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
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.
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.
Even if that was the case: it still didn't connect with the statement I made. And you formulated it in a moralistic manner.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You stated this:
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.
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.
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!