As I already explained, class is not merely a sub-category, it’s specifically related to production and distribution. The DPRK’s economy is overwhelmingly publicly owned, there’s nearly no private ownership. Administration is not a class by itself, but a subset of a larger class, in this case the proletariat. Government employees have the same relations to production and distribution as other workers, just with different responsibilities in the production chain.
Classless society will still have administration and management, as is necessary for large-scale production and distribution. This future communism will also be stateless, as administration is not the same as a state.
Whether a political class exists in North Korea aside, do you really not think such a class could exist? Of course administrators don’t inherently have outsized power, given proper restraints. But to claim that administrative authority cannot be abused contradicts common sense.
Positions can be abused. A mechanic can loosen bolts and cause mass destruction. A nurse can administer lethal dosages of medicine. These are not all distinct classes, though, but subsections of broader classes, that class typically being the proletariat. Classes have similar class interests, this is what binds them as a class, administrators in socialism also benefit from continued collectivization and improvements in production and distribution. Only the proletariat as a ruling class truly can abolish class as such, as their shared interests are the collectivization of production and distribution. This is Marxism.
Not necessarily, a mechanic could make some truly disastrous abuses at a nuclear power plant. However, you’re still running into the Bordigist error of fearing the potential for problems over presenting a better solution, and using that potential as a reason to not support the real.
When I’m analyzing existing systems, I can do so theoretically or based on testimony. Testimony can be false, but if it meets ones theoretical expectations, should be considered. The notion that we should look to existing systems instead of inventing new ones is odd coming from a communist, as this is the most common basis for arguments I hear from proponents of political economy as it were. Transforming the social fabric is going to take a little creative problem solving. If you’re interested in a positive argument: https://lemmy.ml/post/46147233/25310663
I already argued against looking to existing systems as a blueprint for different contexts. My point is that we should not take a chauvanist stance and assume we know better than the socialists in Korea that have been building socialism for decades based on your fears that they could be corrupted. I also don’t share your emphasis on horizontalism, the vertical structures that exist in socialism do so because of necessity more than whim.
As I already explained, class is not merely a sub-category, it’s specifically related to production and distribution. The DPRK’s economy is overwhelmingly publicly owned, there’s nearly no private ownership. Administration is not a class by itself, but a subset of a larger class, in this case the proletariat. Government employees have the same relations to production and distribution as other workers, just with different responsibilities in the production chain.
Classless society will still have administration and management, as is necessary for large-scale production and distribution. This future communism will also be stateless, as administration is not the same as a state.
Whether a political class exists in North Korea aside, do you really not think such a class could exist? Of course administrators don’t inherently have outsized power, given proper restraints. But to claim that administrative authority cannot be abused contradicts common sense.
Positions can be abused. A mechanic can loosen bolts and cause mass destruction. A nurse can administer lethal dosages of medicine. These are not all distinct classes, though, but subsections of broader classes, that class typically being the proletariat. Classes have similar class interests, this is what binds them as a class, administrators in socialism also benefit from continued collectivization and improvements in production and distribution. Only the proletariat as a ruling class truly can abolish class as such, as their shared interests are the collectivization of production and distribution. This is Marxism.
Do you acknowledge at the very least that the potential for abuse in these positions is less than the position of administrator?
Not necessarily, a mechanic could make some truly disastrous abuses at a nuclear power plant. However, you’re still running into the Bordigist error of fearing the potential for problems over presenting a better solution, and using that potential as a reason to not support the real.
When I’m analyzing existing systems, I can do so theoretically or based on testimony. Testimony can be false, but if it meets ones theoretical expectations, should be considered. The notion that we should look to existing systems instead of inventing new ones is odd coming from a communist, as this is the most common basis for arguments I hear from proponents of political economy as it were. Transforming the social fabric is going to take a little creative problem solving. If you’re interested in a positive argument: https://lemmy.ml/post/46147233/25310663
I already argued against looking to existing systems as a blueprint for different contexts. My point is that we should not take a chauvanist stance and assume we know better than the socialists in Korea that have been building socialism for decades based on your fears that they could be corrupted. I also don’t share your emphasis on horizontalism, the vertical structures that exist in socialism do so because of necessity more than whim.