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.

The connotation is that of the first definition. The other definitions exist within the context of that definition.

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.

I’m plenty serious, but if you don’t want a convo that’s your choice.

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’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.

I’m not hiding begind “arbitrary definitions,” the definition you gave literally agreed with me. Historically, that’s the most relevant usage of the term.

I gave perfectly valid examples. When you fragment something, it can be pit against itself. This can be taken advantage of from the outside. At a smaller scale, let’s say you had a union, and had a council instead of a single leader. Said council can devolve into factionalism and splitting, something that has happened in numerous other organizations, and this can be influenced from the outside.

Soviet experiments in cybernetics predates Beer.

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.

Not very, but you asked for an example and I gave several.

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.

I would hope at least that.

I agree, it is intended! It’s also an example of decentralization presenting new opportunity for corruption.

I already explained, I just personally dislike it when people make jokes about two people fucking in a pejorative manner.