Right off the bat, you are already ignoring what I said. I never said nepotism and corrpution did not exist in the USSR. I said that power is not class, class is a social relation to ownership of the means of production. Managerial workers are not their own class, just like plumbers are not their own class. You are confusing a type of labor for a relation to ownership, and thus conflate the two into class.
Your next example is again, confusing the nature of the state. Socialism and communism cannot be brought about by a socialist party winning electorally and replacing the state bit by bit into a socialist one via policy. There is no generic “state,” there are capitalist states, socialist states, etc, and one state is broken and a new one takes its place through revolution alone.
As for replacing socialist democracy and scientific, planned organization with random lottery, this is a recipe for disaster. A truly democratic society is one where the working class as a whole is organized and capable of electing the best among themselves to higher organs, that can prove themselves through practice to their constituents. This can be organized via a single political party, that being the organization of the most politically developed of the working class.
You are explicitly rejecting a competency-based, democratic selection process with one that results in chaos and an easy-to-manipulate state that the bourgeoisie can overturn incredibly easily. This chaos is the foundation by which the bourgeoisie can bring about their own persistence.
In any case, you are getting into the weeds about a specific form of electoral democracy, while entirely ignoring the nature of class and the state. By your own definitions, you would be creating what you believe to be a ruling class. This is why it’s important to actually understand the theory and history you are trying to critique, because all you have done thus far is wax poetic about lottery-based elections while vulgarizing class and the nature of the state.
your’e the one saying ‘power is not class’ I disagree, I say dividing people by the power they have inherently creates classes, which is why I suggest a lottery to divide that power equally among the demographic makeup of a nation.
how are plumbers not a class if they control the means that create and maintain the plumbing industry? its all still a class.
I propose a system that puts a percentage of plumbers into the halls of government equal to their percentage in the population. same with scientists, and psychologists, and doctors, and electricians, and mechanics, and fry cooks, and teachers, and cashiers, etc. the
government should be made up of people.
I reject the idea that certain groups of people among us are more fit to govern, particularly when that system removes demographics of largely under-represented groups and replaces it with more affluent individuals.
revolutions are a last resort, the people deserve a means to change their government without violence.
there is no generic state? only socialist and capitalist? have you heard of mixed economies?
“A truly democratic society is one where the working class as a whole is organized and capable of electing the best among themselves to higher organs,”
who decides who is the best among you? the party leaders already in power according to single party rule. that is why I propose a ranked choice vote of those individuals selected from the lottery based on their policy proposals.
“You are explicitly rejecting a competency-based”
no, I am explicitly rejecting the idea that the party in power is selecting the most competent. rather they are picking their friends and family or who ever can pay more in money or quid pro quo.
my electoral process removes money and nepotism from the equation by selecting individuals first from the general population, then allowing them to come up with policy proposals then allowing their constituents to elect them in a ranked choice vote. no campaigns means no campaign finance, no special interested counter funding candidates, no political parties platforming their insiders.
persons selected from the lottery will post their policy proposals on the same election website as every other candidate, debates will be organized by the election office and all candidates would be present.
" This can be organized via a single political party, that being the organization of the most politically developed of the working class."
who decides who is the most politically developed of the working class? the party, thus nepotism, not a mandate of the masses
The reason I am telling you that classes are not simply any way we can categorize people but instead have specific relations to ownership of the means of production and distribution is because I am explicitly agreeing with Marx that the history of class society is the history of successive societies of 2 broad classes in conflict, defined by their relationship to ownership of the means of production and distribution.
Plumbers are not a class. Managers are not a class. Both are workers, and share the same relation to ownership of the means of production. Power is not the enemy, the system that divides us based on ownership is.
The rest of your comment is a ridiculous strawman of a party that is unaccountable and that dominates all. Nowhere in socialist history has this happened in practice or in theory. The working class as a whole decides who should be in the party and government. The party is a subset of the working class, with the same social relations to the means of production and distribution. You are arguing against a caricature.
As for revolution, it’s the only way to change a state historically.
