Understanding State And Revolution, by V. I. Lenin

For many who consider themselves a Marxist-Leninist, State And Revolution is often seen as not only one of the most important works written by Vladimir Lenin, but one that's usually a good one to start with. Many believe it can be universally used as a guide to achieving communism. But even works that are an easier read with Lenin's attitude can still be tough to decipher their meanings. This certainly isn't at the levels of Capital, but there's a lot to extract from such a small amount of writing. More importantly, this was written in the context of the first successful socialist revolution on a nationwide scale, and much of it was written during the revolutionary phase. So to make this easy, I'm going to break each chapter down into a few paragraphs to sum up just what the message being conveyed is.

Class Society And The State

The very first part of this section is on basic class antagonism, starting with how the bourgeoisie (the owning, or capitalist class) and opportunists will distort revolutionary thinkers by stripping away that revolutionary component and aiming for some sort of appeal to the proletariat (working, or oppressed class) as someone who was not revolutionary. Figures who were once demonized are now conveniently being praised for the sake of opportunism. An easy modern example would be Martin Luther King. We know Dr. King was hated by the ruling class of the 1960s and many of the workers they successfully held as class traitors. Only decades later, many massive corporations would praise King as a figure for overcoming injustice, without mentioning the fact that his ideals worked completely against their class interests. Lenin is talking about the same thing from a different time period. The reason why this is important is because he is attacking ideologists that think the state is an organ for the reconciliation of the classes. For example, Karl Kautsky believes that the ruling class can be cast away without revolution, and the destruction of the state apparatus. That's false, as the state is actually an organ for the rule of one class over another. This is somewhat the backbone of the entire work, showing that under capitalist society, the bourgeoisie uses the state to suppress the working class.

So how do we define a state? To put it simply in Lenin's terms, it requires a standing army of police and prisons as its chief instrument of enforcing the ruling class's interests. Society is split into antagonistic class interests that would allow for an armed struggle without this instrument. In other words, police and the prison system are needed to prevent workers from rising up against the owning class. In turn, as the ruling class uses this as a means of suppression, the working class will strive to overthrow this apparatus. As an armed population grows strong in the midst of these class antagonisms, and as adjacent states grow stronger, it can give way to imperialist war, such as the first World War. Every soldier in World War I were fighting for the interest of each states ruling classes, thinking they were fighting for their own cause.

The last part of this chapter deals on wealth's indirect control of power, that being an essential ingredient for capitalists to maintain power. Corrupt officials of the state are a first step, something we see no shortage of here in America. Secondly, an alliance between the stock exchange and government sees the indirect power of money over the state. Think of it as a bribe on a massive scale that appeases the interests of the capitalist class and the state that protects it. It's then instilled into the minds of workers that universal suffrage under capitalism is able to reveal the will of the workers. I ask you, dear reader, has voting once every other year on a state candidate, or every four on presidential ever felt representative of your needs? This should be a pretty obvious no, showing quite clearly who's interest the candidates in bourgeoisie elections hold. Different economic periods are what lead to the state in the first place. Thus, it isn't needed for production to function, it's just what came out of the birth of the capitalist class. This leads into Lenin's next section on how to dispose of it without complete chaos.

The "Withering Away" Of The State, And Violent Revolution

A state obviously can't just go away out of thin air, so we're introduced to a concept known as "withering away." Before the state can go away, the proletariat class must first seize power of it through revolution, as no bourgeoisie election candidate will fight for working class interests. In other words, the state must be replaced, rather than immediately done away with the way anarchists think. Since we know the state is an instrument used to suppress one class by another, it is now used by the proletariat to suppress interests of a rising capitalist class. This will only be achieved when the working class has the control of the means of production; such as factories, mines, stores, etc. They're now owned by the people, not a few individual rich hoarders. This is only carried out by violent revolution; after all, the capitalists aren't simply going to hand over the means of production to worker demands without a fight.

