TheStateandRevolution

TheMarxistTheoryoftheState&theTasksoftheProletariatintheRevolution

V.I.Lenin

Written:AugustSeptember,1917 Source:CollectedWorks,Volume25,p.381492 FirstPublished:1918 Transcription\Markup:ZodiacandBrianBaggins OnlineVersion:LeninInternetArchive(marxists.org)1993,1999 ConvertedtoeBookformatby:anonymous

NotefromtheLeninInternetArchive
LeninwroteTheStateandRevolutioninAugustandSeptember1917,whenhewasinhidingfrom persecutionoftheProvisionalGovernment.Theneedforsuchatheoreticalworkasthiswasmentionedby Lenininthesecondhalfof1916.Itwasthenthathewrotehisnoteon"TheYouthInternational",inwhich hecriticisedBukharin'spositiononthequestionofthestateandpromisedtowriteadetailedarticleonwhat hethoughttobetheMarxistattitudetothestate.InalettertoA.M.KollontaionFebruary17(N.S.),1917, hesaidthathehadalmostgotreadymaterialonthatquestion.Thismaterialwaswritteninasmallblue coverednotebookheaded"MarxismontheState".InitLeninhadcollectedquotationsfromtheworksof MarxandEngels,andextractsfromthebooksbyKautsky,PannekoekandBernsteinwithhisowncritical notes,conclusionsandgeneralisations. WhenLeninleftSwitzerlandforRussiainApril1917,hefearedarrestbytheProvisionalGovernmentand leftthemanuscriptof"MarxismontheState"behindasitwouldhavebeendestroyedhadhebeen caught.WheninhidingaftertheJulyevents,Leninwroteinanote: "Entrenous,ifIamknockedoff,Iaskyoutopublishmynotebook'MarxismontheState'(it gotheldupinStockholm).Itisboundinabluecover.AllthequotationsfromMarxand Engelsarecollectedthere,alsothosefromKautskyagainstPannekoek.Thereareanumberof remarks,notesandformulas.Ithinkaweek'sworkwouldbeenoughtopublishit.Iconsiderit importantbecausenotonlyPlekhanov,butKautsky,too,isconfused...."WhenLeninreceived hisnotebookfromStockholm,heusedthematerialhehadcollectedasabasisforhisbookThe StateandRevolution. AccordingtoLenin'splan,TheStateandRevolutionwastohaveconsistedofsevenchapters,buthedid notwritetheseventh,"TheExperienceoftheRussianRevolutionsof1905and1917",andonlyadetailed planhasremained.InanotetothepublisherLeninwrotethatifhe"wastooslowincompetingthis,the seventhchapter,orshoulditturnouttobetoobulky,thefirstsixchaptersshouldbepublishedseparatelyas BookOne." Originally,thenameF.F.Ivanovskyisshownonthefirstpageofthenotebookmanuscriptasthatofthe author.Leninintendedtopublishthebookunderthatpseudonym,otherwisetheProvisionalGovernment wouldhaveconfiscateditforhisnamealone.Thebook,however,wasnotprinteduntil1918,whenthere wasnolongeranyneedforthepseudonym.Thesecondeditionappearedin1919inthisrevisionLenin addedtoChapterIIanewsection"ThePresentationoftheQuestionbyMarxin1852".

PrefacetotheFirstEdition
Thequestionofthestateisnowacquiringparticularimportancebothintheoryandinpracticalpolitics.The imperialistwarhasimmenselyacceleratedandintensifiedtheprocessoftransformationofmonopoly capitalismintostatemonopolycapitalism.Themonstrousoppressionoftheworkingpeoplebythestate, whichismergingmoreandmorewiththeallpowerfulcapitalistassociations,isbecomingincreasingly monstrous.Theadvancedcountrieswemeantheirhinterlandarebecomingmilitaryconvictprisonsfor theworkers. Theunprecedentedhorrorsandmiseriesoftheprotractedwararemakingthepeople'spositionunbearable andincreasingtheiranger.Theworldproletarianrevolutionisclearlymaturing.Thequestionofitsrelation tothestateisacquiringpracticalimportance. Theelementsofopportunismthataccumulatedoverthedecadesofcomparativelypeacefuldevelopment havegivenrisetothetrendofsocialchauvinismwhichdominatedtheofficialsocialistpartiesthroughout theworld.Thistrendsocialisminwordsandchauvinismindeeds(Plekhanov,Potresov,Breshkovskaya, Rubanovich,and,inaslightlyveiledform,Tsereteli,ChernovandCo.inRussiaScheidemann.Legien, DavidandothersinGermanyRenaudel,GuesdeandVanderveldeinFranceandBelgiumHyndmanand theFabians1inEngland,etc.,etc.)isconspicuousforthebase,servileadaptationofthe"leadersof socialism"totheinterestsnotonlyof"their"nationalbourgeoisie,butof"their"state,forthemajorityofthe socalledGreatPowershavelongbeenexploitingandenslavingawholenumberofsmallandweak nations.Andtheimperialistwarisawarforthedivisionandredivisionofthiskindofbooty.Thestruggle tofreetheworkingpeoplefromtheinfluenceofthebourgeoisieingeneral,andoftheimperialist bourgeoisieinparticular,isimpossiblewithoutastruggleagainstopportunistprejudicesconcerningthe "state". FirstofallweexaminethetheoryofMarxandEngelsofthestate,anddwellinparticulardetailonthose aspectsofthistheorywhichareignoredorhavebeendistortedbytheopportunists.Thenwedealspecially withtheonewhoischieflyresponsibleforthesedistortions,KarlKautsky,thebestknownleaderofthe SecondInternational(18891914),whichhasmetwithsuchmiserablebankruptcyinthepresentwar. Lastly,wesumupthemainresultsoftheexperienceoftheRussianrevolutionsof1905andparticularlyof 1917.Apparently,thelatterisnow(earlyAugust1917)completingthefirststageofitsdevelopmentbut thisrevolutionasawholecanonlybeunderstoodasalinkinachainofsocialistproletarianrevolutions beingcausedbytheimperialistwar.Thequestionoftherelationofthesocialistproletarianrevolutiontothe state,therefore,isacquiringnotonlypracticalpoliticalimportance,butalsothesignificanceofamost urgentproblemoftheday,theproblemofexplainingtothemasseswhattheywillhavetodobeforelongto freethemselvesfromcapitalisttyranny. TheAuthor August1917

PrefacetotheSecondEdition
Thepresent,secondeditionispublishedvirtuallyunaltered,exceptthatsection3hadbeenaddedto ChapterII. TheAuthor Moscow,December17,1918

ChapterI:ClassSocietyandtheState
1.TheState:AProductoftheIrreconcilabilityofClassAntagonisms
WhatisnowhappeningtoMarx'stheoryhas,inthecourseofhistory,happenedrepeatedlytothetheories ofrevolutionarythinkersandleadersofoppressedclassesfightingforemancipation.Duringthelifetimeof greatrevolutionaries,theoppressingclassesconstantlyhoundedthem,receivedtheirtheorieswiththemost savagemalice,themostfurioushatredandthemostunscrupulouscampaignsofliesandslander.Aftertheir death,attemptsaremadetoconvertthemintoharmlessicons,tocanonizethem,sotosay,andtohallow theirnamestoacertainextentfortheconsolationoftheoppressedclassesandwiththeobjectofduping thelatter,whileatthesametimerobbingtherevolutionarytheoryofitssubstance,bluntingitsrevolutionary edgeandvulgarizingit.Today,thebourgeoisieandtheopportunistswithinthelabormovementconcurin thisdoctoringofMarxism.Theyomit,obscure,ordistorttherevolutionarysideofthistheory,its revolutionarysoul.Theypushtotheforegroundandextolwhatisorseemsacceptabletothebourgeoisie. AllthesocialchauvinistsarenowMarxists(don'tlaugh!).AndmoreandmorefrequentlyGerman bourgeoisscholars,onlyyesterdayspecialistsintheannihilationofMarxism,arespeakingofthenational GermanMarx,who,theyclaim,educatedthelaborunionswhicharesosplendidlyorganizedforthe purposeofwagingapredatorywar! Inthesecircumstances,inviewoftheunprecedentlywidespreaddistortionofMarxism,ourprimetaskis toreestablishwhatMarxreallytaughtonthesubjectofthestate.Thiswillnecessitateanumberoflong quotationsfromtheworksofMarxandEngelsthemselves.Ofcourse,longquotationswillrenderthetext cumbersomeandnothelpatalltomakeitpopularreading,butwecannotpossiblydispensewiththem.All, oratanyrateallthemostessentialpassagesintheworksofMarxandEngelsonthesubjectofthestate mustbyallmeansbequotedasfullyaspossiblesothatthereadermayformanindependentopinionofthe totalityoftheviewsofthefoundersofscientificsocialism,andoftheevolutionofthoseviews,andsothat theirdistortionbytheKautskyismnowprevailingmaybedocumentarilyprovedandclearly demonstrated. LetusbeingwiththemostpopularofEngels'works,TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandthe State,thesixtheditionofwhichwaspublishedinStuttgartasfarbackas1894.Wehavetotranslatethe quotationsfromtheGermanoriginals,astheRussiantranslations,whileverynumerous,areforthemost parteitherincompleteorveryunsatisfactory. Summinguphishistoricalanalysis,Engelssays: Thestateis,therefore,bynomeansapowerforcedonsocietyfromwithoutjustaslittleisit 'therealityoftheethicalidea','theimageandrealityofreason',asHegelmaintains.Rather,itis aproductofsocietyatacertainstageofdevelopmentitistheadmissionthatthissocietyhas becomeentangledinaninsolublecontradictionwithitself,thatithassplitintoirreconcilable antagonismswhichitispowerlesstodispel.Butinorderthattheseantagonisms,theseclasses withconflictingeconomicinterests,mightnotconsumethemselvesandsocietyinfruitless struggle,itbecamenecessarytohaveapower,seeminglystandingabovesociety,thatwould alleviatetheconflictandkeepitwithintheboundsof'order'andthispower,arisenoutof societybutplacingitselfaboveit,andalienatingitselfmoreandmorefromit,isthestate."

(Pp.17778,sixthedition)2 ThisexpresseswithperfectclaritythebasicideaofMarxismwithregardtothehistoricalroleandthe meaningofthestate.Thestateisaproductandamanifestationoftheirreconcilabilityofclassantagonisms. Thestateariseswhere,whenandinsofarasclassantagonismobjectivelycannotbereconciled.And, conversely,theexistenceofthestateprovesthattheclassantagonismsareirreconcilable. ItisonthismostimportantandfundamentalpointthatthedistortionofMarxism,proceedingalongtwo mainlines,begins. Ontheonehand,thebourgeois,andparticularlythepettybourgeois,ideologists,compelledunderthe weightofindisputablehistoricalfactstoadmitthatthestateonlyexistswherethereareclassantagonisms andaclassstruggle,correctMarxinsuchawayastomakeitappearthatthestateisanorganforthe reconciliationofclasses.AccordingtoMarx,thestatecouldneitherhavearisennormaintaineditselfhadit beenpossibletoreconcileclasses.Fromwhatthepettybourgeoisandphilistineprofessorsandpublicists say,withquitefrequentandbenevolentreferencestoMarx,itappearsthatthestatedoesreconcileclasses. AccordingtoMarx,thestateisanorganofclassrule,anorganfortheoppressionofoneclassbyanotherit isthecreationoforder,whichlegalizesandperpetuatesthisoppressionbymoderatingtheconflict betweenclasses.Intheopinionofthepettybourgeoispoliticians,however,ordermeansthereconciliation ofclasses,andnottheoppressionofoneclassbyanothertoalleviatetheconflictmeansreconcilingclasses andnotdeprivingtheoppressedclassesofdefinitemeansandmethodsofstruggletooverthrowthe oppressors. Forinstance,when,intherevolutionof1917,thequestionofthesignificanceandroleofthestatearosein allitsmagnitudeasapracticalquestiondemandingimmediateaction,and,moreover,actiononamass scale,alltheSocialRevolutionariesandMensheviksdescendedatoncetothepettybourgeoistheorythat thestatereconcilesclasses.Innumerableresolutionsandarticlesbypoliticiansofboththesepartiesare thoroughlysaturatedwiththispettybourgeoisandphilistinereconciliationtheory.Thatthestateisan organoftheruleofadefiniteclasswhichcannotbereconciledwithitsantipode(theclassoppositetoit)is somethingthepettybourgeoisdemocratswillneverbeabletounderstand.Theirattitudetothestateisone ofthemoststrikingmanifestationsofthefactthatourSocialistRevolutionariesandMensheviksarenot socialistsatall(apointthatweBolshevikshavealwaysmaintained),butpettybourgeoisdemocratsusing nearsocialistphraseology. Ontheotherhand,theKautskyitedistortionofMarxismisfarmoresubtle.Theoretically,itisnot deniedthatthestateisanorganofclassrule,orthatclassantagonismsareirreconcilable.Butwhatis overlookedorglossedoveristhis:ifthestateistheproductoftheirreconcilabilityofclassantagonisms,ifit isapowerstandingabovesocietyandalienatingitselfmoreandmorefromit",itisclearthattheliberation oftheoppressedclassisimpossiblenotonlywithoutaviolentrevolution,butalsowithoutthedestruction oftheapparatusofstatepowerwhichwascreatedbytherulingclassandwhichistheembodimentofthis alienation.Asweshallseelater,Marxveryexplicitlydrewthistheoreticallyselfevidentconclusionon thestrengthofaconcretehistoricalanalysisofthetasksoftherevolution.Andasweshallshowindetail furtheronitisthisconclusionwhichKautskyhasforgottenanddistorted.

2.SpecialBodiesofArmedMen,Prisons,etc.

Engelscontinues: Asdistinctfromtheoldgentile[tribalorclan]order,[2]thestate,first,dividesitssubjects accordingtoterritory...." Thisdivisionseemsnaturaltous,butitcostsaprolongedstruggleagainsttheoldorganizationaccording togenerationsortribes. Theseconddistinguishingfeatureistheestablishmentofapublicpowerwhichnolonger directlycoincideswiththepopulationorganizingitselfasanarmedforce.Thisspecial,public powerisnecessarybecauseaselfactingarmedorganizationofthepopulationhasbecome impossiblesincethesplitintoclasses....Thispublicpowerexistsineverystateitconsistsnot merelyofarmedmenbutalsoofmaterialadjuncts,prisons,andinstitutionsofcoercionofall kinds,ofwhichgentile[clan]societyknewnothing...." Engelselucidatestheconceptofthepowerwhichiscalledthestate,apowerwhicharosefromsociety butplacesitselfaboveitandalienatesitselfmoreandmorefromit.Whatdoesthispowermainlyconsist of?Itconsistsofspecialbodiesofarmedmenhavingprisons,etc.,attheircommand. Wearejustifiedinspeakingofspecialbodiesofarmedmen,becausethepublicpowerwhichisanattribute ofeverystatedoesnotdirectlycoincidewiththearmedpopulation,withitsselfactingarmed organization". Likeallgreatrevolutionarythinkers,Engelstriestodrawtheattentionoftheclassconsciousworkersto whatprevailingphilistinismregardsasleastworthyofattention,asthemosthabitualthing,hallowedby prejudicesthatarenotonlydeeprootedbut,onemightsay,petrified.Astandingarmyandpolicearethe chiefinstrumentsofstatepower.Buthowcanitbeotherwise? FromtheviewpointofthevastmajorityofEuropeansoftheendofthe19thcentury,whomEngelswas addressing,andwhohadnotgonethroughorcloselyobservedasinglegreatrevolution,itcouldnothave beenotherwise.Theycouldnotunderstandatallwhataselfactingarmedorganizationofthepopulation was.Whenaskedwhyitbecamenecessarytohavespecialbodiesofarmedmenplacedabovesocietyand alienatingthemselvesfromit(policeandastandingarmy),theWestEuropeanandRussianphilistinesare inclinedtoutterafewphrasesborrowedfromSpencerofMikhailovsky,torefertothegrowingcomplexity ofsociallife,thedifferentiationoffunctions,andsoon. Suchareferenceseemsscientific,andeffectivelylullstheordinarypersontosleepbyobscuringthe importantandbasicfact,namely,thesplitofsocietyintoirreconcilableantagonisticclasses. Wereitnotforthissplit,theselfactingarmedorganizationofthepopulationwoulddifferfromthe primitiveorganizationofastickwieldingherdofmonkeys,orofprimitivemen,orofmenunitedinclans, byitscomplexity,itshightechnicallevel,andsoon.Butsuchanorganizationwouldstillbepossible. Itisimpossiblebecausecivilizedsocietyissplitintoantagonistic,and,moreover,irreconcilablyantagonistic classes,whoseselfactingarmingwouldleadtoanarmedstrugglebetweenthem.Astatearises,aspecial poweriscreated,specialbodiesofarmedmen,andeveryrevolution,bydestroyingthestateapparatus, showsusthenakedclassstruggle,clearlyshowsushowtherulingclassstrivestorestorethespecialbodies

ofarmedmenwhichserveit,andhowtheoppressedclassstrivestocreateaneworganizationofthiskind, capableofservingtheexploitedinsteadoftheexploiters. Intheaboveargument,Engelsraisestheoreticallytheverysamequestionwhicheverygreatrevolution raisesbeforeusinpractice,palpablyand,whatismore,onascaleofmassaction,namely,thequestionof therelationshipbetweenspecialbodiesofarmedmenandtheselfactingarmedorganizationofthe population".WeshallseehowthisquestionisspecificallyillustratedbytheexperienceoftheEuropeanand Russianrevolutions. ButtoreturntoEngel'sexposition. HepointsoutthatsometimesincertainpartsofNorthAmerica,forexamplethispublicpoweris weak(hehasinmindarareexceptionincapitalistsociety,andthosepartsofNorthAmericainitspre imperialistdayswherethefreecolonistspredominated),butthat,generallyspeaking,itgrowsstronger: It[thepublicpower]growsstronger,however,inproportionasclassantagonismswithinthe statebecomemoreacute,andasadjacentstatesbecomelargerandmorepopulous.Wehave onlytolookatourpresentdayEurope,whereclassstruggleandrivalryinconquesthave tunedupthepublicpowertosuchapitchthatitthreatenstoswallowthewholeofsocietyand eventhestate." Thiswaswrittennotlaterthantheearlyninetiesofthelastcentury,Engel'slastprefacebeingdatedJune 16,1891.Theturntowardsimperialismmeaningthecompletedominationofthetrusts,theomnipotence ofthebigbanks,agrandscalecolonialpolicy,andsoforthwasonlyjustbeginninginFrance,andwas evenweakerinNorthAmericaandinGermany.Sincethenrivalryinconquesthastakenagigantic stride,allthemorebecausebythebeginningoftheseconddecadeofthe20thcenturytheworldhadbeen completelydividedupamongtheserivalsinconquest",i.e.,amongthepredatoryGreatPowers.Since then,militaryandnavalarmamentshavegrownfantasticallyandthepredatorywarof191417forthe dominationoftheworldbyBritainorGermany,forthedivisionofthespoils,hasbroughtthe swallowingofalltheforcesofsocietybytherapaciousstatepowerclosetocompletecatastrophe. Engels'could,asearlyas1891,pointtorivalryinconquest"asoneofthemostimportantdistinguishing featuresoftheforeignpolicyoftheGreatPowers,whilethesocialchauvinistscoundrelshaveeversince 1914,whenthisrivalry,manytimeintensified,gaverisetoanimperialistwar,beencoveringupthe defenceofthepredatoryinterestsoftheirown"bourgeoisiewithphrasesaboutdefenceofthe fatherland",defenceoftherepublicandtherevolution",etc.!

3.TheState:anInstrumentfortheExploitationoftheOppressedClass
Themaintenanceofthespecialpublicpowerstandingabovesocietyrequirestaxesandstateloans. Havingpubicpowerandtherighttolevytaxes,Engelswrites,theofficialsnowstand,as organsofsociety,abovesociety.Thefree,voluntaryrespectthatwasaccordedtotheorgansof thegentile[clan]constitutiondoesnotsatisfythem,eveniftheycouldgainit....Speciallaws areenactedproclaimingthesanctityandimmunityoftheofficials.Theshabbiestpolice servanthasmoreauthoritythantherepresentativeoftheclan,buteventheheadofthe

militarypowerofacivilizedstatemaywellenvytheelderofaclantheunrestrainedrespect ofsociety. Thequestionoftheprivilegedpositionoftheofficialsasorgansofstatepowerisraisedhere.Themain pointindicatedis:whatisitthatplacesthemabovesociety?Weshallseehowthistheoreticalquestionwas answeredinpracticebytheParisCommunein1871andhowitwasobscuredfromareactionary standpointbykautskyin1912. Becausethestatearosefromtheneedtoholdclassantagonismsincheck,butbecauseit arose,atthesametime,inthemidstoftheconflictoftheseclasses,itis,asarule,thestateof themostpowerful,economicallydominantclass,which,throughthemediumofthestate, becomesalsothepoliticallydominantclass,andthusacquiresnewmeansofholdingdown andexploitingtheoppressedclass....Theancientandfeudalstateswereorgansforthe exploitationoftheslavesandserfslikewise,themodernrepresentativestateisaninstrument ofexploitationofwagelaborbycapital.Bywayofexception,however,periodsoccurin whichthewarringclassesbalanceeachothersonearlythatthestatepowerasostensible mediatoracquires,forthemoment,acertaindegreeofindependenceofboth....Suchwerethe absolutemonarchiesofthe17thand18thcenturies,theBonapartismoftheFirstandSecond EmpiresinFrance,andtheBismarckregimeinGermany. Such,wemayadd,istheKerenskygovernmentinrepublicanRussiasinceitbegantopersecutethe revolutionaryproletariat,atamomentwhen,owingtotheleadershipofthepettybourgeoisdemocrats,the Sovietshavealreadybecomeimpotent,whilethebourgeoisiearenotyetstrongenoughsimplytodisperse them. Inademocraticrepublic,Engelscontinues,wealthexercisesitspowerindirectly,butallthemoresurely", first,bymeansofthedirectcorruptionofofficials(America)secondly,bymeansofanallianceofthe governmentandtheStockExchange"(FranceandAmerica). Atpresent,imperialismandthedominationofthebankshavedevelopedintoanexceptionalartboth thesemethodsofupholdingandgivingeffecttotheomnipotenceofwealthindemocraticrepublicsofall descriptions.Since,forinstance,intheveryfirstmonthsoftheRussiandemocraticrepublic,onemightsay duringthehoneymoonofthesocialistS.R.sandMensheviksjoinedinwedlocktothebourgeoisie,inthe coalitiongovernment.Mr.Palchinskyobstructedeverymeasureintendedforcurbingthecapitalistsand theirmaraudingpractices,theirplunderingofthestatebymeansofwarcontractsandsincelateronMr. Palchinsky,uponresigningfromtheCabinet(andbeing,ofcourse,replacedbyanotherquitesimilar Palchinsky),wasrewardedbythecapitalistswithalucrativejobwithasalaryof120,000rublesper annumwhatwouldyoucallthat?Directorindirectbribery?Anallianceofthegovernmentandthe syndicates,ormerelyfriendlyrelations?WhatroledotheChernovs,Tseretelis,Avksentyevsand Skobelevsplay?Aretheythedirectoronlytheindirectalliesofthemillionairetreasurylooters? Anotherreasonwhytheomnipotenceofwealthismorecertaininademocraticrepublicisthatitdoesnot dependondefectsinthepoliticalmachineryoronthefaultypoliticalshellofcapitalism.Ademocratic republicisthebestpossiblepoliticalshellforcapitalism,and,therefore,oncecapitalhasgainedpossession ofthisverybestshell(throughthePalchinskys,Chernovs,TseretelisandCo.),itestablishesitspowerso securely,sofirmly,thatnochangeofpersons,institutionsorpartiesinthebourgeoisdemocraticrepublic

canshakeit. WemustalsonotethatEngelsismostexplicitincallinguniversalsuffrageaswellaninstrumentof bourgeoisrule.Universalsuffrage,hesays,obviouslytakingaccountofthelongexperienceofGerman SocialDemocracy,is thegaugeofthematurityoftheworkingclass.Itcannotandneverwillbeanythingmorein thepresentdaystate." Thepettybourgeoisdemocrats,suchasourSocialistRevolutionariesandMensheviks,andalsotheirtwin brothers,allthesocialchauvinistsandopportunistsofWesternEurope,expectjustthismorefrom universalsuffrage.Theythemselvesshare,andinstilintothemindsofthepeople,thefalsenotionthat universalsuffrageinthepresentdaystate"isreallycapableofrevealingthewillofthemajorityofthe workingpeopleandofsecuringitsrealization. Here,wecanonlyindicatethisfalsenotion,onlypointoutthatEngels'perfectlyclearstatementisdistorted ateverystepinthepropagandaandagitationoftheofficial(i.e.,opportunist)socialistparties.Adetailed exposureoftheutterfalsityofthisnotionwhichengelsbrushesasidehereisgiveninourfurtheraccountof theviewsofMarxandEngelsonthepresentdaystate. Engelsgivesageneralsummaryofhisviewsinthemostpopularofhisworksinthefollowingwords: Thestate,then,hasnotexistedfromalleternity.Therehavebeensocietiesthatdidwithoutit, thathadnoideaofthestateandstatepower.Atacertainstageofeconomicdevelopment, whichwasnecessarilyboundupwiththesplitofsocietyintoclasses,thestatebecamea necessityowingtothissplit.Wearenowrapidlyapproachingastageinthedevelopmentof productionatwhichtheexistenceoftheseclassesnotonlywillhaveceasedtobeanecessity, butwillbecomeapositivehindrancetoproduction.Theywillfallastheyaroseatanearlier stage.Alongwiththemthestatewillinevitablyfall.Society,whichwillreorganizeproduction onthebasisofafreeandequalassociationoftheproducers,willputthewholemachineryof statewhereitwillthenbelong:intoamuseumofantiquities,bythesideofthespinningwheel andthebronzeaxe." Wedonotoftencomeacrossthispassageinthepropagandaandagitationliteratureofthepresentday SocialDemocrats.Evenwhenwedocomeacrossit,itismostlyquotedinthesamemannerasonebows beforeanicon,i.e.,itisdonetoshowofficialrespectforEngels,andnoattemptismadetogaugethe breadthanddepthoftherevolutionthatthisrelegatingofthewholemachineryofstatetoamuseumof antiquitiesimplies.InmostcaseswedonotevenfindanunderstandingofwhatEngelscallsthestate machine.

4.TheWitheringAwayoftheState,andViolentRevolution
Engel'swordsregardingthewitheringawayofthestatearesowidelyknown,theyareoftenquoted,and soclearlyrevealtheessenceofthecustomaryadaptationofMarxismtoopportunismthatwemustdealwith themindetail.Weshallquotethewholeargumentfromwhichtheyaretaken.

Theproletariatseizesfromstatepowerandturnsthemeansofproductionintostateproperty tobeginwith.Buttherebyitabolishesitselfastheproletariat,abolishesallclassdistinctions andclassantagonisms,andabolishesalsothestateasstate.Societythusfar,operatingamid classantagonisms,neededthestate,thatis,anorganizationoftheparticularexploitingclass, forthemaintenanceofitsexternalconditionsofproduction,and,therefore,especially,forthe purposeofforciblykeepingtheexploitedclassintheconditionsofoppressiondeterminedby thegivenmodeofproduction(slavery,serfdomorbondage,wagelabor).Thestatewasthe officialrepresentativeofsocietyasawhole,itsconcentrationinavisiblecorporation.Butit wasthisonlyinsofarasitwasthestateofthatclasswhichitselfrepresented,foritsowntime, societyasawhole:inancienttimes,thestateofslaveowningcitizensintheMiddleAges,of thefeudalnobilityinourowntime,ofthebourgeoisie.Whenatlastitbecomesthereal representativeofthewholeofsociety,itrendersitselfunnecessary.Assoonasthereisno longeranysocialclasstobeheldinsubjection,assoonasclassrule,andtheindividual struggleforexistencebaseduponthepresentanarchyinproduction,withthecollisionsand excessesarisingfromthisstruggle,areremoved,nothingmoreremainstobeheldinsubjection nothingnecessitatingaspecialcoerciveforce,astate.Thefirstactbywhichthestatereally comesforwardastherepresentativeofthewholeofsocietythetakingpossessionofthe meansofproductioninthenameofsocietyisalsoitslastindependentactasastate.State interferenceinsocialrelationsbecomes,inonedomainafteranother,superfluous,andthen diesdownofitself.Thegovernmentofpersonsisreplacedbytheadministrationofthings,and bytheconductofprocessesofproduction.Thestateisnot'abolished'.Itwithersaway.This givesthemeasureofthevalueofthephrase'afreepeople'sstate',bothastoitsjustifiableuse foralongtimefromanagitationalpointofview,andastoitsultimatescientificinsufficiency andalsoofthesocalledanarchists'demandthatthestatebeabolishedovernight."(Herr EugenDuhring'sRevolutioninScience[AntiDuhring],pp.30103,thirdGermanedition.)3 ItissafetosaythatofthisargumentofEngels',whichissoremarkablyrichinideas,onlyonepointhas becomeanintegralpartofsocialistthoughtamongmodernsocialistparties,namely,thataccordingtoMarx thatstatewithersawayasdistinctfromtheanarchistdoctrineoftheabolitionofthestate.Toprune Marxismtosuchanextentmeansreducingittoopportunism,forthisinterpretationonlyleavesavague notionofaslow,even,gradualchange,ofabsenceofleapsandstorms,ofabsenceofrevolution.The current,widespread,popular,ifonemaysayso,conceptionofthewitheringaway"ofthestate undoubtedlymeansobscuring,ifnotrepudiating,revolution. Suchaninterpretation,however,isthecrudestdistortionofMarxism,advantageousonlytothe bourgeoisie.Inpointoftheory,itisbasedondisregardforthemostimportantcircumstancesand considerationsindicatedin,say,Engels'summaryargumentwehavejustquotedinfull. Inthefirstplace,attheveryoutsetofhisargument,Engelssaysthat,inseizingstatepower,theproletariat therebyabolishesthestateasstate".Itisnotdonetoponderoveroverthemeaningofthis.Generally,itis eitherignoredaltogether,orisconsideredtobesomethinginthenatureofHegelianweaknessonEngels' part.Asamatteroffact,however,thesewordsbrieflyexpresstheexperienceofoneofthegreatest proletarianrevolutions,theParisCommuneof1871,ofwhichweshallspeakingreaterdetailinitsproper place.Asamatteroffact,Engelsspeakshereoftheproletariatrevolutionabolishingthebourgeoisstate, whilethewordsaboutthestatewitheringawayrefertotheremnantsoftheproletarianstateafterthe

socialistrevolution.AccordingtoEngels,thebourgeoisstatedoesnotwitheraway",butisabolishedby theproletariatinthecourseoftherevolution.Whatwithersawayafterthisrevolutionistheproletarianstate orsemistate. Secondly,thestateisaspecialcoerciveforce".Engelsgivesthissplendidandextremelyprofound definitionherewiththeutmostlucidity.Andfromitfollowsthatthespecialcoerciveforceforthe suppressionoftheproletariatbythebourgeoisie,ofmillionsofworkingpeoplebyhandfulsoftherich, mustbereplacedbyaspecialcoerciveforceforthesuppressionofthebourgeoisiebytheproletariat(the dictatorshipoftheproletariat).Thisispreciselywhatismeantbyabolitionofthestateasstate".Thisis preciselytheactoftakingpossessionofthemeansofproductioninthenameofsociety.Anditisself evidentthatsuchareplacementofone(bourgeois)specialforcebyanother(proletarian)specialforce cannotpossiblytakeplaceintheformofwitheringaway". Thirdly,inspeakingofthestatewitheringaway",andtheevenmoregraphicandcolorfuldyingdownof itself",Engelsrefersquiteclearlyanddefinitelytotheperiodafterthestatehastakenpossessionofthe meansofproductioninthenameofthewholeofsociety",thatis,afterthesocialistrevolution.Weallknow thatthepoliticalformofthestateatthattimeisthemostcompletedemocracy.Butitneverentersthe headofanyoftheopportunists,whoshamelesslydistortMarxism,thatEngelsisconsequentlyspeaking hereofdemocracydyingdownofitself",orwitheringaway".Thisseemsverystrangeatfirstsight.But isisincomprehensibleonlytothosewhohavenotthoughtaboutdemocracyalsobeingastateand, consequently,alsodisappearingwhenthestatedisappears.Revolutionalonecanabolishthebourgeois state.Thestateingeneral,i.e.,themostcompletedemocracy,canonlywitheraway". Fourthly,afterformulatinghisfamouspropositionthatthestatewithersaway",Engelsatonceexplains specificallythatthispropositionisdirectedagainstboththeopportunistsandtheanarchists.Indoingthis, Engelsputsintheforefrontthatconclusion,drawnfromthepropositionthatthestatewithersaway", whichisdirectedagainsttheopportunists. Onecanwagerthatoutofevery10,000personswhohavereadorheardaboutthewitheringawayofthe state,9,990arecompletelyunaware,ordonotremember,thatEngelsdirectedhisconclusionsfromthat propositionnotagainstanarchistsalone.Andoftheremaining10,probablyninedonotknowthemeaning ofafreepeople'sstateorwhyanattackonthissloganmeansanattackonopportunists.Thisishow historyiswritten!Thisishowagreatrevolutionaryteachingisimperceptiblyfalsifiedandadaptedto prevailingphilistinism.Theconclusiondirectedagainsttheanarchistshasbeenrepeatedthousandsoftimes ithasbeenvulgarized,andrammedintopeople'sheadsintheshallowestform,andhasacquiredthe strengthofaprejudice,whereastheconclusiondirectedagainsttheopportunistshasbeenobscuredand forgotten! Thefreepeople'sstatewasaprogrammedemandandacatchwordcurrentamongtheGermanSocial Democratsintheseventies.thiscatchwordisdevoidofallpoliticalcontentexceptthatitdescribesthe conceptofdemocracyinapompousphilistinefashion.Insofarasithintedinalegallypermissiblemannerat ademocraticrepublic,Engelswaspreparedtojustifyitsuseforatimefromanagitationalpointof view.Butitwasanopportunistcatchword,foritamountedtosomethingmorethanprettifyingbourgeois democracy,andwasalsofailuretounderstandthesocialistcriticismofthestateingeneral.Weareinfavor ofademocraticrepublicasthebestformofstatefortheproletariatundercapitalism.Butwehavenoright toforgetthatwageslaveryisthelotofthepeopleeveninthemostdemocraticbourgeoisrepublic.

