How can you distribute resources within a socialist system without massive centralization? if so...

Go back to where you belong you succdem cuck. You dont even know what democratic socialism is.

Read the whole post.

Terrible meme pic. Have you even seen a single episode of Futurama? Nobody would take advice from Fry.
I'm sure Paul Cockshott himself disagrees with that. It's simply not true of all computation tasks that you can do that by splitting that into sub-tasks and allocating them to different computing units that barely communicate with each other. However, you can compute everything in a centralized fashion that you can compute in a decentralized fashion.

Yes we definately need more Cockshot memes

Dude, market accumulation leads you right back to concentrations of wealth.

It's true that, historically, wealth just concentrated more and more unless capital was destroyed or redistributed. Even if we distributed all property equally, some would chill out and other would hoard. The hoarders would ultimately just subject the others to their will through voluntary transactions.

Hoarding is a real issue. Some communists propose to abolish money, but hoarders could just hoard stuff and then barter with it. Labour tokens could also be used to accumulate stuff for barter.

As soon as humans gained some affluence beyond food and some basic clothes, they could accumulate. I would personally suspect this was also a factor in the inequality of later agriculturalism.

You could ban accumulation, I guess (set a limit on what you would own) but then a black market could just form. In my opinion, a socialist economy needs a socialist culture. There would have to be strong social dissaproval of bartering with a hoarder; there would have to be strong stigma against hoarding. People would have to be aware that hoarding would lead to long-term inequality and black market trade and service/good exchange (a sort of barter wage-labour) and act accordingly.

I don't know about the rest of your post but I would agree with this

fuck off

Real democratic socialism involves central planning

What would you disagree with?

I dunno, but the commie economies that we have known always had black markets and accumulation so what's your counter?

People like Commie Economies.

Markets are the best way to distribute resources and are a natural extension of reciprocity that has formed the basis of all human transaction since we've existed as a species.

That's what estate taxes are for.

Hur dur, let's respond to a point I never made, hur dur. That'll teach me.

I was never talking about whether people liked the USSR or not, or whether it was good forgrowth. I said there was a black market and private accumulation (even with the state to redistribute, I guess). The question was what the guy disagreed with in my post, since private accumulation seems almost inevitable if there is a lot of stuff do to some people being hoarders.

Learn about the law of value. Market are shit. youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

Right, so that would lead to a black market since, logically, those taxes would be meant to destroy making profits legitimitely.

Still better than economic planning, bottom-up, decentralized or otherwise :^)

The way to combat the black market is to make it more desirable for people to consume goods produced by central planning, not the black market. Thus people will have no reason for a black market and it won’t exist.

Right, but I was specifically responding to OP who wanted to know about a hypothetical situation without mass centralization. Otherwise that might theoretically work (if central planning could somehow create better products than market economies and get them where they are needed in time, which it does not have a good empirical record of, tbh. The Soviets had the stuff, just not enough and in time and of superior quality.)

You're overthinking it, just like free money duuuude, fuck you know? THINK ABOUT IT, LIKE FREE MONEY MAN!

H Y P E R I N F L A T I O N

A C C E L E R A T E

You're insane.

tbh, there could be a few more pictures, but Cockshott is way more deserving of getting shilled than many because at least he

in TANS he gives an algorithm for solving the input-output tables in a distributed fashion.
that barely communicate with each other. >However, you can compute everything in a centralized fashion that you can compute in a decentralized fashion.
And vice versa, learn computer science theory.
The internet… it exists

Implying we aren't already there in numerous ways. Our society currently throws away a majority of the food we produce. We have 17 million empty dwellings in the US and less than a million homeless people. Products sit on shelves and people can't afford them, we hold back production to drive up demand. And a massive fraction of workers in our society don't make anything acting as middlemen. Not only are we already post scarcity in some instances but in ones we aren't we could easily be

Really makes you think.

Will comrade user ever read the whole of ? Stay tuned.

False.

Mutualists believe that we need a non-capitalist market framework. From what I can tell, ancoms believe that that an ancom society is based on mutual agreement that everyone in the commune should work until they can abolish work (via automation of tasks and so on). If there are people in the commune who don't agree with that, then they would be asked to leave unless they had a good excuse to not work (old, sick, mental illness, etc.). This site answers all your questions: anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

seems kinda good to me

...