As for “mixed economies,” all economies are “mixed” today. What separates them is their principal aspect, and the class in control of the state.
you make the same mistake again, creating a single party where the party leaders get to decide who is in the party simply creates a new ruling class. they control all the means of production, and if the party leaders are not beholden to the workers, that is totalitarianism. this same issue exists largely in the united states but we have two parties instead of one, and the wealthy largely control who is in power, this is equally as bad as a single party.
I dont care to what level the state controls private property, I only care that if the state begins to abuse that power, the workers can intervene and stop them.
No, this does not create “a new ruling class,” nor do party leaders have sole discretion over who is in the party. Administration is labor, and creating an organization for such a task and the ideological components of socialism is not sufficient to create a ruling class. Administrators in socialism own just as much of the means of production and distribution as the rest of the working class, capitalists in capitalism directly own the means of production, even if managerial workers below them operate and control them.
This is why your analysis falls apart, you have an idealist analysis of power that divorces itself from the material.
it completely creates a ruling class. the administrators hold the levers of government, irrefutably. and party administrators approved their candidates for elections. thus the ruling class chooses their members. that is a ruling class, even worse it is a ruling class with unilaterally controls over who in the nation can wield the levers of government.
your idealist analysis of power divorces itself from the will the people.
I argue that class is inevitable under any form of administrative government. the goal is to tie ultimate power to the will of the people.
Class is not “holding levers.” I have established this over and over again. Shutting your eyes and ears and erasing the central role of ownership of the means of production and distribution does not make this fact go away. Administrators share the same class interest with other workers: collectivization of the means of production and distribution.
You have invented the idea of unilateral control, and have invented the idea that the working classes as a whole do not participate in mass democratization of society in unitary socialist democracies. You have no coherent goal, nor plan to get there, all you have done is refuse to engage with the Marxist position on class.
then capitalists holding the levers of production doesn’t necessarily make capitalists a class. you’re deluding your own definitions.
“Administrators share the same class interest with other workers: collectivization of the means of production and distribution.”
removing the ability for the people to hold the administrators accountable is divorcing the workers from ownership over the means of production.
“You have invented the idea of unilateral control, and have invented the idea that the working classes as a whole do not participate in mass democratization of society in unitary socialist democracies.”
you have no adequately demonstrated how the vector of power points from the workers down to the administrators in unitary socialist democracies.
Capitalists do not merely “hold the levers of production,” they outright own it. My entire point is that control and ownership are different. I am not contradicting myself in any way, it is your point that any grouping of people whatsoever is a class.
Socialist democracy does not remove the ability for people to hold administrators accountable. You invented this.
Administrators are a type of worker, not a class. Power is held by the working class as a whole, not merely administrators. Administrators serve a specific function in large organizations of people, not a class in and of themselves. Socialist democracy begins from the people, not the party. The role of the party is in guiding the working classes as fellow workers, not as commanding the working classes from above.
I argue that class is inevitable under any form of administrative government. the goal is to tie ultimate power to the will of the people.
Then you’re disagreeing with the way all Marxists and even liberal academics define class: which is relation to production, and you’re also completely wrong that power is divorced from production, or surplus value.
The differerence between capitalist and socialist countries is the control over this surplus. US capitalists control production, the surplus, and have a puppet government enact their interests against those of its workers. Its members unilaterally decide how to use that surplus.
The PRC has the major key industries nationalized, and in that sector surplus can only be controlled by democratic decision-making, not the whims of private capital. No member of the NPC can unilaterally decide how to use that surplus in the same way a private capitalist in the US can.
A limited, restricted private sector of capitalists also exists, but they do not stand above political power, have no enshrined rights, and must follow the dictates of the worker state.
I propose a system that puts a percentage of plumbers into the halls of government equal to their percentage in the population. same with scientists, and psychologists, and doctors, and electricians, and mechanics, and fry cooks, and teachers, and cashiers, etc.
