I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.

I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:

Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).

I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.

What anti-communists do, is exaggerate the negatives while erasing or minimizing the positives.

Ad hominem. I don’t know if Mike Duncan is an ideologically committed socialist. What he definetly isn’t is an anti-communist. The same argument works the other way around. Authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) communists usually minimizing the negatives etc.

incredibly progressive

Never disputed that. My initial claim is that the Bolsheviks monopolized decision making power.

and successful at improving the lives of the people dramatically.

So is capitalism. That’s not an argument that the USSR was socialist. It’s completely consistent with the claim that it was state-capitalist.

Early on in the USSR’s history, Lenin folded the factory councils and unions into the state. This may be what you’re referring to as “erasing worker control,”

He monopolized power into the hands of the bolsheviks, yes. Which was my starting thesis. So you agree that he was authoritarian by an anarchist definition.

There was massive corruption going on at the lower levels.

The factory council members were the workers in the factories. What leverage did they have to use as a basis for corruption? You can only be corrupt if you have some power to abuse. That simply seems like a very pro-bolshevik read to me, without any basis in structural analysis. Especially the claim that corruption was so widespread.

You could argue that the factory councils were only interested in their own factory. This is a realistic problem. But that doesn’t mean any countermeasure is justified. And it doesn’t contradict my initial thesis. It is merely a justification for the monopolisation.

Your quote seems very pro-bolshevik. Especially since it fails to mention the fact that the trade unions were incredibly close with the bolsheviks. I highly doubt that Russia had so little class conciousness in 1917, considering that the vast majority of the election in autumn 1917 voted socialists. And it doesn’t contradict my thesis either.

There was no method to abolish capitalist relations, what was needed at the time was stability while consolidating power in the socialist state, and by extension the working classes over the capitalists and landlords.

That is an assumption by you that additionally equates the state with the workers. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying that you’d need to prove it. And it again: doesn’t contradict my thesis.

The administration and party were not a “ruling class.” Not only was production and distribution collectivized and planned, but the top of soviet society was about ten times wealthier than the bottom, which itself was well-taken care of. Previous Tsarist systems had that gap at thousands to millions, and that gap is even further today in the modern Russian Federation.

Wow… just wow… are you fucking kidding me? So, let me get this straight: you call yourself a marxist, define “authority” exclusively based on the relation to the means of production… but allof a sudden, you define “class” not based on the relation to the means of production, but on the proportion of one’s wealth compared to the “bottom”? Are you serious? Is late 20th century scandinavia now socialist, too? O.o

I reiterate: Control of the means of production lied in the hands of state bureaucrats. This is - by definition - not socialist, but more closely resembles a bourgeois society.

If you want to call them a ruling class (even if that isn’t accurate), they perhaps were history’s least effective rulers at aquiring wealth for themselves at the expense of the people.

That’s why it’s not (private), but rather state capitalist. Just because it’s not “as bad” as something else, does not mean it’s fundamentally different. Again: Late 20th century scandinavia was still capitalist. And the people then also had it better than Russia under the Czar.

I’ve also read pro-soviet works, and find them far more accurate, reliable, and compelling.

I’m aware of confirmation bias, thank you. Are you? Do you think you’re immune to it?

Edit - in conclusion: please try to stay on topic and refrain from blindly regurgitating the standard talking points you use when defending the USSR from attacks from liberals. I am not a liberal.

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”:

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

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.

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

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.