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 president and congress do in a classless or communist society
Executive summary
If a society truly became classless or reached Marx’s final stage of communism, classical sources say the state and separate national executive or legislature would “wither away” and political functions would transfer to direct, communal forms of self‑government rather than a president and a separate congress [1] [2]. Historical practice in communist states shows instead that party organs — congresses, central committees and a general secretary — have exercised supreme decision‑making power, often subordinating or replacing independent presidential/legislative functions [3] [4] [5].
1. What theory predicts: government disappears and governance becomes communal
Marxist theory and standard overviews describe a fully realized communist or classless society as stateless and moneyless, in which common ownership and “free access” to goods make a separate state apparatus redundant; governance is expected to become collective self‑management or direct democracy rather than a separate presidency and legislature [1] [2] [6]. Britannica and related summaries state that in “true communism” the state’s coercive role ends because class antagonisms — the justification for a state — have been abolished [7] [6].
2. How practice diverged: party structures substituted for state institutions
In twentieth‑century communist states the formal theory did not produce a vanished state. Instead, the Communist Party’s internal bodies — party congresses, central committees, politburos and a general secretary — became the core decision‑making nexus and exercised de facto supremacy over government institutions, sometimes integrating party and state offices in one person [3] [4] [5]. Historical records and constitutional analysis show the party often made the key policy decisions while legislatures met infrequently and acted largely to rubber‑stamp party directives [8] [9].
3. Who would fill “presidential” and “congressional” roles in a classless regime?
If a society moved toward the Marxist ideal, theory predicts there would be no separate president or congress as we know them; instead, decision‑making would be organized through communal councils, soviets, or directly through producers’ bodies [1] [10]. By contrast, states that called themselves communist institutionalized leadership through party congresses that elected central committees and a general secretary who often became the de facto national leader, effectively replacing independent presidential authority [3] [4] [5].
4. Mechanisms proposed for administering a classless society
Writings from communist internationals and party documents envisioned worker councils, cells and soviets as the organizational basis for revolutionary power and for administering economy and society — instruments intended to channel popular decisions into governance — rather than a separation of powers like president vs. congress [11] [12]. Contemporary primers on communism likewise posit communal ownership and collective planning with direct democratic or participatory institutions replacing competitive elections for executive office [2] [1].
5. Why historical attempts often recreated hierarchical rule
Scholars and encyclopedic accounts note practical pressures — wartime emergency powers, bureaucratic centralization, scarcity, and the need to coordinate large economies — pushed revolutionary movements to concentrate authority in party organs. The Central Committee and Politburo frequently became the operational rulers because infrequent party congresses delegated authority to smaller bodies, producing elites that behaved like traditional executives and legislatures combined [4] [13] [14]. Critics argue this demonstrates an institutional tendency toward hierarchy even in movements aiming for classlessness [15] [8].
6. Competing perspectives and unresolved questions
Optimists within Marxist theory and some modern commentators argue state functions can genuinely wither away and be replaced by democratic self‑government if material abundance and social consciousness develop [1] [2]. Critics and historical evidence counter that the transition is fragile: party vanguard structures and centralized planning historically reproduced concentrated power rather than dispersed, classless decision‑making [3] [8] [15]. Available sources do not mention specific, contemporary blueprints that have successfully replaced state presidencies and legislatures at national scale with proven, long‑lasting classless governance models.
7. What to watch in real governments that call themselves communist
In current one‑party states the party congress, central committee, politburo and the general secretary remain the primary loci of authority; leaders often hold both party and state titles, blurring the line between “president” and party boss [5] [3] [16]. Observers read such concentration as evidence that, in practice, classless rhetoric coexists with institutional arrangements that centralize power [4] [8].
Limitations: this summary relies on theory overviews and historical records in the supplied materials; it does not draw on sources outside the provided set and therefore may omit recent, small‑scale experiments in communal governance not covered here.