A SYNOPSIS OF LENIN’S “STATE AND REVOLUTION”

 

Sumit Ghosh

About the Book

Lenin wrote the book in between August and September 1917 while hiding from persecution of the Provisional Government of Russia. Lenin had begun the early draft while in exile in Switzerland in 1916 under the title "Marxism on the State". When Lenin left Switzerland for Russia in April 1917, fearing arrest by the Provisional Government, he left the manuscript of "Marxism on the State" behind as it would have been destroyed if he were caught. When Lenin received his notebook from Stockholm, he used the materials he had already collected for this book. He intended to publish the book under the pseudonym F.F. Ivanovsky to escape confiscation by the Provisional Government. The book was not printed until 1918 when there was no need for the pseudonym. In the second edition of 1919, Lenin added Chapter II. In this book, Lenin criticized the anarchists, opportunists and even the Revolutionary Socialists and Mensheviks who sided with the Provisional Government of the February Revolution while providing an in-depth analysis of the relation between revolution and the existence of the state.  

State and Revolution

From the Preface

With the acceleration of monopolisation of capital, the claim of monopoly capital itself on state power increased. As the 20^th century war situation intended to continue for a long period of time, the condition of the working class began to deteriorate within the imperialist countries. This, in turn, increased the possibility of a Worker’s Revolution. If observed keenly, the increasing grasp of monopoly capital over the State and possibility of a working class revolution were being accentuated at the same time, invoking the query as to what is the relation between State and Revolution.

Since the imperialists exploit the downtrodden and backward nations, an imperialist war is therefore a means of redistribution of the loot. In course of a prolonged period of peace, the socialists had opted for opportunist politics which culminated into ‘Social Chauvinism’ during a condition of prolonged war i.e., a policy of ‘socialism in speech’ with ardent support for the interests of the national bourgeoisie and their State. E.g., Plekhanov supported the entry of Russian Empire into the First World War; intellectuals like George Bernard Shaw, inspired by the tactics of Roman military leader Fabius Maximus of buying time by evading a direct war to dismantle Hannibal’s army, founded the ‘Fabian Society’ in 1884 and proposed a path of socialist construction through reforms; Kautsky, leader of the Second International, distorted Marx and Engels’ notion of the state. Thus, a clarification of the relation between State and Revolution became essential. 

Chapter I

Class Divided Society and State

1.    State is a result of irresolvable class antagonism

·       Engels in ‘Origin of Family, Private Property & State’ stated: State is neither an externally impressed force on the society nor is it a realistic depiction of morality as put forward by Hegel. State has developed from society in course of history due to the latter’s inner irresolvable contradictions of mutually opposing interests of various resident classes. It is a machinery to suppress class antagonism and promote ‘discipline’. It gradually establishes itself above society and tends to gradually alienate itself from it.

·       A Marxist definition would be that the State is a machinery by which one class tends to dominate and oppress other classes.

·       The extent of class antagonism that can destroy a society through class war is the same extent to which a state develops.

·       Opportunist socialist and bourgeois economists opine that by ‘discipline’ it is meant that the State tries to resolve class antagonism through ‘concessions and compromise’ with the oppressed and dominated classes. E.g., Mensheviks and Revolutionary Socialists of Russia promoted this idea to support the Kerensky government in 1917.

·       Kautsky overlooked the fact that as State alienates itself from society by using various ‘means’, the freedom of oppressed classes is not possible without armed struggle and destruction of such ‘means’.

2.    On armed institutions

·       Engels: The difference between the old tribal and community organisations and the State is that the latter divides its subjects on the basis of regionality. However common it may seem, it has developed in course of history through continuous struggle against the structures of old tribal and community organisations.

·       A basic feature of a State is the presence of a universal punishment system which differs from the ‘self-regulated armed institutions of the people’. Such ‘self-regulated armed institutions of the people’ can develop only in a classless society. In a class divided society, the ruling class uses the state power to exploit the oppressed classes.

·       The source of this state power are the armed institutions i.e., police, military, prisons and all means for subjugation and forceful acquisition.

·       19^th century Europeans, being unaware of any revolution, were unable to understand the notion of ‘self-regulated armed institutions of the people’. In a classless society, such ‘self-regulated armed institutions of the people’ will exhibit similarities as well dissimilarities with respect to the complexity and structure in relation to old tribal and community organisations.

·       Since ‘self-regulated armed institutions of the people’ in a class divided society may lead to armed conflict; the state machinery suppresses such possibilities in favour of the ruling class. In course of time, the oppressed classes create armed institutions of their own interest. Thus, revolutionary struggles become inevitable.

·       Weak ‘universal punishment system’ as an exception of capitalist society is observed in independent colonizer dominated North America of the pre-imperial era.

