The party took the decision making power from the soviets. Or at least from any soviets not loyal to them. Wait a sec, gonna relisten to the podcast describing this.

But the party didn’t monopolize power, when it took power from the soviets? O.o

That’s why I said calling Marxism-Leninism “authoritarian Marxism” is silly, because the logic isn’t coherent.

Of course it is coherent from an anarchist model of authority: It’s a marxist ideology, based on the monopolisation of power in the party. Where is the logical incoherence? It’s only “silly” once you apply a definition that’s not part of the anarchist model. If you call that logically incoherent, you’ve got to point out how the anarchist model is internally inconsistent (i.e. not by relying on a marxist definition).

you’ve given no evidence of me being suddenly incapable of changing them

Lol. As if that’s something I’d be able to prove. I’ve given ample examples of why I believe that is the case.

sbut the fact is that it’s the most successful form thus far.

Your whole point rests on this (debatable) point. But it still doesn’t really connect o the point I made.

which is just generally silly and a misanalysis of authority that goes against Marxist analysis of authority in general.

“Your analysis doesn’t adhere to my model of analysis, which is why it’s silly” is such a tankie take. And it doesn’t help you case that you’re supposedly (still) able to change your view. If you only accept other models of analysis based on how well they fit into your already held beliefs and not on how much their logic is coherent, you’ll never evolve your worldview beyond your already held beliefs.

The “bullshit” part was a personal judgement and not vital to the point I was making. The “class of bureaucrats” bit wasn’t refuted by you (except some form of “nuh-uh” right now) and also not really the point (it was rather a description of how I see the results of vanguardism). The main point was that Marxism doesn’t require Vanguardism, expanded with personal evaluation because I have emotional stakes in the matter and I am not an automaton. Answering “vanguards were actually good, tho” to that point was the non-sequitur bit.

So you’re just easily distractable if a personal evaluation is sprinkled in. That’s not really worthy to be condemned, but doesn’t exactly help a discussion.

I framed it in a practical manner, the fact that vanguards have succeeded in their goals is evidence that they work.

I still stand with the statement that the argument is moralistic, but I disagree to disagree. It was still a non-sequitur, though. Youdidn’t address that part.

Vanguardism proving its practicality by being tested in real life and verified by existing practice is a practical argument.

Even if that was the case: it still didn’t connect with the statement I made. And you formulated it in a moralistic manner.

My views are more stable and consistent now, because of all of the buildup to forming them today.

Maybe. I don’t know you. I only know your comments on lemmy. And those point me to the conclusion that you don’t want to challenge your beliefs. You can claim otherwise till the cows go home. That’s the conclusions my observations point to.

Again, I’ll reiterate, I’m just more disappointed that it seemed you never even gave me a chance

I’ve given you ample. But the you post non-sequiturs about how great vanguardism is when I told you that Marxism doesn’t require vanguardism. That’s not something a thorough sceptic would do.

Morality has little to do with my argument.

“Vanguardism did good” is a moralistic argument that didn’t connect to the statement. It’s as simple as that.

we can have a better convo in the future

As I’ve explained a bunch of times already: I don’t think you’re ideologically flexible enough for that to be the case.

The main thing about cybersyn was the recursive nature of the system. Yes, there was a grand system with subsystems, but the scope of decision making remained in the (sub)-system. The “central” system had limited decision making power over the sub-systems. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have followed the viable systems model.

This is a centrally planned system.

It was about as “centralized” as your body is centrally controlled by the conscious part of your brain. Ask any physician today and they’re going to be able to explain to you how you’re wrong, even though it seems that way at first glance.

If cybersyn was a centrally planned system, then a federated commune of communes is “centralized”. Then you agree on that front with anarcho-communists. But they wouldn’t call the system centralized, but rather federated.

You can’t grasp cybersyn if you don’t understand the viable systems model. Your claims of decision making contradict that model.

Secondly, the fact that I don’t agree with you, and that your arguments aren’t convincing to me, doesn’t mean I don’t still change my mind or grow.

I’m not arrogant enough to think that everyone should change their mind after I explain how disagree with them. I think that you’re way to comfortable in your ideology, because of how you react to what I write, not because you’re not convinced by it.

One example: when I try to explain how there is such a thing as a libertarian Marxist, you don’t engage with what I write (that Marxism doesn’t require Vanguardism), but rather make a moralistic argument of how Vanguardism is good, actually.

I agree, that I could’ve explained that better. But defending the supposed merits of vanguardism has nothing to do with the supposed necessity of vanguardism. That’s a cathegorical error on your part. I can’t help it but assume that this stems from a fundamental need to “defend” Leninism on your part (even if it wasn’t even attacked).

Edit: an example for libertarian Marxism would be council-communism.

A Zappa reference on the internet? Neat!

I ex’lained how it couldn’t have been a centrally planned system, because that would’ve violated Ashby’s law. You replied with “nuh-uh”, because you refuse to learn.

That’s like you claiming that energy can be created, I reply that this would violate the law of conversation of energy and you reply with “but energy does get created in a power plant.”

You have no idea of the theory and maybe have had a quick glance at some wikipedia article.

Real “there are only two genders - I learned so in biology class”-vibes.

and I already proved that I am willing to change my beliefs

And I’m sure that since you’ve done it once already, you don’t need to do so anymore, because now you’ve got it all figured out. /s

He’s probably also unable to lie.

Ok, I give up. You have no idea abOut cybersyn and don’t care about learning anything that could expand your already formed believes.

Should’ve known.

Why does the assumed connotation matter if the targeted meaning was laid bare if not for your stubborn ass to get the last word in?

Want to examine those connotations? /s

You can’t help it telling me what I meant when I explicitly told you what I meant, huh? Are you trying to gaslight me, or something? Because that’s a fucked up thing to do.

I know you have trouble grasping the concept of authority. That’s like… your whole deal. Just imagine being a Marxist without all the vanguard party and replacing the bourgeoisie with a class of bureaucrats bullshit.

Cybersyn can’t have been centrally planned btw, as central planning violates Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety.

Read the encircled definition again. Terms can have more than one meaning, dawg.

Where exactly does it state in that article that the USSR applied cybernetig principles in managing systems of production and management?

FFS, how can someone be so arrogant with so much stiched together half-knowledge? Seriously, check out the General Intellect Unit podcast, if you’re actually interested, but don’t act so smug, stating bullshit on things where you only skimmed the wikipedia page. It’s done by (anti-authoritarian) Marxists, if that helps.

The bullshit about it being “first pioneered by the soviets”. Stafford Beer wasn’t a Soviet.

Yeah, I personally dislike it if people don’t have the guts to call me a liar and hide behind their arbitrary definitions that suit their point best. So I guess we’re all unhappy now.