all the property was centralized in the hands of the communist party

so the communist party become the bourgeoisie

That's not how that works or worked

Yep. It is the fallacy of assuming that hierarchy goes away if you protest against it. Natural Law > Communism

There was a few different kinds of property in the USSR, State Owned, Collective, Co-ops and I think a few instances of normal private property existed

None of that was allowed to not be seized because government had almost unlimited power of seizure.

Honestly it would have done better if it did seize those

So, I guess potatoes, potatoes

the true slav knows atleast 1848 ways to use a potato

Potatoes can be excellently transported using helicopters

these hot takes

But the bourgeoisie is a specific relationship within capitalism, this did not exist in the USSR. The USSR had not reached communism yes, but "bourgeoisie" doesn't mean "hierarchy" and it doesn't mean *any* ruling class

What does bourgeoisie mean? Define it please?

Nor do I intend to elimate hierarchy

@Enigmatic★Chromatic dont try this discussion with him i already shit on him about it he just ignores what anything marxist means

Yes. I don't drink Marxist Kool Aid

The bourgeoisie is the specifically the a person whom extracts surplus value from the proletariat. The one who owns the capital that forces proletariats to see their ability to labour to for a wage

This is a specific relationship

Under Feudalism for example the relationship was different. Serfs worked the landlord's land for several days of the week and pay a rent in the form of the goods they harvested instead of an extraction of surplus value

So, is a husband a bourgeoisie?

Different material relations

No they're not

So, why Engels said that?

He didn't

I quoted him.

In what message exactly?

You can see that above. Just scroll up

You have two quotes from Marx, out of context, and that's all

<OUT OF CONTEXT> Ok

`In the great majority of cases today, at least in the possessing classes, the husband is obliged to earn a living and support his family, and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy, without any need for special legal titles and privileges. Within the family he is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat. In the industrial world, the specific character of the economic oppression burdening the proletariat is visible in all its sharpness only when all special legal privileges of the capitalist class have been abolished and complete legal equality of both classes established. The democratic republic does not do away with the opposition of the two classes; on the contrary, it provides the clear field on which the fight can be fought out.`

he quoted a piece of this

which engels wrote to relativize the situation of supremacy of bourgeois over proletariat

that forms the basic economic unit

in an attempt to draw a conclusion of liberation would include the female sex equally entering the public industry

and hes trying to claim some kind of contradiction

between the relative comparison of the hegelian master-slave dialectic

and actual social relations of production wherein class spawns from

Wow, I love how you have to do so much gymnastics to cover for a direct quote

Must be tough

if you call context gymnastics

you dont know how to read