Cybernetics and Communism

[¿Que?]

Maybe some technocrats might appreciate this. I was thinking about basic social structures and how they could be conceived of as systems in the cybernetic sense, I guess. I read Norbert Wiener's Cybernetics a long time ago, and since I've basically retained only basic algebra since my calculus days, I didn't understand hardly nothin'. But Wiener also mentioned some weird shit at the end. If I recall, he mentioned something to the effect that things like ESP could be explained using a cybernetic approach, or something to that effect. First I thought, hm, I was under the impression that ESP had been explained and found to be a myth, but even if I didn't understand what he was saying, I'm almost 99% sure he talked about ESP, so wtf was he saying?

More importantly, how is cybernetics regarded today, in the natural and social sciences? Did people accept the idea that nature was an intricate matrix of different systems (social, biological, ecological etc) or has cybernetics been tossed in the trash bin of science history? Finally, is this idea in conflict with communism, and how did the USSR and China during the Cold War receive this theory?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Technocrats might appreciate that.

They would not appreciate this:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Tiqqun__The_Cybernetic_Hypothesis.html

[Ravachol]

One must understand that Cybernetics, like any form of technology under Capitalism, is developed in a process with a Purpose.
This purpose, of course, is determined by it's usefullness to the projects of Capital, ie. the accumulation and circulation of Capital and the management of society and living labour.

While I think there are many hypothetical benign uses of Cybernetics, it's extremely naive and dangerous to think these will be what Cybernetics are used for under Capitalism.

Take for example casual Artificial Intelligence, while one might argue it can be used by self-managed communes to effectively allocate and distribute resources freeing up time that would otherwise go in mere bureaucratic activities, it's a farce to think AI will be used for THAT purpose under Capitalism.

Instead, AI is developed to be hooked up to CCTV networks, monitoring their video-streams for the presence of certain people through AI-based face recognition or registering 'deviant behavior' through anomaly-based filters.

AI is developed to replace a lot of 'white collar' workers, thus replacing living labour with constant capital reducing the leverage the working class has within Capital's structures by it's position as an essential cog to the machine of Capital's reproduction.

AI is developed to analyse patterns in sets of social statistics and predicting this or that behavior or likelyhood of this or that 'anomaly' within a given social group, allowing for effective control over the biopolitical tissue of society.

Under Capitalism, technology is developed because it fits within the bounds of 'usefullness' as defined by the paradigms dominating society. Paradigms arising from the logic of Capital and dominance. Thus, while I don't think most technologies have some kind of inherent, 'magical' evil, they are often developed, refined and put to use for purposes running contrary to the Communist project.

The trick, in my eyes, is not to take up some primitivist position calling for a romantic 'retour a la nature' but to see the subversive qualities of the technological terrain and both seek ways to sabotage that terrain or reclaim parts of it for our own use. Just like the occupied empty building can become a point of convergence for rebels, the appropriation of distributed, encrypted communication technology can facility secure communication amongst subversives.

[ckaihatsu]

I was thinking about basic social structures and how they could be conceived of as systems in the cybernetic sense, I guess.


This is an *excellent* topic and all-too-overlooked. Cybernetics, or 'complexity theory' these days, is just the rational, scientific acknowledgement that much of what we deal with -- including in the domains of politics and economics -- is actually very messy and complicated in the empirical world, due to the large numbers of constituent elements involved. Our *descriptions* may oversimplify these complex systems, especially if we're in a mode of traditional, linear-type thinking, and using overly simple conceptualizations of whatever it is we're describing.

That said, though, we can *start* simple and then build in gray areas and further complexity in our models and descriptions -- this is where we can *use* complexity to our *advantage* to understand and describe these otherwise unwieldy systems:





Complexity Theory and Chaos Theory studies systems that are too complex to accurately predict their future, but nevertheless exhibit underlying patterns that can help us cope in an increasingly complex world.

[...]

Sometimes the way the parts interact is critical to how the whole system works. This is what complexity studies. Complexity is relevant to an enormous range of areas of study including traffic flows, earthquakes, the stock market, Jupiter's red spot, group dynamics, airline networks, the spread of viruses, the internet, urban planning and much more.

[...]

http://complexity.orconhosting.net.nz/


I've developed some frameworks that attempt to do just that -- sort out some basic "levels" to whatever is being looked at, while the *substance* of whatever is being looked at may vary greatly.

