It isn’t based on monopolization of power within the party, though. Marxist-Leninist states have resulted in comprehensive democratization of their systems, including outside of the party. The only conclusions are that you’re a) wrong about Marxist-Leninist theory, b) wrong about Marxist-Leninist practice, or c) some combination of a and b. I suppose if you accept logic based on incorrect premises to be consistent with itself even if it isn’t correct, then it counts, but at that point it’s more of a semantical point than a logical one.

I’m aware of why you believe I’m inflexible, I just think it’s obvious at this point based on examples that I’m more than willing to change my mind in the face of good argument and evidence.

It’s a good thing I don’t only accept models of analysis based on how well they fit into my already held beliefs, and instead by how coherent the logic is. That’s why I said calling Marxism-Leninism “authoritarian Marxism” is silly, because the logic isn’t coherent.

I really don’t think your method of argument based on inserting your own presumptions of my thought process, ie that I only accept things based on how they fit into my current understanding, is particularly effective. I already gave several examples of where I’ve changed my views, you’ve given no evidence of me being suddenly incapable of changing them beyond me not agreeing with you.

It was partially refuted, in that even if you considered there to have been a class of beaurocrata (I don’t), that vanguard systems still achieved immense practical results for the working class. I could have gone more in-depth, but that wasn"t the focus of the comment, same with my point on Engels and you ignoring the main point to focus on when I said it was odd to frame their relationship in a sexual manner.

Marxism doesn’t require vanguardism, sure, but the fact is that it’s the most successful form thus far. You seem to call it “authoritarian” Marxism, which is just generally silly and a misanalysis of authority that goes against Marxist analysis of authority in general.

I’ll accept being easily distractable, I do have ADHD.

You stated this:

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.

The first part is an attack on me directly, the second is stating that vanguards “replace the bourgeoisie with a class of beauroctats” and that it’s “bullshit.” The first part is wrong, the second is easily seen as a value judgement on vanguards as a whole. I don’t think it’s a non-sequitor to address this point, even in the limited fashion that I did, which is more support for my point that you’re more interested in rhetorical wins than an actual convo.

Take care.

I framed it in a practical manner, the fact that vanguards have succeeded in their goals is evidence that they work. The fact that this is also morally good isn’t the basis of my argument for utilizing proven successful methods, but instead is the proof of their validity. I’ve given examples of how I’ve changed directly, but you can even scroll my oldest comments to see how I’ve changed my views, I even used to advocate for voting for Biden as “harm reduction” before I was convinced otherwise.

You can continue to claim that I’m inflexible based on your personal interactions with me, but I think it’s more evidence that you haven’t succeeded in changing my views where others have. After all, you don’t know me, I know myself better. I also explained why I defended vanguardism, it’s both to convince any onlookers of the validity of the strategy while also giving opportunity to change my own views (even if unlikely on this point).

Again, hopefully we can get off on the next convo on a better foot. If I was incapable of changing my views, then I’d still be a liberal like I was over a decade ago. I only came to Marxism-Leninism fully in the last several years, which coincides to reading far more theory than I previously had. In my personal experience with you, you’ve been incredibly stubborn and inflexible as well, but I at least don’t pretend that that forms a comprehensive view of you, and thus continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Vanguardism proving its practicality by being tested in real life and verified by existing practice is a practical argument. It’s one thing to talk about ideas, it’s another entirely to be able to test them in real life and find out what parts work and what don’t. By stating some of the examples of the successes of vanguards, I am not talking about them being *morally good," but practically successful in achieving socialist aims.

I’m more solidified in my views as time goes on and I read more and organize more, sure. I’ll throw you that bone. I have changed my views numerous times, though. I initially took NATO’s side in the Russo-Ukrainian War, as an example. I used to be a weird Market Socialist, anarcho-syndicalist, etc, then eventually made it to where I am now. My views are more stable and consistent now, because of all of the buildup to forming them today.

Again, I’ll reiterate, I’m just more disappointed that it seemed you never even gave me a chance. I did learn about that cybernetics podcast, and it does seem interesting, so that’s something I intend on checking out at some point. I hope in the future we can get off on a better foot.

In practice, Cybersyn did rely on the upper rungs for decisionmaking over lower rungs. It was less centralized than, say, material balances, but even material balances-style planning had lower level rungs that could make decisions impacting their localities. I believe you have an extraordinarily narrow view of what’s considered central planning, and an extraordinarily broad view of what can be considered decentralized, as in the case of cybersyn the actually implemented system was limited in scope and heavily relied on central guidance and planning. Had the coup never happened, it’s possible we would have seen major advancements in economic planning, but that never came to be.

