In today's era many countries have 'Marxist' political parties, and their purpose is a "classless society".

Can a classless society be possible, can it run successfully run?

  • 1
    Can you expand your question? What is “classless “? When would such a society be “successful “? Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 6:48
  • As Karl Marx's "dialectical materialism" says that the present "capitalist society" will sometime change into a "classless society" where there wouldn't be any economic gap among people and no one will be rich and poor. Now many "political parties" are working on this. Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 7:48
  • 1
    Many arguments already are given by Marx, Engels and others. Many counterarguments are given by their critics. The variety of literature is wide and as the question is posed, it's asking for opinions. I suggesy you to ask for literature on the topic.
    – rus9384
    Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 11:05
  • It's all about education. Marx believed that the proletariat would have to become more educated to service their role, as technology advances. An educated proletariat would be much harder to oppress.. In fact we're seeing that now. The tyrants are trying to dumb us down, but in the long run, it just won't work. There'll be more tyrants, more war, more suffering.. but eventually, the educated masses will find a way to cure societal injustice in a way which doesn't seem totalitarian.
    – Richard
    Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 13:15
  • But if everyone becomes highly educated then who will agree to do labor-class work? Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 13:54

1 Answer 1


Marx is purposely deceptive here

If we talk about classes of people, we have to define them. Formal definition would be that classes are subsets of whole population with some common attributes. You could make classes anyway you want (people who like or dislike professional sports, different classes by wealth, classes based on race or gender etc ..) In political philosophy, classes are usually defined as groups of people with common political interest. It is assumed that these classes could form political movements to represent them and push their ideas. Therefore Marx talked about political parties that represented working class, or high bourgeoisie, small land owners etc ... While in certain societies social mobility between classes was small to non-existent (it was almost impossible for serf to become noble for example), already in Marx's time this was not so anymore. There were the cases of people moving from rags to riches and vice versa .

What Marx purposely failed to mention, is that in any society classes form naturally. One example for that is supposedly classless USSR where class of party apparatchiks quickly rose to prominence once socialism took hold. Simply speaking, humans are different with different abilities, and nature abhors uniformity. Therefore, humans would always find the way to differentiate between themselves.

Why did Marx did that ? His final purpose was revolution of working class, and establishment of so called working class dictatorship (Dictatorship of the proletariat). Of course, in real life that dictatorship would actually be dictatorship of those who control socialist movement, and working class would remain where it is (at the bottom of society) . But selling idea of "classless" and "equality" to those under is always good proposition, because it promises rapid social rise from bottom to top.

  • Marx was a socialist. To him the difference between people is simply education. Sure there'll always be a class of people who are avaricious or seek power.. but eventually those people will be seen for what they are.
    – Richard
    Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 23:14
  • @Richard This doesn't matter, Marx was not stupid and he knew that people did have different cognitive abilities, and even when offered same education would not have same knowledge levels. He also knew that even socialist society would have hierarchy, therefore classes in it. Talk about classless society was just propaganda to incite lower classes of existing societies to rebel.
    – rs.29
    Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 23:22
  • No. These are your beliefs.. not Marx's. No socialist believes people are born inferior. You might be right.. but I personally don't think so.
    – Richard
    Commented Feb 7, 2019 at 23:26
  • @Richard No, these are you current PC modern beliefs (rather ridiculous ) that have nothing to do with Marx. Marx never considered humans to be clones . I recommend reading this: marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/ch1.htm , especially 1.3
    – rs.29
    Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 0:05
  • 1
    @Richard Marx would be probably considered "right wing" or at least "centrist" if he lived in our time. He was one of the founders of scientific materialism (also known as historical materialism) , and would certainly not pander to current perpetually offended by truth "leftists". In fact, by his criteria they would be considered as decadent liberal bourgeois ideology, with some idealistic positions (not a good thing from his perspective) .
    – rs.29
    Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 1:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .