Transcripts
State and Revolution
Speaker:Unabridged Audiobook
Speaker:Play Free
Speaker:With 30-Day Free Trial
Speaker:Add to Cart
Speaker:Price $3.99
Speaker:Written Written by
Speaker:Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, narrated by russell newton.
Speaker:Preface To The First Edition.
Speaker:The question of the state is now acquiring particular importance both in theory
Speaker:and in practical politics.
Speaker:The imperialist war has immensely accelerated and intensified the process of
Speaker:transformation of monopoly capitalism into statemonopoly capitalism.
Speaker:The monstrous oppression of the working people by the state,
Speaker:which is merging more and more with the allpowerful capitalist associations,
Speaker:is becoming increasingly monstrous.
Speaker:The advanced countries we mean their hinterland are becoming military
Speaker:convict prisons for the workers.
Speaker:The unprecedented horrors and miseries of the protracted war are making the
Speaker:people's position unbearable and increasing their anger.
Speaker:The world proletarian revolution is clearly maturing.
Speaker:The question of its relation to the state is acquiring practical importance.
Speaker:The elements of opportunism that accumulated over the decades of comparatively
Speaker:peaceful development have given rise to the trend of socialchauvinism which
Speaker:dominated the official socialist parties throughout the world.
Speaker:This trend socialism in words and chauvinism in deeds (Plekhanov,
Speaker:Potresov,
Speaker:Breshkovskaya,
Speaker:Rubanovich,
Speaker:and,
Speaker:in a slightly veiled form,
Speaker:Tsereteli,
Speaker:Chernov and Co. in Russia;
Speaker:Scheidemann.
Speaker:Legien,
Speaker:David and others in Germany;
Speaker:Renaudel,
Speaker:Guesde and Vandervelde in France and Belgium;
Speaker:Hyndman and the Fabians1 in England,
Speaker:etc.,
Speaker:etc.)
Speaker: is conspicuous for the base,
Speaker:servile adaptation of the "leaders of socialism" to the interests not only of
Speaker:"their" national bourgeoisie,
Speaker:but of "their" state,
Speaker:for the majority of the socalled Great Powers have long been exploiting and
Speaker:enslaving a whole number of small and weak nations.
Speaker:And the imperialist war is a war for the division and redivision of this kind
Speaker:of booty.
Speaker:The struggle to free the working people from the influence of the bourgeoisie
Speaker:in general,
Speaker:and of the imperialist bourgeoisie in particular,
Speaker:is impossible without a struggle against opportunist prejudices concerning the
Speaker:"state"
Speaker:First of all we examine the theory of Marx and Engels of the state,
Speaker:and dwell in particular detail on those aspects of this theory which are
Speaker:ignored or have been distorted by the opportunists.
Speaker:Then we deal specially with the one who is chiefly responsible for these
Speaker:distortions,
Speaker:Karl Kautsky,
Speaker:the bestknown leader of the Second International (18891914),
Speaker:which has met with such miserable bankruptcy in the present war.
Speaker:Lastly,
Speaker:we sum up the main results of the experience of the Russian revolutions of 1905
Speaker:and particularly of 1917.
Speaker:Apparently,
Speaker:the latter is now (early August 1917)
Speaker:completing the first stage of its development;
Speaker:but this revolution as a whole can only be understood as a link in a chain of
Speaker:socialist proletarian revolutions being caused by the imperialist war.
Speaker:The question of the relation of the socialist proletarian revolution to the
Speaker:state,
Speaker:therefore,
Speaker:is acquiring not only practical political importance,
Speaker:but also the significance of a most urgent problem of the day,
Speaker:the problem of explaining to the masses what they will have to do before long
Speaker:to free themselves from capitalist tyranny.
Speaker:The Author August 1917.
Speaker:Preface To The Second Edition.
Speaker:The present,
Speaker:second edition is published virtually unaltered,
Speaker:except that section 3 had been added to Chapter Ii.
Speaker:The Author Moscow,
Speaker:December 17,
Speaker:1918.
Speaker:Chapter I .- Class Society And The State.
Speaker:1. The State .- A Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms What
Speaker:is now happening to Marx's theory has,
Speaker:in the course of history,
Speaker:happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of
Speaker:oppressed classes fighting for emancipation.
Speaker:During the lifetime of great revolutionaries,
Speaker:the oppressing classes constantly hounded them,
Speaker:received their theories with the most savage malice,
Speaker:the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander.
Speaker:After their death,
Speaker:attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons,
Speaker:to canonize them,
Speaker:so to say,
Speaker:and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the
Speaker:oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter,
Speaker:while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance,
Speaker:blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.
Speaker:Today,
Speaker:the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the Labor movement concur in this
Speaker:doctoring of Marxism.
Speaker:They omit,
Speaker:obscure,
Speaker:or distort the revolutionary side of this theory,
Speaker:its revolutionary soul.
