But where’s the humor? Sponsors are also depended upon.

It was also an example of centralized economic planning and administration, too.

I’m sure Marx’ sugar daddy was very important for him.

Connotations exist. Why else would you phrase it this way? Why not just say sponsor, like I did? You said it’s a joke, so that means there must be humor to it, right, and not just a literal older person (who was younger, actually) giving money?

To the US? Yes, I live here. Having a 2 party system is more decentralized than a one party system. Centralization is a spectrum, not a binary.

I’m a Marxist-Leninist, I’m committed to building socialism in the real world, not trying to come up with a hypothetical scenario where management is superfluous. Factories work at the scale of hundreds to thousands, not 4 people living an idyllic life, and these factories have massive supply chains ingoing and outgoing. Management becomes necessary at scales like these, because coordination at such scales cannot be all horizontal.

Literally the first definition listed agrees with what I said, because that’s how it has historically happened. That’s the connotation. This is just silly, that’s like saying calling someone a top in a relationship is totally platonic and doesn’t at all have sexual connotations.

The “Sugar” part still refers to the connotations of sexual favors, that’s the assumption with such terms. I get that it was a joke, I just don’t like the way sexual relationships are used in a negative manner when describing people, especially if it isn’t even true, like calling Putin and Trump gay for each other.

Why would me giving an example of decentralization leading to corruption not be deserving of being taken seriously? The US uses its decentralized structure for corruption, as it does use centralized structures. My point isn’t that both are bad, but that both have proper and improper use-cases.

As for perspective vs authority, I’m well aware that one can see without having any power to change anything. I also know that that can become remarkably inefficient and result in catastrophe. We can make hierarchies accountable, democratic, etc, but the fact remains that they exist because of their utility and often necessity. Simply imagining a system devoid of hierarchy and trying to theorycraft it doesn’t actually mean it will function in real life.

“Sugar Daddy” implies Marx gave Engels sexual favors in exchange for cash or other goods, housing, etc. That’s the meaning of the “Sugar” part of the phrase “Sugar Daddy.” You made it sexual, not me. No, I would not have had any issue with them being gay, except for that being cheating in presumably monogamous relationships. I myself am pan, so I don’t know what you’re doing here.

I tried to have a conversation, and all you did was refuse to respond while insulting me. I doubt I could have done anything to convince you I was willing to have a conversation beyond just lying and saying I agreed with you, so I do agree that us speaking seems to be pointless.

Strategians and tacticians serve different roles because they see different levels of the battlefield, and footsoldiers can see what they directly interact with but are not privy to understanding the full battlefield. Having a fully horizontal organization is shooting yourself in the foot, we develop intra-class hierarchies like managers not because of class society, but because of the added complexity of large-scale production and distribution.

Guess not.

Dunno why you have to phrase it in a sexual manner. Engels sponsored a lot of Marx’s work, and was a valuable comrade when writing theory together. Engels is one of Marxism’s most important theorists, and by no means was simply regurgitating Marx; he was the one Marx bounced ideas off of and they together grew to develop Marxism.

Yep, gotcha. I see now.

A quick example is local government vs regional government. Local governments do not have the same focus at a regional level that regional governments would over several local governments, while regional governments do not have the same view local governments would in detail.

As for decentralization being just as vulnerable, I mean that in the sense that fractured systems are easier to pit against itself. The US is a two party dictatorship, and is incredibly corrupt because of it.

Kinda, at least compared to feudalism, though he also hated it and wished it abolished. Capitalism’s advent was both progressive, and resulted in incredible immiseration for the new proletariat as compared to their earlier yeomanry and serfdom.

I do understand the definitions, again, I disagree with your arguments. Simple as that. As for being a former anarchist, I know that anarchists don’t only object to hierarchy on moral grounds, but the way you framed it made it seem as such.

Engels’ contributions to Marxist theory are critical works, such as Anti-Dühring and On the Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, and neither him nor Marx by any means loved capitalism. He was crucial to the development of dialectical materialism and scientific socialism, and was Marx’s biggest sponsor and comrade.

Engels co-developed dialectical materialism and scientific socialism, Marx could not have done what he did without his best friend and comrade.

You’re dramatically misunderstanding my point, to the point that you’re making the same strawman argument Mises did to try to “debunk” socialism. Coordination and administration does not require a single person having total view, that’s not how broad systems work. You need several levels of abastraction and coordination, which can be done by teams of people, you can’t have a fully flat system at large scale without running into massive problems.