Furthermore,everystateisaspecialforceforthesuppressionoftheoppressedclass.Consequently,every stateisnotfreeandnotapeople'sstate".MarxandEngelsexplainedthisrepeatedlytotheirparty comradesintheseventies. Fifthly,thesameworkofEngels',whoseargumentsaboutthewitheringawayofthestateeveryone remembers,alsocontainsanargumentofthesignificanceofviolentrevolution.Engels'historicalanalysisof itsrolebecomesaveritablepanegyriconviolentrevolution.This,nooneremembers".Itisnotdonein modernsocialistpartiestotalkoreventhinkaboutthesignificanceofthisidea,anditplaysnopart whateverintheirdailypropagandaandagitationamongthepeople.Andyetitisinseparablyboundupwith the'witheringaway"ofthestateintooneharmoniouswhole. HereisEngels'argument: ...Thatforce,however,playsyetanotherrole[otherthanthatofadiabolicalpower]in history,arevolutionaryrolethat,inthewordsofMarx,itisthemidwifeofeveryoldsociety whichispregnantwithanewone,thatitistheinstrumentwithwhichsocialmovementforces itswaythroughandshattersthedead,fossilizedpoliticalformsofthisthereisnotawordin HerrDuhring.Itisonlywithsighsandgroansthatheadmitsthepossibilitythatforcewill perhapsbenecessaryfortheoverthrowofaneconomybasedonexploitationunfortunately, becausealluseofforcedemoralizes,hesays,thepersonwhousesit.AndthisinGermany, whereaviolentcollisionwhichmay,afterall,beforcedonthepeoplewouldatleast havetheadvantageofwipingouttheservilitywhichhaspenetratedthenation'smentality followingthehumiliationoftheThirtyYears'War.4Andthisperson'smodeofthought dull,insipid,andimpotentpresumestoimposeitselfonthemostrevolutionarypartythat historyhaseverknown!(p.193,thirdGermanedition,PartII,endofChap.IV) Howcanthispanegyriconviolentrevolution,whichEngelsinsistentlybroughttotheattentionofthe GermanSocialDemocratsbetween1878and1894,i.e.,rightuptothetimeofhisdeath,becombinedwith thetheoryofthe'witheringaway"ofthestatetoformasingletheory? Usuallythetwoarecombinedbymeansofeclecticism,byanunprincipledorsophisticselectionmade arbitrarily(ortopleasethepowersthatbe)offirstone,thenanotherargument,andin99casesoutof100,if notmore,itistheideaofthewitheringawaythatisplacedintheforefront.Dialecticsarereplacedby eclecticismthisisthemostusual,themostwidespreadpracticetobemetwithinpresentdayofficial SocialDemocraticliteratureinrelationtoMarxism.Thissortofsubstitutionis,ofcourse,nothingnewit wasobservedeveninthehistoryofclassicalGreekphilosophy.InfalsifyingMarxisminopportunist fashion,thesubstitutionofeclecticismfordialecticsistheeasiestwayofdeceivingthepeople.Itgivesan illusorysatisfactionitseemstotakeintoaccountallsidesoftheprocess,alltrendsofdevelopment,allthe conflictinginfluences,andsoforth,whereasinrealityitprovidesnointegralandrevolutionaryconception oftheprocessofsocialdevelopmentatall. Wehavealreadysaidabove,andshallshowmorefullylater,thatthetheoryofMarxandEngelsofthe inevitabilityofaviolentrevolutionreferstothebourgeoisstate.Thelattercannotbesupersededbythe proletarianstate(thedictatorshipoftheproletariat)throughtheprocessof'witheringaway",but,asa generalrule,onlythroughaviolentrevolution.ThepanegyricEngelssanginitshonor,andwhichfully correspondstoMarx'srepeatedstatements(seetheconcludingpassagesofThePovertyofPhilosophy5and

theCommunistManifesto6,withtheirproudandopenproclamationoftheinevitabilityofaviolent revolutionseewhatMarxwrotenearly30yearslater,incriticizingtheGothaProgrammeof18757,when hemercilesslycastigatedtheopportunistcharacterofthatprogramme)thispanegyricisbynomeansa mereimpulse,ameredeclamationorapolemicalsally.Thenecessityofsystematicallyimbuingthe masseswiththisandpreciselythisviewofviolentrevolutionliesattherootoftheentiretheoryofMarx andEngels.ThebetrayaloftheirtheorybythenowprevailingsocialchauvinistandKautskyitetrends expressesitselfstrikinglyinboththesetrendsignoringsuchpropagandaandagitation. Thesupersessionofthebourgeoisstatebytheproletarianstateisimpossiblewithoutaviolentrevolution. Theabolitionoftheproletarianstate,i.e.,ofthestateingeneral,isimpossibleexceptthroughtheprocessof witheringaway". AdetailedandconcreteelaborationoftheseviewswasgivenbyMarxandEngelswhentheystudiedeach particularrevolutionarysituation,whentheyanalyzedthelessonsoftheexperienceofeachparticular revolution.Weshallnowpasstothis,undoubtedlythemostimportant,partoftheirtheory.

ChapterII:TheExperienceof184851
1.TheEveofRevolution
ThefirstworksofmatureMarxismThePovertyofPhilosophyandtheCommunistManifesto appearedjustontheeveoftherevolutionof1848.Forthisreason,inadditiontopresentingthegeneral principlesofMarxism,theyreflecttoacertaindegreetheconcreterevolutionarysituationofthetime.It will,therefore,bemoreexpedient,perhaps,toexaminewhattheauthorsoftheseworkssaidaboutthestate immediatelybeforetheydrewconclusionsfromtheexperienceoftheyears184851. InThePovertyofPhilosophy,Marxwrote: "Theworkingclass,inthecourseofdevelopment,willsubstitutefortheoldbourgeoissociety anassociationwhichwillprecludeclassesandtheirantagonism,andtherewillbenomore politicalpowergroups,sincethepoliticalpowerispreciselytheofficialexpressionofclass antagonisminbourgeoissociety."(p.182,Germanedition,1885)8 Itisinstructivetocomparethisgeneralexpositionoftheideaofthestatedisappearingaftertheabolitionof classeswiththeexpositioncontainedintheCommunistManifesto,writtenbyMarxandEngelsafew monthslaterinNovember1847,tobeexact: "...Indepictingthemostgeneralphasesofthedevelopmentoftheproletariat,wetracedthe moreorlessveiledcivilwar,ragingwithinexistingsocietyuptothepointwherethatwar breaksoutintoopenrevolution,andwheretheviolentoverthrowofthebourgeoisielaysthe foundationfortheswayoftheproletariat.... "...Wehaveseenabovethatthefirststepintherevolutionbytheworkingclassistoraisethe proletariattothepositionoftherulingclasstowinthebattleofdemocracy. "Theproletariatwilluseitspoliticalsupremacytowrest,bydegree,allcapitalfromthe bourgeoisie,tocentralizeallinstrumentsofproductioninthehandsofthestate,i.e.,ofthe proletariatorganizedastherulingclassandtoincreasethetotalproductiveforcesasrapidlyas possible."(pp.31and37,seventhGermanedition,1906)9 HerewehaveaformulationofoneofthemostremarkableandmostimportantideasofMarxismonthe subjectofthestate,namely,theideaofthe"dictatorshipoftheproletariat"(asMarxandEngelsbeganto callitaftertheParisCommune)and,also,ahighlyinterestingdefinitionofthestate,whichisalsooneof the"forgottenwords"ofMarxism:"thestate,i.e.,theproletariatorganizedastherulingclass." Thisdefinitionofthestatehasneverbeenexplainedintheprevailingpropagandaandagitationliteratureof theofficialSocialDemocraticparties.Morethanthat,ithasbeendeliberatelyignored,foritisabsolutely irreconcilablewithreformism,andisaslapinthefaceforthecommonopportunistprejudicesandphilistine illusionsaboutthe"peacefuldevelopmentofdemocracy". Theproletariatneedsthestatethisisrepeatedbyalltheopportunists,socialchauvinistsandKautskyites, whoassureusthatthisiswhatMarxtaught.Buttheyforgettoaddthat,inthefirstplace,accordingto

Marx,theproletariatneedsonlyastatewhichiswitheringaway,i.e.,astatesoconstitutedthatitbeginsto witherawayimmediately,andcannotbutwitheraway.And,secondly,theworkingpeopleneeda"state, i.e.,theproletariatorganizedastherulingclass". Thestateisaspecialorganizationofforce:itisanorganizationofviolenceforthesuppressionofsome class.Whatclassmusttheproletariatsuppress?Naturally,onlytheexploitingclass,i.e.,thebourgeoisie. Theworkingpeopleneedthestateonlytosuppresstheresistanceoftheexploiters,andonlytheproletariat candirectthissuppression,cancarryitout.Fortheproletariatistheonlyclassthatisconsistently revolutionary,theonlyclassthatcanunitealltheworkingandexploitedpeopleinthestruggleagainstthe bourgeoisie,incompletelyremovingit. Theexploitingclassesneedpoliticalruletomaintainexploitation,i.e.,intheselfishinterestsofan insignificantminorityagainstthevastmajorityofallpeople.Theexploitedclassesneedpoliticalrulein ordertocompletelyabolishallexploitation,i.e.,intheinterestsofthevastmajorityofthepeople,and againsttheinsignificantminorityconsistingofthemodernslaveownersthelandownersandcapitalists. Thepettybourgeoisdemocrats,thoseshamsocialistswhoreplacedtheclassstrugglebydreamsofclass harmony,evenpicturedthesocialisttransformationinadreamyfashionnotastheoverthrowoftherule oftheexploitingclass,butasthepeacefulsubmissionoftheminoritytothemajoritywhichhasbecome awareofitsaims.Thispettybourgeoisutopia,whichisinseparablefromtheideaofthestatebeingabove classes,ledinpracticetothebetrayaloftheinterestsoftheworkingclasses,aswasshown,forexample,by thehistoryoftheFrenchrevolutionsof1848and1871,andbytheexperienceofsocialistparticipationin bourgeoisCabinetsinBritain,France,Italyandothercountriesattheturnofthecentury. AllhislifeMarxfoughtagainstthispettybourgeoissocialism,nowrevivedinRussiabytheSocialist RevolutionaryandMenshevikparties.Hedevelopedhistheoryoftheclassstruggleconsistently,downto thetheoryofpoliticalpower,ofthestate. Theoverthrowofbourgeoisrulecanbeaccomplishedonlybytheproletariat,theparticularclasswhose economicconditionsofexistenceprepareitforthistaskandprovideitwiththepossibilityandthepowerto performit.Whilethebourgeoisiebreakupanddisintegratethepeasantryandallthepettybourgeois groups,theyweldtogether,uniteandorganizetheproletariat.Onlytheproletariatbyvirtueofthe economicroleitplaysinlargescaleproductioniscapableofbeingtheleaderofalltheworkingand exploitedpeople,whomthebourgeoisieexploit,oppressandcrush,oftennotlessbutmorethantheydothe proletarians,butwhoareincapableofwaginganindependentstrugglefortheiremancipation. Thetheoryofclassstruggle,appliedbyMarxtothequestionofthestateandthesocialistrevolution,leads asamatterofcoursetotherecognitionofthepoliticalruleoftheproletariat,ofitsdictatorship,i.e.,of undividedpowerdirectlybackedbythearmedforceofthepeople.Theoverthrowofthebourgeoisiecan beachievedonlybytheproletariatbecomingtherulingclass,capableofcrushingtheinevitableand desperateresistanceofthebourgeoisie,andoforganizingalltheworkingandexploitedpeopleforthenew economicsystem. Theproletariatneedsstatepower,acentralizedorganizationofforce,anorganizationofviolence,bothto crushtheresistanceoftheexploitersandtoleadtheenormousmassofthepopulationthepeasants,the pettybourgeoisie,andsemiproletariansintheworkoforganizingasocialisteconomy.

Byeducatingtheworkers'party,Marxismeducatesthevanguardoftheproletariat,capableofassuming powerandleadingthewholepeopletosocialism,ofdirectingandorganizingthenewsystem,ofbeingthe teacher,theguide,theleaderofalltheworkingandexploitedpeopleinorganizingtheirsociallifewithout thebourgeoisieandagainstthebourgeoisie.Bycontrast,theopportunismnowprevailingtrainsthe membersoftheworkers'partytobetherepresentativesofthebetterpaidworkers,wholosetouchwiththe masses,"getalong"fairlywellundercapitalism,andselltheirbirthrightforamassofpottage,i.e.,renounce theirroleasrevolutionaryleadersofthepeopleagainstthebourgeoisie. Marx'stheoryof"thestate,i.e.,theproletariatorganizedastherulingclass",isinseparablyboundupwith thewholeofhisdoctrineoftherevolutionaryroleoftheproletariatinhistory.Theculminationofthisrule istheproletariandictatorship,thepoliticalruleoftheproletariat. Butsincetheproletariatneedsthestateasaspecialformoforganizationofviolenceagainstthe bourgeoisie,thefollowingconclusionsuggestsitself:isitconceivablethatsuchanorganizationcanbe createdwithoutfirstabolishing,destroyingthestatemachinecreatedbythebourgeoisieforthemselves? TheCommunistManifestoleadsstraighttothisconclusion,anditisofthisconclusionthatMarxspeaks whensumminguptheexperienceoftherevolutionof184851.

2.TheRevolutionSummedUp
Marxsumsuphisconclusionsfromtherevolutionof184851,onthesubjectofthestateweareconcerned with,inthefollowingargumentcontainedinTheEighteenthBrumaireofLouisBonaparte: "Buttherevolutionisthroughgoing.Itisstilljourneyingthroughpurgatory.Itdoesitswork methodically.ByDecember2,1851[thedayofLouisBonaparte'scoupd'etat],ithad completedonehalfofitspreparatorywork.Itisnowcompletingtheotherhalf.Firstit perfectedtheparliamentarypower,inordertobeabletooverthrowit.Nowthatithasattained this,itisperfectingtheexecutivepower,reducingittoitspurestexpression,isolatingit,setting itupagainstitselfasthesoleobject,inordertoconcentrateallitsforcesofdestructionagainst it.Andwhenithasdonethissecondhalfofitspreliminarywork,Europewillleapfromitsseat andexultantlyexclaim:wellgrubbed,oldmole! "Thisexecutivepowerwithitsenormousbureaucraticandmilitaryorganization,withitsvast andingeniousstatemachinery,withahostofofficialsnumberinghalfamillion,besidesan armyofanotherhalfmillion,thisappallingparasiticbody,whichenmeshesthebodyofFrench societyandchokesallitspores,sprangupinthedaysoftheabsolutemonarchy,withthe decayofthefeudalsystem,whichithelpedtohasten."ThefirstFrenchRevolutiondeveloped centralization,"butatthesametime"itincreased"theextent,theattributesandthenumberof agentsofgovernmentalpower.Napoleoncompletedthisstatemachinery".Thelegitimate monarchyandtheJulymonarchy"addednothingbutagreaterdivisionoflabor".... "...Finally,initsstruggleagainsttherevolution,theparliamentaryrepublicfounditself compelledtostrengthen,alongwithrepressivemeasures,theresourcesandcentralizationof governmentalpower.Allrevolutionsperfectedthismachineinsteadofsmashingit.Theparties thatcontendedinturnfordominationregardedthepossessionofthishugestateedificeasthe principalspoilsofthevictor."(TheEighteenthBrumaireofLouisBonapartepp.9899,fourth

edition,Hamburg,1907)10 Inthisremarkableargument,MarxismtakesatremendousstepforwardcomparedwiththeCommunist Manifesto.Inthelatter,thequestionofthestateisstilltreatedinanextremelyabstractmanner,inthemost generaltermsandexpressions.Intheabovequotedpassage,thequestionistreatedinaconcretemanner, andtheconclusionisextremelyprecise,definite,practicalandpalpable:allpreviousrevolutionsperfected thestatemachine,whereasitmustbebroken,smashed. ThisconclusionisthechiefandfundamentalpointintheMarxisttheoryofthestate.Anditispreciselythis fundamentalpointwhichhasbeencompletelyignoredbythedominantofficialSocialDemocraticparties and,indeed,distorted(asweshallseelater)bytheforemosttheoreticianoftheSecondInternational,Karl Kautsky. TheCommunistManifestogivesageneralsummaryofhistory,whichcompelsustoregardthestateasthe organofclassruleandleadsustotheinevitableconclusionthattheproletariatcannotoverthrowthe bourgeoisiewithoutfirstwinningpoliticalpower,withoutattainingpoliticalsupremacy,without transformingthestateintothe"proletariatorganizedastherulingclass"andthatthisproletarianstatewill begintowitherawayimmediatelyafteritsvictorybecausethestateisunnecessaryandcannotexistina societyinwhichtherearenoclassantagonisms.Thequestionastohow,fromthepointofviewof historicaldevelopment,thereplacementofthebourgeoisbytheproletarianstateistotakeplaceisnotraised here. ThisisthequestionMarxraisesandanswersin1852.Truetohisphilosophyofdialecticalmaterialism, Marxtakesashisbasisthehistoricalexperienceofthegreatyearsofrevolution,1848to1851.Here,as everywhereelse,histheoryisasummingupofexperience,illuminatedbyaprofoundphilosophical conceptionoftheworldandarichknowledgeofhistory. Theproblemofthestateisputspecifically:Howdidthebourgeoisstate,thestatemachinenecessaryforthe ruleofthebourgeoisie,comeintobeinghistorically?Whatchangesdiditundergo,whatevolutiondidit performinthecourseofbourgeoisrevolutionsandinthefaceoftheindependentactionsoftheoppressed classes?Whatarethetasksoftheproletariatinrelationtothisstatemachine? Thecentralizedstatepowerthatispeculiartobourgeoissocietycameintobeingintheperiodofthefallof absolutism.Twoinstitutionsmostcharacteristicofthisstatemachinearethebureaucracyandthestanding army.Intheirworks,MarxandEngelsrepeatedlyshowthatthebourgeoisieareconnectedwiththese institutionsbythousandsofthreads.Everyworker'sexperienceillustratesthisconnectioninanextremely graphicandimpressivemanner.Fromitsownbitterexperience,theworkingclasslearnstorecognizethis connection.Thatiswhyitsoeasilygraspsandsofirmlylearnsthedoctrinewhichshowstheinevitabilityof thisconnection,adoctrinewhichthepettybourgeoisdemocratseitherignorantlyandflippantlydeny,or stillmoreflippantlyadmit"ingeneral",whileforgettingtodrawappropriatepracticalconclusions. Thebureaucracyandthestandingarmyareaparasiteonthebodyofbourgeoissocietyaparasitecreated bytheinternalantagonismswhichrendthatsociety,butaparasitewhichchokesallitsvitalpores.The KautskyiteopportunismnowprevailinginofficialSocialDemocracyconsiderstheviewthatthestateisa parasiticorganismtobethepeculiarandexclusiveattributeofanarchism.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthis distortionofMarxismisofvastadvantagetothosephilistineswhohavereducedsocialismtotheunheard

