Restoring Revolutionary Theory: Towards an Understanding of Lenin's "The State and Revolution" Author(s): Rustam Singh Source: Economic

and Political Weekly, Vol. 24, No. 43 (Oct. 28, 1989), pp. 2431-2433 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4395530 Accessed: 22/11/2008 04:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

Restoring

Revolutionary Theory Towards an Understanding of Lenin's The State and Revolution

Rustam Singh

While the generally held opinion is that Lenin's The State and Revolution is a restatemzent Marx's and Engels' of theory of state, the author argues, taking into account both the substance of the text and the book's underlying motive, that it is primarily an attempt to define the nature,form and method of the proletarian revolution tn order to conclusively terminate the bourgeois political order.
editionof the book. In the veryfirstsentence of the prefacehe says: "The question of the LENIN's book, The State and Revolution, state is now acquiringparticular importance is generally regarded as a restatementof both in theory and in practicalpolitics". In Marx's and Engels' theory of state.' It is other words The State and Revolution was the position of this writer that the book is not merely a theoretical exercise. Further primarilyan attemptto expoundthe nature ahead in the preface he says: "The world of the proletarianrevolution,and the form proletarianrevolution is clearly maturing. this revolutionshould necessarilytake and The question of its relation to the state is the methods it should adopt to successfully acquiringpracticalimportance." Here Lenin put and conclusively an end to the bourgeois moves from the 'question of state ' to the political order and establish in its place a question of the 'proletarianrevolution'.In socialist order. other words, he is not viewing the question We take this position in spite of the fact of the state as an independentquestion. It that in ChapterI of the book Leninhimself is intimatelyconnectedwith the question of describes his 'prime task' to be 'to re- the proletarian revolution. In fact, it has establish what Marx really taught on the acquiredimportanceonly because it is consubject to state'2(emphasis in original). In nected with the question of the proletarian our view,what is importantis not that Lenin revolution. To make this clearer, we shall Marx'sviews on state, quote two more statements of Lenin from sought to re-establish but ratherwhy he felt it necessaryto under- the same preface. "The struggle to free the take such an exercise.This in other words working people from the influence of the means that while trying to arriveat a cor- bourgeoisie..."says Lenin, "is impossible rect understandingof the book, one has to without a struggleagainst opportunist preconsidernot only what is writtenin the book judices concerning the 'state'." This stateitself but also the underlyingmotive of the ment shows that Lenin'smain concernis the book. struggle to free the workersfrom the bourWehave also to keep in mind, while con- geoisie, and a correct interpretation of sideringthis book, that Leninwas first and Marx'stheory of state is only a part of this foremosta politicalactivist,a revolutionary, struggle.The next statementdoes not leave and only then a theorist.As a matterof fact, any dcoubt the regarding intentionsof Lenin the fact of his being a theorist was only in- in writing The State and Revolution. "The cidental. Most of the time he was busy in question of the relation of the socialist polemics with his political opponents, both proletarianrevolutionto the state",he says, socialist and otherwise. Whenever he did "... is acquiring not only practical imporundertakesome theoretical work, he did it tance, but also the significance of a most with the expresspurposeof clarifyingto his urgent problem of the day, the problem of opponents, to his colleagues in the party,to explainingto the masseswhat they will have ordinary party workers,and to the people to do before long to free themselves from at large some particulartheoretical puzzle capitalist tyranny.'3 The problem of exor point, and-theadvantageor lack of it of plaining to the masses what thev will have adopting or not adopting a particulartac- to do before long to free themselvesfrom line tical or strategical at a giventime on that capitalisttyranny. This, in a word,is the probasis. Looked at closely, in fact, even his blemr Lenin sets out to tackle in The State theoreticalwriting revealthemseivesto be and Revolution. And the question of the little more than polemical exeriises, albeit socialist proletarianrevolutionand its relaa little weightierand profounderthan pure tion to the state is the gut issuie of this polemics. On a more general level, the aim problem. of all Lenin'swritings, like all his actions, was to take him nearerto the making of a II revolutionand the establishment proletarian Lenin was concerned, above all, with of a socialist order in Russia. The penning of TheStateand Revolutionwasalso geared showingtwo thingsin TheStateand Revolutowardsthis aim. And he gives a clear in- tion: (1) why a revolutionwas necessaryto dication of this in the preface to the first overthrowthe bourgeois state and establish Economic and Political Weekly October 28, 1989
a socialist society; and (2) why this had to be a violent revolution. He felt compelled to do this in order to counter the arguments of his fellow Marxists-Kautsky et al-who were either not in favour of a revolution at all and advocated reform, citing in their support certain views of Marx and Engels, or, where they did favour a revolution-as in the case of Kautsky-they did not want violence to becarried so far as to destroy the institutional apparatus of the overthrown bourgeois state. Those who held the former position argued that the bourgeois state did not have to be overthrown by force; it would give way to a proletarian state by the logical sequence of historical developments. And those who took the latter position believed that the bourgeois state-structure could be used, as it was, for the purposes of the proletarian state. They viewed the state apparatus as a thing separate and apart from the interests of the class that held the reigns of power, implying that any class could usurp this power and use the pre-existing state apparatus as it wished. Lenin felt it important to counter these beliefs immediately because there was a danger of the revolutionaries becoming complacent and losing the sharper edges of their revolutionary feelings if these beliefs prevailed. In The State and Revolution, therefore, he restated certain tenets of Marxism in such a way that he could prove without doubt the immediate necessity of a violent revolution. In the process he carried out some deliberate and unabashed distortions of Marxism, but the nature of these disfortions was different from that of the distortions carried out by 'opportunists' and 'social chauvinists' whom Lenin, in Chapter I of the book, accuses of 'vulgarising' Marxism. 4 As a matter of fact, Lenin was never unwilling to make changes in the theory to make it more suitable to the practical needs of the moment. This attitude towards theory become~s evident from the following statement which he made immediately after the February revolution. "We would be committing a great mistake", he said, "if we attempted to force the complex, urgent, rapidly developing practical tasks of the revolution into the procrustean bed of narrowly conceived 'theory'..".5 This attitude is further confirmed by another statement which he

