Lenin State and Revolution - Literature review Example

LENIN AND ROVOLUTION Lenin finished his writing on and revolution in 1917 when Russia was in the first stage of development (Lenin 1945, p. 23). The writing and the study of the state and revolution is one of the most important works of Lenin. The work focused on the important of socialist theory and practices which are relevant and important in the modern day’s development. According to Lenin (1945, p .3) the writing has the advantage of enjoying the unique authoritative status for the coming generation of scholars and activists who beliefs in socialist. The reason for its authoritative status is because of its spirit and component that evokes the hyper- bureaucratic status in socialist countries like Russia and goes contrary to the ideology and ideas of communist states and parties. Lenin used the Marxist ideas and work as the baseline for his work. The Lenin work is essential in the modern politically democratic society for its theoretical and workable solution for to the disturbing questions regarding the powers practiced by socialist’s leaders (Lenin 1945, p. 5). This paper focuses on the Lenin argument on revolution and state and his contribution to the Marx ideas Lenin main argument revolves around the ideas of Marx and Engels. According to him (Lenin), although the previous revolutions have succeeded in ensuring the state machine have perfected, the working class cannot sit down and expect the state machine to produce by itself. He clarifies that, the purpose of state and revolution is to exchange the violent and destructive revolution with very peaceful and coherent transition (Lenin 1941, p. 9). He was for the opinion that, the proletarian cannot achieve their requirement through violent means. His ideas were for the attainment and seizure of power without destruction of properties and the old state structures. Violence destroys the existing resources and work force therefore, conflict is tantamount to destruction of the already established properties which is very unethical. Lenin was not against the reformation but his main concern in the state and revolution was to discourage those people who took the Marx idea for granted that the bourgeois’ (owners of means of production) must be executed and destroyed together with their properties. According to him, the owners of the means of production are not bad but what is uncouth is the method they (bourgeois) use to control the political and economic avenues (Kelvin 1995, p. 90) Lenin observed that, very few countries can survive after destroying the bourgeois state. He believed that, in as long as the proletarian revolution must do away with the old states, it should not destroy and abolish the state itself (Kelvin 1995, p. 90). The state must remain and it should life for along period of time without being destroyed. The resources which control and run the state are properties of the bourgeois. This therefore means, destroying the owners of means of production properties is equal to destruction of the state. His stand on the protection of the state does not imply that Lenin was for the opinion of weakening the revolution powers. He insisted that, the revolution power must be strong and need to extend their period of revolution. In as far as the reforms are relevant and important, Lenin insisted on not transforming working class into military militias. The transformation of the working class into military militia is only relevant if the owners of means of production use their military power to deter the revolutionaries’ effort. Nevertheless, transforming the working class to militia should be the last option when all the others options have failed (Kelvin 1995, p. 98). Lucio (1989, p. 69) states that, Lenin was not for the opinion that the proletarian class has only the mandate to dominate but not to govern. Such kind of ideas is for those who do not believe in changes in governance. According to Lenin, the state and revolutions are built on the ground of the proletariats having the capacity of governing but not only dominating. The idea can only be achieved if the dictatorship of the proletariat is based on action but not only on slogans. He referred revolution to not only composed of the new class controlling and governing with the help of old state machine but the new class commanding and governing with new machines. The old machine should therefore be done away with to give room for new machine which will be managed by new class. There is therefore need for changing the institution in the state (Lucio 1989, p. 92). Lenin contradicts with anarchists who were emphasizing on the important of retaining the state in the hand of proletariat dictatorship. He believed that, change cannot be achieved at once and the belief of undertaking sudden transformation can only be a dream which might never be achieved (Marcel 1999, p. 6). Additionally, the incorporation of old machines and new machines in a state is what can bring about the required changes. The state cannot perform as expected without the existent of some old very crucial machines. These old machines need to be managed by well focused professionals who will be inspected by the proletariats (Marcel 1999, p. 12). According to Lenin, the subordination must be a combination of the exploited section of the society (the proletariat) and the working class. For transformation to be realized fighting for transformation should be done in sequence by eliminating and replacing the state officials who boost in state offices for simple works of supervision and accounting the activities which can be performed by mere town dwellers for less