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.
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.
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.
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.
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.