However, the dismissal of hierarchies is a reactionary position because their structural purpose facilitates scaling complexity
They mean efficiency… Not complexity. Inherent complexity scales with the problem and its optimal solution. Hierarchies actually make a trade to add complexity and increase fragility to ease difficulty. In horizontal structures you’d have to do something across all your units which is simple but scales in difficulty across how many units you have. In a hierarchy you’d have to interact with the abstraction in the applicable way if it exists, which is more complex to understand but may be more efficient and simpler in comparison.
So instead of having to ask 50 people who have the same function in different regions, you could ask 1 person who has power over that function in 50 regions. At the same time, if something were to happen to that one person you’ve just lost functionality in 50 regions.
Also how is the dismissal of hierarchies a reactionary position when reactionary politics is inherently hierarchical? There are no horizontalist reactionaries because horrizontalism has never been the status quo ante for millenia? Are we just writing big words for fun?
Consider how we perceive other people: when we speak to someone, we don’t track the billions of cells in their body or the firing of individual neurons.
What? LOL. Are you serious? is this a serious argument? Where’s the camera? You think I have the option of sitting there with a microscope looking at cells? Telling all my friends, if you were really my friend you’d let me open up that cranium and peep those neurons firing.
The middle of the article is making an argument more for syndicalist sectarianism rather than Marxist Leninism. You cannot really fault vanguardists for not saying red philosopher kings out loud.
The end of this article is extremely hand wavy. They basically state that transparency and accountability are “hard” and then cite an example from CPC, which honestly begs more questions than it has answers. What is the CPC actually doing other than arbitrarily “choosing” these things? How do they prevent themselves from not choosing them? In hindsight how effective was the campaign vs how effective could the campaign have been? Were decisions that could have made it more effective made for the right reasons? How about the decisions that made it less effective were they made for the wrong reasons? How did they align their incentives? How does this system improve?
It ignores the fact that the CPC is self described as a consequentialist entity – meaning it won’t prioritize transparency since its actions are not required to meet deonotological facets (like transparency) of right and wrong.
Likewise the advocacy of Marxist Leninism specifically means that it tacitly endorses the practices of democratic centralism which tend to add occlusion rather than transparency this is not addressed anywhere.
It ends with just a statement:
When imbued with transparency, recursive feedback loops, and a mandate to self-correct, hierarchy becomes a bridge to collective awareness.
Okay, so like why doesn’t just every communist hierarchy do that? Why hasn’t every communist hierarchy historically done that?
Feels like this is just ChatGPT for the left.
syndicalist sectarianism
Isn’t this the boutique shop ideology created literally for some video game whose name I cannot remember?
You cannot really fault vanguardists for not saying red philosopher kings out loud.
I’m glad you understand. After all, it would be embarrassing to start talking about “philosopher kings” after having placed so much effort into developing the mass line and democratic centralisation precisely to give the people more power.
What is the CPC actually doing other than arbitrarily “choosing” these things?
https://thetricontinental.org/studies-1-socialist-construction/
Isn’t this the boutique shop ideology created literally for some video game whose name I cannot remember?
??? This is literally the observation that hard line Leninists make about syndicalism, that it fractures the proletariat around shop lines creating sectarianism based on labor function.
I’m glad you understand. After all, it would be embarrassing to start talking about “philosopher kings” after having placed so much effort into developing the mass line and democratic centralisation precisely to give the people more power.
Mass-lines and dem cen never actually transcended the supremacy of vanguard power when the original vanguard was alive. Dem cen specifically entrenched vanguardists and political opportunists.
https://thetricontinental.org/studies-1-socialist-construction/You don’t get the point. You know how “systemic racism” describes a system that is durably racist that does not need to be occupied by good faith racist operators to make racist outcomes? Socialists need systemic socialism, a system that is durably socialist that does not need to be occupied by good faith socialist operators for socialist outcomes.
You’re not answering the question of how do we move from a system that is based primarily on elite choice. Xi Jinping explicitly set the agenda to prioritize poverty alleviation more than Hu Jintao or Jiang Zemin. Fifth generation thought places an emphasis on this via the 8th Commitment and the 1st Must:
- “Improving people’s livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development”.
- Must put the people first
This begs the questions:
- Why was this not centered in Third or Fourth Generation thought?
- How do we ensure that 6th generation thought does even better with these types of commitments?