Politically, with direct and radical democracy, just please keep sortition out. Economically, like other people said. Netwoks, distributed, decentralized etc., and the key term, cybernetics. The result should in effect be a sort of State and anarchy at the same time.

>>>/gnussr/

Politically, with direct and radical democracy, just please keep sortition out.
You contradict yourself. Elections are aristocratic.

There's nothing wrong with using sortition for everyday administrative matters. It beats being bothered with endless voting on issues which really aren't of great concern for the majority of people, it's also better than fucking elections and the political bullshit that entails.
For matters like overseeing the operation of say, the medical system, you can just have those interested put their names down and have those selected negotiate and coordinate with those working in the hospitals and clinics. In the absence of social classes and money corruption wouldn't be any concern, and those selected aren't going to sabotage a system they are dependent on (as long as the sample size is large enough to be representative and cancel out the opinions of idiots). It a great way of handling matters that can't simply be governed through cybernetic feedback loops, and well as for overseeing sensitive matters such as oversight committees to oversee changes made to the system itself. Voting to make adjustments to the cybernetic planning system is one thing, actually making sure those changes are carried out in accordance with the wishes of the general population is another.

Oh shit, I just noticed this:
Are you just dumbing shit down for the retarded OP, or do you genuinely not realise that a state is not simply a public administration?

sage for double post

Yeah I know they're popularity contests and all, but I don't want to go with the extreme point of sortition because that power should lie with people, not with dice.

Well I was describing my ideal arrangement, which presupposes several other factors that must be reached first (no poverty, full free education, an information network designed to actually informing people unlike these private-property shitpiles we call "internet" and "mass media" etc.). In other words, it assumes the bulk of people is reasonably intelligent and informed, and can easily find information on candidates.

This seems fair enough, but…

I don't know man, I think until we reach full-on post-scarcity, there'll always be people ready to use their sliver of power, however small it is, for personal gain. Of course, this classless, poverty-free society would have immensely decreased corruption and incompetence, but still.

Why not both? :^)

Frankly, I said it that way because we in this cybernetics thing hope that a computer-"planned", or rather, a computer-optimized economy would act, psychologically at least, as a bridge of sorts between anarchists and Statist socialists. Materialism makes economy be the fulcrum of a society, and leaving a colaboratively developed system take care of the brunt of the work instead of a few porkies or even fewer central planners seems like a good way to sidestep the cause of the rift in the 1st International.

bump

"Power" needs to be abolished, those of us arguing for sortition aren't arguing for it as another way to manage state power, but to oversee day to day administrative matters in an efficient and non-intrusive manner.

The point is, again, that they won't have any real power: they won't have control of a state apparatus separate from the general populous with which they can enforce their decisions. The only people capable of enforcing such decisions are the people that will be putting them into practice. Those selected would be nothing more than glorified negotiators, secretaries and researchers. It's simply a way of solving coordination issues.The other thing to consider is these bodies would be mostly temporary, forming and unforming as required, and even in the event of such bodies needing to exist over the long term (oversight committees for the cybernetic calculation system for example), the members themselves would only be short term: they'd be switched out on a 6 month basis or less.
Taking these two factors together, there's really no material basis for such bodies to constitute organs of power, anymore than a think tank or a scientific research center has power.

I'm a little annoyed by the implication that not being an anarchist makes me a "state socialist" (which is a complete oxymoron).
That aside, I really don't think you should use "state" in this manner, as it creates a great deal of confusion, especially among newcomers. It's bad enough that we have to contend with all disinfo spread by the bourgeois media and assorted useful (useless?) idiots, we don't need our own perpetuating these misconceptions. Call it (the network) stateless centralisation if you like, but don't call it a state.

False.
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbtzT1TYeoMjNOGEiaRmm_vMIwUAidnQz

Sortition isn't for electing a single leader, it's for selecting a group. If you take 2 people at random, the chance that only one sex is represented is 50 %. If you take 10 people at random, the chance that only one sex is represented is less than 0.2 %. It is easy to put in an actual quota for the sexes, but that wasn't the point. The point is that you can make similar statements about opinions people have being represented in a random sample.

Don't have the bandwidth to access YT. What is it?