ofdisgraceofjustifyingandprettifyingtheimperialistwarbyapplyingtoittheconceptof"defenceofthe fatherland"butitisunquestionablyadistortion,nevertheless. Thedevelopment,perfection,andstrengtheningofthebureaucraticandmilitaryapparatusproceeded duringallthenumerousbourgeoisrevolutionswhichEuropehaswitnessedsincethefalloffeudalism.In particular,itisthepettybourgeoiswhoareattractedtothesideofthebigbourgeoisieandarelargely subordinatedtothemthroughthisapparatus,whichprovidestheuppersectionsofthepeasants,small artisans,tradesmen,andthelikewithcomparativelycomfortable,quiet,andrespectablejobsraisingthe holdersabovethepeople.ConsiderwhathappenedinRussiaduringthesixmonthsfollowingFebruary27, 1917.TheofficialpostswhichformerlyweregivenbypreferencetotheBlackHundredshavenow becomethespoilsoftheCadets,Mensheviks,andSocialRevolutionaries.Nobodyhasreallythoughtof introducinganyseriousreforms.Everyefforthasbeenmadetoputthemoff"untiltheConstituent Assemblymeets",andtosteadilyputoffitsconvocationuntilafterthewar!Buttherehasbeennodelay,no waitingfortheConstituentAssembly,inthematterofdividingthespoilsofgettingthelucrativejobsof ministers,deputyministers,governorsgeneral,etc.,etc.!Thegameofcombinationsthathasbeenplayedin formingthegovernmenthasbeen,inessence,onlyanexpressionofthisdivisionandredivisionofthe spoils,whichhasbeengoingonaboveandbelow,throughoutthecountry,ineverydepartmentofcentral andlocalgovernment.ThesixmonthsbetweenFebruary27andAugust27,1917,canbesummedup, objectivelysummedupbeyondalldispute,asfollows:reformsshelved,distributionofofficialjobs accomplishedandmistakesinthedistributioncorrectedbyafewredistributions. Butthemorethebureaucraticapparatusisredistributedamongthevariousbourgeoisandpettybourgeois parties(amongtheCadets,SocialistRevolutionariesandMensheviksinthecaseofRussia),themore keenlyawaretheoppressedclasses,andtheproletariatattheirhead,becomeoftheirirreconcilablehostility tothewholeofbourgeoissociety.Hencetheneedforallbourgeoisparties,evenforthemostdemocratic and"revolutionarydemocratic"amongthem,tointensifyrepressivemeasuresagainsttherevolutionary proletariat,tostrengthentheapparatusofcoercion,i.e.,thestatemachine.Thiscourseofeventscompels therevolution"toconcentrateallitsforcesofdestruction"againstthestatepower,andtosetitselftheaim, notofimprovingthestatemachine,butofsmashinganddestroyingit. Itwasnotlogicalreasoning,butactualdevelopments,theactualexperienceof184851,thatledtothe matterbeingpresentedinthisway.TheextenttowhichMarxheldstrictlytothesolidgroundofhistorical experiencecanbeseenfromthefactthat,in1852,hedidnotyetspecificallyraisethequestionofwhatwas totaketheplaceofthestatemachinetobedestroyed.Experiencehadnotyetprovidedmaterialfordealing withthisquestion,whichhistoryplacedontheagendalateron,in1871.In1852,allthatcouldbe establishedwiththeaccuracyofscientificobservationwasthattheproletarianrevolutionhadapproached thetaskof"concentratingallitsforcesofdestruction"againstthestatepower,ofsmashingthestate machine. Herethequestionmayarise:isitcorrecttogeneralizetheexperience,observationsandconclusionsof Marx,toapplythemtoafieldthatiswiderthanthehistoryofFranceduringthethreeyears184851? Beforeproceedingtodealwiththisquestion,letusrecallaremarkmadebyEngelsandthenexaminethe facts.InhisintroductiontothethirdeditionofTheEighteenthBrumaire,Engelswrote:
"France is the country where, more than anywhere else, the historical class struggles were each time fought out to a finish, and where, consequently, the changing political forms within which they move and in which their results are summarized have been stamped in the

sharpestoutlines.ThecentreoffeudalismintheMiddleAges,themodelcountry,sincetheRenaissance,ofaunifiedmonarchybasedonsocial estates,FrancedemolishedfeudalismintheGreatRevolutionandestablishedtheruleofthebourgeoisieinaclassicalpurityunequalledbyany otherEuropeanland.Andthestruggleoftheupwardstrivingproletariatagainsttherulingbourgeoisieappearedhereinanacuteformunknown elsewhere."(p.4,1907edition)

Thelastremarkisoutofdateinsomuchassince1871therehasbeenalullintherevolutionarystruggleof theFrenchproletariat,although,longasthislullmaybe,itdoesnotatallprecludethepossibilitythatinthe comingproletarianrevolutionFrancemayshowherselftobetheclassiccountryoftheclassstruggletoa finish. Letus,however,castageneralglanceoverthehistoryoftheadvancedcountriesattheturnofthecentury. Weshallseethatthesameprocesswentonmoreslowly,inmorevariedforms,inamuchwiderfield:on theonehand,thedevelopmentof"parliamentarypower"bothintherepublicancountries(France, America,Switzerland),andinthemonarchies(Britain,Germanytoacertainextent,Italy,theScandinavia countries,etc.)ontheotherhand,astruggleforpoweramongthevariousbourgeoisandpettybourgeois partieswhichdistributedandredistributedthespoilsofoffice,withthefoundationsofbourgeoissociety unchangedand,lastly,theperfectionandconsolidationofthe"executivepower",ofitsbureaucraticand militaryapparatus. Thereisnottheslightestdoubtthatthesefeaturesarecommontothewholeofthemodernevolutionofall capitaliststatesingeneral.Inthelastthreeyears184851Francedisplayed,inaswift,sharp,concentrated form,theverysameprocessesofdevelopmentwhicharepeculiartothewholecapitalistworld. Imperialismtheeraofbankcapital,theeraofgiganticcapitalistmonopolies,ofthedevelopmentof monopolycapitalismintostatemonopolycapitalismhasclearlyshownanunprecedentedgrowthinits bureaucraticandmilitaryapparatusinconnectionwiththeintensificationofrepressivemeasuresagainstthe proletariatbothinthemonarchicalandinthefreest,republicancountries. Worldhistoryisnowundoubtedlyleading,onanincomparablylargerscalethanin1852,tothe "concentrationofalltheforces"oftheproletarianrevolutiononthedestructionofthestatemachine. Whattheproletariatwillputinitsplaceissuggestedbythehighlyinstructivematerialfurnishedbythe ParisCommune.

3.ThePresentationoftheQuestionbyMarxin1852
In1907,Mehring,inthemagazineNeueZeit11(Vol.XXV,2,p.164),publishedextractsfromMarx'sletter toWeydemeyerdatedMarch5,1852.Thisletter,amongotherthings,containsthefollowingremarkable observation: "Andnowastomyself,nocreditisduetomefordiscoveringtheexistenceofclassesin modernsocietyorthestrugglebetweenthem.Longbeforemebourgeoishistorianshad describedthehistoricaldevelopmentofthisclassstruggleandbourgeoiseconomists,the economicanatomyofclasses.WhatIdidthatwasnewwastoprove:(1)thattheexistenceof classesisonlyboundupwiththeparticular,historicalphasesinthedevelopmentofproduction (historischeEntwicklungsphasenderProduktion),(2)thattheclassstrugglenecessarilyleads tothedictatorshipoftheproletariat,(3)thatthisdictatorshipitselfonlyconstitutesthetransition

totheabolitionofallclassesandtoaclasslesssociety12." Inthesewords,Marxsucceededinexpressingwithstrikingclarity,first,thechiefandradicaldifference betweenhistheoryandthatoftheforemostandmostprofoundthinkersofthebourgeoisieand,secondly, theessenceofhistheoryofthestate. ItisoftensaidandwrittenthatthemainpointinMarx'stheoryistheclassstruggle.Butthisiswrong.And thiswrongnotionveryoftenresultsinanopportunistdistortionofMarxismanditsfalsificationinaspirit acceptabletothebourgeoisie.ForthetheoryoftheclassstrugglewascreatednotbyMarx,butbythe bourgeoisiebeforeMarx,and,generallyspeaking,itisacceptabletothebourgeoisie.Thosewhorecognize onlytheclassstrugglearenotyetMarxiststheymaybefoundtobestillwithintheboundsofbourgeois thinkingandbourgeoispolitics.ToconfineMarxismtothetheoryoftheclassstrugglemeanscurtailing Marxism,distortingit,reducingittosomethingacceptabletothebourgeoisie.OnlyheisaMarxistwho extendstherecognitionoftheclassstruggletotherecognitionofthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.Thatis whatconstitutesthemostprofounddistinctionbetweentheMarxistandtheordinarypetty(aswellasbig) bourgeois.ThisisthetouchstoneonwhichtherealunderstandingandrecognitionofMarxismshouldbe tested.AnditisnotsurprisingthatwhenthehistoryofEuropebroughttheworkingclassfacetofacewith thisquestionasapracticalissue,notonlyalltheopportunistsandreformists,butalltheKautskyites(people whovacillatebetweenreformismandMarxism)provedtobemiserablephilistinesandpettybourgeois democratsrepudiatingthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.Kautsky'spamphlet,TheDictatorshipofthe Proletariat,publishedinAugust1918,i.e.,longafterthefirsteditionofthepresentbook,isaperfect exampleofpettybourgeoisdistortionofMarxismandbaserenunciationofitindeeds,whilehypocritically recognizingitinwords(seemypamphlet,TheProletarianRevolutionandtheRenegadeKautsky, PetrogradandMoscow,1918). Opportunismtoday,asrepresentedbyitsprincipalspokesman,theexMarxistKarlKautsky,fitsin completelywithMarx'scharacterizationofthebourgeoispositionquotedabove,forthisopportunismlimits recognitionoftheclassstruggletothesphereofbourgeoisrelations.(Withinthissphere,withinits framework,notasingleeducatedliberalwillrefusetorecognizetheclassstruggle"inprinciple"!) Opportunismdoesnotextendrecognitionoftheclassstruggletothecardinalpoint,totheperiodof transitionfromcapitalismtocommunism,oftheoverthrowandthecompleteabolitionofthebourgeoisie.In reality,thisperiodinevitablyisaperiodofanunprecedentlyviolentclassstruggleinunprecedentedlyacute forms,and,consequently,duringthisperiodthestatemustinevitablybeastatethatisdemocraticinanew way(fortheproletariatandthepropertylessingeneral)anddictatorialinanewway(againstthe bourgeoisie). Further.TheessenceofMarx'stheoryofthestatehasbeenmasteredonlybythosewhorealizethatthe dictatorshipofasingleclassisnecessarynotonlyforeveryclasssocietyingeneral,notonlyforthe proletariatwhichhasoverthrownthebourgeoisie,butalsofortheentirehistoricalperiodwhichseparates capitalismfrom"classlesssociety",fromcommunism.Bourgeoisstatesaremostvariedinform,buttheir essenceisthesame:allthesestates,whatevertheirform,inthefinalanalysisareinevitablythedictatorship ofthebourgeoisie.Thetransitionfromcapitalismtocommunismiscertainlyboundtoyieldatremendous abundanceandvarietyofpoliticalforms,buttheessencewillinevitablybethesame:thedictatorshipofthe proletariat.

ChapterIII:ExperienceoftheParisCommuneof1871.Marx's Analysis
1.WhatMadetheCommunards'AttemptHeroic?
Itiswellknownthatintheautumnof1870,afewmonthsbeforetheCommune,MarxwarnedtheParis workersthatanyattempttooverthrowthegovernmentwouldbethefollyofdespair.Butwhen,inMarch 1871,adecisivebattlewasforcedupontheworkersandtheyacceptedit,whentheuprisinghadbecomea fact,Marxgreetedtheproletarianrevolutionwiththegreatestenthusiasm,inspiteofunfavorableauguries. Marxdidnotpersistinthepedanticattitudeofcondemninganuntimelymovementasdidtheillfamed Russianrenegadefrommarxism,Plekhanov,whoinNovember1905wroteencouraginglyaboutthe workers'andpeasants'struggle,butafterDecember1905cried,liberalfashion:"Theyshouldnothave takenuparms." Marx,however,wasnotonlyenthusiasticabouttheheroismoftheCommunards,who,asheexpressedit, "stormedheaven".Althoughthemassrevolutionarymovementdidnotachieveitsaim,heregardeditasa historicexperienceofenormousimportance,asacertainadvanceoftheworldproletarianrevolution,asa practicalstepthatwasmoreimportantthanhundredsofprogrammesandarguments.Marxendeavoredto analyzethisexperiment,todrawtacticallessonsfromitandreexaminehistheoryinthelightofit. TheonlycorrectionMarxthoughtitnecessarytomaketotheCommunistManifestohemadeonthebasis oftherevolutionaryexperienceoftheParisCommune. ThelastprefacetothenewGermaneditionoftheCommunistManifesto,signedbybothitsauthors,is datedJune24,1872.Inthisprefacetheauthors,KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,saythattheprogramme oftheCommunistManifesto"hasinsomedetailsbecomeoutofdate",andthegoontosay: "...OnethingespeciallywasprovedbytheCommune,viz.,that'theworkingclasscannot simplylayholdofthereadymadestatemachineryandwielditforitsownpurposes'...."13 TheauthorstookthewordsthatareinsinglequotationmarksinthispassagefromMarx'sbook,TheCivil WarinFrance. Thus,MarxandEngelsregardedoneprincipalandfundamentallessonoftheParisCommuneasbeingof suchenormousimportancethattheyintroduceditasanimportantcorrectionintotheCommunistManifesto. Mostcharacteristically,itisthisimportantcorrectionthathasbeendistortedbytheopportunists,andits meaningprobablyisnotknowntoninetenths,ifnotninetyninehundredths,ofthereadersofthe CommunistManifesto.Weshalldealwiththisdistortionmorefullyfartheron,inachapterdevoted speciallytodistortions.Hereitwillbesufficienttonotethatthecurrent,vulgarinterpretationofMarx's famousstatementjustquotedisthatMarxhereallegedlyemphasizestheideaofslowdevelopmentin contradistinctiontotheseizureofpower,andsoon. Asamatteroffact,theexactoppositeisthecase.Marx'sideaisthattheworkingclassmustbreakup, smashthe"readymadestatemachinery",andnotconfineitselfmerelytolayingholdofit.

OnApril12,1871,i.e.,justatthetimeoftheCommune,MarxwrotetoKugelmann: "IfyoulookupthelastchapterofmyEighteenthBrumaire,youwillfindthatIdeclarethatthe nextattemptoftheFrenchRevolutionwillbenolonger,asbefore,totransferthebureaucratic militarymachinefromonehandtoanother,buttosmashit[Marx'sitalicstheoriginalis zerbrechen],andthisisthepreconditionforeveryrealpeople'srevolutionontheContinent. AndthisiswhatourheroicPartycomradesinParisareattempting."(NeueZeit,Vol.XX,1, 190102,p.709.)14 (ThelettersofMarxtoKugelmannhaveappearedinRussianinnolessthantwoeditions,one ofwhichIeditedandsuppliedwithapreface.) Thewords,"tosmashthebureaucraticmilitarymachine",brieflyexpresstheprincipallessonofMarxism regardingthetasksoftheproletariatduringarevolutioninrelationtothestate.Andthisisthelessonthat hasbeennotonlycompletelyignored,butpositivelydistortedbytheprevailing,Kautskyite, interpretationofMarxism! AsforMarx'sreferencetoTheEighteenthBrumaire,wehavequotedtherelevantpassageinfullabove. Itisinterestingtonote,inparticular,twopointsintheabovequotedargumentofMarx.First,herestrictshis conclusiontotheContinent.Thiswasunderstandablein1871,whenBritainwasstillthemodelofapurely capitalistcountry,butwithoutamilitaristcliqueand,toaconsiderabledegree,withoutabureaucracy.Marx thereforeexcludedBritain,wherearevolution,evenapeople'srevolution,thenseemedpossible,and indeedwaspossible,withoutthepreconditionofdestroying"readymadestatemachinery". Today,in1917,atthetimeofthefirstgreatimperialistwar,thisrestrictionmadebyMarxisnolonger valid.BothBritainandAmerica,thebiggestandthelastrepresentativesinthewholeworldof AngloSaxonliberty,inthesensethattheyhadnomilitaristcliquesandbureaucracy,havecompletely sunkintotheallEuropeanfilthy,bloodymorassofbureaucraticmilitaryinstitutionswhichsubordinate everythingtothemselves,andsuppresseverything.Today,inBritainandAmerica,too,"theprecondition foreveryrealpeople'srevolution"isthesmashing,thedestructionofthe"readymadestatemachinery" (madeandbroughtuptotheEuropean,generalimperialist,perfectioninthosecountriesintheyears 191417). Secondly,particularattentionshouldbepaidtoMarx'sextremelyprofoundremarkthatthedestructionof thebureaucraticmilitarystatemachineis"thepreconditionforeveryrealpeople'srevolution".Thisideaof a"people'srevolutionseemsstrangecomingfromMarx,sothattheRussianPlekhanovitesand Mensheviks,thosefollowersofStruvewhowishtoberegardedasMarxists,mightpossiblydeclaresuch anexpressiontobea"slipofthepen"onMarx'spart.TheyhavereducedMarxismtosuchastateof wretchedlyliberaldistortionthatnothingexistsforthembeyondtheantithesisbetweenbourgeois revolutionandproletarianrevolution,andeventhisantithesistheyinterpretinanutterlylifelessway. Ifwetaketherevolutionsofthe20thcenturyasexamplesweshall,ofcourse,havetoadmitthatthe PortugueseandtheTurkishrevolutionsarebothbourgeoisrevolutions.Neitherofthem,however,isa "people's"revolution,sinceinneitherdoesthemassofthepeople,theirvastmajority,comeoutactively, independently,withtheirowneconomicandpoliticaldemandstoanynoticeabledegree.Bycontrast,

althoughtheRussianbourgeoisrevolutionof190507displayednosuchbrilliantsuccessesasattimefell tothePortugueseandTurkishrevolutions,itwasundoubtedlya"realpeople's"revolution,sincethemass ofthepeople,theirmajority,theverylowestsocialgroups,crushedbyoppressionandexploitation,rose independentlyandstampedontheentirecourseoftherevolutiontheimprintoftheirowndemands,their attempttobuildintheirownwayanewsocietyinplaceoftheoldsocietythatwasbeingdestroyed. InEurope,in1871,theproletariatdidnotconstitutethemajorityofthepeopleinanycountryonthe Continent.A"people's"revolution,oneactuallysweepingthemajorityintoitsstream,couldbesuchonlyif itembracedboththeproletariatandthepeasants.Thesetwoclassesthenconstitutedthepeople.These twoclassesareunitedbythefactthatthe"bureaucraticmilitarystatemachine"oppresses,crushes,exploits them.Tosmashthismachine,tobreakitup,istrulyintheinterestofthepeople,oftheirmajority,ofthe workersandmostofthepeasants,is"theprecondition"forafreeallianceofthepoorpeasantandthe proletarians,whereaswithoutsuchanalliancedemocracyisunstableandsocialisttransformationis impossible. Asiswellknown,theParisCommunewasactuallyworkingitswaytowardsuchanalliance,althoughit didnotreachitsgoalowingtoanumberofcircumstances,internalandexternal. Consequently,inspeakingofa"realpeople'srevolution",Marx,withoutintheleastdiscountingthespecial featuresofthepettybourgeois(hespokeagreatdealaboutthemandoften),tookstrictaccountoftheactual balanceofclassforcesinmostofthecontinentalcountriesofEuropein1871.Ontheotherhand,hestated thatthesmashingofthestatemachinewasrequiredbytheinterestsofboththeworkersandthepeasants, thatitunitedthem,thatitplacedbeforethemthecommontaskofremovingtheparasiteandofreplacing itbysomethingnew. Bywhatexactly?

