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 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.