almost definitely a repost but eh
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
301 points (84.3% liked)
Curated Tumblr
5994 readers
41 users here now
For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.
Here are some OCR tools to assist you in transcribing posts:
-
FOSS Android Recs per u/m_f@discuss.online: 1 , 2
Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"A stateless utopia birthed from the continual consolidation of power in a proletariat dictatorship" gives the same vibes as trickle down economics.
As production and distribution are collectivized, class fades, and along with it the institutions needed to uphold the working class as the ruling class over capitalists, as there would be no capitalists. It doesn't mean the total erasure of administration and management.
Except they become the new capitalists. They would develop an interest in maintaining their position as administrators and as administrators would have the means even if it conflicts with everyone else's interests. They'd become the new upper class.
Also, I'm surprised you didn't point out that the "withering of the state" was Friedrich Engels' idea technically. Not Marx.
No, they would not become the new capitalists. Collectivized production is based on allocation of labor, means of labor, and distribution of goods and services based on needs and in some cases "labor vouchers." An administrator in such a system is entitely distinct from a capitalist. Even in capitalism, managers are not capitalists and do not play the same role.
Capitalism is predicated on circulation of commodities, and constant reproduction on an expanded scale with profit as the motivator. Capitalists aren't capitalists because they manage, but because they use their money, cast it into the market like a net (buying means of labor and labor-power), and return said net with greater sums of money. Such a system is completely incompatible with collectivized production.
As for the withering of the state, Marx came up with the concept. Engels merely came up with the phrase.
I wasn't saying administrators would become capitalists in the strictest definition, but in the fact that they'd become a class distinct from the rest of the proletariat. You'd still have a state enforced hierarchical structure that has its own interests. It just wont be structured around facilitating various corporations and their profits. You can argue that's an improvement over capitalism, but to suggest the state will naturally wither away in such a system is naive at best and a manipulative lie at worst.
Where did Marx originally describe the idea?
I'm aware of what you meant. Administration isn't a class, and is not based on domination of the means of production through ownership, but is merely a necessary part of the production process. Further, the proletariat wouldn't exist either, proletarians are specifically wage laborers that sell their labor to capitalists, what we are discussing is classless society.
As for Marx and the concept of the state withering, I'm unaware of the first mentionings of it, but the idea can be found all the way back in Economic Manuscripts of 1844:
Engels was great at writing and contributed a great deal to the development of Marx's thought, but even before co-writing Manifesto of the Communist Party Marx had already had a fairly developed conception of the negation of the state, as a student of Hegel.
I'm not much of a fan of Engels, as I noticed of what I've read of him that his works or works involving him tend towards subtly implying (or even explicitly stating) top down structures and authoritarianism is initially necessary to achieve communism in the ways he frames his analysis. Something that Marx seemed generally more mixed or neutral on when he wrote independently of Engels depending on how late in his writings you look.
Regardless, having access to the controls that gives one power over economic value and the ability to exploit that power, even if its not through ownership its still under their control. For example, someone who runs a non-profit organization but uses all the grant money to build a clubhouse for them and their friends rather than something broadly socially beneficial is exploiting the people who actually generated the value for the grant money in the first place, even if the clubhouse is not the administrator's by deed.
I work for a non-profit. I know a lot of decisions above me get made because its more beneficial for leadership or even employees rather than the greater community.
Why is a class based society bad? Why is it harmful? My personal answer is that it just results in a generally worse world for people through taking away control over their own lives as they end up largely dictated by capitalists. If the system you aim to replace classes with reproduces many of those same kinds of consequences for the average person but just changes who's in charge then its not really what I would describe as a meaningfully better world. Its the same shit but with a different color palette.
I'm not convinced a state with its own self interest would ever permit its power to "wither". That doesn't mean a state can't be used for good, or that states are intrinsically evil, but a state given some ideological revolutionary foundation, monopoly on violence, and a "ends justify the means" attitude towards achieving utopia and an indifference towards individuals under its power is going to commit some atrocities and historically has.
Marx and Engels have the same view on the state and its withering. Marx dedicated his later years to Capital, of course, but the two bounced their ideas off of each other and were aligned. Engels was more a student of Marx than an equal, though, as Marx was the one that truly advanced dialectics into dialectical materialism, formed historical materialism, and of course wrote Capital. The communist society envisioned by each involves full collectivization of production, which includes administration and management, but of course also includes democracy and full control by the people.
Secondly, the idea that administration can be abused in a planned and collectivized economy the same way it can be in a non-profit in the broader context is misframed. Decisions made to benefit leadership in an independent non-profit are entirely different from how, say, the post-office is run. A communist society would be far closer to how the postal service runs than a non-profit, but of course would move beyond the concept of markets and money.
Thirdly, socialism has resulted in massive uplifting of the working classes, and reductions in disparity. Capitalism and socialism have not been equals, economies where public ownership is principle have not been utopian wonderlands, of course, but have achieved far better than capitalism has for more people. Letting perfect be the enemy of good isn't something I consider a worthwhile endeavor.
Finally, the state is interlinked with the mode of production, and serves to resolve class conflicts in favor of the ruling class. In socialism, when public ownership is principle, that is the working class. The state withers as class does, but that doesn't mean it collapses into full horizontalism. What it means is that special bodies of armed people no longer have an economic compulsion to exist, without class conflict there is no class to uphold. The state doesn't "let itself wither," it erases its foundations as a tool to reconcile class distinctions.
Why would it erase something that gives those within it power? If the reason it exists is to reconcile class distinctions, it will not bother to erase class distinctions and will in fact work to make sure the justification of its existence is maintained. People with power do not willingly permit the reasons for their power to "naturally dissolve". If they must, they will manufacture a crisis to justify their continued power.
For one, administration isn't disappearing. Some positions will wither, perhaps, but production will still be collectively planned. Further, collectivization is economically compelled in systems where public ownership is principle. Your conception of the state making up reasons for its existence isn't really accurate, it isn't distinct from the mode of production but thoroughly enmeshed in it and the class struggle.