2.WhatistoReplacetheSmashedStateMachine?
In1847,intheCommunistManifesto,Marx'sanswertothisquestionwasasyetapurelyabstractonetobe exact,itwasananswerthatindicatedhetasks,butnotthewaysofaccomplishingthem.Theanswergiven intheCommunistManifestowasthatthismachinewastobereplacedby"theproletariatorganizedasthe rulingclass",bythe"winningofthebattleofdemocracy". Marxdidnotindulgeinutopiasheexpectedtheexperienceofthemassmovementtoprovidethereplyto thequestionastothespecificformsthisorganisationoftheproletariatastherulingclasswouldassumeand astotheexactmannerinwhichthisorganisationwouldbecombinedwiththemostcomplete,most consistent"winningofthebattleofdemocracy." MarxsubjectedtheexperienceoftheCommune,meagreasitwas,tothemostcarefulanalysisinTheCivil WarinFrance.Letusquotethemostimportantpassagesofthiswork.[Allthefollowingquotesinthis Chapter,withoneexception,aresocitiedEd.] OriginatingfromtheMiddleAges,theredevelopedinthe19thcentury"thecentralizedstate power,withitsubiquitousorgansofstandingarmy,police,bureaucracy,clergy,and judicature."Withthedevelopmentofclassantagonismsbetweencapitalandlabor,"state

powerassumedmoreandmorethecharacterofapublicforceorganizedforthesuppressionof theworkingclass,ofamachineofclassrule.Aftereveryrevolution,whichmarksanadvance intheclassstruggle,thepurelycoercivecharacterofthestatepowerstandsoutinbolderand bolderrelief."Aftertherevolutionof184849,statepowerbecame"thenationalwar instrumentsofcapitalagainstlabor".TheSecondEmpireconsolidatedthis. "ThedirectantithesistotheempirewastheCommune."Itwasthe"specificform"of"a republicthatwasnotonlytoremovethemonarchicalformofclassrule,butclassruleitself." Whatwasthisspecificformoftheproletarian,socialistrepublic?Whatwasthestateitbegantocreate? "ThefirstdecreeoftheCommune,therefore,wasthesuppressionofthestandingarmy,and thesubstitutionforitofthearmedpeople." Thisdemandnowfiguresintheprogrammeofeverypartycallingitselfsocialist.Therealworthoftheir programme,however,isbestshownbythebehaviorofourSocialRevolutionistsandmensheviks,who, rightaftertherevolutionofFebruary27,refusedtocarryoutthisdemand! "TheCommunewasformedofthemunicipalcouncillors,chosenbyuniversalsuffrageinthe variouswardsofthetown,responsibleandrevocableatanytime.Themajorityofitsmembers werenaturallyworkingmen,oracknowledgedrepresentativesoftheworkingclass....The police,whichuntilthenhadbeentheinstrumentoftheGovernment,wasatoncestrippedofits politicalattributes,andturnedintotheresponsible,andatalltimesrevocable,agentofthe Commune.Soweretheofficialsofallotherbranchesoftheadministration.Fromthemembers oftheCommunedownwards,thepublicservicehadtobedoneatworkmen'swages.The privilegesandtherepresentationallowancesofthehighdignitariesofstatedisappearedalong withthehighdignitariesthemselves....Havingoncegotridofthestandingarmyandthe police,theinstrumentsofphysicalforceoftheoldgovernment,theCommuneproceededat oncetobreaktheinstrumentofspiritualsuppression,thepowerofthepriests....Thejudicial functionarieslostthatshamindependence...theywerethenceforwardtobeelective, responsible,andrevocable15." TheCommune,therefore,appearstohavereplacedthesmashedstatemachineonlybyfullerdemocracy: abolitionofthestandingarmyallofficialstobeelectedandsubjecttorecall.Butasamatteroffactthis onlysignifiesagiganticreplacementofcertaininstitutionsbyotherinstitutionsofafundamentally differenttype.Thisisexactlyacaseof"quantitybeingtransformedintoquality":democracy,introducedas fullyandconsistentlyasisatallconceivable,istransformedfrombourgeoisintoproletariandemocracy fromthestate(=aspecialforceforthesuppressionofaparticularclass)intosomethingwhichisnolonger thestateproper. Itisstillnecessarytosuppressthebourgeoisieandcrushtheirresistance.Thiswasparticularlynecessaryfor theCommuneandoneofthereasonsforitsdefeatwasthatitdidnotdothiswithsufficientdetermination. Theorganofsuppression,however,isherethemajorityofthepopulation,andnotaminority,aswas alwaysthecaseunderslavery,serfdom,andwageslavery.Andsincethemajorityofpeopleitself suppressesitsoppressors,a'specialforce"forsuppressionisnolongernecessary!Inthissense,thestate beginstowitheraway.Insteadofthespecialinstitutionsofaprivilegedminority(privilegedofficialdom,

thechiefsofthestandingarmy),themajorityitselfcandirectlyfulfilallthesefunctions,andthemorethe functionsofstatepowerareperformedbythepeopleasawhole,thelessneedthereisfortheexistenceof thispower. Inthisconnection,thefollowingmeasuresoftheCommune,emphasizedbyMarx,areparticularly noteworthy:theabolitionofallrepresentationallowances,andofallmonetaryprivilegestoofficials,the reductionoftheremunerationofallservantsofthestatetothelevelof"workmen'swages".Thisshows moreclearlythananythingelsetheturnfrombourgeoistoproletariandemocracy,fromthedemocracyof theoppressorstothatoftheoppressedclasses,fromthestateasa"specialforce"forthesuppressionofa particularclasstothesuppressionoftheoppressorsbythegeneralforceofthemajorityofthepeoplethe workersandthepeasants.Anditisonthisparticularlystrikingpoint,perhapsthemostimportantasfaras theproblemofthestateisconcerned,thattheideasofMarxhavebeenmostcompletelyignored!Inpopular commentaries,thenumberofwhichislegion,thisisnotmentioned.Thethingdoneistokeepsilentaboutit asifitwereapieceofoldfashionednaivete,justasChristians,aftertheirreligionhadbeengiventhe statusofstatereligion,forgotthenaiveteofprimitiveChristianitywithitsdemocraticrevolutionary spirit. Thereductionoftheremunerationofhighstateofficialsseemsimplyademandofnaive,primitive democracy.Oneofthefoundersofmodernopportunism,theexSocialDemocratEduardBernstein,has morethanoncerepeatedthevulgarbourgeoisjeersatprimitivedemocracy.Likeallopportunists,andlike thepresentKautskyites,hedidnotunderstandatallthat,firstofall,thetransitionfromcapitalismto socialismisimpossiblewithoutacertainreversiontoprimitivedemocracy(forhowelsecanthe majority,andthenthewholepopulationwithoutexception,proceedtodischargestatefunctions?)andthat, secondly,"primitivedemocracy"basedoncapitalismandcapitalistcultureisnotthesameasprimitive democracyinprehistoricorprecapitalisttimes.Capitalistculturehascreatedlargescaleproduction, factories,railways,thepostalservice,telephones,etc.,andonthisbasisthegreatmajorityofthefunctions oftheold"statepower"havebecomesosimplifiedandcanbereducedtosuchexceedinglysimple operationsofregistration,filing,andcheckingthattheycanbeeasilyperformedbyeveryliterateperson, canquiteeasilybeperformedforordinary"workmen'swages",andthatthesefunctionscan(andmust)be strippedofeveryshadowofprivilege,ofeverysemblanceof"officialgrandeur". Allofficials,withoutexception,electedandsubjecttorecallatanytime,theirsalariesreducedtothelevel ofordinary"workmen'swages"thesesimpleand"selfevident"democraticmeasures,whilecompletely unitingtheinterestsoftheworkersandthemajorityofthepeasants,atthesametimeserveasabridge leadingfromcapitalismtosocialism.Thesemeasuresconcernthereorganizationofthestate,thepurely politicalreorganizationofsocietybut,ofcourse,theyacquiretheirfullmeaningandsignificanceonlyin connectionwiththe"expropriationoftheexpropriators"eitherbringaccomplishedorinpreparation,i.e., withthetransformationofcapitalistprivateownershipofthemeansofproductionintosocialownership. "TheCommune,"Marxwrote,"madethecatchwordofallbourgeoisrevolutions,cheap government,areality,byabolishingthetwogreatestsourcesofexpenditurethearmyandthe officialdom." Fromthepeasants,asfromothersectionsofthepettybourgeoisie,onlyaninsignificantfew"risetothe top","getonintheworld"inthebourgeoissense,i.e.,becomeeitherwelltodo,bourgeois,orofficialsin secureandprivilegedpositions.Ineverycapitalistcountrywheretherearepeasants(asthereareinmost

capitalistcountries),thevastmajorityofthemareoppressedbythegovernmentandlongforitsoverthrow, longforcheapgovernment.Thiscanbeachievedonlybytheproletariatandbyachievingit,the proletariatatthesametimetakesasteptowardsthesocialistreorganizationofthestate.

3.AbolitionofParliamentarism
"TheCommune,"Marxwrote,"wastobeaworking,notaparliamentary,body,executiveandlegislative atthesametime.... "Insteadofdecidingonceinthreeorsixyearswhichmemberoftherulingclasswasto representandrepress[verandzertreten]thepeopleinparliament,universalsuffragewasto servethepeopleconstitutedincommunes,asindividualsuffrageserveseveryotheremployer inthesearchforworkers,foremenandaccountantsforhisbusiness." Owingtotheprevalenceofsocialchauvinismandopportunism,thisremarkablecriticismof parliamentarism,madein1871,alsobelongsnowtothe"forgottenwords"ofMarxism.Theprofessional CabinetMinistersandparliamentarians,thetraitorstotheproletariatandthepracticalsocialistsofour day,haveleftallcriticismofparliamentarismtotheanarchists,and,onthiswonderfullyreasonableground, theydenounceallcriticismofparliamentarismasanarchism!!Itisnotsurprisingthattheproletariatofthe advancedparliamentarycountries,disgustedwithsuchsocialistsastheScheidemanns,Davids, Legiens,Sembats,Renaudels,Hendersons,Vanderveldes,Staunings,Brantings,Bissolatis,andCo.,has beenwithincreasingfrequencygivingitssympathiestoanarchosyndicalism,inspiteofthefactthatthe latterismerelythetwinbrotherofopportunism. ForMarx,however,revolutionarydialecticswasnevertheemptyfashionablephrase,thetoyrattle,which Plekhanov,Kautskyandothershavemadeofit.Marxknewhowtobreakwithanarchismruthlesslyforits inabilitytomakeuseevenofthepigstyofbourgeoisparliamentarism,especiallywhenthesituationwas obviouslynotrevolutionarybutatthesametimeheknewhowtosubjectparliamentarismtogenuinely revolutionaryproletariancriticism. Todecideonceeveryfewyearswhichmembersoftherulingclassistorepressandcrushthepeople throughparliamentthisistherealessenceofbourgeoisparliamentarism,notonlyinparliamentary constitutionalmonarchies,butalsointhemostdemocraticrepublics. Butifwedealwiththequestionofthestate,andifweconsiderparliamentarismasoneoftheinstitutionsof thestate,fromthepointofviewofthetasksoftheproletariatinthisfield,whatisthewayoutof parliamentarism?Howcanitbedispensedwith? Onceagain,wemustsay:thelessonsofMarx,basedonthestudyoftheCommune,havebeenso completelyforgottenthatthepresentday"SocialDemocrat"(i.e.,presentdaytraitortosocialism)really cannotunderstandanycriticismofparliamentarismotherthananarchistorreactionarycriticism. Thewayoutofparliamentarismisnot,ofcourse,theabolitionofrepresentativeinstitutionsandtheelective principle,buttheconversionoftherepresentativeinstitutionsfromtalkingshopsintoworkingbodies. "TheCommunewastobeaworking,notaparliamentary,body,executiveandlegislativeatthesame time."

"Aworking,notaparliamentarybody"thisisablowstraightfromtheshoulderatthepresentday parliamentariancountry,fromAmericatoSwitzerland,fromFrancetoBritain,Norwayandsoforthin thesecountriestherealbusinessofstateisperformedbehindthescenesandiscarriedonbythe departments,chancelleries,andGeneralStaffs.parliamentisgivenuptotalkforthespecialpurposeof foolingthe"commonpeople".ThisissotruethatevenintheRussianrepublic,abourgeoisdemocratic republic,allthesesinsofparliamentarismcameoutatonce,evenbeforeitmanagedtosetupareal parliament.Theheroesofrottenphilistinism,suchastheskobelevsandtseretelis,theChernovsand Avksentyevs,haveevensucceededinpollutingtheSovietsafterthefashionofthemostdisgusting bourgeoisparliamentarism,inconvertingthemintomeretalkingshops.IntheSoviets,thesocialist Ministersarefoolingthecredulousrusticswithphrasemongeringandresolutions.Inthegovernmentitself asortofpermanentshuffleisgoingoninorderthat,ontheonehand,asmanySocialistRevolutionaries andMensheviksaspossiblemayinturngetnearthepie,thelucrativeandhonorableposts,andthat,on theotherhand,theattentionofthepeoplemaybeengaged.meanwhilethechancelleriesandarmy staffsdothebusinessofstate. DyeloNaroda,theorganoftherulingSocialistRevolutionaryParty,recentlyadmittedinaleadingarticle withthematchlessfranknessofpeopleof"goodsociety",inwhichallareengagedinpolitical prostitutionthatevenintheministeriesheadedbythesocialists(savethemark!),thewholebureaucratic apparatusisinfactunchanged,isworkingintheoldwayandquitefreelysabotagingrevolutionary measures!Evenwithoutthisadmission,doesnottheactualhistoryoftheparticipationoftheSocialist RevolutionariesandMensheviksinthegovernmentprovethis?Itisnoteworthy,however,thatinthe ministerialcompanyoftheCadets,theChernovs,Rusanovs,Zenzinovs,andothereditorsofDyeloNaroda havesocompletelylostallsenseofshameastobrazenlyassert,asifitwereamerebagetelle,thatintheir ministerieseverythingisunchanged!!RevolutionarydemocraticphrasestogulltheruralSimpleSimons, andbureaucracyandredtapeto"gladdenthehearts"ofthecapitaliststhatistheessenceofthehonest coalition. TheCommunesubstitutesforthevenalandrottenparliamentarismofbourgeoissocietyinstitutionsin whichfreedomofopinionanddiscussiondoesnotdegenerateintodeception,fortheparliamentarians themselveshavetowork,havetoexecutetheirownlaws,havethemselvestotesttheresultsachievedin reality,andtoaccountdirectlytotheirconstituents.Representativeinstitutionsremain,butthereisno parliamentarismhereasaspecialsystem,asthedivisionoflaborbetweenthelegislativeandtheexecutive, asaprivilegedpositionforthedeputies.Wecannotimaginedemocracy,evenproletariandemocracy, withoutrepresentativeinstitutions,butwecanandmustimaginedemocracywithoutparliamentarism,if criticismofbourgeoissocietyisnotmerewordsforus,ifthedesiretooverthrowtheruleofthebourgeoisie isourearnestandsinceredesire,andnotamereelectioncryforcatchingworkers'votes,asitiswiththe MensheviksandSocialistRevolutionaries,andalsotheScheidemannsandLegiens,theSmblatsand Vanderveldes. Itisextremelyinstructivetonotethat,inspeakingofthefunctionofthoseofficialswhoarenecessaryfor theCommuneandforproletariandemocracy,Marxcomparesthemtotheworkersof"everyother employer",thatis,oftheordinarycapitalistenterprise,withits"workers,foremen,andaccountants". ThereisnotraceofutopianisminMarx,inthesensethathemadeuporinventedanewsociety.No,he studiedthebirthofthenewsocietyoutoftheold,andtheformsoftransitionfromthelattertotheformer,