·       Engels: Imperialism refers to the dominance of Business Trusts and the colonial interests of large and powerful banks

·       As class antagonism increases within a state with the neighbouring states enlarging with respect to size and population, the ‘universal punishment system’ becomes all-powerful and grasps not only the society but the state itself.

·       In the 19^th century, imperialism flourished in France but was still weak in North America and Germany. However, in due course, the imperial foreign policy began to be dominated by the competition to colonize other nations and thus in the 20^th century lead to the 1914-1919 war. This war divided the world into blocks, each dominated by an imperialist force proving that the war was meant for re-distribution of looted wealth. Opportunist socialists were those who supported this war in the name of ‘protection of the fatherland’.

3.    State is a machinery to exploit the oppressed classes

·       The privileged officials render themselves above the society and act as organs of the state. State power is realized through levying of taxes and appropriation of state loans.

·       The state arose to keep class antagonism in check. The economically dominant class on becoming the politically dominant class suppress the oppressed classes through state power. Sometimes, the antagonistic classes come so close to each other economically and politically that the state becomes a mediator, distancing and rendering itself independent of both. E.g., the Bonapartism of First and Second Empire in France, Kerensky government of Russia persecuting only the revolutionary proletariat since they still lacked the ability to disperse the petty-bourgeois democrats.

·       Engels: In a democratic republic, wealth functions indirectly by corrupting the officials (e.g., America) or by establishing a relation between the government and stock exchange (e.g., America and France).

·       The democratic republic is the protective shell of capitalism whose defects are repaired such that no change of political party can shake its foundation. The universal suffrage is therefore a weapon of the bourgeoisie.

·       Engels: State was not present in ancient society. It arose in class divided society. In course of historical development of production, class antagonism will cause hindrance in its progress necessitating its abolition and the abolition of the state. In such a condition, the society will reorganize production through free and equal participation of producers. The state will become an antique displayed in the museum.

4.    Withering away of the State and Armed Revolution

·       Engels [Anti-Duhring]: The state is a special coercive force and historical organisation of the exploiting class i.e., state of slave-owners in the ancient period, state of feudal lords in medieval period and the state of the bourgeoisie at present. The proletariat seizes the means of production from state power converting into public property through a violent revolution and in doing so, abolishes itself as proletariat, the class divided society and the state. The necessity of the state vanishes with the abolition of class antagonism as it is the machinery of suppression of the working majority by the exploiting minority. The state is not abolished, it withers away. The ‘free people’s state’ as a phrase though applicable from an agitational point of view, shows its scientific insufficiency and the drawbacks of the anarchist demand of immediate abolition of state.

·       Opportunists: Anarchists call for ‘abolition’ of the state and Marxists call for ‘withering away’ of the state. This phrase helps in promoting pacifism against the notions of violent revolution.

·       Actual meaning of Engels’ words: The bourgeois state does not wither away but is abolished by the proletariat in course of revolution. After the revolution, the remnants of the proletariat state is not abolished but gradually withers away.

·       The “special coercive force” refers to the suppression of proletariat by the bourgeoisie, which must be replaced by the suppression of bourgeoisie by the proletariat through an armed revolution.

·       After a socialist revolution, the ‘political power of the state’ is complete democracy. Democracy also being a state withers away as the proletarian state gradually withers away after the revolution.

·       “free people’s state”: it is referred to in terms of its ‘scientific insufficiency’ since the state can never be ‘free’ and for all ‘people’, it being the instrument of suppression of one class by the exploiting class.

·       Marx: Violent revolution is the mid-wife of every society pregnant with a new one. 

Chapter II

Experiences of 1848-51

1.    Eve of the Revolution

·       Marx’s idea of the state before the revolution of 1848 is depicted through his works ‘The Poverty of Philosophy’ and ‘Communist Manifesto’.

·       Marx: When the working class substitutes the bourgeoisie as the ruling class after a socialist revolution, the different political power groups will cease to exist as these groups are depictions of various class antagonisms. (Thus, with the seizure of state power by the proletariat, the inevitable abolition of class antagonisms will lead to lack of necessity and eventual withering away of the proletariat state.)

·       Marx: the proletarian state is where the proletariat is the ruling class. Using this state, they will suppress the bourgeois rebels and carry their allied oppressed & exploited people towards a socialist economy.

·       Opportunists: the proletarians need a ‘bourgeois like’ state to function.

Marxists: the proletariat will abolish the bourgeois state through armed revolution and require a state to suppress the rebellious bourgeoisie & their allies such that after the revolution, due to abolition of class antagonism, this state will tend to gradually wither away.

