It was a centralized system of bottom-up reporting and top-down management, it was an experiment in cybernetics first pioneered by the soviets and most ambitiously by Allende in Chile. The top-down management aspect is part of what made it so successful. I have read up on theory, don’t worry.
Each factory would send quantified indices of production processes such as raw material input, production output, number of absentees, etc. These indices would later feed a statistical analysis program that, running on a mainframe computer in Santiago, would make short-term predictions about the factories’ performance and suggest necessary adjustments, which, after discussion in an operations room, would be fed back to the factories. This process occurred at 4 levels: firm, branch, sector, and total.
Where did I say I didn’t recognize it? My point about Cybersyn is that it’s an example of economic planning driven centrally with bottom-up input, it’s pretty standard Marxist economics.
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.
Each factory would send quantified indices of production processes such as raw material input, production output, number of absentees, etc. These indices would later feed a statistical analysis program that, running on a mainframe computer in Santiago, would make short-term predictions about the factories’ performance and suggest necessary adjustments, which, after discussion in an operations room, would be fed back to the factories. This process occurred at 4 levels: firm, branch, sector, and total.
Nope, it was decentralized. Read up on the theory, dawg.
If you call that system centralized, then most anarchists want to establish a centralized system.
It was a centralized system of bottom-up reporting and top-down management, it was an experiment in cybernetics first pioneered by the soviets and most ambitiously by Allende in Chile. The top-down management aspect is part of what made it so successful. I have read up on theory, don’t worry.
As @[email protected] already replied to you:
Like shit you have if you don’t recognize the title “brain of the firm” being written by the fucking architect of Cybersyn.
Where did I say I didn’t recognize it? My point about Cybersyn is that it’s an example of economic planning driven centrally with bottom-up input, it’s pretty standard Marxist economics.
The bullshit about it being “first pioneered by the soviets”. Stafford Beer wasn’t a Soviet.
Soviet experiments in cybernetics predates Beer.
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.
seems pretty centralized to me dawg