Speaker:They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the
Speaker:bourgeoisie.
Speaker:All the socialchauvinists are now “Marxists” (don't laugh!).
Speaker:And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars,
Speaker:only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism,
Speaker:are speaking of the “nationalGerman” Marx,
Speaker:who,
Speaker:they claim,
Speaker:educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of
Speaker:waging a predatory war!
Speaker:In these circumstances,
Speaker:in view of the unprecedently widespread distortion of Marxism,
Speaker:our prime task is to reestablish what Marx really taught on the subject of
Speaker:the state.
Speaker:This will necessitate a number of long quotations from the works of Marx and
Speaker:Engels themselves.
Speaker:Of course,
Speaker:long quotations will render the text cumbersome and not help at all to make it
Speaker:popular reading,
Speaker:but we cannot possibly dispense with them.
Speaker:All,
Speaker:or at any rate all the most essential passages in the works of Marx and Engels
Speaker:on the subject of the state must by all means be quoted as fully as possible so
Speaker:that the reader may form an independent opinion of the totality of the views of
Speaker:the founders of scientific socialism,
Speaker:and of the evolution of those views,
Speaker:and so that their distortion by the “Kautskyism” now prevailing may be
Speaker:documentarily proved and clearly demonstrated.
Speaker:Let us begin with the most popular of Engels' works,
Speaker:The Origin of the Family,
Speaker:Private Property and the State,
Speaker:the sixth edition of which was published in Stuttgart as far back as 1894.
Speaker:We have to translate the quotations from the German originals,
Speaker:as the Russian translations,
Speaker:while very numerous,
Speaker:are for the most part either incomplete or very unsatisfactory.
Speaker:Summing up his historical analysis,
Speaker:Engels says - “The state is,
Speaker:therefore,
Speaker:by no means a power forced on society from without;
Speaker:just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea',
Speaker:'the image and reality of reason',
Speaker:as Hegel maintains.
Speaker:Rather,
Speaker:it is a product of society at a certain stage of development;
Speaker:it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble
Speaker:contradiction with itself,
Speaker:that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to
Speaker:dispel.
Speaker:But in order that these antagonisms,
Speaker:these classes with conflicting economic interests,
Speaker:might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle,
Speaker:it became necessary to have a power,
Speaker:seemingly standing above society,
Speaker:that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order';
Speaker:and this power,
Speaker:arisen out of society but placing itself above it,
Speaker:and alienating itself more and more from it,
Speaker:is the state."
Speaker:This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism with regard to
Speaker:the historical role and the meaning of the state.
Speaker:The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class
Speaker:antagonisms.
Speaker:The state arises where,
Speaker:when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.
Speaker:And,
Speaker:conversely,
Speaker:the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.
Speaker:It is on this most important and fundamental point that the distortion of
Speaker:Marxism,
Speaker:proceeding along two main lines,
Speaker:begins.
Speaker:On the one hand,
Speaker:the bourgeois,
Speaker:and particularly the pettybourgeois,
Speaker:ideologists,
Speaker:compelled under the weight of indisputable historical facts to admit that the
Speaker:state only exists where there are class antagonisms and a class struggle,
Speaker:“correct” Marx in such a way as to make it appear that the state is an
Speaker:organ for the reconciliation of classes.
Speaker:According to Marx,
Speaker:the state could neither have arisen nor maintained itself had it been possible
Speaker:to reconcile classes.
Speaker:From what the pettybourgeois and philistine professors and publicists say,
Speaker:with quite frequent and benevolent references to Marx,
Speaker:it appears that the state does reconcile classes.
Speaker:According to Marx,
Speaker:the state is an organ of class rule,
Speaker:an organ for the oppression of one class by another;
Speaker:it is the creation of “order”,
Speaker:which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict
Speaker:between classes.
Speaker:In the opinion of the pettybourgeois politicians,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:order means the reconciliation of classes,
Speaker:and not the oppression of one class by another;
Speaker:to alleviate the conflict means reconciling classes and not depriving the
Speaker:oppressed classes of definite means and methods of struggle to overthrow the
Speaker:oppressors.
Speaker:For instance,
Speaker:when,
Speaker:in the revolution of 1917,
Speaker:the question of the significance and role of the state arose in all its
Speaker:magnitude as a practical question demanding immediate action,
Speaker:and,
Speaker:moreover,
Speaker:action on a mass scale,
Speaker:all the SocialRevolutionaries and Mensheviks descended at once to the
Speaker:pettybourgeois theory that the “state” “reconciles” classes.
Speaker:Innumerable resolutions and articles by politicians of both these parties are
Speaker:thoroughly saturated with this pettybourgeois and philistine
Speaker:“reconciliation” theory.
Speaker:That the state is an organ of the rule of a definite class which cannot be
Speaker:reconciled with its antipode (the class opposite to it)
Speaker:is something the pettybourgeois democrats will never be able to understand.
