Lenin's State and Revolution - Essay Example

?Lenin’s and Revolution: A Critical Summary and Revolution is considered as one of the most important written works by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution that successfully established a socialist state, the Soviet Union. It is apparent that without such work, Lenin would not have been able to articulate well the Marxist premise that violent revolution is necessary in destroying the foundations of the bourgeois state, which is the basic requirement for the establishment of socialism and for laying the groundwork for the era of communism. For many Marxists, grasping the essence of State and Revolution is regarded as the hallmark of genuine communists. The social analysis presented by Lenin ultimately justifies violent revolution. Lenin explains that those who continue to claim that they are Marxists too are exposed as fraud if they dispute the concept that only a violent uprising led by the proletariat and participated by all working masses can bring about the downfall of the bourgeoisie and lead to the construction of a new society where the majority are indeed superior to the minority, one that is also the cornerstone for the achievement of communism in the future. Lenin’s articulation is not just based on the earlier works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels though. This is also a by-product of the actual revolutionary experiences in Germany and France. Because of this, his ideas are not entirely new but are the more timely and practical perspective of Marxism. However, not everyone, even among the ranks of those who claim to be socialists, appreciate the points raised by Lenin. Even as he presented his criticisms against the reformists and the anarchists alike, his concepts were also heavily bombarded by the very people he criticized. From whatever perspective, whether left or right, State and Revolution is undoubtedly one of the foremost texts that shape theories useful in political science. This means that it is definitely not just the Marxists or the revolutionaries who should comprehend its meaning. The State: Establishment and ‘Withering Away’ In the first chapter of State and Revolution, Lenin reiterated the essential point raised by Engels regarding the principal character of the state. In defining the state, he merely re-emphasized Engels’ theory that it is a reflection of the reality that class antagonisms could be resolved in societies according to the current level of historical development. In Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels points out that the state “is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel” (Engels, 2004, p.157). Social hierarchy as represented by the government is a means of instilling order, one that favors the economic elite, the bourgeoisie. It is precisely because there is a majority of working masses that need to be oppressed to instill subservience that the state creates armed components such as the armed forces and the police, aided by the judiciary and the penal system. The state, as Lenin explains, is therefore an instrument of those who are dominant also in the economic sphere. It is a coercive mechanism that is employed by the bourgeoisie in order to maintain its power seemingly, at first, in the sphere of politics. However, it ultimately serves as weapon against those who may want to change the status quo in the economy and production as well. However, the establishment of the state apparently does not resolve contradictions among the classes. Instead, it only sharpens these to the point that the oppressed and exploited would deem it necessary to wage a revolution. Lenin clarifies that revolutions are not just abnormal reactions of the masses to intense oppression and exploitation. Revolutions occur as a natural response to the realities of class antagonisms. Therefore, for as long as classes exist, there would always be revolutions. These are revolutions that would eventually lead to the ‘withering away’ of the state. Lenin cites Engels again to reiterate his point. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels wrote that the state would eventually become irrelevant. He said that “as soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state” (Engels, 2008, p.69). If revolution is an upheaval that is historically and naturally inevitable, it is only apt to say that the state would certainly wither away. It must be pointed out thought while Engels may not have precisely mentioned revolution as the means Lenin takes the initiative of interpreting such concept from his own revolutionary standpoint. Due to the absence of a sharper distinction of the method to be applied in order encourage the state’s withering away it becomes possible for various shades of socialists to insist on their respective strategies for changing society. The anarchist use the phrase ‘abolishing the state’ to refer to its belief that the bourgeois state should be destroyed and that no other state should be established as an alternative. Ultimately, the set-up after the immediate abolition of the state would result in communism. At this point, when Lenin was still writing State and Revolution, no dictatorship of the proletariat has ever been established except for the short-lived Paris Commune. However, he was already able to express criticism on anarchism. This only showed that, even before the Bolshevik victory, Lenin already knew that a state, one which has the dictatorship of the proletariat at the cores should be first developed for certain period of time before it is left to wither away, resulting from the contradictions that would still emerge in the new society. For lack of actual practice though, Lenin was not able to articulate this in a more concise manner. Nevertheless, he was able to express his opposition to the use of the term ‘abolition of the state.’ However, Lenin was able to raise the issue of how reformists tend to abuse the term ‘withering away’ of the state. The reformists, socialists who believed that the path to socialism is paved with peaceful processes, insisted then that if the state would just wither, there would be no point in waging revolutions. Lenin spent few words to clarify on the matter and express his opinion against such point of view. Lenin’s Argument: Marx and Engels Preached and Practiced Revolution State and Revolution was written not just to consolidate the Bolshevik ideology and mobilize it for political struggles and eventually revolution. At the time it was written, Lenin was also engaged in debates with Mensheviks and the social-democrats of the Second International. At a time when Europe was experiencing sharper antagonisms between the oppressed classes and the bourgeoisie, there were leading socialists who also advocated the peaceful and parliamentary means of introducing changes in society. These socialists also labeled themselves as Marxists, often citing the Marxist literature to insist on their theory. Again, this was possible because of the fact that while Engels and Marx did write many works on class contradictions, they did not articulate much on the concrete methods that that proletariat can employ to liberate them selves from political, economic, and cultural bondage. Through State and Revolution, Lenin insists that Marx and Engels never negated revolution. In fact, they were teaching the proletariat that this is the only means that can free them from exploitation and oppression. Unlike the social-democrats who settled for peaceful methods and dreamt of utopia, Lenin writes that Marx “expected the experience of the mass movement to provide the reply to the question as to the specific forms this organization of the proletariat as the ruling class would assume and as to the exact manner in which this organization would be combined with the most complete, most consistent ‘winning of the battle of democracy’” (Lenin, 1999, p.41). With such statement, Lenin did not emphasize the Marxist theory of revolution; he also highlighted