The working classes collectively owned the overwhelming majority of the economy. You are drawing a hard line between workers within administration and workers outside of administration where such a hard line does not exist. Your analysis is more of a moralist stance, not a materialist or otherwise Marxist stance.
Source for which aspect specifically? I touched on the nature of class, which is more straight from Marx and Engels, and I also touched on materialism, which I can recommend sources for dialectical materialism. If you need a source on the economy being overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, then I think even Wikipedia can help, but I can recommend other works if you want to dive into the specifics.
The economy of the Soviet Union was based on state ownership of the means of production, collective farming, and industrial manufacturing. An administrative-command system managed a distinctive form of central planning. The Soviet economy was second only to the United States and was characterized by state control of investment, prices, a dependence on natural resources, lack of consumer goods, shortages of goods and services, little foreign trade, public ownership of industrial assets, macroeconomic stability, low unemployment and high job security.[15][16] A 1986 study published in the American Journal of Public Health citing World Bank data claimed that the Soviet model provided a better quality of life and human development than most market economies at comparable levels of economic development.[17]
The state was a worker state, composed of the proletariat and paid wages for administrative labor, not through capitalist accumulation of profits through an M-C-M’ circuit.
No? The state is not inherently bourgeois. The bourgeois state is bourgeois. The state is a product of class struggle, not itself a bourgeois element. When the working classes smash and replace the bourgeois state with a proletarian one, as they did in the Soviet Union, and thenceforth take ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, this is a worker state over a socialist economy.
working classes controlled the state
😭😭😭😭
the state owned all the capital. workers owned nothing
state capitalist
The working classes collectively owned the overwhelming majority of the economy. You are drawing a hard line between workers within administration and workers outside of administration where such a hard line does not exist. Your analysis is more of a moralist stance, not a materialist or otherwise Marxist stance.
source?
Source for which aspect specifically? I touched on the nature of class, which is more straight from Marx and Engels, and I also touched on materialism, which I can recommend sources for dialectical materialism. If you need a source on the economy being overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, then I think even Wikipedia can help, but I can recommend other works if you want to dive into the specifics.
link me the wikipedia article please
Economy of the Soviet Union.
The state was a worker state, composed of the proletariat and paid wages for administrative labor, not through capitalist accumulation of profits through an M-C-M’ circuit.
The economy of the Soviet Union was based on state ownership of the means of production,
Yes, that’s correct, the economy was overwhelmingly publicly owned and the working classes controlled the state. This is basic Marxist economics.
the state ≠ workers
the state = bourgeoise
No? The state is not inherently bourgeois. The bourgeois state is bourgeois. The state is a product of class struggle, not itself a bourgeois element. When the working classes smash and replace the bourgeois state with a proletarian one, as they did in the Soviet Union, and thenceforth take ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, this is a worker state over a socialist economy.