• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    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?

    • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      @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,…

      • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        @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 [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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 [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          @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 [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              @Cowbee
              Please stop recommending Critique of the Gotha Programme. I’ve read it and I don’t agree with it. I disagree with Marx’s emphasis on the state, centralized planning, and his advocacy of the use of labor vouchers, preferring a decentralized approach to decision-making and resource allocation, where communities and workplaces have autonomy and agency in managing their affairs and creating a culture of mutual aid, solidarity, and voluntary cooperation instead of relying on labor vouchers.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                You could’ve said that from the start, that you aren’t a Marxist.

                I don’t believe you can say that Marxism is a betrayal of Communism any more than you can say Anarchism is a betrayal of Marxism. If your entire point is that Marxist societies were not authentically Anarchist, then I am not sure why we are having this conversation. It’s both obvious and silly.

                • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  @Cowbee
                  Marxism, at least in its historical implementations, does deviate from certain communist principles, but it’s not an entire betrayal of communist principles as a whole. There’s no doubt that the unique aspects of Marxism (its reliance on the state, central planning, and vanguardism) led to authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals, which made achieving communism under those conditions impossible.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Fundamentally, I believe we disagree on Communism itself. The USSR was honestly pursuing Marxist Communism, and was not a betrayal of such values. However, you believe Communism to be more pure, more anarchic, and thus see the USSR as a betrayal of those values.

                    I believe we should judge the USSR along Marxist lines, rather than Anarcho-Communist lines, as the USSR never claimed to be Anarcho-Communist (though they revered Kropotkin and named the largest train station, Kropotkinskaya, after him).