State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.
It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.
You’re doing that thing again where you provide no evidence for this “beaurocratic class” existing as a class, and refuse to read evidence to the contrary. Moreover, having upper level officials within the Proletariat, as AES has, is not an issue, but a requirement for large industry as Engels already espoused.
Please do some genuine consideration for why your views might be considered extremely fringe among Marxists globally, to not do so is to assert that your opinion is superior to that of hundreds of millions of working Marxists that build Socialism in the real world.
State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.
It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.
Good night.
You’re doing that thing again where you provide no evidence for this “beaurocratic class” existing as a class, and refuse to read evidence to the contrary. Moreover, having upper level officials within the Proletariat, as AES has, is not an issue, but a requirement for large industry as Engels already espoused.
Please do some genuine consideration for why your views might be considered extremely fringe among Marxists globally, to not do so is to assert that your opinion is superior to that of hundreds of millions of working Marxists that build Socialism in the real world.