·       Class struggle: The proletariat is the only revolutionary class to gain the ability to overthrow the bourgeoisie because: (1) the bourgeoisie disintegrate the peasants and petty-bourgeoisie but unify the proletariat through wage slavery and exploitation, (2) the proletariat is directly associated with the large scale production system.

·       The opportunists substitute class struggle with class harmony, advocating the utopian thought of peaceful submission of the exploiting ruling minority to the working majority on knowing their historical role. This paved the way for entry of socialists into bourgeois governments and ministries of Britain, France, Italy etc. This opportunism undermines the dictatorship of the proletariat as the eventual consequence of class struggle. The opportunists tend to ally with the high paid workers thereby becoming political stooges of capitalism.

2.    Summary of the Revolution

·       The 1848 Revolution of France led to abolition of the monarchy and establishment of the Second Republic. This republic was overthrown by Louis Bonaparte through a military coup in 1851, who assumed the title of Napoleon III and established the Second Empire. Thus, decay of feudalism led to absolutism and with the fall of absolutism, the bourgeois state came to relish the assimilated bureaucracy and armed military power.

·       18^th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Marx): The ongoing bourgeois revolutions perfected the parliamentary and executive power (bureaucratic and military organisations) of the state instead of smashing it.

·       Experiences of 1848-1851 helped Marx to scientifically answer a part of the question: How will the transition of bourgeois to proletarian state take place? The bourgeoisie are intricately connected with the bureaucracy and armed military power. After each ongoing revolution, the bourgeoisie shelve reforms, distribute the ‘spoils of war’ and official jobs and re-distribute among potential class allies during corruption related opposition. As the proletariat begin to learn the bourgeois game, the state power begins to be more repressive against them only to excite the proletarian wrath towards destruction of the bourgeois state. 

·       What will the bourgeois state be replaced with? A scientific answer to this question was not possible until the experience of the Paris Commune in 1871.

·       Is the example of France sufficient to trace the historical trends of development of the entire world?

France is a model state because the historical class struggles have finished into historical outcomes such as, a model feudal state in the medieval period, after Renaissance it being a unified monarchy having social estates and with the abolition of feudalism, the bourgeois state, only to be threatened by proletariat uprising.

Major developed countries showed similar trends with the increase of parliamentary power in the republics like France, monarchies like Britain, Germany, Italy, distribution and redistribution of official jobs and ‘spoils’ of ongoing revolutions and the centralization of the executive power.

At the time of writing of this book: Imperialism, the age of finance capital with increasing monopoly and establishment of state monopoly capitalism, the unprecedented repression of the proletariat increases paves the way for their seizure of state power through a socialist revolution.   

3.    Questions put forward by Marx in 1852

·       Marx’s letter to Weydemeyer: the concept of class struggle has been historically described by bourgeois economists but the Marxist additions are: (1) class distributions vary in each phase of historical development of the production system, (2) class struggle will lead to dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) this dictatorship will abolish class antagonism.

·       Opportunists describe Marxism as the theory of class struggle in line with bourgeois treachery but in essence, it actually deals with the notion that recognition of class struggle will eventually lead to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

·       During transition from capitalism to classless society, violent class struggle will ensue and with the overthrow of bourgeois state, the emerging proletarian state will be democratic to the proletariat and its allied exploited people but dictatorial to the rebellious bourgeoisie.

·       Bourgeois states of various forms are all in essence the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. During transition of capitalism to communism, different political groups will emerge but all in essence will comply with the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

Chapter III

Marx’s Experiences of the Paris Commune of 1871

1.    Heroism of the Communards’

·       Marx had warned the Paris comrades of the futility of any attempt to overthrow the government in 1870 but embraced the ensuing proletarian revolution of 1871 enthusiastically unlike Plekhanov who enthusiastic of the proletarian uprising of 1905 wrote that the people should not have taken arms when it failed to reach its goal. Though the Paris Commune failed, Marx was ready to declare the heroism of the communards and consider their deeds to be a practical experiment which needed to be analysed.

·       Based on the 1871 experience, Marx introduced a correction in the preface of The Communist Manifesto, quoting from ‘Civil War in France’ that simple acquisition of state machinery will not help the proletariat to progress with their agenda. While opportunists tend to describe this as a Marxist caution of the slow transition of state machinery, Marx has actually proposed to smash it.

·       Marx’s letter to Kugelmann: In 18^th Brumaire, it is stated the French Revolution instead of handing down the bureaucratic-military organisations intended to smash it as a pre-condition of real people’s revolution on the Continent.

·       Continent: Marx restricted his claim because in 1871 Britain was yet to consolidate the bureaucratic-military organisations and therefore any ensuing revolution need not require their abolition. However, in 1914-1917, Britain had centralized its bureaucratic-military organisations such that smashing the machinery during a revolution became essential.