Speaker:Their attitude to the state is one of the most striking manifestations of the
Speaker:fact that our Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are not socialists at
Speaker:all (a point that we Bolsheviks have always maintained),
Speaker:but pettybourgeois democrats using nearsocialist phraseology.
Speaker:On the other hand,
Speaker:the “Kautskyite” distortion of Marxism is far more subtle.
Speaker:“Theoretically”,
Speaker:it is not denied that the state is an organ of class rule,
Speaker:or that class antagonisms are irreconcilable.
Speaker:But what is overlooked or glossed over is this - if the state is the product of
Speaker:the irreconcilability of class antagonisms,
Speaker:if it is a power standing above society and “alienating itself more and more
Speaker:from it",
Speaker:it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only
Speaker:without a violent revolution,
Speaker:but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was
Speaker:created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this “alienation”
Speaker:As we shall see later,
Speaker:Marx very explicitly drew this theoretically selfevident conclusion on the
Speaker:strength of a concrete historical analysis of the tasks of the revolution.
Speaker:And — as we shall show in detail further on — it is this conclusion which
Speaker:Kautsky has “forgotten” and distorted.
Speaker:2.
Speaker:Special Bodies Of Armed Men,
Speaker:Prisons,
Speaker:Etc.
Speaker:Engels continues - “As distinct from the old gentile [tribal or clan]
Speaker:order,[2] the state,
Speaker:first,
Speaker:divides its subjects according to territory...."
Speaker:This division seems “natural” to us,
Speaker:but it costs a prolonged struggle against the old organization according to
Speaker:generations or tribes.
Speaker:“The second distinguishing feature is the establishment of a public power
Speaker:which no longer directly coincides with the population organizing itself as an
Speaker:armed force.
Speaker:This special,
Speaker:public power is necessary because a selfacting armed organization of the
Speaker:population has become impossible since the split into classes....
Speaker:This public power exists in every state;
Speaker:it consists not merely of armed men but also of material adjuncts,
Speaker:prisons,
Speaker:and institutions of coercion of all kinds,
Speaker:of which gentile [clan] society knew nothing...."
Speaker:Engels elucidates the concept of the “power” which is called the state,
Speaker:a power which arose from society but places itself above it and alienates
Speaker:itself more and more from it.
Speaker:What does this power mainly consist of?
Speaker:It consists of special bodies of armed men having prisons,
Speaker:etc.,
Speaker:at their command.
Speaker:We are justified in speaking of special bodies of armed men,
Speaker:because the public power which is an attribute of every state “does not
Speaker:directly coincide” with the armed population,
Speaker:with its “selfacting armed organization"
Speaker:Like all great revolutionary thinkers,
Speaker:Engels tries to draw the attention of the classconscious workers to what
Speaker:prevailing philistinism regards as least worthy of attention,
Speaker:as the most habitual thing,
Speaker:hallowed by prejudices that are not only deeprooted but,
Speaker:one might say,
Speaker:petrified.
Speaker:A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power.
Speaker:But how can it be otherwise?
Speaker:From the viewpoint of the vast majority of Europeans of the end of the 19th
Speaker:century,
Speaker:whom Engels was addressing,
Speaker:and who had not gone through or closely observed a single great revolution,
Speaker:it could not have been otherwise.
Speaker:They could not understand at all what a “selfacting armed organization of
Speaker:the population” was.
Speaker:When asked why it became necessary to have special bodies of armed men placed
Speaker:above society and alienating themselves from it (police and a standing army),
Speaker:the WestEuropean and Russian philistines are inclined to utter a few phrases
Speaker:borrowed from Spencer of Mikhailovsky,
Speaker:to refer to the growing complexity of social life,
Speaker:the differentiation of functions,
Speaker:and so on.
Speaker:Such a reference seems “scientific”,
Speaker:and effectively lulls the ordinary person to sleep by obscuring the important
Speaker:and basic fact,
Speaker:namely,
Speaker:the split of society into irreconcilable antagonistic classes.
Speaker:Were it not for this split,
Speaker:the “selfacting armed organization of the population” would differ from
Speaker:the primitive organization of a stickwielding herd of monkeys,
Speaker:or of primitive men,
Speaker:or of men united in clans,
Speaker:by its complexity,
Speaker:its high technical level,
Speaker:and so on.
Speaker:But such an organization would still be possible.
Speaker:It is impossible because civilized society is split into antagonistic,
Speaker:and,
Speaker:moreover,
Speaker:irreconcilably antagonistic classes,
Speaker:whose “selfacting” arming would lead to an armed struggle between them.
Speaker:A state arises,
Speaker:a special power is created,
Speaker:special bodies of armed men,
Speaker:and every revolution,
Speaker:by destroying the state apparatus,
Speaker:shows us the naked class struggle,
Speaker:clearly shows us how the ruling class strives to restore the special bodies of
Speaker:armed men which serve it,
Speaker:and how the oppressed class strives to create a new organization of this kind,
Speaker:capable of serving the exploited instead of the exploiters.