One model here only has *2* "levels" -- 'characterizations' and 'generalities'. We could say that *all* descriptions -- all communication, essentially -- will fall into one or the other category, depending on the context.


Generalizations - Characterizations

http://i48.tinypic.com/2m2jpyd.jpg


And another framework goes from 'micro', or small-scale, to 'macro', or large-scale, based on social (political) dynamics, for all of history:


History, Macro-Micro -- Precision

http://i45.tinypic.com/149030w.jpg





But Wiener also mentioned some weird shit at the end. If I recall, he mentioned something to the effect that things like ESP could be explained using a cybernetic approach, or something to that effect.


If we *use* the 'Generalizations - Characterizations' model here we might see that someone who is currently focused on a particular area of concentration -- say, international news -- may be particularly attuned to that subject matter, especially since the subject is a finite one. Depending on world developments that person may find spontaneous correlations with other events going on in their life experience that relate back to where most of their consciousness happens to be most of the time. Most of the time these experiences are not too surprising or out-of-the-ordinary, so we just call it 'culture', but sometimes the unexpected happens -- a more-distant cognitive association -- and so it's surprising, even feeling like something transcendent since it's so outside of our normal, everyday experience.

Nonetheless, using a scientific 'cybernetic' approach, we could possibly track down the complex causes of that intersection between internal and external, and find out that it was just a particularly meaningful chance occurrence.

[ryacku]

Cybernetics was well used in Allende's Chile. Search for "Project Cybersyn." Pretty interesting stuff, computer networks were used to circumvent CIA-organized teamster strikes. Computers would be excellent aides for the economic calculation problems faced by centralized planners. Cybernetics is very uh, synergistic with Communism.

[Ravachol]

Cybernetics was well used in Allende's Chile. Search for "Project Cybersyn." Pretty interesting stuff, computer networks were used to circumvent CIA-organized teamster strikes. Computers would be excellent aides for the economic calculation problems faced by centralized planners. Cybernetics is very uh, synergistic with Communism.

I'm aware of the Cybersyn project and when you consider a centrally planned economy the way to go I guess it's an interesting approach (although I do think distributed information technology might be an aid in a post-capitalist society, but who am I to speculate on that?). The problem is the piece I've bolded. The use of advanced cybernetics creates a position of gross power assymetry and under Capitalism we all know to whose benefit it's going to be used.

[Sentinel]

I'm aware of the Cybersyn project and when you consider a centrally planned economy the way to go I guess it's an interesting approach.

Cybersyn was indeed rather interesting, we recently discussed it on MSN with Majakovskij. It's definitely something that might be used again, although with the much more advanced technology that is available today, obviously.

For those that don't know what Cybersyn was:


The system

There were 500 unused telex machines bought by the previous government, each was put into one factory. In the control centre in Santiago, each day data coming from each factory (several numbers, such as raw material input, production output and number of absentees) were put into a computer, which made short-term predictions and necessary adjustments. There were four levels of control (firm, branch, sector, total), with algedonic feedback (if lower level of control didn't remedy a problem in a certain interval, the higher level was notified). The results were discussed in the operations room and the top-level plan was made.
The software for Cybersyn was called Cyberstride, and it used Bayesian filtering and Bayesian control. It was written by Chilean engineers in consultation with a team of 12 British programmers. [1]
The futuristic operations room was designed by a team lead by the interface designer Gui Bonsiepe. It was furnished with seven swivel chairs (considered the best for creativity) with buttons, which controlled several large screens that could project the data, and other panels with status information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn


(although I do think distributed information technology might be an aid in a post-capitalist society, but who am I to speculate on that?)

In large parts of the world, the man of the twentyfirst century has already transcended from being merely the knowing man, homo sapiens into being the connected man, homo telephonicus if you will. Thusly it's clear that the planned economies of tomorrow will be extremely well-coordinated.


The use of advanced cybernetics creates a position of gross power assymetry and under Capitalism we all know to whose benefit it's going to be used.

Well yes, but I don't know how it can be avoided. We certainly can't be against technological progress. What we can do, is to be against the use of technology in an oppressive fashion. As long as the capitalist system previals, sometimes we'll succeed, sometimes fail. On the positive side, great injustices like that will serve to heighten class antagonism in the future.

It won't make sense to anyone that only a privileged minority has access to the fruits of technological progress, especially on this level, and that will lead to increasing revolutionary sentiments amongst the working class.