889
Debating the right to exist
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
889 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
53454 readers
585 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Strategians and tacticians serve different roles because they see different levels of the battlefield, and footsoldiers can see what they directly interact with but are not privy to understanding the full battlefield. Having a fully horizontal organization is shooting yourself in the foot, we develop intra-class hierarchies like managers not because of class society, but because of the added complexity of large-scale production and distribution.
You seem pretty committed to changing as little as possible and not looking at actual scientific math-backed organizational science (read 'brain of the firm').
You seem really committed to fantastic delusions that hierarchal organization functions like you say it does any time it's implemented.
And you seem committed to roles being personified, to people only doing one thing.
Let's say, for example: Sam, who works at the steel butt plug factory, can't be up on the latest sex toy industry publications ¹ and nerd out about it at lunch with their co-worker Alex², who reads the wikis and reports of other factories who work with steel², and Morgan, who has a degree in metallurgy and user-reviews kink³, while they all try out their latest product (a little large on small bodies, put a warning on the box?) and the vegan chili fries at the new diner down the street, while Dave, who doesn't really care and just thinks its fun to say 'i work my ass off at the buttplug factory on Tuesdays', fucks off to get tacos because even though money isn't a thing anymore, 'taco Tuesday' is alliterative and he's all about that. Then go back to the factory for the weekly job cross-training half day. You've got more expertise more perspective and more adherence to any decision reached at that table than you do in any c suite. No authority was exercised, everyone who wanted a say got a say, and the system is better coordinated more fun and probably more efficient than under any centralized system. Maybe they also have a weekly 'do we need to refactor?' meeting.
Tell me how the hypothetical steel bbutt-plug factory would be improved by a single manager who does no other work
¹they're kind of a freak
²an entirely different kind of freak
³totally normal
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I'm committed to building socialism in the real world, not trying to come up with a hypothetical scenario where management is superfluous. Factories work at the scale of hundreds to thousands, not 4 people living an idyllic life, and these factories have massive supply chains ingoing and outgoing. Management becomes necessary at scales like these, because coordination at such scales cannot be all horizontal.
Project Cybersyn was a real, socialist, working system, comrade and it was based on the same principles as brain of the firm.
It was also an example of centralized economic planning and administration, too.
Tankies are like Christians; you've all read exactly one book¹, and decided that was enough and you know everything.
¹counting 'capital' as one, admittedly a much better one on every metric but entertainment value and metalness
I've read quite a bit more than just Capital. I don't think trying to have a "theory measuring contest" is useful, nor does it actually constitute a point.
No I just think you're all fucking idealists.
I understand your claim, it just doesn't hold water.
'Materialism' is not just an aesthetic and flavor of idealism to project, dear.
Hey, we agree on something!
Also probably on roughly what should be done to everyone in power right now, and other Nazis.
I'm in favor of having fun with it, though.
I would hope at least that.
Nope, it was decentralized. Read up on the theory, dawg.
If you call that system centralized, then most anarchists want to establish a centralized system.
It was a centralized system of bottom-up reporting and top-down management, it was an experiment in cybernetics first pioneered by the soviets and most ambitiously by Allende in Chile. The top-down management aspect is part of what made it so successful. I have read up on theory, don't worry.
As @Horse@lemmygrad.ml already replied to you:
Like shit you have if you don't recognize the title "brain of the firm" being written by the fucking architect of Cybersyn.
Where did I say I didn't recognize it? My point about Cybersyn is that it's an example of economic planning driven centrally with bottom-up input, it's pretty standard Marxist economics.
The bullshit about it being "first pioneered by the soviets". Stafford Beer wasn't a Soviet.
Soviet experiments in cybernetics predates Beer.
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 soviet union began tinkering with the ideas of cybernetics, though they never managed to fully implement it. Cybersyn went farther, but it wasn't the first attempt. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by "anti-authoritarian Marxists," Marxists analyze authority by its class character and not as something that can be universally opposed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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
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.
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.
Read the damn book. Sometimes it is in fact necessary to read more than a sentence from wikipedia to understand a new idea. This one's worth it.
Edit: nvm. The Wikipedia initial blurb also mentions devolving decision making in the main thing. Didn't even read that much.
It was a centralized system of bottom-up reporting and top-down management, it was an experiment in cybernetics first pioneered by the soviets and most ambitiously by Allende in Chile. The top-down management aspect is part of what made it so successful. I have read up on theory, don’t worry.
Have you actually read anything about this topic? Besides the Wikipedia page you're contradicting?
Yes, I have. I am not contradicting it, information was sent to the central level and decisions sent back based on those inputs, typically aided by cybernetic algorithms.
Central planning.
I wasn't actually the one advocating specifically that program, and I'm not interested in arguing a Wikipedia article with somebody who's never actually read the literature and understands none of the underlying concepts.
You're reading to confirm what you believe, looking for key words, not to acquire new information. Thats how Hitler said to read in his book. I urge you to better reading material.
If you're too addled by the 20s to make it through a doorstopper pike 'brain of the firm'¹ there was a podcast called 'general intellect unit' where a couple Marxists explored the concepts and went over the key points. Listen to most of that at minimum.
