Where exactly does it state in that article that the USSR applied cybernetig principles in managing systems of production and management?
FFS, how can someone be so arrogant with so much stiched together half-knowledge? Seriously, check out the General Intellect Unit podcast, if you’re actually interested, but don’t act so smug, stating bullshit on things where you only skimmed the wikipedia page. It’s done by (anti-authoritarian) Marxists, if that helps.
The soviet union began tinkering with the ideas of cybernetics, though they never managed to fully implement it. Cybersyn went farther, but it wasn’t the first attempt. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by “anti-authoritarian Marxists,” Marxists analyze authority by its class character and not as something that can be universally opposed.
I know you have trouble grasping the concept of authority. That’s like… your whole deal. Just imagine being a Marxist without all the vanguard party and replacing the bourgeoisie with a class of bureaucrats bullshit.
Cybersyn can’t have been centrally planned btw, as central planning violates Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety.
I don’t have trouble grasping the concept of authority, I adhere to the Marxist analysis of it. Vanguards replacing capitalist dictatorships of the bourgeoisie with socialist states is a good thing, and has led to dramatic improvements in the lives of billions of working people.
Cybersyn was centrally planned, input from the bottom was fed to higher rungs that returned with advice and decisions.
I do, though. Again, I know how it worked at a general level, and I already proved that I am willing to change my beliefs, that’s how I went from being an anarchist to being a Marxist-Leninist. I do agree that you likely aren’t going to change my mind, though.
I ex’lained how it couldn’t have been a centrally planned system, because that would’ve violated Ashby’s law. You replied with “nuh-uh”, because you refuse to learn.
That’s like you claiming that energy can be created, I reply that this would violate the law of conversation of energy and you reply with “but energy does get created in a power plant.”
You have no idea of the theory and maybe have had a quick glance at some wikipedia article.
Real “there are only two genders - I learned so in biology class”-vibes.
and I already proved that I am willing to change my beliefs
And I’m sure that since you’ve done it once already, you don’t need to do so anymore, because now you’ve got it all figured out. /s
Ashby’s law of variance doesm’t mean Cybersyn wasn’t a system where the plans were distributed from the top-down. Inputs were bottom-up, and the corrective actions and planning was done by a series of rungs, laddering up to a central command. This is a centrally planned system. It sounds like you think central planning is exclusively the material balances system used by the Soviets, or some other idea of central planning that somehow doesn’t include a system where decision-making was top-down and planned.
Secondly, the fact that I don’t agree with you, and that your arguments aren’t convincing to me, doesn’t mean I don’t still change my mind or grow. I don’t have it all figured out, never once claimed that I do.
The main thing about cybersyn was the recursive nature of the system. Yes, there was a grand system with subsystems, but the scope of decision making remained in the (sub)-system. The “central” system had limited decision making power over the sub-systems. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have followed the viable systems model.
This is a centrally planned system.
It was about as “centralized” as your body is centrally controlled by the conscious part of your brain. Ask any physician today and they’re going to be able to explain to you how you’re wrong, even though it seems that way at first glance.
If cybersyn was a centrally planned system, then a federated commune of communes is “centralized”. Then you agree on that front with anarcho-communists. But they wouldn’t call the system centralized, but rather federated.
You can’t grasp cybersyn if you don’t understand the viable systems model. Your claims of decision making contradict that model.
Secondly, the fact that I don’t agree with you, and that your arguments aren’t convincing to me, doesn’t mean I don’t still change my mind or grow.
I’m not arrogant enough to think that everyone should change their mind after I explain how disagree with them. I think that you’re way to comfortable in your ideology, because of how you react to what I write, not because you’re not convinced by it.
One example: when I try to explain how there is such a thing as a libertarian Marxist, you don’t engage with what I write (that Marxism doesn’t require Vanguardism), but rather make a moralistic argument of how Vanguardism is good, actually.
I agree, that I could’ve explained that better. But defending the supposed merits of vanguardism has nothing to do with the supposed necessity of vanguardism. That’s a cathegorical error on your part. I can’t help it but assume that this stems from a fundamental need to “defend” Leninism on your part (even if it wasn’t even attacked).
