The State and Revolution (Twentieth Century Classics)

Rating:
Summary: Revolutionary Classic
Review: I believe this is the best, concise revolutionary analysis of the role of the State ever written.
I find it very annoying that here in the US, while many students may cursorily read the Communist Manifesto in school, I have never once met ANYONE in my life who has read the basic works of Lenin except for avowed Marxists (and only a minority of these)....and being a Communist myself, I have asked several students, and often looked through university bookstores to see if any poli-sci or history professors would break the "no Lenin allowed" rule.
Consequently, there are many people on the "left" who pretend to understand Marx and/or Marxism, but still make the exact same errors to which Lenin here responded over 80 years ago.
For example, someone just this week argued to me than Lenin was "not a real Marxist" (!!!) because he "introduced" the notion of "dictatorship of the proletariat", which was "alien" to Marx (hint: read Chapter 4 of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme for just one of many passages which prove this notion
totally false). State and Revolution gives many more examples of extensive quotes from Marx & Engels. One of the greates merits of S&R is that it restores the revolutionary essence to Marx, which was obscured and watered-down by the Social Democrat reformists of the 2nd International led by Karl Kautsky. Incidentally, the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been much distorted by capitalist demagogues and anti-communist "leftists" into something completely alien to its original meaning.
To all "Left academics" and others, don't assume (or pretend) you know anything about Marx or Lenin if you've never read them...If you have to be an academic "armchair radical", at least try to get the basic facts right instead of misrepresenting what they stood for...There's no shame in not having read Lenin (join the vast majority), but it's disgusting to just pass off what you've heard about Lenin from "bourgie" intellectuals as the truth (when the truth is those intellectuals never read Lenin either most likely).
There are not a few pseudo-Marxist fakers in academia, who do more damage to popular revolutionary understanding (in the name of Marxism) than do the outright enemies of socialism. NO WONDER these "Left" anti-communist professors don't assign a book like State and Revolution, they're still trying to pass off the same lies and distortions about revolutionary Marxism that Lenin and other genuine revolutionaries tear to shreds in works like S&R.
I dedicate State and Revolution to all the "Marxian" fakers who still try to paint Marx as a mere liberal humanist reformer, and strip him of his revolutionary essence.

Rating:
Summary: Correct analysis, but one fatal flaw...
Review: "The State and Revolution" was written in the hopes of outlining what is to be done after the proletariat seeks power (in comformity with Marxian thought).

Lenin offers some of his insights, but this is mostly taken from both Marx and Engels own analysis of the situation. What Lenin does, which is valuable, is heavy elaboration, clear and concise. Those not familiar with communist theory will find the book very long and tedious, and most parts will be read with little understanding. Those that have a basic grasp, however, will find it enjoyable.

Despite often brilliant insights, the Leninist paradigm suffers one major, unmistakable, and fatal flaw: the method of leadership, while supposedly to be a "temporary" stage for transition from socialism to communism cannot ever be "temporary" as bourgeois relations of authority and the people vs. the state are not only retained, but developed. It is actually the "Vanguard party," not the workers or the people, that assumes control. While the intentions of the party are good, this is not good enough: the party is an established minority elite that hopes to reflect the people's interests but operates on strict and authoritarian tendencies. Subsequent works by Lenin prove that he believed that only a dictatorship of the party during civil unrest could ever hope to achieve "true communism." This is flawed reasoning, and is the reasoning of every bourgeois revolution that preceded the Bolshevik Revolution; events such as the French revolution, led by an elite vanguard, sought to replace an old ruling class. Under communism, however, the old ruling class should not be "replaced" by another ruling class with "similar" property and authority relations. Rather, all classes are to be abolished along with the STATE itself!

The answer to a successful revolution lies in the hands of the people, not a group of "professional revolutionaries." It is no wonder that every single communist revolution has been led by a vanguard, and thus has degenerated into tyranny, and laid the foundations for the restoration of capitalism. "Objective conditions" such as "civil war" and "worlwide hostility to communism" is NO excuse for refusing to give the power to the WORKERS and instead concentrating it into the hands of an ELITE OLIGARCHY!

