Introduction
Without doubt, the revolutionary motion is growing and spreading, in various parts of the world. Equally without doubt, a full scale revolution could break out, at any day. It is just a matter of time. Of course, we have no way of knowing just when or where this will happen. Yet the experience of previous revolutions has revealed that such revolutions tend to spread, first across the country, and then to neighbouring countries. We had best be prepared!
For that reason, as I have suggested in previous articles, those working people who are currently involved in the protests, should carefully read the Essential Works of Lenin. Bear in mind that when I refer to ‘’working people’’ or ‘’common people’’, I am referring to those who work for a living. Those who work for wages, by the hour, are technically referred to as proletarians. Then there are the family farmers, although in other parts of the world they are commonly called peasants. As well, the small business owners, including those who are owner-operators, I also include as working or common people.
It may help to think of these ”protests” as a build up to full scale revolution, as that is precisely the case. The protesters of today, will soon be the revolutionaries of tomorrow! For that reason, it is essential that they prepare themselves for the approaching revolution. This is to say that they must become at least familiar with the revolutionary writings of Marx and Lenin. In this way, they will know what to expect, and how to respond.
The vast majority of those working people have just recently become politically active. Many of them are veterans of previous mass movements. Yet, very few of them are ”Philadelphia lawyers”, so that it is not reasonable to expect them to understand completely, that which Lenin wrote. For that reason, I have decided to provide the historical back ground, as well as explain certain terms and expressions which Lenin used.
No doubt, those readers who are of a middle class background, supremely well educated and aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, will find this to be quite tiresome. To this, I can only respond that my main concern is with our newly awakened Comrades. They have to be ”brought up to speed”, to the level of conscious Marxists. There is no other way.
In my opinion, the revolutionary work of Lenin which is supremely relevant, is State and Revolution. He wrote that in early 1917, in anticipation of the approaching Scientific Socialist Revolution of November 7, new style calendar, or October 25, old style calendar, 1917. This has gone down in history as the Russian Great Proletarian October Socialist Revolution.
That Revolution stands in stark contrast to the earlier Russian February Revolution of 1917, which was a ‘’bourgeois democratic revolution’’, in that the word ‘’bourgeois’’ refers to the capitalists. This calls for a little explanation.
At that time, the Russian Empire was vast, and had been ruled by the Romanovs, for over three centuries. The Emperor, or Czar, was Nicholas the Second, commonly referred to as ”Nicholas the Bloody”, and he had almost unlimited power.
Yet in February of that year, the Russian capitalists got together with the capitalists of France and Britain, and decided to ”mount a coup”, as it is called, and overthrow the Czar! At that time, Lenin was in exile, living in Switzerland, but following closely the events in Russia. He wrote several articles on this subject, referred to as Letters From Afar. I will not go into this in detail, but I have covered it in a previous article.
With the nobility out of the way, the capitalists and landlords were able to seize power, and establish that which is referred to as a ‘’democratic republic’’. It was certainly a republic, as it no longer recognized any monarch, as the head of state. As for being democratic, it was also a democracy, but only for the capitalists and landlords! Bear in mind that democracy is merely a method of class rule!
Incidentally, Lenin refers to the democratic republic as the ”ideal political shell for capitalism”.
A Provisional Government was then established, with a self proclaimed socialist fool, by the name of Kerensky, placed in charge. Of course, the resulting government was referred to as the Kerensky Regime.
I should add that the landlords owned huge tracts of land, and rented out that land to the peasants. In fact, in Russia at that time, three quarters of the people were peasants.
Perhaps we can compare this to that which was referred to as ”share cropping” in North America, in days gone by. In that case, the farmer, or ”share cropper”, was forced to give a high percentage of any crop he grew, to the landlord. Bear in mind that the peasants of Russia hated their landlords, just as passionately as the American farmers hated their landlords!
Now to return to the February Russian Revolution. The whole world was shocked, as Czar Nicholas, in charge of one of the biggest, most powerful monarchies in the world, was no more!
For the common people of Russia, this meant that they had some democratic rights, if only ”on paper”. Yet they remained poverty stricken, cold and hungry. Russia remained at war with Germany and the Central Powers, and the Russian troops continued to be killed and maimed.
The point is that, after the Russian February Revolution, the suffering of the common people continued. They noticed no change in their standard of living. They also continued to be denied even their most basic democratic rights. They were even denied their long promised Constituent Assembly. Further, the war continued, so that the soldiers continued to be used as cannon fodder. The only thing the new government gave them, and that in abundance, was promises!
Yet the overthrow of the nobility was an important step, the first step, towards a Scientific Socialist Revolution, and the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It allowed Lenin to return from exile, and prepare for that Revolution.
As part of that preparation, the common people of Russia had to be made aware of the fact that, at the time of the approaching Russian Socialist Revolution, the existing state apparatus had to be destroyed, smashed, and replaced with a new state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That new state apparatus is necessary to crush the capitalists and landlords, as they make every effort to return to power, to regain their ”paradise lost”, after the Revolution.
With that in mind, Lenin wrote State and Revolution. I should mention that the main difference between Russia of 1917 and America of today, is the fact that there are almost no landlords or peasants in America. There are a few family farmers, but almost no share croppers. This serves to simplify the class struggle! Billionaires versus working people! Same state apparatus, which must be smashed, and replaced with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!
Happily, the common people of Russia read that book, and took the advice of Lenin. On October 25, old style calendar, or November 7, new style calendar, the Provisional Government was overthrown. The existing state apparatus was smashed, and the first truly Scientific Socialist Republic was established, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Poor Peasants. The Russian Great Proletarian Socialist Revolution was successful!
I gave that very brief history lesson for a reason. The point I am trying to make, is that the only reason that Revolution was successful, is because it followed the advice of Lenin!
I can only stress the fact that, as a Scientific Socialist, Lenin built upon the work of two previous great Scientific Socialists, Marx and Engels.
I mention this as a means of stressing the difference between Scientific Socialism, and Utopian Socialism. Those who are utopian socialists generally think that socialism is a good idea, but will probably never happen. They are generally involved in fighting for paltry reforms, under capitalism. As long as these utopian socialists make no claim to be Marxists, then they are the natural and desirable allies of the Marxists.
By contrast, Scientific Socialists, or Communists, build upon the work of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Those three great revolutionaries examined capitalism, from a scientific viewpoint. In fact, it was Marx who proved that capitalism necessarily leads to socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
I should also mention that Lenin was a supremely well educated man, a lawyer by profession, and of course, did that which we all do. He wrote with people such as himself in mind. This leads to a little problem, in that a great many common people are not familiar with the time in which he lived, or with certain technical words and expressions. For that reason, I have chosen to explain those things.
State and Revolution
Chapter 1
Class Society and the State
- The State As the Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms
In this section, Lenin goes into the origin of the state apparatus. Quite simply, the first classes consisted of slaves and slave owners. As the slaves had a rather ‘’annoying’’ habit of rebelling, it was necessary to discourage this behaviour. For that reason, the slave owners got together and organized the first ‘’state apparatus’’, in the form of armed men, frequently mounted on horses, armed with whips, clubs, spears and swords. Their sole purpose was to prevent any slave uprising.
Since that time, different classes have come into existence. The state apparatus has changed in form, but only in form. It remains a body of people, mainly men, whose duty it is to subjugate the ‘’lower classes’’, to keep them ‘’in their place’’.
Under our current system of monopoly capitalism, this means that the billionaires, as the ruling class, technically referred to as the bourgeoisie, have a state apparatus in the form of police, National Guard, jails, prisons and other ‘’correctional institutions’’. Their main duty is to crush any working class uprising.
It is also most significant that Lenin refers to the ‘’opportunists in the labour movement’’. These include the ‘’class traitors and renegades’’, those workers who have betrayed their class, sided with the capitalists, in crushing the working class.
Incidentally, the word ‘’opportunist’’ is used in reference to a person who is completely devoid of principle. I prefer the word ‘’unprincipled’’, but to each his own. The point is that we can have nothing to do with such people, as they are strictly out for themselves. They are not to be trusted.
