bruh

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190695545-e-50

Are you saying if we *represent* workers owning things they actually own it?

Representation is not ownership. Republic are not direct Democracies.

what other class was there then?

"manager", dont make me laugh with that

>the state in itself does not function with the same utility
>when it's doing the exact same thing as Capitalists were b4 but with nationalization and worker representation

You could literally destroy wealth classes

Have this and you still don't have workers controlling it

>capitalists exist under the ussr

proof?

I didn't say that

Don't strawman

then who owns them, what are the peoole with special relations to them

```>when it's doing the exact *same thing* as Capitalists were b4 but with nationalization and worker representation```

the state itself does not constitute a class

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

dude

I literally just explained

you can destroy a wealth class of owners

>the planners are capitalists

Strawmanning hard asf

>took the place of capitalists

and if the state still MAINTAINS their position, nothing has changed except you've nationalized

No, they directed the economy

Was Fascist Italy Socialist? The Social Republic loved nationalizing

You have not shown how planners can be a class

must be socialism

I'm bored and lonely

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