Lenin’s statement that the state will wither away

reddit.com › r › Socialism_101 › comments › wty3hb › how_exactly_does_the_state_wither_away

The state is a coercive tool. The dominant class wields the machinery of state. Currently that is the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie needs the proletariat or they can’t make their profits, thus the state has to exist to ensure they remain in control as the proletariat will always be a threat, as will rival bourgeoisie. The state in the hands of the proletariat will try to dissolve the bourgeoisie as the proletariat don’t need the bourgeoisie. So over time the proletarian socialist mode of production starts shaping the super structure of society and eliminating bourgeoisie culture and ideals society will eventually become classless. However in the mean time there will be attempts by the bourgeoisie to reassert control. As evidenced by literally every socialist state that has existed. For this reason I would claim that no socialist state has really been in a position to make this change, that it would require essentially the victory of socialism. When this situation is finally resolved people will no longer need to be coerced by a state, as no class is dominating any other. Those coercive functions will fall to the people themselves. This doesn’t mean there won’t be governance of some kind, the “administration of things”. We aren’t aiming to go back to some dark age type society. As for contradictions, Engels and Marx didn’t lay this out as a step by step guide for a reason. Contradictions will arise, just like there would be contradictions if the state is abolished at the snap of a finger. It’s up for the communists of the day to solve them. Answer from Deleted User on reddit.com

Michigan State University

soviethistory.msu.edu › 1924-2 › socialist-legality › socialist-legality-texts › the-state-withers-away

The State Withers Away – Seventeen Moments in Soviet History

September 24, 2015 - The withering away of the state ... development: “The state will be able to wither away completely when society has realized the rule: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,’ i.e., when people ...

Marxists.org

marxists.org › archive › lenin › works › 1917 › staterev › ch05.htm

The State and Revolution — Chapter 5

And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to “wither away".

reddit.com › r/debatecommunism › lenin in his book the state and revolution says the “withering away of the state”

r/DebateCommunism on Reddit: Lenin in his book the state and revolution says the “withering away of the state”

July 1, 2025 -

He clearly outlines that the proletariat "abolishes" the bourgeoisie state, and what withers away is the proletariat state or semi state for there will be no class to protect against.

In hindsight, the collapse of soviet union clearly shows us that the consent agression from imperialism had them investing heavily in protecting the proletariat state which then gave rise to a special class of bureaucratics that was created to fight imperialist agression.

So from what I understand it's quite impossible to just have the proletariat state wither away while facing consent imperialist agression from outside.

Right?

Top answer

1 of 5

Yes, I believe this is one apt way to put it. It is impossible for the state to wither away while there is still an bourgeois attack, even if external. This is however an historical inevitability, which therefore must be part of the socialist struggle. There is much that can be learned from the past and present socialist experiences, especially if we look at them as human experiences and all that comes with it (faliures included). To childlish renounce them or adore them is useless. If the bureacrats of the USSR truly constitute a class, i do not believe it, but many argue like that, that they were almost from the beginning a separate class (neither capitalist or proletarian). I think this argument requires a unmarxist concept of class. But still, being a class of their own or not, it is undisputed that the leadership of the communist party calcified and eventually came to not be representative of the proletariat and even participated in counter revolution. This is not an argument that socialism is bound to fail, only a very disingenuous person would argue that one experience defines all of history. But it is a vital lessson for us, which are part of the proletarian struggle an may eventually (hopefully) be part of another experience in our own countries.

2 of 5

Yes, that’s correct. Resisting organized aggression from the most powerful hegemonic empire in all of human history requires organized resistance. The state serves its purpose in historic socialist practice, a purpose that is indispensable for the time being. Our theory relies on global revolution and on global socialism, all major industrial powers adopting socialism before the world moves past this era of imperialism and onto a communist future.

Michigan State University

soviethistory.msu.edu › 1934-2 › seventeenth-party-congress › seventeenth-party-congress-texts › soviet-state-and-socialist-society

Soviet State and Socialist Society – Seventeen Moments in Soviet History

August 30, 2015 - A firm and strong dictatorship ... is withering away,” Lenin said, “insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed....

reddit.com › r/socialism_101 › how exactly does the state wither away?

r/Socialism_101 on Reddit: How Exactly Does The State Wither Away?

