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.
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.
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.