But that implies that the members of the party are actually part of the proletarian class. This supposed class membership is purely idealist.
You are incorrectly defining class. This essence of class is: who controls the means of production, and who decides what to do with the surplus value created, and who it goes to benefit.
State administrators (uncharitably bureaucrats as you would call them) are not a class. They do not privately owns means of production, nor collect the surplus value of workers, deciding privately what to do with it. What to do with the surplus, and production decisions, are determined by decision making at the collective, political-level, not at the private level. This means they are not driven by profit motives, since increasing exploitation personally gains them nothing.
The party is not the de jure nor de facto owner of the means of production, the entire working class is. This is why production in socialist economies is not run for the accumulation of capital in the hands of party members, such would make accusations of “state capitalism” hold water. Production is socialized, and the social surplus is also socialized.
You are incorrectly defining class. This essence of class is: who controls the means of production, and who decides what to do with the surplus value created, and who it goes to benefit.
State administrators (uncharitably bureaucrats as you would call them) are not a class. They do not privately owns means of production, nor collect the surplus value of workers, deciding privately what to do with it. What to do with the surplus, and production decisions, are determined by decision making at the collective, political-level, not at the private level. This means they are not driven by profit motives, since increasing exploitation personally gains them nothing.
The party is the owner of the means of production. That’s why anachists call AES “state-capitalism”.
Anarchists use the term “state-capitalism” because they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about
Wrong again. The working class is the owner of production, and elect and delegate managers dedicated to this task.
Name me a single grouping of any kind that doesn’t have managers, leaders, or organizers.
So, can anyone be delegated to be a manager, can that mandate be recalled by the workers again, or do you need to be in the party to be eligible?
Straw-man. I’m not arguing against administration (nor is any collectivist anarchist).
The party is not the de jure nor de facto owner of the means of production, the entire working class is. This is why production in socialist economies is not run for the accumulation of capital in the hands of party members, such would make accusations of “state capitalism” hold water. Production is socialized, and the social surplus is also socialized.