@Cowbee
3. While it may be true that the Soviet government provided safety nets and controlled wages, the persistence of wage labor and currency contradicted the goal of achieving a moneyless and classless society under socialism. The gradual elimination of money and wage labor was indeed a complex process, but the Soviet Union did not achieve this goal.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

The persistance of money and wages did not stand against the progress of Socialism. Again, Capitalist profit was eliminated, the state directed the products of labor, not Capitalists. Marx was not an Anarchist, he did not believe money could be done away with immediately. The USSR attempted to do away with Money, but were not yet developed enough to handle it.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
4. In the Marxist sense, statelessness does entail the absence of a government as a tool of class oppression. However, it does not mean the absence of any form of governance. The Soviet state, with its centralized authority and control, did not align with the vision of statelessness as envisaged by Marx.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Statelessness comes after Socialism's contradictions have been eliminated. You are anarchist-washing Marx here.

I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme.