You’re insisting that it isn’t, and you’re providing me with the Marxist understanding of class, but you haven’t really done much to show why my reasoning is incorrect.
I think when you are saying “in lieu of,” you mean “such as,” not “instead of” like in lieu of means. I had assumed you were attempting to be a Marxist, but very confused, now I better understand that you are coming at this from an anarchist angle.
Your reasoning is incorrect because the interests of administrators in socialism and other workers are the same: collectivize production and distribution. They do not recieve their income via “state profits” or other such ideas, but instead as wages, same as the rest of the working class. This is why the state is not inherently opposed to the working classes and can be controlled by them.
Yes and no, usually it’s higher but not the same difference as what classes are paid, like how doctors and factory workers are both proletarian but doctors get paid much more.
Kinda? You can’t do that without a good deal of reason, or you’ll have public backlash.
Their ability to do 2) is a big part of why I don’t think they’re the same class, and wage gaps with government officials is often much more stark with them living lifestyles that ordinary workers can’t even dream of living.
I also do not believe they need good reason to do so, or to make other laws that benefit them directly or indirectly. Bureaucracy routinely does things in their interest first and foremost without it seeing much pushback.
You have a hypothesis, but it doesn’t actually map out to the experience of socialist countries. For example, wealth inequality in the USSR was far lower than Tsarist Russia or the modern Russian Federation:
Systems like recall elections and anti-corruption campaigns exist to keep corrupt officials in check, and socialist forms of democracy require administrators to be elected, either literally working their way up from the bottom as in the PRC, or through other forms of candidate proposal and approval like in Cuba.
Nope, my main criticism is from the perspective of a historical materialist. Communalization of production goes against the direction society is heading in in such a fashion that it would completely eliminate key industries like medical production beyond what can be manufactured in small communities or a couple linked ones, nothing comparable to modern mass manufacturing. It would be a dramatic loss in productive capability, and would further give rise to capitalism once again as these communities begin to compete.
You’re insisting that it isn’t, and you’re providing me with the Marxist understanding of class, but you haven’t really done much to show why my reasoning is incorrect.
I think when you are saying “in lieu of,” you mean “such as,” not “instead of” like in lieu of means. I had assumed you were attempting to be a Marxist, but very confused, now I better understand that you are coming at this from an anarchist angle.
Your reasoning is incorrect because the interests of administrators in socialism and other workers are the same: collectivize production and distribution. They do not recieve their income via “state profits” or other such ideas, but instead as wages, same as the rest of the working class. This is why the state is not inherently opposed to the working classes and can be controlled by them.
I am indeed approaching this from an anarchist angle.
Are the wages of administrators:
Yes and no, usually it’s higher but not the same difference as what classes are paid, like how doctors and factory workers are both proletarian but doctors get paid much more.
Kinda? You can’t do that without a good deal of reason, or you’ll have public backlash.
Their ability to do 2) is a big part of why I don’t think they’re the same class, and wage gaps with government officials is often much more stark with them living lifestyles that ordinary workers can’t even dream of living.
I also do not believe they need good reason to do so, or to make other laws that benefit them directly or indirectly. Bureaucracy routinely does things in their interest first and foremost without it seeing much pushback.
You have a hypothesis, but it doesn’t actually map out to the experience of socialist countries. For example, wealth inequality in the USSR was far lower than Tsarist Russia or the modern Russian Federation:
Systems like recall elections and anti-corruption campaigns exist to keep corrupt officials in check, and socialist forms of democracy require administrators to be elected, either literally working their way up from the bottom as in the PRC, or through other forms of candidate proposal and approval like in Cuba.
So your main criticism is historical evidence for anarchist models?
Nope, my main criticism is from the perspective of a historical materialist. Communalization of production goes against the direction society is heading in in such a fashion that it would completely eliminate key industries like medical production beyond what can be manufactured in small communities or a couple linked ones, nothing comparable to modern mass manufacturing. It would be a dramatic loss in productive capability, and would further give rise to capitalism once again as these communities begin to compete.
So your main criticism is that anarchism isn’t feasible because it cannot reproduce mass manufacturing?