and that's the end of it. Now, this is not ideology blinding researchers, that's just what old-timey voting usually is. We will be dealing with feedback systems where people will be influenced by the output of one round when forming their decisions for what their input in the next round will be, and we will also deal with some feedback systems that don't even do rounds. If voting methods are adapted for this purpose, they don't actually satisfy the same criteria that they are mathematically proven to satisfy in their normal context. There are criteria that deal with snap shots ("if such-and-such pattern appears on the ballots, the method should do X"), and these criteria will be satisfied. But there are also criteria that deal with changes ("if the ballot pattern changes in such and such way, the result shouldn't change in the following counter-intuitive way blablabla"), and these we have to check again.

When voting happens continuously for something which is adjusted regularly, we might be interested in having results that don't change dramatically when there is just a tiny change in the votes. However, this seems to run into conflict with the very idea of majority rule. Majority patterns (plural, an option can be a first-place majority, an option can also be majority last-place, and there are other majority patterns) in the voting data can barely exist or barely not exist, so what a few people do can make or break a majority pattern. So, if a voting procedure is used that prioritizes majority patterns, edge cases are possible with dramatic jumps.


Cycled by request.


File: 8d65ec18127ccd0⋯.jpg (135.97 KB, 208x242, 104:121, 8d65ec18127ccd0b3c8bf05200….jpg)


cycling is bullshit, this isn't news discussion, this is book hoarding. recreating thread with screencaps from previous thread is much better, spam gets filtered and only good stuff stays while in cycling threads old stuff get lost. return thread back to normal, please.


File: a639e121cd748b8⋯.jpg (12.08 KB, 255x147, 85:49, a2dbb263d9d745c59c8c25a1eb….jpg)


File: 205dd41e53e4a34⋯.pdf (2.29 MB, fundamentals-of-political-….pdf)

File: 396ca022d5fb9d6⋯.pdf (1.88 MB, fundamentals-of-political-….pdf)

Found another book a while ago (2015), "Fundamentals of Political Economy" by the china book project, with chapters on planning, so I cropped them out.

A bit too state capitalist/maoist for my taste, but might still contain some good stuff.


Before going into procedures for assigning multiple units of multiple things to different people or assigning some resource to multiple purposes, let's first figure out how to assign multiple units of the same thing to multiple people. The algorithm for this might be useful as a part of procedures for more complicated issues.

Suppose people just write down the quantities they request and you then compare the sum of these requests with how much is available and you see that the aggregate sum of requests is bigger than that. This could be dealt with just by scaling down each request by the same factor, so to make the scaled down sum of requests equal to what is available. Problem: People can anticipate that scaling down will happen and make exaggerated requests, which in turn make it necessary to scale down by a bigger factor, which gives an incentive to exaggerate even more, with no end in sight. This exaggeration issue can be solved in several ways.

Random dictator: Suppose you process the requests in random order (or some determined order, what's important is that the order is independent of what numbers are requested), giving each as many units as they demand as long as there is still enough left to give. In that case it is likely some people get exactly the amounts they asked for, one person gets fewer units (and demanding more wouldn't have increased that amount), and some people get nothing at all.

A more egalitarian distribution is the cookie algorithm: Go through the random order of requests repeatedly (once you reach the end you jump to the beginning again) and assign only one more unit each time you encounter a person's request that isn't yet fully met.

It's trivial to see that for both random dictator and the cookie algorithm, one cannot increase the probability of getting some quantity at least as high as X by stating a request for a higher quantity than X. It's also trivial to see that the cookie algorithm gives everybody who doesn't ask for more than their proportional share (number of units available divided by number of people, rounded down to the next integer) just that. When the cookie algorithm is made part of something more complicated, probably these guarantees will not hold anymore, but at least the procedure will be less sensitive to exaggeration strategy than using straight averages for everything.



Go back to reddit.


statistics/math fag here.

The issue of central planning has always been a bit elusive to me. With IOT, reporting, we have plenty of data on input. And in simulating a theoretical demand of goods, production could be put into overdrive or lessened to minimize loss (from items sitting on the shelf too long or demand being unsupplied).

This is totally feasible and is already what corporations use to manage their pipelines. There's no reason why a post-cap society couldn't use these same techniques.


So onto another issue related to this entirely.

How do we build infrastructure that can resist attacks and is resilient to failure? How do we make sure such a system both the hardware and software, doesnt have a single point of failure.,





Not going to happen, especially because many security faults are due to internal incompetence or sabotage.

Just have really high availability and lots of redundancy is basically the best you can do.



You can saturate connections and make them unusable, which might cause big issues.



Yeah, the internet's structure is fault tolerant (sort of) but the individual services aren't. Let's say we have a service that determines grain production. Its data is going to live on a server somewhere. In order to be convenient, it's going to have to take in data from somewhere. That means you've exposed a vulnerability.

There's also the issue of distributed data. Even with really high redundancy drives still fail frequently. So you need to allocate lots of drives for RAID protocols to make sure that data loss only occurs in really really rare cases.

Of course there's other things like data forgery and data manipulation which are both not hard to imagine in a society with "quotas" or similar.



That anon asked about complete protection from both hardware and software failure. Both of those companies invest significant resources into preventing those (which means they are not perfect).

Just look at this talk, Facebook and Google both create, open source, and steward their own programming languages to solve the complex systems programming problems they are trying to solve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbv1ej0fFo



So a bunch of porkies can make a secure system, but an advanced leftist state can't?

The whole security problem is just an optimization issue and nothing more.



Why not just kick them out of the planning process, if they demand too much too often? They'd probably have difficulties getting all they need outside of the system.


DNS is relativly centralized, destroying the root hosts would be pretty excellent.



>DNS is relativly centralized, destroying the root hosts would be pretty excellent.


Not to mention that you could target a singlular area, or even a smaller/bigger hub if you got enough resources, with a heavy denial of service attack to shut down the system.




>Why not just kick them out of the planning process, if they demand too much too often?

And how do you measure that? I say you demand too much, now have fun starving. People do exaggerate all the time. What is considered too much of an exaggeration is, excuse the obnoxious phrase, a social construct. If you don't want to haggle all the time, but everybody else around you, the culture, is expecting that of you, stating what you honestly want will fuck you over. In the fancy new society, there may well be time-intensive rituals and customs that limit how much one is expected to exaggerate, and people getting very nosey to get a good idea about what others truly need, and this all sounds like a life full of bullshit to me, amounting to approximately two years of my life spent in technically unnecessary meetings, two years of everybody's life, for ten billion people. All because of that one fateful day just before the revolution, when comrade number 1548678 couldn't be bothered to spend two hours thinking about a robust request protocol because he spent that time jacking off to Berenstain Bears hentai instead.



Variation of the cookie algorithm for an income-sharing commune: Given that by requesting fewer units than proportional share you enable others to get more, you might take issue with the possibility that, depending on the request pattern a few people might get a lot because of your charity, which may make you more reluctant to share. So, when you request fewer units than your proportional share, you can also specify that the units freed up for allocation by that don't go to people who already got more than some limit above proportional share that you specify.

Allocation then works like this: Give everybody who demands and amount below or equal to their proportional share just that. Then, among those who asked for more, go through the random order of requests repeatedly (at the end of it you jump to the beginning again) and assign only one more unit each time you encounter a person's request that isn't yet fully met. The additional constraint is that you first allocate the units that don't have any limit attached. When you round out of these, you continue with allocating units with the highest limit attached, after you are out of these, you continue with units with the next-highest limit and so on.

At the end, give back the units you couldn't assign, first give them to those who set the lowest limit and allocate among them in a way that you give first to those who have the least. If each of them reaches the proportional share amount, you continue giving back to those setting the second-lowest limit and so on.



No. Income-sharing communities literally do exist in the real world. Most of them are religious. Last year, I took part in a weekend program they offered so people could check out how they work and live together. And a guy at one commune told us about how they at first put all the money in a pot, then they gathered how much people wished to get out of it, then they shrunk the amount in some way - he wasn't entirely clear (in general these folks don't have a very precise manner of speaking), but I believe it was just shrinking all requested amounts by the same factor to make that equal in aggregate to the amount available for sharing - and that didn't work out and now people just got fixed amounts. It didn't take me more than a second to figure out how shrinking requests proportionally leads to an exaggeration-incentive spiral and how to fix that, and I probably should have said something instead of making a CDi Link face.

I'm very interested in game design and group-decision design though. In the first you aim for something with complex strategies and the thrill of risk and in the other you want to keep it as simple and dull as possible; so when an idea I have for one of these topics turns out to be complete disaster, I immediately look at whether it's good for the other topic. When it comes to economic planning, one important goal is to keep the gap between honest data input and strategically advantageous input small. So, the proposed methods here would be very boring in a game. If you want an interesting voting method for a game, surely it should be one that is maddening in real life.


File: 312b952a0da2578⋯.png (62 KB, 1200x1300, 12:13, peace__love__equality__for….png)

Oh shit, this beautiful thread survived the hacking. I had a screencap made just the day before, but it's good to know it's still going.

I see someone already archived this, but obviously, it's better to archive as late as possible to nab all posts. So if you see this thread about to fall off the board, check archive.is to see if it has a recent copy, if not, archive it.



>your algorithms could only work for simple video games.

You want the program to give you K units of a thing, your "strategy" then is to ask it for K units of that thing. The cookie algorithm would not be a good fit for a video game, as there is no strategy to it, which makes it good for real-world usage.

>keep people as removed from decision making as they are now, although that's kind of the point of cybernetics, isn't it

Stafford Beer was big on subsidiarity and I saw a crude doodle either by him or one of his associates from around the time when they worked in Chile, which showed some dial-gadget thing which was to be used for live voting in connection with TV debates. Paul Cockshott is not a fan of subsidiarity, but he advocates for sortition and also has a (crude) concept about ordinary folks directly voting on taxes and expenditure.

Your post is frankly the dumbest thing I've ever seen on here, and I have been here since the time Warsie defended both the YPG and ISIS, "dialectically".



I was thinking about a committee representing the interests of members within this planning sphere. They would decided from case to case if a certain member were to be abusing the network, and if they wouldn't respond to their warnings, they'd be punished. Maybe kicking out isn't necessary at first, but at least a penalty eg. limiting either the maximal amount of resources they can ask for.





>committee representing the interests of members

>decided from case to case if a certain member were to be abusing the network

The key problem with class societies is the fact that there is a separate class of people who have the power to control the distribution of society's productive surplus. Once you have a separate group of people whose job is deciding goods distribution, their main interest lies in maintaining this position of power. This is true regardless of how that group intends to actually wield the power, since keeping the power is a necessary prerequisite to exercising it, regardless of your altruistic or selfish intentions. It's not unreasonable to think we can figure out a way to integrate planning into a truly democratic system that doesn't rely on handing power over to any 'representative' group.

There are a number of ways that you could encourage people to stick to a fair level of consumption - a simple note at the point of distribution saying 'Fair share: x per consumer' would likely be enough for most people, as long as the note makes clear the association between reasonably self-limited consumption and social responsibility. Capitalist society has also developed a technology for influencing consumer demand: advertising. Public messaging aimed at influencing consumption patterns to fit material limitations would be a socially useful form of advertising, far beyond the shit we see today.

You also have to consider the entire societal situation before going to the length of re-introducing stuff like representative 'democracy' (Cockshott makes an incisive argument pointing out that such schemes are effectively aristocracies) or markets (this concession is the laziest part of Towards a New Socialism, I feel) in an attempt to curb hypothetical over-consumption. In an extensively planned economy without private property, most of your ability to hoard is naturally curbed, and the need to do so is obviated anyway. No private property means no large exclusive space in which to keep stuff you've got too much of - the person who demands far too many cars will find themselves inadvertently opening up a public showroom.

Of course, it's also necessary to point out that a significant number of people routinely demanding more of a good than the productive system can currently account for is a powerful signal to expand production of the in-demand good. If production is currently resource-limited, then high demand is a powerful signal to develop more resource-efficient methods of production, or more efficient methods of resource extraction/recycling. Such an emphasis puts the onus for the solution of supply problems on the supply side of the production-consumption cycle, which I think is politically important. Placing the onus on the consumption side leads to a lot of talk about punishments for over-consumption and the implementation of various coercive systems that I think are largely unnecessary for an economic system that looks to transcend class society.



>committee limiting maximal amount of resources one can ask for, may kick you out

Regular allocation should not depend on some committee deciding about each individual request. Somebody may ask for an unusually high amount of something, maybe they are in very particular circumstances that make them ask for that, meriting investigation. But that should be the exception, with the normal state of affairs being automated, default settings that need no interaction. The time people have to discuss individual cases of someone maybe asking for too much of a limited resource is itself a limited resource.

What is available divided by number of people (rounded down to next integer) is your proportional share. Asking for that or fewer units gives you exactly the amount you wish for. Asking for more gives you at least as many units as your proportional share and maybe more, depending on other people asking for fewer units than proportional share. Two people asking for the same amount, whether they get that or fewer units, are treated the same in that they both get an equal amount (one unit difference at most). If you want the COMPUTERGOD to give you X units, you don't increase your chances of getting that by asking for a higher amount, so just ask for X. This is the result when just using the trivial vanilla cookie algorithm.

This can be combined with a limit how much an individual might get, set by a jury (sortition from two groups, people directly involved in the production of the thing and the general population, the ratio in accordance with living labor/(dead labor + some aggregate number supposed to roughly represent natural resources) in its production process, so if it is just a service with no fancy tools, the jury is just the people providing that service, and if it is all about a natural resource, it's the general population) using median vote (or a super-majority method with the same exaggeration-free aspect), or the limit might be set by the people asking for fewer units than proportional share and the mechanism mentioned in >>1549035 - or let's do both: first the jury setting a limit, then the other thing potentially making it tighter. The initial jury limit is published, and you have a short window to react and write a request to the jury if you individually want more than that. Then the jury limit is set.

Instead of directly using the result of the cookie algorithm, it could be used in two rounds: In the first round, in addition to just wishing for a quantity higher than proportional share, you can also mark some quantity as something that you MUST have. This is initially not taken into account by the algorithm. If the result of the first round then is that at least one person gets below some quantity marked MUST (recall that you might get fewer units than what is implied by the jury limit), they can issue some statement asking others to demand fewer units, and there is a second round that by default copies your inputs of the first round, and allows users only to demand fewer units than before and to increase the inequality limit. People who don't bother to do anything in the second round won't get fewer units after the second round than their first-round result.


Honestly, I think the idea of an actual socialist society prior to cybernetics may be putting the cart before the horse. I don't think man is capable of subjugating his own base urges for the sake of others to the extent necessary for a fully functional and truly socialist society. Furthermore, the problems of keeping supply in-step with demand ahead of time is also extremely difficult given the current state of technology and mankind. Once these two problems are resolved, I think socialism will not only become possible, but inevitable.



I think we would still need some commitee to manage the distribution and all other universal spheres of society. The question here lies in what power would they have, what would they get from it, how they would remain, and who would controll them.

I think that's why we need a cenralized direct, or "non-representative" in general, democracy to be able to both appoint the council and guide it in a way desired by people.

So their role would be to manage the common assets, not to have a "total control" as is.

It sould be less of a "representative government/people" relation, but rather a "board of directors/shareholders" relation.



Well if you can't subjugate your own base urges, then maybe you will learn to do so in GULAG.



