The Dialectics of the Withering State: Centralisation, Class Struggle, and Socialist Construction
 |
| Figure 1 |
Abstract
This article analyses the dialectical relationship between the productive forces and the relations of production—within the context of the transition from capitalism to socialism—while highlighting the central role of the proletarian state as theorised by Marx, Engels, and Lenin. According to Marxist theory, the emergence of private property gives rise to class-based and social contradictions that necessitate the formation of the state; and with the establishment of a classless communist society, the state dies out. Contrary to liberal and Western Marxist interpretation that portray political centralisation as incompatible with the eventual withering away of state, this article argues that political and economic centralisation is not contradictory to the withering away of the state. Rather, it constitutes an indispensable process that drives the unprecedented development of the productive forces and creates the social and material foundations for classless communist society. The article examines how the question of the state's withering away is related to the Communist Party, arguing that in the advanced stages of socialist construction, the roles of the state and the Party gradually converge with one another. Overall, this study contributes to contemporary debates on socialist governance by clarifying how centralisation, productive forces, and production relations, altogether create the material conditions necessary for the eventual “dying out” of the state.
Keywords
Productive forces, Production relations, Centralisation, State, Withering away, Communist Party, Marxism-Leninism
Introduction
In the 175 years since the publication of the Communist Manifesto, capitalist societies have repeatedly experienced crises and structural transformations. Over these years, social contradictions have deepened, and it has become increasingly challenging for the capitalist class to maintain the existing social order. Although the development of productive forces has expanded globally in an unprecedented manner, exploitation, uneven development, and class antagonisms persist, causing the living standards of the people to continue declining. Marx and Engels, through the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism, understood the laws of social development and established a scientific approach. They demonstrated that the division of labor, private property, and the emergence of classes are processes inseparably connected, and that social relations and political forms are constructed based on the continuous relationship of production and reproduction of material goods. The state arises from these contradictions and functions as an instrument of class rule.
Under capitalism, the contradiction between socialised production and private ownership becomes the central contradiction of the epoch. The task of socialist revolution is not limited merely to the seizure of political power; it also involves the revolutionary transformation of production relations in accordance with the level of productive forces. Lenin emphasised that socialism must directly confront small commodity production and that transforming small commodity producers requires prolonged and careful organisational work to gradually re- educate and integrate them into socialist production relations, as petty commodity production continuously reproduces bourgeois relations within socialist society. The persistence of petty commodity producers, combined with uneven development, makes the transition to socialism more complex in semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries than in advanced capitalist states.
Therefore, the central theoretical question is how a socialist society manages class struggle and economic transformation after the establishment of proletarian political power. This requires analysing the dialectical relationship between productive forces and production relations under socialism and understanding how this relationship determines the form and function of the socialist state. The development of socialist production relations requires a certain level of productive forces. This condition determines how the dictatorship of the proletariat organises and centralises the economy, and such centralisation ultimately creates the material basis for the eventual withering away of the state.
Dialectical Relationship Between Production Relations and Productive Forces
In Historical materialism, the relations of production constitute structural foundation of every economic formation. The distinctions among various economic formations arise from differences in their relations of production, and each socio-economic formation is defined by its specific type of production relations. Distinct economic structures represent successive economic formations that have emerged and been superseded throughout human history. The relations of production existing within a particular society constitute the economic structure of that society. As Karl Marx states “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness (Marx, 1859).” Hence, the emergence of different forms of society is directly reflected in the prevailing relations of production- for example, the slave society (relations between slave owners and slaves), the feudal society (relations between feudal lords and serfs), and the capitalist society (relations between capitalists and the proletariat).
Within the dialectical relationship, the decisive factor is the productive force, since “with the change and development of the productive forces of society in the course of history, men’s relations of production, their economic relations also changed and developed (Stalin, 1938).” At any given stage of social development, the advancement of productive forces is constrained by the prevailing relations of production. The relations of production, fundamentally, reflect the ownership of the means of production within a given society. Under socialism, ownership of the means of production changes in two principal forms. The first is the nationalisation of the means of production, such as land and heavy industry, representing the expropriation of property from the old exploiting classes, namely the feudal landlords, the comprador bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie class. Following the revolution, the nationalisation of land and industry marked a decisive step toward establishing socialist relations of production. Consequently, the majority of the means of production came under state ownership, with production now regulated and directed by the state in accordance with socialist principles.