As Lenin stated, ‘’the bourgeoisie and the opportunists in the labour movement…omit, obliterate and distort the revolutionary side’’ of Marxism. ‘’They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie’’.
This ”distortion” of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, is referred to as ‘’revisionist’’. The social chauvinists, those who claim to be Marxists, are merely socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds. They make every effort to distort those theories, so as to make them acceptable to the capitalists. In particular, they deny the necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus, and replacing it with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
This brings us to those whom Lenin refers to as ‘’petty bourgeois ideologists’’. A petty bourgeois is a reference to a middle class person, while an ideology is defined as ‘’a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy’’. It stands to reason that a petty bourgeois ideologist is a middle class person who has their own ideas of political theory and policy.
It is such people who attempt to ‘’correct’’ Marx, by stating that the state apparatus exists, in order to ‘’conciliate’’ classes. They can be quite persuasive in this respect, because many of them actually believe their own nonsense! Which in no way changes the fact that it is simply not true!
As well, there is the more subtle distortion, attributed to a gentleman by the name of Kautsky. Such people do not deny the fact that the state is an organ of class rule, but tend to deny or merely avoid the topic of smashing the existing state apparatus, at the time of the revolution.
Lenin goes on to say, ‘’The state is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises when, where and to the extent that class antagonisms cannot be objectively reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.’’ (italics by Lenin)
This is to say that there can be no peace between the capitalists, in our case the billionaires, and the working people. We absolutely cannot live together in peace! We are class enemies! The fact that the state apparatus exists, is proof of that. The capitalists have created a state apparatus, solely for the purpose of crushing the working people. Billionaires and workers cannot live together in harmony!
2. Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, Etc.
The title is a none too subtle reference to the state apparatus, set up by the capitalists, in order to keep the working people in ‘’their proper place”. Lenin points out that ‘’every revolution, by destroying the state apparatus, demonstrates to us how the ruling class strives to restore the special bodies of armed men which serve it, and how the oppressed class strives to create a new organization of this kind, capable of serving not the exploiters but the exploited’’. (italics by Lenin)
It was Engels who pointed out that the state apparatus, or the ‘’public power’’, grows stronger, ‘’in proportion as the class antagonisms within the state become more acute…We have only to look at our present day Europe, where class struggle and rivalry in conquest have screwed up the public power to such a pitch that it threatens to devour the whole of society and even the state itself’’.
Lenin then pointed out that, by 1914, the ‘’rivalry in conquest’’ had made ‘’great strides’’, to the point that the ‘’devouring of all the forces of society by the rapacious power to the verge of complete catastrophe’’. Of course, Lenin was referring to the First World War.
In response to this, the social chauvinists, those who merely claim to be Marxists, defend ‘’their’’ capitalists, with calls for such things as the ‘’defence of the fatherland’’, and other such nonsense.
3. The State As An Instrument For the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class
The state apparatus must be maintained, and this gives rise to taxes. Further, laws are passed ‘’proclaiming the sanctity and immunity of the officials’’. These official now stand above society.
Engels points out that the modern state is an ‘’instrument of exploitation of wage labour by capital. By way of exception, however, periods occur when the warring classes are so nearly balanced that the state power, ostensibly appearing as a mediator, acquires, for the moment, a certain independence in relation to both’’.
Remarkably enough, this was precisely the situation in 1917 Russia, immediately after the February Revolution. The common people of Russia formed Soviets, or Councils, in English, and these Soviets were roughly as powerful as the Karensky government. This enabled Lenin to return from exile, as the Russian officials dared not arrest him. The Soviets were simply too powerful! For a very short time, the state appeared as a ‘’mediator’’.
Engels also pointed out that in a democratic republic, ‘’wealth wields its power indirectly, but all the more effectively’’, by means of the ‘’direct corruption of officials (America)’’, and also by means of the ‘’alliance between the government and the Stock Exchange (France and America)’’.
Lenin also made an observation that I consider to be of the utmost importance. As he stated, ‘’The omnipotence of ’wealth’ is thus more secure in a democratic republic, since it does not depend on the faulty political shell of capitalism. A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained control of this very best shell….it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change, either of persons, or institutions, or of parties in the bourgeois democratic republic, can shake it’’. (italics by Lenin)
The implication is that it does not matter which political party is in power, Republicans or Democrats. Nor does it matter who is President, Biden or Trump. Or Senator Sanders, for that matter. As Lenin stated, any change of ‘’persons or parties’’, is unable to ‘’shake’’ the democratic republic. The billionaires are in charge, and fully intend to remain in charge!
This is not to say that we should surrender the existing government apparatus to the capitalists. By no means! On the contrary, we should take the capitalists ‘’at their word’’, and attempt to ‘’change the system from within’’. For that reason, I am encouraging all Americans to join the two mainstream political parties, preferably as card carrying members. It is such members who determine the candidates for each and every political office. In this way, Washington can be flooded with those who represent the common people. Leftist people!
It is in this way that working people, those who still have faith in the democratic process, will come to realize, through their own experience, that Marxists are correct. Regardless of how many Leftist politicians are sent to Washington, the billionaires are determined to remain in charge!
Lenin went on to say that the ‘’petty bourgeois democrats…all expect ‘more’ from universal suffrage. They themselves share and instill into the minds of the people the wrong idea that universal suffrage ‘in the modern state’, is really capable of expressing the will of the majority of the toilers and of ensuring its realization’’. (italics by Lenin)
At that time, in Russia, the ‘’petty bourgeois democrats’’ to whom Lenin was referring, were the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. Both of those political parties rejected the need to smash the existing state apparatus, and establish the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They thought that the capitalists would submit to the will of the majority of common people. Not likely! They were about as anxious to part with their wealth and power, as are our modern day billionaires! None whatsoever!
It is also a fact that those same ‘’petty bourgeois democrats’’, are the utopian socialists. Many of them actually believe that ‘’universal suffrage’’ is ‘’capable of expressing the will of the majority’’! What is more, they ‘’share’’ that belief! In fact, they preach to the working people that capitalism can be fundamentally changed, by simply sending Leftist people to Washington!
Our focus is mainly upon the common people who have been misled by these utopian socialists. As the vast majority are honest, law abiding, tax paying citizens, they must be respected.
4. The ‘’Withering Away’’ of the State and Violent Revolution
This section deals with the confusion spread by those who deliberately distort a fundamental tenet of Marxism, that of the necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus, that which has been set up by the capitalists, for the purposes of crushing the working class.
Yet classes will still exist, so that a different state apparatus must be established, in order to crush the capitalists, as they make every effort to return to power. This new state apparatus, to be set up after the revolution, after the existing state apparatus is smashed, is known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Lenin makes it clear that this new state apparatus, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will not last forever. Indeed not! This will be necessary only as long as classes exist! As the bourgeois, the capitalists, are gradually wiped out, so too, the state apparatus which was set up to crush them, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will gradually become redundant. As Engels referred to it, this state apparatus will ‘’wither away’’.
Lenin then proceeds to draw a clear distinction, between the bourgeois state apparatus of the capitalists, which has to be destroyed, and the new state apparatus of the working class, to be created after the revolution, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
To quote Lenin, ‘’According to Engels the bourgeois state does not ‘wither away’, but is ‘put an end to’ by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after the revolution is the proletariat state or semi-state’’. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin stresses the fact that the existing bourgeois state apparatus, which is used to crush the working class, must be destroyed, at the time of the revolution. Only then can the new state apparatus be established, in order to crush the capitalists. This new state apparatus, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will then gradually ‘’wither away’’, as classes gradually fade away.
This section also contains a valuable example of how ‘’a great revolutionary doctrine is imperceptible falsified and adapted to prevailing philistinism’’! In particular, in 1891, Engels was critical of the expression ‘’free people’s state’’. As Lenin pointed out, ‘’The only political content of this slogan is a pompous philistine description of the concept democracy. In so far as it hinted in a lawful manner at a democratic republic, Engels was prepared to ‘justify’ its use ‘for a time’ from an agitational point of view. But it was an opportunist slogan, for it not only expressed an embellishment of bourgeois democracy, but also a lack of understanding of the socialist criticism of the state in general. We are in favour of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism; but we have no right to forget that wage slavery is the lot of the people even in the most democratic bourgeois republic. Furthermore, every state is a ‘special repressive force’ for the suppression of the oppressed class. Consequently, no state is a ‘free’ or a ‘peoples state’. Marx and Engels explained this repeatedly to their party comrades in the ‘seventies’’. (italics by Lenin)
Chapter II
The State and Revolution. The Experience of 1848-51
- The Eve of the Revolution
In this Chapter, Lenin documents the process that led Marx and Engels to come to the conclusion that, after the revolution, the working class must create a state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
There follows a paragraph which I consider to be of vital importance: ‘’The overthrow of bourgeois rule can be accomplished only by the proletariat, as the particular class whose economic conditions of existence train it for this task and provide it with the opportunity and the power to perform it. While the bourgeoisie breaks up and disintegrates the peasantry and all the petty-bourgeois strata, it welds together, unites and organizes the proletariat. Only the proletariat-by virtue of the economic role it plays in large-scale production- is capable of acting as the leader of all the toiling and exploited masses, whom the bourgeoise exploits, oppresses and crushes not less, and often more, than it does the proletarians, but who are incapable of waging an independent struggle for their emancipation.’’ (italics by Lenin)
This is to stress the importance of the working class, the proletariat. This is not to denigrate the importance of the farmers and the middle class, the petty bourgeois, including the owner operators. Certainly, in the ”protests” of today, they are doing a superb job!
2. The Revolution Summed Up
Lenin refers to a most important matter, the state apparatus. He comes to a remarkable conclusion: ”all the revolutions which have occurred up to now have helped to perfect the state machine, whereas it must be smashed, broken”. He refers to this conclusion as ”the chief and fundamental thesis in the Marxian doctrine of the state”.
As a means of stressing the importance of smashing the existing state apparatus, that which has been set up by the capitalists, in order to crush the ”lower classes”, Lenin went on to state, ”This course of events compels the revolution ‘to concentrate all its forces of destruction’ against the state power, and to regard the problem, not as one of perfecting the state machine, but one of smashing and destroying it.” (italics by Lenin)
Lenin did not mince words in expressing his opinion of the existing state apparatus: ‘’The bureaucracy and the standing army are a ‘parasite’ on the body of bourgeois society- a parasite created by the inherent antagonisms which rend that society, but a parasite which ‘chokes all its pores’ of life’’. Note that the words which Lenin placed in quotation marks, were written by Marx.
That pretty well covers the importance of smashing the existing state apparatus!
3. The Presentation of the Question By Marx in 1852
The letter which Marx wrote, is of great importance. For that reason, I have copied it here:
”And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat 3) that this Dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society”. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin went on to explain the origins of the ”opportunist distortions” of Marxism, its ”falsifications to make it acceptable to the bourgeoisie”. As he stated, ”The theory of the class struggle was not created by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx, and generally speaking, it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists….A Marxist is one who extends the acceptance of the class struggle to the acceptance of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat…This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and acceptance of Marxism should be tested.” (italics by Lenin)
He goes on to state that ‘’educated liberals’’ recognize the class struggle, if only ‘’in principle’’. Yet those who are devoid of principle, or ‘’opportunists’’, to use the scientific expression, ‘’does not carry the recognition of the class struggle to the main point, to the period of transition from capitalism to Communism, to the period of the overthrow and complete abolition of the bourgeoisie. In reality, this period inevitably becomes a period of unusually violent class struggles in their sharpest possible forms and, therefore, during this period, the state must inevitably be a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie)’’. (italics by Lenin)
The overthrow of the monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, is absolutely necessary, and this can be accomplished only through revolution. At the time of that revolution, the existing state apparatus has to be smashed! True! Yet classes will continue to exist! For that reason, we will still need a state apparatus, to crush the capitalists, the billionaires, as they make every effort to ‘’restore their paradise lost’’! It is only after all classes are abolished, that we will enter a truly classless society, referred to as Communism. This state apparatus, to be established after the revolution, is known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
I can only stress the fact that the acceptance of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is here referred to as the ”touchstone” of a true Marxist! All of those who claim to be Marxists, Communists, but deny, or even evade, the necessity of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, are in fact revisionists, in the service of the capitalists, the billionaires. Rest assured, that Dictatorship is the worst nightmare of every billionaire! With good reason, I might add!
Chapter III
The State and Revolution. Experience of the Paris Commune of 1871. Marx’s Analysis
1. Wherein Lay the Heroism of the Communards’ Attempt?
This Chapter also calls for a little historical background.
The first true historic revolt, of the working class, against the capitalists, took place in Paris, in March of 1871. A Proletarian Revolution! The workers of Paris threw out the capitalists, and established that which they referred to as the ”Paris Commune”. They in turn, referred to themselves as ”Communards”. In honour of those heroic workers, Marxists now refer to themselves as Communists.
At that time, Marx was living in Britain, but was following events in France very closely. In his letters to the French revolutionaries, he offered important advice. This advice was largely ignored, to the regret of the Communards.
As Lenin stated, Marx ”regarded the mass revolutionary movement as a historic experiment of gigantic importance, as an advance of the world proletarian revolution, as a practical step that was more important than hundreds of programs and discussions. Marx conceived his task to be to analyze this experiment, to draw lessons in tactics from it, to re-examine his theory in the new light it afforded”.
Indeed, one lesson in particular was so important, that Marx and Engels added it as a vital ”correction” to the Communist Manifesto! As they stated, ”One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that ‘the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes”’.
(Bear in mind that the abbreviation viz. simply means, ”that is to say”.)
Lenin goes on to say that, ”Marx’s idea is that the working class must break up, smash the ‘ready made state machinery’, and not confine itself to merely laying hold of it”. (italics by Lenin)
Once again, Lenin stresses the importance of ”smashing” the ”ready made state machine”, that which has been set up by the capitalists, for the purposes of crushing the working people. It must be destroyed! Then replaced by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!
Yet Lenin noted that it was not always necessary to ”smash the existing state apparatus”! In certain cases, when the country is ”without militarism and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy”, a revolution is possible, without first destroying the ”ready-made state machinery”.
In fact, he went into this in more detail, in a later writing. In particular, Lenin stated that there were four conditions necessary to have a successful revolution, without first smashing the existing state apparatus. First, the proletariat must form the majority of the population. Second, the proletariat must be cultured. Third, the unions must be powerful. Fourth, the ruling class must be accustomed to a method of rule, which involves compromise.
I mention this because it is so important. It is my opinion that in Canada, it is currently possible to have a socialist revolution, without first smashing the existing state apparatus. This stands in stark contrast to our neighbour, America. Our Comrades in that country, will definitely have to smash their existing state apparatus!
2: What Is To Supersede the Smashed State Machine?
First, Lenin reproduces an article by Marx, concerning the lessons learned, from the Paris Commune. He then summarizes those lessons:
”Thus the Commune appears to have substituted ‘only’ fuller democracy for the smashed state machine: abolition of the standing army; all officials elected and subjected to recall. ..This is a case of ‘quantity being transformed into quality’: democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is generally conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois democracy into proletarian democracy…It is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush its resistance. This was particularly necessary for the Commune; and one of the reasons for its defeat was that it did not do this with sufficient determination. But the organ of suppression is now the majority of the population, and not the minority”.
Perhaps the most ”outrageous” aspect of ”proletarian democracy” -at least from the standpoint of the capitalists!- is the fact that all state officials have to work at ‘’workingmen’s wages”. (italics by Lenin)
The fact is that, under capitalism, all officials, elected as well as appointed, consider higher wages to be nothing other than ”privileges of rank”. As if it is a God given right! Such is not the case! Under Scientific Socialism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, all officials, regardless of their rank, work for the wages of working people!
Lenin then goes on to make the point that, under capitalism, almost everyone ”longs for cheap government”. He goes on to state that this ”can be achieved only by the proletariat; and by achieving it, the proletariat at the same time takes a step towards the socialist reconstruction of the state”. (italics by Lenin)
3. The Abolition of Parliamentarism
This section starts with a passage from Marx, concerning the role of parliament, within the Paris Commune, as compared to parliaments under capitalism.
