BEIJING: China issued its first national action plan to build a "strong education nation" by 2035, which it said would help coordinate its education development, improve efficiencies in innovation and build a "strong country". The plan, issued by the Communist Party's central committee and the State C
What do you believe Socialism and Communism looks like? Where is the line between the “administration of things” as Engels describes it, and a state acting as proxy? You keep saying workers didn’t have control, but by all accounts they did, and the material benefits prove this. You may want to read Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. The Material improvements are a symptom of the system at work, not proof of it but support the thesis. You have nothing supporting your thesis.
Dialectical analysis is important, yes, but just calling your analysis dialectical even if it stands in contrast with reality and the social knowledge of hundreds of millions of Marxists requires serious burden of proof. Marxism-Leninism is a science because it evolves, but simply going against the grain without materialist analysis doesn’t mean you have a point.
Socialism is direct rule by the working class where the state fades away, as Engels described. A state acting as a proxy concentrates power in a minority and keeps workers from controlling production. Marx argued that the proletariat must destroy the old state machinery, not rely on it to act for them. The Soviet state kept a hierarchical structure that directed workers rather than enabling their control.
Material benefits do not prove workers were in control. Marx warned that state capitalism could produce growth while keeping power out of workers’ hands. Lenin himself criticized the growing Soviet bureaucracy after 1917. By the 1920s, workers’ councils had lost power to the Party and state officials. Gains can exist under exploitation if workers do not democratically run production.
Dialectical analysis means critically studying contradictions in a system. The USSR had contradictions like inequality and bureaucracy, which Marx predicted under state capitalism. Marxism evolves through testing theory against reality, not just following the majority, even when it challenges what many believe as socialism.
That’s not what the state is in Marxist theory. Engels:
The State is chiefly the aspects of class society that enforce class distinctions, not government planners. Administration requires management and planning. Further, Engels:
Communism requires ever larger manufacturing, ergo it requires planning and administration. In the USSR, as an example, these were democratically run by the Soviets. Lenin’s critiques did not mean the USSR was not Socialist, administration never formed a class. Read Soviet Democracy and Is The Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the USSR.
The USSR was not “state capitalist,” that’s an entirely different concept. The closest would be during the NEP, which was later pivoted from in favor of collective ownership after the NEP served its purpose.
No, AES isn’t perfect or free from struggle, but it is real, and you’re attempting to define Socialism as perfect, and Capitalism as anything with hierarchy, including a publicly owned, democratically controlled and planned economy, which is so far beyond useless for understanding economic phases that it adds massive confusion.
The state is supposed to wither away as the working class takes control of production. Engels and Marx argued that the state, under capitalism, is a tool for maintaining class divisions, and this should end in socialism.
Socialism requires large-scale planning, but the key difference is that it must be managed democratically by workers, not a central bureaucracy. Lenin criticized the Soviet bureaucracy because it hindered true worker control.
The USSR state managed the economy without giving workers control. Even after the NEP, the state still controlled production without real worker participation.
For Marx, socialism means the working class collectively controls the economy, which wasn’t realized in the Soviet system. While there were gains, they came from a centralized authority, not workers themselves.
Despite state planning, the Soviet system concentrated power in the hands of a few.
Again, Engels literally stated that administrators are necessary for large industry. There’s no difference between what Engels is describing here and the USSR’s model of Political Economy, driven by Soviet Democracy. The government controlling the economy via worker-led democratic soviets is fully in line with Socialism and Communism, which must be global. You’re making the same error as the Anarchists who wish the state abolished overnight.
Really, this is going nowhere because you are unfamiliar or deliberately ignoring the makeup of AES from a democratic perspective, and redefining Socialism as the impossible status of “perfectly represents Marx’s principles.” Marx himself would laugh.
Thank you for acknowledging this is going nowhere. As said multiple times, there are no perfection requirements, only an emphasis on aligning with Marxist principles. Beyond that, this has always been just forum posting, not a debate to win.
AES does put an emphasis on following Marxist principles, when you made an assertion that I countered with clear evidence like the historical texts on how Soviet Democracy functioned and how the economy was run, you ignore them. This makes me think you care more for arguing than learning.