The second form of transformation under socialism is the gradual change in the ownership of the means of production, from private ownership to cooperative ownership, then to collective ownership, and ultimately to state ownership (See Figure 1).
As previously mentioned, within the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production, the decisive factor is the productive force. There is no doubt that the mode of production is the sum total of productive forces and relations of production. However, within it, the principal or decisive factor is the productive forces. The growth of productive forces to a certain level opens the path for changes in the relations of production. However, this aspect may vary according to the developmental stage of given society, since they exist in a dialectical relationship. So, unless the productive forces have reached a certain level of development, any attempt to alter the relations of production often proves unsuccessful. And always even under socialism, there would be lag between the development of productive force and relation of production
This analysis excludes the theory of productive forces advanced at the Eighth Congress of the Communist Party of China in September 1956, which excluded the question of class struggle or the so-called “rational organisation of productive forces” proposed by Yaroshenko (Stalin, 1951) As Stalin stated in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, “The relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces.” Without the up- to-date development of the productive forces, the transformation toward socialist relations of production cannot be fully realised. The further development of relation of production requires the corresponding development of the productive forces. When the quantitative growth of productive forces reaches a certain level, a qualitative change in the relations of production becomes both necessary and inevitable. Socialism cannot be built on the foundation of backward productive forces.
This raises an important question: how can we determine the appropriate time to transform the relations of production in relation to the development of the productive forces? The answer lies in the degree of development of the productive forces in correspondence with the overall level of social and technical progress of a given period. The social needs of the people, along with their cultural aspirations, must be met; thus, the development of the productive forces must advance to satisfy the material and cultural requirements of the masses. Lenin clarified further: “The possibility of building socialism depends exactly upon our success in combining the Soviet power and the Soviet organisation of administration with the up-to-date achievements of capitalism” (Lenin, 1918). This Cultural Revolution would now suffice to make our country a completely socialist country, but it presents immense difficulties of a purely cultural (for we are illiterate) and material character (for to be cultured we must achieve a certain development of the material means of production, must have a certain material base)” (Lenin, 1965).
Thus, the transformation of production relations under socialism requires a threshold of productive development, and this condition determines how the dictatorship of the proletariat must organise and centralise its economy, leading toward state-owned enterprises with a planned socialist economy.
Origin of State
Engels on his writings, Origin of Family, Private Property and State, has illustrated the law of development and the origin of State. He has mainly pointed three way of origin of state as; German, Roman, Athenian. He emphasised that how the private property leads to the formation of state in various form. In primitive society, neither the state nor any form of state authority existed. However, once economic development reached a certain level, private property emerged, and with it the division of labor deepened. As the division of labor expanded and individuals’ relations to the means of production diverged, distinct social classes appeared, leading to the fragmentation of society along class lines. To regulate these emerging class relations, administer the new social order, and protect and maintain the conditions created by economic development, the necessity for a state arose. He explains that the state emerged in three main ways after the gentile, clan-based system collapsed.
In Athens, it appeared in its most direct and classical form, “the state springs directly and mainly out of the class oppositions which develop within gentile society itself.”
In Rome, the gentile order hardened into a closed aristocracy surrounded by a large plebeian population that had responsibilities but no political rights. “the victory of plebs breaks up the old constitution based on kinship and erects on its ruins the state, into which both the gentile aristocracy and the plebs are soon completely absorbed.”
In the case of the Germanic conquerors of the Roman Empire, “the state springs directly out of the conquest of large foreign territories which the gentile constitution provides no means of governing.”
He argues “a power, apparently standing above society, has become necessary to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of ‘order’; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.”(Engels, 1884) He mainly focused here about the origin of state, but not a withering-away of state. He has written about the withering away of state in his popular and genius work called; Anti-Dühring which was also known as Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science. I will discuss about it later in my writings.