”The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time… Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business.”
Lenin went on to state: ”To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to misrepresent the people in parliament is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism….the actual work of ‘state’ is done behind the scenes”.
The fact that the ”actual work of state is done behind the scenes”, is a point that must be made clear to the working people. The various speeches, given by the politicians, are meant merely to mislead the public. The people in charge, the ”Party bosses”, lay down the law to the politicians, and in turn, those politicians ”dance to their tune”.
Lenin also mentions ”anarchy” and ”anarcho-syndicalism” in this passage. This too, requires a little explanation. First, let us consider anarchy.
According to the internet, it is defined as ”a form of society without rulers”.
It may come as a surprise to many people to find that in 1917, at the time Lenin was writing this article, that the anarchists-those who call for no government- were a potent political force! For that matter, they still are! Anarchists are not to be under estimated!
Lenin also mentions ”anarcho-syndicalism”. Here too the internet provides a helpful definition: ”A political philosophy and anarchist school of thought that views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and thus control influence in broader society”.
From these definitions, it is clear that there is a slight difference between anarchists, and anarcho-syndicalists. Anarchists want to abolish all government, which necessarily involves smashing the existing state apparatus. As do Communists! Yet the Communists want to set up a new state apparatus, after the revolution, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as a means of crushing the capitalists. The anarchists are opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as it is a form of government.
Then there are those who advocate ”anarcho-syndicalism”. Such people evade the question of the state apparatus entirely. They do not oppose or advocate for a state apparatus, under capitalism or socialism. This is to say that they do not oppose or advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! It is a subject upon which they have no opinion!
Lenin refers to anarcho-syndicalism as the ”twin brother of opportunism”! And no wonder! Under anarcho-syndicalism, there is no need to overthrow the capitalists, and smash the existing state apparatus! Revolution disappears! As does the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! It is simply a matter of focusing upon the ”industrial unions”, as a means of ”gaining control of an economy”. All of which is completely acceptable to the capitalists! They would have us believe that the ”Age of Aquarius is at hand”! The ”lion shall lie down with the lamb”! Billionaires shall ”labour with workers”! The only thing required is to ”organize the industrial union workers”! Such nonsense!
This brings us to a few Russian terms, with which few readers may be familiar. An understanding of those terms may help to make comprehensible, that which Lenin stated.
Dyelo Naroda was a newspaper, published by the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Narod is a word which apparently means People. The Socialist Revolutionaries, or SR’s, had the support of a great many peasants, at least in 1917. For that reason, they were a force with which to be reckoned. They were also Right Wing.
The Cadets, an apparent abbreviation of Constitutional Democrats, were a political party which promoted a constitutional monarchy. They wanted to place a Romanov back on the throne of Russia. They were considered to be ultra Right Wing
The Mensheviks were a political party which broke away from the party which was formed by Lenin, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. They merely claimed to be Marxists, but in fact were revisionists, Right Wing, just not as far to the Right as the Cadets
Lenin stresses that the only way to abolish parliamentarism, is to ”organize the whole of national economy on the lines of the postal system, so that the technicians, managers, bookkeepers, as well as all officials, shall receive salaries no higher than ‘workmen’s wages’, all under the control and leadership of the armed proletariat….This is what will rid the labouring classes of the prostitution of these institutions by the bourgeoisie”.
4. The Organization of National Unity
This starts with a quotation from Marx: ”In a rough sketch of national organization which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet…The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organized by the Communal constitutions, and to become a reality by the destruction of the state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was a parasitic excrescence”.
Lenin goes on to state that ”The communes were to elect the ‘National Delegation’ in Paris”.
Lenin then proceeds to point out that Marx was referring to ”smashing the old bourgeois state machine which exists in all bourgeois countries”. He adds that Marx was not referring to ”federalism as opposed to centralism”.
This begs the question: What is federalism, and what is centralism?
According to the internet, ”centralists advocate strong direction from the centre of all activities of the enterprise, allowing only minimal delegation of responsibility for operational matters to the various parts of the organization.” On the other hand, ”Federalists believe in delegating responsibility and accountability to the lowest possible echelons, leaving the centre to concentrate on overall strategy and key corporate issues.”
Lenin then points out that the opportunists ”attribute federalism” to Marx and confuses him with the founder of anarchism, Prondhon”. In fact, Marx agreed with the anarchists, only so far as smashing the existing state machine. Marx then called for establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, another state apparatus, opposed by the anarchists.
Marx was not a federalist, but a centralist. The smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus is not to be confused with federalism!
Lenin stressed this point, when he wrote: ”But will it not be centralism when the proletariat and the poorest peasantry take political power in their own hands, organize freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, in transferring the ownership of the railways, factories and so forth, to the entire nation, to the whole of society? Will that not be the most consistent democratic socialism? And proletarian centralism at that?” (italics by Lenin)
In my opinion, that is perfectly clear. Not that it matters, as Lenin went on to say, ”But no one is so deaf as he who will not hear. And the very thing the opportunists of present-day Social-Democracy do not want to hear about is the abolition of state power, the excision of the parasite”.
I can only add that, at the time this article was written, Marxists referred to themselves as Social-Democrats, as they were fighting for democracy as well as socialism. Although after the Social Democratic Party split, they sometimes referred to themselves as Bolsheviks, to distinguish themselves from the break away Mensheviks. It was only after the October Revolution, that they adopted the name Communists, in honour of the heroic Paris Communards.
5. The Abolition of the Parasitic State
Lenin begins this section, with a quote from Marx. He then summarizes, in reference to the state apparatus which was smashed by the Paris Commune: ”Breaks the modern state power”, which was a ”parasitic excrescence”; the ”respective organs” of which were to be ”amputated”; the ”destruction” of ”the now superseded state power”- these are the expressions used by Marx concerning the state in appraising and analyzing the experience of the Commune.
This is then followed by another quote by Marx: ”The Commune… was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labour. Except on this last condition, the Communal constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion.”
Lenin then uses this to drive home the point that Communism differs from anarchism, in that we call for a state apparatus, after the revolution, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anarchists want no state apparatus, before or after the revolution.
Then there are the utopian socialists, who ”busy themselves with ‘inventing’ the political forms under which the socialist transformation of society was to take place”, as Lenin stated. They disregard all previous revolutionary experience!
That brings us to the revisionists, the opportunists, those who are completely devoid of principle, claiming to be Marxists, while ”accepting the bourgeois political forms of the parliamentary democratic state as the unsurpassable limit”. They then proceed to ”denounce every attempt to smash these forms as anarchism”. (italics by Lenin)
In fact, the only way to overthrow the capitalists and crush them, is by first smashing the existing state apparatus, and them replacing it, with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
We know this for a fact, because of the experience of previous revolutions. Scientific Socialists, Marxists, have certain theories, based upon this experience! We then base our current tactics, plan a course of action, accordingly.
Lenin pointed this out, quite clearly, when he stated: ”The Commune is the first attempt of a proletarian revolution to smash the bourgeois state machine and it constitutes the political form, ‘at last discovered’, which can and must supersede the smashed machine.” (italics by Lenin)
Chapter IV
Continuation. Supplementary Explanations By Engels
1. The Housing Question
In this Chapter, Lenin considers the work done by Engels, based upon the conclusions drawn by Marx, concerning the experience of the Paris Commune.
As Engels pointed out, under capitalism, the ”housing question” is to be ”solved” by the ”gradual adjustment of supply and demand, a solution which ever reproduces the question itself anew and therefore is no solution”.
Yet what is meant by the ”law of supply and demand?”
This is an expression the capitalists have ”coined”. It simply is a reference to the fact that prices fluctuate wildly, and with good reason. If the price of any commodity is low, then the capitalists will cut down or even halt the production of that particular item. This is because it is not profitable to produce that commodity. On the other hand, if the price of a commodity is high, then the capitalists will produce that item, in great abundance.
Incidentally, according to the internet, a ”commodity” is ‘’a good sold for production or consumption, just as it was found in nature’’.