Some biological imperatives are, by necessity, stronger than the individual's will to live. Something that hasn't been forged purely by the competition inherent to nature is necessary to facilitate an end to competition. The capacity for abstract thinking and the creation of artificial ordered systems are steps in the right direction; what remains is to allow the formal to take its rightful place above the material in the mind in all respects.



If someones greed is stronger than their will to live then maybe they need some actual phychiatric help rather than just a socialist society.

>forged purely by the competition inherent to nature

It's just a "human nature" argument.

Everyone has their desires and the means to satisfy them are material in it's core, but even now if we would move to a society with a more equal redistribution the majority would get more to satisfy their base urges anyway. If some bourgeous had to subjugate their urges for this, or it to be subjugated for them, then so be it.



>jury using median vote (or a super-majority method with the same exaggeration-free aspect)

Come to think of it, I believe it's better for a jury composed of two groups to use something else than direct median, like x-for-x rating. With the median, strong disagreement between the two groups just means that the bigger group, if homogeneous in opinion, can completely dictate the result. Suppose the jury members representing the interest of society at large that the machinery and natural resources (which are not owned by the tiny part of the population working in a particular place) are put to good use are fewer in number than the workers from the place. The former members are far less likely to know each other than the latter and with majority decision making, the niche interests of the workers of the particular place can completely dominate. This is especially bad if they don't just decide on some amount-per-any-person limit, but also decide on granting unique individual requests for more. This could be easily abused for black-market activity. Maybe the individual unique requests should be voted on only by a jury drawn from the general population then or require the OK from both groups.

Here is how x-for-x rating works: Each voter writes down a value between 0 and 100 %. The result is the highest value that is supported by a group of at least that same size. This is robust against exaggeration like the median, and unlike the median, little variations in voting can't lead to drastic changes in results.



>If someones greed is stronger than their will to live then maybe they need some actual phychiatric help rather than just a socialist society.

What would you call a parent sacrificing themselves or some form of material benefit for the sake of their children, then? Mentally ill?

>It's just a "human nature" argument.

No, it's not. It's a universalist argument. Biological organisms will never be unbound from biological laws. Non-biological entities are not subject to biological restraints.

>Everyone has their desires and the means to satisfy them are material in it's core, but even now if we would move to a society with a more equal redistribution the majority would get more to satisfy their base urges anyway.

No. They would still want more, and attempt to take it. There is no fundamental difference between the mentality of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, other than the fact that the former currently has the ability to oppress the other. If you think anything in nature does not have a drive towards conflict, you are living in a Lysenkoist fantasy land.



The difference in mentality exists. For many proletarians, they just come and see a system that has been there before them and they learn to adapt, thinking it is somehow natural.

Until someone comes along and points out to them that such system is artificial and is made to keep them poor and powerless by design, in order to make profit off of them.

Living things in nature have only drive to self preservation, to keep themselves in homeostasis or otherwise propagate their information in time. Because those who do not vanish in time. It is like a pattern formation in chaotic systems, which you find many examples of in mathematics, physics, biology.

Conflict is a particular way of one kind of pattern trying to propagate itself when it clashes with another kind of pattern due to not enough space.

An explicit drive towards conflict is a pure idealism.

See the name of this thread explicitly stating it is about cybernetics.



>Until someone comes along and points out to them that such system is artificial and is made to keep them poor and powerless by design, in order to make profit off of them.

In which case some will struggle in futility against such a system, which has been the history of worker's revolutions thus far, or will attempt to integrate into it, furthering the myth of socio-economic mobility which serves as a carrot for those incapable of improving their own conditions, greasing the cogs of the machine which serves to whip them.

>Conflict is a particular way of one kind of pattern trying to propagate itself when it clashes with another kind of pattern due to not enough space.

No, it is not only due to a lack of space. Simply put, it is easier to benefit by harming other lifeforms than by autotrophism, and organisms that due so are more successful in propagating than others. However, even plants kill each other for easier access to resources, as the principles of natural selection have encouraged this. Capitalism is nothing more than an economic representation of systems inherent to organic life as we know it. Cybernetics, in principle, can allow man to overcome these systems.



>What would you call a parent sacrificing themselves for their children?

If I see more of me in my children than in myself, patterns in how they look and act similar to me (and write!), a potential of these patterns continuing for much longer than the rest of my life, sacrificing myself for them is an expression of my will to live.

>They would still want more, and attempt to take it.

More what? More food? Is there an unlimited urge to eat more and more food? People want fantastic amounts of money because it is the universal equivalent. Even if you don't know what you would need it for, wishing for more money is never wrong, as you can always do everything with N dollars plus one as you can with just N dollars, for any value of N, and not vice versa. The little bit of independence the capitalist owners have is dependent on them being pro-active with getting money if they don't want to risk falling down to the position of proles. You have to act like an asshole to protect yourself and your family, you have to attack if you just want to defend where you are now. You want more money because in this society you need money to cover basic needs and wants for yourself, and your family and friends.

Having physical objects comes with the hassle of cleaning them, checking for rust and mold, repairing them, moving them around. Imagine you can own a lot of stuff, but you can't delegate these activities, or that the extent to which you can ask of other peoples' time to do that for you is pretty similar for everybody. Would you even want to own a massive yacht?

I don't think you are an "anarcho-capitalist", but this reminds me of so many discussions I've had with that lot. They start out talking of themselves like the guardians of civilization, some Biological Truth straight from the Science Journal of My Ass is presented, and as time goes on and you present a fuzzy yet promising picture of a potential future different from capitalism, you reach the point ("…and maybe one or two horses for the children in the commune") when they flip out totally and threaten to take as much free stuff as they can, just to smash it, like anti-social retarded ape-people. And that's what they are. Like those howling "people" gathering when Saddam Hussein was hanged, taking photos on their cell phones (but there was dirt on the camera as it happens when you hold it in your hand as you walk around and your arms are so long your knuckles drag on the ground).


>Capitalism is nothing more than an economic representation of systems inherent to organic life as we know it. Cybernetics, in principle, can allow man to overcome these systems.

Disagree on both counts.



>I don't think man is capable of subjugating his own base urges for the sake of others to the extent necessary for a fully functional and truly socialist society.

I think I need to hear your definition of "true socialist society". Cybernetics can bring us classless society where everyone is rewarded based on his contribution. If there would be some kind of labour vouchers (currency based on labour, ideally non-acumulative) implemented, with the only way to obtain more would be to work more, therefore there would be a way for people to live different lifestyles - from childless basement dweller working a few hours a week to some protestant family dad working 60 hours a week to support his 15 children and wife.


I do also think some kind of committee/parliament/whatever would be needed, which could collect contributions/taxes in order to fund schools, healthcare, research and so on, but I don't think it's really important now. If we could design core of this plan to be purely anarchistic there would not be a problem to modify it to support some committee if some madman would try to implement it IRL



>Having physical objects comes with the hassle of cleaning them, checking for rust and mold, repairing them, moving them around.

And with the ability to maintain them comes the prestige associated with owning them, leading to the development of the attitude of the bourgeois. People, in general, seem to want that, considering that societies holding these values have become dominant nearly everywhere in the world and there is a significant archaeological trend towards increasing materialism as cultures develop, suggesting that this has been the case since the dawn of civilization, at the latest. It doesn't matter how many people call bullshit so long as the system itself continues to exist.

And no, I'm not an an-cap. In terms of political philosophy, I guess I'd probably lean towards Mohism, at least domestically. Internationally, I think imperialism is probably the least of all evils in the long term. As for my use of biology, I fail to see how humanity, in its current state, is not just another instance within its biological classes.


A true socialist society, in my opinion, would be a society in which not only are the means of production held in common, but there is no inclination of its populace towards privatization. If the latter is not met, I think the collapse of such a society is inevitable.



>the prestige associated with owning them, leading to the development of the attitude of the bourgeois.

A: Look how many tea cups I have!!

B: Yes, they are given away for free. So, you asked for a lot of them?

A: Yes!

B: Why?

A: Prestige! Sex me now!

It's like a system of food stamps where you can beg for more, and if you are lucky you may get more. There is no prestige in having more food stamps.

>significant archaeological trend towards increasing materialism since dawn of civilization blabla muh deep Chinese philosophy

You don't even know the meaning of terms like materialism or bourgeois used on this board. Mate, it's time to stop posting (or at least post in one of our regular muh human nature threads instead of shitting up this one).



>Wow, that's a really nice vase

>Yeah, I traded some food stamps for it, demonstrating my ability to hold an excess of what's necessary in order to exchange it for something that's basically meaningless but aesthetically pleasing, while other people are barely getting by

>Wow, I'd sure rather fuck you than have my kids work fields all day

The only way around this even slightly is basically a 100% death tax, and everything would still probably go to shit unless the human mindset is significantly altered.

>You don't even know the meaning of terms like materialism or bourgeois used on this board.

>there can be only one meaning for each word

>I need to ignore the history of these terms and other potential meanings in order to fit in with my fellow radicals


What happened to comrade Stallman image?



Paul Cockshott's "Towards a new Socialism"



>trading food stamps

The "food stamps" (labor vouchers) won't be physical tokens, but electronic accounts linked to your ID.

>words have different meanings

When you want to join a conversation, you have to stick to definitions implicit in how people in that conversation are using them. Gift means poison in German, but we are talking in UH MERRY KHAAAAAAAAN here, so it would be silly to bring up that meaning when criticizing others who talk about a "gift economy". Likewise with the way you talk.



Yes. It's still the best book on socialist planning I know.

Maybe this is also good: Classical Econophysics by W. Paul Cockshott, Allin F. Cottrell, Gregory J. Michaelson, Ian P. Wright, Victor M. Yakovenko. All these authors have written interesting things on email lists and so on. Yakovenko made popular a very simple model with people having equal amounts of money, then randomly doing transfers. The result is an extremely unequal distribution (for Mathematica users: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/StatisticalMechanicsOfMoney/). The table of contents looks promising, but I'm a hundred pages in and it just goes on and on about bees and printing technology. What they present about information and entropy in these hundred pages is important, but I believe they could have said it with ten.

In brief: Shannon's concept of information is about messages being efficient, which means the probabilities of a bit being 0 or 1 should be as close to fifty-fifty as possible. Kolmogorov's concept of information is about how short you can make a program for creating a particular number sequence. The shorter the program, the less information is in the number sequence. The counter-intuitive result when using that definition is that random sequences have the highest amount of information. Productive activity (in a very broad sense, whether we talk about humans or bees) is about reducing entropy (only possible locally, in the universe as a whole it never decreases), that is reducing the number of states an environment can be in, which brings us to cybernetic regulation. (Not every single step in production does reduce entropy though, rather there is a reduction when making sheets of paper or metal and then an increase again when letters are put on the paper and the metal sheets are pressed into forms.)



It ran away in shame of BO's spergout.


Friendly reminder that cybernetics was considered bourgeois pseudoscience in the USSR.

>Cybernetics was also outlawed as bourgeois pseudoscience. Norbert Wiener's 1948 book Cybernetics was condemned and translated only in 1958. A 1954 edition of the Brief Philosophical Dictionary condemned cybernetics for "mechanistically equating processes in live nature, society and in technical systems, and thus standing against materialistic dialectics and modern scientific physiology developed by Ivan Pavlov".[11] (However this article was removed from the 1955 reprint of the dictionary.) This attitude hampered the development of computer science and engineering in the Soviet Union. Notice that the Russian term "кибернетика" ("cybernetics") has come to describe what is called "computer science" in the West.



>in the USSR

Who cares?



I'm just pointing out the dangers of ideology.

Anyway, isn't cybernetics just utopian bullshit like techno-singularity?


>m-muh economic calculation problem

did this thread BTFO libertarians forever?



>Anyway, isn't cybernetics just utopian bullshit like techno-singularity?

No, you fucking retard, why don't you read up on the matter so you don't look like an absolute imbecile? Even the wikipedia page would provide you with enough information to disabuse you of such an idiotic notion.


>Cybernetics is applicable when a system being analyzed incorporates a closed signaling loop—originally referred to as a "circular causal" relationship—that is, where action by the system generates some change in its environment and that change is reflected in the system in some manner (feedback) that triggers a system change. Cybernetics is relevant to, for example, mechanical, physical, biological, cognitive, and social systems. The essential goal of the broad field of cybernetics is to understand and define the functions and processes of systems that have goals and that participate in circular, causal chains that move from action to sensing to comparison with desired goal, and again to action. Its focus is how anything (digital, mechanical or biological) processes information, reacts to information, and changes or can be changed to better accomplish the first two tasks. Cybernetics includes the study of feedback, black boxes and derived concepts such as communication and control in living organisms, machines and organizations including self-organization.


This is the best thread on leftypol by the way. I wish there was a way to give the collective thread a medal.



yes, you just sit, learn and feel like doing something.



If I understand you properly, both of them are quite interesting, with cookie seems like winner because of more "fair" redistribution. My autistic screeching:

requested = { ##dictionary, person id:amount
0:8, 1:9, 2:11, 3:53, 4:2 }

stock = 70

def randomDictator(requested, stock, rSeed):
if rSeed:
personId = rSeed.pop()
if requested[personId] < stock:
stock -= requested[personId]
requested[personId] = 0
requested[personId] -= stock
stock = 0
randomDictator(requested, stock, rSeed)

##randomDictator(requested, stock, [2, 1, 5, 3, 4])

def cookie(requested, stock, rSeed, personId):
print (requested, stock)
if stock:
if requested[personId%len(rSeed)] > 0:
requested[personId%len(rSeed)] -= 1
stock -=1
cookie(requested, stock, rSeed, personId+1)

cookie(requested, stock, [2, 1, 0, 3, 4], 1 )

I wonder how would be solved maintaining low price of goods. You obviously need lot's of storages, but what if item I requested isn't in my nearest storage? Should the program find next closest storage and request stuff from there or just wait? Couldn't this cause massive underperformance of some industries?



>No, you fucking retard, why don't you read up on the matter so you don't look like an absolute imbecile?

Easy, man, easy. He's just spooked as everyone once was. And to his credit, there is a trace of utopianism in some cyberneticians.



>there is a trace of utopianism in some cyberneticians

Yes, utopianism is something I think we should be on guard against. I conceive of this stuff less as a blueprint for a future society and more as the development of the tools we need to build the new society.

I think that the revolutions and revolts of the 20th century have shown us that the working class doesn't lack for revolutionary will or ability to self-organise - what it lacks is the basis for a new way of doing things.

I think that's why the previous revolts have all ended up dependent on 'revolutionary parties' or middle-class forces - the movements have lacked the tools to create a new way of organising production and distribution. With properly developed cybernetics and computer-assisted planning, I think we'll finally have all the tools necessary to transcend the law of value.

It's incumbent upon us to develop these tools, but we shouldn't stray into trying to prescribe the course of the new society - the best we can do is create systems that enable the working class to democratically organise production and society.



>Yes, utopianism is something I think we should be on guard against.

Yeah, it's easy to fall into the trap of believing that technology X will solve this problem all by itself, as if its application didn't depend on material conditions.

>I conceive of this stuff less as a blueprint for a future society and more as the development of the tools we need to build the new society.

