"MLism creates another ruling class"

The party controlled the state, the state controlled production. It's really not that difficult.

So bureaucrats decided to produce champagne when they wanted to throw a party or switched production to consumer items because that's more profitable? Miss me on that revisionist bullshit. The reason they switched to capitalism in the USSR in 1989 was because that was only the way they could start doing these things.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding if the Marxist definition of class you have (not surprising considering the Yugo flag). Even in capitalism, a CEO can't decide what and how something is produced, the shareholders would smite him if he went against their interests.

Taking care of the flaws in early socialism is the job of the revolutionary masses
TO REBEL IS GOOD, MAO AND SOREL UNDERSTOOD MASS VIOLENCE

Attached: 37648d527f7357e09b2a93bf4e425f58fec243a657f2c922119bfafdc32fd7e3.jpg (274x366, 76.56K)

No, nobody suggested that they were capitalists, just that they represented a ruling class. This is proven by the fact that they held disproportionate political and economic power, and if they wanted they could have caviar and champagne shipped to them while proles waited in line for potatoes and milk.

Actually Marx’s definition of class concerns the practical relationship to the means of production, not what it is on paper. In practical terms, the bureaucratic elite in the USSR had control over the economy. They weren’t bourgeois, but they were separate from the average prole. The USSR was imo neither capitalist nor socialist, it was a bizarre statist bureaucratic mode of production.

Funny that Mao made it illegal for peasants to own guns then.

Y'know, except when he had them kill all the sparrows in the country

I'm watching these Paul Cockshott videos, and he makes the point that the dissolution of the USSR was led by the professional class of technicians, engineers and managers.

While wages were in fact rising in the Soviet Union in the 80s, the shift to neoliberalism in the West meant that wages turned stagnant for most of the population but rose dramatically for the professional classes. The top 10 percent captured practically all of the gains since then. In the USSR, the professional class treated this as a profound crisis, as even though their wages were rising, they were not rising like they were for their Western counterparts.

Cue Gorbachev's reforms, which destabilized and blew up the Soviet economy. Not sure how you solve that. The urge by this class to readopt capitalism is too great – even if the result was disastrous for the Soviet people and led to the premature deaths of more people than the fucking Soviet famine.

Attached: ville-zero-177.jpg (600x420, 222.92K)

Workers in the USSR and shareholders in capitalism are not the same thing, no matter how you cut it.

Are you implying workers couldn't report on managers who fucked them over? Trust me, you don't want to be a bureaucrat caught at corruption under Stalin.

IF THE INTELLIGENTSIA THAT HAS NEVER WORKED A DAY GET ABSOLUTE POWER WE GET COMMUNISM

When marxists-leninists speak of the working class (and most marxists for that matter) they're not talking about actual people, they're talking about a paradigm of which actual people are a function. Even if the entirety of working class people would refuse marxism-leninism, those who force it onto them would still constitute the working class revolution, for what makes their rule a working class revolution is found in the ideology of marxism itself, not in the people marxism concerns itself with.

That's workerism something Marx and Engels were against. Read a book nigga.

You kill 1 ML and save 100 000 civilians.

No, it's exactly the opposite. Workerism is the veneration of the working class as they are as people, this is the opposite of the working class as revolutionary subject.

Pretty much

So many workers but they always suffer. Look at the history.

You really notice it when the burger hours have begun on Zig Forums

Not ruling class in the marxist sense, no.

The word you're looking for Is marxist

How so? The nomenklatura controlled the means of production similar to how the bourgeoisie controls the means of production.

ruling class, but the correct kind, as long as they live as proles and not kings. they get greedy, destroy them.

Yeah, I would say it creates a new ruling class. Seriously, what do you think a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is? The proletariat, in revolution, violently overthrow the bourgeois and assert their class interests. Notice how I said class interests, not "Muh virtuous super ego". If a prole doesn't want Socialism, thats just too bad. A single proletarian isn't in and of itself revolutionary, only the proletarian class is revolutionary, so if the new proletarian ruling class oppresses some proles, not only do I support it I suggest it. This sounds out there, but no one (who is sane) opposes the punishment of proletarian criminals or spooked proletarian working against a socialist state.
So to sum this up, yes, MLs will create a new ruling class, and it is their greatest success, because everyone else works with utopic models that worship the proletarian as a singular, holy mass.

Meh, as long as joe blow can be elected join the administration, I see no reason why the MOP aren't then owned by the workers by extension.
If people are hand picked by the communist party instead of elected democratically then I see a problem.

What I mostly meant was that if the party could be considered the new ruling class, which is what anarchists and more libertarian socialists believe.

That's my point exactly. Radlibs LOVE to fetishize liberty and freedom with no actual thought to how it exists. People that don't believe in a ruling socialist state are absolutely deluded. The proletariat comes to power, realizes this power through the state, oppresses the bourgeois and other reactionaries, and then finally abolishes itself. The """freedom""" and """liberty""" of individual proles to oppress eachother should absolutely be opposed by any Socialist, and if that means less democracy, so be it. I hope that clears up my thoughts.
But if you are saying that ML leads to some sort of Capitalism everytime, you are retarded and practically an apoligist/denier for decades of U.S. and Co. work against Socialism.