Sortition doesn't mean random selection, it means random selection from a pool of qualified candidates. Furthermore, in the original version there was a system known as "dokimasia" wherein those chosen by lot were assessed to see if they were capable of carrying out their duties as expected. In the modern day, this might take the form of written assessments or the choosing of delegates with the express purpose of faithfully carrying out this task around the same time that a new lot is drawn.
In Athens, magistrates could be removed by the boule. Other such mechanisms of impeachment and recall could be implemented, although they'd have to be made much easier to put into action than, say, the US's process for presidential impeachment.
The only way that power can truly lie with the people is to have them make the choices through discussion with one another (consensus democracy), and that doesn't work because of the democratic trilemma. At best, you can find out what is unacceptable in the absolute by means of referenda and screen out those chosen by lot if they do not meet the criteria set.
That's, of course, simply to confer the organs of government democratic legitimacy, with the means of violence still in the hands of the people and their own organizations such as militias and ad hoc fixes to those, fluid and non-institutionalized.

It's ideally for the latter, but has also been used for the former. A pool of candidates for Athenian magistracy (their alternative to modern bureaucracy) were chosen by the ekklesia and then put in office by means of the former, but the boule was chosen by the latter and could remove the magistrates.
He posted a series of videos explaining basic computer science. Also, I can tell you right now that there really is no difference between computation by a "centralized" system and computation by a decentralized system. I put "centralized" in quotation marks because even modern supercomputers aren't actually centralized in the sense that you seem to think they are - both they and distributed computation rely on what's called "parallel computing", in which the large main task is broken up into smaller pieces to be solved by individual computers before being reassembled into one final answer. This is indispensable to all computations and works the same universally. There are fine technical details to argue for why one should be chosen over the other (and don't get me wrong, these are very important in their own right - many paragraphs in /gnussr/ have been written arguing for one or the other), but either will work in the end. How well is a different question, but well enough is true of both in this case for all but the most specific details.

does that mean church?

Control comes from the monopolization of violence
Hold a kulak at gunpoint and he'll give up the goods, one way or the other

…
M8s, the basic point is not whether you can ever in some way divide up a task into sub-tasks. The basic point is that you cannot arbitrarily divide up any type of computation between computers located all over the world, and you also don't win anything by doing that in terms of hardware cost if you buy the hardware new in both the centralized and decentralized scenarios. The benefit of dividing up lies in recycling existing hardware that has still unused capacity for that, but the cost of a super-computer to serve a million people is no big deal, even though for a very small group it would be. (The computations Cockhott presents can be done on a normal consumer PC you get from ALDI today, yes for all of Eurasia, but there is more to planning than that.)

You can take a group of computers distributed over the Eurasian continental plate that are working on some computation together communicating over the internet and move them all into one location and they still can do their computation, and it's faster and more reliable. You cannot simply obtain the opposite, point at some computer, and say, let's divide it up, *finger-snap*. Dividing up computation into chunks that are to be computed by several machines with lag between them and some randomly going out and so on, is harder to do.

If everything can be easily done by random PCs all over the world and loosely connected to each other, why do super-computers even exist anymore?

In Athens, the word "ekklesia" referred to the 6000-at-minimum general meeting of people eligible to vote (total population of ~60K).

Because speed changes drastically with scale (simulating a simple brain or a nuclear explosion, for example, require supercomputers) in a non-linear fashion. For our purposes, it doesn't matter, even with an economy with billions of products. A lot of computations are done in the cloud already. This kind of optimization is peanuts.

You don't need to monopolize violence to do that. Nice edge, tankie. What, are you 15?

So, a very important mechanism here is that public jobs are temporary and short-lasting. Seems like a bretty gud idea. However…

So even the power to vote is to be abolished? Honestly, this bothers me. It's not like taking away, say, the State's power to police the citizenry. You're taking power away from the citizenry, from the individuals themselves. It's arguably the most basic political power one can have, and, I assume, the last such thing still existing in this scenario. Abolishing voting and surrendering all power to fate seems, frankly, extremely alienating as well as… I dunno, there's something else about it that bugs me, but I can't put my finger on it. Altho some might see this surrender as freeing, I suppose.

Oh you know how it goes, user. Nowadays, socialist more or less means "I want a welfare state minus private property", including to most self-proclaimed socialists. As to Marxists-Leninists specifically, let's be real: once you create a massive authoritarian State (or organization that will take the place of the new socialist state) to conduct the revolution, that monster won't allow itself to be dismantled or wither away. On one hand, revolution without authorian guidance seems impossible, on the other, said authoritarian guidance becomes authoritarian State. It's a dilemma, but I suppose it's outside of the scope of this thread.