Edit: an example for libertarian Marxism would be council-communism.
Where exactly does it state in that article that the USSR applied cybernetig principles in managing systems of production and management?
FFS, how can someone be so arrogant with so much stiched together half-knowledge? Seriously, check out the General Intellect Unit podcast, if you’re actually interested, but don’t act so smug, stating bullshit on things where you only skimmed the wikipedia page. It’s done by (anti-authoritarian) Marxists, if that helps.
The soviet union began tinkering with the ideas of cybernetics, though they never managed to fully implement it. Cybersyn went farther, but it wasn’t the first attempt. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by “anti-authoritarian Marxists,” Marxists analyze authority by its class character and not as something that can be universally opposed.
I know you have trouble grasping the concept of authority. That’s like… your whole deal. Just imagine being a Marxist without all the vanguard party and replacing the bourgeoisie with a class of bureaucrats bullshit.
Cybersyn can’t have been centrally planned btw, as central planning violates Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety.
I don’t have trouble grasping the concept of authority, I adhere to the Marxist analysis of it. Vanguards replacing capitalist dictatorships of the bourgeoisie with socialist states is a good thing, and has led to dramatic improvements in the lives of billions of working people.
Cybersyn was centrally planned, input from the bottom was fed to higher rungs that returned with advice and decisions.
Ok, I give up. You have no idea abOut cybersyn and don’t care about learning anything that could expand your already formed believes.
Should’ve known.
I do, though. Again, I know how it worked at a general level, and I already proved that I am willing to change my beliefs, that’s how I went from being an anarchist to being a Marxist-Leninist. I do agree that you likely aren’t going to change my mind, though.
I ex’lained how it couldn’t have been a centrally planned system, because that would’ve violated Ashby’s law. You replied with “nuh-uh”, because you refuse to learn.
That’s like you claiming that energy can be created, I reply that this would violate the law of conversation of energy and you reply with “but energy does get created in a power plant.”
You have no idea of the theory and maybe have had a quick glance at some wikipedia article.
Real “there are only two genders - I learned so in biology class”-vibes.
And I’m sure that since you’ve done it once already, you don’t need to do so anymore, because now you’ve got it all figured out. /s
Ashby’s law of variance doesm’t mean Cybersyn wasn’t a system where the plans were distributed from the top-down. Inputs were bottom-up, and the corrective actions and planning was done by a series of rungs, laddering up to a central command. This is a centrally planned system. It sounds like you think central planning is exclusively the material balances system used by the Soviets, or some other idea of central planning that somehow doesn’t include a system where decision-making was top-down and planned.
Secondly, the fact that I don’t agree with you, and that your arguments aren’t convincing to me, doesn’t mean I don’t still change my mind or grow. I don’t have it all figured out, never once claimed that I do.
The main thing about cybersyn was the recursive nature of the system. Yes, there was a grand system with subsystems, but the scope of decision making remained in the (sub)-system. The “central” system had limited decision making power over the sub-systems. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have followed the viable systems model.
It was about as “centralized” as your body is centrally controlled by the conscious part of your brain. Ask any physician today and they’re going to be able to explain to you how you’re wrong, even though it seems that way at first glance.
If cybersyn was a centrally planned system, then a federated commune of communes is “centralized”. Then you agree on that front with anarcho-communists. But they wouldn’t call the system centralized, but rather federated.
You can’t grasp cybersyn if you don’t understand the viable systems model. Your claims of decision making contradict that model.
I’m not arrogant enough to think that everyone should change their mind after I explain how disagree with them. I think that you’re way to comfortable in your ideology, because of how you react to what I write, not because you’re not convinced by it.
One example: when I try to explain how there is such a thing as a libertarian Marxist, you don’t engage with what I write (that Marxism doesn’t require Vanguardism), but rather make a moralistic argument of how Vanguardism is good, actually.
I agree, that I could’ve explained that better. But defending the supposed merits of vanguardism has nothing to do with the supposed necessity of vanguardism. That’s a cathegorical error on your part. I can’t help it but assume that this stems from a fundamental need to “defend” Leninism on your part (even if it wasn’t even attacked).
Edit: an example for libertarian Marxism would be council-communism.