Computer aided economics?

[yannbane]

Wikipedia mentions "Computer managed allocation" herhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics#Computer-managed_allocatione.

What does that mean, concretely? What's your take on it?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Moved to learning.

[tuwix]

What does that mean, concretely? What's your take on it?

Rightwing critics of so-called "socialist" economics of the Soviet Union and their satelite state were pointing that it is very difficult to calculate allocation of goods in central planned economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem). And computers and especially supercomputers are supposed solution of the problem.

[xxxxxx666666]

Hi,

An example of computer controlled economy was Project Cybersyn by Chile during the short reign of the communist rule there.

Well, it worked, more or less like the top down economy as in the Soviet Union and in the other communist countries, except that a computer made most of the "thinking",( if that is the correct term) and thus help direct the population and certain individuals of interest.

Of course this is just my take, feel free to correct me, though I thought of it as a sort of internet-like command and control concept.

Let me post a wiki link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersyn

I'll quote it some:

"Project Cybersyn was based on Viable system model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable_system_model) theory and a neural network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network) approach to organizational design, and featured innovative technology for its time: it included a network of telex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telex) machines (Cybernet) in state-run enterprises that would transmit and receive information with the government in Santiago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago,_Chile). "

And a interesting titbit:

"The system was most useful in October 1972, when about 50,000 striking truck drivers blocked the access streets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende#Crisis) that converged towards Santiago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago,_Chile). According to Gustavo Silva (executive secretary of energy in CORFO), using the system's telex machines, the government was able to guarantee the transport of food into the city with only about 200 trucks driven by strike-breakers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike-breakers), recouping the shortages caused by 40,000 striking truck drivers.

After the military coup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973) on September 11, 1973, Cybersyn was abandoned and the operations room was destroyed."

[Q]

Paul Cockshott (also a member on Revleft) and Allin Cottrell wrote extensively on the subject, for example here (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/).

[ckaihatsu]

In order to simplify things and also keep cyberphobes at ease, there's a different approach to a post-capitalist economics that doesn't require complicated math equations *or* intense computational processing power -- only a sorting algorithm over all incoming records of data.





[W]ith contemporary computer technology all of the computational processes required -- for conducting the exit surveys, the sorting and mass-prioritizing of cumulative demands, the tracking of labor credits in circulation, the maintaining of informational wikis about each factory and workplace, the rank-and-file discussions and decision-making, etc. -- could be fully transparent from the source code onward, enabling full public oversight of all of society's political mechanics in realtime.

The 'central authority', or mass co-administration, could realistically be synonymous with full public oversight of these computational processes, thus relieving society of any ambiguities over political procedure.


The basic idea is a *prioritization* of demands, first done by individuals, and then done over all of the individuals' prioritized lists in a locality, by the computer's sorting algorithm.


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://s6.postimage.org/jy5fntvcd/17_Prioritization_Chart.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/jy5fntvcd/)


More at this recent thread:


Detailed Alternatives to ParEcon?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/detailed-alternatives-pareconi-t184018/index.html

[Aware]

Computers are already used to run economies. The only difference is that the computers are just another tool of capitalism.

[Gambino]

Computers have become a crucial tool for Capitalists.
They use computers to calculate the complex logarithms used in the making of derivative and speculative financial products. They use computers to build the Excel tables they need to sell austerity plans. But, most of all, they use computers to speed up or automatize buying and selling, and time means money…


In a socialist economy, computers t can be used to manage stocks and distribution, which was precisely one of the biggest problems of the soviet economy. Just imagine the difficulties they had to face to change and adapt a specific aspect of a Five-Year Plan with fragmented or delayed data, and without any possibility of virtually simulating the impact any adaptations might have in the plan as an all. A planned economy requires collecting and managing large data, and a computer can do both very easily.

[RedMaterialist]

Computers have been used for decades in the central planning and managing of large monopoly economies, such as Walmart, Exxon, Microsoft, etc.

[RedMaterialist]

Computers are already used to run economies. The only difference is that the computers are just another tool of capitalism.

which can be used by socialism.