¹not a dig at you; I probably couldn't at this point. Shit's fucked. Kind of afraid to check.
I'm well aware already, I've read about cybernetics, I haven't read Brain of the Firm specifically but have done other reading on the subject, including how to calculate prices, and how to move beyond price. I don't just read to confirm what I believe, I became a Marxist-Leninist after changing my mind from an anarchist because I read to challenge my existing understanding and deepen it. You insult me with no actual knowledge of me, nor what I've read. It's shallow.
Your mom has already done whatever the rest ot what you said said!
Sometimes. For some things. Not always. Especially for simpler products with fewer parts!
A steel butt plug factory could convievably have a dozen or so employees and be perfectly fine, make lots of butt plugs. How many people seriously need to work on that? You're either casting them or machining them, plus some finishing, maybe testing and packaging–and it's a product that benefits from being fewer pieces. I just used butt plugs because it's fun to say and ive seen sex toy factories and single piece metal thing factories, so it isn't a complete ass pull when i think about how stuff is made.
You seem obsessed with these ideas you have in your head, with no attention to reality. You're being very idealist for someone who claims not to be.
Again, you're conceptualizing jobs=people. You're shackled to capitalist abstractions and unable or unwilling to see past them. It's incredibly frustrating because I have to restate every principle every time, and be really pedantic.
No, your example is a hypothetical concocted specifically to imagine a case where management isn't as useful. Even a small factory that needs less than a dozen people for a niche product needs complex supply chains, and moreover is an extreme minority of the total production and distribution. My point wasn't that everyone needs a direct manager, my point is that management exists because it does solve problems when implemented correctly that horizontalism does not. This gets increasingly complex at larger scales.
I'm not "shackled to capitalist abstractions," you're trying to make a point by describing a tiny portion of hypothetical production and trying to layer it over all of production and distribution. This is idealism.
I grew up watching 'how its made' while i did my homework, being babysat by my (pedo) uncle who was in industrial real estate, wandering around warehouses and factory floors¹ no sane responsible adult would have allowed a child near, and learned a non-zero amount of mechanical engineering. I am not a specialist, I do not have a degree in this, but this topic was one of my comfort foods as a kid, and kind of a special interest. I do have a real, if not comprehensive, knowledge base. I have been in factories where complex electronics were made.
I tend to take every opportunity to look in on industrial production, because I think it's cool. I'm not an expert, but I'm not talking fucking hypotheticals here. I'm talking about a composite of real places I've been, real people ive known and in some cases fucked who did these kinds of work. I have some actual knowledge, and youre talking about ideal heroic forms of 'manager' derived from a russian poster² who never as far as i know actually set foot in a factory and died like a century ago as if that information is as good as modern (or at least living memory) on the ground actual conditions.
Yes there are other things. A car takes a longer supply chain, and a scaled up version of this process still works. Maybe you need a premises matrix or slack server and a local amateur sports league instead of team lunches and an SMS chat. The tools dont even need to be made; they exist already. I have used them.
How the fuck would dedicated 'managers' wrangle supply chains better? Why is the factory managing the whole supply chain? Is the supply chain entirely passive and automated and lacking agency? This just sounds like 'great man' fetishism. Get over that shit.
Your concept of management may as well involve phlogiston pneuma and agape.
This may shock you, but some of us see materialism as a useful tool for understanding what we see in the world, and not just an identity to project into everything around us in a manner indistinguishable from idealism.
¹non-operational, still no clue how I'm alive
²admittedly one of the greats.
I don't think you want to play the "experience" game here regarding industrial production. Not only does it not constitute a point, but you'd lose in this instance. That's all I'll say on the matter.
Management isn't "great man theory." Coordination of tasks and functions, especially in an industrial environment, is tremendously useful and necessary. Factories don't control supply chains themselves, but they typically have quotas often pre-sold, and work with distributors and suppliers directly. Task planning, resource allocation, and more is a useful role, which is why it exists. None of this is "Great Man Theory," you calling it that makes it obvious that you don't know what the term means.
This may shock you, but some of us see materialism as a useful tool for understanding what we see in the world, and not just an identity to project into everything around us in a manner indistinguishable from idealism.
Coordination does not require, and in fact is hampered by, a master! That's literally the point of the book I suggested! Everyone can coordinate! It works better that way!
We're done here.
I understand the point of the book. I also understand that horizontalism has some use-cases, but not all. The example of Cybersyn is a great one, it combines top-down decision making with bottom-up inputs. It has management, but is planned in a cohesive, centralized fashion.
Your gotchas were cheap, so I just turned them around on you because they applied more to you than me.
I know you are but what am i?
(Thinks he understands everything because he read one book)
I've read a good deal more than just Capital. Again, though, trying to have a "theory measuring contest" is stupid, and it doesn't matter if you or I have read more or less than the other, what matters is the content of the argument at hand, if it's correct or not.
Your mom read a good deal more than just capital!
Oooh sick burn! I got you!
Hey is... Is she still mad about the thing?