That's a very good analogy actually, I'll remember that one, thanks. A fella in another thread bemoaned how the much touted industrialization failed to elevate man, and I pointed out that by itself it's just a tool, and one which hasn't been used to that end. When industry is finally wielded by the workers, it will serve the workers.

And the rest of what you say makes sense. You could frame the shortcomings of revolutions, or of administration of socialist countries post-revolution, as failures of information. Perhaps not just of economic factors, but also ideologic, philosophic etc., but that's just a supposition.

God knows that the original sin of the left is divisiveness, and it almost inevitably stems from dissent over small matters. I'm aiming high here, but who knows, our dream network here might be the X factor that allows that unification of the left, since economy is the crux of socialism and anarchism. If this network solution could get a lot of factions on board, the unification of the left would be a step away.



>God knows that the original sin of the left is divisiveness, and it almost inevitably stems from dissent over small matters.

Fuckin' A. Endless bitching about philosophical and political minutiae when no-one seems to have done the slightest bit of work to figure out how the system we're all so excited about is supposed to run.

I would be overjoyed if this could be the start of a new, more hard-headed and economically-oriented sort of communism. Lately I just haven't seen the point in fighting pissweak pointless little activist battles when we have no idea how to win the war.



To somehow get to the specific ideas on how to win the war we must organize research in cybernetics and its application to management of economy. With principles of socialism, anarchism and communism in mind. Otherwise any good result would be abused to uphold private ownership. of social fruits of labour.

Just like all other sciences are doing with their research institutes, laboratories, libraries, conferences, workshops and so on.

Organizing a group to translate original literature on cybernetics into english, or probably even esperanto, might be a great first step in building the research groups from scratch. That applies most to eastern europe. Or areas with eastern european immigrants who might be interested in leftism.

Essentially it requires to copy the way scientific research works.

Organizing lectures on cybernetics and its application to economics, or workshops as a part of existing anarchist or socialist groups, or independent higher education groups that the anarchist groups like to organize.

Of course in the first stages of organization, it would be mostly research of existing literature, making models of systems, developing algorithms and getting/creating economic data to run the algorithms on. The only application can be applied to certain coops if they exist.

That is if they do not already use similar systems of automated economical management.


bumping quality thread


But the Bolshevik Party was already the optimal Bolshevik Party.


It's basically Stalinism with computers, where only the inner party can tinker with the machinery, and an AI decides who goes into the inner party? Putting a lot of stock in that MAI.


>Pay is to be determined by a tertiary algorithm's determination of where bottlenecks lie - that is, it takes the first blockchain system's information of what is produced and how and combines it with the second blockchain system's information on who gets what to determine which human occupations could use extra people in them to increase production. For those, the pay goes up. For fields with an excess of people, the pay goes down. Because everyone gets a certain amount of luxury spending currency anyways as both a buffer and a basic necessity

Won't this be extremely alienating on a human level? People will continually see their pay go up and down without understanding why. Long as you have a hard floor of pay you can't fall through it would be livable, but I can imagine this causing a lot of grumbling among people who cannot attain the skills needed to fill in bottleneck sectors.


There are some who say the economy is, and should be, based on micro-foundations. That means the description of the economy starts with given individuals with given personalities and given wants and ends with society. And should be - that's like wishing that many hands draw spontaneously at different spots on a wall, each hand only concerned with its own little part, maybe a few interactions with the immediate neighbors, and yet expecting that all of these actions somehow add up to a sensible coherent picture.

There are some who say they want a more rational economy, that is a more planned economy, where actors are confronted with a given set of prices, they submit statements about how much they want of this or that thing, then, without any trade yet happening, we allow the prices to dance in response to the quantities demanded, look at the new demand statements, still don't trade and instead let the prices dance again, and so on, and when that process stabilizes around certain quantities and prices (there is no mathematical reason for assuming that), we will have a sensible plan. That's like saying that the process of painting a detailed and good picture involves drawing detailed and wrong pictures. But that's not how the pros paint. They don't go from detailed and wrong to detailed and right. They go from rough sketches to detailed pictures, from roughly right to exactly right. The corresponding action to that in planning the economy is NOT planning with points (exactly this price, exactly that quantity, both likely wrong), but with RANGES.

The painter doesn't necessarily have a precise idea at the start of painting, just a rough idea, and doing the rough sketch leads to a more precise idea. Upper limits and lower limits to prices and quantities, together with technical constraints, already have a more precise picture implicit in them, without any individual being aware of it before we put together a list of facts, each of which when taken alone looking utterly boring and obvious and, in a word, uninformative. But put all these "non-infos" together, and the sum turns out to be more informative than the parts.

When we want to gather the opinions of ten people, we can talk with them. When it's a hundred people, we can ask them some questions that they answer in writing, maybe we drop the idea of having any back and forth then going on. When asking a million people for their opinions, the information a single person can give has to be constrained, so it is clear and machine-readable. We just ask them to rank some proposals, for instance. Ballots and surveys constrain how people express themselves. This may not sound like much to be enthusiastic about (who loves doing surveys?), but there is a lot of room for improvement here.



One freedom that people should have is to state ambivalence. When you ask them to rank things, they should be allowed to give the same rank position to several things. Forcing people to make distinctions about things they are undecided about creates fake information and fake precision. Counter-intuitively, forcing people to state distinctions where they don't see any can it make harder to get to an aggregate decision. I call this the fuzzy information paradox. Here is the most simple example: You have to decide between thing A, thing B, and thing C, and ask two people about their opinion. The first person understands one aspect of the issue very well, and when it comes to that aspect, thing A and thing B perform clearly better than C. There is another aspect that the other person understands very well, and when it comes to that second aspect, B and C are better than A. Neither of them is sure what the best thing of the three is. Suppose you have a separate talk with each, and you are an impatient and want a clear recommendation. Then it can happen that the first person recommends A and the second person recommends C. If only you had been patient and allowed them to state their ambivalences, then you would have gotten a clear recommendation! Not allowing them to state their ambivalence destroyed information.

Trying to think about planning the economy of the whole world can be a bit overwhelming. But a lot of activities are like that. When you see a professional painting, it can look impossible for you to replicate. You cannot imagine the picture at once, with all its details. Neither did the painter at the start of making it. It started out rough. Approach economic questions like that. Here is a question: How many sheep should there be in the world in five years? How in hell am I supposed to know that? Well, you don't. You don't have a precise number in your head. Neither do I. Now, what you must do instead of giving up, is trying to approach it. Here have a number to start with: 10 000 billion. Now, that can't be right. And it isn't right. See, you already know that, so you already know something. There are less than ten billion people in the world, so that number would amount to over one thousand sheep per human. Before even getting into the issue of how many sheep there should be, we can ask how many sheep there can be. Leaving aside any issue about necessary land use and nutrition, starting from the upper end of estimations how many there are right now, taken together with information about how long they take to reproduce, we can already figure out an upper limit. There won't be more than that amount for sure. We can use that procedure for all sorts of animals and plants. These are the first steps of creating the picture of the future, starting with our real physical world as it is.

Compare that with trying to make sense of the world in terms of money. There is such and such amount of dollars in the world, one adult animal of species A costs an amount of X dollars, and you get two for the price of two times X dollars. Therefor, the pile of dollars divided by X gives you the amount of animals of species A that humanity could get right now, if they only used money for that, right? Of course that isn't right and it isn't the right formula to figure out how much exists of anything. Trying to plan for a socialist world using money aggregates leads to absurd conclusions. And I want to make something clear here. Talking about the world in money aggregates does not become nonsense in socialism, it is nonsense right now. Humanity cannot make up for pollution by paying sin taxes (and paying to whom? God? Will God be bribed that way to change the laws of physics for us?), no, we have to recognize the physical constraints as what they are in planning.



>how the system we're all so excited about is supposed to run.

Oh believe me I've seen enough bitching aboit it too. But at least the concensus on "let's get to that point first and see" has some unifying potential in it.


Interestingly enough I've found one project on some leftist twitter not so long time ago which deals with something you described.

It's a bit liberal-ish, but interesting nontheless.




>Won't this be extremely alienating on a human level? People will continually see their pay go up and down without understanding why. Long as you have a hard floor of pay you can't fall through it would be livable, but I can imagine this causing a lot of grumbling among people who cannot attain the skills needed to fill in bottleneck sectors.

Is there a better solution to the problem of "how do we get people to do the hard, unwanted work necessary to keep the system running"? I thought the same thing, and came to the conclusion that it could be a life's entire effort to resolve this. I thought the same thing when reading "Towards A New Socialism" at first, then gave up and focused on the rest. I at least have the consolation that most goods won't even have prices - already, canned food at my nearby Dollar Tree costs $0.79, for example. I realized that it could go for $0, and it made me wonder, "how many other physical goods actually cost nothing and are ridiculously marked up?". Dr. Dre headphones cost (costed?) ~$300 and supposedly only costed ~$18 to actually make. The point is, money would only be needed for scarce goods, those which are harder to make. A democratic program to determine in-kind subsidies to the production of necessary goods which have prices much higher than 0 to make might be a good side project in the future. Maybe people will do the jobs anyways, but I'd rather not chance it until the whole system is operational and capitalism has been given the wall treatment. If we really can immediately eliminate all which produces alienation by commanding labor against its will, that would be nothing short of epic, but we need to take baby steps first.



This is an excellent argument for in-kind planning in general. I came to the conclusion a while ago that investigating prices and how they're formed is BS because prices follow absolutely no "equilibrium laws" whatsoever - they're the idealistic concoctions of mentally sick vulgar economists. Now I think I'm starting to get where they come from, though - capitalism is a linear optimization function which maximizes production of what goods are demanded by those in possession of money, given current material constraints (capital, land, labor). Who owns that money? Those who own property. Prices follow this relationship around and simply tell those who own property "this is how to adjust yourself to match these production goals". It's a roughly-correct system with low-accuracy mass info inputs which self-corrects and extracts as much productivity as it can from whatever it can find under the sun. I remember poo-pooing those who argue that we must become cyborgs perfectly in tune with "market logic" to compete with AI because they were extending the logic of capitalist production, but is this entire project simply repurposing its own nature? I suppose it is different because it's not for the purpose of pure growth and capital accumulation, but rather the satiation of human needs, but it undeniably has some parallels. Someone should conduct a full cybernetic analysis of capitalism, taking your article as a starting point, and compare it to what is proposed in this thread in terms of how well both can potentially self-correct to meet human needs. It might be time to email Cottrell and Cockshott.


Saving this, this is very valuable.


Maybe I'll need to spend some time compressing this thread and all the arguments within it into a cogent thesis paper and sending it with a link to an archive of this thread in the future. I think there's potential.



From their twitter (Autonomy_UK), they look like liberal UBI shills who conceive of mass unemployment as something that is more a result of technology rather than the economic system.


Is there a tldr? Is this about studying soviet cybernetics, or simulating the modern economy through a model based off Marx's theory of value? I have to learn coding before I start graduate school in the fall, so it would be useful to me if the latter is true.


File: 0cfed8fbef9496d⋯.jpg (96.4 KB, 500x638, 250:319, 0cfed8fbef9496d1c9cc66474e….jpg)


what do you want this thread to be about?



This thread has covered two main things.

First it's about recovering and examining old Soviet literature about cybernetics.

Second, it's about discussing the methods by which we could use computer modelling to run a non-capitalist industrial economy. I've been making the argument that achieving communism is a pipe dream if we don't know out how to run it.

It's interesting that you should mention simulating the modern LTV-based economy, though. Cockshott and Cottrell (two academics whose work is discussed a lot in the thread) talk about the fact that prices can accurately predicted based on the socially necessary labour time involved in production.

They also published a textbook, Classical Econophysics. Among other things they model a situation where wealth starts off uniformly distributed and then people make exchanges at random. Their model ends up with a power law distribution of wealth among the population - exactly the same kind of wealth inequality we see in the real world today. Essentially, they demonstrate that market exchanges will lead to inequality with the same inevitability that the distribution of kinetic energies of particles in an ideal gas conforms to a Boltzmann distribution.



>Essentially, they demonstrate that market exchanges will lead to inequality with the same inevitability that the distribution of kinetic energies of particles in an ideal gas conforms to a Boltzmann distribution.

That's interesting, because during my recent reading of Capital, I was struck how Marx's depiction of labor resembles a classical mechanics depiction of energy and work. I will have to read Cockshott and Cottrell, though, because their work sounds like exactly what I was interested in thinking about after Capital.


File: f8ba16760f04d0b⋯.pdf (3.33 MB, (Routledge Advances in Exp….pdf)


File: e93ce22e7bc5b52⋯.jpg (284.9 KB, 763x768, 763:768, 1470379655113-0.jpg)


>But the Bolshevik Party was already the optimal Bolshevik Party.

If it was, it wouldn't need a selection process nor purges, now would it?



I have now finished reading Classical Econophysics. This book covers a lot, classical economics and Marx, criticism of Marx (both neoclasical and inspired by Ricardo), criticism of neoclassical economics, the Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution in physics and money-using economies, chartalism, Kalecki, the general trend of profitability, and more. It's a good book, but not much in it is about cybernetics.


This site has some pdfs by western writers on cybernetics, including Ashby's introduction: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/LIBRARY.html

Cybernetics dictionary: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/INDEXASC.html


Looks like the first pdfs posted have 404ed probably because of April first hacking.

Anyway, more recent archive.




The original archive still has all the stuff. I'm currently slogging my way through Oskar Lange's book on economic cybernetics.





That's weird, the paperclip symbol for the PDFs is gone but the files are still there. But the accompanying images are completely gone. ALGORITHMAAAAAAAPE!


bumping thread



Production of stuff can be ordered into lexicographic tiers of importance. Lexicographic means that, when several tiers both ask for a particular resource, there is no "exchange rate" of demand budget points that have different weight or something like that. Rather, the "weight" of the request of the highest tier is infinitely stronger. It has total priority. Only if the highest tier (food I guess) asks for fewer units of input X than what is available, can the second-highest tier get any units of that, and the third tier can only get what is left after first and second tier had their say and so on. (Maybe two tiers are already enough though.) So, the distribution between the tiers is like random dictator, except it's not random, it's ordered from highest tier to lowest. Within each tier, something like the cookie algorithm can be used.

(I wonder if such a structure would create a strong incentive to make mousepads and all sorts of other things edible…)


There is a general problem when trying to reckon about piles of stuff of different things with one-dimensional methods. One and the same pile partitioned in different ways should be recognized as the same, so if represented by a single number that number shouldn't grow or shrink. To analytically separate pile size and its distribution I guess something like Sraffa's standard product is needed.



That's what I've always found very interesting about this subject - in essence what we're working on here is a method of automating the role of the bourgeoisie, in so far as they mediate the distribution of resources within society. If the last actual thing they can be considered to do was automated, they would be entirely obsolete.


>I wonder if such a structure would create a strong incentive to make mousepads and all sorts of other things edible…

Holy shit, Charlie Fourier was right. Seas of lemonade confirmed. Who would have thought that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was actually a prophetic work of socialist polemics?


File: 0b098e3dfda4855⋯.jpg (41.22 KB, 429x377, 33:29, 0b098e3dfda4855229339c51da….jpg)

>User deleted his own post #1585514

why does people delete their posts? I want to hear every, even shitty opinion on this subject…



It was this video, is from the video game MGS2, the story is basically what would happen if the bourgeoisie constructs a system homologous to the what we want to make to shape culture/memes in order to keep the status quo:



File: c623bb0f961a5ce⋯.png (169.1 KB, 400x520, 10:13, ClipboardImage.png)

Does anyone have a collection of these?



