[View All]
This thread is for the discussion of cybercommunism, the planning of the socialist economy by computerized means, including discussions of related topics and creators. Drama belongs in /isg/
ReadingTowards a New Socialism by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/Brain of the Firm by Stafford Beer
Cybernetic Revolutionaries by Eden Medina
Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine and The Human Use of Human Beings (1st edition) by Norbert Wiener
Economic cybernetics by Nikolay Veduta
People's Republic of Walmart by Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski
Red Plenty by Francis Spufford
Economics in kind, Total socialisation and A system of socialisation by Otto Neurath (Incommensurability, Ecology, and Planning: Neurath in the Socialist Calculation Debate by Thomas Uebel provides a summary)
Active writers/creatorsSorted by last name
>Paul Cockshotthttps://www.patreon.com/williamCockshott/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ (
https://invidious.snopyta.org/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ)
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/http://paulcockshott.co.uk/https://twitter.com/PaulCockshott (
https://nitter.pussthecat.org/PaulCockshott)
>Cibcom (Spanish)https://cibcom.org/https://twitter.com/cibcomorg (
https://nitter.pussthecat.org/cibcomorg)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCav9ad3TMuhiWV6yP5t2IpA (
https://invidious.snopyta.org/channel/UCav9ad3TMuhiWV6yP5t2IpA)
>Tomas Härdinhttps://www.haerdin.se/tag/cybernetics.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5fDgA_eHleDiTLC5qb5g8w (
https://invidious.snopyta.org/channel/UC5fDgA_eHleDiTLC5qb5g8w)
>Elena Vedutahttp://www.strategplan.com/en/about/veduta.phpVarious videos on YouTube but no channel of her own
>Dave Zachariahhttps://www.it.uu.se/katalog/davza513One video on Paul Cockshott's channel
Podcasts>General Intellect UnitPodcast of the Cybernetic Marxists
http://generalintellectunit.net/Previous threads in chronological orderhttps://archive.is/uNCEYhttps://web.archive.org/web/20201218152831/https://bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/res/997358.htmlhttps://archive.ph/uyggphttps://archive.is/xBFYYhttps://archive.ph/Afx5ahttps://archive.is/kAPvR>>1650427
>>1893573>no, if you want plan computations to be reproducible you want them to be fully centralized. it is only by completely centralizing all data, all constraints, all models etc that you can even hope to reproduce the results. once fully centralized, it is also trivial to ensure the data are mirrored in multiple location. for example of such centralized systems, see git and IPFS. one can have multiple datacenters that synchronize data in a hypercube grid ála MPI_AllGather such that everyone has the same shared state. this can be verified by sending Merkle DAG hashes around. that way everyone is struggling over the one and only one set of data, fully centralized and visible to alluhhh, okay then we are in agreement, except guess what you just described a decentralized system. not centralized..
>>1893647>Better yet, run the whole thing on a blockchain and shard it. Everyone can collectively contribute to the planning algorithm.very based
>>1895319A system of computation doesn't change from centralized to decentralized by adding backups.
>>1894867markets will likely have a role in a transitional period, quite a substantial one even
we should expect companies, even cooperative ones, to purchase things from the planned sector. arguably one task that lies before us is to take socialist commodity production far further than the USSR ever did. the PRC does something like that, but not far enough
>>1894906>A market entails agency of its participantsimagine believing this
>>1894911>well within the capabilities of a bureaucracy in the 19th centurylol
>It was not a technological problem, as if people were too stupid to allocate numbers on a spreadsheet with sufficient information about who asked for whatlmao
the implication here is that the Soviets were retards
>>1894916>food - food which the USSR never could socialize,<what are sovkhozes
>>1895121>How do they prevent tampering or DDoS?there's a million ways. signed hashes prevent tampering. DDoS can be dealt with by using VPNs
>>1895319>what you just described a decentralized system. not centralizedno. for an example of a decentralized system, look at DNS. there is no single global state with DNS. with planning we
want a single global shared state. all data must flow into a common "cloud". or a git repository. or whatever.
Is it possible to do this like in 2D? Like, and EMP fries the lecky so we need to go back to the 2D.
>>1895380Imagine believing that people engage in market activity for some reason unknown to them, as if they randomly walked into a market and randomly exchanged tokens in this particular way without knowing why. You realize how retarded that is?
Markets only exist in conditions where they are sensical to the participants. A warlord in a society without laws is not operating a market and has no need of a "market". Markets are destabilizing and uncertain in such conditions.
