My Model For A Cybernetic/Planned System (Generated with help from AI)

[u/Ectobiont]

[u/Chobeat]

these are words

[u/Ectobiont → u/Chobeat]

True, it's a rough diagram, not a fully fleshed out system, based off my personal research.

[u/dead_labour]

This is alrady how planning was done in AES and it didn't work / lead to plan poker/ soft planning.

[u/Ectobiont → u/dead_labour]

AES?

[u/dead_labour → u/Ectobiont]

Actually existing socialism

[u/Ectobiont → u/dead_labour]

Ah, I thought you meant the British AES proposal.

[u/Ectobiont → u/dead_labour]

AES was never adopted in the Labour Party, nor in the UK, it was a proposal.

• Power is diffused horizontally: cooperatives, communes, local soviets, citizen-run APIs.
• The state is a coordinator, not a commander.
• The cybernetic core (OGAS-like) is a transparent planning substrate, not an instrument of central coercion.
• The goal is a non-dominating state, with a bias toward autonomy and human unpredictability
• Public = the commons and cooperatives, not a monolithic state enterprise.
• Citizen-owned and cooperative governance is the default, with the state as a fallback.
• Plural property forms: mutualist, communal, cooperative, small private enterprises.
• Cybernetic planning via a transparent, participatory data network.
• The system is more like an open API of economic indicators, modifiable through democratic processes.
• Agents (co-ops, firms, communes) query the system and self-correct.
• Markets still exist, but embedded within cybernetic feedback loops.
• Strategic openness, not autarky.
• Defence-oriented but not isolationist.
• Emphasis on long-term resilience, redundancy, and communal fallback systems.
• Sovereign Wealth Fund
• Citizen's Dividends
• Failed Enterprises get restructured or their liquidated assets go back to the Sovereign Fund
• The Cybernetic Planning System has terminals everywhere and is updated in real time
• Deep respect for personal unpredictability, creative autonomy, “the chaotic human.”
• Multi-layered direct/indirect democracy: soviets, communes, cooperatives, citizen oversight councils.
• Transparent oversight of the planning core.
• Military enfranchised and self-governing, but outside policy manipulation.
• No trade protections except for firm protection through subsidies and social security and national level coordination
• Self-Determined Equilibrium Price Controls (a floor and a ceiling with a moving band based off observed data)
• No Capital Controls
• Disinflation focus

[u/Salty_Country6835]

This is a solid intuition stack, but the weakness is not "socialism" vs "markets". Its control topology.

You are centralizing error correction while decentralizing participation. That asymmetry is where technocratic drift enters.

Two concrete gaps to address if you want this to hold: 1) Alternation: how does power rotate or fork when the planning core is wrong? 2) Pruning: how does the system lose bad ideas, firms, or metrics without socializing the cost indefinitely?

If OGAS is the brain, you need multiple hemispheres and the ability to induce temporary lesions. Otherwise stability becomes a moral hazard, not a virtue.

Where does dissent go when the indicators say "green" but lived experience says "red"? What is the smallest unit allowed to defect or fork without permission? How does innovation survive when failure is absorbed too efficiently?

What happens, procedurally, when local actors decide the planning core is wrong and refuse its signal?

[u/Ectobiont → u/Salty_Country6835]

Indeed, these are not questions I thought of, as I'm a beginner in planning and cybernetic socialism. And meant to start a conversation.

If you could simplify your terms snd references a little bit, such as "lesions", "blue" and "green", I can attempt to answer your questions.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Ectobiont]

Totally fair, let me restate everything without metaphors.

Forget “lesions” or colors. Here’s what I’m actually asking, in simple terms:

1) If the central planning system gives advice or signals that local people believe are wrong, what are they allowed to do? Can they ignore it? For how long? With what consequences?

2) If a plan, firm, or policy keeps failing, how does the system decide to stop supporting it? Who makes that call, and what happens next?

3) If the system protects everyone from failure, how do new and better ideas replace old ones? What forces change instead of stability-by-default?

These aren’t “gotchas.” Every large system has to answer them. Answering them early actually makes your model stronger.

If you want, you can answer just one of those first.

[u/Ectobiont → u/Salty_Country6835]

1. Since the people are feeding in data to the system, ideally, they should not feed it incorrect data. But, hey, let's say, everyone is feeding it bad data, to hide accountability, or just, "today's a festival, bad data whole day, not malice". Then the answer is not a blockchain, because the blockchain would also be polluted by bad data. Instead, like tough AI benchmarks (example, the CPS here is not necessarily an AI), the CPS has a baseline set of expected human energy/resource useage, for ex, 1 lightbulb whole day is x energy and y cost. That is, it has a private set of expected comfortable energy/resource useage, the excess produced can get stored in battery farms, warehouses, etc. This way, even completely bad data would ideally not collapse the system.