>not the sort of thing started by a group of ancoms who met on the internet.

Why not? Trying and failing would likely be a better way to learn this material, and it would encourage more to learn as well.


There is math resarch into methods for when there is a given pile of things to allocate (a typical term for that kind of thing is cake-cutting). There are three common criteria here. The method should be 1. Pareto efficient. Avoid allocations that are Pareto-dominated. P-d means that there is a possible different way of allocating things that nobody likes less and at least one person prefers. 2. Envy-free. Nobody would prefer to swap the allocation they got with another person. 3. Equitable. If the bundle person A receives is made of things scored by person A being worth X points in total, then the bundle person B receives is made of things scored by person B X points in total as well.

It's not possible to construct a method that always delivers all of these, so the question is how important each criterion is.


Suppose for some things and people we retain a market. Instead of hand-waving about a market being sensible, I would like to know for sure that it works, and I just don't see it.

Let's start with a very simple market: Instead of money, there is play money, meaning all individuals have the same amount, there is no saving or debt, instead it is used up entirely in the allocation of a given pile of things, and the play money is used for putting a cap on how much an individual can request. You can't give play money to another person either. Before anything from the pile is received by anyone, there is an iterative procedure of people sending requests to the center based on some data, the center gives everybody an update, people react to that by updating their requests, the center releases an update again, and so on. When an equilibrium is reached, the stuff is allocated.

Now, I don't want to make a hair-splitting argument about some very small amount of that pile left unallocated or a small amount of play money left unused, I'm okay with taking a state that isn't perfectly stable as good enough (ending in a loop of a small subset of states that don't differ by much) and just use a lottery for the crumbs left. I don't see how one can be even sure a market procedure would reach that sort of equilibrium, unless you strongly constrain what sort of input is allowed.

The common sense view of markets is that when prices go up, quantity demanded goes down; when prices go down, quantity demanded goes up. But when several prices change, just about anything can happen: Suppose the price of X goes up, and a person then demands more of it. This can happen when:

1. One or more other things the person requests go down in price so much that the person has now more budget left to buy stuff with.

2. Another thing that is a substitute for X gets so expensive that X is the cheaper alternative despite it also rising in price.

3. One or more other things that augment the use value of X change in price in a way that this combination gets cheaper.

The crude way to make sure that demand reacts to price as it should according to capitalist theology, is that the iteration procedure keeps a record of what people request in each iteration and constrains your inputs, so that they are weakly monotonic. So if in the first round you ask for 5 units of X at 10 points per X, and in the second round the price of one X is 8, you cannot ask for fewer than 5 units. Suppose you ask for 8 units then. If the price in the third round is between these two prices, the amount you can ask for is also constrained in that you can only ask for 5 to 10 units of X then. I figure many people would be frustrated with the resulting allocation for the above three reasons (and there are more). So, is there an elegant way of solving that? Should we go a more administrative route, where the things in the pile are already classified in some way (substitutes, useful combinations) before the iterative procedure starts?


File: 85fd96107fee03b⋯.jpg (44.15 KB, 438x720, 73:120, 1469752882361-1.jpg)



You know, until recently I'd never considered how deep this kind of sentiment runs. Now that I have noticed it, I realise that it's all over the place, and it takes many guises. "Oh we won't have another chance at revolution for at least 50 years.", "Communism isn't possible until labour is 100% automated", "We'll never be able to keep 7 billion people well-fed", "It'll never happen here, we have to wait and pray that the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations (JDPON pbuh) shows us mercy", "The halting problem means that you can't manage an economy unless you simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of every particle in the universe", etc, etc, and sho on.

You know what? You people say that it's all impossible and that we should face to Bloodshed. Fucking prove it. I think that full communism will turn out a perfectly feasible economic system, achievable within our lifetimes. I don't know how it'll work yet, but instead of declaring it impossible I'm going to do the work and either get it done or prove its impossibility. You can keep sniping from the sidelines, get on the train, or fucking neck yourselves. Your choice.



>I'm going to do the work and either get it done or prove its impossibility.

The way I see it is

>prepare plan for new economic order

>wait for capitalist crisis

>promote it


>either communism or go back to the step 1

I don't think it's impossible, too. All you need to do is unite french and german speaking workers which would trigger domino effect from ex-socialist countries and we will have communism within 2 decades. Easy, right?

we are close bump limit, should we recreate thread when we reach it or wait a few days/weeks?



I'm working on compiling notes and readings from this thread, the Empirical Marxism thread, the Ecomp thread, and the bunkerchan cybernetics thread into one package. It'll be easy enough to post in the OP of the next thread I'm not the OP of any of those, just a very interested poster who had been working on similar ideas before finding this board/thread.

I'd like to produce something article-sized for wider publication on at least bunkermag but hopefully places with more reach too. I think this idea's got legs, and the theory I've seen/contributed to here is some of the most exciting and original stuff I've come across despite years spent on the irl Left. I'd like to see contributions to this work from more than just a tiny fraction of a ~1000 person leftist board - even if this does seem to be one of the only good leftist discussion areas the internet has ever produced.

Regarding your scenario, I think the second and third step will be reversed in order. I made a couple of posts in the Dauve thread [ >>1585265 ] about the spontaneous appearance of communist productive relations in information-based industries (starting here >>1599771 ). Following that logic, I think we should be thinking about how to integrate the planning-in-kind systems talked about in this thread into already existing financial and stock-management systems/networks. That way, when crisis hits, workers in struggle have the tools to start making communism a reality already at their fingertips. There was a turn of phrase I quite liked in the Ecomp software thread - 'turnkey socialism'. In all likelihood things wouldn't turn out like that, but the tools are important to develop regardless - at the very least for a proof of concept regarding economic co-ordination eschewing the Law of Value.


File: a40b61f8f55c4ae⋯.gif (1.42 MB, 615x450, 41:30, a40b61f8f55c4aee06b540d6fa….gif)

Are you doing your homework, anon?



Tip for anybody who wants to build such an allocation procedure: Even if the iteration steps require people stay within their budgets when making requests, this doesn't need to be true for the final allocation. It's also not a requirement to come up with final prices for the things.


Big question about the pricing system Cockshott and Cottrell propose: If individual consumer power is to be calibrated based on deeds, shouldn't the price ratios of products be different for different people, to make it more fair? Okay, that's probably sounds like the opposite of fair, but hear me out. (Note that with non-transferable electronic consumption points it is entirely possible to make different people pay different prices for the same thing.)

C & C deal with different contributions by granting people different consumption budgets. But consider how a thing is made: There is human work and there are natural resources. When we talk about a service with basically no tools or other things involved, just human-to-human, it makes sense to me that, in an according-to-deeds world, I get roughly an hour for an hour I give. But when the thing I want is basically just a natural resource, shouldn't I have a right to my share just by being human? Why should I give hours of my life to get something that doesn't contain human hours? Almost every product is a mix, of course. So, shouldn't the price of a thing require payments with two different inconvertible "currencies", X human-hour budget points plus Y nature-budget points, with everybody having the same income in nature-budget points? (We can call that allocation system Human Nature, heh.)



Starting from Cockshott and Cottrell's assertion that you need a system in place to limit consumption, your conclusion is basically valid. I think I recall them bringing up the need to account for natural resource use, though I don't recall what suggestions they made regarding it (it's been a couple of months since I last went over TaNS).

In any case, between the normal labour voucher pseudocurrency, the commune-specific women's work voucher (I mean if we're establishing a separate currency for domestic labour, let's be realistic about how it's going to end up), and the natural bounty voucher UBI you've made a reasonable argument for, I think it's pretty obvious that trying to limit consumption using pseudocurrencies and pseudomarkets will quickly become a total headache. Getting people to do a regular budget in one currency is bad enough, balancing a budget in three separate currencies, only two of which are interchangeable? Even Lenin would go looking to defect.

I think the case I make in post >>1550676 is a decent argument for jettisoning markets entirely.



>If individual consumer power is to be calibrated based on deeds, shouldn't the price ratios of products be different for different people

Whoops, I forgot to mention something, as so far I have described the system, people do see the same prices.

The dual-payment system is somewhat clumsy, since some people might prefer products containing less than their individual proportional share of nature and more human time, with some people having the opposite preference, so both groups would be more happy with a different allocation. So maybe it's better for each individual to only have one consumption budget, but still have individualized prices that work in a way similar to what's described above, so that working longer doesn't tend to make resource-intensive stuff available as much as work-intensive stuff (you would still get the information about how each product being made of two parts), unless the demand for the resource-intensive stuff is very weak.


>I think it's pretty obvious that trying to limit consumption using pseudocurrencies and pseudomarkets will quickly become a total headache.

Well, the productive activity of millions of people is a rather complicated topic. I don't expect simple proposals.



>Well, the productive activity of millions of people is a rather complicated topic. I don't expect simple proposals.

Fair enough, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to want to switch to a system that achieves (to the lay observer) the same basic goals at the cost of more complications for the end user. Placing price-based limits on consumption also carries with it the implication that scarcity is a going concern. I have no evidence for this, but I can imagine that the spectre of scarcity may encourage hoarding and overconsumption where free access would have circumvented them. Retaining markets in a socialist goods distribution system smacks of reinventing the wheel to me. The supposedly unlimited nature of human desires doesn't seem a good enough reason to me - human desires are quite limited, in practical terms. After all, there is only so much food a person can want to eat in a day, and you can only drive one car, boat, plane, etc. at a time. And sho on.

Of course, all of the above points are contingent on figuring out a consistent, theoretically sound economic basis for full communism. So if that whole thing turns out to be impossible, I'll start entertaining the idea of reinventing the 'market' wheel.


File: 8f91bc7b95a0b81⋯.png (646.71 KB, 609x601, 609:601, left cybernetics.png)

There is another book by Botvinnik, Computers in Chess - Solving Inexact Search Problems, I am reading the intro right now, and this one seems to have more on using the AI outside of chess.

>Although the chess program was not complete even after ten years, the program PIONEER-2 for computing the monthly repair schedule for the Interconnected Power System of Russian Central was completed in a few months. In mid-October of 1980 a medium-speed computer constructed the plan in 40 seconds (…) PIONEER-2 turned out to be more competent than the humans (…) In the following year, PIONEER-3 was developed to produce the annual plan for all power stations in the USSR. The plan for 1982 was produced in 3 minutes 19 seconds. If one notes that the monthly plan dealt with 200 units for 30 days, and the annual plan with 600 units for 365 days, one must be amazed; the dimension of the full-width search tree for the annual plan is essentially infinite. The truth of the matter is that by using the chess master's method, the search problem is reduced to one of analysis, and therefore the solution depends only weakly on the dimensions of the search.

>In 1982 the program was updated. It not only produces the plan, but if necessary minimizes the increase in the reserve power that must be dedicated to offset the output of the units in repair. The technicians like this very much, since now they can only approximate the amount of reserve power needed for maintenance; the computer itself made the value of the reserve more precise. (…) After PIONEER-5 has successfully completed its trials, one may assume that, to a first approximation, it will be capable of planning any branch of the economy.



> I don't know how it'll work yet, but instead of declaring it impossible I'm going to do the work and either get it done or prove its impossibility.

The only way it (communism/MLE) can work is if we flood the market with wealth, most likely to be done with technology (robotics, nano-tech, particle science, etc.)

I figure this:

Scarcity = higher prices

Abundance = lower prices

So if we over-saturate the market the way Google over-saturated the ad market, things reach a price of ZERO.

If you can just point at the ground and make a car come out of it, then there's no reason to buy one.

Yes, I would download a car.



bullshit, in order to do this we would need lot's of capital, so we would need to make profit, and it's not possible to eliminate cost if you need to add profit to price.



Roughly along the lines of what I was thinking, although it's worth stressing that it's not actually a market - it just uses a pseudo-currency to convey demand information in a way similar to how neoclassicals hypothesize that real money works, in a way which is tied into how labor is directed in the long term to fill up otherwise less-desired spots in the workforce. I'm skeptical of this logic, but it's been around. Here, it's far more constrained and easy to control than real money. The program aims to bring all prices to 0 (or as close as permissible) while minimizing usage of resources such as non-renewables, renewables, and labor power.

I believe that, in fact, most markets are already saturated or can be easily if you remove the extraction of profit at every step of the productive process. I hate to paint him in a positive light, but Elon Musk made a good investment choice going into rocketry with his engineering expertise, work drive, and capital, as the actual materials of a modern rocket constitute just 2% of the costs, most of the rest being pocketed by the various contractors and governments. If vertical production today, bureaucracy and all, can reduce costs so much, what could we do with full automation of everything but certain aspects of the labor process and the coordinating power of parallel computing?


And we already see this today with how cans of fruits and vegetables at Dollar Trees don't cost $0, but instead cost $.79. This is part of why actual markets must be destroyed - they make no sense whatsoever when you get within even a few hundred miles of post-scarcity production. They've been running on fumes since the '70s and '80s.


File: 64116c6a0b9d05e⋯.png (96.9 KB, 2200x1400, 11:7, fellow_traveler_by_domain_….png)


Dunno, it's just that even simply starting is already a huge task.

I mean, when you're creating a site or software, you can always start any second as a one-man project and slowly build up, because it's essentially all code. The same principle applies to someone who wants to paint, he can just start by painting whatever rap he can. But this network requires deep knowledge of multiple disciplines; you can't just work on it anytime you want, you know?


Oh hey, I mentioned that one and another publication called Joint Publications Research Service Reports, which is also paywalled. I did try searching for them, but they seem to be waaaaay too obscure for anyone to have bothered pirate them, I'm afraid.

But this reminds me, I didn't look into the possibility of them being in university-accessible databases.


I had thought of something about criteria, but you articulated it far better than I ever could.

I figure, the 1.0 of this network would have a million possible user inputs, and the production criteria would be one of them. Let's say, for commodity X criterion is maximized output, for commodity Y criterion is maximum input etc.

I'm assuming I understood your argument, sorry if I didn't.


My base answer: I think this could be part of the user inputs I mentioned above. Setting criteria, specificities etc. for each production chain.

To throw ideas at the wall a little: it sort of depends on how much of a market there is. I mean, even the USSR had a barebones market, with a small handful of competing brands, ads, and at some point companies even had annual profit requirements. Yugoslavia, by comparison, had "more market" so to speak.

My point is, market is a spectrum. I mean, if this network turns out to work amazingly well, even money might become unnecessary.


>Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations (JDPON pbuh)

Damn it's been a while since I've read that name.

Anyway, I think we're living in a global zeitgeist of pessimism and fatalism that started with 9/11. Like an author whose name I forgot said, we can image the most incredible alien worlds, but can't contemplate tiny changes to our economic order. This has hit the left particularly hard. It's a hard habit to shake.


Oh yeah, for anyone who hsn't seen it, take a look at the empirical Marxism thread: >>1590962



The criteria in >>1596500 are about the distribution of bundles of different items.


File: 766af5632cadecc⋯.png (453.83 KB, 625x745, 125:149, frycockshott.png)



Botvinnik distinguishes different systems that have multiple levels of decision-making. He calls systems where local interests override the central authority type C, and systems where central authority overrides local decisions type E. He says that type E systems can be superior to type C (he doesn't mention the prisoner's dilemma, but such situations show that).