Oh I definitely didn't mean to say that, I'm sorry if that's the impression I gave. To clarify, it would be a tool that would allow us to depend less on the state, and thus facilitate its dismantling.

Seems fair enough. I just ask myself if there would be any problem in determining who assesses the candidates/newly-elected. The meta-assessors, I suppose. I'm probably exposing my ignorance here, but then again, my reading of Athenian democracy is virtually zero.

Which brings me to a question: how long did the Athenian democracy last with this system? I ask because I'm always awed by how Rome had a horde of dictators for nearly half a fucking millenium, before someone really abused it. That's simply mind-blowing to a modern person.

Incidentally, are you aware if someone wrote about the relations betwee the trilemma and Arrow's Theorem?

Genesis has blast processing!!!11one
If your purpose is doing exactly what Cockshott proposes in TANS for narrow planning (very short-term adjustments of prices and output quantities) I don't see why you would need more than one generic PC for that. So what's the point of that web 4.0 inda cloudTM stuff? If on the other hand you want to do something vastly more complicated, why wouldn't you want a super-computer for helping with that?

I meant it literally: the abolition of state power, even democratic state power. If any administrator/public official has the power to enforce their decisions then that constitutes a state apparatus, regardless of how they are selected. Hence I said this earlier:

He stated that an economy with a few million products could be done on a laptop in a couple of minutes. In reality, we're talking about an economy with billions of products. If you want to know exactly what we're planning, we have a whole thread on that. We want to recalculate the plan regularly using in-kind information without labor values and, instead of scarcity-based prices, measure the rates of depletion of stocks of goods to determine how much must be produced. Distribution of scarce goods is carried out by means of what's known as the cookie algorithm. Etc. This would require computation on multiple computers, maybe 300 laptops worth of processing power I would I guess. It would have to take place every few minutes. You could have computation be divided up on local networks to avoid having it be done with computers across the entire world, which is something which I mentioned in /gnussr/'s thread on this.
I don't like the idea of "just leave it to a supercomputer" because that's not feasible given what the project has available right now. We need to finish building an app and build a P2P network to do computations, because that's what will work. The version posted can already run on one computer for a simple economy. We just need to program the neural net and set up the stuff around it (interface, TCP to make computers into relays and processing centers to scale up, make an API to input industry standards, etc). Then we need to implement it somewhere, maybe among the Zapatista cooperatives or to coordinate industrial production for use among squatters in Detroit (I'd love to see that happen).
"After the revolution" talk is modern utopianism. A thoroughly scientific socialism must carry out a sober assessment of the material circumstances in which it finds itself and adapt accordingly.

Let me guess: read Bordiga? "The hell of the firm is that it exists, not that it has a boss"? (I actually agree with that quote, but where he goes from there is a little horrifying)
I'm personally of the communizing persuasion that, in the instance of insurrection, the system must be used without any restrictions on consumption (cookie method or pseudo-currency or anything else) and that the sortition of groups of people qualified to do necessary labor might be forced if needed, as otherwise Kropotkin will be provided right once again and the revolution will come to an end.
There will always be power, and it must lie with the people themselves if it is to be purged from removed institutions such as state and capital. The calculator is just a means of directing it in a way which has the pluses of Bordigian centralization of a DoTP while also preserving a true control of society by a self-abolishing proletariat. A party cannot be allowed to substitute itself for the proletariat as the revolutionary subject.

Nah I wasn't going to tell you to do that (though I do agree with a sizable portion of his positions), though based on your comment about power I might tell you to re-read Dauve. :^)

Wut? This wasn't what I was talking about at all. I was advocating the use of sortition to select groups from a pool of volunteers to oversee certain administrative matters, not randomly selecting people to be put to work at gunpoint, something that is significantly worse than both pseudo-currency and the "cookie method".

In the banal sense of a larger group being able to force its will on a minority, sure, but in the sense of state power? If that still exists then we fucked up. I'm reminded of comment by Dauve: "we will not solve the question of power by spreading little bits of it around everywhere". We won't solve it by creating "true" democracy either.

I agree there too, but again: it wasn't what I was talking about.

Google isn't helping me here. Could you please clarify this?

That's a rule for distributing several units of the same thing to people who ask for different quantities. The silly name comes from an example using cookies. A robot servant has made a lot of (identical) cookies and there are people who would like to have some. How should they be allocated? The robot can ask how many cookies each individual person wants, but what if the sum of these individual wishes is higher than the amount of cookies available? There are different ways the robot can handle that:

A) Divide sum of wishes by number of cookies available. Shrink each individual wish by that. E. g. People wish for 200 cookies in total, but the robot servant only has 100, so the amount each individual asked for gets cut in half, and that's what the individual gets.