What you describe of people from every profession being involved in government is essentially how the Vietnam Fatherland Front works. It’s composed of 44 member organizations, primarily unions, a broad cross section of society that anyone can easily be a part of, and they conduct oversight over Vietnam’s elections. The actual administration of the government is done by elected officials, who do not have to be members of the Communist Party, or the Fatherland Front. It’s similar to what you proposed, except more democratic, since the cross section of society that makes up the Fatherland Front only oversees the elections, while policy is decided through the elections themselves. Even if you claim that the Fatherland Front secretly manipulates the outcomes, the system you’re proposing seems to be one where something like the Fatherland Front would rule outright. The only thing missing is the element of randomness, which only makes the people making decisions less accountable and leaves the possibility of someone who’s views don’t represent what the people want getting into power.
“The only thing missing is the element of randomness, which only makes the people making decisions less accountable and leaves the possibility of someone who’s views don’t represent what the people want getting into power.”
hence the vote-of-not-confidence I suggested and the randomness is intended to keep one group from being over represented in government than it’s demographic make-up in the populace.
but yeah that sounds great. I’m not against socialism, I’m against unrepresentative forms of government and obviously a socialist nation can find ways to be more representative and ensure the power ultimately derives from the people.
very cool, and thanks for sharing that!
Maybe you could think about it like that: capitalists are the class that, in order to exist, is forced to continuously take capital and invest it to make profit or they are outcompeted by other capitalists. It’s not that they are all evil or “corrupted by power”, they are not just incentiveized, but forced to act in destructive ways: steal surplus value from workers, increase exploitation above what people can take, chase profits on an exponentially expanding mass of capital in a finite world destroying the planet, cause a crisis about every seven years, cannibalize their own state and infrastructure that they rely on for short term profit, etc.
They inevitably run into these contradictions due to living on a finite planet and having to put individual interests above all else while the modern economies distribution of work and global value chains absolutely require working together.
What you are worried about is real too in a way, but it’s not a class. In a socialist state, a managerial part of the working class is not forced by competition to continuously pursue personal gain, but some of them still might become corrupt and do so anyway. At that point, they have betrayed the working class and they might even do so in favor of real capitalists domestic or abroad who haven’t yet completely disappeared as a class. It’s a possible problem, but other than the class conflict between workers and capital, it’s not inevitably the dominating principle of society.
Rather than worrying about a hypothetical future betrayal of fellow workers in thriving and prospering China, we should focus on how many western workers have already often betrayed the rest of the global working class and continue to do so by supporting terrible imperialist wars, mostly in turn for cheap goods at Walmart.
“What you are worried about is real too in a way, but it’s not a class. In a socialist state,”
oh no, im not against socialism, im against non-representative governments. and this isn’t hypothetical, we see it all over the world including the US right now with voter suppression and super PACs.
I just argue that the single-party rule that many communists espouse is not a great solution to the ills of capitalism, which themselves are very real.
I’m all for the state owning the means of production at what ever breadth is required to provide dignity, safety, and health to the people, but the people must wield ultimate power to turn the government without having to resort to violence.
Right off the bat, you are already ignoring what I said. I never said nepotism and corrpution did not exist in the USSR. I said that power is not class, class is a social relation to ownership of the means of production. Managerial workers are not their own class, just like plumbers are not their own class. You are confusing a type of labor for a relation to ownership, and thus conflate the two into class.
Your next example is again, confusing the nature of the state. Socialism and communism cannot be brought about by a socialist party winning electorally and replacing the state bit by bit into a socialist one via policy. There is no generic “state,” there are capitalist states, socialist states, etc, and one state is broken and a new one takes its place through revolution alone.
As for replacing socialist democracy and scientific, planned organization with random lottery, this is a recipe for disaster. A truly democratic society is one where the working class as a whole is organized and capable of electing the best among themselves to higher organs, that can prove themselves through practice to their constituents. This can be organized via a single political party, that being the organization of the most politically developed of the working class.
You are explicitly rejecting a competency-based, democratic selection process with one that results in chaos and an easy-to-manipulate state that the bourgeoisie can overturn incredibly easily. This chaos is the foundation by which the bourgeoisie can bring about their own persistence.