Speaker:In the above argument,
Speaker:Engels raises theoretically the very same question which every great revolution
Speaker:raises before us in practice,
Speaker:palpably and,
Speaker:what is more,
Speaker:on a scale of mass action,
Speaker:namely,
Speaker:the question of the relationship between “special” bodies of armed men and
Speaker:the “selfacting armed organization of the population"
Speaker:We shall see how this question is specifically illustrated by the experience of
Speaker:the European and Russian revolutions.
Speaker:But to return to Engels' exposition.
Speaker:He points out that sometimes — in certain parts of North America,
Speaker:for example — this public power is weak (he has in mind a rare exception in
Speaker:capitalist society,
Speaker:and those parts of North America in its pre imperialist days where the free
Speaker:colonists predominated),
Speaker:but that,
Speaker:generally speaking,
Speaker:it grows stronger - “It [the public power] grows stronger,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:in proportion as class antagonisms within the state become more acute,
Speaker:and as adjacent states become larger and more populous.
Speaker:We have only to look at our presentday Europe,
Speaker:where class struggle and rivalry in conquest have tuned up the public power to
Speaker:such a pitch that it threatens to swallow the whole of society and even the
Speaker:state."
Speaker:This was written not later than the early nineties of the last century,
Speaker:Engels' last preface being dated June 16,
Speaker:1891.
Speaker:The turn towards imperialism — meaning the complete domination of the trusts,
Speaker:the omnipotence of the big banks,
Speaker:a grandscale colonial policy,
Speaker:and so forth — was only just beginning in France,
Speaker:and was even weaker in North America and in Germany.
Speaker:Since then “rivalry in conquest” has taken a gigantic stride,
Speaker:all the more because by the beginning of the second decade of the 20th century
Speaker:the world had been completely divided up among these “rivals in conquest",
Speaker:i.e.,
Speaker:among the predatory Great Powers.
Speaker:Since then,
Speaker:military and naval armaments have grown fantastically and the predatory war of
Speaker:191417 for the domination of the world by Britain or Germany,
Speaker:for the division of the spoils,
Speaker:has brought the “swallowing” of all the forces of society by the rapacious
Speaker:state power close to complete catastrophe.
Speaker:Engels' could,
Speaker:as early as 1891,
Speaker:point to “rivalry in conquest" as one of the most important distinguishing
Speaker:features of the foreign policy of the Great Powers,
Speaker:while the socialchauvinist scoundrels have ever since 1914,
Speaker:when this rivalry,
Speaker:many time intensified,
Speaker:gave rise to an imperialist war,
Speaker:been covering up the defence of the predatory interests of “their own"
Speaker:bourgeoisie with phrases about “defence of the fatherland",
Speaker:“defence of the republic and the revolution",
Speaker:etc.!
Speaker:3. The State - an Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class The
Speaker:maintenance of the special public power standing above society requires taxes
Speaker:and state loans.
Speaker:“Having pubic power and the right to levy taxes,” Engels writes,
Speaker:“the officials now stand,
Speaker:as organs of society,
Speaker:above society.
Speaker:The free,
Speaker:voluntary respect that was accorded to the organs of the gentile [clan]
Speaker:constitution does not satisfy them,
Speaker:even if they could gain it...."
Speaker:Special laws are enacted proclaiming the sanctity and immunity of the officials.
Speaker:“The shabbiest police servant” has more “authority” than the
Speaker:representative of the clan,
Speaker:but even the head of the military power of a civilized state may well envy the
Speaker:elder of a clan the “unrestrained respect” of society.
Speaker:The question of the privileged position of the officials as organs of state
Speaker:power is raised here.
Speaker:The main point indicated is - what is it that places them above society?
Speaker:We shall see how this theoretical question was answered in practice by the
Speaker:Paris Commune in 1871 and how it was obscured from a reactionary standpoint by
Speaker:Kautsky in 1912.
Speaker:“Because the state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check,
Speaker:but because it arose,
Speaker:at the same time,
Speaker:in the midst of the conflict of these classes,
Speaker:it is,
Speaker:as a rule,
Speaker:the state of the most powerful,
Speaker:economically dominant class,
Speaker:which,
Speaker:through the medium of the state,
Speaker:becomes also the politically dominant class,
Speaker:and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed
Speaker:class...."
Speaker:The ancient and feudal states were organs for the exploitation of the slaves
Speaker:and serfs;
Speaker:likewise,
Speaker:“the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of
Speaker:wagelabor by capital.
Speaker:By way of exception,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:periods occur in which the warring classes balance each other so nearly that
Speaker:the state power as ostensible mediator acquires,
Speaker:for the moment,
Speaker:a certain degree of independence of both...."