asamassproletarianmovementandtriedtodrawpracticallessonsfromit.HeLearnedfromthe Commune,justasallthegreatrevolutionarythinkerslearnedunhesitatinglyfromtheexperienceofgreat movementsoftheoppressedclasses,andneveraddressedthemwithpedantichomilies(suchas Plekhanov's:"Theyshouldnothavetakenuparms"orTsereteli's:"Aclassmustlimititself"). Abolishingthebureaucracyatonce,everywhereandcompletely,isoutofthequestion.Itisautopia.Butto smashtheoldbureaucraticmachineatonceandtobeginimmediatelytoconstructanewonethatwillmake possiblethegradualabolitionofallbureaucracythisisnotautopia,itistheexperienceoftheCommune, thedirectandimmediatetaskoftherevolutionaryproletariat. Capitalismsimplifiesthefunctionsofstateadministrationitmakesitpossibletocastbossingasideand toconfinethewholemattertotheorganizationoftheproletarians(astherulingclass),whichwillhire "workers,foremenandaccountants"inthenameofthewholeofsociety. Wearenotutopians,wedonotdreamofdispensingatoncewithalladministration,withall subordination.Theseanarchistdreams,baseduponincomprehensionofthetasksoftheproletarian dictatorship,aretotallyalientoMarxism,and,asamatteroffact,serveonlytopostponethesocialist revolutionuntilpeoplearedifferent.No,wewantthesocialistrevolutionwithpeopleastheyarenow,with peoplewhocannotdispensewithsubordination,control,and"foremenandaccountants". Thesubordination,however,mustbetothearmedvanguardofalltheexploitedandworkingpeople,i.e., totheproletariat.Abeginningcanandmustbemadeatonce,overnight,toreplacethespecificbossingof stateofficialsbythesimplefunctionsof"foremenandaccountants",functionswhicharealreadyfully withintheabilityoftheaveragetowndwellerandcanwellbeperformedfor"workmen'swages". We,theworkers,shallorganizelargescaleproductiononthebasisofwhatcapitalismhasalreadycreated, relyingonourownexperienceasworkers,establishingstrict,irondisciplinebackedupbythestatepower ofthearmedworkers.Weshallreducetheroleofstateofficialstothatofsimplycarryingoutour instructionsasresponsible,revocable,modestlypaid"foremenandaccountants"(ofcourse,withtheaidof techniciansofallsorts,typesanddegrees).Thisisourproletariantask,thisiswhatwecanandmuststart withinaccomplishingtheproletarianrevolution.Suchabeginning,onthebasisoflargescaleproduction, willofitselfleadtothegradual"witheringaway"ofallbureaucracy,tothegradualcreationofanorderan orderwithoutinvertedcommas,anorderbearingnosimilaritytowageslaveryanorderunderwhichthe functionsofcontrolandaccounting,becomingmoreandmoresimple,willbeperformedbyeachinturn, willthenbecomeahabitandwillfinallydieoutasthespecialfunctionsofaspecialsectionofthe population. AwittyGermanSocialDemocratoftheseventiesofthelastcenturycalledthepostalserviceanexampleof thesocialisteconomicsystem.Thisisverytrue.Atthepresentthepostalserviceisabusinessorganizedon thelinesofstatecapitalistmonopoly.Imperialismisgraduallytransformingalltrustsintoorganizationsofa similartype,inwhich,standingoverthecommonpeople,whoareoverworkedandstarved,onehasthe samebourgeoisbureaucracy.Butthemechanismofsocialmanagementisherealreadytohand.Oncewe haveoverthrownthecapitalists,crushedtheresistanceoftheseexploiterswiththeironhandofthearmed workers,andsmashedthebureaucraticmachineryofthemodernstate,weshallhaveasplendidlyequipped mechanism,freedfromtheparasite,amechanismwhichcanverywellbesetgoingbytheunitedworkers themselves,whowillhiretechnicians,foremenandaccountants,andpaythemall,asindeedallstate

officialsingeneral,workmen'swages.Hereisaconcrete,practicaltaskwhichcanimmediatelybefulfilled inrelationtoalltrusts,ataskwhosefulfilmentwillridtheworkingpeopleofexploitation,ataskwhich takesaccountofwhattheCommunehadalreadybeguntopractice(particularlyinbuildingupthestate). Toorganizethewholeeconomyonthelinesofthepostalservicesothatthetechnicians,foremenand accountants,aswellasallofficials,shallreceivesalariesnohigherthan"aworkman'swage",allunderthe controlandleadershipofthearmedproletariatthatisourimmediateaim.Thisiswhatwillbringaboutthe abolitionofparliamentarismandthepreservationofrepresentativeinstitutions.Thisiswhatwillridthe laboringclassesofthebourgeoisie'sprostitutionoftheseinstitutions.

4.OrganisationofNationalUnity
"InabriefsketchofnationalorganizationwhichtheCommunehadnotimetodevelop,it statesexplicitlythattheCommunewastobethepoliticalformofeventhesmallestvillage...." Thecommunesweretoelectthe"NationalDelegation"inParis. "...Thefewbutimportantfunctionswhichwouldstillremainforacentralgovernmentwere nottotobesuppressed,ashadbeendeliberatelymisstated,butweretobetransferredto communal,i.e.,strictlyresponsible,officials. "...Nationalunitywasnottobebroken,but,onthecontrary,organizedbythecommunal constitutionitwastobecomearealitybythedestructionofstatepowerwhichposedasthe embodimentofthatunityyetwantedtobeindependentof,andsuperiorto,thenation,on whosebodyitwasbutaparasiticexcrescence.Whilethemerelyrepressiveorgansoftheold governmentalpowerweretobeamputated,itslegitimatefunctionsweretobewrestedfroman authorityclaimingtherighttostandabovesociety,andrestoredtotheresponsibleservantsof society." TheextenttowhichtheopportunistsofpresentdaySocialDemocracyhavefailedperhapsitwouldbe moretruetosay,haverefusedtounderstandtheseobservationsofMarxisbestshownbythatbookof HerostrateanfameoftherenegadeBernstein,ThePremisesofSocialismandtheTasksoftheSocial Democrats.ItisinconnectionwiththeabovepassagefromMarxthatBernsteinwrotethat"asfarasits politicalcontent",thisprogramme"displays,inallitsessentialfeatures,thegreatestsimilaritytothe federalismofProudhon....InspiteofalltheotherpointsofdifferencebetweenMarxandthe'petty bourgeois'Proudhon[Bernsteinplacestheword"pettybourgeois"ininvertedcommas,tomakeitsound ironical]onthesepoints,theirlinesofreasoningrunascloseascouldbe."Ofcourse,Bernsteincontinues, theimportanceofthemunicipalitiesisgrowing,but"itseemsdoubtfultomewhetherthefirstjobof democracywouldbesuchadissolution[Auflosung]ofthemodernstatesandsuchacomplete transformation[Umwandlung]oftheirorganizationasisvisualizedbyMarxandProudhon(theformation ofaNationalAssemblyfromdelegatesoftheprovincialofdistrictassemblies,which,intheirturn,would consistofdelegatesfromthecommunes),sothatconsequentlythepreviousmodeofnationalrepresentation woulddisappear."(Bernstein,Premises,Germanedition,1899,pp.134and136) ToconfuseMarx'sviewonthe"destructionofstatepower,aparasiticexcrescence",withProudhon's federalismispositivelymonstrous!Butitisnoaccident,foritneveroccurstotheopportunistthatMarx doesnotspeakhereatallaboutfederalismasopposedtocentralism,butaboutsmashingtheold,bourgeois

statemachinewhichexistsinallbourgeoiscountries. Theonlythingthatdoesoccurtotheopportunistiswhatheseesaroundhim,inanenvironmentofpetty bourgeoisphilistinismandreformistsstagnation,namely,onlymunicipalities!Theopportunisthaseven grownoutofthehabitofthinkingaboutproletarianrevolution. Itisridiculous.ButtheremarkablethingisthatnobodyarguedwithBernsteinonthispoint.Bernsteinhas beenrefutedbymany,especiallybyPlekhanovinRussianliteratureandbyKautskyinEuropeanliterature, butneitherofthemhassaidanythingaboutthisdistortionofMarxbyBernstein. Theopportunisthassomuchforgottenhowtothinkinarevolutionarywayandtodwellonrevolutionthat heattributesfederalismtoMarx,whomheconfuseswiththefounderofanarchism,Proudhon.Asfor KautskyandPlekhanov,whoclaimtobeorthodoxMarxistsanddefendersofthetheoryofrevolutionary Marxism,theyaresilentonthispoint!Hereisoneoftherootsoftheextremevulgarizationoftheviewson thedifferencebetweenMarxismandanarchism,whichischaracteristicofboththeKautskyitesandthe opportunists,andwhichweshalldiscussagainlater. ThereisnotatraceoffederalisminMarx'sabovequotedobservationontheexperienceoftheCommune. MarxagreedwithProudhonontheverypointthattheopportunistBernsteindidnotsee.Marxdisagreed withProudhonontheverypointonwhichBernsteinfoundasimilaritybetweenthem. MarxagreedwithProudhoninthattheybothstoodforthesmashingofthemodernstatemachine. NeithertheopportunistsnortheKautskyiteswishtoseethesimilarityofviewsonthispointbetween Marxismandanarchism(bothProudhonandBakunin)becausethisiswheretheyhavedepartedfrom Marxism. MarxdisagreedbothwithProudhonandBakuninpreciselyonthequestionoffederalism(nottomention thedictatorshipoftheproletariat).Federalismasaprinciplefollowslogicallyfromthepettybourgeois viewsofanarchism.Marxwasacentralist.Thereisnodeparturewhateverfromcentralisminhis observationsjustquoted.Onlythosewhoareimbuedwiththephilistine"superstitiousbelief"inthestate canmistakethedestructionofthebourgeoisstatemachineforthedestructionofcentralism! Nowiftheproletariatandthepoorpeasantstakestatepowerintotheirownhands,organizethemselves quitefreelyincommunes,andunitetheactionofallthecommunesinstrikingatcapital,incrushingthe resistanceofthecapitalists,andintransferringtheprivatelyownedrailways,factories,landandsoontothe entirenation,tothewholeofsociety,won'tthatbecentralism?Won'tthatbethemostconsistentdemocratic centralismand,moreover,proletariancentralism? Bernsteinsimplycannotconceiveofthepossibilityofvoluntarycentralism,ofthevoluntaryfusionofthe proletariancommunes,forthesolepurposeofdestroyingbourgeoisruleandthebourgeoisstatemachine. Likeallphilistines,Bernsteinpicturescentralismassomethingwhichcanbeimposedandmaintainedsolely fromabove,andsolelybythebureaucracyandmilitaryclique. Asthoughforeseeingthathisviewsmightbedistorted,Marxexpresslyemphasizedthatthechargethatthe Communehadwantedtodestroynationalunity,toabolishthecentralauthority,wasadeliberatefraud. Marxpurposelyusedthewords:"Nationalunitywas...tobeorganized",soastoopposeconscious,

democratic,proletariancentralismtobourgeois,military,bureaucraticcentralism. Buttherearenonesodeafasthosewhowillnothear.Andtheverythingtheopportunistsofpresentday SocialDemocracydonotwanttohearaboutitthedestructionofstatepower,theamputationofthe parasiticexcrescence.

5.AbolitionoftheParasiteState
WehavealreadyquotedMarx'swordsonthesubject,andwemustnowsupplementthem. "Itisgenerallythefateofnewhistoricalcreations,"hewrote,"tobemistakenforthe counterpartofolderandevendefunctformsofsociallife,towhichtheymaybearacertain likeness.Thus,thisnewCommune,whichbreaks[bricht,smashes]themodernstatepower, hasbeenregardedasarevivalofthemedievalcommunes...asafederationofsmallstates(as MontesquieuandtheGirondins16visualizedit)...asanexaggeratedformoftheoldstruggle againstovercentralization.... "...TheCommunalConstitutionwouldhaverestoredtothesocialbodyalltheforceshitherto absorbedbythatparasiticexcrescence,the'state',feedinguponandhamperingthefree movementofsociety.BythisoneactitwouldhaveinitiatedtheregenerationofFrance.... "...TheCommunalConstitutionwouldhavebroughttheruralproducersundertheintellectual leadofthecentraltownsoftheirdistricts,andtheresecuredtothem,inthetownworkingmen, thenaturaltrusteesoftheirinterests.TheveryexistenceoftheCommuneinvolved,asamatter ofcourse,localselfgovernment,butnolongerasacounterpoisetostatepower,nowbecome superfluous." "Breakingstatepower",whichasa"parasiticexcrescence"itsamputation,itssmashing"statepower, nowbecomesuperfluous"thesearetheexpressionsMarxusedinregardtothestatewhenappraisingand analyzingtheexperienceoftheCommune. Allthiswaswrittenalittlelessthanhalfacenturyagoandnowonehastoengageinexcavations,asit were,inordertobringundistortedMarxismtotheknowledgeofthemassofthepeople.Theconclusions drawnfromtheobservationofthelastgreatrevolutionwhichMarxlivedthroughwereforgottenjustwhen thetimeforthenextgreatproletarianrevolutionhasarrived. "...ThemultiplicityofinterpretationstowhichtheCommunehasbeensubjected,andthe multiplicityofinterestswhichexpressedthemselvesinitshowthatitwasathoroughlyflexible politicalform,whileallpreviousformsofgovernmenthadbeenessentiallyrepressive.Itstrue secretwasthis:itwasessentiallyaworkingclassgovernment,theresultofthestruggleofthe producingagainsttheappropriatingclass,thepoliticalformatlastdiscoveredunderwhichthe economicemancipationoflaborcouldbeaccomplished.... "Exceptonthislastcondition,theCommunalConstitutionwouldhavebeenanimpossibility andadelusion...." Theutopiansbusiedthemselveswithdiscoveringpoliticalformsunderwhichthesocialisttransformation

ofsocietywastotakeplace.Theanarchistsdismissedthequestionofpoliticalformsaltogether.The opportunistsofpresentdaySocialDemocracyacceptedthebourgeoispoliticalformsoftheparliamentary democraticstateasthelimitwhichshouldnotbeoversteppedtheybatteredtheirforeheadsprayingbefore thismodel,anddenouncedasanarchismeverydesiretobreaktheseforms. Marxdeducedfromthewholehistoryofsocialismandthepoliticalstrugglethatthestatewasboundto disappear,andthatthetransitionalformofitsdisappearance(thetransitionfromstatetononstate)wouldbe the"proletariatorganizedastherulingclass".Marx,however,didnotsetouttodiscoverthepoliticalforms ofthisfuturestage.HelimitedhimselftocarefullyobservingFrenchhistory,toanalyzingit,andtodrawing theconclusiontowhichtheyear1851hadled,namely,thatmattersweremovingtowardsdestructionof thebourgeoisstatemachine. Andwhenthemassrevolutionarymovementoftheproletariatburstforth,Marx,inspiteofitsfailure,in spiteofitsshortlifeandpatentweakness,begantostudytheformsithaddiscovered. TheCommuneistheform"atlastdiscovered"bytheproletarianrevolution,underwhichtheeconomic emancipationoflaborcantakeplace. TheCommuneisthefirstattemptbyaproletarianrevolutiontosmashthebourgeoisstatemachineanditis thepoliticalform"atlastdiscovered",bywhichthesmashedstatemachinecanandmustbereplaced. WeshallseefurtheronthattheRussianrevolutionsof1905and1917,indifferentcircumstancesandunder differentconditions,continuetheworkoftheCommuneandconfirmMarx'sbrillianthistoricalanalysis.

ChapterIV:SupplementaryExplanationsbyEngels
MarxgavethefundamentalsconcerningthesignificanceoftheexperienceoftheCommune.Engels returnedtothesamesubjecttimeandagain,andexplainedMarx'sanalysisandconclusions,sometimes elucidatingotheraspectsofthequestionwithsuchpowerandvividnessthatitisnecessarytodealwithhis explanationsspecially.

