PDF Summary:State and Revolution, by V.I. Lenin

V.I. Lenin's State and Revolution examines the Marxist view of the state as an instrument to perpetuate class exploitation. In this analysis, Lenin argues for dismantling the existing state apparatus during the transition from capitalism to communism. He asserts that the proletariat must seize state power temporarily to suppress capitalist resistance and construct a new system of worker governance and economic distribution.

Lenin explores the economic requirements for an advanced communist society and the eventual diminishment of the state. He critiques Marxists who misrepresent the need to entirely dismantle and replace capitalist state structures, rather than simply capturing control of the existing frameworks.

(continued)...

The governance system of the Commune merged the once distinct legislative and executive roles.

Lenin underscores that the division of state power into legislative and executive branches, commonly seen within frameworks of capitalism, perpetuates an illusion of democracy, while in reality, a select few officeholders wield the true power. He argues that this purported separation is simply a ruse designed to mislead the public, allowing capitalist powers to control the state regardless of which political party seems to be in charge.

Lenin considered the Commune to be in direct opposition to this deceptive system. The amalgamation of policymaking and administrative functions into a single body ensured direct accountability and prevented the emergence of a separate governing class unaccountable to the wider population.

The novel political structure established by the Commune combined the functions of lawmaking and law enforcement within a vibrant, non-parliamentary body.

Lenin highlighted the primary innovation of the Commune as being a working entity that prioritized practical execution over discussion, composed of delegates accountable to the electorate and directly engaged in the execution and evaluation of the legislation they passed. Lenin argues that the true nature of authentic democracy is rooted in its significance and benefits to the working class. The governance model established by the Commune exemplified a system focused on the needs of the people, realized not through the illusory practices of representative democracy but by fostering direct participation in governance and eliminating a separate class of privileged officials.

Lenin emphasizes that while representative institutions are essential for democracy, proletarian democracy requires a decisive break from the institutions and practices of bourgeois parliamentarism.

Engels participated in discussions and offered in-depth clarifications concerning the essential characteristics of the state.

This section delves into the understanding that Engels contributed regarding the fundamental nature of state authority from a Marxist perspective. Lenin highlights Engels' scrutiny of Anarchist views on the state's disintegration and his warnings against the distortion of Marxist principles by those seeking to exploit them for their own advantage. He demonstrates that later thinkers, influenced by the lessons learned from the Paris Commune, further developed and elaborated on the Marxist view of state administration.

Engels contested the oversimplification by the Anarchists concerning the dissolution of state structures.

The state's dissolution will not happen suddenly; it necessitates a gradual reduction in line with the decreasing need for its presence.

Engels echoes Marx's assertion that the aim of the Socialist revolution is to dismantle the current state apparatus, and this cannot be realized through declaration alone. Lenin suggests that as societal classes vanish and the populace becomes proficient in autonomously managing community affairs, this progression is inherently linked to a diminishing requirement for state-imposed governance.

Lenin highlights the deficiencies in the perspectives of Proudhonists and other "anti-authoritarians," pointing out their misinterpretation of the crucial intermediary stage during which the working class utilizes state apparatus to quell the resistance of capitalists.

The working class must seize control of the state apparatus to overcome the resistance from the bourgeoisie.

Lenin highlights Engels' astute observation that revolution represents the extreme embodiment of power, requiring one class to use force to suppress another. Anarchists, who reject every form of authority and control, hold a viewpoint that clashes with the fundamental dynamics present throughout the revolutionary process. Engels argued that the triumph of the Paris Commune depended on the proletariat seizing command of the governmental machinery during the revolutionary phase.

Lenin delineates his approach to revolution, contrasting it sharply with the typical inclination of Social Democrats to avoid addressing particular matters concerning state power during revolutionary periods. Engels conducted a thorough analysis of the Paris Commune's principles, providing crucial direction for the proletarian revolution while underscoring the importance of governmental authority.

Engels warned that opportunists might distort Marx's concepts about the state.

Lenin examines Engels' reaction to the tendency of some socialists to dilute the profound implications of Marx's perspective on the state. He underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the fundamental tenets of Marxist theory, as Engels warned against making compromises with prevailing capitalist structures.