Speaker:Such were the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries,
Speaker:the Bonapartism of the First and Second Empires in France,
Speaker:and the Bismarck regime in Germany.
Speaker:Such,
Speaker:we may add,
Speaker:is the Kerensky government in republican Russia since it began to persecute the
Speaker:revolutionary proletariat,
Speaker:at a moment when,
Speaker:owing to the leadership of the pettybourgeois democrats,
Speaker:the Soviets have already become impotent,
Speaker:while the bourgeoisie are not yet strong enough simply to disperse them.
Speaker:In a democratic republic,
Speaker:Engels continues,
Speaker:“wealth exercises its power indirectly,
Speaker:but all the more surely",
Speaker:first,
Speaker:by means of the “direct corruption of officials” (America);
Speaker:secondly,
Speaker:by means of an “alliance of the government and the Stock Exchange" (France
Speaker:and America).
Speaker:At present,
Speaker:imperialism and the domination of the banks have “developed” into an
Speaker:exceptional art both these methods of upholding and giving effect to the
Speaker:omnipotence of wealth in democratic republics of all descriptions.
Speaker:Since,
Speaker:for instance,
Speaker:in the very first months of the Russian democratic republic,
Speaker:one might say during the honeymoon of the “socialist” S. R. s and
Speaker:Mensheviks joined in wedlock to the bourgeoisie,
Speaker:in the coalition government.
Speaker:Mr. Palchinsky obstructed every measure intended for curbing the capitalists
Speaker:and their marauding practices,
Speaker:their plundering of the state by means of war contracts;
Speaker:and since later on Mr. Palchinsky,
Speaker:upon resigning from the Cabinet (and being,
Speaker:of course,
Speaker:replaced by another quite similar Palchinsky),
Speaker:was “rewarded” by the capitalists with a lucrative job with a salary of
Speaker:120,000 rubles per annum — what would you call that?
Speaker:Direct or indirect bribery?
Speaker:An alliance of the government and the syndicates,
Speaker:or “merely” friendly relations?
Speaker:What role do the Chernovs,
Speaker:Tseretelis,
Speaker:Avksentyevs and Skobelevs play?
Speaker:Are they the “direct” or only the indirect allies of the millionaire
Speaker:treasurylooters?
Speaker:Another reason why the omnipotence of “wealth” is more certain in a
Speaker:democratic republic is that it does not depend on defects in the political
Speaker:machinery or on the faulty political shell of capitalism.
Speaker:A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism,
Speaker:and,
Speaker:therefore,
Speaker:once capital has gained possession of this very best shell (through the
Speaker:Palchinskys,
Speaker:Chernovs,
Speaker:Tseretelis and Co.),
Speaker:it establishes its power so securely,
Speaker:so firmly,
Speaker:that no change of persons,
Speaker:institutions or parties in the bourgeoisdemocratic republic can shake it.
Speaker:We must also note that Engels is most explicit in calling universal suffrage as
Speaker:well an instrument of bourgeois rule.
Speaker:Universal suffrage,
Speaker:he says,
Speaker:obviously taking account of the long experience of German SocialDemocracy,
Speaker:is “the gauge of the maturity of the working class.
Speaker:It cannot and never will be anything more in the presentday state."
Speaker:The pettybourgeois democrats,
Speaker:such as our SocialistRevolutionaries and Mensheviks,
Speaker:and also their twin brothers,
Speaker:all the socialchauvinists and opportunists of Western Europe,
Speaker:expect just this “more” from universal suffrage.
Speaker:They themselves share,
Speaker:and intill into the minds of the people,
Speaker:the false notion that universal suffrage “in the presentday state" is
Speaker:really capable of revealing the will of the majority of the working people and
Speaker:of securing its realization.
Speaker:Here,
Speaker:we can only indicate this false notion,
Speaker:only point out that Engels' perfectly clear statement is distorted at every
Speaker:step in the propaganda and agitation of the “official” (i.e.,
Speaker:opportunist)
Speaker:socialist parties.
Speaker:A detailed exposure of the utter falsity of this notion which Engels brushes
Speaker:aside here is given in our further account of the views of Marx and Engels on
Speaker:the “presentday” state.
Speaker:Engels gives a general summary of his views in the most popular of his works in
Speaker:the following words - “The state,
Speaker:then,
Speaker:has not existed from all eternity.
Speaker:There have been societies that did without it,
Speaker:that had no idea of the state and state power.
Speaker:At a certain stage of economic development,
Speaker:which was necessarily bound up with the split of society into classes,
Speaker:the state became a necessity owing to this split.
Speaker:We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at
Speaker:which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a
Speaker:necessity,
Speaker:but will become a positive hindrance to production.
Speaker:They will fall as they arose at an earlier stage.
Speaker:Along with them the state will inevitably fall.