That superiority is of course assuming that the center 1. is all about the common interest, 2. that the data is good, 3. that the local parts do what the center tells them. Botvinnik assumes that the local parts are somewhat self-interested and may not follow instructions if it hurts their local interests, and proposes a system between C and E: Starting from local data, the center makes a plan, and the plans given to the local sections are made in a way that (hopefully) there is no conflict between local interest and center. For that, the center estimates what the profit of a local section is if it acts in a self-interested way and how much the activity diverges from what the plan asks for, then figures out special prices that are only applied for resources sold to that section, so that now the self-interested profit-maximizing activity coincides with what the plan asks them to do (so the same resource can have different prices, depending on which local section asks for it).

The bulk of the book (90 %) is about chess AI. Modeling anything one player can do at his ply (term for a player's turn), and then anything the opponent can do at her ply, and then it's his ply, her ply, and so on, is a tree that branches off like crazy, so with limited computing resources your simulation usually has to stop far away from a game-ending situation. Back in 1949, Shannon proposed something obvious: Make a broad search that uses up almost all your computing power, then decide on the next action by looking at the ends and simply score them based on pieces the AI and the opponent loses, with a queen being worth more points than a bishop or rook, and these of course being worth more than a pawn. Botvinnik proposes scoring not just be used at the ends of the search tree for the action to take in the game, but already inside the decision tree while it is constructed: Let's abandon branches that look very bad and search much, much deeper in a select few. Makes sense for trees of possible situations in general. (His scoring procedure is of course much more complicated than Shannon's and he goes a lot into details that are specific to chess after that, so I skimmed over that.)

Better than the other book by him, but again, most of that is specifically about computer chess with no clear indication how to apply that reasoning in other contexts (after his bragging in the intro - "PIONEER-3 was developed to produce the annual plan for all power stations in the USSR" - you'd think there would be a couple of pages about that somewhere in the book, but nope), so certainly not a must-read. Let's end this review with a good quote:

>In a computer the selection of a decision and its adoption amount to the same thing. These two actions may be different in the human, who may select a decision corresponding to the interests of the total system, yet adopt one corresponding to his egoistic interests. Thus, from the cybernetic viewpoint, an artificial intelligence is preferable to a natural one. The problem lies only in the fact that up to now we have no sufficiently powerful artificial intelligence.


Alright, I found a couple new sources. The original is in Russian, the other is it translated into English (poorly translated, but still comprehensible).



Apparently, another very significant figure of the time was Aleksandr Kharkevich, head of the department of technical physics at the Institute of physics of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He wrote a very important article in the journal "Communist", and I'd love to find it and translate it. I'd hate for this to be a wild goose chase, though. Is anyone familiar with the journal? Is there a repository anywhere?

Apparently, this is also a source cited which mentions him:

Kharkevich, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich (1973). Theory of information. The identification of the images. Selected works in three volumes. Volume 3. Information and technology: Moscow: Publishing House "Nauka", 1973. - Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Institute of information transmission problems. pp. 495–508.



The mechanism for allocating consumer items proposed in TANS doesn't meet any of the criteria mentioned in >>1596500. You can't expect more from an asynchronous mechanism.


I'm a research assistant in CS, I know python, java, and javascript pretty well. I'd be willing to work on this a bit. Should we set up a new thread for some implementation bits?


Hey everyone, just letting the cybernetics thread know that there's a separate thread starting up about a 'tech collective' that's looking to start turning theory into praxis (I hope). Maybe go over there and join in the discussion, add some contact info?



Some different auction types:

1. Dutch auction: The price is constantly lowered until one bidder stops that and pays that price.

2. English auction: Bidders raise their prices until nobody increases it anymore, and the highest bid wins, which is the price paid.

3. Sealed envelope auction where the highest bidder wins and pays that bid.

4. Vickrey auction: Sealed envelope auction where the highest bidder wins, and pays the second-highest amount.

To come to a decision, bidders think about what the maximum price would be where they still benefit from getting the thing. In auctions of type 1 and 3, it is in the winning bidder's interest, to just bid slightly more than the second-highest bid, to reduce what he pays. So, to un-clutter minds, so that people don't focus to much on how to get a goal and more on what a good goal is, and if you want the auction procedure to not eat much time and attention, it's better to use the Vickrey auction.

Suppose some section of the economy works like this: That people bid on some things in a Vickrey auction, and the bidders know that the winner must also pay some transport fee, with each bidder knowing in advance what that fee would be (different for different bidders, based on distance). Suppose society is then transformed in a way that universal money ceases to exist, but some sections still use something like bidding procedures with a more limited type of pseudo currency to obtain stuff from a limited range of resources relevant for what they produce, and this pseudo currency is not just how they "pay" for the things, but also for the delivery. What they then would "pay" for each thing, would be thing + individually different delivery. (Which can look rather weird if delivery is also handled by the center. I'll give an example later.)


File: 93ff6b1a37da6a6⋯.png (65.23 KB, 256x178, 128:89, im.png)


Hey guys, HLR here. check out the results of the economic programming survey here:


>I'm a research assistant in CS, I know python, java, and javascript pretty well. I'd be willing to work on this a bit. Should we set up a new thread for some implementation bits?

It would be great if you would sketch out some software architecture diagram for what it would entail. Also see that survey.


File: ae223a25eec1277⋯.png (9.72 KB, 1000x500, 2:1, flag4.png)


File: 94411f8a98469ed⋯.png (179.82 KB, 313x313, 1:1, 94411f8a98469ed225816a58b3….png)


fuck off you attention whoring tripfaggot.


File: 085fb05208b7029⋯.jpg (40.61 KB, 519x578, 519:578, 085fb05208b7029493a448dad7….jpg)




File: ca9ae6382ba64e4⋯.jpg (64.67 KB, 498x482, 249:241, ca9ae6382ba64e469d0fe8df93….jpg)


he's dataminig /leftypol/ and shilling for his lame site without contributing anything worthwhile, he's as much cancer as you


File: 2676c779e28f18c⋯.gif (17.71 KB, 343x417, 343:417, Vsm.gif)


>without contributing anything worthwhile

oh come on, plenty of people enjoyed the tendency survey. Also the other polls ive done are gonna help us develop planning software. In any case lets get back to the topic.

Gaiz, what do you think of Beer's Viable system model, is it still useful today as a model for self organizing society? I know people in the thread have mentioned beer before, but not in detail. If any of you get a chance, read his book "Brain of the Firm" it goes over using the VSM in a capitalist context and a socialist context and touches upon the chilean experience as he wrote this book in the early 1970s as the allende government was still in power (i think)


bumping just in case it might disappear while I'm asleep



Hey, I know you anons like Cockshott, so I figured I'd just leave these here for your entertainment.




File: c32299755c17c20⋯.gif (288.71 KB, 1020x768, 85:64, Future.gif)

Can simcity be considered planned economy? here is the source code of the original:




It's more that you're confusing tripfags and namefags. There's not much difference admittedly and I'm not sure which is more retarded, using an unsecured name or using a name and caring enough to secure it. At least it seems like he doesn't use the name outside of posting relevant information to draw attention to the fact he is shilling for himself. People who shill for themselves anonymously in my opinion are worse.



a little more of his stuff and i'll pack my bags and go to make a degree glasgow so i'll be able to suck his dick



You know, I had a friend whose dream project was to make a full country simulator. Not just plop down buildings, but planning infrastructure, policy, economy etc. I imagine it would have had a lot in common with our desired network. Too bad he didn't know how to code and didn't have much initiative.


So I was thinking about a couple of those questions that get asked a lot, questions like "Where will the brave entrepreneurial inventors go under communism" and "How will we get new goods under communism?" and "Sure, eventually stuff will be available to all, but how do we determine who gets stuff while it's still getting made/the supply is still low?", when I realised that we have partially developed the answers to those questions already: Namely, Kickstarter and Github. A communist combination of these two platforms would neatly answer those sorts of questions.

Think about it: You've got some great idea for an invention. Under capitalism, you have to pretty jealously guard that kernel of an idea, skulk around trying to figure out all the parts you don't know either totally alone or with the help of someone you hope you can trust. It doesn't make a profit and hasn't proven an income, so to pursue your idea you have to either have money stashed away already or go into debt with the First Bank of Family. Even after all of that, someone might steal the idea, beat you to the punch, buy you out for a pittance and leave you with nothing, or

Now, here's how the same scenario would get done under communism. You've got an idea for a new invention. You do some basic sketches for how you think it'd work and look, and you upload it to Commiestarter as a concept design. People browsing through Commiestarter see your design. Maybe one person has a better idea of the mechanics. Maybe another person knows how to make the whole thing more ergonomic. Maybe a third person can make it look fucking awesome. All of those people contribute their little bit to the design, tweaking and iterating just like on a git repo or a wiki article. It progresses from a concept, through the initial design phase, prototype testing, test manufacturing run, to finished design. The whole design: the bill of materials, firmware, schematics, prototype test data, design notes, manufacturing instructions, performance specs, etc is all bundled up in the project repo. People can fork it at will to customise the design to their heart's content.

Now here's the best part: People browsing Commiestarter don't just contribute to the design. There's also a 'get' button. The whole platform plugs directly into the global cyber-communist production and distribution network. Instead of resorting to the abstraction of the market, demand is gauged and production coordinated by people directly demanding goods - something that seems like an obvious thing to do now that we've got the capacity to do it. That demand is routed to the appropriate factors of production (manufacturing being a process with quite a different social character under communism, it's not my place to speculate exactly how here beyond the basic negative claims like 'no division of labour', etc).

Remember how I said the last thing was the 'best part'? I lied, this is the best part: We could build a great deal of the above described system right now. There are already quite a few 'open design'/'open-source hardware' projects that are floating about on the internet. However, they're currently quite dispersed, and the actual meat of the designs aren't easily accessible. We could, with relative ease, build a platform like the one I've described to provide a central location for all of these projects to gather and expand. Best of all, the capitalists would likely join in and contribute, just like they have in the open source programming community. It's temporarily good for them, but it fundamentally undermines their monopoly on commodity production.



>We could build a great deal of the above described system right now.

That's nice and all BUT who gets the profit?



DAMN! We've been fooled by our selfish jewish ideology again. Time to embrace capitalism.



Who gets the profit from designing RISC-V? Why do the folks at Open Source Ecology bother making open designs for farm equipment? Why do massive corporations pay programmers to contribute to open source projects? I'm not proposing anything fundamentally alien to the current system, merely something that is simultaneously to the capitalist class while also undermining the artificial property divisions that underpin capitalism's existence.



Code of open source project is something completely different than physical stuff so I'm quite skeptical, but I have never heard about this "Open Source Ecology". So this site should be basically some advanced form of "do-it-yourself" website?



Related is this idea when supply is rather rigidly fixed (concert tickets) and you want to get rid of scalpers: Sell tickets at an insanely high price first, then let the price drop until there are no more tickets to sell. (Users don't need to participate in real time, they can also submit their personal threshold value.) Then, anybody who paid more than the cheapest price gets back the difference.

Some American University did that for sports events. I forgot which one it was, but they called the system Purple pricing, because of their team's color I think. I rather doubt there were the first to come up with that, as it's an idea similar to the Vickrey auctions (and Vickrey wasn't the first with that either).

Similarly, with a unified electronic accounting system for user items, there could be regular sort-of Vickrey auctions for a lot of things, with the highest bidders getting the things and paying the same price = the highest losing bid. Other things would be offered with a falling price, and those buying early would get their points above lowest price back later as in Purple pricing. The quantity to be produced in the future could then set based on the data about quantity demanded at reproduction price.


File: 99821cbd6bc0951⋯.jpg (469.05 KB, 1328x1000, 166:125, vulcans_hummer.jpg)

This thread reminds me about PKD's Vulcan's Hammer

the world was rules by a super computer, the world was facing a great crisis but the computer was more concerned about not being replaced by a new model.


Comradely bump



It's not like there's a central computer. In fact, I'd compare such a system to either capitalism or the Soviet bureaucracy which stopped Glushkov. There is no emergent consciousness, no central mind or processor - it's a network which reacts to human demands and advises organization of human inputs to best meet these.

Speaking of its decentralization, I'm still deadset that Druid is what will work best. We need, however, a way to determine which computers carry out computation and how to divide data. I have a proposal for this.


Druid is a system which relies on sheer redundancy to protect its data and is well suited to our project for other reasons which I mentioned above. What we need as well, however, is a system for summoning that data. I propose that we create an algorithm which sends packets among close-by computers within the network (as if it were BitTorrent, that is, it's P2P) and figures out, based on how much computing power is allocated to the program by each user, which computers to use in any one calculation of a plan. Thus, at regular intervals (maybe every 5-10 minutes), the algorithm starts searching through possible temporary connections between computers available to have them act as a temporary parallel computer (TPC), among which a random one acts as a center for compiling the problem and then breaking it down into parts for each individual computer to solve before sending back the results to the data store as the newest update to the plan. This happens autonomously in multiple areas - one of the biggest advantages of Druid over a blockchain, as far as I can tell, is that not every computer has to have all the information at once, thus speeding up the process immensely. By having it in multiple areas, these TPCs can search for other such TPCs and verify that all their data which it uses matches that which it uses. Each TPC sends out a request for every kind of data to every possible computer in the network if it does not already have it from within the TPC, and if it does not match up with the compiled data of another, the system continually searches and searches the records until it finds where data was tampered with. Thus you get all the security of a blockchain with the compactness, speed, and adaptability of Druid.

Is there already a term for this kind of system?


My original idea (outlined in the first article here) was to have a non-circulating currency explicitly based upon scarcity and demand. It makes things simple for the program because it means you only have a single variable to optimize for and makes the system communistic the exact instant you achieve material superabundance.

However, I'm still struggling with how to deal with reallocation of capital - as Jacobin points out in their pro-market socialism article "The Red And The Black", the reason why the former ML economies (even Hungary after market reforms) collapsed was because they lacked a system of capital modernization and reallocation, according to what hard evidence we do have. People, however, become attached to their means of production, and might be even more so if we abolish the distinction between firm and life as Dauve advocates. It is only by the market-guided violence of the state that the provincial petty bourgeoisie are regularly expropriated by capital in favor of the faceless multinational corporate bourgeoisie.

How do we deal with this in a fundamentally human economy? Circumstances change - we cannot expect to maintain the superabundant capacity made possible by capitalism if we abandon these elementary mechanisms of its self-pruning and maintenance.

How can we best address this sentimental dimension of labor within the calculator?



>How can we best address this sentimental dimension of labor within the calculator?

You simply aren't going to be able to address the problem purely through such a system. There needs to be a degree of society wide control (though obviously not in a stalinist autocratic sense) to override the decisions of any given productive unit. Any given means of production must not be purely subject to the control of those presently working there, and I don't believe this is a problem that can be simply solved through some lines of code. It requires people to actually make collective decisions.

Besides, once you remove the element of human decision making from the system and try to have all matters decided by an algorithm, you will in all likelihood end up with a system as inhuman and insufferable as capital itself.



I hate to come across as sounding like a lolberg, but this whole idea of people deciding this kind of stuff for other people sounds tyrannical. I don't mean it in the sense of the isolated individual, but rather the self-organized collective versus an abstract democracy - if this is systematic, how is it any different from a computer deciding the fate of a community, seeing as both are abstract others removed from the human experience? This deserves its own thread on devising possible organizational solutions.

