Yeah but you’re not disentangling complexity as an independent factor. You squish it into difficulty and other factors, and you ignore those other factors when they’re against your argument.
I’m identifying complexity as a major factor, and I give numerous examples of how abstractions facilitated by hierarchical models help manage complexity. You never provide any counterpoint to anything I say.
Beyond that scaling complexity typically means that the larger your problem size is the less complex it is per size unit. e.g. A country of 500 people is more complex to govern per capita than a country of 500,000 people. You don’t make it clear by providing actual data to that or against that effect. You have a couple of fuzzy examples in disparate dimensions but not a clear measure of what you mean.
I do make it clear, but I can use your example as well. There is a reason why governance in pretty much every existing functional state is hierarchical. You have town councils that deal problems at city level, then you have provincial governments that coordinate between cities, you have federal governments to coordinate between provinces. Each one is a level of abstraction. The provincial government does not care about inner workings of a city, they care about inputs and outputs. Similarly, federal governments let provinces manage their internal affairs, while coordinating between provinces. Hierarchies facilitate encapsulation of concerns.
In fact, this works the same way in nature as well. The human body can be seen as an ecosystem of many different organisms coexisting and forming hierarchical structures. You have cells that organize into specific organs, and this results in division of labour with each organ handling a specific function. The organs don’t need to concern themselves with the internal workings of other organs to operate. Meanwhile, the nervous system and the brain acts as a top level coordination mechanism that manages the affairs of the body as a whole and mediates interaction with the external world. You don’t consciously think about the workings of your kidneys, the beating of your heart, or every single muscle contraction that your body does. You think of it in abstract terms such as your limbs that you see as tools for accomplishing tasks you want to do. This is the exact same use of abstraction. It’s a similar type of solution that evolved under selection pressures to solve a similar type of problem.
Likewise as a Marxist you’re doing yourself a disservice basing any argument on the division of labor when Marx identified it as one of the primary causes of alienation and a method of control in his theory of the social division of labor. Furthermore Marx advocated for the dissolution of the division of labor under socialism because division of labor is quite literally the basis of classism.
As a Marxist who actually read Marx, I know for a fact that Marx identified capitalist relations as the actual problem that causes alienation. Marx understood the necessity of the division of labour and he referred to it as socialized labour later in his works to highlight the difference between division of labour under capitalism and socialism. Maybe try actually reading Marx, especially past volume 1 of Das Kapial.
What are you even talking about? I’m literally saying horrizontalism vs hierachy is, you have a Department of Energy in every region or you have 1 national Department of Energy that controls energy in all regions. Of course the hierarchical Department of Energy has power over all the regions energy. Other wise what’s the point?
The point is coordination as I explained in detail in the original article. The fact that you can only see hierarchies in terms of dominance shows incredible amounts of myopia.
Very funny because traditionally syndicalism has always had problems with sectarianism based on labor function, and even the largest and best syndicalist orgs in history have had horrible stances on women in the workplace compared to even just the Bolsheviks. The IWW historically was the only good one in that they accepted women and heard them out, but they were still fairly chauvanist in their gender relations.
You wrote “this is reactionary” without actually explaining how it’s reactionary. That’s not my fault.
Yeah, it is your fault for being a reactionary and not even realizing it.
The point being made is just naturalism.
No, the point being made is not just naturalism. That’s just a lazy straw man you’re building. I’ve expanded on the point above, try reading and actually comprehending what is being said to you so you can respond to it meaningfully.
It’s not even a good example because your argument rephrased is “Humans are an abstraction for a collection of cells”, which is morally and factually wrong.
That’s once again just a straw man you’re building. What’s actually being said to you is that we don’t car about every single detail of how our bodies are structured, nor are these details meaningful to us day to day. The level of abstraction we operate on allows us to avoid worrying about details that are not relevant. This is the problem that hierarchical reasoning solves that’s present within flat structures. I can think of a body that has limbs, that have muscles tissues and bones, that have cells, and so on. It is possible to focus on a particular aspect of this incredibly complex structure and reason about it at the level of its operation that’s relevant in a particular context. It’s a fundamental aspect of how our minds manage the complexity of the world.
E.g. why is a heart shaped like that is a question that cannot be answered by the collection of cells being abstracted, but why does TCP/IP use a 3 way handshake can be answered by the properties of network communication that are being abstracted.
Completely tangential to the point I’m making which is that you don’t even have to think about why or how your heart functions in order to benefit from its operation. Your mind operates at a level of abstraction in relation to your body where the internal function of the heart is entirely opaque to you.
