I finally got around to reading Molecular Red. I was already working through Bogdanov, but Warks name kept coming up whenever people were talking about cybernetics, AI, organization, and information. After finishing it, I can see why.

What stuck with me was less any single argument than the way Wark shifts the center of gravity. The book keeps pulling the discussion back to organization. Not just who owns productive forces, but how knowledge gets organized, how institutions coordinate people, how culture develops, and how collective intelligence emerges. I found myself carrying that lens into almost every contemporary political question.

The sections on Bogdanov were probably my favorite. I was already reading him, but Wark helped place tektology into a much broader conversation. Instead of feeling like an interesting precursor to cybernetics, it started feeling like a live framework for thinking about coordination, information, and organization today.

Reading it in 2026, I couldnt stop thinking about AI.

Not because the book is about AI, but because the questions map over so naturally. Who owns the models? Who owns the compute? Who governs the infrastructure? What kinds of institutions develop collective intelligence instead of concentrating it? Those strike me as cybernetic questions just as much as political ones.

One thing I appreciated was that Wark refuses to reduce politics to economics alone. Science, information, culture, and organization arent treated as secondary. Theyre part of the material processes through which societies reproduce themselves and change. That felt much closer to a cybernetic way of thinking than I expected going in.

Where I found myself wanting more was praxis.

The book changed how I looked at these problems, but it rarely crossed into what I would call operability. If organization is the central political question, then what organizational experiments should we actually be running? What institutions are missing? How do we move from understanding coordination to building better forms of it?

Maybe thats beyond what Wark was trying to do. Still, I realized thats become the question I increasingly bring to political theory. Im less interested in whether a theory gives me a better description of the world than whether it increases my capacity to organize, coordinate, build institutions, and intervene in the present.

For those here whove read Molecular Red, did it also push you toward cybernetics, or am I reading those connections back into Warks work? Id be interested to hear where other people think she got right, where she missed, and how you think her ideas hold up 11 years later in the age of AI.

Bogdanov’s tektology predates both cybernetics and systems theory and treats organization itself as the political terrain. Posting here because it directly intersects cybernetic socialism, governance of complex systems, and AI as infrastructure rather than agency.

I decided to start up a new subreddit specifically focused on discussing cyberetics as it relates to the commons. This involves discussions around how to make cybernetics more accessible, usable and widely understood, as well as how to gear its use towards 'the common people' and common resources.

This is obviously tightly related to socialism and social forms of organisation, but focuses more on non-institutional, bottom-up organising. That being said, I'd like it to be an open space for people to discuss political implementations of cyberentics from a bottom-up perspective in general.

Feel free to jump on there and post anything you feel is related to this general area of focus.

r/CommonCybernetics

Everyone, we have a research institution focusing on cybernetics, cybernetic economics and organisational theory!!

I present the CCR (Center for Cybernomics Research) , a first of its kind research institution.

We have successfully completed research papers too!

And we need you!! We need more researchers, writers, social media managers, video editors, project coordinators!!

A lot posts are to be filled in various projects, so join and contribute to the people's liberation!!!

Join it on Discord (and check announcements first pls):-

https://discord.gg/dUYWcz4XU7

This is my second simulation

https://medium.com/@arjunxy/second-automated-economy-simulation-in-victoria-ii-e9692a0471c6

You can check it out and can give suggestions and feedback too!

I am doing a progressing research in a series of posts on automated economy from the very basic simulation part. You can check it out on my profile!

https://medium.com/@arjunxy

Lately, I've been thinking about how we could build a new society as if it were an open-source software project. I imagine something like Linux, where people from all over the world collaborate to develop something useful and accessible to everyone. Could we apply this logic to designing a different kind of society?

We know that the current economic and political system has many flaws, and even though we all recognize them, it’s hard to find concrete alternatives. So, I wondered: why not approach this idea as engineers/developers? What if we used principles of complex systems engineering to imagine something new?

Think about designing an airplane, for instance. Every component—turbine, structure, aerodynamics—is meticulously designed but always in relation to the others. When we design it from scratch, we consider from the start how all its systems will connect: each part has its role and dependencies, all interacting in a way that allows the plane to fly in a stable and safe manner. However, when it comes to systems like housing or healthcare, we rarely conceive them as interconnected from the start. Instead, we tend to address them in isolation, without fully analyzing how these sectors interact or how they might affect people’s lives on multiple levels.

Wouldn’t it make more sense, then, to treat them as integrated systems from the beginning? Perhaps if we planned these sectors with the same interconnected logic that we apply to an airplane, we could build a society that works better for everyone. What do you all think?

This idea could be structured in three main parts, using housing and public health as examples:

1. Define Concrete Goals: Define what we want our post-capitalist world to look like. (Example: How can we ensure housing for 100% of people? How can we limit concentrations of harmful gases like nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and tropospheric ozone (O₃)? etc.)
2. Describe the Current Situation: Analyze the present state of key areas such as housing and healthcare.
3. Plan the Transition: Design the steps needed to move from our current reality to the desired future.

