Maybe you can clarify for me, as I’m not knowlegeble in Marxism: When the state withers away, what is the central organisation called, that manages the means of production? I thought that would also be called functions of a state. Thanks
Comment on Communism
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Communism, for Marxists, would look like a Worldwide Republic with full Public Ownership and Central Planning. The issue you are runnung into is Marxist definition of the State. For Marxists, the State is an instrument of Class oppression. When you eliminate Classes, you so eliminate the State. Administration, planning, legal networks, etc would still exist without what Marx considered a “State” to be. Moreover, this is the fundamental difference between what Marxists want and what Anarchists want. From Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
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.
The reason it isn’t instantaneous is because Marx and Engels believed Private Property could only truly be folded into the Public Sector once it had developed enough to be easily planned, and this happens at different rates across different industries, and to different degrees.
I highly recommend checking out my Introductory Marxist Reading List if you want to learn more, but feel free to ask any questions!
lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
Engels calls it “the Administration of Things,” I’d call it government. Really, the heart of the matter is that many people think Marx was advocating for decentralization, which does not logically follow from the rest of Marxism advocating for central planning and whatnot, leading to a weird misconception of a lot of cebtralization and somehow dissolving, which is evidently false.
We can think of it as a “State” remaining as long as we recontextualize what that means with respect to Marxism, the modern colloquial sense of a State would remain in an altered form is all.
lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
Ah, so it is just a case of a specific definition of “state”. What are the attributes of a state in that definition (as they do not include "the Administration of Things)? Goes totally against my intuition with that word
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
The state is fundamentally a tool of class oppression. Such aspects would include private property rights, and other enshrinements of class distinctions, which are gradually erased as property is collectivized. Additionally, aspects like policing would transform to be more akin to social workers as the economic reasons for crime would be dramatically minimized, things like that.
victorz@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If you want an answer from Marxists, it would be better to ask it on an instance with more Marxists.
Is there a listing somewhere where Lemmy instances are grouped by the sociopolitical ideologies of their members?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Not written out, as far as I’m aware. Lemmy.ml is more broadly federated than Lemmy.world, however, so it can cast a wider net. Perhaps asking on c/socialism or c/communism would be a good bet for OP. Per your question, though, it really is just found out either by checking each instance or feeling it out if it isn’t explicitly stated.
victorz@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I don’t think I’m able to read people well enough from text comments to gauge whether or not they are Marxist or something else, lmao.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
That’s fair! Marxists are most commonly found on Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, and Hexbear.net. Lemmy.world skews very liberal and is defederated from the latter 2, so as a consequence asking on Lemmy.world gets a very oversimplified view of Marxism.
If you want to learn about Marxism, you can check my reading list linked in my top level comment or on my profile.
Agosagror@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Seeing around this thread you clearly know your stuff. So it feels appropriate to reply to you with questions I have,
Somewhere in this thread one you thing you mentioned was the state/administration would have its exploitative elements removed and would just become an administrative and directive organization. To me this feels contradictory, the same process that allow an organization to direct resources are surely the same process that allow an organization to exploit people?
I’ve probably failed to word that correctly, so to illustrate what I mean, the guy who control who gets what, can just say “do what I want or I’ll deny you blah”, now what the adminstator wants can of course be influenced by money, like today’s politicians, but I’m sure there are plenty of other things people want and could seek to gain.
To me this is not a consequence of the state/adminstation being exploitative, rather a consequence of the state having authority to control resource flow at all.
I always camped in the areas of anarchist leftism, but I’m interested to see what you think. I’ve typed this on mobile, and I’m not well read enough to comment properly so I imagine there’s a lot of mistakes in this reply so sorry in advance
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
No problem, thanks for asking! 🙂
One thing I think you’re misreading is the State withering away. What we commonly think of as the “State,” ie the entire public sector, government, administration, etc is not the same as what Marx calls the State. For Marx, the State is the elements of Government that contribute to Class oppression.
Before we can continue, we need to know what a “class” even is to begin with. Elsewhere in this thread, people make reference to something like a “planner class,” but for Marx, no such thing exists. Rather, Classes are social relations with respect to ownership of the Means of Production and interaction with it. “Plumbers” are not a class, just like “managers” are not a class. The reason this is important, is because a classless society is one that holds all of the Means of Production in Common. In other words, full Public Ownership.