If the participants in a market knew the outcome of all exchanges, they could and would have every reason to bypass the market mechanism completely. That is what we do, since most human behavior exists outside of the market entirely. Otherwise, the most basic mechanisms of life would be doled out by market activity and haggled over incessantly. That's what happens in a market. If the market is solved, there is no purpose in participating, and the members would already arrive at the outcome before any exchange took place. That already happens in a market, because the participants are aware of their possessions and objectives before the market formed.
This is all very, very basic to what a market is, and why markets were an unusual thing rather than default. Where markets exist, they were local and temporary before they were established as permanent, then world spanning markets. On this, every economist before the 20th century agreed, and the non-retarded economists of the 20th century and since concurred. It's only in the retarded fag ideology that it was naturalized and made essential.
In other words, the market wouldn't exist if it were truly uncertain and random. The market is not there to solve an information problem, and never was. It's there because humans were antagonistic towards each other, and the market was the chosen mechanism for promoting internal conflict and the preference of interests in society.
So long as the market exists, you're still supposing the antagonism exists. That's why a market exists. Anything cooperative from it occurs in spite of the market rather than because of it.
We could of course live with antagonism, but you can't make that into something regulated and "natural" without naturalizing the antagonism and making it permanent. That's why you people are insane - not because you'd make it permanent, but because you actually think reality is controlled by these smug assertions and such faggotry.
>>1895514>If the participants in a market knew the outcome of all exchanges, they could and would have every reason to bypass the market mechanism completely.>If the market is solved, there is no purpose in participatingWhen a market is even remotely close to being solved a period of creative destruction will occur as participants try to unsolve it for profit. The closer it gets to the solved state the more profit there will be in generating new products and services to unsolve it.
>A warlord in a society without laws is not operating a market and has no need of a "market".Hence capitalism is more productive than warlords or other feudal arrangements, as it can constantly generate more creative destruction. If you want to build a better mode of production you need to learn from the achievements of the current one.
>>1895517>The market is not there to solve an information problemTeleologically it is not "there" to solve anything - people don't design markets, they tax and regulate them post facto. Markets do amalgamate vast amounts of information, but of course the profit lies in the correction of information and therefore could not occur in the presence of perfect information. If you really want something better than markets and profit you need to design better information aggregators.
>>1895385right. Planning has to converge and doing it in a single computer or set of computers is way faster than adding the network latency of a whole country or even planet
>>1895485If an EMP fries society you have bigger problems. Any society without electricity basically reverts to amish levels of technology and subsistence farming in which case you don't need complex planning anyway
>>1895708>right. Planning has to converge and doing it in a single computer or set of computers is way faster than adding the network latency of a whole country or even planetA lot of posts here are really focused on the socialism stage before communism. If it's centralized there is a central authority controlling planning, or in other words a state. It must be decentralized for there to be no state.
>>1895752>It must be decentralized for there to be no state.thats not really true. You are confusing a government and a state. The state is an organ of class rule. It consists of special bodies of armed men having prisons, etc., at their command. You can have a stateless society that has a government. A government which is a consequence of self acting organization of a classless society is not a state. The state must have repressive powers the purpose of which is to reconcile the social antagonisms of a class society. Once economic and material equality have been produced and class has been abolished there will no longer be a need for a state as such, but that does not obviate the need for organization. With the end of class, the state will wither away. But this does not imply the withering away of any form of organization at all.
Nor does it really prevent centralization of planning in a political, let alone technical sense. Whether or not to perform a computation on a certain computer is an engineering decision, not a political one. It's perfectly possible for a computation to be performed centrally in a technical sense while being "decentral" i.e. "democratic" in a political one.
>>1895752"Lower stage" is basically the dictatorship of the PMC.
>>1895769>if we pretend the PMC isn't a class, we can pretend their dictatorship isn't a state
>>1895769>Nor does it really prevent centralization of planning in a political, let alone technical sense. Whether or not to perform a computation on a certain computer is an engineering decision, not a political one. It's perfectly possible for a computation to be performed centrally in a technical sense while being "decentral" i.e. "democratic" in a political one.you sound like you might be right but i think youre missing key technical points. a centralized system can have backdoors without anyone knowing, very complex ones
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdfdecentralized is going to have a much harder time suffering from such a problem since we can assume with socialism and communism we will have more variety of hardware and software and redundant decentralized software components written in completely unrelated languages and architectures, for safety
>>1896494To continue, in other words, it can be coopted from within or commandeered much more easily. Even if we trust this "non-state" governmental group that controls planning of all production, from a sociopolitical standpoint (lol sorry but "not a state" my ass) then let's think technically, can they technically control the system even with good intent?
the answer is no, and for that you'd need a decentralized system of the sort i described. and dont think this is minor quibbling, it's completely doable especially with blockchains, and an important architectural point to get right from the very beginning. or else how do you migrate later? you wont.