Opportunists frequently misconstrue the goal, concentrating on simply taking over the current state apparatus rather than highlighting the essential need to completely abolish the existing governmental structure.

Lenin underscores that individuals with a tendency for seeking compromise and who are prone to opportunism often depict the capture of state authority as the ultimate goal of Socialist aspirations. Lenin argues that this viewpoint fails to recognize the crucial task of dismantling the governmental machinery, which is intrinsically designed to maintain the ruling class's advantages. He reproaches figures such as Kautsky for not clearly calling for the dismantling of governmental structures when assessing "left radicals" like Pannekoek, thereby allowing interpretations that could be exploited by opportunists.

Engels stressed the importance for the working class to not just take over the current state structure but to completely break down the existing bureaucratic-military machine and create an entirely new system of governance.

Lenin emphasizes Engels' firm belief in the necessity of overthrowing the existing governmental structures and forming new systems that depend on the active participation of an armed citizenry, taking cue from the example set by the Paris Commune. Lenin argues that the very essence of proletarian revolution lies in this fundamental transformation. He references Engels' severe criticism of those who naively believe in the benign function of the state and ignore the significant implications of dissolving outdated administrative and military frameworks. Lenin argues that the working class must aspire to more than just assuming the role of the bourgeoisie within the existing state structure; they should seek to fundamentally transform the nature of the state itself.

Marx's analysis probes into the foundational economic elements that lead to the eventual disintegration of governmental structures.

This part examines Marx's examination of the economic underpinnings that will ultimately result in the state's disintegration within a Communist society. Lenin outlines the development of Communist society, emphasizing the persistence of norms rooted in capitalism during the initial phase and the gradual transition to a society devoid of state and class divisions.

In the initial phases of a society's transition from capitalism to communism, the remnants of "bourgeois right" persist.

Lenin describes the shift from capitalism to communism as a process that unfolds in two distinct phases. Lenin scrutinizes the essential economic prerequisites for the early phase of Communist society, often referred to as Socialism, by delving into Marx's critical evaluation of the Gotha Programme. In this phase, imbalances persist as the distribution of commodities is based on the concept that the amount of labor one contributes should correspond to a commensurate share of the products. With this form of distribution, while exploitation is abolished, differences in individual ability and need mean that inequalities inevitably arise.

In the early phases of a communist society, it is imperative that the government upholds the principle that rewards should correspond to the quantity of work performed.

Even with the abolition of private dominion over the means of production, a state remains necessary during the initial stages of a communist society. Lenin underscores the importance of establishing a state by the working class to ensure fair remuneration for similar work, thereby guaranteeing that every individual contributes to the community and receives a rightful share of resources.

In the advanced stage of communism, where the distinction between intellectual and manual labor no longer exists, the state will completely cease to exist.

Lenin emphasizes that in the developed stage of communism, productivity increases significantly, laying the groundwork for the complete disintegration of the state and the elimination of differences between mental and physical labor. In this higher phase, resources will be distributed according to need, making any form of control or coercion unnecessary. Lenin acknowledges that the ultimate phase is inevitable, but he also recognizes that the specific characteristics and timing of its emergence will be determined by historical conditions. He emphasizes that this notion must not be viewed as a distant utopia achievable by decree, but instead as a natural evolution arising from the existing conditions of society.

The evolution toward a classless society hinges on the organization, oversight, and configuration of the systems that control production.

In this section, Lenin outlines the essential actions that the proletariat should undertake to oversee production and distribution during the transitional phase, emphasizing the necessity for workers' control and broad participation in dismantling the outdated bureaucratic system.

The involvement of an armed populace is essential in supervising and managing the mechanisms of manufacturing and allocation, as opposed to depending on a bureaucratic state apparatus.

Upon assuming power, the working class must promptly dismantle the existing administrative framework and create new structures that are based on the direct management and active participation of the workers themselves. Lenin suggests that when the general population is mobilized and equipped, the Soviets exemplify their ability to manage resource distribution and supply effectively. He emphasizes that workers, through their direct experience and deep commitment to revolutionary transformation, are fully capable of skillfully managing complex institutions without relying on a distinct group of bureaucrats.