1.TheHousingQuestion
Inhiswork,TheHousingQuestion(1872),Engelsalreadytookintoaccounttheexperienceofthe Commune,anddealtseveraltimeswiththetasksoftherevolutioninrelationtothestate.Itisinterestingto notethatthetreatmentofthisspecificsubjectclearlyrevealed,ontheonehand,pointsofsimilaritybetween theproletarianstateandthepresentstatepointsthatwarrantspeakingofthestateinbothcasesand,onthe otherhand,pointsofdifferencebetweenthem,orthetransitiontothedestructionofthestate. "Howisthehousingquestiontobesettledthen?Inpresentdaysociety,itissettledjustasany othersocialquestion:bythegradualeconomiclevellingofdemandandsupply,asettlement whichreproducesthequestionitselfagainandagainandthereforeisnosettlement.Howa socialrevolutionwouldsettlethisquestionnotonlydependsonthecircumstancesineach particularcase,butisalsoconnectedwithmuchmorefarreachingquestions,oneofthemost fundamentalofwhichistheabolitionoftheantithesisbetweentownandcountry.Asitisnot ourtasktocreateutopiansystemsfortheorganizationofthefuturesociety,itwouldbemore

thanidletogointothequestionhere.Butonethingiscertain:thereisalreadyasufficient quantityofhousesinthebigcitiestoremedyimmediatelyallreal'housingshortage',provided theyareusedjudiciously.Thiscannaturallyonlyoccurthroughtheexpropriationofthe presentownersandbyquarteringintheirhouseshomelessworkersorworkersovercrowdedin theirpresenthomes.Assoonastheproletariathaswonpoliticalpower,suchameasure promptedbyconcernforthecommongoodwillbejustaseasytocarryoutasareother expropriationsandbilletingsbythepresentdaystate."(Germanedition,1887,p.22)17 Thechangeintheformofstatepowerisnotexaminedhere,butonlythecontentofitsactivity. Expropriationsandbilletingstakeplacebyorderevenofthepresentstate.Fromtheformalpointofview, theproletarianstatewillalsoordertheoccupationofdwellingsandexpropriationofhouses.Butitis clearthattheoldexecutiveapparatus,thebureaucracy,whichisconnectedwiththebourgeoisie,would simplybeunfittocarryouttheordersoftheproletarianstate. "...Itmustbepointedoutthatthe'actualseizure'ofalltheinstrumentsoflabor,thetaking possessionofindustryasawholebytheworkingpeople,istheexactoppositeofthe Proudhonist'redemption'.Inthelattercasetheindividualworkerbecomestheownerofthe dwelling,thepeasantfarm,theinstrumentsoflaborintheformercase,the'workingpeople' remainthecollectiveownersofthehouses,factoriesandinstrumentsoflabor,andwillhardly permittheiruse,atleastduringatransitionalperiod,byindividualsorassociationswithout compensationforthecost.Inthesameway,theabolitionofpropertyinlandisnotthe abolitionofgroundrentbutitstransfer,ifinamodifiedform,tosociety.Theactualseizureof alltheinstrumentsoflaborbytheworkingpeople,therefore,doesnotatallprecludethe retentionofrentrelations."(p.68) Weshallexaminethequestiontoucheduponinthispassage,namely,theeconomicbasisforthewithering awayofthestate,inthenextchapter.Engelsexpresseshimselfmostcautiously.sayingthattheproletarian statewouldhardlypermittheuseofhouseswithoutpayment,"atleastduringatransitionalperiod".The lettingofhousesowedbythewholepeopletoindividualfamiliespresupposesthecollectionofrent,a certainamountofcontrol,ndtheemploymentofsomestandardinallottingthehousing.Allthiscallsfora certainformofstate,butitdoesnotatallcallforaspecialmilitarybureaucraticapparatus,withofficials occupyingespeciallyprivilegedpositions.Thetransitiontoasituationinwhichitwillbepossibletosupply dwellingsrentfreedependsonthecomplete"witheringaway"ofthestate. SpeakingoftheBlanquists'adoptionofthefundamentalpositionofMarxismaftertheCommuneandunder theinfluenceofitsexperience,Engels,inpassing,formulatesthispositionasfollows: "...Necessityofpoliticalactionbytheproletariatandofitsdictatorshipasthetransitiontothe abolitionofclassesand,withthem,ofthestate...."(p.55) Addictsofhairsplittingcriticism,orbourgeois"exterminatorsofMarxism",willperhapsseea contradictionbetweenthisrecognitionofthe"abolitionofthestate"andrepudiationofthisformulaasan anarchistoneintheabovepassagefromAntiDhring.Itwouldnotbesurprisingiftheopportunistsclassed Engels,too,asananarchist,foritisbecomingincreasinglycommonwiththesocialchauviniststoaccuse theinternationalistsofanarchism.

Marxismhasalwaystaughtthatwiththeabolitionofclassesthestatewillalsobeabolished.Thewell knownpassageonthe"witheringawayofthestateinAntiDhringaccusestheanarchistsnotsimplyof favoringtheabolitionofthestate,butofpreachingthatthestatecanbeabolishedovernight. Asthenowprevailing"SocialDemocratic"doctrinecompletelydistortstherelationofMarxismto anarchismonthequestionoftheabolitionofthestate,itwillbeparticularlyusefultorecallacertain controversyinwhichMarxandEngelscameoutagainsttheanarchists. ControversywiththeAnarchists Thiscontroversytookplacein1873.MarxandEngelscontributedarticlesagainsttheProudhonists, autonomistsor"antiauthoritarians",toanItaliansocialistannual,anditwasnotuntil1913thatthese articlesappearedinGermaninNeueZeit18. "Ifthepoliticalstruggleoftheworkingclassassumesrevolutionaryform,"wroteMarx, ridiculingtheanarchistsfortheirrepudiationofpolitics,"andiftheworkerssetuptheir revolutionarydictatorshipinplaceofthedictatorshipofthebourgeoisie,theycommitthe terriblecrimeofviolatingprinciples,forinordertosatisfytheirwretched,vulgareveryday needsandtocrushtheresistanceofthebourgeoisie,theygivethestatearevolutionaryand transientform,insteadoflayingdowntheirarmsandabolishingthestate."(NeueZeit Vol.XXXII,1,191314,p.40) ItwassolelyagainstthiskindofabolitionofthestatethatMarxfoughtinrefutingtheanarchists!Hedid notatallopposetheviewthatthestatewoulddisappearwhenclassesdisappeared,orthatitwouldbe abolishedwhenclasseswereabolished.Whathedidopposewasthepropositionthattheworkersshould renouncetheuseofarms,organizedviolence,thatis,thestate,whichistoserveto"crushtheresistanceof thebourgeoisie". Topreventthetruemeaningofhisstruggleagainstanarchismfrombeingdistorted,Marxexpressly emphasizedthe"revolutionaryandtransientform"ofthestatewhichtheproletariatneeds.Theproletariat needsthestateonlytemporarily.Wedonotafteralldifferwiththeanarchistsonthequestionofthe abolitionofthestateastheaim.Wemaintainthat,toachievethisaim,wemusttemporarilymakeuseofthe instruments,resources,andmethodsofstatepoweragainsttheexploiters,justasthetemporarydictatorship oftheoppressedclassisnecessaryfortheabolitionofclasses.Marxchoosesthesharpestandclearestway ofstatinghiscaseagainsttheanarchists:Afteroverthrowingtheyokeofthecapitalists,shouldtheworkers "laydowntheirarms",orusethemagainstthecapitalistsinordertocrushtheirresistance?Butwhatisthe systematicuseofarmsbyneclassagainstanotherifnota"transientform"ofstate? LeteverySocialDemocrataskhimself:Isthathowhehasbeenposingthequestionofthestatein controversywiththeanarchists?Isthathowithasbeenposedbythevastmajorityoftheofficialsocialist partiesoftheSecondInternational? Engelsexpoundsthesameideasinmuchgreaterdetailandstillmorepopularly.Firstofallheridiculesthe muddledideasoftheProudhonists,whocallthemselves"antiauthoritarians",i.e.,repudiatedallauthority, allsubordination,allpower.Takeafactory,arailway,ashiponthehighseas,saidEngels:isitnotclear thatnotoneofthesecomplextechnicalestablishments,basedontheuseofmachineryandthesystematic

cooperationofmanypeople,couldfunctionwithoutacertainamountofsubordinationand,consequently, withoutacertainamountofauthorityorpower? "...WhenIcounterthemostrabidantiauthoritarianswiththesearguments,theyonlyanswer theycangivemeisthefollowing:Oh,that'strue,exceptthathereitisnotaquestionof authoritywithwhichwevestourdelegates,butofacommission!Thesepeopleimaginethey canchangeathingbychangingitsname...." Havingthusshownthatauthorityandautonomyarerelativeterms,thatthesphereoftheirapplicationvaries withthevariousphasesofsocialdevelopment,thatitisabsurdtotakethemasabsolutes,andaddingthat thesphereofapplicationofmachineryandlargescaleproductionissteadilyexpanding,Engelspassesfrom thegeneraldiscussionofauthoritytothequestionofthestate. "Hadtheautonomists,"hewrote,"contentedthemselveswithsayingthatthesocial organizationofthefuturewouldallowauthorityonlywithintheboundswhichtheconditions ofproductionmakeinevitable,onecouldhavecometotermswiththem.Buttheyareblindto allfactsthatmakeauthoritynecessaryandtheypassionatelyfighttheword. "Whydotheantiauthoritariansnotconfinethemselvestocryingoutagainstpoliticalauthority, thestate?Allsocialistsareagreedthatthestate,andwithitpoliticalauthority,willdisappearas aresultofthecomingsocialrevolution,thatis,thatpublicfunctionswilllosetheirpolitical characterandbecomemereadministrativefunctionsofwatchingoversocialinterests.Butthe antiauthoritariansdemandthatthepoliticalstatebeabolishedatonestroke,evenbeforethe socialrelationsthatgavebothtoithavebeendestroyed.Theydemandthatthefirstactofthe socialrevolutionshallbetheabolitionofauthority. "Havethesegentlemeneverseenarevolution?Arevolutioniscertainlythemostauthoritarian thingthereisitisanactwherebyonepartofthepopulationimposesitswillupontheother partbymeansofrifles,bayonetsandcannon,allofwhicharehighlyauthoritarianmeans.And thevictoriouspartymustmaintainitsrulebymeansoftheterrorwhichitsarmsinspireinthe reactionaries.WouldtheParisCommunehavelastedmorethanadayifithadnotusedthe authorityofthearmedpeopleagainstthebourgeoisie?Cannotwe,onthecontrary,blameitfor havingmadetoolittleuseofthatauthority?Therefore,oneoftwothings:eitherthatanti authoritariansdown'tknowwhattheyaretalkingabout,inwhichcasetheyarecreating nothingbutconfusion.Ortheydoknow,andinthatcasetheyarebetrayingthecauseofthe proletariat.Ineithercasetheyserveonlyreaction."(p.39) Thisargumenttouchesuponquestionswhichshouldbeexaminedinconnectionwiththerelationship betweenpoliticsandeconomicsduringthewitheringawayofthestate(thenextchapterisdevotedtothis). Thesequestionsare:thetransformationofpublicfunctionsfrompoliticalintosimplefunctionsof administration,andthe"politicalstate".Thislastterm,oneparticularlyliabletomisunderstanding,indicates theprocessofthewitheringawayofthestate:atacertainstageofthisprocess,thestatewhichiswithering awaymaybecalledanonpoliticalstate. Against,themostremarkablethinginthisargumentofEngels'isthewayhestateshiscaseagainstthe anarchists.SocialDemocrats,claimingtobedisciplesofEngels,havearguedonthissubjectagainstthe

anarchistsmillionsoftimessince1873,buttheyhavenotarguedasMarxistscouldandshould.The anarchistideaofabolitionofthestateismuddledandnonrevolutionarythatishowEngelsputit.Itis preciselytherevolutioninitsriseanddevelopment,withitsspecifictasksinrelationtoviolence,authority, power,thestate,thattheanarchistsrefusetosee. TheusualcriticismofanarchismbypresentdaySocialDemocratshasboileddowntothepurestphilistine banality:"Werecognizethestate,whereastheanarchistsdonot!"Naturally,suchbanalitycannotbutrepel workerswhoareatallcapableofthinkingandrevolutionaryminded.WhatEngelssaysisdifferent.He stressesthatallsocialistsrecognizethatthestatewilldisappearasaresultofthesocialistrevolution.He thendealsspecificallywiththequestionoftherevolutiontheveryquestionwhich,asarule,theSocial Democratsevadeoutofopportunism,leavingit,sotospeak,exclusivelyfortheanarchists"toworkout". Andwhendealingwiththisquestion,Engelstakesthebullbythehornsheasks:shouldnottheCommune havemademoreuseoftherevolutionarypowerofthestate,thatis,oftheproletariatarmedandorganized astherulingclass? PrevailingofficialSocialDemocracyusuallydismissedthequestionoftheconcretetasksoftheproletariat intherevolutioneitherwithaphilistinesneer,or,atbest,withthesophisticevasion:"Thefuturewill show".AndtheanarchistswerejustifiedinsayingaboutsuchSocialDemocratsthattheywerefailingin theirtaskofgivingtheworkersarevolutionaryeducation.Engelsdrawsupontheexperienceofthelast proletarianrevolutionpreciselyforthepurposeofmakingamostconcretestudyofwhatshouldbedoneby theproletariat,andinwhatmanner,inrelationtoboththebanksandthestate. LettertoBebel Oneofthemost,ifnotthemost,remarkableobservationonthestateintheworksofMarxandEngelsis containedinthefollowingpassageinEngels'lettertoBebeldatedMarch1828,1875.Thisletter,wemay observeinparenthesis,was,asfarasweknow,firstpublishedbyBebelinthesecondvolumeofhis memoirs(AusmeinemLeben),whichappearedin1911,i.e.,36yearsaftertheletterhadbeenwrittenand sent. EngelswrotetoBebelcriticizingthesamedraftoftheGothaProgrammewhichMarxcriticizedinhis famouslettertoBracke.Referringspeciallytothequestionofthestate,Engelssaid: "Thefreepeople'sstatehasbeentransferredintothefreestate.Takeninitsgrammaticalsense, afreestateisonewherethestateisfreeinrelationtoitscitizens,henceastatewithadespotic government.Thewholetalkaboutthestateshouldbedropped,especiallysincetheCommune, whichwasnolongerastateinthepropersenseoftheword.The'people'sstate'hasbeen throwninourfacesbytheanarchiststothepointofdisgust,althoughalreadyMarx'sbook againstProudhonandlatertheCommunistManifestosayplainlythatwiththeintroductionof thesocialistorderofsocietythestatedissolvesofitself[sichauflost]anddisappears.Asthe stateisonlyatransitionalinstitutionwhichisusedinthestruggle,intherevolution,tohold downone'sadversariesbyforce,itissheernonsensetotalkofa'freepeople'sstate'solongas theproletariatstillneedsthestate,itdoesnotneeditintheinterestsoffreedombutinorderto holddownitsadversaries,andassoonasitbecomespossibletospeakoffreedomthestateas suchceasestoexist.Wewouldthereforeproposereplacingthestateeverywhereby Gemeinwesen,agoodoldGermanwordwhichcanverywelltaketheplaceoftheFrench

wordcommune."(pp.32122oftheGermanoriginal.)19 ItshouldbeborneinmindthatthisletterreferstothepartyprogrammewhichMarxcriticizedinaletter datedonlyafewweekslaterthantheabove(Marx'sletterisdatedMay5,1875),andthatatthetime EngelswaslivingwithMarxinLondon.Consequently,whenhesaysweinthelastsentence,Engels undoubtedly,inhisownaswellasinMarx'sname,suggeststotheleaderoftheGermanworkers'partythat thewordstatebestruckoutoftheprogrammeandreplacedbythewordcommunity. WhatahowlaboutanarchismwouldberaisedbytheleadinglightsofpresentdayMarxism,whichhas beenfalsifiedfortheconvenienceoftheopportunists,ifsuchanamendmentoftheprogrammewere suggestedtothem! Letthemhowl.Thiswillearnthemthepraisesofthebourgeoisie. Andweshallgoonwithourwork.InrevisingtheprogrammeofourParty,wemustbyallmeanstakethe adviceofEngelsandMarxintoconsiderationinordertocomenearerthetruth,torestoreMarxismby riddingitofdistortions,toguidethestruggleoftheworkingclassforitsemancipationmorecorrectly. CertainlynooneopposedtotheadviceofEngelsandMarxwillbefoundamongtheBolsheviks.Theonly difficultythatmayperhapsarisewillbeinregardtotheterm.InGermantherearetwowordsmeaning community,ofwhichEngelsusedtheonewhichdoesnotdenoteasinglecommunity,buttheirtotality,a systemofcommunities.InRussianthereisnosuchword,andwemayhavetochoosetheFrenchword commune,althoughthisalsohasitsdrawbacks. "TheCommunewasnolongerastateinthepropersenseoftheword"thisisthemosttheoretically importantstatementEngelsmakes.Afterwhathasbeensaidabove,thisstatementisperfectlyclear.The Communewasceasingtobeastatesinceithadtosuppress,notthemajorityofthepopulation,buta minority(theexploiters).Ithadsmashedthebourgeoisstatemachine.Inplaceofaspecialcoerciveforce thepopulationitselfcameonthescene.Allthiswasadeparturefromthestateinthepropersenseofthe word.AndhadtheCommunebecomefirmlyestablished,alltracesofthestateinitwouldhave"withered away"ofthemselvesitwouldnothavehadtoabolishtheinstitutionsofthestatetheywouldhave ceasedtofunctionastheyceasedtohaveanythingtodo. "The'people'sstate'hasbeenthrowninourfacesbytheanarchists".Insayingthis,Engelsaboveallhasin mindBakuninandhisattacksontheGermanSocialDemocrats.Engelsadmitsthattheseattackswere justifiedinsofarasthe"people'sstate"wasasmuchanabsurdityandasmuchadeparturefromsocialismas the"freepeople'sstate".EngelstriedtoputthestruggleoftheGermanSocialDemocratsagainstthe anarchistsontherightlines,tomakethisstrugglecorrectinprinciple,torideitofopportunistprejudices concerningthestate.Unfortunately,Engels'letterwaspigeonholedfor36years.Weshallseefartheron that,evenafterthisletterwaspublished,Kautskypersistedinvirtuallythesamemistakesagainstwhich Engelshadwarned. BebelrepliedtoEngelsinaletterdatedSeptember21,1875,inwhichhewrote,amongotherthings,that he"fullyagreed"withEngels'opinionofthedraftprogramme,andthathehadreproachedLiebknechtwith readinesstomakeconcessions(p.334oftheGermaneditionofBebel'smemoirs,Vol.II).Butifwetake Bebel'spamphlet,OurAims,wefindthereviewsonthestatethatareabsolutelywrong.

"Thestatemust...betransformedfromonebasedonclassruleintoapeople'sstate."(Unsere Ziele,1886,p.14) Thiswasprintedintheninth(ninth!)editionofBebel'spamphlet!Itisnotsurprisingthatopportunistviews onthestate,sopersistentlyrepeated,wereabsorbedbytheGermanSocialDemocrats,especiallyasEngels' revolutionaryinterpretationshadbeensafelypigeonholed,andalltheconditionsoflifeweresuchasto weanthemfromrevolutionforalongtime.