·       People’s Revolution: a revolution where the peasants and the proletariat, both of whom are repressed by the state machinery, participate. The 20^th century Turkish and Portuguese revolutions were bourgeois revolutions but 1905 Russian revolution was a people’s revolution. The Paris communards tried to attain this alliance between peasants and the proletariat but failed.    

2.    What is to replace the abolished state machinery?

·       In Communist Manifesto, Marx stated vaguely that the abolished state machinery was to be replaced by the proletariat as the ruling class. Not opting for utopia, he waited for a historical experience which he received in 1871. The answer from this experience was the Commune.

·       State-power consolidated itself in the Middle Ages to suppress labour against capital. During the 1848 Revolution, the national war machinery suppressed labour against capital and this system was further consolidated during the Second Empire. The Paris Commune was an anti-thesis to this empire with the specific form of republic not only intending to abolish monarchy, but class struggle itself.

·       The Commune: (1) all elected municipal ward councillors were representatives of the working people and revocable (2) the post and privileges of state dignitaries abolished (3) all administrative officials were paid similar to the wages of the working people (4) police were stripped off their political power and military suppressed (5) priesthood as spiritual tool of suppression abolished (6) judicial representatives elected and revocable.

·       The Communards failed to give sufficient attention to suppression of bourgeois rebellion by allowing such executive decision to be taken by the majority of the people and eventually got defeated. This execution would have led to suppression of the minority on the wills of the majority unlike in bourgeois democracy, leading to gradual withering away of the proletarian state.  

·       Marx’s teachings on the Commune: (1) special allowances of public representatives to be abolished (2) military to be smashed (3) administrative representatives to be paid equal to wages of working people. While Bernstein resented point 3 of proletarian democracy as ‘primitive democracy’, with increased production under capitalism and simplification of executive processes of the state, administrative works can be done under working people’s wages. This will forge the unity of proletariat and peasants with the peasant demand of cheap government realized since expenses of military and officials have disappeared. This will finally help in progressing towards conversion of bourgeois private property to public ownership.

3.    Abolition of Parliamentarianism

·       Opportunists denounce any criticism of parliament as anarchism. Disgusted with their treachery, the proletariat sometimes find recluse under the banner of anarcho-syndicalists, a variant of opportunism itself.

·       The bourgeois parliament is a  ‘talkshop’ where the ruling class fools the people, the actual decisions of suppressing the working people taking place in the state departments, chancelleries and army regiments.

·       Marxism teaches to use the parliament during non-revolutionary situation and oppose it during a proletarian revolutionary situation.

·       Marx (from 1871 experience): The Commune is not parliamentarian, but a working body, both executive and legislative.

·       To abolish bureaucracy all at once is utopian but to abolish the bureaucratic machinery so that bureaucracy can gradually wither away is not.

·       A socialist economy will initially require representative institutions the members of which unlike parliamentarians, must work, generate and execute and analyse their success and drawbacks with fellow representatives.

·       Unlike anarchists who opt for socialist revolution after the people have changed, Marxists want to carry out the same with the existing people; the subordination to be towards the proletariat, the armed vanguard of the working people.

·       The socialist economy will run along the principles of social management practices of the post office freed from the bureaucratic domination of the imperialists. The workers will organize into large production units already created by capitalism, except that after the overthrow of the capitalists, the workers will work under the patronage of the armed proletariat. They will shove off the bossy attitude of the officials, reducing them into mere elected and revocable task implementers at a pay equal to the wage of the working people. The workers will hire technicians, foremen and accountants at the same pay and this will gradually lead to withering away of the parasitic bureaucracy.

4.    National Unity

·       Marx: The Paris Commune failed to forge a national unity due to historical limitations but the task of the commune as the political representation of even the smallest villages has been ordained. The Communards were trying to elect a National Delegation in Paris before the system collapsed.

Abolition of the bourgeois state which forged a national unity by establishing itself independent of and lying above the nation (like a parasite) will help in forging national unity through responsible servants of the people.

The few important works of the central government will not be suppressed but carried out by responsible representatives under a proletarian constitution.

·       Bernstein accused Marx of federalism in conformity with Proudhonism since the communes were to elect delegates for the provincial district assemblies which in turn will send elected delegates to the National Assembly. Kautsky and Plekhanov forgot to address this while criticizing Bernstein.

·       Marx is in conformity with anarchist Proudhon on the destruction of the bourgeois state machinery but departs on the question of federalism. Marx was a centralist.

·       The workers on assuming state power, organized into communes, using the armed proletarian vanguard to suppress bourgeois rebellion and converting private property to public ownership in itself is a form of democratic proletarian centralism. 