This is not an example, this is School House Rock USSR Edition. You’re giving me the “United States has 3 branches of government that are governed by a system of checks and balances ensuring democratic representation that respects the rights of the people while enacting the will of the people.” You don’t actually engage with how democratic centralism worked in practice, nor do you ask any contra-positives regarding if demcen prevented the things you claim it supported.
The US has been structured as an oligarchy from the start, and the system is explicitly designed to serve the interests of the rich. Entire books have been written on this subject.
On the other hand, we have a concrete example of how democratic centralism is working in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Loas improving lives of the people each and every day. Again, whole books are available discussing this subject. Yet, here you are pretending that I said something controversial that needs extraordinary proof. If you’re genuinely ignorant on the subject and want to educate yourself, which I doubt, then here are a couple of books you can get started with:
Whole process people’s democracy is literally a consequential model. It doesn’t prioritize liberal deontological expressions of rights, it instead collects input from various strata and it prioritizes the analyzing the consequences of governance in hindsight.
LMFAO liberal rights literally exist to justify capitalism. Liberalism is an ideology with two primary facets: political liberalism and economic liberalism. Political liberalism emphasizes individual freedoms, democracy, and human rights, while economic liberalism is essentially capitalism, focused on free markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. These two aspects are inherently incompatible. While political liberalism may appear to champion the people’s cause against oppressive regimes, once in power, it inevitably prioritizes economic liberalism, protecting the interests of the wealthy elite at the expense of the majority.
Private property rights are central to liberal ideology, serving as the foundation of individual freedom. However, liberalism’s defence of private property amounts to the protection of minority wealth at the expense of the communal good. Liberalism justifies the use of state violence to safeguard property, which it enshrines as sacred in laws and constitutions, effectively removing it from political debate. Thus liberalism perpetuates a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many while presenting itself as a champion of freedom and democracy.
Taking the CPC at their word there is nothing technical about their process that creates systemic durability.
This shows profound ignorance of how CPC actually works. Here’s a western article explaining in detail how CPC uses decentralized and local decision making at grassroots level, and that feeds into the central planning system.
It’s not like the system is even set up so that the CPC can practically be defeated only rebuked.
That’s right, that’s what class dictatorship is. The system is explicitly set up to prevent a bourgeoisie counter revolution. You’re so close to getting it!
Likewise the Chinese congress system is incredibly complex, not very simple and creates an extremely large class of legislators. There’s something like 100,000 legislators among all congresses, spread out on 5 levels and across multiple districts. It doesn’t “scale complexity” at all.
Oh jeez, I wonder how many people actually live in China… oh right!
This is quite literally not true. Easy example is voting in the USSR required ballot spoilage to vote against official candidates. There have been plenty of historical examples of creating ineffective feedback loops and lack of transparency.
Anybody who thinks that any system is going to be free of problems and lead to some sort of an utopia is naive beyond belief. Yes, USSR had problems just as every human society has problems. Does that invalidate the way the system worked overall? Obviously not.
This is incredibly tiring because you seem to be willfully misrepresenting what I’m saying. By linking Freeman you link a writer that actually explains their point with examples and systems rather than cribbing a Lenin style of writing and using thought terminating cliches like reactionary, you seem to be willfully talking past my points.
You’re also misreading Freeman because the Tyranny of Sturcturlessness isn’t anti-horrizontalist it actually explains via contrapostiives and trade offs issues inherent to horizontal organization, how to overcome them, and the effects of bad horizontal organization. You are stanning hierarchy, but you do not explain it’s difficulties. Sturcturelesness is quite literally a standard in anarchist libraries because it talks about practical issues and how to overcome them. You do not do this in your piece. You make snide comments about other “lesser” systems while shallowly describing your preference.
You also do not account for the fact that the issues explained in the Tyranny of Structurelessness quite literally apply to hierarchical systems. Hierarchical systems become star systems as well, except the hierarchies tend to reinforce the selection of the stardom. In fact stardom is much more dangerous in hierarchical systems because it often leads to explicit schisms and outright warfare between the party leadership. Stardom in hierarchical systems allows stars to wield explicit top down power which leads to extreme infighting that has been common in almost every ML* government and between ML* governments when the USSR didn’t like things. That’s why the USSR had succession crises.
You don’t even talk about how Dengist reforms allowed China to overcome the typical succession crisis issues found in ML* governments. Quite literally China has had 3 successful peaceful and stable transitions of paramount leaders after Deng. You never ask why or how, despite this being a crucial development compared to other socialist countries and their succession crises.
