First, there's no such thing as a "planning class." Managers within Capitalist businesses are still Proletarian, planning is just a different form of labor. Such a distinction would mean that "plumber" is a class, as well as "doctor." What determines a class isn't the form of labor, but the relation to ownership, and in a fully Publicly Owned economy the planners are not the owners.

Secondly, there are checks on elected officials, I am not sure at all where you are getting the notion that there are none. Recall elections have been a core aspect of Marxist theory of organization since near the beginning, as well as concepts such as Democratic Centralism.

"Common people" are not distinct from "planners," nor would the "Common people" be able to do away with the concept of planners and management. Again, from Engels:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

It's not that Communist theory "never answered" your questions, its that nobody that is familiar with Communist theory would raise such questions as they don't make any sense in context. Does that make sense?

I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, Communism and Fascism have historically been entirely different and equating them is not really justified.

You're a bit confused about the Marxist notion of the State, understandably if you aren't a Marxist. For Marx, the state is the aspect of government that entrenches and enforces class distinctions, ergo once all property is public there are no classes, and thus no state, despite a government remaining. Per Engels:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Additionally, money can only be abolished once an economy has fully socialized, at no point in the USSR's history was that feasible. They even tried to move to a labor voucher system, but lacked the computerized means to make it truly practical.

Vanguards are never supposed to "give up" power, rather, they are meant to be extensions of the Working Class, ie the most politically experienced and trained among the Proletariat, connected to and accountable to the rest of the Proletariat. The State isn't the same as government, for Marx. The State is an instrument of class oppression, once all property is in the public sector there ceases to be classes, and thus the elements of government upholding class distinctions cease to have a purpose and "whither away." Per Engels:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

There are a few key misconceptions here.

MLs do not take the stance that you need to go through "State Capitalism." The State playing a role in Markets a la the NEP is still considered a Socialist state even if production isn't socialized, but this isn't 100% necessary though it is beneficial in underdeveloped sectors.

Secondly, Communism for Marxists looks like full Public Ownership and Central Planning in a worldwide republic. The State for Marx was the aspect of society that enforced class distinctions, so upon reaching full Public Ownership, even with a government, there is no "State" in the Marxist convention. Per Engels:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Finally, the CPC considers China to be Socialist already. The 2050 metric is to be a "great, developed Socialist nation." The CPC subscribes to the stageist theory of Socialism whereby each phase in Socialism has unique characteristics, not that they are not yet Socialist.

Kind of. Marx's theory of the State was about Class Oppression, when you eliminate Class there isn't really a State for Marx, ergo full Public Ownership and Central Planning is considered Communist. You are more referring to Anarchism.

This isn't actually true. AES states are Socialist, the concept of "State Capitalism" refered more to the NEP period. Communism is always meant to be based on Public Ownership and Central Planning, because Marx observed Capitalism's natural tendencies to centralize and develop intricate internal planning mechanisms.

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

Regardless of your opinions on the successes or failures of AES, they were and are very much in line with the Marxist notion of Socialism.

Even ignoring the hundreds of millions of Chinese Marxists, Marxist-Leninist consensus is that the PRC is Socialist, and Marxism-Leninism is by far the most common subset of Marxism globally. In the West, Trots and Maoists are more common due to their anti-AES stance and thus lack of material threat to the status quo, but Marxism-Leninism is still the most common subset!

What I want to ask is what you believe Socialism to be, because there's a clear Marxist answer to that question.

I suggest you read up on statistics, 32000 is quite enough for a sample size. 95% of 32000 answering anything is immensely consistent.

You can check the real wages and purchasing power parity, moreover more than doubling earnings is a large feat.

You're at least a decade out of date, extreme poverty has been eradicated even according to the world bank, and I am not excluding the 1% here. Working class salaries have risen dramatically, the disparity has risen but the real conditions for the overwhelming majority of people have dramatically improved. Disparity is a problem, yes, but it isn't a simple one, I recommend the essay China Has Billionaires.

Overall, though, your notions are heavily outdated and data reflects that.

Lemmy is discussion focused, the bulk of content is the comments guided by posts. Mastadon/nostr are about microblogging, the posts are the focus of content, not the comments.