Fifteen days ago I started reading "State and Revolution" after discovering it was hella short! Yesterday, I managed to finish it! Today, I'm beginning "What Is to Be Done?" because it is also hella short!
I'll probably go back and read State and Revolution again at some point, just to reinforce its ideas. Here is my takeaways after finishing the book:
Clear definition of the state and its function. This was something I understood but couldn't fully articulate.
"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"
In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy. And at best it is an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the victorious proletariat will have to lop off as speedily as possible, just as the Commune had to, until a generation reared in new, free social conditions is able to discard the entire lumber of the state.
The state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another. This is such a succinct description by Engels.
Lenin makes it clear that the process involved in his vision of revolution to communism is a long process, one that may even take generations to complete. The process being:
- Capitalism.
- proletarian revolution and smashing of the bourgeois state.
- implementation of the proletarian state and its dictatorship over exploitative forces.
- the socialist period, stamped with the birthmark of capitalist society.
- The withering away of the proletarian state, as state functions become simple "control and administration" operated by "foremen and accountants."
- Communism.
It's amusing to see not much has changed in the political landscape. We still have arguments today about using the current state system to "democratically" transform the state from capitalist to socialist. It's the same opportunism expressed back then. Lots of talk about "democratic republics" and just how compatible they are with capitalism. In his critique of the anarchists of his time, he accuses them of seeking "overnight" abolition of the state and not seeing the need to defend against bourgeois counter-revolution. I know very little about historical anarchism, so I'll have to take his word on that one. These kinds of reads also add more to my reading list. I'm now very interested in reading Marx's analysis of the Paris Commune.
Much of the book was stuff I already "understood," but it was nice to read where these ideas are rooted. The best part of the book for me, though, was Chapter 7. It ends abruptly, and the postscript after reads:
This pamphlet was written in August and September 1917. I had already drawn up the plan for the next, the seventh chapter, “The Experience of the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917”. Apart from the title, however, I had no time to write a single line of the chapter; I was “interrupted” by a political crisis — the eve of the October revolution of 1917. Such an “interruption” can only be welcomed; but the writing of the second part of this pamphlet (“The Experience of the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917”) will probably have to be put off for a long time. It is more pleasant and useful to go through the “experience of revolution” than to write about it.
It is more pleasant and useful to go through the “experience of revolution” than to write about it.
My immediate thought was, "You did it. You fucking did it." It reads like a kind of walk-off into the sunset.
I look forward to reading the rest of his works. It was a very enjoyable read, even if I was a little lost in the history.
Yep, S&R is a fantastic read for how succinct it is. One thing I see people sometimes neglecting is the concept of a "stateless" society in the Marxist conception having "foremen and accountants," but recognizing that once all property has been sublimated, there is no class distinction, and the oppressive aspects of societal formations lack that backing.
What is to be Done? is definitely a product of its time with how it names certain groups and issues, but the core is relevant to this day. Just keep that in mind! Also, if you haven't read Imperialism, it's easily my favorite work of Lenin's.
Yeah, it's something that is difficult to conceptualize, but I understand the logic. As everyone participates in the maintenance of society, given enough time, there will be no distinction between "the state" and everything else. There does seem to be one glaring issue in this logic, however, which is that a state doesn't exist in isolation from other states. Maybe this is dealt with in "Imperialism," but the defense of the proletarian state seems to demand the strengthening and hardening of the state, as opposed to the withering away. Capitalist encirclement drove USSR's heavy industry, its foreign policy, its internal policy regarding dissidents, and so on. Stalin naturally had a much clearer idea of this influence, as he ultimately experienced the most of it throughout his life. I'll have to give his theory of "Socialism in One Country" a read at some point. It feels like this influence is glossed over by Marx and Lenin. Maybe I need more reading, but it would seem that the "withering away" can only truly be achieved through global proletarian dictatorship. Maybe that's how Lenin and Marx felt at the time they wrote their texts, that global proletarian revolution was just around the corner.
