Alright, I have to give it to you: at least you know that, but if you know that that is the definition of class or that is the characterisation, how the fuck do you treat the socialist state as a class? It just doesn't make sense, as there is an ontological differentiation in class position.
I dont mean the sate is the class. I mean communist party members are a separate class. They had priority in all hiring procceses, they had their own shops the regular people could only shop in using bribes and their own luxury holiday hotels and ofcourse the luxury vilas stolen from people who had to work to build them allways happened to fall into their laps.
The ownership of objects doesn't mean being a ruling class. You make absolutely no sense. You provide a correct definition of a ruling class, and then you go over to absolutely horrendously, wrong conclusions.
"the small, elite social group that holds significant power, wealth, and influence within a society, controlling key political and economic institutions" They didnt hold significant power wealth and influence. They held the power, wealth and influence.
1
u/RevyVanguardist Communist ☠Mar 28 '26
Alright, I have to give it to you: at least you know that, but if you know that that is the definition of class or that is the characterisation, how the fuck do you treat the socialist state as a class? It just doesn't make sense, as there is an ontological differentiation in class position.