5.    Abolition of the parasite state

·       Marx: The multiplicity of interpretations of the Commune show that it was a flexible working class government developed out of the contradiction between capital and labour and which is the political instrument for the emancipation of labour itself.

·       The anarchists never thought of the necessity of such a political form. The opportunists could not go beyond their hang-over of the bourgeois state machinery.

·       Marx initially stated that the proletarian revolution would lead to the establishment of the proletariat as the ruling class. Experiences from 1848-51 showed him that the state machinery needed to be abolished and events of 1871 revealed to him that the abolished state machinery will be replaced by the Commune. 

Chapter IV

Supplementary Explanations by Engels

1.    The Housing Question

·       Engels’ Housing Question (1872):

There are similarities as well as differences between bourgeois state and proletarian state.

A social revolution must abolish the anti-thesis between town and country.

There are many houses in the towns. The question of housing shortage can be addressed after a social revolution by expropriating the house owners and allowing the homeless workers to dwell in the extra spaces of the occupied houses. This expropriation can also be seen in bourgeois society but unlike it, the proletarian state will not require the bureaucratic machinery for such an execution.

Proudhon: after social revolution, there will be individual ownership of the dwellings

Engels: collective ownership of dwellings, factories and instruments of labour

In a proletarian state, the housing rent will exist in a transitional period. The state will control the distribution of dwellings and collection of the rent and the distribution of rent free dwellings will only be possible when the state withers away.

·       Engels (Anti-Duhring): As class is abolished, bourgeois state is also abolished.

Anarchists: overnight abolition of the state.

Controversy with Anarchists

·       Proudhonists or anarchists are ‘anti-authoritative’.

·       Engels (On Authority):

The factories or ships in the high sea require some level of authoritative power to execute the synchronized functioning of the crew.

The social revolution will allow authority to the extent permitted by the production system.

Authority and autonomy are relative terms and vary according to the phase of social development.

The anarchists should direct against political authority of the state as after a social revolution, the political functions would gradually shift towards administrative functions, with the withering away of the state.

The revolution itself is authoritarian as it refers to the forceful imposition of the interests of the majority oppressed over minority oppressors via arms and ammunitions. The Paris Commune would not have existed a day if they did not execute authoritarian measures of suppression against the bourgeois rebels.

Letter to Bebel

·       Bebel: The state will be transformed from class rule to people’s state.

·       Engels:

People’s state is an absurd term, rightfully opposed by anarchists, since after a proletarian revolution, the bourgeois state will be abolished and the proletarian state will gradually wither away.

Free people’s state is also an absurd term as the proletarian state will be there to suppress the rebellious bourgeoisie and not promote freedom. When freedom exists, the state withers away. Engels proposed the term ‘community’ or ‘commune’ in place of the state.

A commune is not a state in terms of its meaning as a commune is directed to suppress the oppressor minority and not the oppressed majority and when a commune is fully established, the state withers away.

2.    Critique of the Draft of Erfurt Programme

·       It is based on Engels’ letter to Kautsky.

·       Reformists: the monopoly state capitalism or imperialism is equivalent to state socialism.

Engels: organisational similarity between imperialist and socialist states makes the possibility of revolution easier and must inspire the workers to strive for a socialist revolution and not admire the supremacy of imperialism.

·       Engels: The German Social-Democrats fearing the renewal of Anti-Socialist Law resorted to opportunism and failed to declare anything concrete in their political programme. The demand for a republic to the absolutist German state is difficult but will act as mirror to their nakedness.

·       A democratic republic is closest to the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat.

·       A republic should be singe and undivided. The centralized republic imparts more freedom and democracy than the federal republic. Federal republic is an exception but necessity in USA owing to its vastness, necessity in Britain due to existence of three different national legislatures in the two islands, causes hindrance to development in Switzerland and can also be a transitional stage from monarchy to unified republic.

·       The local self-governments of Canada, Australia and other English colonies are characteristic in their lack of bureaucratic executions.

·       The local self-governments must be elected through universal suffrage and not appointed by the state.  

1891 Preface to Marx’s ‘Civil war in France’

·       The ongoing bourgeois revolutions are won by proletariat who are ultimately defeated to the bourgeoisie owing to the latter’s call for complete disarmament of the proletariat.

·       Religion is a private matter in terms of the state but not in terms of the party or the revolutionary proletariat who must essentially denounce religion.

·       Like a monarchy, a democratic republic is also a state which is capable of converting servants of the state to masters of the state. To prevent this, the commune proposes: (1) election of representatives through universal suffrage and right to recall (2) salary of such representatives equal to the wage of the working people.