the need for an organization to lead the revolution. Lenin explains that revolutions are both mothers that sired states and offspring of the existing ones. He points out that “all previous revolutions perfected the state machine, whereas it must be broken, smashed” (Lenin, 1999, p.32). This point is actually meant to further negate the argument of the social-democrats that revolutions are but subjective desires of their more radical counterparts, such as the Bolsheviks. Lenin defends his proposition by reiterating that revolutions are not subjectively willed by man. These are prompted by intense oppression and the instinctive nature of the mankind to free themselves from whatever structures they think have deprived them of their freedoms. The state, therefore, due to its coercive manner is already a clear basis for antagonisms to heighten. Ultimately, the existence of the state is the very valid excuse for a revolution to be waged by those who do not control political and economic power. However, Lenin also reminds readers that revolutions are not just products of the states’ existence. These are also the means to end the states that are regarded as oppressive and exploitative. The Paris Commune occurred not as a counter-revolution to the relatively young bourgeois democracy in France. It was a proletarian revolution waged at a time when it was clear that the bourgeois state does not have any intention to make life better for the working class. The Bolsheviks would easily grasp the essence of this point but because elements of the Second International are also vigorously doing propaganda with their reformist line, Lenin deemed it necessary to clarify the lessons of history. The Totalitarian Lenin: A Misimpression? In reading State and Revolution and in grasping the essence that the state is an instrument of one class to subjugate others, the mechanical reaction would be to expect Lenin to expound on the validity of the abolition of the state, making him no different at all from the anarchists. However, Lenin did not actually go to such extent. In fact, it is clear that he and his fellow Bolsheviks are only interested in not actually destroying the state but in seizing its controlling political organs. It is apparent that what distinguishes the Bolsheviks from the anarchists is that they desire to seize state power while the latter want to destroy it. This is in line with Lenin’s concept that while it may be true that the ultimate goal of the proletarian revolution is to establish a society without classes, it is necessary to establish first a political, economic, and cultural system that would guarantee the transition towards such society. However, it is also in explaining the character of such social system that Lenin was and still is considered as anti-democracy. This is from the point of view of those who have held on meaning of democracy as defined by the bourgeoisie. The more common perception is that democracy exists when the minority is subordinated to the majority. Lenin explains that “democracy is a state which recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e., an organization for the systematic use of force by one class against another, by one section of the population against another” (Lenin, 1999, p.71). Democracy, therefore, does not mean that class contradictions no longer exist. Instead, it is a system wherein one class is also justified to use force in order to quell the resistance or dissent of another. In Lenin’s alternative society though, one that is led by the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is the working masses against the remnants of the bourgeoisie and rich peasants. However, he also clarifies that this is not the end but the means. The ultimate objective is the abolition of the state (not to be confused with the anarchist definition). Lenin reiterates that socialism would be built in place of bourgeois democracy. Socialism would have its own distinctive kind of democracy one that guarantees the democratic rights of the toiling masses even as harsh or repressive actions would be employed by the state against the opposition. Lenin articulates this when he wrote that “in striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism and, therefore, that the need for violence against people in general, for the subordination of one man to another, and of one section of the population to another, will vanish altogether since people will become accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social life without violence and without subordination” (1999, p.72). At first glance and if the aim is not taken into consideration, the misimpression of Lenin’s despotism is easy to create. However, when one considers the circumstances that socialism would be built on; with the conscious efforts of the bourgeoisie, the minority, to subvert the gains of the revolution and to seize power again from the proletariat and the rest of the toiling masses who are the majority, then the use of violence against counter-revolution may indeed be justified. Socialism as a Transition Period Lenin reiterates the Marxist theory that socialism is just a transition period towards the attainment of socialism. This is one of the most important ideas that Marx formulated but is ignored by the social-democrats of the Second International, the targets of Lenin’s ideological struggle. It is obvious that socialism is not just about the installation of the proletariat in political power. The establishment of a state with the proletarian dictatorship at the core is not just an instrument to secure the gains of the revolution but also to construct a socialist economy since it is a very important requirement for entering the era of communism. Marx explains that “between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other” and “corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (2008, p.39). As the state is determined in complying with the requirements of its communism and its eventual ‘withering away,’ it guarantees that all obstacles to the construction of a robust socialist economy are removed. Lenin explains that for as long as the there are still class contradictions, which also exist in socialist societies, there would always be such obstacles. Because of this, there would always be a need for coercive apparatuses to clear the roadblocks to communism. He writes that “during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority… a special machine for suppression, the ‘state,’ is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state” (Lenin, 1999, p.77). This just shows that Lenin does not conceal his belief in the application of a coercive state but he also argues that unlike the bourgeoisie, such violence is for the welfare of the majority and, ultimately, the entire mankind. Conclusion State and Revolution is an honest manifesto written by Lenin for the purpose of uniting the Bolsheviks at a time when they were bombarded by counter-revolutionary propaganda and the social-democrats of the Second International. However, Lenin wrote it in manner that was very direct but lacks the philosophical depth that would have clarified further his statements. Due to this inadequacy, it became easy for the anti-Leninists to attack both the author and the article, especially when practical errors in building socialism occurred. In order to appreciate State and Revolution in a more objective manner, it is necessary to refer always to the writings of Marx and Engels and to learn more about its historical context. By doing so, the reader would certainly understand the essence of Lenin’s idea. List of References Engels, F. (2004). The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Chippendale, N.S.W.: Resistance Books. Engels, F. (2008). Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. New York, NY: Cosimo, Inc. Lenin, V.I. (1999). The State and Revolution. Sydney, Australia: Resistance Books. Marx, K. (2008). Critique of the Gotha Program. Rockville, MD: Wildside Press. Read More