This is exactly why I am criticizing your piece as shallow and thought terminating.
I’m pretty tired of being misrepresented especially with lulzy things like:
That’s right, that’s what class dictatorship is. The system is explicitly set up to prevent a bourgeoisie counter revolution. You’re so close to getting it!
Because you’re willfully misinterpreting me in bad faith, because the whole problem I’m trying to explain is that you’re not actually providing a systemic explanation for this. I’ve said this many times and using many examples.
China is a DOTP until it isn’t, that’s the problem. You don’t even explain how China’s structure has maintained the DOTP, because if you did you’d sound too lib for your own liking. In reality the Dengist reforms that allowed China to stabilize and keep itself on the rails were in large part term limits.
Deng also did some fucking magic, but it’s because he was magic just like Mao was magic and Lenin was magic. Cat theory analogues have literally wrecked plenty of socialist countries. If you care about the DOTP so much you’d be asking why cat theory was successful under Deng, but Kadars’ NEM which was ideologically the same process put HPR under the heel of foreign investment debt leading to outright liberalism.
I don’t subscribe to great man theories. Durable socialism isn’t going to be built by cribbing the “hard times” cliche but making it red and saying “good men create good times who create good men who create good times let the good times roll”. That’s what liberals think, quite literally, that all everyone has to do is just “be good”. I’m interested in talking about building durable socialist systems because I understand that revolutions are betrayed over time piece by piece.
Nobody should buy this on faith. The Marxist tradition isn’t supposed to be scripture, this is supposed to be scientific. You are proselytizing, you are not analyzing or building systems.
China has managed to pull this off in a very unique way, and that’s great for them. That doesn’t mean it’s a replicable example, nor do they actually present their system as such.
I am to blame for some of this because I set the tone. I am sorry for that. I didn’t know you were linking your own writing, I thought you were linking some guy, so I could have been nicer with my criticisms. It was not obvious to me that you were actually the writer.
This is incredibly tiring because you seem to be willfully misrepresenting what I’m saying. By linking Freeman you link a writer that actually explains their point with examples and systems rather than cribbing a Lenin style of writing and using thought terminating cliches like reactionary, you seem to be willfully talking past my points.
I’m not misrepresenting anything you’re saying. What Freeman shows is that power structures form in ad hoc fashion within flat organization, and it’s often narcissists, psychopaths, and other types of manipulators who end up in charge of these structures. I’m directly addressing your points, and pointing out the fallacy of your argument.
The reality is that power structures organically form within flat organization, and the reason this happens are explained in detail in my original article. The difference is that when these structures form in ad hoc fashion, there is far less accountability than when they’re created with intention.
You also do not account for the fact that the issues explained in the Tyranny of Structurelessness quite literally apply to hierarchical systems.
Literally the whole point of having explicit hierarchies is precisely to address the problems discussed in Tyranny of Structurelessness. When hierarchies are created consciously, then you can implement things like recall of delegates, elections, and other levers of accountability.
Stardom in hierarchical systems allows stars to wield explicit top down power which leads to extreme infighting that has been common in almost every ML* government and between ML* governments when the USSR didn’t like things. That’s why the USSR had succession crises.
Either you’re intentionally misrepresenting the way USSR, or any other ML government functions, or you’re not qualified to discuss the subject you’re attempting to debate here.
You don’t even talk about how Dengist reforms allowed China to overcome the typical succession crisis issues found in ML* governments. Quite literally China has had 3 successful peaceful and stable transitions of paramount leaders after Deng. You never ask why or how, despite this being a crucial development compared to other socialist countries and their succession crises.
You set up a false premise and then proceed to build a straw man on top of it. Your ‘critique’ is shallow and thought terminating. It fails to engage with the mechanics of Deng deforms, the history, and the material conditions that set the stage for them. It’s reductive to the point of being meaningless.
Because you’re willfully misinterpreting me in bad faith, because the whole problem I’m trying to explain is that you’re not actually providing a systemic explanation for this. I’ve said this many times and using many examples.
Except that I did provide a systemic explanation for this with numerous examples which you either ignored or misrepresented because you’re incapable of having a discussion in good faith it seems.
n reality the Dengist reforms that allowed China to stabilize and keep itself on the rails were in large part term limits.
This is pure and utter nonsense, and the books I linked in the prior comment explain in great detail why. This is precisely why it’s so exhausting to have discussion with people who hold strong opinions on subjects they have superficial understanding of.