·       In order for the state to wither away, the functions of the civil service must be reduced to that of foremen and accountants with surveillance of armed workers.

On Overcoming Democracy

·       Engels replaced the term Social-Democrat with Communist since it was used by Lassalleans of France and Proudhonists of Germany. Lenin also proposed the name of their party as Communist Party (Bolshevik) retaining the term Bolshevik due to historic acceptance.

·       With the withering away of the state, democracy also withers away.

·       Democracy is a state for the subordination of the minority to the majority. During transition to communism, the lack of need of subordination and participation of the majority into administrative affairs will lead to withering away of state and democracy. 

Chapter V

Economics of Withering away of the State

1.    Presentation of the Question by Marx

·       Marx: Communism will historically develop from capitalism due to the social forces that have originated from the capitalist society.

Capitalist society exists in all countries in varied degree of their development but the nature of the state varies across borders. However, the states are characteristically dependent on capitalist societies.

·       Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme: the nature of transition of capitalist society to communist society cannot be described simply by designating the latter as a ‘people’s’ state.

·       There will be an intermediate phase during the transition from capitalism to communism. 

2.    Transition from Capitalism to Communism

·       Marx: During the transition from capitalist to communist society, the political transitional period will be characterized by the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

·       In a capitalist society, democracy is for the oppressor minority with the state machinery suppressing the majority working people such that freedom is only for the wage-slave owners. The brutal suppression, wage slavery and class biased exceptions to the democratic principles prevent the majority working people to enter public or political life.

·       In the transitional revolutionary period of proletarian dictatorship, the state will suppress the rebellion of the oppressor minority (bourgeois resistance) and impart greater democracy to the oppressed majority.

·       In a communist society, due to lack of class antagonism and bourgeois resistance, the state will gradually wither away. Democracy and freedom will persist in their greatest extent such that people freed from wage slavery and exploitation can “observe by their regular habit” that the social practices and management systems are functioning without the intervention of the state machinery. Thus, democracy will also wither away gradually.

·       Excesses of individuals in a communist society will be suppressed by the armed people themselves much like the way people organize to protest when a women is publicly threatened.

3.    First Phase of Communist Society

·       Lassalle: In a socialist state, a worker will be able to appropriate the fruits of the entire imparted labour.

Marx (Critique of Gotha Programme): This is not possible as a portion of the labour will be deducted for maintenance of production (e.g., buying of raw materials, repair of machines etc.) and for administrative purposes (e.g., schools, hospitals, old-age homes etc.).

·       Receive from society as much you have given it: Everyone contributing socially necessary work will be given a certificate of the amount of work done based on which corresponding amount of consumer goods can be obtained from the shop. A portion of the imparted labour is deducted for renewal of production and administrative purposes that serve us indirectly.

·       Equal Right and Justice: Bourgeois law of equal rights for different classes of varying social circumstances is itself a case of inequality and injustice. Similarly, the socialist law of equal social product for equal labour fosters variation of wealth, inequality and injustice as the workers vary in their social circumstances (some strong, some weak, some have more children than others etc.).

·       Therefore, the first phase of communist society has birth-marks of the capitalist society from whose womb it has arisen since the bourgeois law of injustice and inequality persists in terms of distribution of goods. But this society has been able to abolish exploitation since the means of production have been transformed from private to public property.

·       Principles: (1) One who does not work, does not eat (2) Equal social product for equal amount of labour.

·       The proletarian state is withering away as there is no exploitation, class antagonism and capitalist threat but still persisting to enforce the bourgeois law of injustice and inequality in terms of distribution of goods.   

4.    Higher Phase of Communist Society

·       Pre-requisite for ‘For each according to their ability, to each according to their need’ in higher phase of communist society: (1) subordination of the individual to division of labour vanishes (2) anti-theses of mental and physical labour vanishes (3) labour has become life’s prime want.

·       To satisfy these pre-requisities, the level of production must increase enough, surpassing that of capitalist society but the time required to do so cannot be predicted since material experience to come to such conclusions is wanting.

·       When the state adopts the rule ‘For each according to their ability, to each according to their need’, the bourgeois law of injustice and inequality in terms of distribution of goods will cease to exist and the state will wither away. This will lead to complete freedom as freedom cannot be achieved so long the state as an instrument of suppression exists.

·       Scientific distinction between socialism and communism: Socialism refers to the first phase of communist society, borne from the womb of the capitalist society, which transfers the means of production from private to public property, providing social product on the basis of labour imparted and clinging to the bourgeois law of injustice and inequality in terms of distribution of goods. In this phase, all citizens act as hired employees of the state run by armed workers, exhibiting utmost discipline.

·       A socialist state is one where the bourgeois law of injustice and inequality persists without the bourgeoisie themselves.

