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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
“Vanguardism did good” is a moralistic argument that didn’t connect to the statement. It’s as simple as that.
As I’ve explained a bunch of times already: I don’t think you’re ideologically flexible enough for that to be the case.
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.
Even if that was the case: it still didn’t connect with the statement I made. And you formulated it in a moralistic manner.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You stated this:
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.
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.