Problem with that is that people can anticipate the shrinking and make exaggerations, and they can anticipate that others will exaggerate and so on, with no end in sight. Even if the robot actually has enough cookies currently to give everybody as many as they really want, it can happen that some people underestimate how much others exaggerate, so they get fewer; while some make the opposite mistake and now they have cookies they don't care to have; though of course it's better to have too many than too little. (And not just the present situation is unsatisfactory. The robot would also like to know how much people want now in order to adjust production for the future, but these numbers are totally screwed up.)

B) The robot processes the requests in random order, giving every individual as many units as they want until the supply is exhausted. Now, there is no need to exaggerate. If you want no more than X units, you do not increase the probability of getting at least that many units by stating a higher number. But the distribution can get very inegalitarian, if the requests that get processed early are very high.

C) Imagine the people sit in a circle and the robot moves from one person to the next and asks whether you want at least one more cookie, and if your answer is yes, it gives you one. It moves to the next person, asks the same question, if the person answers yes, it gives that person one cookie, and so on, until there aren't any more cookies left or nobody wants more.

Like in method A), two people requesting an identical amount, though they might not get as many as their wish, will be treated in the same way. Like in method B), stating a higher number than the amount you actually want doesn't increase the probability that you get an amount at least as high as that. And that's the cookie algorithm, whether you actually run circles around people like a dork or just process some requested quantities in that way.

Thanks for clarifying what I mentioned, but please stop bumping this thread. OP needs to go ctrl+f his answers from the SovCyb thread. Anything which we give him right now is only the tip of the iceberg.

tfw I actually went and read Dauve and Martin but am apparently too much of a brainlet to properly understand them ;_;
I didn't mean that either. Both the pseudocurrency and cookie method are distribution systems. The question is, how do you keep up productivity at whatever the maximum capacity is when shit hits the fan and revolution starts? My solution is that people should be organized into self-regulating groups which force their members to do work, an informal industrial militia system contraposed to the industrial army described by Marx, as something for the workers themselves to prevent shirking of war-time production targets. Already, play is part of work under modern society because work in a firm is already stretched to the limits of potential productivity and companies increasingly adopt a model of limited self-management of workers or die out. The last step in advancing through capitalism to reach communism is to make work such an integral part of the direct relations between people in daily life that management from above is no longer needed and SNLT drops to the point that current hierarchical structures can no longer sustain themselves in a market environment, if that makes sense, and generalized revolt is directed then against all that is left in the way of communism, the violence of the state. This late-capitalist inverse of communism, already in birth under the name of the gig economy, must in turn become the industrial militia's organizational basis, with production guided when insurrection comes by seizing corporate ERP systems (similar to the calculator proposed, but these already exist and are used by even small businesses, all the way up to giants as diverse as Walmart, Cargill, Koch Industries, Google, Tesla, Toyota, etc.) and using them as sources of data for the in-kind cybernetic calculator. Whether this mob rule's capacity for violence against those who sabotage it (intentionally or unintentionally) comes into play depends on the material circumstances of each locality. My idea of sortition among labor is a means of delineating and systematizing this.
I feel like we're talking past each other here and addressing different topics. Now that I'm re-reading , I think we're roughly on the same page.

Someone in the cybernetics thread realized something important.
Mankind will be saved from poverty the network called Platform for Optimization of Resources by Keying Yields aka P.O.R.K.Y.

Which trilemma?

capitalist logic

i forgot about the word filter, oops

The democratic trilemma the other guy mentioned in the post I replied to.

Not defined in that post (and don't tell me to google that, there are several incompatible combinations of criteria related to aggregating preferences).

It seems to be just the same as Arrow's theorem: a consequence of the possibility of Condorcet cycles.

Sorry I haven't answered before, I lost track of this thread. 600+ tabs will do to ya.

I confess I don't have the theoretical baggage to compare the two, that's why I asked for someone's comparison. Sorry.

A free market for co-ops, with privately owned companies banned.

The workers own everything, and the workers decide on the distribution of resources.

certainly not while capitalism is creating scarcity either by crap allocation of resources, or quite literally out of thin air (e.q. diamonds).