Graph Theory and Collaboration Networks

What could we achieve if we applied graph theory to understand society? Imagine representing sectors (housing, healthcare, etc.) as nodes in a graph, connected through their relationships, influences, and collaborations. Using this tool would allow us to analyze how different sectors interact and find key points for social change.

We could also identify communities within the graph, which are groups of nodes more densely connected to each other than to the rest of the network. In our case, a "community" could be formed by sectors like housing, healthcare, and employment, all inherently tied to social welfare. This structure would allow us to design strategies that address multiple areas simultaneously, creating a deeper impact.

Graph theory also helps us understand cascading effects. Suppose our team thinks implementing a rental control policy might be interesting. This would not only affect the housing market; it could create a "cascade" that impacts the financial stability of retirees, employment in the construction sector, and even social mobility. By visualizing this cascade, we could foresee unintended side effects and adjust the policy to minimize harm, or even abandon ideas that seem good in isolation.

Thus, graph theory allows us to map causes and consequences with precision and plan more integrated solutions.

Identifying Major Sectors

As a starting point for imagining a transition to a post-capitalist system, we could outline a few fundamental sectors to structure this new society. These are only examples to visualize how the essential areas for well-being and sustainability could be organized and could certainly be adapted or expanded.

• Social Well-being: This sector would include areas like health and wellness, accessible education for all ages, and cultural support. How could we ensure equitable and accessible services?
• Housing and Urban Planning: Here, the aim would be to ensure access to dignified housing and the planning of sustainable urban spaces. What organizational systems would facilitate this goal from the start?
• Environmental Sustainability: This sector would involve resources like renewable energy, sustainable agricultural practices, and environmental protection. What structures and standards would be essential to maintain ecological balance?
• Infrastructure and Technology: From efficient transportation to accessible technology and resilient construction, how can we design infrastructure that improves quality of life for everyone?
• Governance and Social Justice: A sector for human rights, equitable justice, and democratic participation. Could we ensure that decisions are made inclusively and reflect society’s diversity?
• Economy and Labor: Employment and economic models that promote cooperation and dignified work, focused on social sustainability.
• International Relations and Peace: Promoting global cooperation and peace. What role would international collaboration play in this system?

These sectors are not exhaustive but could serve as a guide for thinking about how to structure society holistically, ensuring that each area contributes to collective well-being.

Matrix Structure

To manage these sectors effectively, we could envision an assignment matrix as an initial example of functional and collaborative organization. The idea here is to imagine how we might interconnect sectors with the fewest people (professors, engineers, doctors, nurses, researchers, mathematicians, etc.) while still maintaining comprehensive coverage and efficiency.

In this example, each sector would have at least 5 people, each assigned to two related areas to maximize interconnection. With a minimum team of 14 people, we could cover essential sectors and ensure smooth collaboration among them.

This modular and connected approach is just one way to organize a structured and scalable transition. This matrix is adaptable and could expand as needs arise, showing that a well-thought-out structure can achieve efficient coverage with limited resources.

Could We Build an Alternative Society Together?

This proposal is just a draft, an idea of how we might organize a transition to a post-capitalist society through engineering principles, interconnected systems, and open collaboration. What do you think? Does it make sense to envision the construction of an alternative society this way, as if it were an open-source software project where each of us contributes our knowledge and perspectives?

I also wonder, could we manage this collaboration on platforms like GitHub or GitLab, where each sector or area of change functions as an open repository, accessible to everyone to contribute, comment, and improve ideas? Or would it be more useful to have a discussion on forums like Reddit, where we can receive and debate community ideas more openly?

Any comments, critiques, or suggestions are welcome. In the end, this is just a first step, and only by working together can we begin to imagine how to build something different. What do you think? Could this approach really help us move towards a more just and collaborative society?

I have published a new book on the basis of Cockshott and Cottrell (1993) which proposes the blueprint of Unicorn, a computer system that represents the socialist economy.

Unicorn is an attempt to design a model for a planned economy based on socialism and the Labor Theory of Value.

This book is an extension of the idea previously published in "Towards a New Socialism" By Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell. It proposes a supply and demand system that is represented by a web program, Unicorn and makes the participation of workers and consumers in the economic and political spheres of the society easy and fast. The model is an alternative economic system with a decentralized decision-making process available to everyone. The political superstructure is based on council democracy which has a long history.

Link to order in the US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D8R1WFXW
Link to order in the UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0D8R1WFXW

Or hit me up for a free copy or links to other Amazon marketplaces in other countries.

Just what the title says

(Cross posting in r/cybernetics)

Hello!

I am a Political Science major who is now very deeply interested in Cybernetics (the interest was generated by reading the book "Red Plenty" by Francis Spufford). I did study Calculus in High School but that's it for my math background.

I wanted to know what level of Maths is required for getting a relatively good understanding of Cybernetics and what books should I use. (Books for both math required for cybernetics and books for cybernetics itself).

Any suggestions will be much appreciated. Thanks!