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.
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.