wages. The proletariat should produce great outcome from what the capitalist have created. According to Lenin, to realize this, the workers should rely on their own working experiences and coming up with strict restriction to manage and regulate the employed personnel. The state workers wages and salaries should be reduced to enhance economic and social development in the state (Marcel 1999, p. 16). Additionally, according to Lenin, the state officers should not be allowed to squander the proletariat resources for their own self interest. Concrete sanction should be taken for those who misappropriate the state resources. According to him (Lenin) proper management of the state resources is tantamount to its development. Furthermore, Lenin stated that, the development and attainment of the required changes can be acquired through the incorporation of all techniques knowledge in the state management. Professional are the well placed people to run the affairs of the state (Marcel, 1999, p. 25). Additionally, some of the state officials need to remain after revolution to enhance continuity in the state governance (Martov 1970, p. 213). Nevertheless, they should work under severe supervision and be controlled by the proletariat class. The bureaucrats should not be abolished but it needs to be reduced to enhance better access of the senior state officials as well as reducing the operational costs (Jonathan, 2006, p. 90). This is in accordance with the popular will of the proletariat class and the working class. Additionally, the old state standing army needs to be replaced. They need to be replaced by armed workers who will form a militia which incorporates the whole population. Therefore, Lenin stated that revolution in any state need to be accompanied by the reduction of the bureaucracy, supervision of the state workers by the direct popular supervision which should include the power of abrupt revocability and the abolishment of the standing army to be replaced by the armed militia (Jonathan, 2006, p. 91). Despite all the reformation in the state, Lenin insisted on the need of not abolishing the state. Rather it should take the form of decentralization all with the aim of eliminating and doing away with the bourgeois’ state machines management (Neil 2009, p. 78). According to Lenin, the state is the prime asset for the economic development in any country. Therefore eliminating the state mean the social and economic development will not be realized. According to Morris (2006, p. 320) Lenin said the following in regard to the institution. There is need for better and manageable institutions after revolution which will be of benefit to the proletariats. Lenin is for the opinion of replacing some of state institutions with other fundamentally different institutions. Lenin advocated for a representative institutions where the proletariat have to choose their representative in the institutions. His (Lenin) aim was not to abolish the existing representative institution but to converting the representative institutions such as parliament from talking arenas to working bodies (Morris 2006, p. 320). He was for the idea of establishing simple organization for the workers such as soviet of workers and soldiers’ deputy in Russia. He was proposing the formation of huge institution to represent all workers and proletariat enhance developing a democratic state. The institution of autocrats where the bourgeoisie are the only class represented should be replaced with the workers represented bodies where the representatives are purely elected by the workers and the proletariats. The workers and proletariats should also have the power of impeaching the unproductive representatives (Morris, 2006, p. 321) Miliband (1970, p. 340) stated that, the state which Lenin would prefer is the state where the standing army have been ceased and replaced by the workers militia, the state where the workers are supervised by the proletariats, and the state where the workers are represented by the representative of their choice. The proletariats should have political, social, and economic power in their state. With the above changes, Lenin believes that the state will express the dictatorship of the proletariats. However, there are some problems which are accompanied by the changes which Lenin has identified (Miliband, 1970, p. 340). According to Polan (1984, p. 101) the first common problem with this changes is political mediation of the revolutionary power. The dictatorship of the proletariats can not be achieved without leadership and political interference. The political interference and leadership leads to the formation of political organization (Polan, 1984, p. 101). There are several references to the political parties. One reference is the desire for political parties to involve themselves into the struggle against the religious beliefs which pacifies the society. It is not clear whether it’s the proletariats who have the capacity to attain power or it’s the vanguard of the working class and proletariats. This can be so because the leadership of the political parties is left free to be contented by any person. Therefore, the proletariat vanguard can take the leadership of the political parties hence leading to complication in the revolution process. (Ralph, 1970, p. 78).On the other hand, the relationship between the political parties and the proletariats whose dictatorship is established is questionable. There is not distinct relationship between political parties and the proletariats but the relationship is only based on assumptions. According to Lenin, the ideas that there is obvious and permanent relationship between the political parties and the proletariats are the ideas of rhetoric powers but not reality. In relation to parties, Lenin believed that the dictatorship of the proletariats cannot be a reality unless political parties ensure the will of the represented workers are well adhered to (Theda, 1979, p. 321). The political parties should be guided by the members’ ideology but not the ideology of the political parties’ leaders. In regard to this idea, he (Lenin) is not for the opinion of demoralizing the political parties but the issue is with the political party leaders. He also believed that, if parties are to be strong to control the proletariats, the state should be stronger than the parties to control the political parties and the proletariats. He advocates for strengthening the state instead of political parties and advised the working class and the proletariats to stand strong by the state instead of parties. According to him (Lenin) the state cannot stand if the political parties are to be given the first priority before the state (Theda, 1979, p. 322). The violence against people to change one person with another will one day end (Slatter 1990, p. 45). The vanishing of the habit (removing people from the offices with force and replacing them with others) will be necessitated by the fact that, people will learn to solve their own state issues without the need for conflict and substitution. It’s only when people will adopt the mechanism of solving their problem without conflict that the real state will emerge. He also believed of the two types of states in the world. There is the old state which is characterized by military bureaucracy, the bourgeois control and manages political, social and economic condition of the state, presence of two distinct society where on group is extremely rich while the other are in the extreme end of poverty, and the presence of unequal representation in the state organs(Slatter 1990, p. 45). There is also the transitional type of state which is governed by dictatorship of the proletariats, the state which have the society military and the state where every member have a role to play for the benefit of the economy, political and social life (Slatter 1990, p. 45). Lenin distinctive contribution to Marxist thought Lenin contributed a lot to the knowledge of Marxism. Lenin was a student of Marx and he was committed to follow his doctrine even after his death (Sawyer 1979, p. 9). Unlike other scholars, Lenin did not compromise the ideas of Marx. One of the main contributions of Lenin to the Marx ideas was on the nature of capitalism. He believed that, according to the Marxism theory, capitalist makes the process of revolution easier. They create an avenue for the working class and proletariats to come together for revolution. According to Lenin, many revolutions are contributed by the exploitation of the working class by the owners of the mean of production which is facilitated by the presence of capitalist. Additionally, in reference to Lenin, the development of technology which has been enhanced by capitalist has improved the social and political living of the global generation. (Robert 1998, p. 54)There is increase in production which has increased global wealth. The idea of economic benefits of the capitalist was the initial idea of Marx but Lenin compounded it and enriched the idea with new inventions. Lenin like Marx beliefs there is need to move from capitalist to other forms of leadership as capitalist have underrated the human freedom and have unequal distribution of the production. The poor continues to be poor while the owners of means of production gain immense economical power through increased production (Slatter 1990, p. 45). According to Lenin, capitalist creates a huge number of working class. The ideas of creation of more working class were formally the ideas of Marx (Axel 2003, p. 90). The increased numbers of working class necessitate the process of attainment of socialist states in the world. The huge number of the working class are the one who necessitate the operation of the capitalist and therefore the withdrawal of their services to the capitalist system mean the capitalist cannot function. On the other hand, the Lenin observed that, the working class has the power and ability of terminating the functioning of the available technology and resources to advocate for socialist (Axel 2003, p 91). Marx on the other hand, was for the opinion that if the working class fails to facilitate production of the available means of production, they will create the way for realization of socialist society. Therefore, Lenin contributed significant to the Marx idea of embracing socialist society. According to them there was need for socialist society to enhance, the dignity, freedom, and the existence a wealth working class (Axel 2003, p. 91). Barret (1990, p 23) stated that, Marx and Lenin were for the ideas of togetherness of socialist and democracy. For there to be democracy there is need for establishment of socialism. Socialism according to them is the ownership and a democratic management of the means of production that enhances the survival of human being. According to Marx there was need for the working class to fight hard to acquire the victory on the battle for democracy to ensure their control and management of the economy. In the 1990s, Lenin was for the opinion of working class fighting harder to attain socialist in order to control and manage the economy and the entire means of production (Barret 1990, p. 23). The pair was confident the working class can win the war in the democracy and socialist if they get an understanding of the reality of capitalist (Bunyan 1967, p.190). The working classes are the majority as compared to the bourgeoisie therefore they (the working class) have the majority power to necessitate the socialist community. The enlightened working class should educate other on capitalist reality to attain their revolution expectation. The economic hardship encountered by the working class and most specifically the new employee should empower them to fight for their economic rights. They (Lenin and Marx) are for the opinions that, the revolution will one time come automatically. The working class revolution enable them acquire improved living condition and also understanding their power and their ability in bringing about the required change (Bunyan 1967, p. 190). They further clarified on the combination of the class status problem and the organizational problem which improves their energy to struggle for better future. The problem associated with the capitalist can be eroded by the adoption of a better economic democratic socialism (Bunyan 1967, p.191). Lenin emphasized the Marx idea of organizing the working class into both political and economical movement to get better and democratic economy (Carol 2006, p90). There movements need to be politically independent with minimal interference by the capitalist and other upper class personnel’s who are conservative. According to Lenin and Marx, the working classes are supposed to make maximum use of their trade unions and their political parties for revolution and reforms. The win on capitalist cannot be attained unless the working class acquires the political power from capitalist. They also emphasized on the important of inclusion of other oppressed groups in the society in their fight for revolution (Bunyan 1967, p195). The issue of capitalist is a world issue and according to Marx and Lenin, there is need for global radical change from capitalist to socialist (Jonathan, 2006, p. 40). They were for the revolutionary internationalism where the entire world is fully involved for a common global goal. One country can never attain socialist on its own. There is therefore need for in cooperation of all global working classes to attain the common goal of political and economic democracy (Jonathan, 2006p 40). Lenin also was on Marx ideas on the issue of organization. According to Lenin, the working classes are the only people who are in better position of attaining the economic dependent and democracy because they are large in number and have an understanding on the functioning of the mean of production. All they need is a well organized and coherent organization with well focused leaders. Conclusion Lenin was for the opinion of radical change in the management and governance of the means of production. According to him, the state is very important for the economic, social and political democracy. The revolutions should not be used to varnish the state and instead revolution should be for the betterment of the state. The revolution should be conducted to enhance the improvement of the state and hence they should be peaceful to ensure there is no destruction on the already established state. Additionally, the proletariats are the ones who are supposed to control the state and the fight for state revolution is valid. Furthermore, Lenin contributed a lot in the Marx ideas of the state and governance. He never compromised Marx ideas but he enriched them to make them valid. References Axel, V 2003, The immanent utopia: From Marxism on the state to the state of Marxism. New Jersey, Transaction Publishers. Barret, L., 1990, Political reforms in post Mao china: Democracy and bureaucracy, Birmingham, Berkeley Publishers. Bunyan, J 1967, the origin of forced labor in the soviet state 1917-1921: Documentary materials, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press. Carl, B., 2006, The end of politics: Corporate power and the decline of the public sphere, Washington, Guilford press. Jonathan, D., 2006, The Russian revolution and civil war, 1917-1921: An annotated bibliography, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Kevin, A., 1995, Lenin, Hegel and western Marxism: A critical study. California: University of California Press. Lenin, V 1945, The state and revolution, Moscow: Kessinger Publishing. Lenin, V 1941, The proletarian revolution and the renegade kitschy, London, international inc. Lucio, C., 1989, From Rousseau to Lenin; Studies in ideology and society, London, Monthly Reviews Press. Marcel L., 1999, Leninism under Lenin, London, Merlin Press. Martov, J., 1970, The state and the socialist revolution, New York, International review,45,62-100. Miliband, R., 1970, The state and revolution, New York. Monthly review press. PRINT Morris, H., 2006. Imperial state and revolution: The united states and Cuba, 1952-1986, London, international publishers. PRINT Neil, H 2009, Lenin political thought: Theory and practice in the democratic and socialist revolution, Chicago, Haymarket Books. Polan, A 1984, Lenin and the end of politic, California, University of California Press. Ralph, M 1970, Lenin state and revolution: The socialist register, New York, Merlin press. Roberts, B 1998, The Rutledge dictionary of the twentieth century political thinkers. London: Macmillan Publishers. Sawyer, M 1977, The genesis of state and revolution: The social register, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Slatter, J 1990, Lenin and the commune state: The state and revolution in context, Irish Slavonic studies Vol. 2, 47-68. Theda, S 1979, State and social revolution: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and china, New York, Cambridge University Press. Read More