Deng also did some fucking magic, but it’s because he was magic just like Mao was magic and Lenin was magic.
Deng didn’t do any magic, he built directly on the work that was started before him. Again, refer to the books I linked above for details if you genuinely want to understand the subject you’re attempting to debate. Deng reforms follow directly from the conditions that were created during Mao period.
I don’t subscribe to great man theories.
Quite hilarious of you to say that without a hint of irony after peddling great man theory claiming that Deng did some magic, instead of recognizing the material and historical basis for Deng reforms.
Nobody should buy this on faith. The Marxist tradition isn’t supposed to be scripture, this is supposed to be scientific. You are proselytizing, you are not analyzing or building systems.
What I actually did was explain the problem hierarchies solve and the reasons they emerge in many different contexts. The only one proselytizing here is you with your dogmatic peddling of flat organization.
China has managed to pull this off in a very unique way, and that’s great for them. That doesn’t mean it’s a replicable example, nor do they actually present their system as such.
Yes, China managed to adapt to their material conditions the same way Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, and Laos all adapted to their own conditions. The details of each systems are specific to their conditions, but the core methodology is the same.
I am to blame for some of this because I set the tone.
That does not excuse engaging in bad faith arguments that you’ve continued to make throughout this discussion.
I’m not misrepresenting anything you’re saying. What Freeman shows is that power structures form in ad hoc fashion within flat organization, and it’s often narcissists, psychopaths, and other types of manipulators who end up in charge of these structures. I’m directly addressing your points, and pointing out the fallacy of your argument.
The reality is that power structures organically form within flat organization, and the reason this happens are explained in detail in my original article. The difference is that when these structures form in ad hoc fashion, there is far less accountability than when they’re created with intention.
You’re doing the exact same thing. Again.
You’re axiomatically saying flat systems allow bad actors but hierarchies are resistant to bad actors because hierarchies are created by good guys with good intentions. You offer no proof, there are glaring contradictions. This is going nowhere.
You’re axiomatically saying flat systems allow bad actors but hierarchies are resistant to bad actors because hierarchies are created by good guys with good intentions. You offer no proof, there are glaring contradictions. This is going nowhere.
I’m saying that once you understand the problems hierarchies solve and the reasons they form within different contexts, human and otherwise, then it becomes obvious that they necessarily will form within flat structures as they attempt to scale.
You keep bleating about “glaring contradictions” but you have yet to articulate any. What you’ve done through this whole discussion is to studiously ignore the actual points being made while making demonstrably false claims. This is indeed going nowhere.
I’m identifying complexity as a major factor, and I give numerous examples of how abstractions facilitated by hierarchical models help manage complexity. You never provide any counterpoint to anything I say.
I do make it clear, but I can use your example as well. There is a reason why governance in pretty much every existing functional state is hierarchical. You have town councils that deal problems at city level, then you have provincial governments that coordinate between cities, you have federal governments to coordinate between provinces. Each one is a level of abstraction. The provincial government does not care about inner workings of a city, they care about inputs and outputs. Similarly, federal governments let provinces manage their internal affairs, while coordinating between provinces. Hierarchies facilitate encapsulation of concerns.
In fact, this works the same way in nature as well. The human body can be seen as an ecosystem of many different organisms coexisting and forming hierarchical structures. You have cells that organize into specific organs, and this results in division of labour with each organ handling a specific function. The organs don’t need to concern themselves with the internal workings of other organs to operate. Meanwhile, the nervous system and the brain acts as a top level coordination mechanism that manages the affairs of the body as a whole and mediates interaction with the external world. You don’t consciously think about the workings of your kidneys, the beating of your heart, or every single muscle contraction that your body does. You think of it in abstract terms such as your limbs that you see as tools for accomplishing tasks you want to do. This is the exact same use of abstraction. It’s a similar type of solution that evolved under selection pressures to solve a similar type of problem.
As a Marxist who actually read Marx, I know for a fact that Marx identified capitalist relations as the actual problem that causes alienation. Marx understood the necessity of the division of labour and he referred to it as socialized labour later in his works to highlight the difference between division of labour under capitalism and socialism. Maybe try actually reading Marx, especially past volume 1 of Das Kapial.
The point is coordination as I explained in detail in the original article. The fact that you can only see hierarchies in terms of dominance shows incredible amounts of myopia.
Meanwhile, here’s what the reality of flat organization looks like https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Yeah, it is your fault for being a reactionary and not even realizing it.
