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.
They didn’t, though. The closest is disempowering anti-socialist soviets, but the soviet system remained until the end of the USSR and was the basis of its democratic structure. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong go over it (moreso the first). Is The Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good one on the economic model of the soviet union, particularly it’s later era.
Between 1924 and 1936, lower elected representatives were done so directly, with higher rungs elected by the elected. After the 1936 constitution, upper levels were directly elected:
The soviet union itself was a federated, multi-national group of socialist republics. The CPSU was powerful, but by consent of the people, who supported the party and the socialist system throughout its existence.
One example: in 1919, the politbureau was established, consisting of 5 members (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and two I don’t remember since I only heard the podcast). This was in tandem with the specific aim to fill the soviets with loyal party members who were obliged to follow the politbureau’s orders: Monopolization of power to the few.
Also, corruption was rampant with the commisars who used their official influence to sell goods on the black market. Corruption is also something that doesn’t happen without monopolisation of power.
I’m still looking for the episode where it’s spelled out that the Bolsheviks shifted their slogan “all power to the soviets” to “all power to the party”, but it’s been a while, so I’ll have to re-listen a bunch. You should check out the podcast, it is really good.
There’s also the Book The Bolsheviks and Worker’s Control, which is a commented run-down of historical events how the Bolsheviks took power away from the workers (i.e. the factory councils) to bureaucrats. I’m still in December 1917, but this is already interesting, concerning the “General Instructions on Workers Control in Conformity with the Decree of November 14”, which is also known as the “Counter-Manual”:
Section 7 states that “the right to issue orders relating to the management, running and functioning of enterprises remains in the hands of the owner. The control commissions must not participate in the management of enterprises and have no responsibilities in relation to their functioning. This responsibility also remains vested in the hands of the owner”.
Which sounds pretty bourgeois to me…
But that can’t be. If the structure is the same as in a bourgeois economy, but the people with the correct ideas are at the top, that’s a materialist socialism, right? /s
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.
They didn’t, though. The closest is disempowering anti-socialist soviets, but the soviet system remained until the end of the USSR and was the basis of its democratic structure. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong go over it (moreso the first). Is The Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good one on the economic model of the soviet union, particularly it’s later era.
Between 1924 and 1936, lower elected representatives were done so directly, with higher rungs elected by the elected. After the 1936 constitution, upper levels were directly elected:
The soviet union itself was a federated, multi-national group of socialist republics. The CPSU was powerful, but by consent of the people, who supported the party and the socialist system throughout its existence.
One example: in 1919, the politbureau was established, consisting of 5 members (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and two I don’t remember since I only heard the podcast). This was in tandem with the specific aim to fill the soviets with loyal party members who were obliged to follow the politbureau’s orders: Monopolization of power to the few.
Also, corruption was rampant with the commisars who used their official influence to sell goods on the black market. Corruption is also something that doesn’t happen without monopolisation of power.
Here’s my source: The Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan, S10E86 - The Communist Soviets
I’m still looking for the episode where it’s spelled out that the Bolsheviks shifted their slogan “all power to the soviets” to “all power to the party”, but it’s been a while, so I’ll have to re-listen a bunch. You should check out the podcast, it is really good.
There’s also the Book The Bolsheviks and Worker’s Control, which is a commented run-down of historical events how the Bolsheviks took power away from the workers (i.e. the factory councils) to bureaucrats. I’m still in December 1917, but this is already interesting, concerning the “General Instructions on Workers Control in Conformity with the Decree of November 14”, which is also known as the “Counter-Manual”:
Which sounds pretty bourgeois to me…
But that can’t be. If the structure is the same as in a bourgeois economy, but the people with the correct ideas are at the top, that’s a materialist socialism, right? /s