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 6 months ago (2 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 months ago (1 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.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
The goal of communism is equality and anti-hierarchy, quite literally the creation of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the workers, and resources are distributed according to need. True equality and freedom for all individuals is the goal, where everyone can contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago (41 children)

Again, I am going to recommend Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Marx specifically states that humans are not equal, else they would not be different, and thus have unequal needs and abilities. It is because of this that the goal is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." This quote specifically comes from Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Hierarchy is unjust if it is in contradiction, if it is through a worker state it ceases to be unjust, and merely becomes what must be done. Engels elaborates on this im On Authority.

Marx was not an Anarchist, he was accepting of administration and a gradual buildup towards Communism.

load more comments (41 replies)

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)

@Cowbee
2. The concept of the "withering away of the state" in Marxism refers to the gradual dissolution of state institutions as class distinctions disappear and society transitions to communism. It does not necessarily require global socialism to be achieved first, and the expansion of state power and repression under regimes like the Soviet Union contradicted this principle.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

It necessitates global Socialism to be achieved, as Capitalism stands against Socialism. The military cannot be done away with as long as there is Capitalism. Moving into Comminism without completing the negation of the negation, in dialectical-speak, is a mechanical transition that leaves the Socialist state open to invasion and plundering.

load more comments (4 replies)