Withering away of State
When the necessity of state to exist will vanished, then the state will wither way but not abolished. Engels explains that the state has always presented itself as the collective authority of the entire community, the organised form through which society appears as a unified whole. Yet this was true only because the state represented the ruling class that, in each era, claimed to stand for society itself. In antiquity, it was the state of slave owner; in the Middle Ages, it belonged to the feudal nobility; and in the modern era, it serves the bourgeoisie.
Once the proletariat takes control of political power, it uses that power to convert the already socialised means of production—formerly controlled by the bourgeoisie—into collective property. In doing so, the proletariat removes their capitalist character and allows their inherently social nature to function without obstruction. From this point, planned and coordinated social production becomes possible. As production develops under these new conditions, the existence of separate social classes becomes outdated. And as the chaos of unregulated production disappears, the state’s political authority gradually fades away internally, but remains to exist as long as capitalism exist externally. Humanity, having gained control over the shape of its own social system, simultaneously gains mastery over nature and becomes truly free. Lenin argues “The abolition of class means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth” (Lenin, 1914).
Freedom and Democracy
In discussing the withering away of the state, Lenin stresses the question of democracy and equality. He points out that liberal professors and petty-bourgeois opportunists, who loudly praise ideals such as “freedom,” “equality,” and “democracy,” are in fact defending bourgeois democracy—democracy for the capitalist class and the dictatorship of capital. Lenin describes this system as “democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority” (Lenin, 1917). He further argues that only with the attainment of communism can the most genuine and highest form of democracy be realised. As this highest form of democracy develops, it inevitably moves society toward a stage in which the state becomes superfluous and gradually withers away.
Even in State and Revolution, Lenin primarily addresses the question of the withering away of the state in relation to democracy, equality, and freedom. While criticising liberal professors, Lenin, remaining within the framework of
Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, focused on the actual realisation of freedom and equality under communism. When the vast majority of society becomes capable of carrying out the administrative functions of the state, exercising oversight over workers still shaped by residual capitalist habits and privileges, and eliminating those remnants when required, the necessity for any form of government steadily begins to fade. The fuller the development of democracy, the closer society moves to a stage where government is no longer necessary. Moreover, more democratic this new workers’ state becomes—one in which the system is administered by armed workers—the more rapidly every remaining vestige of the state begins to disappear. Lenin further notes that “the necessity of observing the simple, fundamental rules of the community will very soon become a habit” (Lenin, 1917). He even concludes the question of the withering away of the state by stating, “We do not know how quickly or in what order, but we do know that they will wither away” (Lenin, 1917).
Centralisation and Development of the Productive Forces
The question of the withering away of the state still requires thorough clarification. As previously noted, the abolition of class entails the social ownership of the means of production. Under socialism, characterised as the dictatorship of the proletariat led by the Communist Party, the focus is on transforming all forms of property—such as cooperatives and collectives—into state-owned enterprises and farms. In this context, the state represents the people, as all state-owned property ultimately belongs to the people ownership.
However, in a communist society, where the state has withered away, a key question arises: how is ownership exercised by the people? Numerous Marxist theorists have addressed this issue. Most emphasise the importance of democracy and the decentralisation of power to communities or society as a whole. They argue that the primary goal of a communist society is to achieve community ownership as quickly as possible. Decentralisation, they contend, creates favorable conditions for the development of socialist management and enhances workers’ participation in decision-making processes. Moreover, for the means of production to become truly socially owned—that is, for workers to exercise effective collective control—the working class must first overcome internal divisions and achieve unity. This unity between the workers and the means of production must take precedence over their current separation (Bettelheim, 1974).
The bourgeois state, despite its illusion of pluralism and decentralised governance, is in reality a centralised dictatorship of capital, concealing its class character behind a façade of competing parties. Marxist-Leninist recognise the necessity of extending democratic centralism to the entire state apparatus. This is not a rejection of democracy, but a prerequisite for achieving a higher, genuinely proletarian form of it. In theory, this entails a centralised state and economy, though in practice some forms of decentralised governance may exist. The democratisation of the state must begin with centralisation, for only a unified workers’ state can decisively overcome the resistance of the bourgeoisie and dismantle the anarchy inherent in the market.
