The Withering Away of the State

[papaspace]

Regarding this passage from Engels' Anti-Durhing:


When, at last, it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: "a free State", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific inefficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.

Does it mean that the state, as an administrative organization, remains in operation after the "withering away" of the state? Does the "withering away" of the state refer only to it losing its class character (as classes disappear) or is there an actual change of institutions?

If there isn't, does it mean that Marxism is (largely) about the proletarian class capturing the existing state, democratizing it and making all property its property, and THEN STAYING IN OPERATION in the new society after class differences are gone?

[papaspace]

C'mon... Anyone?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Does it mean that the state, as an administrative organization, remains in operation after the "withering away" of the state? Does the "withering away" of the state refer only to it losing its class character (as classes disappear) or is there an actual change of institutions?I think its both actually - as society looses class divisions many of the measures needed early on by workers trying to organize society in their interests will become unnecessary. This is easy to see with an example such as worker's militias which would probably be necessary early on but would become needless as workers consolidate their hold over society.

It's harder to picture how this would work in administration but Marx and Lenin talked about how administrative tasks would become less and less a separate function in society. In capitalist society, the ruling classes generally favor parliamentary style democracy as a way promote their hegemony over society but since they do not really want popular democracy to challenge the capitalist system, there is a conscious separation of bureaucrats and administrators and politicians from the rest of the population. In Parliaments and Congresses the decisions and legislation aren't really made out in the open - deals are cut among lobbyists and the respective party leaderships and that's where the real decisions are made while the actual congressional debates and hearings are mostly just for show. For example, the Democrats decided that Universal or National health-care were "off the table" long before the "democratic process" began to debate different plans for health care. In a worker's democracy - run from the bottom up - any administrator positions or representatives from councils would only need to carry out the decisions made by the workers. At first, a lot of coordination and planning would be needed because people would be trying to shift a society based on inequality to one based on cooperation and equality - so new housing, schools, community structures, hospitals, transportation, and so on would need to be created where capitalism has neglected these basic needs. With these initial tasks underway and with production beginning to fufil all needs and starting to move onto more "wants" and luxuries, then a big coordinating structure is less necessary - workers would not have to debate and argue over what to prioritize because society has already largely been reconstructed on a socialist basis of meeting people's needs. An initial task such as organizing the building of new communities and hosing would be a lot less urgent over time and would become more a matter of planning based on projected population growth or responding to the occasional population spike.

Lenin talks about "overcoming democracy" as part of the withering away of a worker's state. He argues that initially workers would need a thoroughly democratic system for their rule at first, but as class differences and distinctions fade, then there is no reason for democracy where the majority, the workers, can make decisions over the remnants of other classes. So without class divisions and different views of who should run society, the state, even a democratic one based on worker's power is no longer a necessarily tool: it would be a society without class differences and therefore no need for an organized system for one group of society to place its interests over the whole of society -- communism.

[/quote]If there isn't, does it mean that Marxism is (largely) about the proletarian class capturing the existing state, democratizing it and making all property its property, and THEN STAYING IN OPERATION in the new society after class differences are gone?[/QUOTE]Well I think most revolutionary marxists are clear that the existing state needs to be smashed and replaced by a new one - worker's democracy from below IMO. The capitalist state is a tool for protecting the interests of private property and would be useless and ineffective for the working class to be able to collectively and democratically run society. As Marx said, while Capitalists always talk about the need for a small and economically responsible state, the trend for capitalists states has always been towards more centralization and bureaucracy. He contrasts this with the Paris Commune and says they made this call for a smaller state and bureaucracy a reality on day one when they got rid of the politicians and the military. Unlike the capitalists, workers do not have an interest in creating a "state" which is full of bureaucrats and parliamentary rules and legal protocol - they need a fully transparent and responsive tool for mass working-class decision making.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out."

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm hella antistate, but this sounds like a neo-liberal conception of its withering away (insofar as the relationship between persons is more and more mediated by commodities, making the administration of persons superfluous).