Rating:
Summary: A Great Place to Start
Review: Considered a classic by most, "The State and Revolution" is a work of decisive importance to communist thought. The Marxist's conception of the state is expressed clearly and concisely by Vladimir Lenin, who consistently reinforces himself with the words of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

"The state arises" Lenin explains, "where, when and insofar as class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that class antagonisms are irreconcilable."

If you are unfamiliar with the elementary concepts of Marxism, you may not be ready to read this book. It isn't a particularly difficult read, but the author assumes that you have a general understanding of Marxism. This was one of the first books that I read when I began to study communism, however, and I remember enjoying it thoroughly. It was easier for me to understand than "The Communist Manifesto".

If you haven't read "The State and Revolution" and enjoy learning about Marxism, then I highly recommend purchasing it, but I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the fundamental principles of Marxist thought beforehand.

Rating:
Summary: The communist ideology
Review: Lenin wrote 'The State and Revolution' as the task of achieving socialism in modern industrial society. He focused on the relationship between the state and classes both in the past and in the future. He asserted that the government and their subordinate agencies were not impartial in handling conflicts amongst classes. For him history was largely a record of class struggle and that the state in every society pursues the interests of the ruling class at the expense of society. The state for Lenin was a vehicle of exploiting the oppressed. No ruling class allows its rule to be abolished without armed struggle therefore revolutions should be expected to be violent. He professed the working class would have to engage in such struggle if it ever was going to gain power. The objective for this struggle would be for the eradication of all class based discrimination. After this privileges and antagonisms and conflicts, which they engendered, would be eliminated classes themselves would disappear.

Lenin affirmed the workers should dismantle the bourgeois state once power was seized; and then the state should be re-constructed after the bourgeois overthrow. The dictatorship of the proletariat would follow. An entire intermediate epoch would separate the destruction of the power of the capitalism and the inception of the fully classless and communist society.

He believed to rid the tyrants a violent struggle was needed. Contrary to the beliefs of Karl Marx that socialist may be able to gain power peacefully. Lenin professed that the bourgeoisie state machine must consequently be smashed; this would be achieved with the removal of the standing army, the police, the civil service, the judiciary and the clergy. For him it was a campaign of through repression.

He believed that the freedom established in the freest capitalistic democracies was fully enjoyable only by the rich, who were not exhausted by the material and spiritual grind of poverty. Lenin contended that the economies of capitalism prevented most people from influencing the politics of any capitalistic society. Under socialism with the inception of dictatorship of the proletariat, the majority of the population would at least gain as distinct from purely formal enfranchisement. The majority would benefit from policies ending mass poverty and would take their unprecedented opportunity to engage vigorously in politics. The means of economic production would have stopped being privately owned. Lenin denied that the material equality was achievable in the first phase of transition to a communist society. The phase would be the dictatorship of the proletariat and would be typified by a pattern of wages rewarding individuals strictly in recompense for the work done by them for society.

Rating:
Summary: The communist ideology
Review: Lenin wrote `The State and Revolution' as the task of achieving socialism in modern industrial society. He focused on the relationship between the state and classes both in the past and in the future. He asserted that the government and their subordinate agencies were not impartial in handling conflicts amongst classes. For him history was largely a record of class struggle and that the state in every society pursues the interests of the ruling class at the expense of society. The state for Lenin was a vehicle of exploiting the oppressed. No ruling class allows its rule to be abolished without armed struggle therefore revolutions should be expected to be violent. He professed the working class would have to engage in such struggle if it ever was going to gain power. The objective for this struggle would be for the eradication of all class based discrimination. After this privileges and antagonisms and conflicts, which they engendered, would be eliminated classes themselves would disappear.

Lenin affirmed the workers should dismantle the bourgeois state once power was seized; and then the state should be re-constructed after the bourgeois overthrow. The dictatorship of the proletariat would follow. An entire intermediate epoch would separate the destruction of the power of the capitalism and the inception of the fully classless and communist society.

He believed to rid the tyrants a violent struggle was needed. Contrary to the beliefs of Karl Marx that socialist may be able to gain power peacefully. Lenin professed that the bourgeoisie state machine must consequently be smashed; this would be achieved with the removal of the standing army, the police, the civil service, the judiciary and the clergy. For him it was a campaign of through repression.