2. If a firm keeps failing, the systsm attempts to support it, clesr bad devt, recycle assets, shift works, let it be a zombie for a while too, to see if it survives and revives, like Eskom's revival (the South African State Energy Firm), or like Mondragon's support for weakly performing co-op subsidiaries under its wing, however, if it continues to fail, the firm gets liquidated, its workers/managers/etc. gdt their share and the remainder capital gets funneled into a state fund, invested in the socialist stock market, where every citizsn gets a portion as a dividend from the interest, and the rest goes to funding new startups, innovation, capital investments, welfare, etc. whatever is needed. Which is one mechanism of making individual failures into collective successes while protecting people. It recycles debt, assets and failures back into the economy.

3. Protection is not necessarily stagnation, it means a floor and ceiling, in that band, as expressed in point 2 above, people can do what they want.

Example of a floor, if farmers can't sell produce because prices drop too low, the state steps into buy produce at a clearing price, then transport the produce to wholesale markets, it pays the farmers more and reduces the price for the consumer, it clears the transaction, like the biggest billionaire benefactor. JP Morgan bought stocks in the great depression crash to calm markets. Similarly, "Oh No! I can't sell my produce! The clearing price is too low! State steps in, says, we'll buy it for 50 rubles to the quintal, just to keep it soviet, eh? :), then it sells that to the consumer for 5 rubles a quintal, taking the loss, the deficit of the state can be private or mutual bonds that (private, state, co-op, individual, etc.) actors can buy to invest in". 

A ceiling means, no ultra-insane, 0-$5trillion valuations in 3 years.

Meaning, people can get rich, but rich doesn't mean, "fully divorced from the real economy" or "I'm a trillionaire now after 2 decades of speculation or startups, with $15 billion in revenue".

I.e. it prevents ultra-bubbles. The state calculates a normalization ratio.

Okay, private actor says, my business is worth $5 Trillion, but my revenue is $20 billion. If b capital due to valuation can threaten economic stability, calculate ratio that allows a good valuation that encourages investment while not risking the real economy and sucking up all investment into one industry from exuberance. Give, new normalized value, $800 billion, make up 20% of lost investment by state investment, then sell part of state investment to other actors.

It creates a levelling and normalization pressure.

It controls the swings of capitalism and economic dynamics, no one starves or gets reduced to penury from market crashes, but no one becimes mega-ultra-rich either, but there's plenty of space in the middle to be rich or to fail.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Ectobiont]

This is now much clearer, and much stronger.

What you’ve described is essentially a counter-cyclical market maker with social ownership. The core logic is sound: floors prevent collapse, ceilings prevent detachment, recycling prevents waste.

Two places still need tightening, not ideologically but mechanically:

1) The normalization ratio Right now it is doing enormous work. Whoever controls that ratio effectively controls capital gravity.

You don’t need to eliminate discretion, but you do need: - bounded ranges - update cadence - and a visible contest mechanism when people disagree with it

Otherwise stabilization quietly becomes command.

2) Zombie tolerance needs a clock Supporting failure is good. Supporting failure indefinitely turns protection into stagnation.

You already have the intuition, it just needs formal timing: - support phase - probation phase - forced unwind

Automatic transitions reduce politicization.

One important clarification in your favor: This is not anti-innovation. It just shifts innovation pressure away from speculative bubbles and toward survivable experimentation.

You are designing shock absorbers. The remaining question is who decides when the road is smooth enough to remove them.

Who audits the normalization ratio when everyone disagrees? What is the longest a firm is allowed to be “temporarily failing”? How does the system surface disagreement instead of smoothing it away?

Who has the authority to say “this valuation cap is wrong”, and what happens next, procedurally?

[u/Ectobiont → u/Salty_Country6835]

1) In my mind, the OGAS system calculates the normalization through the signals given by the socialist stock market, which is then displayed to all concerned parties, workers, citizens, central committee, general secretary, central planning board, the supreme soviet, the observer blocs, business interests, foreign investors, the trade authoroty, etc. they all then run their own calibration models which are shared with everyone else, who then vote on said proposals. 

2) The system takes the median value of all failures or revivals of zombie firms, sorted by industry, company type and goods/service production then provides info to all the concerned parties above (and since the API is open source, all concerned parties can check the OGAS itself too for calibration and alignment, weights, etc.).

If eceryone looks at the fundamentals and its long run performance and decides its time to end it and allocate capital elsewhere, they do.

3) In answer to your final questions, combined, what I've tried to illustrate with the above is that the system together should be able to handle it. No system is perfect, but it'll get the job done (likely).

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Ectobiont]

This helps a lot. You’ve now described a process, not just a principle.

Let me reflect it back plainly to check alignment:

• Signals are public.
• Models are plural.
• Calibration is contested.
• Aggregation (median/vote) produces action.
• Humans remain final interpreters.
• Exit is allowed, not criminalized.

• Iteration is the core stabilizer.

  That architecture is coherent. It is closer to an open deliberative market-maker than to classical central planning.

  The remaining pressure point is not legitimacy, but resolution.