Circling back to the State, how does it “wither away?” The answer is that the Proletarian state, one dominated by the Proletariat and not the Bourgeoisie, gradually wrests from the Bourgeoisie its Capital with respect to the degree that it has developed. A Socialist revolution would not turn everything into Public Property instantly, markets and Capitalists would remain until the industries they govern develop enough that Public Ownership becomes more efficient and markets stagnate, ie monopolist phases where competition has run dry.
Since this is a gradual process, imagine every bit of Private Property wrested chips away at the State. The second Private Property reaches 0% and Public Property reaches 100%, there are no longer any classes, and thus no class to oppress. The “State” disappears, leaving only government, administration, and more behind.
As for the structural makeup of the socialist government, it would be most likely made up of “rungs,” a local rung, a regional rung with representatives from each local rung, a provincial, national, international, etc rung, as many as needed and as few as necessary for proper Central Planning. What you describe as people being able to just “take advantage” of that could happen, Communism isn’t some utopia of perfection, but such a society is far more resiliant and more importantly builds up over time in a realistic manner.
Does that answer your question? Feel free to read from the reading list I linked earlier, also linked on my profile!
fakir@lemm.ee 1 week ago
How does one get a Proletarin state? It seems that any state would be susceptible to corruption & greed? It’s what we have everywhere in the world.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Revolution is required to bring it about. You can observe the various successes and struggles faced by existing Socialist societies and historical Socialist societies to see what has worked and what hasn’t quite worked for how to organize it.
Moreover, every system is going to be susceptible to corruption and greed, Socialism would be more resiliant against it due to focusing production on fulfilling needs, rather than profits as a rule.
Agosagror@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Thank you for such a great response and answer, although I feel I’ve sold my knowledge of leftist ideas a bit short since you have given me a introduction into all of it as well as your answer. But you did answer my question well so a follow up question, given that people could take advantage of the government in some sense, is it not a concern that new class styled system could take hold, one centered on favors from the central government.
Another question which is probably less boring than my last couple, is do Marxist want to see eventual end of all oppressive forces, not just class based. To that extent I would think having a central government would be incompatible since it would allow for some one to take advantage of their position.
Separately, I would think most people can solve their problems if given the means to do so, or the access to those with knowledge - is further centralization really the solution?
I’ll take a skeptical look at your reading list. But you’ve given me some incredible insight into the ideas of Marxists, so thank you for that!
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Sure, I’ll take a crack at these!
For your first question, we have to question what it would mean to revert from full Public Ownership to some kind of Private Ownership. Such a method would require a revolution, to change hands from the global population to an elite few, but how would they do that? Communism is international, there’s little need for an army at all at that point, and police would be replaced largely by social workers. Such an upbeaval of the status quo would require a massive upset.
If you mean from within the system, ie slowly boil the frog and peacefully remove all democracy, I would ask you to explain how that would happen given the democratic forces at play and overall economic basis being one requiring everyone in society to be able to participate to their fullest extent, as well as why, when such a system would be at relative abundance.
At earlier stages in development, ie Socialism, sort of? However, I reiterate, planning is not a class, it’s a form of labor.
For your second question, I suppose I would say yes, Marxists don’t believe Communism to be the “end.” However, it is unlikely that such a system would move in favor of decentralization, as decentralization removes democratic input and paves the way for competition and markets to resurface into Capitalism. Engels’ work Anti-Duhring is centered on such a concept, though it isn’t on my reading list.
As for whether or not humanity will eventually move into a more Anarchist style, there’s little to suggest so far that mass, complex industry will simplify itself to where there is a total reversion from full public Ownership and central planning to incredibly simplified individual ownership and planning. I won’t say it’s impossible, but new analysis within Communism would have to observe its trends and predict the next phase of society to be based on atomization and individualism, rather than mass cooperation.
Marx never “decided” that Socialism was good so it should happen, rather, Capitalism’s natural tendency to centralize and teach society how to scale industry further and further and plan it meant Socialism was the next logical step. Such analysis would have to be done again, within Communism, and observe such phenomena to make it valid analysis.
Hope that helps!
Juice@midwest.social 1 week ago
For Marxists, the state is the institution that tries to resolve, with violence, the contradictions that are inherent within class society. So when class society no longer exists, then violence is no longer necessary, hence the state is no longer necessary, hence “withering away”.
This isn’t an all or nothing situation, just a theory. The laws of uneven and combined development indicate that this withering would happen in different ways at different rates. this process wouldn’t even begin until the whole world has become some form of socialism, and the social relations governing society would be much progressed. Its hard to imagine how this would work compared to our current situation