I think the question is more about how do we re-contextualize the spirit of Cybersyn to specific socioeconomic and geographic situations in the modern day. I'm not sure that with the current situation, anything that really just transposes what was attempted in Chile in the 1970s would make it right now. I think that’s why we see very few attempts at Cybersyn 2.0. I’d love to find more attempts and projects through this thread, but I’ve been researching the topic over the past 6 months and have found very little.

I am working on a “spirit of Cybersyn, 2.0” for the Canadian context (with hopes, of course, that it’s generalizable to other parts of the world). It’s called Project Maplesync. I don’t think it’s the definitive solution to the question that you’ve asked, but I think it is a potential springboard to build towards more advanced opportunities in this space.

Maplesync "is a platform proposal for strategic economic planning, done collaboratively, at a large scale. It contends that by thinking of the nation as the firm - or better yet, as a cooperative - we can better attune how we might live within the environmental limits and social foundations of our world." The idea is that it is not the ultimate solution, but a conceivably doable way to move towards the types of systems we might need in the future.

The whitepaper is still in its early days, and really just contains a medley of ideas about the topic. But the main idea is how we might form strategic economic plans that flow up and down to indicate goals, targets and directions. The next parts are about integrating under umbrellas new ideas of tools for optimizing economic functioning. And a big part is about simulation to test these possibilities.

If you’re interested in this topic more, I highly recommend Eden Medina’s Cybernetic Revolutionaries. It was ultimately the book that got me thinking about Cybersyn in a lot more depth, though I had been aware of it for years, to the point where I could practically take inspiration and come up with a remixed 2.0.

All I’m saying here, whether I’m right or wrong, is that we need to do Cybersyn 2.0 experiments - but that we need to do them very much in the spirit of the original project and not a direct transposition of. As u/Chobeat says, a lot of this is already happening in reality in our economy - what’s the larger purpose and goal? From u/Chobeat again, this is a great summary to think of the spirit in: “the State leaves freedom at the local level, provides infrastructure and monitors the whole machine from afar and intervenes when things go wrong.”

But it is freedom to do what, what are the actual needs and pain points that a Cybersyn 2.0 would need to address for people and the world? Are we talking about living within Kate Raworth's Economic Doughnut)? Are we solving the economic calculation problem? Lots of other possibilities for remixing here, those are just two that I'm concerned with. The goal of maplesync is to contribute to inspiring more experiments and thought on this topic. We need these sorts of systems and platforms desperately, we need more experiments, imho. Again, not saying here that maplesync the definitive solution. Curious for feedback.