Experience Between 1848-1851

These next couple of sections deal more on prior experiments with the aforementioned topics before deep diving into the logistics of the state. It starts with Marx's earlier writings on the proletariat state. This section stresses the proletariats need for the state, and where opportunists will take this unfinished thought and, like I mentioned, distort it. But if the theory is finished and understood, it becomes clear that this need of state control is only used to begin the process of withering away. It's started by organizing the working class into power following violent revolution. Lenin stresses that the Mensheviks, a party opposing the Bolsheviks that won the revolution, believed that both working and owning class could coexist without revolution. But if you look at Marx's writings, it's stressed that the proletariat are the only ones that create and produce in society through their labor. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat must prevail over the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

By 1852, Marx observed the ties of the capitalist state to the bureaucracy and the standing army. Workers discover this connection through their experience in the workforce, which we see even in America today. Figure how the government caters to businesses and how they reach record profits while poverty and homelessness runs rampant in the streets. Lenin notes however that this specific relationship of the state is what is parasitic, not just the sheer existence of a state, since the proletariat will need the state to suppress the owning class. All of this took place in Europe during prior revolutions that lead from feudal society to the capitalist mode that created the state as we know it. But as time moves on, the working class becomes conscious of this, and as they form movements and awareness, the ruling class must clamp down harder. The highest stage of capitalism, known as imperialism, shows this the most. Capitalism reaches the monopoly stage, growing its military and bureaucracy apparatus for stronger oppressions not only at the homeland, but abroad. Thus, the transformation from capitalism to communism lies in the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a state can only function with one class in power. That class cannot be the bourgeoisie class. 

Experience Of The Paris Commune Of 1871 - Marx's Analysis

Lenin first points out how Marx acknowledges that this revolution did not reach its aim, but held enough historical importance to push an edit to The Communist Manifesto; it introduces the need for rapid development. For revolution to take hold, it will need to destroy the two ties of capitalist bureaucracy and standing army. In the time of the Great Imperialist War (World War I), the great powers, the United States and Great Britain had fully submerged into both of these things in order to subordinate the world for their own gains and suppress opposition. So for a true people's revolution, both of these tools in the state machine need to be destroyed and replaced. Such a movement also must be backed by individual people groups with demands. Workers and peasants have a common trend of being oppressed, and must work together as the whole people.

Because Marx never divulged into utopian ideas, he had to consider the different material conditions of different regions of people. Mensheviks never paid attention to this, which is why they worked with the state rather than against it. An armed proletariat is what would be needed to bring forth revolution. The majority of the entire population must be in on this. Production moved in history from slavery, to serfdom, to wage-slavery, none of which were carried out by interests and demands of a majority population. Once the majority population has control of the state and means of production, the need for suppression of the owning class will go away over time. Marx calls for the abolition of large allowances to state representatives in this stage, who should only make workman wages. The reason for this is that the state is no longer controlled by large capital lobbying. Elected officials are also then subject to recall at any time.

Monarchies and democratic republics alike show bourgeoisie parliamentary to be a means of electing a new member of the ruling class every few years be the main oppressor (think of presidential elections in America and how little change comes for the good of everybody). These types of talking shops are to be converted to working bodies that have true representation of the majority. Representative institutions can still exist, but there is no privilege to them, and no monetary gain can be the reason for them; only carrying out the will of the people. This is the transition needed to begin the disappearance of the state; doing it instantly without a transition is utopian and not scientific. Large scale production can get reorganized from what the capitalist class left, such as factories and railroads. They're now used for the common good instead of private profit. As the new state officials carry out these instructions alongside an armed proletariat, with this function becoming more natural over time, the need for the state will go away.

Supplementary Explanations By Engels

This section deals with some remaining questions of the time and conditions. The housing question is answered by pointing out the fact that vacant housing units to compensate for homeless workers are plentiful. A new proletariat state would order the occupation of empty houses, and that can't be carried out by a capitalist state. Housing would still require payment in this stage, but it would be far more controlled, subsidized, and of course, not profit driven. This is how it was carried out in the USSR following, and in Cuba today, for example. 

Next, Lenin touches on Engels's acknowledgement of anarchists not being different in the overall abolition of the state, but of the method and time needed for that action. Anarchists are "anti-authoritarian" because they don't understand the concept of a state being an organ of suppressing one class by another. So they either fail to see the revolution as a rise and development of tasks, or they actively work against the proletariat. 

