Dictatorship of the proletariat

[Redhead]

This may sound like a dumb question, but what are some arguments of why the state must wither away? What would happen if it didnt, and would such a society be any good?

[Tim Cornelis]

The withering away of the state is not dependent on individual will, it is a built-in consequence of the structure of the revolutionary dictatorship it self. According to Marxism, contradictions within capitalism produce class antagonisms between the working class and capitalist class which will result, at some point, in a revolutionary situation wherein the working class forms organs of workers' power -- such as workers' councils, workers' associations, committees, communes -- to try and conquer political power. These organs, part of a revolutionary body -- the workers' state or revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat -- is organised from below with power in the lowest organs, and mandated, recallable, rotating workers' deputies in higher organs executing decisions. These decisions are binding on all organs by virtue of the lower organs accepting the decisions of the higher organs. This is important since the revolutionary working class needs to generalise its conditions to consolidate victory. The revolutionary state is a temporary one where councils and such organs will wield political power, while workers' associations will assume control of production. Through this process, socialised production under private property is transformed into social ownership. The state will use violence, pressure, and coercion where necessary to consolidate power and carry the revolution to victory. This violence is directed at the reaction, those using violence to restore property rights and to restore the bourgeois class to the position of ruling class. As the social revolution progresses the reaction is beaten and defeated, and the process of socialisation is completed, revolutionary violence is obsolete and will necessarily disappear -- it's not a matter of giving up power, it's matter of it becoming obsolete. What remains of the workers' state -- the workers' state stripped of its coercive functions -- is the associations of producers and social ownership. In other words, the result is the free association of equal producers and consumers administrating commonly owned productive resources: communism.
The withering away of the state is not optional and it is not reformed out of existence. The structure of workers' state will lose its coercive functions, and the structure that remains is collective administration through freely associated individuals.

[Redhead]

But how far goes the withering? In the dictatorship of the proletariat, is there a form of "official" law enforcement, and if so, at what point will that wither away? Cant that also be a positive side?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The state arises from class antagonism - this is a basic Marxist theory. This means that, class antagonism having been abolished, the material basis for the existence of the state would disappear, and the state would "wither away" as its functions increasingly become irrelevant. It's not that, for example, the central soviet will one day arbitrarily decide to abolish the republic of labour - but the state features of that republic, such as the repressive apparatus etc., will increasingly become unnecessary and will simply become unused.


But how far goes the withering? In the dictatorship of the proletariat, is there a form of "official" law enforcement, and if so, at what point will that wither away? Cant that also be a positive side?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state and as such, it does have a form of "law enforcement", or rather a repressive apparatus. This apparatus is identical to the armed workers in a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. In communism, it also withers away, as the need for such an apparatus has disappeared. I don't understand the last sentence. Whether something is positive or negative has no bearing on whether it will happen, but I would say a world without law and repressive apparatus is a pretty positive one.

[Tim Cornelis]

But how far goes the withering? In the dictatorship of the proletariat, is there a form of "official" law enforcement, and if so, at what point will that wither away? Cant that also be a positive side?

As law enforcement there'd be workers' militias. They would fight the reaction and presumably enforce whatever policies necessary to consolidate victory, perhaps taxation. Their coercive power would disappear when the violent reaction and taxation would have disappeared. So withering away depends on the maturing of socialist institutions (which would make, among other things, taxation obsolete) and the disappearance of open insurrection by counter-revolutionary forces. When the workers' militias have no purpose they will simply disband.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the thing that both Tim and 870 have stressed here is that the state is an organ of class rule.

Currently, the state is the organ for the bourgeoisie to rule. In the revolutionary dictatorship the state (such as it is) is an organ of working class rule.

Once all property has been collectivised, and the whole population is part of what was, once, 'the working class', then classes will have become transformed into something else - the world human community. A 'class' is a division or separate part of something else. A thing may be divided into two or more classes, but it can't be divided into one class.

So when everyone is a worker there is no more 'working class' because there is no 'class' of workers separate from 'people in general'. So there is no more 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' because there is no more proletariat, and with the taking of all property under collective control, there is no more 'revolution' either. The bourgeoisie has been dispossessed, the world civil war has been won, and the working class has generalised its condition.

Thus, there's no basis for a dictatorship of any class (no classes) and no reason for it either. Engels' metaphor of the 'withering away of the state' refers to destroying the roots of a plant and watching the leaves wither - well, if the state is the leaves, then the class system is the trunk and property laws are the roots. Once property has been taken into workers' control, then the roots of the class system (which in turn creates the state) have been destroyed.

Thus, it has little to do with the will of the actors, This is why attempts to do away with the state without also destroying capitalism are bound to fail. It is only through re-ordering the economy that the working class can abolish itself, the other classes in society, and the basis for the state.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

It isn't really so much that, with the withering away of the state, that we can expect there to be no kind of administration or collective, deliberate organization of things.

Blake's Baby did an excellent job of defining the state and describing the process by which it becomes obsolete. The state is the organ of execution by which the class or classes in power exercise their domination over the other class or classes. When there is no more bourgeoisie (provided sufficient development for class antagonisms to have simplified to a bourgeois-proletarian dichotomy), then there is no more proletariat. The concept of class ceases to function because of the generalized collective ownership of production.

Movements predicated on the "abolition" of the state are off the mark in that they don't understand the class character of the state. What they end up attacking is the idea of organization or administration, and, in a world in which the powers of oppression are highly organized, they inevitably fall to the enemies of the working class.

Marx and Engels described a situation following the death of the state as -- and I paraphrase -- an administration of things rather than of people. Under capitalism, the working people are as much a commodity as any product they put together; they are just another expression of capital in the eyes of the capitalist. Their lives and movement are determined by the sale of their labor to the capitalist. The state reflects this in controlling people, keeping workers docile and submissive while affording a minority of them enough disposable income to continue to feed the accumulation of wealth hoarded by the bourgeoisie.

Under communism, however, administration refers to a collective effort to control production to the benefit of everyone. Everyone, collectively, has authority and ownership over production. Society reflects this non-ownership of people, and human beings are realized as human beings rather than as capital or means to ends. This is why Marx and Engels wrote about the family and marriage, too, in such a way as to suggest that, one day, parents would not view their children as things to be owned and controlled and romantic/sexual partners would not view one another in that way, either. Perhaps, even, the very ideas of infidelity or insubordination would wither away, too!