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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your whole point rests on this (debatable) point. But it still doesn’t really connect o the point I made.
“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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
But the party didn’t monopolize power, when it took power from the soviets? O.o
The soviets remained in the soviet union. The party did not monopolize power.
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.