As an example, we can take the commodity of coal. In 1981, the price of coal was very high, so that the capitalists decided to open up a coal mine, in a very remote area. In fact, it was about 100 kilometres, or 60 miles, from the nearest highway. So a highway and rail line was built, as well as a town. Then the coal mine went into operation, a great deal of coal was produced, and soon, there was a surplus of coal. For that reason, the price of coal dropped, so that it was no longer profitable to run that mine. Around twenty years later, the mine closed down, along with the town.
The people who worked at that mine were of course forced to re-locate. They merely grabbed a few personal items, and along with their families, left everything behind. They drove away. The capitalists who owned that mine, merely lost a little capital. The workers who were laid off, lost not only their jobs, but in many cases, also their lifes savings.
With so many coal mines closed, it was just a matter of time before stocks of coal were exhausted, and the price of coal rose once again. So the mine was re-opened, and the cycle repeats itself.
As Engels pointed out, this ”solution” is no solution at all! It merely ”reproduces the question anew”!
Under Scientific Socialism, the answer lies with ”planned production”. That involves a professional estimate of the amount of commodities required, over a period of several years, and then adjusting production to meet those requirements. This method is far superior to the capitalist method of ”supply and demand”!
It was Stalin who adopted this method of planned production, in the form of Five Year Plans. He faced the fact that the Soviet Union, in the years immediately following the October Revolution, was one hundred years behind the most highly industrialized countries of the world. This is to say that they were at the level of development, as was America, at the time of Jefferson. He also faced the fact that the Soviet Union had to accomplish, in ten years, that which it had taken the American capitalists, one hundred years to manage. It was either that or perish!
To the absolute astonishment of the whole capitalist world, the Soviet Union managed just that! In the nineteen thirties, while the world of capitalism was in the midst of a Great Depression, the Scientific Socialist world of the Soviet Union, was thriving! In this way, they were prepared for the invasion, in 1941, of Nazi Germany.
Now to return to the Housing Question.
This is of particular concern today, due in no small part to the recent influx of immigrants, those who are merely looking for a better life. It should not be a major problem, for as Engels stated, ”there are already in existence sufficient buildings, dwellings in the big towns to remedy immediately any real ‘housing shortage’, given rational utilization of them. This can naturally only take place by the expropriation of the present owners and by quartering in their houses the homeless or those workers who are excessively overcrowded in their old houses’’. (italics by Engels)
Of course, under capitalism, this is not about to happen! Bear in mind that there is currently a great surplus of empty buildings in the country. Possibly more empty buildings than homeless people! Yet it is the banks who own them, and the banks are determined that those houses are to remain empty!
2. Controversy With the Anarchists
Lenin referred to anarchists earlier in this book, but as he considered them to be such a threat, he covered this in more detail. In particular, he used this passage to stress the fact that the working people will have to use force to crush the resistance of the capitalists, both during the revolution, and immediately afterwards!
As Lenin pointed out, Marx did not ”combat the theory that the state would disappear when classes disappeared, or that it would be abolished when classes are abolished; he opposed the proposition that the workers should renounce the use of arms, the use of organized force, that is, the use of the state, in order to ‘crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie”’. (italics by Lenin)
I should add that the state apparatus to which he was referring, is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Lenin further goes on to state: ”The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as an aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources and methods of the state power against the exploiters, just as the Dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary for the abolition of classes.” (italics by Lenin)
In particular, Engels ridiculed the ideas of the Prondhonists, those who referred to themselves as ”anti-authoritarians”, those who are against ”every sort of authority, every sort of subordination, every sort of power”. As Engels stated, ”Have these gentlemen never seen a revolution? A revolution is undoubtedly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, which are authoritarian means if ever there were any. And the victorious party, if it does not wish to have fought in vain, must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed population against the bourgeoisie? Should we not on the contrary reproach it for not having made more extensive use of this authority?”
Here we have one more example of the method that Scientific Socialists use, that of learning from previous revolutionary experience. This stands in sharp contrast to the lack of method the utopian socialists use. They just assume that their ideas must be one stroke of genius after another! Such is hardly the case!
We can expect more anarchists and utopian socialists to ”spring up”, to make their voices heard, as the revolution unfolds. They will naturally see this as an opportunity to put their half baked ”theories” into practice! We must be prepared for them. If the revolutionaries take their advice, the revolution is sure to fail!
3. Letter To Bebel
This too, calls for a little explanation. At that time, August Rebel was a highly respected Marxist, one of the founders of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Also at that time, the German Social Democratic Party was perhaps one of the finest in the world, at least in terms of membership and policy. Yet Engels noticed a serious problem with that policy, and pointed this out, in a letter to Bebel.
At that time, as now, there were people who claimed to be followers of Marx, but those same people were determined to revise the theories of Marx. In particular, this rather subtle distortion involved reference to a ”free peoples state”.
As Engels put it: ”As therefore the ‘state’ is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, in order to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is pure nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still uses the state, it does not use it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom, the state, as such, ceases to exist.’’ (italics by Engels)
Lenin had a few words to say about this: ”In revising the program of our Party, we must unfailingly take the advice of Engels and Marx into consideration in order to come nearer to the truth, to restore Marxism by purging it of distortions, to guide the struggle of the working class for its emancipation more correctly.”
Notice that Lenin here referred to ”revising the program of the Party”, not revising the Marxism! If the program of the Party is different from the Marxism, it must be corrected! All distortions must be purged! That is the only correct way to ”guide the struggle of the working class for its emancipation’’!
As for those who dispute that previous statement, bear in mind that the German Social Democratic Labour Party, at the time Engels wrote this letter to Bebel, was one of the finest in the world. Yet their views upon the ‘’free people’s state’’ was incorrect, so that Engles tried to correct it. This correction never took place, so that other ‘’distortions’’ of Marxism took place. As a result of this, by the time of the outbreak of World War 1, in 1914, the formerly fine German Social Democratic Labour Party was completely devoid of principle. Instead of calling for the overthrow of the German capitalists, they called for the ‘’Defence of the Fatherland’’.
One of the finest German Communists, who stood on principle, was Rosa Luxembourg. As she stated, in 1914, ’’the German Social Democratic Labour Party, is now a stinking corpse’’.
It should be mentioned that Bebel chose to ‘’pigeon hole’’ that letter from Engels, for thirty six years! Even though a fine Communist, the fact that he refused to admit his mistake, for so many years, will forever mar his legacy. Further, as Lenin pointed out, ‘’these opportunist views on the state were absorbed by German Social Democracy, especially as Engel’s revolutionary interpretations were safely pigeonholed, and all the conditions of everyday life were such as to ‘wean’ the people from revolution for a long time!’’
4. Criticism of the Draft of the Erfurt Program
Here too, a little historical background is in order. At the time this letter was written, in 1891, Germany was not a republic, but recognized a monarch, or king, referred to as Kaiser Wilhelm. Germany did have a Reichstag, or Parliament, but this government agency had no power, as the Kaiser had the final say, in all matters of state.
As previously mentioned, at that time, Germany also had a very fine Social Democratic Party. Bear in mind that at that time, Marxism was referred to as Social Democracy. This made the German Social Democratic Party a world leader, in the international working class movement.
Yet Engels was critical of the Erfurt Program, the Program put forward by that same German Party. As Lenin said, ”this criticism is mainly concerned with the opportunist views of Social-Democracy on questions of state structure. (italics by Lenin)
The main criticism that Engels had for the Erfurt Program, was that ”What actually ought to be said is not there’’. (italics by Engels)
By that, Engels was referring to the demand of transforming Germany into a republic. Of necessity, that involved removing the Kaiser, as head of state. Such a demand would certainly threaten the legal status of the Party, in that the German government would almost certainly declare the Party to be an illegal organization. For that reason, the leaders of the German Social Democratic Party chose to remain silent, in order to maintain their legal status.
Engels called this ‘’opportunism’’, and ‘’as there was no republic and no freedom in Germany, the dreams of a ‘peaceful’ path were absolutely absurd’’,
Not that Engels limited himself to that criticism. As Lenin noted, ”Engels also makes an exceedingly valuable observation on questions of economics, which shows how attentively and thoughtfully he watched the changes in modern capitalism, and how he was able to foresee to a certain extent the tasks of our own, the imperialist epoch”.