August 21, 2022 -

Is there any detailed answer for this? Will the State not try to survive at all costs?

Top answer

1 of 21

2 of 21

Reading Lenin's State and Revolution is very useful to answer this question. The state was born as a means to solve class contradictions, and as such, it can be used to finally solve them once the proletariat takes ahold of the state. First comes the destruction of the bourgueois state, followed by the construction of the proletariat state. Why? Because obviously, the bourgeoisie isn't actually going to solve the class contradictions that they profit from. So we need a proletariat state that actually works to achieve a final resolution of class conflict. It would wither away because, step by step, it would solve problem by problem, rendering each specific branch of the state useless. As it solves contradictions, it withers away, ending with no state at all. This is the basics. State and Revolution explains it a bit deeper. I, however, am an anarchist, and find this all to be wishful thinking. For some reason materialism flies out the window when it comes to speaking about the state with MLs. Not only does the State constitutes a class of its own, but its existence also creates newer contradictions. A state will never work to render itself useless, be it bourgeois or proletariat, and even if it did, it won't solve the contradictions that are created by its very existence. It's also important to point out that, despite being materialists and a science, past and present ML experiments quite deliberately ignore the fact that none of its stated became smaller throughout the experiment. The common answer (and a correct one) would be that it can't be done because capitalist countries would immediately try to avoid the development of socialism. Hence why the state needs to be big and strong. But this doesn't explain why the state didn't wither away on other minor affairs, other than the army, surveillance etc.

Politicalsciencenotes

politicalsciencenotes.com › home › withering away of state: meaning, engels, lenin and stalin’s view (with evaluation)

Withering Away of State: Meaning, Engels, Lenin and Stalin’s View (with Evaluation)

July 28, 2016 - That means certain remnants of ... another revolution with is called social revolution. Lenin states that only after the social revolution the remnants of the bourgeois state will wither away....

Jacobin

jacobin.com › 2018 › 08 › lenin-state-and-revolution-miliband

Lenin’s The State and Revolution

For it is of course one of the basic tenets of Marxism, and one of its basic differences with anarchism, that while the proletarian revolution must smash the old state, it does not abolish the state itself: a state remains in being, and even endures for a long time to come, even though it begins immediately to “wither away.” What is most remarkable about the answer which Lenin gives to the question of the nature of the post-revolutionary state is how far he takes the concept of the “withering away” of the state in The State and Revolution: so far, in fact, that the state, on the morrow of the revolution, has not only begun to wither away, but is already at an advanced stage of decomposition.

libcom.org

libcom.org › article › marxism-and-state-communism-withering-away-state-groepen-van-internationale-communisten-gic

Marxism and State Communism: the Withering Away of the State - Groepen van Internationale Communisten (GIC) | libcom.org

Despite this, Lenin expressed in The State and Revolution, that this state must die, and, he even comes to the correct conclusion that democracy must also die. “[…] in speaking of the state ‘withering away’, and the even more graphic ...

Marxists.org

marxists.org › archive › lenin › works › 1917 › staterev › ch01.htm

The State and Revolution — Chapter 1

State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ’abolished’. It withers away.

Find elsewhere

Google Bing Mojeek

Pdx

pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu › cgi › viewcontent.cgi pdf

On Lenin, and the State as a Necessary Tool Working Paper No. 78

State would no longer be a special coercive force for an oppressive class. Lenin · ([1918], 1993, 15) clarifies that it is the original form of the State, the bourgeois · State, which will be abolished and the new form of the state, the proletariat state, is · what will wither away.

Revolutionary Communists of America

communistusa.org › home › the state and revolution: a reading guide

The State and Revolution: A Reading Guide - Revolutionary Communists of America

March 6, 2022 - Lenin also explains that the administration of a workers’ state should not be left to privileged officials. Rather, everyone must learn how to carry out the functions of the state in rotation. Once the majority has learned “to administer and actually to independently administer social production,” the basis will be laid for the “complete withering away of the state.”

reddit.com › r/askphilosophy › did lenin misread this one line from engels in state and revolution?

r/askphilosophy on Reddit: Did Lenin misread this one line from Engels in State and Revolution?

June 29, 2020 -

So this is a rather minor and technical question on Lenin's State and Revolution, but I want to make sure I'm understanding this right. I wanted to ask r/communism101, but I had been previously insta-banned, so I messaged the mods instead. They informed me that I had a "fundamentally mistaken approach towards knowledge" for trying to do an exegesis on Lenin and Engels, which strikes me as odd when State and Revolution is basically an exegesis by Lenin on Engels.

Instead, they recommend I first understand the entirety of Leninism before I try to analyze what Lenin means here. Overall, it wasn't very helpful for a 101 subreddit.

Anyway, in State and Revolution chapter one part four, Lenin quotes Engels’ Anti-Duhring discussion about how the state will wither away.

The proletariat seizes state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state...

The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole society - the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society - is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself...

The state is not “abolished.” It withers away.

Now I understand Engels as describing a three stage process.

Revolution - The proletariat seizes state power...
Expropriation - ...and turns the means of production into state property to begin with.
Withering Away - But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state.

When Engels talks about abolishing “the state as state,” I believe this is referring to the proletarian state, the "dictatorship of the proletariat," being abolished by expropriation.

By expropriating the means of production, the working class are turned into the owning class. Therefore there will no longer be a distinction between worker and owner. Thus there won’t exist a “proletariat” or a “bourgeoisie” class anymore. We will have a classless society.

If there aren’t any class distinctions, then there obviously won’t be any antagonisms between these classes either. And if there are no class antagonisms, then there is no longer a purpose for the state, which Lenin and Engels define as a "special coercive force" for the oppression of one class by another.

Therefore, when Engels speaks of abolishing the state as a state, he refers to abolishing the proletarian state, which will have no purpose in a classless society.

Lenin seems to have a different interpretation.

In the first place, at the very outset of his argument, Engels says that, in seizing state power, the proletariat thereby “abolishes the state as state.”...

As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution “abolishing” the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away,” but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution.

It seems that Lenin thinks that when Engels says "abolishes the state as state," he means abolishing the bourgeois state through revolution, not abolishing the proletarian state through expropriation.

Lenin uses this same interpretation again in the following paragraph:

And from it follows that the “special coercive force” for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by the handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a “special coercive force” for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat). This is precisely what is meant by “abolition of the state as state.” This is precisely the “act” of taking possession of the means of production in the name of society. And it is self-evident that such a replacement of one (bourgeois) "special force" by another (proletarian) "special force" cannot possibly take place in the form of "withering away."

Now, I don't think this takes away from Lenin's main point here. Lenin seems to agree with this same basic outline for how socialism should be established. The main point in this section is to refute those people who think Engels was talking about the bourgeois state "withering away," which is indeed wrong.

So even in the worst case scenario, this seems like a very minor misreading of Engels, with Lenin reading a call for violent revolution into a single line where it doesn't appear.

But the existence of any misreading in such a major Marxist text seems interesting, especially when Lenin is trying to so meticulously and carefully explain Engels meaning.

Engels was either referring to the bourgeois state being abolished or the proletarian state. I say Engels was referring to the proletarian state, and Lenin thought he was referring to the bourgeois state. So either I'm right, or I'm misreading either Engels or Lenin.

If someone could correct me, or link me to any discussion talking about this reading, I would greatly appreciate it.

Top answer

1 of 7

Lenin has a different conception of the state than Marx. In chapter 5 of S&R, Lenin writes (speaking of the first stage of communism): "Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. and later writes: But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", Lenin argues that because the first stage of communism (which has no classes) still has bougeois law, that is proof of the existence of a state, one that safeguards bourgeois law. Marx mentioned something similar about how the "defects" of capitalism will still exist under the first stage of communism, but rejects that the state will exist. Lenin argues the state will persist, even after the abolition of classes. This is not the typical Marxist idea of the state. I hope someone else can chime in.

2 of 7

r/communism101 is run by tankies (so-called "Marxist-Leninists," i.e. Stalinists), so they carefully curate the views allowed on that subreddit and try to covet a narrow way of thinking, and I am not surprised you were banned from there for asking questions which otherwise do not seem threatening. EDIT: having read through your post fully now, I superficially think Engels was talking about the bourgeois state being abolished by the proletariat state The proletariat seizes state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state... I actually read Engels the way Lenin does: the proletariat seizes the bourgeois State, thus abolishing the bourgeois State immediately and instituting a proletariat State; later Engels describes a process of this remaining proletariat State as finally withering away. Engels: The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ’a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists’ demand that the state be abolished overnight. Lenin: In the first place, at the very outset of his argument, Engels says that, in seizing state power, the proletariat thereby “abolishes the state as state". It is not done to ponder over the meaning of this. Generally, it is either ignored altogether, or is considered to be something in the nature of “Hegelian weakness” on Engels’ part. As a matter of fact, however, these words briefly express the experience of one of the greatest proletarian revolutions, the Paris Commune of 1871, of which we shall speak in greater detail in its proper place. As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution “abolishing” the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away”, but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state. Lenin describes exactly how I took Engels to mean both that the state abolishes the state, and that the state is not abolished but withers away. It seems Engels either contradicts himself, or he means something along the lines of what Lenin is saying. I guess an additional possible interpretation is that Engels doesn't mean to contradict himself as much as to implicitly represent an initial view of the state abolishing the state as an accepted matter of fact (i.e. that the state is immediately and fully abolished), only to then to describe this process by which government is shifted from managing people to things (once the proletariat has seized the State) and in describing this process of transition, Engels has now found that the state doesn't actually get immediately abolished, but it actually withers way. If so, this is a rather awkward way to do this. Lenin: Thirdly, in speaking of the state “withering away”, and the even more graphic and colorful “dying down of itself”, Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after “the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society”, that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the “state” at that time is the most complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists, who shamelessly distort Marxism, that Engels is consequently speaking here of democracy “dying down of itself”, or “withering away". This seems very strange at first sight. But it is “incomprehensible” only to those who have not thought about democracy also being a state and, consequently, also disappearing when the state disappears. Revolution alone can “abolish” the bourgeois state. The state in general, i.e., the most complete democracy, can only “wither away". In the end, I am a bit at a loss of how exactly to interpret Engels - it is clear Lenin is trying to understand what Engels means here like we are, and it's questionable whether Lenin's labels of a bourgeois State and a proletariat (socialist) State was really what Engels meant - but it seems like at least one reasonable interpretation. I will be really interested to see what someone more familiar with Engels has to say. P.S. It should be said I am just a person - I'm no authority on any of this stuff, I'm just trying to make sense of it like you are. I wish I could study this stuff professionally, but such opportunities are not all that common.

Marxists.org

marxists.org › archive › lenin › works › 1917 › staterev › ch04.htm

The State and Revolution — Chapter 4

This seemingly clever but actually incorrect statement might be made in regard to any democratic institution, including moderate salaries for officials, because fully consistent democracy is impossible under capitalism, and under socialism all democracy will wither away.

Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › The_State_and_Revolution

The State and Revolution - Wikipedia

September 30, 2025 - Although for a period under communism, ... Lenin believed that after a successful proletarian revolution the state had not only begun to wither, but was in an advanced condition of decomposition....

Top answer

1 of 4

Through revolution, the proletariat takes control of State power and transforms the means of production into (proletariat) State property. Through this very act, the proletariat undermines itself as "the proletariat", eliminating all class distinctions and conflicts Once there's no longer a social class to oppress, and with the disappearance of class dominance and the struggle for individual existence, there will be nothing left to suppress. Thus, there will be no need for the State. This is true because historically, the State only serves for keeping the oppressed class in conditions of subjugation: be it slavery, serfdom, or wage labor. Thus, taking control of the means of production on behalf of society is, at the same time, the first step in which the State effectively presents itself as the representative of the entire society and its ultimate independent action as "a State." The State's authority intervening in social relations will become unnecessary in one aspect after another of social life and will gradually fade away on its own. Important distinction: The bourgeois State is dismantled through socialist revolution (no other way); what fades away is the proletarian State (or semi-State). Source: State and Revolution by Lenin. (Read it in Spanish so sorry for the rough translation)

2 of 4

Read "The State and Revolution" to learn more. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ for the entire book (which you and everyone else ought to read). But the specific section is here.

Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Withering_away_of_the_state

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

May 26, 2025 - The withering away of the state is a Marxist concept coined by Friedrich Engels referring to the expectation that, with the realization of socialism, the state will eventually become obsolete and cease to exist as society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law.

Origin of the phrase

Interpretations