peter griffin
VIP
|
 State and Revolution, Chapters I and V |
 |
The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin
Chapter I available here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm
Chapter V available here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm
Although Lenin, by most accounts, was a murdering fanatic, I believe his analysis (of the Marxist analysis) of the anatomy of the state to be worth reading and studying. He's clear and concise and this book is on top of my list of literature regarding the concept of the state.
Chapter I, section 1.
 |  | The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable. |
So here Lenin posits that the state is the product of the immense and diametrically opposed differences in self interests between the classes, and the very existence of the state proves this to be true.
This appears to be true in practice, for if we all had nothing, and we all had similar interests, there would be no need to build up protection against most of us for only some of us. Do you agree? Why or why not?
| | if the state is the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, if it is a power standing above society and “alienating itself more and more from it", it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this “alienation”. |
The main difference, in theory, between a communist and an anarchist is the way in which we achieve the ultimate goal of a stateless society (that's a simplification, but it's (very) basically true). Communists (Marxists) tend to believe that the "people" should, through violent means, take over the control of the machinery of the state and use it to benefit the working class, and that it will eventually, through the good nature of humanity I suppose, fade away, no longer necessary. Anarchists tend to believe that we need to simply destroy the state.
Here Lenin states that the state is almost an entity of it's own, evolved past it's distant origins as a simple product of class antagonisms, harnessed by one class or another to their benefit. That in order to be free, we need to destroy the power that the ruling class has over the state, but still use the states "apparatus" to re-organize society. He states that this is possible only through violent revolution.
| |
From section 4.
The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., of the state in general, is impossible except through the process of “withering away". |
Again, this illustrates a major difference in ideology between anarchists and communists. The communists feel that once the workers are in control, because of their benevolent nature, the need for a state apparatus will fade away, because they will be so thorough in their revolution that it will not be possible for a class distinction to once again emerge. Anarchists are generally of the opinion that we can simply skip the re-organization of the state altogether and move right to a stateless society. I do not believe this is true. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Is it possible to gain control of the state without violent revolution?
Should we use the state to our benefit, or "smash" it altogether?
Is either scenario even possible?
Chapter I, section 2
| | Engels elucidates the concept of the “power” which is called the state, a power which arose from society but places itself above it and alienates itself more and more from it. What does this power mainly consist of? It consists of special bodies of armed men having prisons, etc., at their command....
...A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power.... |
I think most would agree that this true. Only the truly naive would believe that the current organization of military and police is here to benefit the average person. I think it's quite clear that the military is for conquering and the police are for oppression of the populace/money collection. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Chapter I, section 3
| | In a democratic republic, Engels continues, “wealth exercises its power indirectly, but all the more surely", first, by means of the “direct corruption of officials” (America); secondly, by means of an “alliance of the government and the Stock Exchange" (France and America). |
Is this true? In a republic, such as the US, does the type of system we use allow easier access to power for wealthy people? If so, how can we change this or make sure it doesn't happen in a new system?
I think it is true, and if we must have a representative system, then it needs to be one which is fully transparent and allows immediate recall of elected officials by referendum.
| | Another reason why the omnipotence of “wealth” is more certain in a democratic republic is that it does not depend on defects in the political machinery or on the faulty political shell of capitalism. A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell, it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it. |
Here Lenin seems to be opposed to democratic-republics (I think it's clear that he was, in fact, opposed to democratic-republics), and he states that it is the best form for corruption, and the corruption entrenches itself so deeply that no minor change can remove it. Although I am generally in favor of democratic republics, I believe he was correct on this point, and that in order to remove the corruption we need to completely do away with the old system and it's people. Capitalism is quite able to adapt itself to almost any change that can be made through voting, and this is the problem, every seemingly radical change leads to a further blossoming of capitalism (for instance, the hippies from back in the day created a whole new market for capitalism). Do agree? Why or why not?
Chapter I, section 4
| |
in seizing state power, the proletariat thereby “abolishes the state as state" |
This is only partially true, when the people take control of the state from the ruling class, the people will now be using the state machinery to oppress the ruling class and hold back the counter revolution. In this way the state is still functioning as a state, as a tool to benefit one class over the other. The state would still be very much acting like a state. That he knows this to be true is shown here:
| | We are in favor 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 force” for the suppression of the oppressed class. Consequently, every state is not “free” and not a “people's state". |
Lenin is differentiating between a bourgeois state and a proletarian state. The assumption here, I think, is that somehow the workers will be benevolent once they gain control and always do what is right. I doubt that very much, which is one reason why I'm not a Marxist. Is there any way to affect this change in the nature of the state without becoming what we are fighting?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll leave Chapter V for a later discussion if this goes well. Everyone else please feel free to add your own questions or discuss material in this chapter that I didn't cover.
Last edited by peter griffin on Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