Kropotkin's solution was to expand the free association to the entire commune and declare them self-sufficient. This isn't possible in today's world - it would be cruel, unnecessary, and alienating to deprive people of what is possible today. And yet, the whole structure is built around the social deprivation of life for the working individual - we are attempting to idly imagine the complete opposite while thoroughly entrapped within the way of thinking which our worlds have pressed into us.

There must be a fully communistic way to maintain efficiency.



>I hate to come across as sounding like a lolberg, but this whole idea of people deciding this kind of stuff for other people sounds tyrannical.

For starters, I don't see it as being very tyrannical at all. Informing people that a particular factory is now obsolete and has no reason to be producing in it's current form, and then giving them the option of either shutting down (as the rest of society has no desire to continue supplying them with resources to produce something they don't want) or refitting the factory and learning new skills in order to continue operating, is hardly tyrannical. Or if it is it's certainly less tyrannical than expecting the rest of society to bend over backwards to allow people to waste resources because for some bizarre reason they enjoy it.

Secondly I feel as if your particular notion of free association is unconsciously petite-bourgeois/mutualist (no offense, I'm not trying to be rude here). Free association in the marxist sense has never meant the freedom to control/dispose of a given means of production as you see fit, without input from society at large, but rather the freedom from capitalist compulsion. To allow groups of people to effectively possess a means of production irrespective of the wishes of the rest of society, on the other hand certainly threatens free association, as it opens the door to the reemergence of property relations and everything that follows from that.

>There must be a fully communistic way to maintain efficiency.

If by "fully communistic" you mean some kind of perfect algorithm that can account for everything, then no, I don't believe there is. People are always going to argue over the direction of society and the allocation of resources, and due to the finite nature of our world you're never going to be able to satisfy everyone. And this is true regardless of scale, even in a small group there are majority and minority opinions. For instance, lets say you work at a factory (under communism) and you and your co-workers are debating how a certain task or process should be carried out. It's not possible to do both so the factory council vote on which course of action to take, and reach a conclusion than you personally disagree with. At this point you're left with a choice: either continue working there while trying to convince the other workers to do it your way, or exercise your right to free association and leave and work somewhere else.



>how to deal with reallocation of capital

>People, however, become attached to their means of production, and might be even more so if we abolish the distinction between firm and life

>How can we best address this sentimental dimension of labor within the calculator?

Eeeh. When people are sentimental about working for a company, aren't they for the most part thinking about other people, rather than tools and machines? Maybe this is too market-socialist for you, but I figured that people could rent means of production, cost of renting of particular mop going up when in high demand.

If the mop don't have any occupation fees, they can still have numbers attached to them to set a limit how much a group can occupy at the same time per person. (Could be more than one number per thing, and some things could be evaluated so that additional same or similar units get an increasing weight attached.) Losing the machines and tools you work with all the time because some committee changed their mind yet again must be rather annoying, so maybe there could be something similar to the rights tenants have in some countries: the longer you live in a place, the more time the landlord must give you to move out. Society could do likewise with tools and machines you are used to, and that you expect to have. I'm not a big fan of that though, I'd rather have a rule about giving people a break who are frequent victims of this re-allocation.

A user of a machine isn't a tenant, and that gives us more possibilities. A tenant expects 24/7 access to the rooms she rents, machine usage rights don't have to be something that you either completely have or completely lose. Moreover, the issue at hand here is not that other persons want these machines, but that these machines are put to other uses. So, maybe the current users should at least have the right to choose doing that before losing access to the machine completely.

I don't think it's possible to always stick to the same rigid rules about delaying re-allocation, always giving people these rights even if it means catastrophe. So, how to admit exceptions, then? I can think of three ways, which can be combined:

1. Tiers of importance, usage by higher tier ALWAYS beating lower tier. However, there can be ambiguity in classification. I'd rather keep it simple, and that means few tiers, which also means that this often doesn't give you an answer, as the alternative usages are often in the same tier then.

2. Some super-majority requirement for fast re-allocation, the faster, the higher the required super-majority. (Super majorities are only an actual hurdle if the body making that decision is made with a proportional election or sortition.)

3. When it is technically possible to meet a goal with standard rule re-allocations, but you have to do a crazy-high number of switches that way. (Giving people something nice as compensation for this could lead to some perverse incentives where people get out of their way to ask for mop they think will be important soon, so I'd rather give them a bit more re-allocation victim insurance.)



>Maybe this is too market-socialist for you, but I figured that people could rent means of production, cost of renting of particular mop going up when in high demand.

More like too capitalist.



Depends on whether there is m-c-m'. Maybe it's possible to encapsulate processes with separate pseudo-markets and non-convertible pseudo currencies. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you read the rest.



>Depends on whether there is m-c-m'.

Inherent to commodity production.

>Anyway, I would appreciate it if you read the rest.

I did. I'll respond tomorrow when I get the time.



Picture this legal structure: There are two types of UBI, one for obtaining consumer items and one for bidding on rental rights for mop. Both currencies or what you want to call them have expiration dates. The one for obtaining mop cannot be given to others, it can only be used for mop you work with. While it cannot be given to others, people in groups that want to work together can bid on things as a group. The currency for getting consumer items can be given to others. People can buy and sell the stuff they produce with the mop.

The meaning of m-c-m' is money->commodity->more money. Money itself is a tool for obtaining money. Where is this loop in above legal structure? Wouldn't you call it commodity production?


I just started reading Ashby's introduction to cybernetics. It seems to be mostly about making the reader familiar with precise notation like matrix stuff. You get quizzed all the time to check whether you got what he said.



The pseudo-money used in such a procedure could be very different from normal money, not just that the range of resources accessible through it could be limited to paying for sector-specific stuff (and the delivery of it), with different sectors having different point systems (some resources with many uses getting offered in different bidding systems, always first offered in the ones producing essentials, with lower lexicographic tiers only getting left-overs of the higher ones), and also it couldn't be transferred to others. This pseudo-money could have an expiration date, working in a different way from having inflation, in that the weight of one unit of "money" when bidding would be independent of how close to expiration date it is.

Delivery systems have economies of scale, that's why the sectors and the local actors a sector is composed of shouldn't have their own delivery systems, but pay for it with the restricted pseudo-currency. They wouldn't have to make all sorts of calculations adding delivery costs, rather it would be always already added to the stuff they order at set prices, and also taken care of when it comes to the stuff they bid on. Picture some trucks loaded with the same stuff, but in different locations. Some production units bid on some of that stuff simultaneously, and when the decision is made who gets what, it is delivered in a way that minimizes travel. That's why delivery should be centrally computed.


gentle bump




File: 71216cea3c68d8d⋯.png (170.56 KB, 2745x951, 915:317, phases of planning.png)

This is an outline for an iterative planning procedure (more like the outline of an outline). I'm not OP and do expect quite some degree of centralization.

0th phase: Collect data about resources available.

1st phase: Sort possible products and services into tiers of importance. The first distinction is between the tier above all else (tier 0, that is nutrition), and everything else. Everything else is sorted into three tiers based on how people rate that.

There is a problem with using the average rating to put a thing into a tier: For people who want it to be in the middle of the three, honest voting is often sub-optimal compared with estimating where the aggregate without your own vote is and then voting in an extreme way. Solution: The first and third tier require over half of the votes to be the result, otherwise it's the middle tier. That is, we use the median.

Median voting with a resolution of more than three different possible ratings fails the participation criterion, that is, adding ballots can change the relative position of options in opposite direction of what is stated on the ballots, so let's stick to three.

2nd phase: Core plans. The highest tier makes estimates about lower and upper bound of each resource it will use. What is left of each resource after the upper bound of the estimate of tier 0 is subtracted from that is left for the next highest tier to plan with. They also make upper and lower bound estimates. Again, the upper bound is subtracted and what is left from that is handed to the next tier and so on. With this pessimistic data about potential resources, the tiers create core plans about what they are definitely going to produce with the resources they will definitely get (though you never really have 100 % certainty, see below).

3rd phase: Since actual resource use is likely lower than the upper bound estimates, there will be more resources left. This can be used to expand production in the lower tiers above core plans, however the promised extra resources are not guaranteed, and might be withdrawn again, so one must remain able to switch back to the core plan. The decision-making involved here will be more short term than the second phase. Once again, first the higher tiers get to pick.

Not pictured: Emergency situations. Again, the higher tiers are more important, so a higher tier with an emergency has potential access to the resources of the lower tiers, not vice versa, and first takes from the lowest tier's non-core stuff, and only if the amount of that resource needed exceeds that can it potentially be drawn from somewhere else. To avoid making lower-tier planning entirely pointless, this emergency access requires super-majorities, and even bigger super-majorities depending on how high the tier the stuff gets taken from is and also whether doing this eats into somebody's core plan.

Something that must be stressed: These tiers are not anything like ministries. A person does not belong to a tier, an activity does.


File: b01449ff0044302⋯.gif (150.62 KB, 1024x800, 32:25, b01449ff0044302b2924f3f56b….gif)

don't forget to archive thread once in a while

newest archive https://archive.fo/s41yX


File: 965d33ffe1b52c7⋯.pdf (8.06 MB, Enterprise_Resource_Planni….pdf)

it seems like you fags are trying to reinvent a bicycle

modern ERP systems already include all from demand forecasting to production and distribution by using everything from simulation to linear, mixed-integer, nonlinear optimization to heuristic techniques by using genetic algorithms, neural nets and whatnot

only limit is a time of computation and a cost of introduction and maintenance

there are already more than a dozen of open-source ERP systems, tho their functionality is severely lacking because they are not general purpose

also, it's extremely naive to think that you can construct an analogue of the ERP system in your spare time


How are your homeworks going comrades?

I'm reading this and the github related:




What makes you believe that the economy can be described well by

>dynamic stochastic general equilibrium




It's better to not think of this as a sequence of the states the entire apparatus goes through, the whole world isn't ever going to be in phase this or that. Society doesn't go to phase three and then phase zero again. You don't start one five-year plan when you reach the end of the last one. Rather, there are multiple overlapping plans, long term and short term. The diagram shows the phases the data about an available resource goes through, doing updates about how to allocate it. It's like food passing through various parts of the human body, like you don't start eating again only after you pooped out the last poopoutable bits.

I'm not very good at getting you excited and making this sound glorious, eh?


I'm illiterate but this seems important

What can these projects hope to achieve?



High home-ownership rate means people are less mobile, which means higher unemployment:


Check out what's under the header Housing.

Taxation on holding land (AKA land-value tax) does address this issue somewhat.

In a more planned economy, assigning people to jobs or placing them in university could be handled simultaneously with assigning a place to live. Since consumption vouchers with expiration date can't be saved up to buy a house, if such a voucher system is to be used, either nobody will ever own a house as an individual or they will get assigned by a method distinct from these vouchers. If a bunch of different new homes are to be assigned to people, with everybody only allowed to have one home, this could just be assigned by people ranking what they like, and then processing the requests random-dictator way (maybe process all requests by people with disabilities before the rest). There is an algorithm called top-trading cycle that could be used to re-assign people who already are assigned to a home:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_trading_cycle For both methods, there is never a better "voting" strategy than providing your honest ranking.



>there are already more than a dozen of open-source ERP systems, tho their functionality is severely lacking because they are not general purpose

How familiar are you with that stuff?



It seems to me that ERPs must parse huge amounts of data and shorten them considerably to get out relevant information for a human controller (or a few) at the top of a corporation. That is in itself a far greater task than anything we're taking on. We need to set up a decentralized data store (like Druid) and have a program to request information from it, use a package such as GLPK to, given in-kind costs for the production of goods in energy, materials, and MoPs, and knowing demand from firms and people, determine how much of each should be produced via simultaneous maximization of some variables and minimization of others. An end program on computers. It's basic programming in C and Java to build the most important part. Harder to construct will be a user ID system and corresponding desktop client which can access a user's account to see what they've made and delivered and which can verify that a distribution center has distributed what it claims to have. I've been thinking about the pieces of that.

You seem to know a lot about this stuff. Any tips?



It's important to be careful and avoid the capitalistic mindset of efficiency concerns overriding those of serving human needs. In fact, I'm starting to reconsider my advocacy of scarcity-based currency because it could preserve the Law Of Value permanently if there are any collective action problems (I have a hunch that there will be w/ any currency) and leaning more towards the cookie algorithms proposed in this thread




This, however, leaves us with a problem: how do we convince people to do work which needs to be done, but no one wants to do? What if the plan says that the trash center needs help with moving trash around and everyone shirks it? Do we have some universal system of "social insurances and bonuses" akin to how pirates prevented shirking when booty was distributed equally? How do we code that?

It seems to me that value is based upon, more generally than labor, directed energy - that is, the ability of an abstract system of domination to command a conscious being to do work (in the physics sense of the word) in a particular manner, and this becomes crystallized value. In tribal societies, whose basic primitive communism lived up to and through feudal communes in essence while the surpluses which it produced with greater technologies were extracted to fuel the society around itself, it was brute poverty and longstanding social norms which cannot be easily replicated. As society developed, as aforementioned, this communal form was maintained as a basic unit while extraction in other parts was mediated by brute force. In capitalism, this communal was destroyed at last and replaced by the reciprocity of market relations guiding the brute forces which had coalesced into states, mediating the ever-more refined process of crystallizing work in commodity forms, all with the end goal of more production of commodities and actors retrieving more exchange value.

Unles we replace human production with production by semi-intelligent robots, how will we create a free communism without domination guiding the act of work? The only other socialist who truly looked into this void before was Bellamy, and his conclusion was slightly terrifying: a world of military socialism with production enforced by an industrial army where people are told universally what work needs to be done a la North Korea, regardless of whether it's something which has a population of people who enjoy doing it or not.

Without the threat of violence through starvation and deprivation inherent in reciprocity, how do we get people to do unfulfilling-but-needed work? People do their dishes on their own because they feel the direct consequences if they don't. How do we do this for wider society so as to avoid collective action problems?



>there's a separate thread starting up about a 'tech collective' that's looking to start turning theory into praxis (I hope).

Any news on this? The subject intrigues me and I'd love to contribute.



there is no project where you could contribute to, this "tech collective" was just same shit as first 50 replies in this thread, endless shitposts over talking which source control should we use. If you want to work at something suggest project like >>1646240 did, we need to have clear idea of project and THEN decide stuff which source control will we use, who will have what role and so on.



As of now, we're mainly collecting articles, pdfs and other bools related to the subject (cybernetics, programming, mathematics, economics, …). We also indented on translating foreign works written in Russian, Czec, Polish, etc, into English and them create a kind of guide or learning plan for newcomers to the subject. From there on we will start programming and conceptualizing actual systems. So >>1705804 isn't quite right, although I'll admit that we're not the most active group ^^

If you're interested, send me an email (address in the username of the post). I'd also recommend using a protonmail accout. The same goes for anyone else , in care they're interested.



>it's really amazing how much capitalism limits people's imaginations

lol. you get money for coming up with shit that sells.




>This, however, leaves us with a problem: how do we convince people to do work which needs to be done, but no one wants to do? What if the plan says that the trash center needs help with moving trash around and everyone shirks it? Do we have some universal system of "social insurances and bonuses" akin to how pirates prevented shirking when booty was distributed equally? How do we code that?