Lenin illustrates the practicality of his approach by analyzing the operations of the postal service. He suggests that by establishing governance by workers and eliminating bureaucratic barriers, the working class can achieve a level of efficiency and organization surpassing that of capitalist frameworks.

As society becomes more adept at self-governance, the need for governmental authority and methods of enforcement will correspondingly diminish.

Lenin emphasizes the critical role of public involvement in managing and supervising the processes of creating and allocating goods, which in turn gradually sharpens their skills in self-governance. As a society advances towards shared responsibility and cooperative participation, the need for a separate enforcement entity, often known as the state, gradually diminishes.

He contends that the regimentation found in factories, while initially essential for productivity and to counteract the disheartening effects of capitalist practices, is ultimately an interim measure. As individuals engage with and oversee societal matters, they will cultivate new behaviors and a communal duty sense, making external compulsion redundant. Ultimately, society progresses to a stage where it is capable of self-governance, rendering the need for a state unnecessary.

Opportunists have grossly misrepresented and oversimplified the core Marxist perspectives regarding the fundamental characteristics and role of the state.

The concluding part of the document examines the way in which the prevailing groups within the established Social-Democratic parties of the Second International simplified and distorted the complex ideas of Marx concerning the nature and role of the state. Lenin vehemently denounces Plekhanov and Kautsky, prominent figures within the Socialist movement, due to their hesitance to fully accept the revolutionary elements embedded in Marx's view of the state.

Plekhanov neglected to discuss the pivotal role the state assumes during the revolutionary phase.

Lenin criticizes Plekhanov, a prominent Russian Marxist, for failing to adequately explore the crucial role that the state plays during revolutionary events. Despite his thorough examination, Plekhanov failed to address the essential issues related to the abolition of the state and the necessity to disassemble the existing governmental structure.

Plekhanov failed to adequately examine the fundamental ideas concerning the disassembly of the previous state's governing structures, nor did he deeply consider the insights gained from the Paris Commune.

Lenin argues that Plekhanov's inability to progress Marxist state theory stems from his neglect of the essential lessons learned from the Paris Commune. Plekhanov neglected to thoroughly analyze the Commune's demonstration of the capitalist state's collapse and the emergence of a new proletarian state, instead concentrating on trivial remarks about Anarchism which ultimately weakened the fundamental tenets of revolutionary Marxism.

Kautsky often leaned towards pragmatic perspectives in discussions with the "left" about matters of governance.

Lenin examines the role Kautsky played within the Socialist International, noting that his prolific writings concealed a gradual move towards a pragmatic approach that served his own interests, particularly in issues related to the administration of the state. Lenin believed that Kautsky, while often praised for maintaining conventional perspectives, persistently avoided and distorted the essential revolutionary aspects that are fundamental to Marx's doctrine.

Kautsky focused his attention on tactics within parliamentary frameworks, deliberately avoiding the crucial matter of deconstructing the machinery of the capitalist state.

Lenin criticizes Kautsky for focusing his critique on "left radicals" for their apparent emphasis on insurrection rather than cultivating a widespread movement, yet he sidesteps the crucial matter of dismantling the current state apparatus dominated by the capitalist class. Lenin argues that a disproportionate focus on tactical maneuvers within the confines of parliamentary systems may cause the fundamental revolutionary nature of Marxism to be eclipsed, giving rise to opportunistic renditions.

Kautsky portrayed the main objective as capturing the existing state machinery, rather than deconstructing and replacing the state's current framework.

Lenin emphasizes the danger inherent in Kautsky's continuous emphasis on the socialist movement's foremost objective to capture state authority, which results in the erroneous conviction that existing state mechanisms can be adapted for socialist purposes. Lenin argues that this view does not adequately emphasize the necessity of overthrowing the current capitalist state, as emphatically argued by Marx and Engels, and creating completely new structures that are fundamentally based on broad public participation, taking cues from the occurrences of the Paris Commune.

Lenin contended that Kautsky's superficial analysis of Marx's theory of the state and his neglect of the practical lessons from the Paris Commune played a significant role in the Second International's slide into reformism and its support for imperialist warfare.