·       Democracy means equality. It is a form of the state. In bourgeois society, democracy is enjoyed by the oppressor minority but in the first phase of communism, democracy is enjoyed by the working majority. Thus, democracy in formal terms is achieved in the first phase of communism. Here, quantity changes to quality since the vast majority of the people enjoying democracy paves the foundation for socialist construction.

·       Democracy is essential for the working class during the transition from feudalism to capitalism and from capitalism to the transitional phase from capitalism to communism. 

·       Democracy in actual terms: ‘For each according to their ability, to each according to their need’. More the democracy enjoyed by the larger section of the people, lesser is its necessity and it withers away gradually.

·       Democracy refers to equality of citizens, equality of taking part in deciding the structure and execution of the state. The capitalist society paves the way towards this equality of decision making for all, partially, through universal literacy, greater extent of communication through railways etc.

·       When the entire state runs like a factory with equality in labour and wage, such that everyone is ready to administer the functioning of the entire system, when necessity of abiding the governing rules becomes a habit, the state withers away and transition to the higher phase of communism takes place.  

Chapter VI

Misinterpretation of Marxism by Opportunists

1.    Plekhanov against Anarchism

·       Plekhanov’s book ‘Anarchism and Socialism’ had two volumes. The first reflected on the historical analyses of the events of 1905-1917. The second comprised of literary critique of the anarchist cause with childish comparison of anarchists with dacoits. However, what was missing in his analyses was the relation between State and Revolution as the central theme behind the ideological differences between the socialists and the anarchists.

·       Marx in his ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme’ had stated how Bakunin and his fellow anarchist followers were expelled from the Heg Congress (5^th) of the 1^st International.

·       In his letter to von Patten, Engels had stated that the minority ruling class exploits the majority working class through their armed state machinery. Therefore, when a socialist revolution removes the ruling class from power, the need for the armed institutions of the ousted ruling minority becomes inconsequential. Thus, the main target of the revolution is the dissolution of armed state power. However, in order to achieve this, in course of revolution, the majority proletariat must take control of the political power of the state to suppress the rebellious capitalists & their allies and to carry out a necessary socio-economic revolution. Without an economic revolution, the only result which the working class will face is the fate of the Paris Commune.

·       While anarchists claim that the worker’s revolution begins with the dissolution of the political organisation of the State, from experience of the proletariat, it is observed that after a revolution, the workers actually find the state power as the only organisation left for to work with. However, this organisation must be rebuilt to suit the worker’s interests.

·       Anarchists claim the experience of the Paris Commune as an implementation of their model. However, a close study of the development of Marxism before and after the events of the Paris Commune poses two main questions: Will the State power dissolve after the Revolution? What will it be replaced with? These questions are ignored by the anarchists.   

2.    Kautsky against Opportunism?

·       Kautsky, a German Social Democrat and leader of the 2^nd International was famous for his campaign of Marxism among the common people and his debate with Bernstein. However, he adopted the ‘Social Chauvinist’ political position during 1914-1915.

·       Milera, a socialist leader, had participated in the Law Ministry of the French government in 1899, sharing seat with General Gallifet who was instrumental in destroying the Paris Commune, with the excuse of opposing the royalists in favour of the republic. Therefore, in the Internal Socialist Congress of 1900, on the question of participation of the socialists in the bourgeois government, Plekahnov, Axelrod and Vera Zasulich proposed that the socialists should not participate in the government, they must oppose the government’s anti-people activities and participate in only those election seats where the workers can win on their own strength. Kautsky’s proposal was to consider this participation ‘tactical’ and not ‘ideological’. Plekhanov’s proposal was electorally defeated and Kautsky’s proposal was accepted. Kautsky’s proposal was deemed to be compromising by the magazine Zaria (Dawn), mouthpiece of the Social Democrat movement and edited by Plekhanov, Vera Zasulich, Lenin, Markov, Axelrod and Potresov. Kautsky was also doubtful in criticizing Berstein.

·       Bernstein accused Marxism to be simply ‘Blanqui-ism’ and based on Marx’s ‘Civil War in France’ he critiqued his thought to be similar to ‘Proudhon-ism’. Bernstein accused Marx of reducing the revolutionary zeal of the proletariat by quoting his words from the Communist Manifesto which stated that state power cannot be used in the worker’s interest simply by conquering it. What Marx had actually said was that in order to use state power in the worker’s interests, the existing state machinery must be destroyed. Kautsky missed out on this point while criticizing Bernstein and even put the question of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to the future! Thus, he embraced opportunism by by-passing the main question of the worker’s revolution.

