They don’t need to make their own laws to be able to abuse their positions. You’re still looking at different categories within the same class as evidence of being a different class, but that’s not how class works. Administration plays a necessary functional role in society, and the class character of administration comes from the distribution of ownership and control of political and economic power.
Yeah but that’s a strawman. Abusing ones position ≠ the extent of control one has when they can literally write the law.
It’s far worse, and the kind of power they have makes them an entirely distinct class that is incomparable to merely corrupt doctors or teachers. Doctors and teachers can’t collude and compound their influence into being above the law, literally rewrite the law, be the law and easily shut down all inquiry that would hurt them or their group’s interests. Doctors and teachers don’t have anything like this, and their power is strictly restricted to medical/educational settings.
Having the ability to legislate does not mean one is an entirely different class. You’re stuck on this idealist notion of class that divorces it from what actually determines class, that being the relationship to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Administrators that earn wages for their labor are aligned with factory workers that do the same, and both share the class interest of collectivizing production and distribution.
You’re insisting that it isn’t, and you’re providing me with the Marxist understanding of class, but you haven’t really done much to show why my reasoning is incorrect.
I think when you are saying “in lieu of,” you mean “such as,” not “instead of” like in lieu of means. I had assumed you were attempting to be a Marxist, but very confused, now I better understand that you are coming at this from an anarchist angle.
Your reasoning is incorrect because the interests of administrators in socialism and other workers are the same: collectivize production and distribution. They do not recieve their income via “state profits” or other such ideas, but instead as wages, same as the rest of the working class. This is why the state is not inherently opposed to the working classes and can be controlled by them.
They don’t need to make their own laws to be able to abuse their positions. You’re still looking at different categories within the same class as evidence of being a different class, but that’s not how class works. Administration plays a necessary functional role in society, and the class character of administration comes from the distribution of ownership and control of political and economic power.
Yeah but that’s a strawman. Abusing ones position ≠ the extent of control one has when they can literally write the law.
It’s far worse, and the kind of power they have makes them an entirely distinct class that is incomparable to merely corrupt doctors or teachers. Doctors and teachers can’t collude and compound their influence into being above the law, literally rewrite the law, be the law and easily shut down all inquiry that would hurt them or their group’s interests. Doctors and teachers don’t have anything like this, and their power is strictly restricted to medical/educational settings.
Having the ability to legislate does not mean one is an entirely different class. You’re stuck on this idealist notion of class that divorces it from what actually determines class, that being the relationship to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Administrators that earn wages for their labor are aligned with factory workers that do the same, and both share the class interest of collectivizing production and distribution.
You’re insisting that it isn’t, and you’re providing me with the Marxist understanding of class, but you haven’t really done much to show why my reasoning is incorrect.
I think when you are saying “in lieu of,” you mean “such as,” not “instead of” like in lieu of means. I had assumed you were attempting to be a Marxist, but very confused, now I better understand that you are coming at this from an anarchist angle.
Your reasoning is incorrect because the interests of administrators in socialism and other workers are the same: collectivize production and distribution. They do not recieve their income via “state profits” or other such ideas, but instead as wages, same as the rest of the working class. This is why the state is not inherently opposed to the working classes and can be controlled by them.