As for vanguardism, I made a practical argument. It’s a proven method, and as all classes contain variance in levels of political knowledge and revolutionary experience, it makese sense for the most knowledgeable to form dedicated revolutionary parties and earn the trust of the broader proletariat. Morality has little to do with my argument. I defend Marxism-Leninism from what I percieve as attacks on it, yes, as defending my positions as an anarchist is what led me to change my views and become a Marxist-Leninist (along with reading more Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.).

As for other branches of Marxism, such as “libertarian Marxism,” I can agree that the tendencies exist at an intellectual level. I can’t agree that all are capable of achieving the same results Marxism-Leninism has proven to be able to, nor can I agree that all are internally consistent.

Overall, I want to tie this comment off with what I hope will be productive for both of us: what we (presumably) mostly agree upon. I think Cybersyn was cool as shit, and it was tragic it was cut short. I wish OGAS, the proposed but never implemented soviet cybernetic system got more of a chance to work, but that was held back by soviet electronics production. Paul Cockshott used Cybersyn as inspiration for Towards a New Socialism, which is as yet the most convincing cybernetic model. As a Marxist, I personally believe that moving towards a planned and fully collectivized system of production and distribution is the way forward.

I just feel like this conversation could have been far more productive had you not openly and consistently insulted me from the beginning. It felt like you were never interested in a conversation, just getting a cheap rhetorical win. You’re right, I am comfortable in Marxism-Leninism, the more I read theory and apply it to my daily life the more my confidence in Marxism-Leninism rises. I have yet to find meaningful challenges to that, and cybernetics doesn’t go against Marxism-Leninism either.

I think the areas where we agree has larger overlap than perhaps our personalities or prejudices towards one another allows us to admit, and that tanked the convo from the getgo. That makes me disappointed, and I suppose my small hope is that by ending my comment this way we can have a better convo in the future (as this chain is going nowhere already).

Ashby’s law of variance doesm’t mean Cybersyn wasn’t a system where the plans were distributed from the top-down. Inputs were bottom-up, and the corrective actions and planning was done by a series of rungs, laddering up to a central command. This is a centrally planned system. It sounds like you think central planning is exclusively the material balances system used by the Soviets, or some other idea of central planning that somehow doesn’t include a system where decision-making was top-down and planned.

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 don’t have it all figured out, never once claimed that I do.

I do, though. Again, I know how it worked at a general level, and I already proved that I am willing to change my beliefs, that’s how I went from being an anarchist to being a Marxist-Leninist. I do agree that you likely aren’t going to change my mind, though.

Because the assumed connotation was what I took issue with, as I pointed out. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.

I don’t have trouble grasping the concept of authority, I adhere to the Marxist analysis of it. Vanguards replacing capitalist dictatorships of the bourgeoisie with socialist states is a good thing, and has led to dramatic improvements in the lives of billions of working people.

Cybersyn was centrally planned, input from the bottom was fed to higher rungs that returned with advice and decisions.

I told you the connotation of what you said, not your intention. I’m not gaslighting you, I’m telling you that when you say 2 people are in a sugar daddy relationship, it’s assumed by the reader that they are exchanging sexual favors for goods or cash.

The connotation is that of the first definition. The other definitions exist within the context of that definition.

I’ve read a good deal more than just Capital. Again, though, trying to have a “theory measuring contest” is stupid, and it doesn’t matter if you or I have read more or less than the other, what matters is the content of the argument at hand, if it’s correct or not.

I’m plenty serious, but if you don’t want a convo that’s your choice.

The soviet union began tinkering with the ideas of cybernetics, though they never managed to fully implement it. Cybersyn went farther, but it wasn’t the first attempt. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by “anti-authoritarian Marxists,” Marxists analyze authority by its class character and not as something that can be universally opposed.

I’m well aware already, I’ve read about cybernetics, I haven’t read Brain of the Firm specifically but have done other reading on the subject, including how to calculate prices, and how to move beyond price. I don’t just read to confirm what I believe, I became a Marxist-Leninist after changing my mind from an anarchist because I read to challenge my existing understanding and deepen it. You insult me with no actual knowledge of me, nor what I’ve read. It’s shallow.

I’m not hiding begind “arbitrary definitions,” the definition you gave literally agreed with me. Historically, that’s the most relevant usage of the term.

I gave perfectly valid examples. When you fragment something, it can be pit against itself. This can be taken advantage of from the outside. At a smaller scale, let’s say you had a union, and had a council instead of a single leader. Said council can devolve into factionalism and splitting, something that has happened in numerous other organizations, and this can be influenced from the outside.

Soviet experiments in cybernetics predates Beer.