2431

made about a month later:....it is essential to grasp the incontestable truth that a Marxistmust takecognisanceof real life, of the true facts of reality, and not cling to a which, like all theories, theory of yesterday, at best only outlines the main and the general, only comes near to embracinglife in all its complexity"6 (emphasis in attitudetowards original).If this was Lenin's theory, it is inconceivable that he would waste his time elaborating Marx's and Engels' theory of state at the height of preoccupation(The State and revolutionary Revolution was written in August and September1917).He clearlyhad some other purpose in mind, and that purpose, as we havealreadyindicated,was to impressupon his followersand Marxistopponentsthe immediatenecessityof a violent revolution.We get a confirmationof this from what he says further on in the same context. Here he is attacking those who believed that the bourgeois revolutionhad not yet been completed and, therefore,that it was too early revolution: to think in termsof a proletarian To deal with the questionof "completion" of the bourgeoisrevolutionin the old way to livingMarxism the deadletis to sacrifice the to ter.According theold wayof thinking, couldand shouldbe. ruleof the bourgeoisie and followed by the rule of the proletariat In the peasantry, theirdictatorship. real by thingshavealready turnedout life, however, differently;there has been an extremely interlacing novelandunprecedented original,
of the one with the other7 (emphasis in original).

tasks of the revolution.9 Lenin next attempts to clarify the meaning of Engels'often- quotedwordsregarding away'of the state.And he conthe 'withering these for demnsthe 'revisionists' interpreting words in a way which gives the impression that accordingto Engels it is the bourgeois state that withers away.This, according to Lenin, bears no resemblance with the original argument of Engels which is extremely rich in ideas. "To prune Marxism to such an extent",remarksLenin, "means reducing it to opportunism, for this 'interpretation' only leaves a vague notion of a slow, even, gradual change, of absence of leaps and storms, of absenceof revolution" of This interpretation the witheringawayof the state,accordingto Lenin,obscures,if not repudiates the role of revolution. Thus it disregardsthe 'most important'element of Engels' argument.Leninthen gives his own interpretation of this phrase of Engels.
",..Engels speaks here", says Lenin, "of the

proletarian revolution 'abolishing' the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants
of the prol?tarian state after the socialist

As Lucio Colletti observes: None of Lenin's writings [has] a 'conThis is less than ever character. templative' the case with State and Revolution. Lenin whatto do embarked uponit so as to decide in the ongoingrevolution.8

revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not 'wither away', but is 'abolished'by the proletariatin the course of the revolution"10(emphasisin original). A careful readingof Engels' argumentas quoted by Leninrevealsthat even this is not an exactly correct interpretation of what Engels says. Lenin has deliberatelymade it appear to be heavily tilted on the side of revolution. But this only goes to show Lenin'sbias in favourof revolutionand his impatiencewith the notion of slow, gradual change. This becomes clear when one looks at some more statements of Lenin about
Engels' above-mentioned argument. ". . the