>>1896494that research paper is completely unrelated to anything being discussed.
>>1896578it's a clear vulnerability a centralized system is subject to, one of very very many. im sure you can think of more issues if you tried.
>>1895708>right. Planning has to converge and doing it in a single computer or set of computers is way faster than adding the network latency of a whole country or even planetthat is true, but that's also not my point. yall mfers don't seem to understand that logical centralization isn't the same thing as physical centralization. like this guy
>>1895752>It must be decentralized for there to be no state.petty bourgeois nonsense. this guy
>>1895769 is right. state != government
>>1896494https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/stage0/full centralization is a necessary but not sufficient condition for all phases of communism. without it you're going to have what amounts to corporate secrecy, and you're going to have exchange. the Soviet planning system was decentralized, and its efficiency suffered as a result
>>1896494<I have watched kids testifying before Congress. It is clear that they are completely unaware of the seriousness of theft acts. There is obviously a cultural gap. The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked. The press must learn that misguided use of a computer is no more amazing than drunk driving of an automobile.OK Boomie.
There are various criteria for algorithms, the guarantee of meeting a criterion is easier to check for some criteria than for others. For allocation algorithms, criteria can be formulated relative to a user's own individual input in relation to what stuff is available. So you can check the veracity just based on what your inputs are and what you get for the inputs. You don't need to understand anything about programming, only what is in the pile of items to be allocated and how many other people are in the system and what weight you have. You don't need to know who of them asks for what.
>>1896665Only for simple plans. Modern supply chains are mind bogglingly complex
>>1896665>OK BoomieWhat does your quote have to do with anything?
Planning under communism is much more than just allocation, it's workers' control production. If a centralized computer system of planning is coopted it could route production in ways meant to benefit the coopters. This is computer security 101 tier stuff and you're calling me a boomer for critiquing your idea of a mainframe operated by a group of people who supposedly aren't just a new state.
>>1896889>Only for simple plans.Source: vibes.
>>1896970>What does your quote have to do with anything?Indeed. It's from the end of the PDF posted in comment
>>1896494 So I suppose you agree posting the PDF was stupid.
>This is computer security 101 tier stuffThe point of the second paragraph in post
>>1896665 is that you can check something in the results even if the program is a black box. The results are constrained by the guarantees and that means so are any possible gains for a conspiring group of programmers.
>>1900570looks cool anon, but from the website it just looks like a bunch of people who are fans of cibcom and parecon and have few speaking events
>>1900570Good concept, now let's give it traction.
>>1900811they're having a big launch event July 13th. the idea is to try and bring everyone in the planning space together
>>1900840not to be offensive, but are you sure this is not some weird cult?
>>1900851you can never be fully sure. I think the general idea is to serve as a hub for announcing seminars, new publications and such
>>1902461The "musts" are a bit strong - things like that are first to be evaluated against the planning system. But certainly Pendergrass is not the only one to suggest mandatory veganism - Andreas Malm does as well. In practice it's not possible - there will still be game that needs to be regulated, the hunting of which would result in meat. Chris Smaje (
A Small Farm Future) suggests there's plenty of room for poultry, whose walking about, poking and pooping improves the soil. Pigs also to an extent. But again these suggestions are completely detached from an actual planning system and thus wholly anarchic.
Also Pendergrass is the guy behind this:
https://play.half.earth/
>>1902461Half earth socialism is actually a pretty solid attempt at statistics based proposals. Their own simulation can be won by just going full nuclear and banning cars.
>>1902461that list is based though????
>>1902621Don't you know putting limits on unhinged consoomerism is degrowth and therefore… le bad?
>>1902630Marxism is not an austerity cult, sexually mutilated faggot. You're looking for capitalism, next door.
>>1902654That, too, is next door
>one retard arguing with another retard
>both failing to realize we might expand MoPs in one industry while scrapping those in another
you can't say either way what should be done until we have a planning system in place. arguing about this level of consumption or that is utopian
>>1902665we can have some general ideas lol
>>1902654More productivity = more free time under socialism
>>1902667you can say "we could do this", but when you start saying "we will do this" you're stepping over the line imo
>>1902483>>1902621>>1902554>>1902461Veganism is pure pseudo-science on a plethora of levels.
>>1902696pretty sure hunter gatherers mostly ate fruit and mushrooms and only had meat on occasion since hunting is hard work.
>>1902483>there will still be game that needs to be regulated, the hunting of which would result in meatthis doesnt matter, the harms veganism solves are factory farming and deforestation, not random hunters sticking within season quotas.
>>1902859sure, but then say that factory farming is to be curtailed rather than mandatory veganism which will never happen and is just ceding ground to radlibs
Unique IPs: 31