Add new comment

Paragraphs 1-2 of this section simply states the failures or main traits of Soviet economic planning; namely centralization, bad management and authoritarianism. Foreshadowing the solution; decentralization, good management, and not-authoritarianism?

Paragraphs 3-5 say: Optimization is good! Profit motive is bad since it’s a simplistic maximization, hence markets/capitalism is bad! We need a complex informational system that optimizes the right set of criteria, maximizing and minimizing to perfection! Foreshadowing: computers will save us!

Paragraphs 6-9 says: Soviet communists had computers too (and the math to make it do what do)! And computers can do ~the decentralize~ In Soviet Cybernetic Communism, autonomous non-hierarchical computers decentralize you.

Paragraph 10 says: This shit expensive af to do, so it got scrapped yo.

Paragraph 11 says: Then global politics and capitalism happened and it was dead for good.

Paragraph 12-13 says: Allende was trying it out (it was p scary sounding), but Pinochet happened (very scary times ensued).

Paragraph 14 says: Anarcho-communism requires computers (and the math to make it do).

Paragraph 15 says: Summarizes bs political science study where his-story is turned into a scatterplot, and this is somehow profound, because it reflects the assumptions taken and the ideological categories used. No, I will not write a detailed review of that study. You may take a shit on its methodology all by yourself if you please.

Paragraph 16 says: Socialism and Communism cannot be primitivist, FALC or bust, cuz u need computers to do complexity. The computers do the non-hierarchical for you, so you can scale up. Fascism is when you don’t have computers to do the complexify, so you try to simplify things with brute force (kinda like what the cited study does) and you scale up thru imperialism.

Paragraph 17-18 says: The lack of sufficiently advanced computing applied to communism has so far made it unfeasible, and the presence of coercion has so far made it illegitimate.

Paragraph 19 says: Communism > Markets, because communism’s math is better (this is literally what it says).

Paragraph 20 says: Some communists have said that Capitalism is bad because of its mathy-ness. No, it’s bad beCAuSe it’s not mathy enough!

I swear this is what it says. But then it says: “ Communism is techno-optimist in its very essence: this is something that certain primitivist anti-civ brands of anarchism may find dif- ficult to stomach, but it is inherent in the nature of both socialism and communism that seizing the means of production requires the existence of sufficiently sophisti- cated means of production worth seizing. Seeking to approach crucial problems such as the distribution of resources and services in a communist economy via a careful scientific and mathematical analysis is the natural approach in a communist setting. Again, if it weren’t for the fact that the current communist (and anarcho-communist) scene has become so weirdly skewed in its views of science and technology, there would be absolutely no need to make such self-evident clarifications”

Please, I’m here for you, dear reader. You can stop reading now, I love you.
Time for self-care.

Ok, for those masochists that remain, let’s keep going, you fuckers...

Paragraph 21 says: Profit is bad cuz math, hence markets bad. (Note: at this point in the essay, the math is yet to be seen. Assertions!)

Paragraph 22 -23 says: The development if a completely new mathematical theory is needed for communism, just as it was needed for quantum physics. (The immortal science!)

TO BE CONTINUED

In the next episode...

“3. Self-organization in networks and the anarchist scale problem“

The enemy has threatened to use math! We will not cower at the face of threats of torture! Stay tuned!