S&R really makes me want to find some readings on what the Soviet Union's actual political systems were like over the decades. What things were like right after the revolution, and how did those systems evolve? I'd love to read about the political organizations inside of places like Cuba, and China, and learn how those evolved as well. All the Marxist-Leninist countries must have had their own struggles that shaped their internal political structures and processes, and I'd be curious to see how much they're the same and how much they differ.
Yeah, this is what I hear about the book. I wonder if an edit or reorganization of the text would be more beneficial to our time. I felt the same way about all the discussion about various Social Democrats in S&R, it felt like I was missing a lot of context from the time period to really grasp what Lenin was disproving or proving. What I did gather, though, which is easy enough to parse through the text, is that the opportunists, as he called them, were simply coopting Maxian language and ideas for the preservation of capitalism.
I've got imperialism on my list. I think I'm going to save it for last. After I read What Is to Be Done, I'm going to move to Left-Wing Communism and then to Imperialism.
My interpretation, though the issue isn't addressed as directly as we might like, is that all socialist states can merely be socialist until every state on the planet is socialist, because even the elimination of class distinctions is impossible while these states exist in a global system where there are classes in some countries (the socialists having different relations of production to the liberal classes means they themselves are still a country-wide class). Having "communism" in one state, while also begging to be overthrown, is just a farcical country-wide co-op that is as little an escape from class society as a normal co-op is.
Imperialism is way easier to understand than What Is to Be Done, by the way, because it makes more transparent historical references to things like the degree of concentration of ownership of such and such infrastructure by such and such companies in Germany at such and such year.
This is like 50% an invention of Trots to misrepresent Stalin's policy. Stalin actively pursued making the world socialist (see his support of socialists in China and especially Korea), he just acknowledged that having a stable base of operations that didn't go right from the Civil War to invading Europe was the only viable approach.
As for the question of the state, you're actually spot-on. The state (in the Marxist conception) can only wither globally. Without that, property globally cannot be sublimated. You can't achieve communism in one country, but you can certainly move the process forwards without needing everyone else to do the same. That's why AES states aren't withering, they can't, nor are they trying to. To begin with, withering isn't a choice, it's an economic compulsion. Once all capitalist states have fallen and global socialism exists, gradually all of the socialist states will shed their national differences, borders will lose significance, into one, unified, collectivized system. At least, that's the Marxist conception.
As for what the USSR actually looked like in practice, comrade @[email protected] hosts some excellent books on Comrade's Library. I also like ProleWiki. You can go to this page on socialist states and look at summarizations of different aspects of the economy and political structures, though you won't get depth that way, just a better understanding.
Funny that you mention a re-edit of What is to be Done? would be wanted. The Red Sails crew hosts What is to be Done? (Abridged), which modernizes the lingo and trims it a bit. Might be a good alternative for you! It's based on Lenin Rediscovered, I believe.
Left-Wing Communism is a great text. Imperialism makes most sense if you already have a good conception of Marxist economics, but ultimately it stands on its own. Good luck!
I would say yes and yes. It was the assumption of communists in russia that the german revolution would soon follow after the russian one, which would kickstart revolutions in europe.
one thing i want to point out is that a lot of trotskyists use the logic of "the state can only wither away after a global revolution" to argue that revolutions on the national level are useless (and that no AES state is actually revolutionary / communist). which is why they always organise into international parties
Great point on Trots, it's an example of how misusing theory to justify opposition to AES is a pervasive issue. Even if communism must be global, national revolutions are not only immediately beneficial for those living there, but help other nations have their own revolutions and help pave the way for eventual communism. You can't have a global revolution without national revolutions.
Something about quantitative changes (local socialist revolutions) and qualitative changes (
GOBBUNISM) or something.... 
DIALECTICS
Bingo! Anti-AES Trots frequently oppose the quantitative, hoping for a qualitative victory coming out of nowhere.