VSM / Credit Commons

To what do you expect to apply the VSM? How well can you identify the operational environment(s)? What are the viable entities? Is the intention to incentivize co-operation between existing mutual credit service providers or simply to co-ordinate those not yet brought into existence? If the former, is the intention to align them towards a consistent model (potential dangerous variety attenuation)? In that case, what is offered as incentives in the resource bargains? If the latter, to what extent are the not yet founded entities intended to be viable (i.e. to form and maintain their own distinct identities and ethos)? To what extent will they be autonomous?

The VSM is a tool to assist in the effective management of viable entities within their operational environment. It's a variety management tool - a very powerful diagnostic model as well as a design aid. It is not, however, a turnkey solution to an unspecified problem. It takes a lot of time and effort to apply it. However, the large collection of tools associated with the VSM are generally extremely useful in their own right, without attempting to exploit the full power of the VSM as a cat-herding tool.

The VSM becomes increasingly important the greater the number and diversity of viable entities (cats) to be co-ordinated (herded towards greater synergy) - but it becomes decreasingly relevant if those entities are not really viable. Autonomy is negotiated through "resource bargains", so entities at each level of recursion need to have something advantageous to offer those at the level below; otherwise the sacrifice of autonomy is likely to attenuate adaptive variety.

Although this group has been focussing upon a particular model of mutual credit, the tools needed to support it would be equally applicable to a divsity of other models and entities (including credit unions, CDFIs and the Open Money approach to mutual credit). To me it makes no sense whatsoever to focus only upon one particular subset of solutions when by pooling resources we could develop and configure a highly modular collection of widely-applicable software components. This would accelerate development, greatly increase adaptivity and ensure a longer term resilience for the the entire collection of tools. The VSM could certainly help in the management of such a collaborative project.

Credit unions are (in my opinion) a particularly obvious potential beneficiary of a tools designed to support the VSM itself. Well-established algedonics exist in the form of PEARLS ratios but CUs lack an effective metasystem to support them collectively. It has been a continuing source of frustration to me that CUs have not co-operated to address this problem (or even recognize the issue). Addressing this was one of the objectives of the CUPRIUM ecosystem, but that has been on ice for many years. These days we could address this issue collectively if we collaborate, and the tools developed would be largely applicable to other components within the ecosystem.

Even if we don't all agree on where the priorities lie or where our individual efforts can be applied most productively, I believe we all have a lot to gain by effective collaboration.

I've scribbled this in rather a hurry, so my points may not be entirely clear. If anyone would like to discuss these points further, please feel free to contact me. We can easily arrange an ad hoc Zoom meeting.

@johnwaters I'm interested in a meeting, but want to do some prep first. We had a conversation about VSM in this group https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Mutual_Coordination_Economics_Working_Group in 2017 but it never went anywhere. Would need to get my head back into it.

@bobhaugen The VSM may be a side-issue at this stage (in that it's something that can be approached in due course and in digestible bites). In the shorter term I'd like to talk about how we can pool resources more effectively in order both to make faster headway and build a more powerful and resilient set of tools. In both cases it's all about variety management.

I've no practical experience of VSM but am unexcited by it as a 'magic machine'. Seems to me like an assembly of abstract cyber concepts, hung on an old (60s) model of body-brain. Reading the Medina book Cybernetic Revolutionaries it seems plain that what was brilliant about Beer's Chilean intervention was the highly intense, politicised and improvisatory labour done by Allende's geekier lieutentants - and Beer's willingness to particpate in that mode. There was a lot of living brain power mobilised there. VSM seems a small part of what they in fact did? But the most newsworthy, and geek-appealing

As with any formally codified process-machine, everything hangs on the real-world translations at each end. What goes on in the formal machine-domain is only a piece of the whole, and it's the translation practices, into and out of the domain, that are key? Live labour, skill, sensitivity, vision, language, culture, organisation.

Good questions - I've invited Jon and Angela to this thread, and Dil and Trevor are already part of it.

The VSM is often misrepresented by people who know very little about it. It's not a pot-noodle turnkey solution, and it's unhelpful to see it as a solution in search of a problem. It does however help if one understands the meaning of such terms as "viable", "model", "variety", "requisite variety", "autonomy", "system" and "purpose". Most of the time, if you or the systems in which you are embedded are already "viable" (i.e. able to maintain your existence and identity within whatever environment you operate) then you probably don't need to know a great deal about the VSM. On the other hand, where you can see an advantage to getting a larger number of autonomous viable entities (including people, businesses, other organizations, communities and governments at every scale) to co-operate effectively and beneficially, then the VSM becomes a very useful tool if you're prepared to put in the graft. Other tools don't integrate environment, operations and management in this way, or focus upon the management of variety (in Ashby's sense), but Ashby's Law will assert itself so it's wise to be prepared.