In the process of building socialism in one country or across several countries, the revolutionary state does not confront only internal contradictions or its own bourgeois elements—whether economic, political, or social—but also the bourgeoisie on a global scale, and, in contemporary conditions, the broader imperialist power structure. To eradicate every remaining vestige of the bourgeois class, whether material or ideological, the state apparatus must be employed. In Louis Althusser’s terms, this involves the use of both, “Ideological and Repressive State Apparatuses” (Althusser, 1970), to dominate and suppress the dying bourgeois class. A socialist state encircled by bourgeois states will neither wither away nor be able to do so. On the contrary, such a state will necessarily strengthen itself in order to struggle against capitalist and imperialist forces and to wage a “Just War” (Lenin, 1919) in defence of the national and global proletarian interest. Consequently, Marxist–Leninist theory emphasizes the centralisation of state power and administrative structures as a material requirement for confronting both internal remnants of the bourgeoisie and external imperialist forces and their subordinate agents.
Centralism, therefore, serves as the instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat—a necessary force to expropriate the expropriators, socialise the means of production, and ultimately place ownership in the hands of the people. A centralised state, guided by the vanguard party, acts as a disciplined and coordinated force, defending the revolution, suppressing counter-revolution, and mobilising the entire nation. Simultaneously, a centralised planned economy offers a conscious and rational alternative to capitalist crises, directing social production toward human needs rather than private profit.
With the rise of capitalism came the need for expanding markets. As Marx and Engels noted in The Communist Manifesto, capitalism must “nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere” (Marx & Engels, 1848). The expansion of markets required the integration of populations and the forging of modern nations. In its early stages—particularly in Central and Western Europe—capitalism succeeded in unifying fragmented nationalities into cohesive nation-states in the modern sense. Centralisation therefore served as a prerequisite for capitalist growth and expansion. As Lenin described this motion, capitalism develops “in breadth and in depth” (Lenin, 1899) through the concentration and centralisation of production, enabling the rapid growth of productive forces, the extraction of super-profits, and the relentless re-capitalisation of anything capable of generating exchange value. Without such processes of centralisation and amalgamation, industrial capitalism—characterised by the consolidation of smaller firms into large enterprises—could not have emerged.
From a Marxist-Leninist theoretical perspective, the global victory of the proletariat will elevate the development of the productive forces to an unprecedented level, resulting in a corresponding centralisation of the economy. At this advanced stage, smaller administrative organs and their functions will become redundant and will be merged into large, centralised bureaus. Through this continuous process of centralisation and amalgamation, the material conditions necessary for the state will ceased to exist.
Moreover, at such a level of economic and productive development, private property will also cease to exist. The social and material conditions that enable the re-emergence of private property and capitalist production will permanently fade, making their return historically impossible. Thus, the regular standing army maintained to protect private property will also cease to exist.
This maximal unification and centralisation occurs at the height of proletarian state power, when antagonistic classes no longer exist. The presence of anti- proletarian classes historically introduces agents within the state that obstruct centralisation; their absence ensures that no internal forces remain to hinder the concentration of economic power under the proletarian state. Consequently, the proletariat’s global victory, the expansion of socialist property relations, and the development of productive forces all contribute to the process of the state’s withering away. The path toward communism is dialectical. The growth of productive forces provides the material foundation necessary for economic centralisation, while centralisation, in turn, facilitates further development of the productive forces. Under socialism, these two processes cannot be separated. The intense centralisation of the workers’ state is not an end in itself, but a means to create the conditions for its own eventual withering away. By eliminating class antagonisms and generating material abundance, the centralised state renders its own coercive functions obsolete. What remains is the administration of things, not the government of people. (Engels, 1878)
The Communist Party and the Question of Withering Away
Centralism applies not only to the functioning of the state but also to the internal organisation of a communist party. The organisational principle of the communist party is democratic centralism, first articulated by Lenin. Democratic centralism does not prescribe a rigid or uniform structure for communist organisation; rather, it offers a method of collective decision-making and collective action—one that may assume different forms depending on the party’s level of development and the shifting demands of the class struggle. It represents a synthesised organisational form rooted in the dialectical relationship between struggle and unity.