No, the point being made is not just naturalism. That’s just a lazy straw man you’re building. I’ve expanded on the point above, try reading and actually comprehending what is being said to you so you can respond to it meaningfully.
That’s once again just a straw man you’re building. What’s actually being said to you is that we don’t car about every single detail of how our bodies are structured, nor are these details meaningful to us day to day. The level of abstraction we operate on allows us to avoid worrying about details that are not relevant. This is the problem that hierarchical reasoning solves that’s present within flat structures. I can think of a body that has limbs, that have muscles tissues and bones, that have cells, and so on. It is possible to focus on a particular aspect of this incredibly complex structure and reason about it at the level of its operation that’s relevant in a particular context. It’s a fundamental aspect of how our minds manage the complexity of the world.
Completely tangential to the point I’m making which is that you don’t even have to think about why or how your heart functions in order to benefit from its operation. Your mind operates at a level of abstraction in relation to your body where the internal function of the heart is entirely opaque to you.
The US has been structured as an oligarchy from the start, and the system is explicitly designed to serve the interests of the rich. Entire books have been written on this subject.
https://archive.org/details/DemocracyForTheFew16147062951821
On the other hand, we have a concrete example of how democratic centralism is working in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Loas improving lives of the people each and every day. Again, whole books are available discussing this subject. Yet, here you are pretending that I said something controversial that needs extraordinary proof. If you’re genuinely ignorant on the subject and want to educate yourself, which I doubt, then here are a couple of books you can get started with:
LMFAO liberal rights literally exist to justify capitalism. Liberalism is an ideology with two primary facets: political liberalism and economic liberalism. Political liberalism emphasizes individual freedoms, democracy, and human rights, while economic liberalism is essentially capitalism, focused on free markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. These two aspects are inherently incompatible. While political liberalism may appear to champion the people’s cause against oppressive regimes, once in power, it inevitably prioritizes economic liberalism, protecting the interests of the wealthy elite at the expense of the majority.
Private property rights are central to liberal ideology, serving as the foundation of individual freedom. However, liberalism’s defence of private property amounts to the protection of minority wealth at the expense of the communal good. Liberalism justifies the use of state violence to safeguard property, which it enshrines as sacred in laws and constitutions, effectively removing it from political debate. Thus liberalism perpetuates a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many while presenting itself as a champion of freedom and democracy.
https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/
This shows profound ignorance of how CPC actually works. Here’s a western article explaining in detail how CPC uses decentralized and local decision making at grassroots level, and that feeds into the central planning system.
https://www.noemamag.com/what-the-west-misunderstands-about-power-in-china/
That’s right, that’s what class dictatorship is. The system is explicitly set up to prevent a bourgeoisie counter revolution. You’re so close to getting it!
Oh jeez, I wonder how many people actually live in China… oh right!
Anybody who thinks that any system is going to be free of problems and lead to some sort of an utopia is naive beyond belief. Yes, USSR had problems just as every human society has problems. Does that invalidate the way the system worked overall? Obviously not.
This is incredibly tiring because you seem to be willfully misrepresenting what I’m saying. By linking Freeman you link a writer that actually explains their point with examples and systems rather than cribbing a Lenin style of writing and using thought terminating cliches like reactionary, you seem to be willfully talking past my points.
You’re also misreading Freeman because the Tyranny of Sturcturlessness isn’t anti-horrizontalist it actually explains via contrapostiives and trade offs issues inherent to horizontal organization, how to overcome them, and the effects of bad horizontal organization. You are stanning hierarchy, but you do not explain it’s difficulties. Sturcturelesness is quite literally a standard in anarchist libraries because it talks about practical issues and how to overcome them. You do not do this in your piece. You make snide comments about other “lesser” systems while shallowly describing your preference.
You also do not account for the fact that the issues explained in the Tyranny of Structurelessness quite literally apply to hierarchical systems. Hierarchical systems become star systems as well, except the hierarchies tend to reinforce the selection of the stardom. In fact stardom is much more dangerous in hierarchical systems because it often leads to explicit schisms and outright warfare between the party leadership. Stardom in hierarchical systems allows stars to wield explicit top down power which leads to extreme infighting that has been common in almost every ML* government and between ML* governments when the USSR didn’t like things. That’s why the USSR had succession crises.
You don’t even talk about how Dengist reforms allowed China to overcome the typical succession crisis issues found in ML* governments. Quite literally China has had 3 successful peaceful and stable transitions of paramount leaders after Deng. You never ask why or how, despite this being a crucial development compared to other socialist countries and their succession crises.
This is exactly why I am criticizing your piece as shallow and thought terminating.
