I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.

You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).

“Left” anti-communism is a known phenomenon, and is well-described by Michael Parenti in Blackshirts and Reds, excerpt here. The entire “authoritarian/libertarian” spectrum as a construct is woefully used as a club against existing socialist states, I’ve no doubt that had Allende’s Chile lasted longer than a couple of years, these same “left” anti-communists would bleat and whine about it with the same ferocity they do Cuba, the PRC, USSR, etc, for the sin of actually existing in the real world and dealing with the complexities that entails.

Capitalism has not been generally progressive, evenly so. Socialism in the USSR was intentionally directed towards uplifting the working classes, and as such came with dramatic expansions in safety nets and democratization of the economy, all without relying on imperialism like the Nordic countries do for their safety nets.

The state incorporating the soviets into one unified system expanded working class power. If this is “authoritarian” for the anarchists, then all Marxism is authoritarian, as all Marxists support the use of the state through socialism to bring about communism. This is why you contradict yourself when you claim some Marxists aren’t authoritarian, by your standards, all Marxists should be. The conclusion is that your understanding of Marxism in general is severely lacking, which coincides with the Engels hatred.

My quotes are pro-bolshevik, yes, as they are pro-Marxist, and historically accurate for the time. When you genuinely look at the history of the soviet union, assuming you are generally progressive, the bolsheviks were correct the vast majority of the time. The trade unions were closer to the bolsheviks, because they were more progressive and more class aware as organized workers themselves. The corruption going on at the local level could only have been resolved through unity, which did end up resolving the problems. The countermeasure resulted in a working, effective system with working class control.

As for “voting socialist,” you mean voting Socialist Revolutionary, which was an idealist group that rejected theory, and had a split right before the election, without the majority of voters knowing. The working class rallied around the bolsheviks as they were correct and effective. The SRs often engaged in terrorism, rejected theory, and wanted to preserve capitalism.

As for the state being equated to workers, that’s partially true. The state was under the control of the working classes, not just through democratic measures, but also through how ownership of production was distributed. Collectivized production was the basis of the soviet economy for most of its existence.

As for class, no, I don’t define it as wealth. I define it as relations to production. My point about wealth distribution was to show that even if we took your false analysis of administration as a distinct class, we can see that they were remarkably terrible at being one. The truth is that administration is not a distinct class, just like managers are not a distinct class but a subsection of a broader class. Production and distribution was collectivized, ergo administrators were not their own class, and further evidence is provided by them being unable to abuse their positions to balloon their living conditions like ruling classes do.

This is why I say that talking with you is a lost cause, you immediately assume the worst interpretation of what I say. It’s dishonest.

Production and distribution in a collectivized society being planned by administrators is socialist. The working classes also had direct input through the soviet system, and production was primarily oriented to fulfilling needs. This is textbook socialism. The only time you could argue they were state capitalist was during the NEP, where the state had supremacy over a mixed economy, but modern Marxists describe this as a socialist market economy to distinguish from the state capitalism of the Republic of Korea, US Empire, Nordic countries, etc. In truly state capitalist countries (not socialist market economies), private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state is under the control of the bourgeoisie. This was not the case at any point in the USSR, not even during the NEP.

I read pro and anti-soviet works as an anarchist. Becoming a Marxist-Leninist involved reading both sides of the arguments and ultimately coming to the conclusion that the Marxists were correct, not the anarchists nor the liberals. I understand that you say you aren’t a liberal, but you’re very comfortably occupying the positions Michael Parenti describes in “Left” anti-communism. If you’re going to repeat the same misunderstandings of the soviet system, and the same misunderstandings of Marxism, then you’re going to get the same solid evidence countering those positions I use with everyone.

The thing with the USSR (and every socialist country) is that they are real places, with real positives and real negatives. As such, there exists individual evidence of corruption, such as some people selling goods on the black market. What anti-communists do, is exaggerate the negatives while erasing or minimizing the positives. The USSR was not a perfect country, and that has never been my argument, but it was incredibly progressive and successful at improving the lives of the people dramatically. These people supported the system.

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,” but what’s important is the context. There was massive corruption going on at the lower levels. From The Trade Union Movement in Soviet Russia:

The factory committees became more and more powerful, grouping behind them as they did a huge number of workers who, at that time, were probably unaware of the true character of the trade union movement. The formation of the committees corresponded to a simple conception in the conflict with the employers. The workers were ever ready to follow the counsels of the committee, the members of whom they knew personally. But as yet, they followed their leaders blindly and with none of the labour discipline and class consciousness which are the real bases of the trade union movement. Most of the committees only considered the individual interests of their own undertaking, and their main object was to keep their undertaking working irrespective of how the others were faring. They even went the length, in conjunction with the employers, of raising the price of the articles they manufactured. And they ended by disorganising the whole of the national economy as, in order to obtain raw materials and fuel for their personal requirements, they sent agents into the provinces, who often bought at ridiculously high prices.

The trade unions, on the contrary, being less concerned with petty local and private interests, realised far more vividly than did the factory committees the necessity of improving economic conditions.

The union system replaced the factory committee system. This solved the problems of the latter, strengthening the socialist system and improving development, which was the fastest route to improving the lives of the working classes.

As for your bit on 1917, this is before the establishment of the USSR, and right towards the beginnings of the Russian Civil War. 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. This period was followed by the New Economic Policy, which was described as “state capitalist,” before transitioning to the early soviet planned economy.

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.

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. The most important administrators largely lived in fancier apartments with faster access to luxury goods, they didn’t live like the former Tsar nor like modern billionaires.

All in all, I’ve done my fair share of reading critiques of the USSR. After all, I used to agree with them! I’ve also read pro-soviet works, and find them far more accurate, reliable, and compelling. I think you owe it to yourself to do the same for the sake of your own growth, Blackshirts and Reds is an excellent place to start. Here’s an audiobook link if you prefer, or even Michael Parenti’s 1986 speech, you did mention liking podcasts. For podcasts, I’ve heard good things about The Sickle and the Hammer and Actually Existing Socialism, and I personally also like Blowback (though the latter is more about US imperialism against Iraq, Cuba, the DPRK, etc).

Yep, everyone who disagrees with the liberal narrative is paid to do so.

Again, when you refer to northern Koreans the same way European colonizers refer to Africans, especially those who visited or lived in the colonies, you’re being chauvanistic.

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.

When you refer to northern Koreans the same way European colonizers refer to Africans, especially those who visited or lived in the colonies, you’re being chauvanistic.

The soviets remained in the soviet union. The party did not monopolize power.

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.