same work of Engels",statesLeinin,"whose

argument about the withering away of the state everyoneremembers,also contains an argument of the significance of violent revolution.Engels' historicalanalysis of its panegyricon violent role becomesa veritable And revolution.This 'no one remembers'.... yet it is inseparably bound up with the 'withering away' of the state into one harmonious whole." "We have already said above", continues Lenin, "and shall show more fully later,that the theoryof Marxand of Engelsof the inevitability a violentrevolution refersto the bourgeois state. The latter cannot be superseded by the proletarian state.... through the process of 'withering away',but, as a general rule, only through a violent revolution.The panegyricEngels sang in its honour, and which fully corresponds to Marx's repeatedstatements....this panegyric is by no means a mere 'impulse', a meredeclamationor a polemicalsally.The necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with this and preciselythis view of violent revolutionlies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and Engels""i (emphasis in original). Talkingof the correctionsthat Marx and Engels felt should be made in the Communist Manifesto on the basis of lessons experienceof drawnfrom the revolutionary the Paris Commune, Lenin quotes the following words of Marx and Engels from the prefaceof the then new Germanedition of the Manifesto:"...onething especiallywas provedby the Commune,viz, that 'theworking class cannotsimplylay hold of the readymade state machinery and wield it for its own purposes'." Accordingto Lenin, these words of Marx and Engels have been distorted by the 'opportunists'to say that Marx here emphasises the idea of slow development in contradistinction to the seizureof power,etc. But, as a matterof fact,

III
Lenin begins by clarifying the basic idea of Marxismwith regardto the state:that the state is the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms and an organ of class rule,an organfor the oppressionof one class by another,and he goes on to provethat the existence of the state means that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.But why is Leninso concernedwith showing the origin and nature of the state? Because of the following reason:
... If the state is the product of the irrecon-

CENTRE FOR SCIENCEAND ENVIRONMENT

807 Vishal Bhawan, 95 Nehru Place New Delhi 110 019 The Centre for Science and Environment invites applications for the posts of Senior Researchers in Science, Social Sciences. with concerned sustainable research organisation is The Centre a publicinterest betweenindepth resourcemanagementin India.Its work is a mix natural of towards preparation and and journalism policyresearch is mainlydirected public materials designedto createan informed and publications informational opinion. to experienceandsalaryexpectations Applywithfulldetailsof qualifications, the Director.

it of cilability classantagonisms... is clearthat the liberationof the oppressedclass is impossible... without the destruction of the ap-

by of paratus statepowerwhichwascreated the rulingclass... (emphasisin original).

Destruction of the apparatus of state power,

we can see, was the centralconcernof Lenin, and he relates the origin and development of the state only to point out the necessity of this destruction.He supportshimself, on this point, by citing Marx who he says, had drawn this 'self-evident'conclusion on the basis of a concretehistoricalanalysisof the
2432

Economic and Political Weekly

October 28, 1989

the exact opposite is true. "Marx's idea is that the workingclass must bregkup, smash and not the 'ready-madestate machinery", confine itself merely to laying hold of it". The words "to smash the ready-madestate machinery"'Leninemphasises, "briefly expressthe principallesson of Marxismregarding the tasks of the proletariat during a revolution in relation to the state"12 (emphasis in original). Having shown that it is the proletarian state that shall wither away and not the bourgeois state, and that the former can be established only through a violent revolution, Lenin takes up the task of demonstratingthe necessity of the continued use of violence for the thorough and systematic abolition of the remnantsof the bourgeoisie has afterthe proletariat come into power.He quotes Marx and Engels to outline the tasks of the proletariat from now on: The proletariat will use its political to supremacy wrest, by degrees,all capital from the bourgeosie,to centraliseall inin struments production the handsof the of as organised the state,i.e, of the proletariat rulingclass.... especiallyKautCastigatingthe 'revisionists', sky, for ignoringthis elementof the Marxian theory, Lenin says: of does Opportunism not extendrecognition point,to the to theclassstruggle thecardinal to fromcapitalism comperiodof transition abolitionof the munism,of the....complete this In bourgeoisie. reality, periodinevitably violent is a period of an unprecedentedly class struggle in unprecedentedlyacute forms...(emphasisin original).'4 Lenin refers, in this connection, to Marx's controversywith the anarchists. Marx had ridiculedthem for suggestingthat after overthrowing the bourgeois state the workers should immediately lay down their arms. Marx did not 'at all' oppose, according to Lenin, the view that the state would disappearwhen classes disappeared.What he did oppose was the propositionthat the workers should renouncethe use of arms, organised violence, that is, the state, which is to serve to 'crushthe resistanceof the bourgeoisie'. Lenin maintains that to achieve the aim of abolishing the state the workers"must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources and methods of state power against the exploiters...' He then quotes Engelsto reinforcehis argument."Arevolution is...an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other by means of rifles, bayonets and canon..', Engels had said. "Andthe victorious party must maintain its rule by means of terror which its arms inspirein the reactionaries". And he had accusedthe ParisCommunefor making "too little use" of such means. By doing this, saysLenin,Engelshad taken"the bull by the horns" (emphasisin original).'5 In otherwords,had the Communemade full and timelyuse-of its coercivepower,it might have succeeded.All 'traces-ofthe state in it' would-then 'have withered away' of themEconomic and Political Weekly