I’m pretty tired of being misrepresented especially with lulzy things like:
Because you’re willfully misinterpreting me in bad faith, because the whole problem I’m trying to explain is that you’re not actually providing a systemic explanation for this. I’ve said this many times and using many examples.
China is a DOTP until it isn’t, that’s the problem. You don’t even explain how China’s structure has maintained the DOTP, because if you did you’d sound too lib for your own liking. In reality the Dengist reforms that allowed China to stabilize and keep itself on the rails were in large part term limits.
Deng also did some fucking magic, but it’s because he was magic just like Mao was magic and Lenin was magic. Cat theory analogues have literally wrecked plenty of socialist countries. If you care about the DOTP so much you’d be asking why cat theory was successful under Deng, but Kadars’ NEM which was ideologically the same process put HPR under the heel of foreign investment debt leading to outright liberalism.
I don’t subscribe to great man theories. Durable socialism isn’t going to be built by cribbing the “hard times” cliche but making it red and saying “good men create good times who create good men who create good times let the good times roll”. That’s what liberals think, quite literally, that all everyone has to do is just “be good”. I’m interested in talking about building durable socialist systems because I understand that revolutions are betrayed over time piece by piece.
Nobody should buy this on faith. The Marxist tradition isn’t supposed to be scripture, this is supposed to be scientific. You are proselytizing, you are not analyzing or building systems.
China has managed to pull this off in a very unique way, and that’s great for them. That doesn’t mean it’s a replicable example, nor do they actually present their system as such.
I am to blame for some of this because I set the tone. I am sorry for that. I didn’t know you were linking your own writing, I thought you were linking some guy, so I could have been nicer with my criticisms. It was not obvious to me that you were actually the writer.
I’m not misrepresenting anything you’re saying. What Freeman shows is that power structures form in ad hoc fashion within flat organization, and it’s often narcissists, psychopaths, and other types of manipulators who end up in charge of these structures. I’m directly addressing your points, and pointing out the fallacy of your argument.
The reality is that power structures organically form within flat organization, and the reason this happens are explained in detail in my original article. The difference is that when these structures form in ad hoc fashion, there is far less accountability than when they’re created with intention.
Literally the whole point of having explicit hierarchies is precisely to address the problems discussed in Tyranny of Structurelessness. When hierarchies are created consciously, then you can implement things like recall of delegates, elections, and other levers of accountability.
Either you’re intentionally misrepresenting the way USSR, or any other ML government functions, or you’re not qualified to discuss the subject you’re attempting to debate here.
You set up a false premise and then proceed to build a straw man on top of it. Your ‘critique’ is shallow and thought terminating. It fails to engage with the mechanics of Deng deforms, the history, and the material conditions that set the stage for them. It’s reductive to the point of being meaningless.
Except that I did provide a systemic explanation for this with numerous examples which you either ignored or misrepresented because you’re incapable of having a discussion in good faith it seems.
This is pure and utter nonsense, and the books I linked in the prior comment explain in great detail why. This is precisely why it’s so exhausting to have discussion with people who hold strong opinions on subjects they have superficial understanding of.
Deng didn’t do any magic, he built directly on the work that was started before him. Again, refer to the books I linked above for details if you genuinely want to understand the subject you’re attempting to debate. Deng reforms follow directly from the conditions that were created during Mao period.
Quite hilarious of you to say that without a hint of irony after peddling great man theory claiming that Deng did some magic, instead of recognizing the material and historical basis for Deng reforms.
What I actually did was explain the problem hierarchies solve and the reasons they emerge in many different contexts. The only one proselytizing here is you with your dogmatic peddling of flat organization.
Yes, China managed to adapt to their material conditions the same way Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, and Laos all adapted to their own conditions. The details of each systems are specific to their conditions, but the core methodology is the same.
That does not excuse engaging in bad faith arguments that you’ve continued to make throughout this discussion.
You’re doing the exact same thing. Again.
You’re axiomatically saying flat systems allow bad actors but hierarchies are resistant to bad actors because hierarchies are created by good guys with good intentions. You offer no proof, there are glaring contradictions. This is going nowhere.
I’m saying that once you understand the problems hierarchies solve and the reasons they form within different contexts, human and otherwise, then it becomes obvious that they necessarily will form within flat structures as they attempt to scale.
You keep bleating about “glaring contradictions” but you have yet to articulate any. What you’ve done through this whole discussion is to studiously ignore the actual points being made while making demonstrably false claims. This is indeed going nowhere.