Speaker:Society,
Speaker:which will reorganize production on the basis of a free and equal association
Speaker:of the producers,
Speaker:will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong - into a museum
Speaker:of antiquities,
Speaker:by the side of the spinningwheel and the bronze axe."
Speaker:We do not often come across this passage in the propaganda and agitation
Speaker:literature of the presentday SocialDemocrats.
Speaker:Even when we do come across it,
Speaker:it is mostly quoted in the same manner as one bows before an icon,
Speaker:i.e.,
Speaker:it is done to show official respect for Engels,
Speaker:and no attempt is made to gauge the breadth and depth of the revolution that
Speaker:this relegating of “the whole machinery of state to a museum of
Speaker:antiquities” implies.
Speaker:In most cases we do not even find an understanding of what Engels calls the
Speaker:state machine.
Speaker:4. The “Withering Away” of the State,
Speaker:and Violent Revolution Engels’ words regarding the “withering away” of
Speaker:the state are so widely known,
Speaker:they are often quoted,
Speaker:and so clearly reveal the essence of the customary adaptation of Marxism to
Speaker:opportunism that we must deal with them in detail.
Speaker:We shall quote the whole argument from which they are taken.
Speaker:“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production
Speaker:into state property to begin with.
Speaker:But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat,
Speaker:abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms,
Speaker:and abolishes also the state as state.
Speaker:Society thus far,
Speaker:operating amid class antagonisms,
Speaker:needed the state,
Speaker:that is,
Speaker:an organization of the particular exploiting class,
Speaker:for the maintenance of its external conditions of production,
Speaker:and,
Speaker:therefore,
Speaker:especially,
Speaker:for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of
Speaker:oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery,
Speaker:serfdom or bondage,
Speaker:wagelabor).
Speaker:The state was the official representative of society as a whole,
Speaker:its concentration in a visible corporation.
Speaker:But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself
Speaker:represented,
Speaker:for its own time,
Speaker:society as a whole - in ancient times,
Speaker:the state of slaveowning citizens;
Speaker:in the Middle Ages,
Speaker:of the feudal nobility;
Speaker:in our own time,
Speaker:of the bourgeoisie.
Speaker:When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society,
Speaker:it renders itself unnecessary.
Speaker:As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection,
Speaker:as soon as class rule,
Speaker:and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in
Speaker:production,
Speaker:with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle,
Speaker:are removed,
Speaker:nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a
Speaker:special coercive force,
Speaker:a state.
Speaker:The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of
Speaker:the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in
Speaker:the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state.
Speaker:State interference in social relations becomes,
Speaker:in one domain after another,
Speaker:superfluous,
Speaker:and then dies down of itself.
Speaker:The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things,
Speaker:and by the conduct of processes of production.
Speaker:The state is not 'abolished'.
Speaker:It withers away.
Speaker:This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state',
Speaker:both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of
Speaker:view,
Speaker:and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency;
Speaker:and also of the socalled anarchists' demand that the state be abolished
Speaker:overnight."
Speaker:(Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science [AntiDuhring],
Speaker:pp.30103,
Speaker:third German edition.)3 It is safe to say that of this argument of Engels',
Speaker:which is so remarkably rich in ideas,
Speaker:only one point has become an integral part of socialist thought among modern
Speaker:socialist parties,
Speaker:namely,
Speaker:that according to Marx that state “withers away” — as distinct from the
Speaker:anarchist doctrine of the “abolition” of the state.
Speaker:To prune Marxism to such an extent means reducing it to opportunism,
Speaker:for this “interpretation” only leaves a vague notion of a slow,
Speaker:even,
Speaker:gradual change,
Speaker:of absence of leaps and storms,
Speaker:of absence of revolution.
Speaker:The current,
Speaker:widespread,
Speaker:popular,
Speaker:if one may say so,
Speaker:conception of the “withering away" of the state undoubtedly means obscuring,
Speaker:if not repudiating,
Speaker:revolution.
Speaker:Such an “interpretation”,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:is the crudest distortion of Marxism,
Speaker:advantageous only to the bourgeoisie.
Speaker:In point of theory,
Speaker:it is based on disregard for the most important circumstances and
Speaker:considerations indicated in,
Speaker:say,
Speaker:Engels' “summary” argument we have just quoted in full.
Speaker:In the first place,
Speaker:at the very outset of his argument,
Speaker:Engels says that,
Speaker:in seizing state power,
Speaker:the proletariat thereby “abolishes the state as state"
Speaker:It is not done to ponder over the meaning of this.
Speaker:Generally,
Speaker:it is either ignored altogether,
Speaker:or is considered to be something in the nature of “Hegelian weakness” on
Speaker:Engels' part.
Speaker:As a matter of fact,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:these words briefly express the experience of one of the greatest proletarian
Speaker:revolutions,
Speaker:the Paris Commune of 1871,
Speaker:of which we shall speak in greater detail in its proper place.
