There was not a new "beaurocratic class." Government ownership of the Means of Production is Socialist, as profits are controlled collectively, rather than by Capitalists. Beaurocrats and state planners were not a "new class" but an extension of the workers.
The whithering away of the state is IMPOSSIBLE until global Socialism has been achieved. The USSR could not possibly have gotten rid of the military while hostile Capitalist countries existed. Additionally, Statelessness in the Marxian sense doesn't mean no government, but a lack of instruments by which one class oppresses another.
Wage Labor did not persist for the sake of Capitalist profit, but to be used via the government, which paid for generous safety nets. To eliminate money in a Socialist state takes a long time, and cannot simply be done overnight.

I really think you need to revisit Marx. I suggest Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 10 months ago (7 children)

@Cowbee

There was a Bureaucratic class in the Soviet Union that was above everyone else. Bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the working class, which led to a stratified society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Bureaucrats existing, with additional powers entrusted via the rest of the workers, is not in conflict with the goals of Socialism. The government is not distinct from workers in Socialist society.

How do you believe Marx envisaged administration?

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

@Cowbee
While it's true that in a socialist society, bureaucrats could theoretically be accountable to the rest of the workers, the reality in many socialist states, including the Soviet Union, was that bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the rest of the working class which resulted in a hierarchical society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism. Additionally,...

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
...the concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats often led to abuses and corruption, undermining the democratic ideals of socialism. Thus, while bureaucrats may theoretically be part of the working class, the way power was exercised in many socialist states did not align with the egalitarian goals of socialism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Yes, there was corruption. The USSR was of course imperfect, but this is not sufficient to say it was a betrayal of Communist ideals.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (43 children)

Classes are social relations to the Means of Production. The goal of Communism is not equality! Instead, the goal is proving from everyone's abilities to everyone's needs.

Anti-hierarchy is not Marxist, but Anarchist.

load more comments (43 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)