This too, requires a little explanation. Contrary to popular belief, the term ”imperialism” was not ‘’coined’’ by the Marxists. It was ”created” by the capitalists themselves, as a means of describing the changes that were taking place within their beloved system of capitalism. These changes started to take place at around the end of the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth century. In short, at the time this letter was written, the age of competitive capitalism was in the process of being transformed into the age of monopoly capitalism.
In particular, as Engels stated, ”When we pass from joint-stock companies to trusts which control and monopolize whole branches of industry, it is not only private production that ceases, but also planlessness”.
Lenin had a few words to say about this: ”Here we have what is most essential in the theoretical appraisal of the latest phase of capitalism, i.e., imperialism, viz., that capitalism becomes monopoly capitalism. The latter must be emphasized because the erroneous bourgeois reformist view that monopoly capitalism or state monopoly capitalism is no longer capitalism, but can already be termed ‘state socialism’, or something of that sort”. (italics by Lenin)
I should add that the term ”i.e.” means ”that is”, while the word ”latter” means ”nearer to the end of something”. As for ”state capitalism”, that is defined as ”an environment where the state intervenes in the economy to protect large monopolistic businesses from competition from small firms”.
Without doubt, that is precisely the current state of affairs! State capitalism! Corporate welfare! Our government donating billions of tax payer dollars to the biggest banks and businesses! In America, there are only eight banks and five businesses that are classified as ”Too Big To Fail”. As every coin has two sides, it stands to reason, that the thousands of other banks, and tens of thousands of small businesses, must be ”Too Small To Succeed”.
Lenin went on to state: ”The trusts, of course, have not created, do not create now, and cannot create full and complete planning. But to whatever extent they do plan, to whatever extent the capitalists magnates calculate in advance the volume of production on a national and even on an international scale, and to whatever extent they systematically regulate it, we still remain under capitalism- capitalism in its new stage, it is true, but still, undoubtedly capitalism. The ”proximity” of such capitalism to socialism should serve the genuine representatives of the proletariat as proof of the proximity, ease, feasibility and urgency of the socialist revolution.” (italics by Lenin)
After those initial remarks, Engels returned to the question of the state. As Lenin stated, he made ”three valuable suggestions: first, as regards the republic; second, as regards the connection between the national question and the form of state, and, third, as regards local self government”.
This was followed by a statement, by Engels, that I consider to be of the utmost importance: ”This forgetfulness of the great main stand point in the momentary interests of the day, this struggling and striving for the success of the moment without consideration for the later consequences, this sacrifice of the future of the movement for its present may be ‘honestly’ meant, but it is and remains opportunism, and ‘honest’ opportunism is perhaps the most dangerous of all…If one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working class can only come to power under the form of the democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’.
The German Social Democratic Party chose not to call for a republic in Germany, which means the overthrow of the Kaiser, so as not to call down the wrath of the German government, onto that same Party. Yet it was the duty of that Party to call for Germany to become a republic! By not calling for Germany to be transformed into a republic, the Social Democratic Party failed to perform their duty! They failed to stand on principle! That is what Engels was condemning!
Lenin then mentioned the fact that Engels pointed out the ”fundamental idea…of Marx’s works, namely, that the democratic republic is the nearest approach to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. For such a republic….inevitably leads to such an extension, development, unfolding and intensification of that struggle that, as soon as the possibility arises of satisfying the fundamental interests of the oppressed masses, this possibility is achieved inevitably and solely in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”.
Lenin made it clear that both Marx and Engels insisted on ”democratic centralism, on one indivisible republic”. By ”democratic centralism” is meant that ”political decisions reached by voting processes are binding upon all members of the political Party.”
As opposed to this, a ”federal republic” is a ”state in which powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts, states, colonies or provinces, retain a degree of self government’’.
Engels proposed the following wording for the clause in the program on self government: ”Complete self government for the provinces” (districts and communities) ”through officials elected by universal suffrage. The abolition of all local and provincial authorities appointed by the state’’.
As regards the ‘’national question’’, perhaps I should point out that within the country of Canada, Quebec is officially classified as a ‘’province’’. It is not a province, it is a French country, and should be recognized as such. It should be granted independence, but as long as Canada recognizes the British monarch as the head of state, that is not about to happen.
All true Canadian Communists should be calling for Canada to become a republic, to separate from the British Crown, for as Lenin stated, ‘’the democratic republic is the nearest approach to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’. The possibility of achieving national independence for Quebec, is highly unlikely, as long as Canada remains a Constitutional Monarchy. As soon as Canada breaks away from the Crown, and becomes a democratic republic, then national independence for Quebec is far more likely. Of course, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it becomes a certainty.
5. The 1891 Introduction to Marx’s ”Civil War In France”
Lenin points out that this Introduction was ”directed particularly against the ‘superstitious belief in the state”’. Engels also pointed out that in France, ”the workers were armed after every revolution…therefore, the disarming of the workers was the first commandment for the bourgeois at the helm of the state. Hence after every revolution won by the workers, a new struggle, ending with the defeat of the workers’’.
Lenin also mentions, almost incidentally, on ‘’the question of the state (has the oppressed class arms?), is here remarkably well defined’’. (italics by Lenin)
All the more reason for Americans to defend their Second Amendment ”right to bear arms”! The ruling class of billionaires would love to see the working class disarmed!
Engels also touched upon religion, which is a ”private matter’’. This is to say that each and every one of us has the right to our own personal beliefs. Engels pointed out that ‘’in relation to the state religion is a purely private matter’’. (italics by Engels)
The problem was that those who were devoid of principle, ‘’twisted’’ this to say that it was a private matter ‘’even for the party of the proletariat’’! Lenin went on to add that this effectively ‘’renounces the Party struggle against the religious opium which stultifies the people’’. (italics by Lenin)
Engels also stressed the fact that the existing state apparatus has to be smashed, and replaced by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Just as in the Paris Commune, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, all officials are to be paid the wages of workers, and are subject to recall at any time.
He also pointed out that in both a democratic republic, as well as a monarchy, the state remains a ‘’machine for the oppression of one class by another’’. Yet the democratic republic is much preferred, as a ‘’wider, freer and more open form of the class struggle and of class oppression greatly assists the proletariat in its struggle for the abolition of all classes’’.
Incidentally, in this Introduction by Engels, he uses the capitalization which I have adopted, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, no doubt in recognition of its vital importance.
6. Engels On Overcoming Democracy
The title of this chapter may sound quite strange, until we remember that democracy is a method of class rule! After the revolution, classes will continue to exist, so that a state apparatus will still be required, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in order to crush the capitalists. Democracy for the working class, but a Dictatorship for the capitalists.
Lenin started this Section with a reference to the opinion of Engels, that the term ”Social Democrat” was ”scientifically” wrong. Engels went on to say that even though the name was ”unsuitable”, it would ”perhaps pass muster…for a party whose economic program is not merely socialist in general, but directly Communist, and whose ultimate political aim is to overcome the whole state and therefore democracy as well. The names of genuine (Engels italics) political parties, however, are never wholly appropriate; the party develops while the name persists”.
Lenin then proceeded to explain that he was prepared to change the name of his Social Democratic Party to the Communist Party, (Bolsheviks). Bear in mind that he placed the name Bolsheviks in brackets, as it was a ”meaningless and ugly term”. In fact, the word ‘’bolsh” in Russian just means majority, as opposed to ”mensh”, which means minority. Truly meaningless!
This brings us to a problem we are currently facing. There are numerous political parties currently in existence, which claim to be Marxist, or Marxist Leninist, or Communist, or Social Democrat, or just plain Socialist. As true Communist Parties take shape, we have to come up with a name with which to distinguish ourselves, from the other fraudulent Marxist Parties. The name which I am suggesting is the name of the country, followed by Communist Party, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or CP, DP. I do not suggest placing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in brackets, as it is of such vital importance. In fact, it is the ”touchstone” of a true Communist.
Lenin then mentioned that ”the abolition of the state means the abolition of democracy; that the withering away of the state means the withering away of democracy’’. Allow me to stress the fact that he was referring to the state apparatus which will be set up after the revolution, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which will ‘’wither away’’. This stands in stark contrast to the existing state apparatus, set up by the capitalists, which must be smashed!