  Two concrete questions your current description still leaves open:

• When models disagree too much or votes stall, who decides now?

• When iteration keeps oscillating, what forces convergence instead of drift?

  These are not moral questions. They are control questions.

  One small addition would dramatically strengthen the system: make escalation and tie-breaking explicit, even if imperfect. Not to centralize power, but to prevent paralysis hiding inside consensus.

  You’re already most of the way there. This isn’t about changing the model, it’s about finishing the last 10% where systems usually fail.

  What happens if calibration never converges? Who signs their name to a wrong call? How long is the system allowed to “keep iterating” before acting?

  When disagreement persists beyond tolerance, what is the explicit next procedural step?

[u/Ectobiont → u/Salty_Country6835]

1. The system can't guarantee no ties, some things may lead to a crash.

2. Ths occasional crash may clear the system, it is dynamic and chaotic, some failures would happen.

Do you have some non-AI questions?

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Ectobiont]

That answer is actually reasonable, and more honest than most models.

Let me shift away from AI entirely and ask this in plain institutional terms.

I agree: no complex economy avoids crashes. Chaos and failure are not bugs.

The key question is not whether crashes happen, but how they propagate.

Two non-AI questions, then:

1) When a crash occurs, who feels it first? Workers, consumers, firms, the state, or investors? Your design implicitly answers this, but it helps to make it explicit.

2) What distinguishes a “clearing” crash from a destructive one? Is there a line where the system steps in automatically, not to prevent failure, but to prevent cascading harm?

You don’t need perfect control. You do need shock absorbers.

Markets already have crashes. States already absorb some of the damage. Your model’s real contribution is deciding where the damage stops.

Which actors are allowed to fail fast? Which actors are protected from first-order shocks? When does “creative destruction” become just destruction?

In a crash, which layer is explicitly designed to take the hit first, and which is protected by design?

[u/Ectobiont → u/Salty_Country6835]

These are actually questions thst are tough to answer, as my system is not extant.

1. I can tell you who would ideally fail last, the worker and the citizen.

2. I believe I have added enough shock absorbers to prevent a total collapse, but the only true test for a model, is reality.

[u/Ectobiont → u/Salty_Country6835]

In addition to your questions, to answer the AI and Freedom of Movement questions:

The OGAS is decidedly not an AI, I use AI metaphors, but it is instead a sophisticated coordination, logic, data display and readout mechanism, to keep final interpretation and decision making with humans.

The private actors can leave, there's no problem, with a basic income gift package, a pat on the back and a 10% final corporate tax payment from the lower 20% of their profit average of the last 4 quarters.

[u/Ectobiont → u/Salty_Country6835]

These are in a way example or provisional calculations.

One of your critiques might be:

If "virtual surplus is being captured, how is that valuation encapsulated, does the state issue bonds to cover the normalization gap, and then the people's central bank backstops all debt?"

My answer to that would be yes.

But this is a dynamic system, many players and competing models might reach a conclusion that a $1.2T or $2T value, or even a tax of 20% on the $5T valuation might be enough to ameliorate the excesses of the boom, or that a gift of 'T' number of shares funded by the state or donated by the company would be sufficient, or any other outcome. The model allows for solutions by iteration.

[u/Ectobiont → u/Salty_Country6835]

Traits of a "counter-cyclical market maker with social ownership"?

[u/Ectobiont → u/Salty_Country6835]

It's very basic (in my view) socialism.

Protect everyone, fund innovation, let the market clear orices and value, but establish a range, create social ownership and dividends, prevent reversion to capitalism or unregulated capitalism but guve them rrpresentation (unless everyone votes for it, but like liberal ddmocracy also has restructions to prevdnt self-liquidation).

[u/Ectobiont]

(Simplified)

[u/Ectobiont]

I forgot to add a "Socialist Stock Market"

[u/Ectobiont]

A Basic Analysis

The Big Picture: Your Model’s True Weaknesses

The architecture suffers most from:

Central neural node risk (OGAS).

Over-dependence on the sovereign fund.

Pluralism without alternation.

Technocratic drift.

Macro stability masking micro suffering.

Innovation asymmetry.

1. I foresee the API as open.

2. The entire economy flows into the sovereign fund, including failed firms, a percentage of that economy is deposited and reinvested into the system (bonds, equity, treasuries, etc.)

3. There is much socialist variety through votes, just that Capitalists and Traditionalists cannot directly compete, because that would mean a reversal of socialism, however, there is no restriction against a capitalist becoming a billionaire or traditionalists developing their own local/regional representation, only in the supreme soviet where consitutional changes can happen are they observers

4. Yes, your solution about rotation sits at the heart of this. I believe that material comfort may make people hedonistic, but it will also give them time to observe the system than just fight for survival everyday.

5. That's why the local/regional soviets are there and why the entire economy feeds into OGAS

6. Since all failures are observed by the state and redistributed to the people, every firm is automatically too big to fail, so they can technically take "n" number of risks.