Thanks @johnwaters seems to me this is emphasises points equivalent to some I made.
- VSM is not to be treated as 'pot-noodle, turnkey' or a solution in search of a problem - ie, not 'a magic machine'
- VSM is perhaps more of a culture than a computational regime - or at least, a linguistic resource:"viable", "model", "variety", "requisite variety", "autonomy", "system", "purpose" etc
- "where you can see an advantage to getting a larger number of autonomous viable entities . . to co-operate effectively and beneficially, then . . put in the graft". These are the working translations into and out-of the representational domain - IMO this is where the rubber hits the road. Co-operating effectively and putting in the (cultural and technical) graft seem to me to be the key qualities of the Chilean 'VSM' episode?

I accept that rigorously deployed, VSM (The Culture) can organise a lot of work. So can other approaches to rigorous reflection and collaboration? Where geekiness is appealing (cyber modules, computational machinery), maybe VSM has a cultural edge?

It's not that simple. Different tools fit different applications. The VSM is model of any viable system, so if a system is viable the model applies and if the model doesn't apply then the system isn't viable. However, it is unhelpful to describe a model as "correct" or "incorrect" - it is more or less useful depending on how it is used. The modeller is a part of the system, as is the environment in which the system operates, and the model maps on to both the VS and its environment.

I don't understand why you use the word "culture". I don't mean I think you're wrong, just that I don't understand and don't have time to clamber across that semantic bridge right now.

However, the VSM does provide a useful language in which to discuss viable systems even when only a small part of it is used. The characterization of "subsystems" (known by convention as Systems 1, 2, 3, 3* 4 and 5 despite not conforming to generally accepted definitions of "system") identifying essential functions (such as operations; autonomics; steering; navigation; horizon scanning; preservation of identity, ethos and policy; internal conflict-resolution and stabilization; adaptation; etc.) is valuable in itself, even though applied to a single "system in focus" (SiF). The ability to identify paths of variety diffusion, and the ability to identify potential pathologies, is a bonus that comes from looking at the system from a "higher" level. The "principles of organization" and the "axioms of management" enable the model to be extended "vertically" (along a "recursive dimension") or "horizontally" (including via "transducers" between the operation and its environment), but that's only possible once that SiF has been identified, modelled, picked apart or whatever else analysis demands.

The recursive embedments are not a unique characteristic of the VSM. It is a class of holon, one of many. A much simpler holonic model is the "chaord" developed by Dee Hock for the management of the Visa networks, but that's very different. The VSM is far more richly structured, powerful and revealing. (The VSM has been used to model all manner of systems from countries to beehives, from slime moulds to natural language, and few ever do more than scratch the surface.)

The VSM builds upon the powerful foundations laid by Ross Ashby and colleagues (including the Law of Requisite Variety, the Conant-Ashby Theorem and the "Ashbean Homeostats"), themselves built upon the foundations laid by Shannon, Somerhoff and countless toplogists, set theorists and other mathematicians. These are areas where most people can't be expected to dive, and yet the power of the VSM is limited without some understanding of these foundations. That's why multiple perspectives from a diversity of people with some VSM experience can be far more valuable than attempting and autodidactic DIY approach. However, even a limited subset of the VSM toolkit can be extremely helpful.

The extinction crisis is creeping up the agenda at last. People get it now – we’re on the wrong path. What’s missing is a plan to get us off it, or at least deal with the crash.
I think we have the team to come up with that plan, and get it implemented, but only if:
1. we work out how to get them communicating effectively.
2. we work out a plan that generates solutions, agreement, direction, and transfers wealth to the new economy.
3. we translate for a less-specialised audience.
4. we deliver that translation to as many people as possible (I guess, starting with early adopters).
It will have to be an agile plan, because if it works anywhere near as well as it could, things will be constantly emerging.
At the moment, we don’t have a big audience, and therefore no power. Insead, idiots have all the power. And egocentric, untrustworthy idiots at that.
Let’s suck it and see – conferences, forums, blogs, MOOCs, VSM, books, video, campaigns, sharing.
John – I can follow your argument, just about, but it’s a conversation you need to have with VSM specialists. I’d like to hear it, and try to translate it for a general audience.
I liked ‘getting a larger number of autonomous viable entities (including people, businesses, other organizations, communities and governments at every scale) to co-operate effectively and beneficially, then the VSM becomes a very useful tool if you're prepared to put in the graft.’ - yes, that’s it. And I guess we might get people to put in the graft if the prize is big enough.
But I do know that Credit Commons is central, and essential. It’s not something that can be left out – nothing else is going to work as long as we have a centralised money system based on debt and compound interest.