Bear in mind that our ultimate goal is to eradicate all classes. To wipe them out! No nobles, no proletarians, no farmers, no capitalists! That is not about to happen any time soon!
Even after the approaching Scientific Socialist Revolution, the capitalists will continue to exist. For that reason, it is necessary to crush them, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. As long as that Dictatorship is exercised properly, the capitalists will be gradually wiped out. At the same time, the working class, the proletariat, will also be gradually wiped out. After all, it was capitalism which gave birth to the proletariat. No capitalism, no proletariat.
As the capitalists are gradually wiped out, it stands to reason that the state apparatus, which has been set up for the sole purpose of crushing them, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will also gradually fade away. Or as Engels put it, it will ”wither away”. The final state apparatus will be no more.
As Lenin pointed out, ‘’it is constantly forgotten that the abolition of the state means also the abolition of democracy; that the withering away of the state means the withering away of democracy….We set ourselves the ultimate aim of abolishing the state, i.e., all organized and systemic violence… But in striving for socialism we are convinced that it will develop into Communism and hence, that the need for violence against people in general, the need for the subjection of one man to another, and of one section of the population to another, will vanish, since people will become accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social life without force and without subordination. (italics by Lenin)
Incidentally, the period of time in which the capitalists are crushed under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is referred to as Socialism. It is only after the capitalists are wiped out, and all classes along with them, that society will enter a true classless, Communist society.
Chapter V
The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State
Lenin begins this chapter by making the point that this Chapter is based upon a work by Marx, that of his Critique of the Gotha Program. In particular, Lenin was concerned with his ‘’analysis of the connection between the development of Communism and the withering away of the state’’.
1. Marx’s Presentation of the Question
Lenin started by pointing out that ‘’there can be no question of defining the exact moment of the future withering away – the more so since it must obviously be a rather lengthy process. That still raised the question of the ‘’development’’ of Communist society. (italics by Lenin)
This gave rise to an interesting question: ‘’On the basis of what data can the question of the future development of future Communism be raised?’’ (italics by Lenin)
He then proceeded to answer that question: ‘’On the basis of the fact that it has it origins in capitalism, that it develops historically from capitalism, that it is the result of the action of a social force to which capitalism has given birth.’’ (italics by Lenin)
This was followed by a rather lengthy quote by Marx, in which he points out that ‘’present day society is capitalist society, which exists in all civilized countries’’. Marx went on to point out that ‘’present day state changes with a country’s frontier…The ‘present day state’ is therefore a fiction’’. Yet all are ‘’based on modern bourgeois society’’, so that all have ‘’certain essential features in common’’. So in that limited sense, it is possible to speak of ‘’present day state’’, as opposed to its future development, under Communism, when ‘’bourgeois society will have died away’’.
Lenin then proceeds to stress the fact that ‘’to arrive at a scientific answer, one must rely only on firmly established scientific data’’! That ‘’first fact’’ is that ‘’historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage or epoch of transition from capitalism to Communism’’. (italics by Lenin)
2. The Transition From Capitalism to Communism
This section starts with a quote from Marx: ‘’Between capitalist and Communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’. (italics by Marx)
We simply cannot go directly from capitalism, with all of its classes, to Communism, in which there are no classes. Between the two societies ‘’lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other’’. I should add that this ‘’transition period’’, between capitalism and Communism, is referred to as Socialism. During this ‘’transition period’’, of Socialism, in which classes will continue to exist, the capitalists will be crushed, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Lenin goes on to state that ‘’In capitalist society, under the conditions most favourable to its development, we have more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always restricted by the narrow frame work of capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the possessing classes, only for the rich….Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation the modern wage-slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that ‘they cannot be bothered with democracy’, ‘they cannot be bothered with politics’…democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich -that is the democracy of capitalist society’’.
These are simply facts, stated by Lenin. He then goes on to state that ‘’development – towards Communism- proceeds through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; it cannot do otherwise, for the resistance of the capitalist exploiters cannot be broken by anyone else or in any other way’’. (italics by Lenin
This is to say that under Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the vast majority of working people will experience democracy. By contrast, the former exploiters, the capitalists, will be suppressed by force.
It is only when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely broken, that society will enter a true classless state, referred to as Communism. As there will be no classes, there will be no need for a state apparatus. For that reason, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will gradually ‘’wither away’’.
This is not to say that there will be no excesses on the part of individuals. This we can expect. But there will be no need for a state apparatus to crush them. We can expect the armed people to straighten out those misguided souls, just as even today, people interfere to prevent a woman from being assaulted. We know for a fact that the ‘’fundamental social causes of excesses’’ is the poverty of common people. Once we remove that fundamental cause, we can expect such behaviour to also ‘’wither away’’.
3. The First Phase of Communist Society
This section is further based upon an article of Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program. In that article, Marx points out that under socialism, ‘’from the whole of the social labour of society it is necessary to deduct a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, for the replacement of ‘worn out’ machinery…a fund for the expenses of management, for schools, hospitals, homes for the aged and so on’’.
Lenin pointed out that Marx then made a ‘’concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there is no capitalism’’. (italics by Lenin)
As Marx stated: ‘’What we have to deal with here is a Communist society not as it has developed on its own foundations, but no the contrary as it emerges from capitalists society; which is thus in every respect economically, morally and intellectually still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges’’. (italics by Marx)
Marx refers to this as the ‘’first’’, or ‘’lower’’, stage of Communist society. We tend to refer to this, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as Scientific Socialism.
Marx then proceeded to point out that at that time, classes will still exist! For that reason, we will have ‘’bourgeois right’’. The conclusion which Marx draws is instructive: ‘’with an equal output and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on.’’
Lenin went on to explain that ‘’the first phase of Communism cannot produce justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still exist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible, because it will be impossible to seize the means of production, the factories, machines, land, etc., as private property…Marx shows the course of development of Communist society, which, at first, is compelled to abolish only the ‘injustice’ of the means of production having been seized by private individuals and which cannot at once abolish the other injustice of the distribution of articles of consumption ‘according to the amount of work performed’ (and not according to needs).’’ (italics by Lenin)
This is to say that in the ‘’first phase of Communist society’’, which we commonly refer to as Socialism, ‘’that which we refer to as ‘bourgeois right’ is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part’’, according to Lenin.
He goes on to say that: ‘’He who does not work, neither shall he eat, is already realized; the other socialist principle: ‘An equal amount of labour for an equal amount of of products ‘, is also already realized. But this is not yet Communism, and it does not abolish ‘bourgeois right’, which give to unequal individuals, in return for an unequal (actually unequal) amount of work, an equal amount of products.’’ (italics by Lenin)
This ‘’defect’’ is unavoidable in the first stage of Communism, or Socialism, for as Lenin states, ‘’the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change’’. (italics by Lenin)
4. The Higher Phase of Communist Society
Lenin begins this section with a quote from Marx:
‘’In a higher phase of Communist society after the enslaving subordination of individuals under division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not merely a means to live but has become itself the primary necessity of life; after the productive forces have also increased with the all round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners:
‘’From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!’’ (my italics)
There followed an elaboration by Lenin, which I consider to also be of vital importance:
‘’This expropriation will facilitate the enormous development of the productive forces. And seeing how capitalism is already retarding this development to an incredible degree, seeing how much progress could be achieved even on the basis of the present level of modern technique, we have a right to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in the enormous development of the productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labour, of removing the antithesis between mental and physical labour, of transforming work into the ‘primary necessity of life’- we do not and cannot know.
‘’This is why we have a right to speak only of the inevitable withering away of the state; we must emphasize the protracted nature of this process and its dependence upon the rapidity of development of the higher phase of Communism; and we leave the question of the length of time, or the concrete forms of the withering away, quite open, because no material is available to enable us to answer those questions.’’ (italics by Lenin)
This is to say that as long as classes exist, we will still need the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in order to crush the capitalists. We commonly refer to this as a state of Scientific Socialism, although Marx referred to it as the ‘’lower stage of Communism’’. This stands in contrast to the period after classes disappear, which will take some considerable time. We have no way of knowing how long, because as yet, we have ‘’no available material’’.
