Okay, thank you for sharing your views. I think I see where you are getting confused in your understanding of Marx, and why you see Marxism-Leninism as a departure despite it being a continuation of Marxism to the era of imperialism. The core problems I see are as follows:
-
Marx did not argue against administration, nor against vanguards, nor against the state. Communism is not flat and horizontal, it's a fully collectivized system of production and distribution, which Marx saw as necessarily requiring administrative labor. Engels referred to the stateless government as the "administration of things." Class is abolished when production and distribution is fully collectivized, and when class is abolished so too is the basis for the state. What remains is administration necessary for running society at scale.
-
The vanguard is not a "bureaucratic class," it is an organized subsection of the most politically advanced of the proletariat. Classes are not hierarchies, but relations to production and distribution. Just as teachers and principals are both proletarian, so are government workers.
-
Marx criticized the Paris Commune harshly for not establishing state power, and refusing to march on the banks. The Paris Commune did not go far enough. While it was admirable as one of the first real proletarian revolutions, it was a failure for not smashing the former state power and replacing it with a worker state.
-
The treatment of publicly owned and run industry as essentially the same as private is absolutely anti-Marxist. Private industry is run for accumulation and profit, and operates in commodity and capital valorization circuits. Public industry is not beholden to the profit motive, and government officials were not paid in profits, but wages. This is why socialist administrators do not see the same ballooning wealth as capitalists.
Managers are objectively not an elevated class, assuming they have the same relations to ownership of the means of production, in Marxist analysis. You don't need to read Capital for this, Marx's Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy makes Marx's position explicit:
Marx responding to Bakunin
Will the entire proletariat perhaps stand at the head of the government?
In a trade union, for example, does the whole union form its executive committee? Will all division of labour in the factory, and the various functions that correspond to this, cease? And in Bakunin’s constitution, will all ‘from bottom to top’ be ‘at the top’? Then there will certainly be no one ‘at the bottom.’ Will all members of the commune simultaneously manage the interests of its territory? Then there will be no distinction between commune and territory.
The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.
The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.
If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.
Then there will be no government and no state, but if there is a state, there will be both governors and slaves.
i.e. only if class rule has disappeared, and there is no state in the present political sense.
This dilemma is simply solved in the Marxists’ theory. By people’s government they understand (i.e. Bakunin) the government of the people by means of a small number of leaders, chosen (elected) by the people.
Asine! This is democratic twaddle, political drivel. Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character.
The universal suffrage of the whole people…
Such a thing as the whole people in today’s sense is a chimera…
…in the election of people’s representatives and rulers of the state — that is the last word of the Marxists, as also of the democratic school — [is] a lie, behind which is concealed the despotism of the governing minority, and only the more dangerously in so far as it appears as expression of the so-called people’s will.
With collective ownership the so-called people’s will vanishes, to make way for the real will of the cooperative.
So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists…
Where?
…will consist of workers. Certainly, with your permission, of former workers, who however, as soon as they have become representatives or governors of the people, cease to be workers…
As little as a factory owner today ceases to be a capitalist if he becomes a municipal councillor…
…and look down on the whole common workers’ world from the height of the state. They will no longer represent the people, but themselves and their pretensions to people’s government. Anyone who can doubt this knows nothing of the nature of men.
If Mr. Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers’ cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers’ state, if he wants to call it that.
These confusions on your part are why you see socialist production organized by the working classes collectively as in contradiction with itself. Management and administration are socially necessary, and were always understood to be a part of communism. The anarchists disagreed with Marx and Engels, and so were kicked out of the first international (itself a proto-vanguard) along with Bakunin. You may disagree with Marx and Engels, but this does not make Lenin's continuation of Marxism a betrayal of it.
I believe that those are really the key problems here. You are reading Marx to have been an anarchist, and are therefore seeing applied Marxism as a betrayal of "Marx the anarchist," the version of Marx you believe to be authentic but which does not exist.