Democracy and centralism must never be separated or counterposed; they function as an integrated whole. The party must uphold the principle that the minority is subordinate to the majority, and that all organisations and all levels of leadership remain strictly subordinate to the Central Committee. In this sense, democracy and centralism are mutually dependent: there can be no genuine democracy without centralism, and no effective centralism without democracy. (Lenin, 1902)
Although the communist party is composed of individuals from diverse backgrounds, it constitutes a homogeneous organisational form unified by its guiding communist ideology. The role of the party-homogeneous organisational form-, in relation to the state, is to create ideological and organisational unity out of broader social heterogeneity. Within the party itself, the interplay between universality and particularity persists, yet its ideological orientation remains fundamentally unified or centralised. Thus, the party functions as a homogeneous organisation, whereas the state represents a heterogeneous one.
By applying centralism within both the party and the state, the homogeneous class ideology—Marxism-Leninism—can achieve victory not only in a single country but ultimately on a global scale. At that stage, the operational forms of the party and the state will increasingly converge. The distinction between them will gradually disappear, and the existence of both the party and the state will ultimately wither away as the material foundation for the existence of state will be superfluous. Therefore, the question of the state's withering away is inseparable from the question of the party’s eventual dissolution.
Conclusion
This article has argued that political and economic centralisation constitute the material foundation upon which a new human society can be constructed. The development of the productive forces is directly connected to the centralisation of the economy: the more advanced the productive forces become, the greater the degree of economic centralisation. The greater the degree of centralisation, the closer the society moves toward this outcome. Following the dialectical logic of history, quantitative changes in centralisation lay the groundwork for qualitative transformations, creating a society in which the state is no longer necessary and naturally withers away. Centralism, therefore, serves as the engine for achieving the ultimate goal: a stateless, classless society. To put it in Engels’s own words “The State is not "abolished". It dies out.” (Engels, 1914) In the course of the state’s withering away, the material basis for both governmental authority and the party likewise dissolves, rendering both institutions unnecessary.
Jeevan Poudel
Xi'an Jiaotong University
References:
Althusser, Louis. 1971. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Translated from the French by Ben Brewster. New York and London: Monthly Review Press. Essay: “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” first published in La Pensée, 1970
Bettelheim, Charles. 1974. Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organisation in China: Changes in Management and the Division of Labor. Translated by Alfred Ehrenfeld. New York and London: Monthly Review Press.
Engels, Friedrich. 1878. Anti-Dühring (Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1976
Engels, Friedrich. 1884. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. London: Penguin Classics, 2010.
Lenin, V. I. 1899. The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Vol. 3 of Collected Works. 5th printing. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974.
Lenin, V. I. 1902. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The Crisis in Our Party. Vol. 7 of Collected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964.
Lenin, V. I. 1917. The State and Revolution. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969. (Translation from Collected Works, Vol. 25.)
Lenin, V. I. 1919. “A Liberal Professor on Equality.” In Collected Works, Vol. 20, 144–47. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972.
Lenin, V. I. 1919. “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government.” In Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Vol. 27. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972.
Lenin, V. I. 1919. “First All-Russia Congress on Adult Education.” In Collected Works, Vol. 29. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974. Digital Reprint, From Marx to Mao, 2011.
Lenin, V. I. 1923. “On Co-operation.” In Collected Works, 2nd English Edition, Vol. 33. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1848. The Communist Manifesto. In
Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969.
Marx, Karl. 1859. “Preface.” In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: International Publishers, 1972.
Stalin, J. V. 1924. The Foundations of Leninism. In Collected Works, Vol. 6. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953.
Stalin, J. V. 1938. Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Toronto: November 8th Publishing House, 2022.
Stalin, J. V. 1952. Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1972.
.jpg)