That was true, at the time the book was written. Now we have the experience of two formerly Socialist countries, the Soviet Union, as well as China. That ‘’material’’ tells us that the capitalists were able to return to power, even after being crushed for several decades. As I have documented in previous articles, this was mainly due to the fact that the great leaders of those two countries made several serious mistakes. Now it is up to us to learn from those mistakes, and not repeat them. After the next revolution, the capitalists will be completely crushed, so that they will not be allowed to return to power.
Chapter VI
The Vulgarization of the Marxism By the Opportunists
Lenin begins this chapter with the statement that ‘’evasiveness on the question of the relation of the proletarian revolution to the state- an evasiveness which was to the advantage of opportunism and fostered it- resulted in the distortion of Marxism and in its complete vulgarization’’. (italics by Lenin)
As previously mentioned, I prefer the word ‘’unprincipled’’ to opportunist. I suspect a great many common people feel the same way.
However, it was this ‘’evasion’’, on the question of the state, ‘’in relation to the proletarian revolution’’, which had very serious consequences. In fact, it led to the collapse of the Second International, in 1914.
This is a case where the expression ‘’serious consequences’’, is perhaps an under statement. The Second International Workingmen’s Association, was just that! An International Association of working people! International! As such, it was dedicated to representing all working people, all around the world! They ‘’took to heart’’ the slogan of Marx, ‘’Workers of the World, Unite!’’ More accurately, at first, they embraced that slogan!
But then, over a period of perhaps twenty years, the leaders of that Association gradually compromised their principles. Once they started down this ‘’slippery slope’’, to put it in popular terms, there was no turning back. As a tragic result of this, the once proud International abandoned its Marxist position of working class international solidarity, in favour of ‘’Defence of the Fatherland’’!
Instead of calling for the workers of various countries to overthrow their capitalist rulers, for a Socialist Revolution, the International was calling for workers to kill workers of other countries!
Those who were formerly fine Marxists, such as Plekhanov and Kautsky, became class traitors! They turned their coats!
Lenin traces this utter betrayal of the working class, to the initial evasion on the question of the state, many years earlier. They should have taken a stand! It was a matter of principe!
For our purposes, we have to face the fact that we do not have a true Communist Party. At least, not yet. When we do create that Party, it cannot compromise on any question of principle. That which may appear to be an unimportant matter today, could have very serious consequences tomorrow.
The astute reader may have noticed that Lenin here refers to the ‘’Second International’’, so that it stands to reason that there must have been a ‘’First International’’.
In fact, it was Marx who was mainly responsible for the creation of the First International Workingmen’s Association, in 1864.
At that time, it stated: ‘’That all societies and individuals adhering to it will acknowledge truth, justice and morality as the basis of their conduct toward each other and toward all men, without regard to colour, creed or nationality; That it acknowledges no rights without duties, no duties without rights’’
From this, it is clear that the Association was meant to be broad based, concerned with working people, from around the world, who were honest. Then at some point, an anarchist, by the name of Bakunin, joined the Association. He is referred to as an opportunist, or devoid of principle, as I prefer to say, and caused a great deal of trouble. This led to a split in the Association, as Marx kicked Bakunin out in 1872. Yet by 1876, that Association ceased to exist.
This led to the creation of the Second International, in 1889. At first, it was led by two superb Marxist theoreticians, Plekhanov and Kautsky. But then, as capitalism gradually reached the stage of monopoly, the pressure mounted, or in scientific terms, the contradictions became more acute, and those two gradually began to compromise their principles. Eventually, they managed to ‘’turn their coats’’, becoming traitors to Marxism, and to the working class. In particular, Kautsky has gone down in history as the ‘’Benedict Arnold’’ of Marxism. His distortions of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, are considered to ‘’set the standard’’ in revision.
As a result of this gradual compromise of principle, the Second International sank into complete opportunism, so that by the beginning of the First World War, the Communist Parties of each country were calling for ‘’Defence of the Fatherland’’. The beginning of that great slaughter of working people, was also the end of the Second International.
With that in mind, perhaps this chapter may make more sense.
1. Plekhanov’s Controversy With the Anarchists
As Lenin pointed out, the collapse of the Second International did not happen over night. It was a gradual process, starting with ‘’evasiveness’’ on the question of the proletarian revolution, to the state. Of course, Marx made it very clear that the existing state apparatus must be smashed, and replaced with a new state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Those who claim to be Marxists, while evading this fact, are in fact, in the service of the capitalists. He pointed out that Plekhanov did this quite well.
He further pointed out that ‘’to speak of ‘anarchism and socialism’ and evade the question of the state, to fail to take note of the whole development of Marxism before and after the Commune, inevitably means slipping into opportunism. For the very thing opportunism needs is that the two questions just mentioned should not be raised at all. This is already a victory for opportunism’’. (italics by Lenin)
2. Kautsky’s Controversy With the Opportunists
On the other hand, Kautsky did not so much evade the question, as distort that which Marx said. In fact, Marx made it quite clear that ‘’the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes’’. He stressed the fact that this state apparatus had to be smashed!
One of the ‘’leading lights’’ of the revision of Marxism, was a man by the name of Bernstein. He insisted- in the name of Marx, no less!- that there was no need to smash the existing state apparatus. Bernstein was of the opinion that Marx was warning the working class ‘’against excessive revolutionary zeal when seizing power’’. Nonsense!
In response to this distortion, this ‘’revision’’ of a most important revolutionary theory of Marx, Kautsky carried it one step further! He maintained that ‘’according to Marx the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machine, but generally speaking, it can lay hold of it!” Still more nonsense! In fact, Marx said precisely the opposite!
Writing ‘’in opposition’’ to Bernstein, Kautsky said: ‘’We can safely leave the solution of the problem of the proletarian dictatorship to the future’’.
The response of Lenin was quite instructive: ‘’This is not an argument against Bernstein, but in essence, a concession to him, a surrender to opportunism; for at present the opportunists ask nothing better than to ‘safely leave to the future’ all fundamental questions of the tasks of the proletarian revolution’’. (italics by Lenin)
That is just as true now as when it was first written! Those who are devoid of principle, do not want to face the fact that at the time of the revolution, the existing state apparatus must be smashed! It must then be replaced with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!
3. Kautsky’s Controversy With Pannekoek
In this section, Lenin goes into considerable detail, concerning the revisionist theories of Kautsky. But then Lenin considered Kautsky to be his ‘’bitterest enemy’’. The reason for this is really quite simple. Kautsky was an ‘’expert’’ in revising the revolutionary theories of Marx. To this day, the capitalists sing his praises! He knew how to avoid the question of revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!
Here Lenin goes into more detail, concerning the differences between Marxists and anarchists. Bear in mind that the word ‘’former’’ means the first, while the word ‘’latter’’ means the second.
The anarchists want to merely do away with all state apparatuses, immediately. They also disagree with the Marxist belief in using the existing state apparatus, in preparation for the revolution. As so many working people have faith in the capitalist state apparatus, it is necessary that they learn, from their own experience, that it is simply not possible to ‘’change the system from within’’. In this way, they will learn that Marxists are correct. The anarchists disagree with this.
Lenin sums it up rather well, when he says that ‘’We shall go forward to a split with these traitors to socialism, and we shall fight for the complete destruction of the old state machinery in order that the armed proletariat itself shall become the government’’. (italics by Lenin)
As Lenin stated, ‘’Revolution must not mean that the new class will command, govern with the aid of the old state machine, but that this class will smash this machine and command, govern with the aid of a new machine’’. (italics by Lenin)
Bear in mind that the ‘’old machine’’, to which Lenin refers, is the old state apparatus, which must be destroyed. As for the ‘’new machine’’, that is nothing other than the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
As for those who may think that these differences are not important, may I point out that at the time of the revolution, we can expect countless people to come forward, with their own ideas. Most of them will try to divert the revolution onto some harmless path of social reform. Some will claim to be Marxists, while denying the necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus, and replacing it with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
We had best be prepared for them.
Gerald McIsaac Science Project 