I didn't call planners a class

But you literally did

"The state planners were, actually. The soviet government did this"

They did not *directly own* by legal terms, but they collectively did the same thing. Claiming it was representing.

Directing an economy =/= Socialism

Imagine taking context out

Organization is *one* part of it and I have given more than enough evidence

Where is yours?

>implying i said directing the economy equals socialism

Bruh

then you just admitted you're wrong

because that's unironically all it was

I didnt retard

*state planning is socialism btw*

>implying the workers did not own the means of production

So workers just ran the nation cooperatively? REALLY?

who did? there was only workers

there was no capitalists in disguise like you clearly imply

>inb4 soviet state didn't exist
>when 5 year plans were the workers as a whole

I didn't argue in disguise. I didn't argue publicly.

They weren't Capitalist, clearly. But that doesn't make them Socialist

>implying the state was not ran by workers

if you wanna argue semantics, go ahead. But that's useless as a conversation. If you don't like the fact that what I posted quite literally explains there must be a change from exchange production than use, then keep coping

>stalin was a worker
>chairmans and central committee was all just a bunch of factory niggas

Mhm

keep copin

>worker oppression by capitalists is removed
>anarchism in production is eliminated
>commodity production is drastically reduced
>still not socialist

```>commodity production is drastically reduced```
When you still have capital and produce to project capital, not because workers directly involved in deciding their own needs. State got an idea of it and got them to make it. They didn't command production.
```>worker oppression by capitalists is removed```
When you're still making wages

>implying stalin was somehow a powerful person when he was in fact the minority btw

proof

You've dismissed two links both showing the same thing so you've already shown you don't care.

>his reforms were rejected by the central committee

*and both go to marx btw*

yes, having reforms rejected doesn't mean much. Who was telling workers what to do, Leah?

Not Stalin, moron

Was it them just doing it for use? Or because someone planned them to do so

I didn't say Stalin

>implying intelligentsia is not proleterian

What is the state at all? Just capitalists? That's a hOt take dude

>implying a planner is not intelligentsia

By the way, what is the piece-rate system?

Full value?