[ckaihatsu]

[I]magine the difficulties [soviet planners] had to face to change and adapt a specific aspect of a Five-Year Plan with fragmented or delayed data, and without any possibility of virtually simulating the impact any adaptations might have in the plan as an all.


I'd like to take issue with this premise, just as I would take issue with *any* kind of top-down, pre-optimized, blueprint-type approach to the topic of mass productivity planning.

We shouldn't imagine the process as being like a giant Jenga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga) tower, where any changes or removal of the pieces within might cause the whole edifice to topple. This is precisely the problem with any market-socialist approach since it will depend on some kind of material-exchange ratios, or 'prices', which then creates a layer of abstraction that requires resolving -- per the faulty premise.

Once we relieve ourselves of the need for abstract 'pricing', we can instead keep the realms of liberated-labor and material-fulfillments *separate*, since communism is supposed to be 'direct distribution' and 'free access', anyway, by definition.

I think a post-capitalist political economy would be handling issues of materials-sourcing in a conscious, hands-on way, as a matter of daily political life -- computer technology is good for *tracking* items and *showing* the birds eye view of everything, but it would still fall on *human* decision-making to ultimately decide what-goes-where, and for what purposes.

Here's a model that may serve to illustrate the overall situation:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)

[Gambino]

I'd like to take issue with this premise, just as I would take issue with *any* kind of top-down, pre-optimized, blueprint-type approach to the topic of mass productivity planning.

We shouldn't imagine the process as being like a giant Jenga tower, where any changes or removal of the pieces within might cause the whole edifice to topple. This is precisely the problem with any market-socialist approach since it will depend on some kind of material-exchange ratios, or 'prices', which then creates a layer of abstraction that requires resolving -- per the faulty premise.

Once we relieve ourselves of the need for abstract 'pricing', we can instead keep the realms of liberated-labor and material-fulfillments *separate*, since communism is supposed to be 'direct distribution' and 'free access', anyway, by definition.

I think a post-capitalist political economy would be handling issues of materials-sourcing in a conscious, hands-on way, as a matter of daily political life -- computer technology is good for *tracking* items and *showing* the birds eye view of everything, but it would still fall on *human* decision-making to ultimately decide what-goes-where, and for what purposes.

Here's a model that may serve to illustrate the overall situation:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy



That is a very interesting model. Where can I find more about this?
In Philosophy we call this a rhizomatic structure. I have never seen it applied to economics.

However, even in a rhizomatic structure, some variables have impact in every single aspect of the structure. Like energy or food, for example.

Nevertheless, soviet economic production was mostly linear, and the same can be said about traditional Marxism. The Rhizoma is a relatively new idea and probably will be the wave of the future, mostly because it’s not based on the factory line metaphor.

[ckaihatsu]

That is a very interesting model. Where can I find more about this?


Thanks -- I've been around the fields of education and graphics, so I've combined the two over the years, using freeware, to produce diagrams and frameworks like that one. They are all at this thread:


Political (educational) diagrams, for revolutionaries

http://www.revleft.com/vb/political-educational-diagrams-t111586/index.html





In Philosophy we call this a rhizomatic structure. I have never seen it applied to economics.


Okay -- to me the approach makes sense, since a post-capitalist economics does *not* have to be linear, as is conventionally imagined.





However, even in a rhizomatic structure, some variables have impact in every single aspect of the structure. Like energy or food, for example.


Sure -- that 'multi-tiered' model only shows a possible *structure*, but it can't address the *method* for how a liberated labor could possibly be implemented.

For more about a method, try my blog entry for an introduction to a proposed 'labor credits' system -- the actual model is here:


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://s6.postimage.org/nwiupxn8t/2526684770046342459_Rh_JMHF_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/nwiupxn8t/)





Nevertheless, soviet economic production was mostly linear, and the same can be said about traditional Marxism. The Rhizoma is a relatively new idea and probably will be the wave of the future, mostly because it’s not based on the factory line metaphor.


Yup, that's what I'm thinking, too -- btw, nonlinear stuff is part and parcel of complexity theory, and there's a good thread around that as well:


Capra's Triangle

http://www.revleft.com/vb/capras-triangle-t174738/index.html