Post #4723580 · Elektrine

2026-09-16 10:28 UTC

Marxists take means-ends-unity into account as well, though. The Marxist concept of the withering of the state isn’t the fantasy of a strong central body willingly decided to abolish itself, this actually goes against how Marxists understand social class and administration under socialism. The withering of the state is a process that coexists with the gradual collectivization of all production and distribution, and because anarchists often see hierarchy as synonymous with class, they think this administration forms its own class. In reality, administrators in socialism are not a distinct class from the working class, but a subclass of them, with class interests aligned with the rest of their class.

Replies (1)

@AlloyAhoy@lemmy.ml 2026-09-16 13:31

I would not dismiss the concern of an administration being seen as a class onto itself, with its own discretionary powers and interests, out of hand. This isn’t too distant from clerics that were/are the law, and acted in their own interests in times present/past. They speak for their gods, so of course they must be right in their righteousness. By using definitions to declare that an administrator or other principle executive of an organ of power, as being a member of the working class (therefore: you see comrade, they cannot possibly be a class on to themself as they are part of the working class) skirts around the concern of the anarchist. It seems to trivialise the notion that others can act in their own interest, in the interest of their office, or even in the perception of their office, or that responsibilities and powers given to those bodies, and the corruptibility of those powers, and the entrenchment of those bodies against the perceived enemies of those offices, can never be used against the interests of that of the working class as naïvety is itself naïve.

Open ##4725911