Your article is focused on poverty alleviation that has mainly happened within the last 10-15 years, and the elimination of “extreme poverty”. The reality is that “extreme poverty” is not a static measure, it’s a relative economic measure. China has eliminated extreme poverty which is an amazing feat in it’s own right. But the extermination of extreme poverty is a point in time redistribution.
The more salient question for building socialism is: How to keep the system of redistribution up to date and politically durable over time such that extreme poverty is not recreated in another name? How do we push this system to eliminate poverty? How do we keep this system up to date and politically durable to ensure that poverty is not recreated in another name?
The CPC itself does not believe that its system can be copied and applied in other places, it is not interested in that. It’s interested in building socialism with Chinese characteristics. There is much to learn from the CPC, but there is an explicit disclaimer here that it works for China at the current point in time.
You don’t get the point. You know how “systemic racism” describes a system that is durably racist that does not need to be occupied by good faith racist operators to make racist outcomes? Socialists need systemic socialism, a system that is durably socialist that does not need to be occupied by good faith socialist operators for socialist outcomes.
The reproduction of a system from generation to generation can be durable without getting rid of the human element. In fact, the attempt of getting rid of the human element itself is idealistic. Socialism will always be a movement (not system) composed of humans. And it is certainly the case that socialism is not simply a system, but rather the movement of those who aim to abolish the present state of affairs. There will necessarily be many types of systems produced by socialists, and many disagreements in the socialist camp, and even reactionary brain-worms stuck in the minds of socialists young or old. Thus a “durable” socialism of the type you seek cannot really exist, because just as “scientific racism” evolved, waned, and waxed over time, so will socialism. The durably socialist system you create today could also simply become obsolete tomorrow.
Why was this not centered in Third or Fourth Generation thought?
Because conditions in China were different at the time.
How do we ensure that 6th generation thought does even better with these types of commitments?
Through ideological struggle, for which there is no substitute.
Your article is focused on poverty alleviation that has mainly happened within the last 10-15 years, and the elimination of “extreme poverty”.
I more so aimed to give you more details for how the CPC operates, which you thought there was a lack of in Yog’s substack article.
How to keep the system of redistribution up to date and politically durable over time such that extreme poverty is not recreated in another name?
Through educating the future generations and continuing development and reforms. Through adapting the existing system to changing geopolitical and technological conditions.
The reproduction of a system from generation to generation can be durable without getting rid of the human element. In fact, the attempt of getting rid of the human element itself is idealistic. Socialism will always be a movement (not system) composed of humans. And it is certainly the case that socialism is not simply a system, but rather the movement of those who aim to abolish the present state of affairs. There will necessarily be many types of systems produced by socialists, and many disagreements in the socialist camp, and even reactionary brain-worms stuck in the minds of socialists young or old. Thus a “durable” socialism of the type you seek cannot really exist, because just as “scientific racism” evolved, waned, and waxed over time, so will socialism. The durably socialist system you create today could also simply become obsolete tomorrow.
This is not a Marxist viewpoint. Marxism is a modernist philosophy based on the dialectic of historical materialism. That means that Marxism states that the development of communism is inevitable and represents an ultimate state of human social organization that is classless and stateless. IMO a durable socialism is ultimately required for the modernist communist apotheosis because modernist communism would need to be systemic as well. The inherent nature of the transition between socialism and communism requires socialism to become durable so the state can wither away. A socialist state’s main goal under such an ideology is to replace itself with a social organization that supplants the need for itself.
Because conditions in China were different at the time.
This is a hindsight apologetic argument that doesn’t explain it’s own claims. Plenty of critics inside and outside China noted that China made the choice to develop cities at the expense of the country-side. We’ve seen similar choices in the prioritization of distribution play out in other socialist countries to worse effect such as the USSR. This doesn’t actually answer the question of what made it work or if it was necessary or if it could be improved by future states.
I’m not asking you to answer this question in full mind you. I’m merely saying that this answer is defensive and reflexive rather than explanatory. “The conditions were different at the time and we had no other choice” is always used to explain away and shut down criticism even in good faith. Yet that same argument isn’t made when someone seriously proposes to follow a historical example – which is quite literally entirely appropriate because the successes of those examples were based in historical material conditions that do not match our current reality.
In context the whole point is that OP’s post feels simplistic and incomplete and obviously favors their favorite flavor of leftism and even Marxism.
Through educating the future generations and continuing development and reforms. Through adapting the existing system to changing geopolitical and technological conditions.
This is a similar kind of thing where we can talk about these kind of “no duh” vagaries, but the moment we look at what this practically means everyone gets knives out sectarian.