Speaker:As a matter of fact,
Speaker:Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution “abolishing” the bourgeois
Speaker:state,
Speaker:while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the
Speaker:proletarian state after the socialist revolution.
Speaker:According to Engels,
Speaker:the bourgeois state does not “wither away",
Speaker:but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution.
Speaker:What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semistate.
Speaker:Secondly,
Speaker:the state is a “special coercive force"
Speaker:Engels gives this splendid and extremely profound definition here with the
Speaker:utmost lucidity.
Speaker:And from it follows that the “special coercive force” for the suppression
Speaker:of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie,
Speaker:of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich,
Speaker:must be replaced by a “special coercive force” for the suppression of the
Speaker:bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat).
Speaker:This is precisely what is meant by “abolition of the state as state"
Speaker:This is precisely the “act” of taking possession of the means of production
Speaker:in the name of society.
Speaker:And it is self evident that such a replacement of one (bourgeois)
Speaker:“special force” by another (proletarian)
Speaker:“special force” cannot possibly take place in the form of “withering away"
Speaker:Thirdly,
Speaker:in speaking of the state “withering away",
Speaker:and the even more graphic and colorful “dying down of itself",
Speaker:Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after “the state has
Speaker:taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of
Speaker:society",
Speaker:that is,
Speaker:after the socialist revolution.
Speaker:We all know that the political form of the “state” at that time is the most
Speaker:complete democracy.
Speaker:But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists,
Speaker:who shamelessly distort Marxism,
Speaker:that Engels is consequently speaking here of democracy “dying down of
Speaker:itself",
Speaker:or “withering away"
Speaker:This seems very strange at first sight.
Speaker:But is “incomprehensible” only to those who have not thought about
Speaker:democracy also being a state and,
Speaker:consequently,
Speaker:also disappearing when the state disappears.
Speaker:Revolution alone can “abolish” the bourgeois state.
Speaker:The state in general,
Speaker:i.e.,
Speaker:the most complete democracy,
Speaker:can only “wither away"
Speaker:Fourthly,
Speaker:after formulating his famous proposition that “the state withers away",
Speaker:Engels at once explains specifically that this proposition is directed against
Speaker:both the opportunists and the anarchists.
Speaker:In doing this,
Speaker:Engels puts in the forefront that conclusion,
Speaker:drawn from the proposition that “the state withers away",
Speaker:which is directed against the opportunists.
Speaker:One can wager that out of every 10,000 persons who have read or heard about the
Speaker:“withering away” of the state,
Speaker:9,990 are completely unaware,
Speaker:or do not remember,
Speaker:that Engels directed his conclusions from that proposition not against
Speaker:anarchists alone.
Speaker:And of the remaining 10,
Speaker:probably nine do not know the meaning of a “free people's state” or why an
Speaker:attack on this slogan means an attack on opportunists.
Speaker:This is how history is written!
Speaker:This is how a great revolutionary teaching is imperceptibly falsified and
Speaker:adapted to prevailing philistinism.
Speaker:The conclusion directed against the anarchists has been repeated thousands of
Speaker:times;
Speaker:it has been vulgarized,
Speaker:and rammed into people's heads in the shallowest form,
Speaker:and has acquired the strength of a prejudice,
Speaker:whereas the conclusion directed against the opportunists has been obscured and
Speaker:“forgotten”!
Speaker:The “free people's state” was a programme demand and a catchword current
Speaker:among the German Social Democrats in the seventies. this catchword is devoid
Speaker:of all political content except that it describes the concept of democracy in a
Speaker:pompous philistine fashion.
Speaker:Insofar as it hinted in a legally permissible manner at a democratic republic,
Speaker:Engels was prepared to “justify” its use “for a time” from an
Speaker:agitational point of view.
Speaker:But it was an opportunist catchword,
Speaker:for it amounted to something more than prettifying bourgeois democracy,
Speaker:and was also failure to understand the socialist criticism of the state in
Speaker:general.
Speaker:We are in favor of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the
Speaker:proletariat under capitalism.
Speaker:But we have no right to forget that wage slavery is the lot of the people even
Speaker:in the most democratic bourgeois republic.
Speaker:Furthermore,
Speaker:every state is a “special force” for the suppression of the oppressed class.
Speaker:Consequently,
Speaker:every state is not “free” and not a “people's state"
Speaker:Marx and Engels explained this repeatedly to their party comrades in the
Speaker:seventies.
Speaker:Fifthly,
Speaker:the same work of Engels',
Speaker:whose arguments about the withering away of the state everyone remembers,
Speaker:also contains an argument of the significance of violent revolution.
Speaker:Engels' historical analysis of its role becomes a veritable panegyric on
Speaker:violent revolution.
Speaker:This,
Speaker:“no one remembers"
Speaker:It is not done in modern socialist parties to talk or even think about the
Speaker:significance of this idea,
Speaker:and it plays no part whatever in their daily propaganda and agitation among the
Speaker:people.