·       In 1852-1891, Marx and Engels had stated many times that the existing state machinery must be destroyed. However, in his book ‘Social Revolution’, Kautsky proposed the seizure of state power without the destruction of state machinery. He stated that after a social revolution, worker’s will enact a democratic programme but by-passed the question of transition of bourgeois democracy to proletarian democracy. He kept the question of socio-political change for the future, proposing no chance of seizure of state power at his present moment!

·       Kautsky: Bureaucracy and cooperatives would coexist in a socialist state. In the present society, bureaucracy engulfs the railway organisations, large factories, large capitalist agricultural initiatives etc. After a socialist revolution, Kautsky thought that bureaucracy would exist in the railways (as an example). The workers will elect representatives for a parliament like machinery which will create and enact legislature to control the deeds of the bureaucracy. This support for the bureaucracy shows Kautsky’s blind-fold favour of the bourgeois parliament.

·       Lenin: Workers will elect representatives who are entitled to create and enact legislature to run the organisation which is not controlled by the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy will be abolished by: (1) Right to Elect as well as ‘Right to Recall’, (2) Equal wage of elected representatives as the workers, (3) Participation of all workers and employees in administration such that ‘all workers are bureaucrats and no single person a bureaucrat’.

·       Bourgeois parliament is a mixture of bureaucracy and democracy.

Marx: Commune is not parliamentarian but a working corporation, administrative and can create & enact legislature. Thus, proletarian democracy destroys bureaucracy.   

3.    Debate between Kautsy and Pannekoek

·       Pannekoek, a member of the radical left line of Rosa Luxemberg, criticized Kautsky on the question of the state.

·       Pannekoek: The proletarian struggle is not only directed towards seizure of state power but also against it. The existing state machinery must be abolished and replaced by organisation of the proletarian majority.

·       Kautsky on Pannekoek: The Social Democrats want seizure of state power, the anarchists want to abolish it. Pannekoek wants both.

·       Difference between Marxism and Anarchism: (1) Marxists want the abolition of state but they know that it can be realized only when a socialist revolution abolishes class; the state will wither away during gradual progression towards communist society. Anarchists demand overnight abolition of the state. (2) Marxists want to abolish the existing state machinery and replace it with a Paris Commune like organisation of the working majority, devoid of bureaucracy. The proletarian state will be run by the armed revolutionary proletarian vanguard. The anarchists do not bother about what will the abolished state be replaced with and how the seized state power be used in the interests of the working class. They even denounce the dictatorship of the proletariat. (3) Marxists want to educate the workers on revolution using the existing state. Anarchists do not agree on this.

·       Kautsky: If state is to be abolished, then the centralized state power will be compromised.

Lenin: After the abolition of bourgeois state, if the armed workers administer the newly formed proletarian state after a socialist revolution, it will also lead to centralization.  

·       Kautsky: The idea of abolition of state is farce. The national administration and even a political party needs officials to run. The worker’s movements should be directed towards implementation of changes possible in the existing state rather than on the type of state estimated in the distant future. This means, to cater only to opposition and what will happen after seizure of power be kept for the future i.e., idea of revolution is compromised.

·       Lenin: The working class cannot implement its revolutionary agenda using the existing state machinery they have seized. They must abolish the existing state and replace it with a new commune like organization to work with.

·       The parties and trade unions require officials under a capitalist society. Due to wage slavery and limitations of democracy, the proletarian representatives get corrupted and alienated from the public in this society. A certain degree of bureaucratization will occur among the party officials in this present society.

·       Kautsky: Since elected representatives will be present in a socialist state, therefore bureaucracy will persist.

Lenin: Bureaucracy will wither away in a socialist state through (1) the introduction of election and right to recall (2) pay equal to wage of workers (3) replacement of parliament with a working organisation, both legislative and judicial.

·       Bernstein: The British trade unions have become non-functional by embracing primitive democracy.

Lenin: These trade unions have begun to cater to bourgeois interests and are therefore rendering themselves useless.

In socialism, the majority people will not only elect but directly participate in the administration such that a condition where no individual administrator remains (primitive democracy) is established.

·       Kautsky: Mass strikes should not be directed towards abolition of the state but to win favours from the government or introduce changes in the power relations of the state through numerical majority in the parliament.

Lenin: The proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, destroy parliamentarianism and replace the state with commune controlled by armed workers.

·       Opportunists denounced the dictatorship of proletariat in favour of democracy as a prejudice towards the existing state only to fall prey to social chauvinism during the imperialist war.  

Lenin intended to introduce a seventh chapter on the experiences of the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions of Russia but could not gather time to do so since he became busy with the proceedings of the historic November Revolution. He ended his words as “It is more pleasant and useful to go through the experience of revolution than to write about it”.