Lastly, it's stressed that democratic centralism is needed to be upheld in order for the transitional phase to work, in regards to the national question. What does this mean? It's the principle of carrying out the deeds of what over 50% of the population truly wants in respect to their autonomous region (to overly simplify it). Provincial and regional self-governance allows this to be doable on a local level with representatives relative to the population; not one ruling class puppet to attempt representing an entire state. Any officials picked by the previous state no longer have power. For example, if your city has a far larger population than a neighboring one, then there will be far more representatives of that region.

The Economic Basis Of The Withering Away Of The State

After observing three sections derivative of Marx and Engels, we return to Lenin's initial point of the withering away on an economic level. First and foremost, it's important to note that the rate and speed of this transition cannot be pinpointed to any specific time or place. As we now know, different people and regions have different material conditions. Class in this sense takes its origins in capitalism, since it's what gave birth to the origins of this working class vs. owning class strata. Marx didn't try and pinpoint a definite spot for this very reason. 

So we must observe the transition from capitalism to communism from analyzing the antagonistic interests of these classes. Democracy of the capitalist class is similar to that of Ancient Greek democracy, where the slave owners made the decisions and prevented the majority from taking place in the decisions. Restrictions exist on poor people today indirectly, ranging anywhere from the ruling class controlling the press to exclusions and obstacles the working class must face due to monetary issues. They squeeze poor people out of politics without having to face anything a worker would deal with in life. Wage slavery will not go away without the suppression of the oppressing class, which is why it's necessary in order for the state to start withering away. The state will no longer exist once there are no more classes in regards to a relationships to the means of production.

Lenin refers to socialism as the "lower stage of communism," the phase that nearly half of the world was in part way through the 20th century. In this stage, everybody performing socially necessary work receives a payment in regards to the full value of what they contributed. Deductions are made only to public funding of goods, giving the worker back what they've put in through the whole of society and its needs, as well as direct payment for buying goods, none of which goes to a private capitalist. This stage cannot provide complete equality in payment, contrary to popular belief, due to the differences in social lives and skills. Different people are able to contribute different amounts of work, so differences in wealth will exist. What won't exist is the ability of one man to exploit another through labor, since production won't be private. In other words, this is the stage where "and equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor" is realized. For example, if one person works ten hours at a steel factory, while another only works five due to their living conditions, the former is going to take home more. But this won't be due to a capitalist taking in profit from either of their work, and the state as controlled by the proletariat won't keep vital survival goods as commodities for profit either. 

Lastly, this section touches on the higher stage of communism. The antithesis between mental and physical labor is gone, transferring it to life's natural desire since the worker is no longer isolated from his trade. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is realized here. How fast any nation would achieve this phase would depend on the rapidity of their development, but society will naturally become accustomed to observing the social rules of life, naturally working to their ability without state or class. To some, this sounds like a "utopia," but that's why the importance of a socialist phase is necessary. It breaks the selfish will of the character that capitalism aims so hard to do every day in society, since survival only comes from money. Human nature outside of that shows the desire to do good and help others, as well as create; it's just very limited depending on ones financial situation. As we can see, human nature changes over time.

The Vulgarization Of Marxism By Opportunists

The final section of the book deals heavily with contradictions in the thought patterns of the aforementioned Karl Kautsky and Georgi Plekhanov. It also mentions anarchist distortion in trying to claim the Paris Commune as "their own" by evading the question of the state and slipping into opportunism. Another philosopher named Eduard Bernstein ran on the social democrat line of thinking andclaimed Marxism was not possible in leading the working class to seizing production. With Kautsky, the big issue was not being able to see the difference between bourgeoisie parliament and proletariat democracy, blaming any form of state as the issue. A lot of libertarians in the United States see it this way today. It's important to note that trade unions were won by the working class, not simply something that developed in absolute freedom from the capitalists. Really, this whole section is to show how poor portrayal of Marxism can be harmful, especially in a time of imperialist war, which was happening when State And Revolution was written. At the time, it came down to war between which finance capital would rule the world; Britain or Germany, and this entire pamphlet shows that the current class relations are what allow that to happen in the first place. It must end, as ownership of needs and commodities have fallen into far fewer hands in the last hundred years.