selves, it would not havehad to 'abolish'the institutions of the state-they would have ceased to function as they ceased to have anything to do.'6 That the bourgeoisie understood these processes of revolution much better than most socialists is also shown by Lenin. He .cites Engels' preface to the third edition of Marx's pamphlet The Civil Warin France whereEngelsgives a summaryof the lessons of the ParisCommuneand of the bourgeois revolutions precedingthat. This summary, emphasisesLenin, "mayjustly be called the last wordof Marxismon the questionunder consideration". Engels observesin this summary that in France the workers emerged with arms from everyrevolution.And every was time "...thedisarmingof the workers the first commandmentfor the bourgeois, who were at the helm of the state. Hence, after every revolutionwon by the workers,a new struggle, ending with the defeat of the workers' "This summaryof the experience of bourgeois revolutions is as concise as it remarksLenin. "The essence is expressive". of the matter.... (has the oppressed class well grasped.It arms?)....ishere remarkably is precisely this essence that is most often evaded both by professors influenced by bourgeois ideology, and by petty-bourgeois democrats" (emphasis in original).'7 Lenintakes special pains, at this point, to emphasisethat accordingto Engelsit is 'not only under a monarchy, but also in a democrrtic republic'that 'the state remains a state, i e, it retains its fundamental distinguishing feature of transformingthe officials, the 'servantsof society'.its organs, into the masters of society. He quotes Engels according to whom, ...peoplethinkthey havetakenquite an extraordinarily bold step forwardwhen they have rid themselvesof belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic however, stateis nothing republic. reality, In of buta machine theoppression one class for by another,and indeed in the democratic in And no republic less than, the monarchy. at bestit is an evilinherited theproletariat by after the victorious struggle for class whoseworstsidesthe victorious supremacy, as will proletariat haveto lop off as speedily a possible...until generationrearedin new, free social conditionsis able to discardthe entirelumberof the state.18 Explainingthis what accordingto him may seem "strangeand incomprehensible" argument, Lenin says that since democracy of "recognises subordination the minorithe ty to the majority, i e, an organisation for the systematic use of force by one class against another",thereforeit is still a state (emphasis in original).'9This kind of state, is only underthe dictatorhowever, realisable ship of the proletariat which for the first time brings 'democracyfor the people' (emA phasis in original).20 democraticrepublic, on the other hand, remains hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently alwaysremains,in effect, a democracyfor

the minority... From this 'capitalist democracy' forward development does not proceed 'simply, directly and smoothly', towards 'greater and greater democracy', as the liberal professors and petty-bourgeoisopportunists would have us believe. "Forward development, i e, development towards communism, proceeds through the dictatorship of the proletariat, and cannot do otherwise, for the resistance of the capitalist exploiters cannot be broken by anyone else or in any other way". Quoting Engels, Lenin asserts that the proletariatneeds the state, not in interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries.... . Only in communist society, when the resistanceof the capitalistshas been completely crushed... only then the state.... ceases to exist, and it becomes possible to speak of freedom (emphasis in original).

IV
In chapter 1 of The State and Revolution, Lenintalks of attemptsto convertthe revolutionaries into 'harmless icons', after their death, and of 'robbing'their revolutionary theories of their 'revolutionary edge'.Some such thing can also be said about Leninand his theory as expounded in this book. Attempts to presentthis theory primarilyas a theoryof stateand not as a theoryof revolution "omiit, obscure[and] distortthe revolutionary side of this theory,its revolutionary soul". 22

Notes
1 See, for example, Robert Coniquest, Lenin, Fontana/Collins, Glasgow, 1972, p 85; Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, Vol 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982,p 498; and George Lichtheim,

A Marxism: Historicaland CriticalStudy,

Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1980, p 350. 2 Selected Works, Volume 2, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p 240. 3 Ibid, pp 238-39. 4 Ibid, p 240. 5 'LettersFrom Afar: Third Letter',Collected Works, Volume 23, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, p 330. 6 'Letters on Tactics: First Letter', Collected Works, Volume 24, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, p 45. 7 Ibid., pp 45-6. 8 From Rousseau to Lenin: Studies in Ideology and Society, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1978, p 226. 9 Selected Works, op cit, p 242. 10 Ibid, p 249. 11 Ibid, pp 251-52. 12 Ibid, pp 263-64. 13 Ibid, p 254. 14 Ibid, p 262. 15 Ibib, pp 281-83. 16 Ibid, p 285. 17 Ibid, p 292. 18 Ibid, pp 294-95. 19 Ibid, p 297. 20 Ibid, p 302. 21 Ibid, pp 301-02. 22 Ibid, p 240.

October 28, 1989

2433