He believed that the freedom established in the freest capitalistic democracies was fully enjoyable only by the rich, who were not exhausted by the material and spiritual grind of poverty. Lenin contended that the economies of capitalism prevented most people from influencing the politics of any capitalistic society. Under socialism with the inception of dictatorship of the proletariat, the majority of the population would at least gain as distinct from purely formal enfranchisement. The majority would benefit from policies ending mass poverty and would take their unprecedented opportunity to engage vigorously in politics. The means of economic production would have stopped being privately owned. Lenin denied that the material equality was achievable in the first phase of transition to a communist society. The phase would be the dictatorship of the proletariat and would be typified by a pattern of wages rewarding individuals strictly in recompense for the work done by them for society.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent description on the role of the state
Review: This is an excellent book on the role of the state after a revolution, how it will wither away, and what a society should look like ( or try to mould itself into ) after the revolution. Lenin, drawing on the works of Marx and Engels extensively, refutes many claims by both the Anarchists and opportunists on the role of the state, and corrects many common errors believed about the Marxist road to Socialism. This is a thoroughly informative read. I recommend those wondering how a Communist society would emerge after a revolution to get this book; It will open your eyes widely.

Rating:
Summary: Intelligent and Challenging
Review: This is one of books most interesting and challenging books I've ever read. It is enjoyable and the writing style is wonderful. However, the ideas are what I most enjoyed. Whether you agree or disagree with Lenin, this book is an important marker in modern political analysis. Personally, I loved it and find myself returning to it often for clarity and inspiration.

Rating:
Summary: Correcting an oversight ....
Review: V. I. Lenin wrote this book in 1917, while he was hiding from the Russian government. Lenin pointed out that "The question of the relation of the state to the social revolution, and of the social revolution to the state, like the question of revolution generally, was given very little attention by the leading theoreticians and publicists of the Second International (1889-1914)". He wanted to correct that oversight, and that is probably the main reason why he wrote this book.

"The State and revolution" is a very short book, well structured and not difficult to read at all. Initially this pamphlet was going to have seven chapters, but Lenin didn't conclude the seventh, due to the outbreak of the Russian revolution. In the postscript to the first edition he explains that, saying that due to the reasons already explained the conclusion of the seventh chapters would have to be put off for quite a long time, but that all the same "It is more pleasant and useful to go through the `experience of revolution' than to write about it".

The main idea in "The State and revolution" is that the State is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, and an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class (a "special coercive force" that rules through violence). The State of the bourgeoisie will disappear, but only through a revolution that will take the people to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat (the working class) will become then the ruling class, "capable of crushing the inevitable and desperate resistance of the bourgeoisie, and of organizing all the working and exploited people for the new economic system. The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population -the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians- in the work of organizing a socialist economy."

The dictatorship of the proletariat will be only a first stage in the path to Communism ("Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state"). According to Lenin, the necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with the idea of the necessity of violent revolution lies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and Engels. All throughout this book, Lenin cites and examines Marx and Engels' writings, in order to explain and support his own point of view.

The importance of Marxism for nowadays world has diminished enormously, but I advice you to read this book nonetheless. It is certainly not a grueling task, and it will allow you to understand better some notions that many Marxist leaders believed with all their hearts. Ideas drive men, and men make history. "The State and revolution" will help you to get acquainted with some of those ideas, and that is not a small feat.

Belen Alcat


Rating:
Summary: An important book, a questionable translator.
Review: _State and Revolution_ is a complicated book in the annals of Marxist thinking. Lenin assigns above all a class role to the State, and therefore ascertains correctly the necessity of a socialist state assuming a proletarian viewpoint. At the same time, Lenin's socialist state lacks a truly political dimension, as it remains, above all, a means for strictly administrative decision-making. Something that would gravely hamper the subsequent understanding of the political character of a future socialist state, specially when you think that this book was written while Lenin hid from the Kerensky government, that's to say just before the October Revolution. Neverthless, the problems put by the book have enormous present value. Therefore it must be taken as entirely questionable the decision to choose as translator an anti-communist like Service, something that would be quite like choosing a neo-stalinist to translate Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed".