Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What would the government be in a communist or classless society
Executive summary
Communist theory envisions a final stage of human social development in which classes, private ownership of the means of production, money and the state itself no longer exist; Marx and major reference works describe that the state would “wither away” once class antagonisms end [1] [2]. Historical attempts to move toward that goal produced centralized, single‑party states rather than the stateless, classless society Marx described, and commentators dispute whether the theoretical end‑state is achievable [3] [4].
1. What Marx meant by “the state will wither away” — the theoretical blueprint
Karl Marx and later Marxian summaries present communism as a two‑phase progression: a transitional “dictatorship of the proletariat” that seizes state institutions to prevent counterrevolution, followed by a fully realized communism in which class antagonisms have disappeared and “the need for the state will also disappear” [1]. Encyclopedic overviews and academic explainers repeat this formulation: in the ideal communist end‑state there is no class structure, common ownership replaces private ownership, distribution operates by need, and the state becomes redundant [2] [4].
2. How government is supposed to function during the transition
Marx and classical Marxist sources distinguish sharply between the transitional socialist stage and communism proper. In the transition the working class exercises state power to reorganize production and suppress threats from displaced elites — a centralized apparatus that is temporary by theory [1]. Political writers and Marxist parties have historically treated that interim state as necessary to defend the revolution and reorganize society before the “withering” can occur [1] [5].
3. Visions for post‑state governance: direct democracy, communal self‑rule
Normative accounts of a classless, stateless society imagine governance shifting from centralized coercive institutions to social self‑government: communal or direct democratic decision‑making, public self‑management of production, and social norms replacing legal coercion [3] [2]. Some anarchist and communist currents emphasize immediate decentralization and worker self‑management rather than protracted central rule, but the provided sources focus mainly on Marx’s account of a staged transition to statelessness [3] [2].
4. The gap between theory and historical practice
Multiple sources highlight a persistent gap between the ideal of a stateless communist society and 20th–21st century realities. Countries that called themselves communist (Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba and others) created centralized, single‑party states with strong state control over economics and politics rather than a withered state [6] [7] [8]. Commentators note that these experiences produced authoritarian outcomes, prompting debate about whether those outcomes were inevitable, contingent, or betrayals of Marx’s theory [6] [7].
5. Why modern governments still call regimes “communist” despite the theory
Observers and historians explain that communist parties and states often retained the language of aiming at a classless, stateless end but operated in practice with a “leading role” for the party and centralized state power; Lenin and later theorists justified this as necessary to guide societies toward the goal, which meant the party-state remained dominant long before any theoretical withering occurred [9]. Thus, contemporary use of “communist” refers more to party rule and public ownership forms than to the absence of government promised in theory [9] [8].
6. Political debate and rhetorical uses in 2025 politics
Recent U.S. political discourse treats “communism” as a potent label and often conflates democratic‑socialist policy proposals with historical communist regimes; the White House’s Anti‑Communism Week exemplifies how the term is used to warn against perceived threats, framing historical communist regimes as having suppressed freedom [10]. Other commentators argue that invoking “communism” is used for partisan fear‑mongering and that many mainstream policy debates are distinct from Marx’s utopian end‑state [6] [10].
7. What sources don’t settle and why uncertainty remains
Available sources describe the theoretical end‑state and the historical record, but they do not provide a definitive answer about whether a stateless, classless society is achievable in practice; debates among Marxists, anarchists and historians remain unresolved in the provided material [3] [9]. Scholarly and political disagreement centers on whether centralized transitional authority is a necessary evil, a path to permanent authoritarian structures, or something that can be avoided — and the present sources report these competing views without reaching consensus [1] [5].
8. Bottom line for readers
If you ask “what would the government be in a communist or classless society?” authoritative Marxian texts and mainstream references say: in theory, there would be no government because the state would have withered away once classes and exploitation were eliminated [1] [4]. The historical record shows many states that called themselves communist instead created powerful central governments, which fuels ongoing debate about feasibility, methods and political trade‑offs [6] [8].