In any case, you are getting into the weeds about a specific form of electoral democracy, while entirely ignoring the nature of class and the state. By your own definitions, you would be creating what you believe to be a ruling class. This is why it’s important to actually understand the theory and history you are trying to critique, because all you have done thus far is wax poetic about lottery-based elections while vulgarizing class and the nature of the state.
your’e the one saying ‘power is not class’ I disagree, I say dividing people by the power they have inherently creates classes, which is why I suggest a lottery to divide that power equally among the demographic makeup of a nation. how are plumbers not a class if they control the means that create and maintain the plumbing industry? its all still a class. I propose a system that puts a percentage of plumbers into the halls of government equal to their percentage in the population. same with scientists, and psychologists, and doctors, and electricians, and mechanics, and fry cooks, and teachers, and cashiers, etc. the
government should be made up of people. I reject the idea that certain groups of people among us are more fit to govern, particularly when that system removes demographics of largely under-represented groups and replaces it with more affluent individuals.
revolutions are a last resort, the people deserve a means to change their government without violence.
there is no generic state? only socialist and capitalist? have you heard of mixed economies?
“A truly democratic society is one where the working class as a whole is organized and capable of electing the best among themselves to higher organs,”
“You are explicitly rejecting a competency-based”
my electoral process removes money and nepotism from the equation by selecting individuals first from the general population, then allowing them to come up with policy proposals then allowing their constituents to elect them in a ranked choice vote. no campaigns means no campaign finance, no special interested counter funding candidates, no political parties platforming their insiders.
persons selected from the lottery will post their policy proposals on the same election website as every other candidate, debates will be organized by the election office and all candidates would be present.
" This can be organized via a single political party, that being the organization of the most politically developed of the working class."
The reason I am telling you that classes are not simply any way we can categorize people but instead have specific relations to ownership of the means of production and distribution is because I am explicitly agreeing with Marx that the history of class society is the history of successive societies of 2 broad classes in conflict, defined by their relationship to ownership of the means of production and distribution.
Plumbers are not a class. Managers are not a class. Both are workers, and share the same relation to ownership of the means of production. Power is not the enemy, the system that divides us based on ownership is.
The rest of your comment is a ridiculous strawman of a party that is unaccountable and that dominates all. Nowhere in socialist history has this happened in practice or in theory. The working class as a whole decides who should be in the party and government. The party is a subset of the working class, with the same social relations to the means of production and distribution. You are arguing against a caricature.
As for revolution, it’s the only way to change a state historically.
As for “mixed economies,” all economies are “mixed” today. What separates them is their principal aspect, and the class in control of the state.
you make the same mistake again, creating a single party where the party leaders get to decide who is in the party simply creates a new ruling class. they control all the means of production, and if the party leaders are not beholden to the workers, that is totalitarianism. this same issue exists largely in the united states but we have two parties instead of one, and the wealthy largely control who is in power, this is equally as bad as a single party.
I dont care to what level the state controls private property, I only care that if the state begins to abuse that power, the workers can intervene and stop them.
No, this does not create “a new ruling class,” nor do party leaders have sole discretion over who is in the party. Administration is labor, and creating an organization for such a task and the ideological components of socialism is not sufficient to create a ruling class. Administrators in socialism own just as much of the means of production and distribution as the rest of the working class, capitalists in capitalism directly own the means of production, even if managerial workers below them operate and control them.
This is why your analysis falls apart, you have an idealist analysis of power that divorces itself from the material.
it completely creates a ruling class. the administrators hold the levers of government, irrefutably. and party administrators approved their candidates for elections. thus the ruling class chooses their members. that is a ruling class, even worse it is a ruling class with unilaterally controls over who in the nation can wield the levers of government.
your idealist analysis of power divorces itself from the will the people.
I argue that class is inevitable under any form of administrative government. the goal is to tie ultimate power to the will of the people.
Class is not “holding levers.” I have established this over and over again. Shutting your eyes and ears and erasing the central role of ownership of the means of production and distribution does not make this fact go away. Administrators share the same class interest with other workers: collectivization of the means of production and distribution.
