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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your whole point rests on this (debatable) point. But it still doesn’t really connect o the point I made.
“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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
But the party didn’t monopolize power, when it took power from the soviets? O.o
The soviets remained in the soviet union. The party did not monopolize power.
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.
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.