Well, think about how the hiring process works now. You still have to do something to determine the supply of labor. if you aren't getting the candidates you like, you up the pay. In terms or rewards in a communist system, this could look like extra luxuries, have a designation so people with the shittiest jobs get first access to the most cutting edge home goods, access to movie premiers, early access video games, traveling perks on public transportation like nicer meals on trains, more leg room on plains. Obviously, everyone will have access to essentially the same goods, but there are still the space for some perks. And new technologies can't be available to everyone at once.

However, I do think semi-intelligent robots are a part of the solution. We should treat shitty jobs like a social problem needing to be solved. The development of advanced AI and robotics should be something that serves mankind, and not the otherway around, as it would be under capitalism.



>if you aren't getting the candidates you like, you up the pay. In terms or rewards in a communist system, this could look like extra luxuries

I have no interest in these things. Is this really better than everybody having a duty? Why? Material incentives for doing particular activities that in themselves have nothing to do with creating these things you get as incentive are alienating. If something is my duty I am more likely to care about doing it well. I'd rather have everybody do some of the shit tasks with maximum freedom in the choice of when and with whom within a given plan.


Are there any datasets out there for industrial input/output stats?



First one is sadly blocked. Second one is a amazing though and raised my interest in this thread. Hearing Cockshot talking about Athenian democracy and being frank about potential shortcomings dispelled my doubt that this is just technocratic wank. Can cybernetics unite the left?After all its work that has to be done regardless of your ideology or strategy.



>Can cybernetics unite the left?

I fucking hope so. It's not utopian, and can be redesigned to support pretty much any (leftist) ideology, from ancom "just let anyone take anything" to ML "we need to maintain wage labor which let starve any lumpenptole". It's wonderful because it tries to resurrect 50 years old dreams of using technology to free people instead of forcing them to increase productivity while offering working alternative, not just nihilistic/utopian opinions.


That's very expensive information, I doubt there would be anything like that easily accessible, especially anything from last two decades. Why do you want it?


File: c60bb14a92c8042⋯.png (72.74 KB, 594x249, 198:83, serveimage.png)

Should we not, like try to stabilize something simple firs, like inverted quintuple pendulum or something? I mean, otherwise maybe people will die again and people will be like muah Stalin and muah Mao on our asses again……


Please consider salvaging or moving this discussion to the non-broken thread I made:






>non-broken thread

how is this thread broken?



it was a cycled thread, and those all broke. look at the old images.


File: ddc0f3085ed276b⋯.png (113.58 KB, 837x803, 837:803, ddc0f3085ed276b2cec00e8a99….png)



Shameless bump



>if you aren't getting the candidates you like, you up the pay. In terms or rewards in a communist system, this could look like extra luxuries

I have no interest in these things. Is this really better than everybody having a duty? Why? Material incentives for doing particular activities that in themselves have nothing to do with creating these things you get as incentive are alienating. If something is my duty I am more likely to care about doing it well. I'd rather have everybody do some of the shit tasks with maximum freedom in the choice of when and with whom within a given plan.

How to do multi-dimensional planning? If there are several sub-goals and no proposed plan meets them all, how to compare the proposals? One obvious criterion for putting some proposals in the trash is Pareto: If some plan A does no worse on any sub-goal than plan B, and better on at least one, plan B will not be chosen. This is true for the following three different ways of choosing a plan.

It's obvious that just having scores for each sub-goal and then taking the overall average (arithmetic mean) as the plan-proposal score meets Pareto. But this approach seems to follow the "wisdom" we have from living in capitalist society. It is this belief: Individually owning more of thing X makes up for lacking thing Y, for any pair of things, if only the quantity is high enough. As a rule of thumb, this belief is not silly, it is based on real experience, because you can sell and try to exchange stuff. This belief is not a good guide for society as a whole, since society as a whole doesn't have a potential trading partner. If humanity produces crap humanity doesn't need, humanity is screwed.

Putting aside the appeal of things as potential trading objects and thinking of things as direct use values, it becomes obvious that a lot of pairings of things and services do not in any way work as substitutes for each other. The sub-goals are distinct for that very reason, one ignores that when taking the arithmetic mean score. The other extreme would be to reason in analogous way to how Liebig reasoned about plants, to assume that there is zero substitution whatsoever, that how close you get to meet some other sub-goal Y does not in any way make up for how far off you are from meeting sub-goal X. The overall score of the plan proposal would then be determined by the worst subgoal score (it's second worst subgoal score being used to decide in a tie, if still a tie, using the third worst subgoal score and so on). Let's call that the bottleneck score.

There is a third method between these two, that is taking the nth root of n sub-goal scores as the result (geometric mean). Compare that with what people usually mean by mean: 5&5, 4&6, 3&7 all amount to the same when taking the arithmetic mean, but with the geometric mean the multiplication gives more weight to the weak sub-goal performances.

So, which one of these aggregation rules is the right one? This could be left to… voting. For pairs of sub-goals people could vote on whether a strong performance when it comes to X basically makes up for weak performance on issue Y (this means using the arithmetic mean), whether they are totally distinct issues (bottleneck score), or something between these two (geometric mean). For a pair of issues we could just use the median. But it leads to the question how to deal with contradictory results for three or more issues, since different majorities can exist at the same point in time.



Whoops, sorry I accidentally copy-pasted a bit too much from a document I keep of various comments together with my own. Actual new comment starts at the bold part.



>I'd rather have everybody do some of the shit tasks with maximum freedom in the choice of when and with whom within a given plan.

So perhaps, if no one wants to do a particular job, some form of sortition of self-organized groups of people who are qualified to do a task is in order? You have to sign up with other people who can do the job (unless you have a reason why you can't, though I feel like the bureaucracy which would have to manage this would be as prone to wanton cruelty as today's welfare bureaucracy; what's a better solution?) and are called up to do it collectively if it needs to be done; which group is called up is random. For more complicated tasks, groups are organized through what will likely become of unions, or some analog thereof (general associations of workers in an industry; syndicates, in other words). Temporal constraints are a larger problem, as doing trash collection now versus 3 years later is a big difference.

Well, I did just think of a potential solution to my own beef with the bureaucracy - local government is neo-Athenian (executive and some minor legislative responsibilities are carried out by a council chosen by sortition), as proposed by Cockshott in TANS, and part of its job is to, from a national list of what is and isn't a luxury good, cut people off from the people on the list to receive a good via the cookie method if they're fit for a job available and intentionally shirk it (this being on a case-by-case method, capable of being challenged in a moot-like court; I like the idea of polycentric law such as the xeer of Somalia and the moots of Anglo-Saxon custom).

We can't integrate any of this into the calculator, but that's okay - the functions of compelling people to work are already carried out by capitalism, and it only needs to be strictly integrated into the calculator if it's necessary under capitalism (as our goal should be to get it to be widely used in present day society as a basis for a quasi-cooperative network of temporary associations of producers and, through this, effect an accelerationist process where the big corporations lose their lifeblood of atomized poor who depend on them for attaining necessary goods; this requires that it be an easily used app to organize decentralized collaboration).

It's worth noting that this doesn't get past the historical dominance of work-capacity by force, but it does make real inroads in reducing it through application of prior solutions (moots and Athenian democracy and city-level governance are all proven models).


>How to do multi-dimensional planning? If there are several sub-goals and no proposed plan meets them all, how to compare the proposals? One obvious criterion for putting some proposals in the trash is Pareto: If some plan A does no worse on any sub-goal than plan B, and better on at least one, plan B will not be chosen. This is true for the following three different ways of choosing a plan.

This is generally addressed by the whole idea of Cockshott's in-kind linear-optimization-based calculator, as it generates a single, optimal plan (actually, unlike capitalism) based on supply and demand; if you wanted, you could democratically make a decision to change demand for a product to infinity and make it so that what the plan minimizes for each output is the distance between supply (what the program determines can possibly be produced) and demand (what people have demanded in terms of stock depletion).

The objective function might look something like this (imagine numbers as subscripts): f(s) = c1x1 + c2x2 + c3x3 +…+ cnxn and xn = sn - dn

where "n" is the total number of distinct products, "s" is the supply-value, and "d" is the demand-value

You could try playing around with the demand numbers (democratically, of course) and make a formula for deriving, from raw demand in terms of stock control (as mentioned in the first article in this thread), a formula for comparing all products in terms of how increasing production of one will affect the production of others in comparison with it and using that as an input for its d instead of the raw number. This is inadvisable for all products at large, however, for obvious reasons, as you mentioned (it must be democratically decided for each product relation).

If you're referring to planning for the future, you should read the solution outlined in Ch5 of "Towards A New Socialism".



>supply and demand

A planning sub-goal doesn't necessarily only refer to quantities of products that people obtain as individuals with their individual consumption budget. A sub-goal can be about carbon emissions. Even referring to things and services doesn't imply something which might be obtained by individual consumption budget, it can be something consumed by the public without being individually rationed in a particular way. Having plans with such sub-goals may be combined with a feedback system of individual consumption vouchers, but if so, these vouchers would only lead to adjustments within these planning constraints.

>This is inadvisable for all products at large, however, for obvious reasons, as you mentioned (it must be democratically decided for each product relation)

I got four remarks for that:

1. If this is combined with lexicographic importance tiers, then only the pairwise comparisons within the same tier have to be done.

2. Things might also be tagged with some categories used to rule out the need for some pairwise comparisons.

3. Nobody needs to do every pairwise comparison that remains, a population sample for each question would be enough.

4. I believe you can make an educated guess how a direct comparison of A and B would turn out if you have data for comparing them indirectly with chains (like A with C, C with B) and you have lots of replies that say it's the same stuff, with short chains being more reliable than long ones (if have lex tiers and we want to save time by making fewer direct comparisons, we do this in the lower tiers).



>A planning sub-goal doesn't necessarily only refer to quantities of products that people obtain as individuals with their individual consumption budget. A sub-goal can be about carbon emissions.

You can integrate that kind of stuff into the linear optimization problem itself by making it one of the constraints (each product has a value for carbon emissions, for mercury waste, for potential fertilizer runoff, etc.). With Neurath's way of organizing data, sparse matrix notation, and Karmarkar's interior point method, you can have all those variables for all those products and still compute the whole thing. Probably the greatest strength of this system from the outset is that it deals with the large public context of issues in such a neat, elegant way (also why I'm concerned with authority's exercise becoming detached from lived human experience - we do not want a beast like this capitalistically accelerating and destroying meatspace once implemented). However, it rules out the possibility of individual consumption budgets a la parecon and instead is compatible either with scarcity-based currency (basic form advocated above or labor vouchers like in TANS and Critique Of The Gotha Program and (Bakunin's, not Nechayev's) Revolutionary Catechism), some form of rationing (random dictator or cookie method proposed so far), or purely communistic free distribution. Any sort of constraint conceivable can be factored into supply constraints. How to make sure that a product is properly tagged is another - there cannot be any profit, as that would provide an active disincentive to do so, but there also cannot be room for negligence due to lack of oversight. My first instinct, once again, is to delegate this to the syndicates to oversee their own workers, but I'd rather not for above-stated reasons.

>I got four remarks for that:

Those seem like good points and easily integrated into the calculator. Thanks.




Do you guys think current socialist states such as Cuba could implement something like this?



That was my first thought when I read Cockshott. I then realized, however, that it would run directly against the same bureaucratic inertia which doomed its cousin in the USSR. It is only by gathering momentum as a prefigurative, accelerationist project that it can possibly acquire the force to batter down the walls of 20th century socialism's dying ruins and recreate entire territories in its own image. To do so would be a great victory for it and is a long-term goal.


File: be8f15a4bc84da3⋯.pdf (1.38 MB, Economico-mathematical mod….pdf)

File: ede1227cc899da1⋯.pdf (6.43 MB, Regional Economic Modellin….pdf)

I found these two Western reports on the mathematical models used in the USSR's planning system. They obviously are bound to be biased (one's from UNESCO and the other from a burgerland "East European Research" institute) but since they focus on the actual models, variables and algorithms involved in planning, I'll leave them here in case anyone's interested.


File: 049f84d0e5f0c80⋯.pdf (243.23 KB, Cuba, un nuevo modelo de s….pdf)


I don't think so and not just because of >>1734262, but because there's no way they can afford the infrastructure needed to implement state-wide planning.

Hell only now they are aiming to digitalize industry, by importing tablets and computers from China:



The attached .pdf is a good overview of the economic policies that Cuba's gone through since the revolution. It's in Spanish, though.

In short: Most industries became state property after the Revolution and around 1975 a Soviet-inspired model was implemented, but after the collapse of the USSR and the consequent Cuban crisis of the 90s (the "Special period"), they ended up with something more like a cooperative-based market socialism.


age for safety purposes


OP here, this thread has been a great run. You have no idea how happy I am to see other people interested in pressing technological advances into the service of building a truly free society. This thread is reaching the end of its lifespan, though, and we have a lot of work ahead of us. This collective effort will change the world if it does not die.

I made a thread on /gnussr/ (a board made for us - big thanks to BO!) for organizing the building of the calculator - find out what needs to be done, how, and with who.

Here's the crossposting link: >>>/gnussr/206


bumping (is this still in bumping territory?)

I have been negligent in replying to this thread, gonna do it tomorrow



bumping again because I'm a huge kulakcuck, I swear I'll reply tomorrow




Please do. BTW, it's bumpable until it hits 450. Then it needs to be archived ASAP before it hits the bottom. It's actually a good thing that the cycling broke - it means that we get to keep all the links and PDFs which we've hoarded.


In >>>/gnussr/206 , someone posted this rare Cockshott paper:


It's on how a neural net could reduce the complexity of the problem by so much that only a few laptops could run calculations for the entire economy. Does anyone have more works on machine learning and its applications in reducing the complexity of large problems such as economies or otherwise?



http://archive.is/ZX6Yk most recent version.

Sage because not quite catalog bottom for now.

Should thoses archive links be posted in /gnussr/?


File: b03421d78feecda⋯.jpg (53.62 KB, 686x548, 343:274, b03421d78feecdace38539d5d3….jpg)

I finally got around catching up on the thread and got a fuckhuge reply to post, but this thread seems to be kinda entombed already. Do I post the reply here or somewhere on /gnussr/?

Also, before the thread slides off the board, I'll try to remember to download all PDFs, zip them up, upload them to a good host and post the link here.



>ywn get to chill out with young Stallman and stream the latest shitty original series on Netflix/Amazon/etc.



By all means, post it here. The fortunes of this thread ebb and flow with the ratio of fuckwits posting on /leftypol/ at any given time.



>that pic

>it's fucking real

<3 stallman



Thanks for the new material.


My reading on cybernetics everything is awfully behind so I haven't seen anything by Beer, but you reminded me of the Chilean experiment. I keep forgetting about it, even tho it can be an extremely valuable model, and more likely to have resources in English. Of course fucking Pinochet had to physically destroy the damn thing.


You know, I think this issue is even more important than you think. I recall reading many years ago a column by Christopher Hitchens which I have been unable to find again, where he mentioned a book by a Marxist author, both of which I can't remember. But the message stayed with me, and I think it's crucial to the success of socialism. You see, the capitalist state invests the bare minimum into its citizenry in order to keep the economy as developed or as undeveloped as it wants. People that could be genius writers if given a decent infancy are relegated to misery. Human potential is a fraction of what it could be, and almost all of it is spent further reinforcing capitalism, as people from all classes set making money as the sole reason of their existences. The system reinforces itself.