You have invented the idea of unilateral control, and have invented the idea that the working classes as a whole do not participate in mass democratization of society in unitary socialist democracies. You have no coherent goal, nor plan to get there, all you have done is refuse to engage with the Marxist position on class.
then capitalists holding the levers of production doesn’t necessarily make capitalists a class. you’re deluding your own definitions.
“Administrators share the same class interest with other workers: collectivization of the means of production and distribution.”
“You have invented the idea of unilateral control, and have invented the idea that the working classes as a whole do not participate in mass democratization of society in unitary socialist democracies.”
Capitalists do not merely “hold the levers of production,” they outright own it. My entire point is that control and ownership are different. I am not contradicting myself in any way, it is your point that any grouping of people whatsoever is a class.
Socialist democracy does not remove the ability for people to hold administrators accountable. You invented this.
Administrators are a type of worker, not a class. Power is held by the working class as a whole, not merely administrators. Administrators serve a specific function in large organizations of people, not a class in and of themselves. Socialist democracy begins from the people, not the party. The role of the party is in guiding the working classes as fellow workers, not as commanding the working classes from above.
Then you’re disagreeing with the way all Marxists and even liberal academics define class: which is relation to production, and you’re also completely wrong that power is divorced from production, or surplus value.
The differerence between capitalist and socialist countries is the control over this surplus. US capitalists control production, the surplus, and have a puppet government enact their interests against those of its workers. Its members unilaterally decide how to use that surplus.
The PRC has the major key industries nationalized, and in that sector surplus can only be controlled by democratic decision-making, not the whims of private capital. No member of the NPC can unilaterally decide how to use that surplus in the same way a private capitalist in the US can.
A limited, restricted private sector of capitalists also exists, but they do not stand above political power, have no enshrined rights, and must follow the dictates of the worker state.
How do elections work in Vietnam?
What you describe of people from every profession being involved in government is essentially how the Vietnam Fatherland Front works. It’s composed of 44 member organizations, primarily unions, a broad cross section of society that anyone can easily be a part of, and they conduct oversight over Vietnam’s elections. The actual administration of the government is done by elected officials, who do not have to be members of the Communist Party, or the Fatherland Front. It’s similar to what you proposed, except more democratic, since the cross section of society that makes up the Fatherland Front only oversees the elections, while policy is decided through the elections themselves. Even if you claim that the Fatherland Front secretly manipulates the outcomes, the system you’re proposing seems to be one where something like the Fatherland Front would rule outright. The only thing missing is the element of randomness, which only makes the people making decisions less accountable and leaves the possibility of someone who’s views don’t represent what the people want getting into power.
“The only thing missing is the element of randomness, which only makes the people making decisions less accountable and leaves the possibility of someone who’s views don’t represent what the people want getting into power.”
Maybe you could think about it like that: capitalists are the class that, in order to exist, is forced to continuously take capital and invest it to make profit or they are outcompeted by other capitalists. It’s not that they are all evil or “corrupted by power”, they are not just incentiveized, but forced to act in destructive ways: steal surplus value from workers, increase exploitation above what people can take, chase profits on an exponentially expanding mass of capital in a finite world destroying the planet, cause a crisis about every seven years, cannibalize their own state and infrastructure that they rely on for short term profit, etc.
They inevitably run into these contradictions due to living on a finite planet and having to put individual interests above all else while the modern economies distribution of work and global value chains absolutely require working together.
What you are worried about is real too in a way, but it’s not a class. In a socialist state, a managerial part of the working class is not forced by competition to continuously pursue personal gain, but some of them still might become corrupt and do so anyway. At that point, they have betrayed the working class and they might even do so in favor of real capitalists domestic or abroad who haven’t yet completely disappeared as a class. It’s a possible problem, but other than the class conflict between workers and capital, it’s not inevitably the dominating principle of society.
Rather than worrying about a hypothetical future betrayal of fellow workers in thriving and prospering China, we should focus on how many western workers have already often betrayed the rest of the global working class and continue to do so by supporting terrible imperialist wars, mostly in turn for cheap goods at Walmart.
“What you are worried about is real too in a way, but it’s not a class. In a socialist state,”