Speaker:And yet it is inseparably bound up with the 'withering away" of the state into
Speaker:one harmonious whole.
Speaker:Here is Engels' argument - “...That force,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:plays yet another role [other than that of a diabolical power] in history,
Speaker:a revolutionary role;
Speaker:that,
Speaker:in the words of Marx,
Speaker:it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one,
Speaker:that it is the instrument with which social movement forces its way through and
Speaker:shatters the dead,
Speaker:fossilized political forms — of this there is not a word in Herr Duhring.
Speaker:It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will
Speaker:perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of an economy based on exploitation —
Speaker:unfortunately,
Speaker:because all use of force demoralizes,
Speaker:he says,
Speaker:the person who uses it.
Speaker:And this in Germany,
Speaker:where a violent collision — which may,
Speaker:after all,
Speaker:be forced on the people — would at least have the advantage of wiping out the
Speaker:servility which has penetrated the nation's mentality following the humiliation
Speaker:of the Thirty Years' War.4 And this person's mode of thought — dull,
Speaker:insipid,
Speaker:and impotent — presumes to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that
Speaker:history has ever known!
Speaker:(p.193,
Speaker:third German edition,
Speaker:Part Ii,
Speaker:end of Chap.Iv)
Speaker:How can this panegyric on violent revolution,
Speaker:which Engels insistently brought to the attention of the German
Speaker:SocialDemocrats between 1878 and 1894,
Speaker:i.e.,
Speaker:right up to the time of his death,
Speaker:be combined with the theory of the 'withering away" of the state to form a
Speaker:single theory?
Speaker:Usually the two are combined by means of eclecticism,
Speaker:by an unprincipled or sophistic selection made arbitrarily (or to please the
Speaker:powers that be)
Speaker:of first one,
Speaker:then another argument,
Speaker:and in 99 cases out of 100,
Speaker:if not more,
Speaker:it is the idea of the “withering away” that is placed in the forefront.
Speaker:Dialectics are replaced by eclecticism — this is the most usual,
Speaker:the most widespread practice to be met with in presentday official
Speaker:SocialDemocratic literature in relation to Marxism.
Speaker:This sort of substitution is,
Speaker:of course,
Speaker:nothing new;
Speaker:it was observed even in the history of classical Greek philosophy.
Speaker:In falsifying Marxism in opportunist fashion,
Speaker:the substitution of eclecticism for dialectics is the easiest way of deceiving
Speaker:the people.
Speaker:It gives an illusory satisfaction;
Speaker:it seems to take into account all sides of the process,
Speaker:all trends of development,
Speaker:all the conflicting influences,
Speaker:and so forth,
Speaker:whereas in reality it provides no integral and revolutionary conception of the
Speaker:process of social development at all.
Speaker:We have already said above,
Speaker:and shall show more fully later,
Speaker:that the theory of Marx and Engels of the inevitability of a violent revolution
Speaker:refers to the bourgeois state.
Speaker:The latter cannot be superseded by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of
Speaker:the proletariat)
Speaker:through the process of 'withering away",
Speaker:but,
Speaker:as a general rule,
Speaker:only through a violent revolution.
Speaker:The panegyric Engels sang in its honor,
Speaker:and which fully corresponds to Marx's repeated statements (see the concluding
Speaker:passages of The Poverty of Philosophy5 and the Communist Manifesto6,
Speaker:with their proud and open proclamation of the inevitability of a violent
Speaker:revolution;
Speaker:see what Marx wrote nearly 30 years later,
Speaker:in criticizing the Gotha Programme of 18757,
Speaker:when he mercilessly castigated the opportunist character of that programme)
Speaker:— this panegyric is by no means a mere “impulse”,
Speaker:a mere declamation or a polemical sally.
Speaker:The necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with this and precisely this
Speaker:view of violent revolution lies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and
Speaker:Engels.
Speaker:The betrayal of their theory by the now prevailing socialchauvinist and
Speaker:Kautskyite trends expresses itself strikingly in both these trends ignoring
Speaker:such propaganda and agitation.
Speaker:The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible
Speaker:without a violent revolution.
Speaker:The abolition of the proletarian state,
Speaker:i.e.,
Speaker:of the state in general,
Speaker:is impossible except through the process of “withering away"
Speaker:A detailed and concrete elaboration of these views was given by Marx and Engels
Speaker:when they studied each particular revolutionary situation,
Speaker:when they analyzed the lessons of the experience of each particular revolution.
Speaker:We shall now pass to this,
Speaker:undoubtedly the most important,
Speaker:part of their theory.
Speaker:This has been
Speaker:State and Revolution
Speaker:Unabridged Audiobook
Speaker:Play Free
Speaker:With 30-Day Free Trial
Speaker:Add to Cart
Speaker:Price $3.99
Speaker:Written Written by
Speaker:Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, narrated by russell newton.
