This bascially.
Djilas came up with the New Class 'theory' which stated that party nomenclature became its own class for which he was criticised by Trotskyists like Mandel but he wasn't the first to suggest something like this, the 'new class theory' was very similar to one proposed by an obscure italian socialist called Bruno Rizzi in the 30s who basically said the same thing and that this new 'bureaucratic collectivism' was a new mode of production neither capitalist nor socialist. He actually got into a debate with Trotsky who disagreed claiming that isn't reflective of the USSR and that the bureaucracy doesn't hold economic power and can't be a class and that its un-marxist.
Later some western anti-soviet leftists adopted this theory and that's where shachtmannites and other 'third camp' retards come from. Then there's the Cliffites who took a middle ground between the shachtmannite 'bureaucratic collectivism' nonsense and the orthodox trot degenerated workers' state with Cliff coming up with the notion of 'state capitalism' which has regrettably caught on massively on the left in general, at least online.
Be ex-Yugoslav
sounds about right
The Trotskyist view on the Soviet Union (evil stalinist dictatorship, state controls everything) meshes very well with the support of market socialism, which is supposedly non-bureaucratic and engages the proletariat more in production. Sadly Yugoslavia never really implemented "workplace democracy" to a significant degree, and the liberalisation of the economy started earlier than the USSR, causing employment, heavy debt, growing inequality etc. It was an experiment but in the end I think it just brings you to the conclusion that cyberplanning is necessary.
Trotsky isn't even difficult to read, there's literally no excuse to make shit up like this.
I said the Trotskyist view, not Trotsky's. It's not like Troskyists are a minor academic sect, they have major websites and organizations. And what I get from the majority of them is that they don't even consider the USSR socialist under Stalin's and later administration (yet it was somehow more socialist during Lenin???), and they constantly talk about bureaucracy destroying the system etc.
Dengism-Titoism. Nationalize the commanding heights of the economy and allow light industry and consumer goods to be handled by co-ops. Tbh for all it’s flaws market socialism would still be a huge step in the right direction and imo would be far more achievable in the west.
SOCIALISM IS WHAT A LABOUR GOVERNMENT DOES
I didn’t say that. I said that Titoism combined with some nationalization could be useful to a state aspiring to socialism.
HURR
It’s not, there’s no wage labour or exploitation of surplus value, and certain forms of alienation disappear. It’s not socialism but it isn’t capitalism either.