By contrast, the socialist state invested a lot into the average citizen. Full healthcare, good access to sports and culture, guaranteed work, and most important here, full education for free. In this manner, it created citizens with immense human potential – but provided very few outlets for their actualization. Anything to do with business is right out the window, artists had to deal with censorship, academics had to kowtow and infight for grants etc., and all facets of life had things like favoritism, black markets, politicking and such. And if you pissed off the wrong guy, well, bye-bye. The very same socialism that elevated these people then went to great expenses to cut them down. So people effectively had few outlets for their potential but to try to bring the system that both elevated and oppressed them down.

In some other thread, I mentioned how one dream of mine is to start an artisanal gelato shop. Not for making money, but for simple passion for the trade, creating new flavors and perfecting the quality. A little shop facing a plaza, where whole families would spend the day playing, then have a gelato before going home. The simple pleasures of life. I don't think this is asking for much. And yet, how would one proceed in a socialist economy to do this? The guy gave an answer which seemed Byzantine to me, and assumed society had already reached a moneyless stage, which obviously is not the case our dear network would operate in. Still, even in our money-using world, starting such a small business might be complicated. I'll try to answer this in the paragraphs below.


It's an interesting idea, even if the details of intellectual property, crowdfunding etc. in a socialist society are up in the air. Here in capitalism tho, like >>1646290 said, sharing the profit would be the central issue. Maybe the project keeps track of which percentage each member owns of the project, and these values are decided by group agreement?



>There is no emergent consciousness, no central mind or processor - it's a network which reacts to human demands and advises organization of human inputs to best meet these.

I don't know anon, I think that, if it works successfully, it can be used as a springboard for simulating more and more complex systems. In an answer below, I imagine that such upgrades could be for tracking housing and labor. But I suppose that that is thinking too far ahead.

>However, I'm still struggling with how to deal with reallocation of capital

Well that kind of depends on the exact economy implemented.

If each company was responsible for its own budget, there's nothing fr the government to allocate (beyond the prices), but the network's decision on price can make or brake this or that company in favor of another one. Supposedly the network would judge which scenario would be best overall for the entire society, and that may mean some poor fuckers in a given company are fated to go bankrupt for the greater good.

If the company budgets were still all concentrated and distributed by the State, then this is less of a problem, as it decouples the product prices from the company's budget. It would ultimately be up to the State, not the network, which companies lived or died.

In these paragraphs above, I don't put much sentimental value in the company, and I confess this abolishment of the distinction between firm and life strikes me as undesirable at a subconscious level. I don't know, it feels like superspecialization of a worker, like an insect or something. It seems to me like a bad idea, and instead everyone just should be prepared for being "fired" sometimes in their lives for the sake of a better society. This being a more humane society, it's not like he'll risk homelessness or anything. I reckon some people will love their jobs and losing it really would be a blow. Maybe these particular workers could be "flagged", to try to avoid firing him, or to try to find a transfer to another company like the one he's at.




I figure there has to be a human element, at the very least to set basic parameters (maximize production, employment or profit? favor one region over others? etc.). And in one of the two cenarios I presented above, with State concentration of budget, seems like it's more humane. Giving too much power to the network does indeed feel a bit like a capitalist-like alien entity is in charge.

Another, possibly crucial, need for human input is the creation of new companies. The network would keep on simulating the existing economy, but deciding where and when to place a new company is something that involves so many factors that I don't think a computer can cope with. You know how we still have air traffic controllers instead of automating that hellish job? Precisely. So the creation (and possibly destruction) of this or that company ought to be up to people and ought to be open, decentralized and democratic, to ensure no one's taking advantage of the situation. These decisions should be open to the people at large, instead of a Gosplan-like small band. To go back to my artisanal gelato shop, I guess this is where I would plead my case; I'd propose my humble shop, and if approved, I would receive a State budget or a State loan, depending on how much market freedom is allowed, and the shop would be added as a node in the network. It seems fairly straightforward.



I confess I'm having a bit of trouble imagining the consequences of this rental system. Still, it's something to be avoided on principle, no? Altho it might be understandable, say, in the case of still-scarce machinery, for example.


>There are two types of UBI, one for obtaining consumer items and one for bidding on rental rights for mop.

My reading is still far from this topic, but from my indirect knowledge, having more than 1 currency usually doesn't work, right? And people always come up with a way to exchange them.


You got it all wrong. ERP is about the internal management of a company, this is about a network of companies, each one being more or less a black box. And yeah, we know a handful of people on the internet won't work miracles. See my last paragraph here: >>1483509


Not that guy, but I confess I don't quite understand what they mean by this because i don't know what the organization does.


Poor guy asked a question and no one answered. Here's the big idea: starting from the assumption that the core mechanism for regulating an economy is the prices. Capitalism does it by simple supply and demand (and some bullshit such as speculation). In a socialist economy that still has a market and uses money, which was the case for most of the existing communist countries most of the time, supply and demand is out the window, so setting prices is a very tricky and arbitrary task; too high or too low, and you can completely fuck up the production chain of that product. It's entirely possible that the constant shortages that plagued the communist economies boiled down to bad pricing. Logic dictates that each commodity has an optimal price value for maximizing an output, or possibly several, depending on what you want to maximize (profit, unit production, volume production etc.).

An early Soviet cybernetician, Kantorovich, was convinced of the central role played by prices, and proposed using iterative methods for calculating said optimal price for a given desired maximized output, using a shitload of economic data. In essence, it's a simulation that is run over and over until the optimal price is found. You can say that since they couldn't use supply and demand to set prices, they would create virtual supply and demand and pluck the price from it to apply in the real world. This got him some accusations of trying to restore a capitalist market or some similar nonsense. During Krushchev's Thaw, his (and his colleagues') ideas were finally heard by the central authorities and used in a small scale. Unfortunately, even before Krushchev got booted, the cyberneticians fell out of favor with the authorities, who feared that this use of math and computers would erode their power.

Two other early cyberneticians, Kitov, Glushkov and Fedorenko, proposed independently 4 times the creation of a network uniting some combination of the country's economic enterprises, military installations, civilian institution etc.m but all 3 sunk because of that ol' power play and politicking that infested commie countries. All these men, however, saw the network as simply a tool for the central planners to better command companies, and possibly as a general communication and computation network.

To the best of my knowledge, no one proposed combining the two ideas, a nationwide network and price optimization. It's possible that such a network can be a central mechanism of a future socialist regima, so we're playing around with the concept.



A very good point. Other people already gave interesting answers, but I'd like to say that, initially, our network might simply ignore it; housing would be the problem of some other State/not-State agency. Of course tho, the complete network can supposedly be upgraded later to include non-economic data, like labor and housing.




>how do we get people to do unfulfilling-but-needed work?

I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner. If a socialist society already guarantees a basic living presumably without even needing to work, the shittier jobs would go unfulfilled.

I don't think these social bonuses and State-backed luxuries are necessary. I suppose the most basic solution is simply, up the salary. Our magic network's existence implies there's still a market, so that extra money might help the guy start that small business he always wanted, like the artisanal gelato shop I mentioned before. Or at the very least he'll simply have money for more luxuries. So long as he can't exploit other people, there shouldn't be a problem in having higher salaries. Also not depending on the State for these luxuries is the sort of thing that helps keep it small.

The second solution I see is the drastic one: "he who does not work, neither shall he eat". Frankly, I'm not morally opposed to it, so long as people have a choice of positions. Sure, it's not the perfect system, but if we had achieved Utopia, we wouldn't need our magical network in the first place.


>OS crash causes muh 100 gorillion deaths


I have to agree with >>1734262 and >>1734519. Cuba would be the perfect testing ground: the last (more or less) traditional ML country, that just can't get its economy started. But you somehow would have to convince Raul to go for broke.








Uh… I think the goals of this thread may be drifting a little.



The big network this thrad is about presupposes a market. Not a free market, but a market all the same, which is how most commie countries operated most of the time. Wages are part of it.

Loans and small businesses are an assumption of mine as to how a more market-socialism-oriented economy might work, I admit.



The "in-kind calculator" is meant to be a tool to eventually manage a non-market economy, and the kind of "market" being proposed by the likes of Paul Cockshott is a kind of pseudo-market strictly for consumer goods. It doesn't feature exchange between independent enterprises (no businesses exist) or capital accumulation.

>a market all the same, which is how most commie countries operated most of the time. Wages are part of it.

This shit is the reason threads like this (and books like TaNS) exist in the first place. To create in alternative to commodity production rather than simply repeating the failures of the past.



We're already moving beyond pseudo-currency tbqh. It was a temporary solution at best and already non-market. Cookie algorithm works better for allocation, stock control (see SPGB article) can determine demand in-kind, a data store can hold supply info, a dedicated system of bonuses could probably provide better incentives than money by giving them out where they actually work best (in a lot of jobs, more money offerings actually decrease productivity massively), and for direction of labor to do jobs which no one else is doing on their own, sortition of self-assembled groups and collective bargaining to get them what they need and want.

>markets mean when people give each other stuff, money or not, and when they create institutions on their own


>Loans and small businesses are an assumption of mine as to how a more market-socialism-oriented economy might work, I admit.

Nopenopenopenopenope, not happening, not even if we go with pseudo-currency (for which there is no longer a need), as it is specifically supposed to be self-destroying upon spending (like labor vouchers or the Soviet ruble if further reduced in role) and therefore not circulatory like money. We are not letting value production back out of the bag. No business of any kind will exist, not because it's banned, but because there is no reason to use currency and value production. Can they try? Yes. Will they succeed in implementing the force required to defend their new-found property? No. Imagine trying to establish your own feudal manor today in, say, Michigan.


Debt is a cancer on society and must be eliminated. It carries with its own insidious morality of pure violence so long as it is reciprocal in some measure, a morality underlying its child money as well. In practice, it is a justification for otherwise naked domination. Like it or not, we need something new. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this in this thread, because we're back to the handwaving territory currently dominated by PoMos until they are thoroughly destroyed as being valuable thinkers.



>The guy gave an answer which seemed Byzantine to me, and assumed society had already reached a moneyless stage

As the guy who gave that answer I would like to contest that I merely assumed a moneyless society in spefic branches of the economy that have a fairly predictable demand(like food, healthcare, water, transportation needs, general household appliances) which can be rationed out either through pure gift economy or ration cards if you still have to stave off a market. And I like to mention that you probably didnt consider how byzantine opening anything is in the current system of developed somewhat socdem countries.



nah fam we need techno-socialism with managed markets and a controllable circulating currency. That's not capitalism because special engineers and managers will be in charge in stead of bankers and politicians. Its different, and we won't worry about you having a say in whose in charge. That's not needed, they know exactly how many robo-waifus to distribute, they don't need input from subjects err i mean from citizens


File: 3f09bb55d5d8114⋯.jpg (168.17 KB, 875x648, 875:648, 3f09bb55d5d81143abb764dc81….jpg)

bumping for future answer


I've been thinking some dull thoughts about having a system for people who work in teams rating each other, the output of that could be used for more than one thing.

On the individual level it could be used for symbolic rewards ("I got a gold star. Weeeeeeeeee!") or to divide up some budget that is set aside for income-bonus payments. This leads to the question how the side of a team's bonus budget as a whole is determined, if the system doesn't just run inside a tiny co-op, but if there is a center that distributes the bonus budget. Should it be determined entirely by the center, non-compliance shrinking it? Should it be entirely based simply on the number of people in this or that team? Should it be a combination of these two factors? Should there be a third factor, using coherence of the voting pattern? Should the center have the power to rip apart teams if the voting pattern is very polarized?

There are several questions about how to design that thing and I'm unsure about what particular answer combination would be the best, but I'm already settled on one aspect: that there shouldn't be a requirement that bonus payments must be distributed in an unequal fashion. For instance, I don't think it makes much sense to always have some employee-of-the-month award with the winner getting a big bonus and everybody else getting nothing, even when there no particular pattern in the votes showing somebody as clearly more popular than the rest.



>Giving too much power to the network does indeed feel a bit like a capitalist-like alien entity is in charge.

This. I don't like the decentralization fetish many people here have. People are worried that the center will form a new class, but that can be addressed with term limits and sortition-selected bodies checking what the center does.



Are you autistic? He was clearly making fun of the marsoc that was posting earlier.






Voting theory also has a criterion called independence of irrelevant alternatives. A vote-counting rule satisfies IIA if deleting from the ballots some candidate who doesn't win and then counting again never changes the winner. So, like with the clone issue, this is about robustness of the decision method with respect to unimportant data. The judgement of what is unimportant comes from the voting method itself (a candidate who doesn't win, an alternative proposal that is rejected). There seems to be something incoherent about a mechanism that outputs a ranking going from most to least important while also being very sensitive to what the mechanism itself classifies as unimportant (withdrawal of an unpopular candidate or proposal changing the outcome).

Do you want some nobody with no chance of winning an election have the power to be king-maker? Why should small details have a big influence on the big picture? I like to have some robustness here. But going so far as to meet IIA has a weird consequence. Consider again the issue of Pareto-dominated alternatives. It's a sensible criterion that a Pareto-dominated shouldn't be selected. So, if the mechanism meets Pareto and IIA it also meets independence of Pareto-dominated alternatives. Indeed, IPDA can look very reasonable even for people who don't want IIA because of some other criterion incompatibility issues I won't go into here, it's just that Pareto-dominated alternatives look so very, very, very, unimportant that surely you wouldn't want them to have any influence on the result, so filter them out and pretend they never existed, right?

But consider this: Suppose there are three options to compare and to chose one, A, B, C, and the only piece of information you have is that B Pareto-dominates C. So, how do you choose? You can say that you surely won't choose C, so do you delete anything you know about it from your mind and flip a coin to get either A or B? You do NOT know whether A also Pareto-dominates C or vice versa or neither. You know that C can't be the best option, B can't be the worst option, option A could be best, second best, or worst. So, if you are risk-averse, I think it makes sense to not satisfy IIA.


Bump to save some of the stuff posted here.


File: c2c406927fa339e⋯.png (149.05 KB, 2610x1362, 435:227, Handivote logos.png)



The Handivote logo is remarkably terrible and probably the main reason nobody uses that thing. The first referendum post revolution should be about which of these two should replace the logo. After that we'll have to kill a million Trotskyist terrorists who just could never accept a thing to be important if its logo isn't made of real gold.


File: 9369f03620f40a0⋯.jpg (80.62 KB, 720x720, 1:1, fD9CN1D (1).jpg)




>unironically memeing the internet of raped to oblivion corporate survelliance crap

not even a revolution could save that.



We need it for our system to be able to model society in real-time most accurately so the planning system can act accordingly and efficiently



I don't like the emphasis on an alienated all encompassing technocratic system, too state capitalist for me. The current technological paradigm does everything to discourage customisation and engagement, which I believe is what we truly need at this point. Our current conception of technology is molded by capitalism, it might be necessary to move towards a communist conception of technology, in which technology is seen as something common to all humanity rather than a tool of capital or the Party-technocratic elite.


[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1cc / asmr / gdpe / hentai / htg / just / kpop / tijuana ]