2.CriticismoftheDraftoftheErfurtProgramme
InanalyzingMarxistteachingsonthestate,thecriticismofthedraftoftheErfurtProgramme,20sentby EngelstoKautskyonJune29,1891,andpublishedonly10yearslaterinNeueZeit,cannotbeignoredfor itiswiththeopportunistviewsoftheSocialDemocratsonquestionsofstateorganizationthatthiscriticism ismainlyconcerned. WeshallnoteinpassingthatEngelsalsomakesanexceedinglyvaluableobservationoneconomic questions,whichshowshowattentivelyandthoughtfullyhewatchedthevariouschangesoccurringin moderncapitalism,andhowforthisreasonhewasabletoforeseetoacertainextentthetasksofour present,theimperialist,epoch.Hereisthatobservation:referringtothewordplanlessness(Planlosigkeit), usedinthedraftprogramme,ascharacteristicofcapitalism,Engelswrote: "Whenwepassfromjointstockcompaniestotrustswhichassumecontrolover,and monopolize,wholeindustries,itisnotonlyprivateproductionthatceases,butalso planlessness."(NeueZeit,Vol.XX,1,190102,p.8) Herewashavewhatismostessentialinthetheoreticalappraisalofthelatestphaseofcapitalism,i.e., imperialism,namely,thatcapitalismbecomesmonopolycapitalism.Thelattermustbeemphasizedbecause theerroneousbourgeoisreformistassertionthatmonopolycapitalismorstatemonopolycapitalismisno longercapitalism,butcannowbecalled"statesocialism"andsoon,isverycommon.Thetrusts,ofcourse, neverprovided,donotnowprovide,andcannotprovidecompleteplanning.Buthowevermuchtheydo plan,howevermuchthecapitalistmagnatescalculateinadvancethevolumeofproductiononanational andevenonaninternationalscale,andhowevermuchtheysystematicallyregulateit,westillremainunder capitalismatitsnewstage,itistrue,butstillcapitalism,withoutadoubt.Theproximityofsuch capitalismtosocialismshouldservegenuinerepresentativesoftheproletariatasanargumentprovingthe proximity,facility,feasibility,andurgencyofthesocialistrevolution,andnotatallasanargumentfor toleratingtherepudiationofsucharevolutionandtheeffortstomakecapitalismlookmoreattractive, somethingwhichallreformistsaretryingtodo. Buttoreturntothequestionofthestate.InhisletterEngelsmakesthreeparticularlyvaluablesuggestions: first,inregardtotherepublicsecond,inregardtotheconnectionbetweenthenationalquestionandstate organizationand,third,inregardtolocalselfgovernment. Inregardtotherepublic,EngelsmadethisthefocalpointofthiscriticismofthedraftoftheErfurt Programme.AndwhenwerecalltheimportancewhichtheErfurtProgrammeacquiredforalltheSocial Democratsoftheworld,andthatitbecamethemodelforthewholeSecondInternational,wemaysay withoutexaggerationthatEngelstherebycriticizestheopportunismofthewholeSecondInternational.

"Thepoliticaldemandsofthedraft,"engelswrote,"haveonegreatfault.Itlacks[Engels'italics]precisely whatshouldhavebeensaid." And,lateron,hemakesitclearthattheGermanConstitutionis,strictlyspeaking,acopyoftheextremely reactionaryConstitutionof1850,thattheReichstagisonly,asWilhelmLiebknechtputit,"thefigleafof absolutism"andthattowish"totransformalltheinstrumentsoflaborintocommonproperty"onthebasis ofaconstitutionwhichlegalizestheexistenceofpettystatesandthefederationofpettyGermanstatesisan "obviousabsurdity". "Totouchonthatisdangerous,however,"Engelsadded,knowingonlytoowellthatitwas impossiblelegallytoincludeintheprogrammethedemandforarepublicinGermany.Buthe refusedtomerelyacceptthisobviousconsiderationwhichsatisfiedeverybody.He continued:"Nevertheless,somehoworother,thethinghastobeattacked.Hownecessarythis isisshownpreciselyatthepresenttimebyopportunism,whichisgainingground [einreissende]inalargesectionoftheSocialDemocratpress.FearingarenewaloftheAnti SocialistLaw,21orrecallingallmannerofoverhastypronouncementsmadeduringthereignof thatlaw,theynowwantthePartytofindthepresentlegalorderinGermanyadequatefor puttingthroughallPartydemandsbypeacefulmeans...." EngelsparticularlystressedthefundamentalfactthattheGermanSocialDemocratswerepromptedbyfear ofarenewaloftheAntiSocialistLaw,andexplicitlydescribeditasopportunismhedeclaredthat preciselybecausetherewasnorepublicandnofreedominGermany,thedreamsofapeacefulpathwere perfectlyabsurd.Engelswascarefulnottotiehishands.Headmittedthatinrepublicanorveryfree countries"onecanconceive"(onlyconceive!)ofapeacefuldevelopmenttowardssocialism,butin Germany,herepeated, "...inGermany,wherethegovernmentisalmostomnipotentandtheReichstagandallother representativebodieshavenorealpower,toadvocatesuchathinginGermany,where, moreover,thereisnoneedtodoso,meansremovingthefigleaffromabsolutismand becomingoneselfascreenforitsnakedness." ThegreatmajorityoftheofficialleadersoftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty,whichpigeonholedthis advice,havereallyprovedtobeascreenforabsolutism. "...Inthelongrunsuchapolicycanonlyleadone'sownpartyastray.Theypushgeneral, abstractpoliticalquestionsintotheforeground,therebyconcealingtheimmediateconcrete questions,whichatthemomentofthefirstgreatevents,thefirstpoliticalcrisis,automatically posethemselves.Whatcanresultfromthisexceptthatatthedecisivemomenttheparty suddenlyproveshelplessandthatuncertaintyanddiscordonthemostdecisiveissuesreignin itbecausetheseissueshaveneverbeendiscussed?... "Thisforgettingofthegreat,theprincipalconsiderationsforthemomentaryinterestsofthe day,thisstrugglingandstrivingforthesuccessofthemomentregardlessoflater consequences,thissacrificeofthefutureofthemovementforitspresentmaybe'honestly' meant,butitisandremainsopportunism,and'honest'opportunismisperhapsthemost dangerousofall....

"Ifonethingiscertainitisthatourpartyandtheworkingclasscanonlycometopowerinthe formofthedemocraticrepublic.Thisiseventhespecificformforthedictatorshipofthe proletariat,astheGreatFrenchRevolutionhasalreadyshown...." EngelsrealizedhereinaparticularlystrikingformthefundamentalideawhichrunsthroughallofMarx's works,namely,thatthedemocraticrepublicisthenearestapproachtothedictatorshipoftheproletariat.For sucharepublic,withoutintheleastabolishingtheruleofcapital,and,therefore,theoppressionofthe massesndtheclassstruggle,inevitablyleadstosuchanextension,development,unfolding,and intensificationofthisstrugglethat,assoonasitbecomespossibletomeetthefundamentalinterestsofthe oppressedmasses,thispossibilityisrealizedinevitablyandsolelythroughthedictatorshipoftheproletariat, throughtheleadershipofthosemassesbytheproletariat.These,too,are"forgottenwords"ofmarxismfor thewholeoftheSecondInternational,andthefactthattheyhavebeenforgottenwasdemonstratedwith particularvividnessbythehistoryoftheMenshevikPartyduringthefirstsixmonthsoftheRussian revolutionof1917. Onthesubjectofafederalrepublic,inconnectionwiththenationalcompositionofthepopulation,Engels wrote: "WhatshouldtaketheplaceofthepresentdayGermany[withitsreactionarymonarchical Constitutionanditsequallyreactionarydivisionintopettystates,adivisionwhichperpetuates allthespecificfeaturesofPrussianisminsteadofdissolvingtheminGermanyasawhole]? Inmyview,theproletariatcanonlyusetheformoftheoneandindivisiblerepublic.Inthe giganticterritoryoftheUnitedStates,afederalrepublicisstill,onthewhole,anecessity, althoughintheEasternstatesitisalreadybecomingahindrance.Itwouldbeastepforwardin BritainwherethetwoislandsarepeopledbyfournationsandinspiteofasingleParliament threedifferentsystemsoflegislationalreadyexistsidebyside.InlittleSwitzerland,ithaslong beenahindrance,tolerableonlybecauseSwitzerlandiscontenttobeapurelypassivemember oftheEuropeanstatesystem.ForGermany,federalizationontheSwissmodelwouldbean enormousstepbackward.Twopointsdistinguishaunionstatefromacompletelyunifiedstate: first,thateachmemberstate,eachcanton,hasitsowncivilandcriminallegislativeandjudicial system,and,second,thatalongsideapopularchamberthereisalsoafederalchamberinwhich eachcanton,whetherlargeorsmall,votesassuch."InGermany,theunionstateisthe transitiontothecompletelyunifiedstate,andthe"revolutionfromabove"of1866and1870 mustnotbereversedbutsupplementedbya"movementfrombelow". Farfrombeingindifferenttotheformsofstate,Engels,onthecontrary,triedtoanalyzethetransitional formswiththeutmostthoroughnessinordertoestablish,inaccordancewiththeconcretehistorical peculiaritiesofeachparticularcase,fromwhatandtowhatthegiventransitionalformispassing. Approachingthematterfromthestandpointoftheproletariatandtheproletarianrevolution,Engels,like Marx,uphelddemocraticcentralism,therepubliconeandindivisible.Heregardedthefederalrepublic eitherasanexceptionandahindrancetodevelopment,orasatransitionfromamonarchytoacentralized republic,asa"stepforward"undercertainspecialconditions.Andamongthesespecialconditions,heputs thenationalquestiontothefore. Althoughmercilesslycriticizingthereactionarynatureofsmallstates,andthescreeningofthisbythe

nationalquestionincertainconcretecases,Engels,likeMarx,neverbetrayedtheslightestdesiretobrush asidethenationalquestionadesireofwhichtheDutchandPolishMarxists,whoproceedfromtheir perfectlyjustifiedoppositiontothenarrowphilistinenationalismoftheirlittlestates,areoftenguilty. Eveninregardtobritain,wheregeographicalconditions,acommonlanguageandthehistoryofmany centurieswouldseemtohave"putanend"tothenationalquestioninthevarioussmalldivisionsofthe countryeveninregardtotothatcountry,Engelsreckonedwiththeplainfactthatthenationalquestion wasnotyetathingofthepast,andrecognizedinconsequencethattheestablishmentofafederalrepublic wouldbea"stepforward".Ofcourse,thereisnottheslightesthinthereofEngelsabandoningthecriticism oftheshortcomingsofafederalrepublicorrenouncingthemostdeterminedadvocacyof,andstrugglefor, aunifiedandcentralizeddemocraticrepublic. ButEngelsdidnotatallmendemocraticcentralisminthebureaucraticsenseinwhichthetermisusedby bourgeoisandpettybourgeoisideologists,theanarchistsamongthelatter.Hisideaofcentralismdidnotin theleastprecludesuchbroadlocalselfgovernmentaswouldcombinethevoluntarydefenceoftheunityof thestatebythecommunesanddistricts,andthecompleteeliminationofallbureaucraticpracticesandall orderingfromabove.CarryingforwardtheprogrammeviewsofMarxismonthestate,Engelswrote: "So,then,aunifiedrepublicbutnotinthesenseofthepresentFrenchRepublic,whichis nothingbuttheEmpireestablishedin1798withouttheEmperor.From1792to1798each Frenchdepartment,eachcommune[Gemeinde],enjoyedcompleteselfgovernmentonthe Americanmodel,andthisiswhatwetoomusthave.Howselfgovernmentistobeorganized andhowwecanmanage,withoutabureaucracyhasbeenshowntousbyAmericaandthe firstFrenchRepublic,andisbeingshowneventodaybyAustralia,Canadaandtheother Englishcolonies.Andaprovincial[regional]andcommunalselfgovernmentofthistypeisfar freerthan,forinstance,Swissfederalism,underwhich,itistrue,thecantonisvery independentinrelationtotheBund[i.e.,thefederatedstateasawhole],butisalso independentinrelationtothedistrict[Bezirk]andthecommune.Thecantonalgovernments appointthedistrictgovernors[Bezirksstatthalter]andprefectswhichisunknowninEnglish speakingcountriesandwhichwewanttoabolishhereasresolutelyinthefutureasthe PrussianLandrateandRegierungsrate"(commissioners,districtpolicechiefs,governors,and ingeneralallofficialsappointedfromabove).Accordingly,Engelsproposesthefollowing wordsfortheselfgovernmentclauseintheprogramme:"Completeselfgovernmentforthe provinces[guberniasorregions],districtsandcommunesthroughofficialselectedbyuniversal suffrage.Theabolitionofalllocalandprovincialauthoritiesappointedbythestate." IhavealreadyhadoccassiontopointoutinPravda(No.68,May28,1917),whichwassuppressedbythe governmentofKerenskyandothersocialistMinistershowonthispoint(ofcourse,notonthispoint alonebyanymens)ourpseudosocialistrepresentativesofpseudorevolutionarypseudodemocracyhave madeglaringdeparturesfromdemocracy.Naturally,peoplewhohaveboundthemselvesbyacoalitionto theimperialistbourgeoisiehaveremaineddeaftothiscriticism. ItisextremelyimportanttonotethatEngels,armedwithfacts,disprovedbyamostpreciseexamplethe prejudicewhichisverywidespread,particularlyamongpettybourgeoisdemocrats,thatafederalrepublic necessarilymeansagreateramountoffreedomthanacentralizedrepublic.Thisiswrong.Itisdisprovedby thefactscitedbyEngelsregardingthecentralizedFrenchRepublicof79298andthefederalSwiss

Republic.Thereallydemocraticcentralizedrepublicgavemorefreedomthatthefederalrepublic.Inother words,thegreatestamountoflocal,regional,andotherfreedomknowninhistorywasaccordedbya centralizedandnotafederalrepublic. InsufficientattentionhasbeenandisbeingpaidinourPartypropagandaandagitationtothisfact,as, indeed,tothewholequestionofthefederalandthecentralizedrepublicandlocalselfgovernment. The1891PrefacetoMarx's"TheCivilWarinFrance" InhisprefacetothethirdeditionofTheCivilWarinFrance(thisprefaceisdatedMarch18,1891,and wasoriginallypublishedinNeueZeit),Engels,inadditiontosomeinterestingincidentalremarkson questionsconcerningtheattitudetowardsthestate,gavearemarkablyvividsummaryofthelessonsofthe Commune.22Thissummary,mademoreprofoundbytheentireexperienceofthe20yearsthatseparatedthe authorfromtheCommune,anddirectedexpresslyagainstthe"superstitiousbeliefinthestate"so widespreadinGermany,mayjustlybecalledthelastwordofMarxismonthequestionunder consideration. InFrance,Engelsobserved,theworkersemergedwitharmsfromeveryrevolution:"therefore thedisarmingoftheworkerswasthefirstcommandmentforthebourgeois,whowereatthe helmofthestate.Hence,aftereveryrevolutionwonbytheworkers,anewstruggle,ending withthedefeatoftheworkers." Thissummaryoftheexperienceofbourgeoisrevolutionsisasconciseasitisexpressive.Theessenceof thematteramongotherthings,onthequestionofthestate(hastheoppressedclassarms?)ishere remarkablywellgrasped.Itispreciselythisessencethatismostoftenevadedbybothprofessorsinfluenced bybourgeoisideology,andbypettybourgeoisdemocrats.IntheRussianrevolutionof1917,thehonor (Cavaignachonor)ofblabbingthissecretofbourgeoisrevolutionsfelltotheMenshevik,wouldbe Marxist,Tsereteli.InhishistoricspeechofJune11,Tsereteliblurtedoutthatthebourgeoisiewere determinedtodisarmthePetrogradworkerspresenting,ofcourse,thisdecisionashisown,andasa necessityforthestateingeneral! Tsereteli'shistoricalspeechofJune11will,ofcourse,serveeveryhistorianoftherevolutionof1917asa graphicillustrationofhowtheSocialRevolutionaryandMenshevikbloc,ledbyMr.Tsereteli,desertedto thebourgeoisieagainsttherevolutionaryproletariat. AnotherincidentalremarkofEngels',alsoconnectedwiththequestionofthestate,dealswithreligion.Itis wellknownthattheGermanSocialDemocrats,astheydegeneratedandbecameincreasinglyopportunist, slippedmoreandmorefrequentlyintothephilistinemisinterpretationofthecelebratedformula:"Religionis tobedeclaredaprivatematter."Thatis,theformulawastwistedtomeanthatreligionwasaprivatematter evenforthepartyoftherevolutionaryproletariat!!Itwasagainstthiscompletebetrayaloftherevolutionary programmeoftheproletariatthatEngelsvigorouslyprotested.In1891hesawonlytheveryfeeble beginningsofopportunisminhisparty,and,therefore,heexpressedhimselfwithextremecaution: "Asalmostonlyworkers,orrecognizedrepresentativesoftheworkers,satintheCommune, itsdecisionsboreadecidedlyproletariancharacter.Eithertheydecreedreformswhichthe republicanbourgeoisiehadfailedtopasssolelyoutofcowardice,butwhichprovideda

necessarybasisforthefreeactivityoftheworkingclasssuchastherealizationoftheprinciple thatinrelationtothestatereligionisapurelyprivatematterortheCommunepromulgated decreeswhichwereinthedirectinterestoftheworkingclassandinpartcutdeeplyintothe oldorderofsociety." Engelsdeliberatelyemphasizedthewords"inrelationtothestate"asastraightthrustatatGerman opportunism,whichhaddeclaredreligiontobeaprivatematterinrelationtotheparty,thusdegradingthe partyoftherevolutionaryproletariattothelevelofthemostvulgar"freethinking"philistinism,whichis preparedtoallowanondenominationalstatus,butwhichrenouncesthepartystruggleagainsttheopiumof religionwhichstupifiesthepeople. ThefuturehistorianoftheGermanSocialDemocrats,intracingtherootsoftheirshamefulbankruptcyin 1914,willfindafairamountofinterestingmaterialonthisquestion,beginningwiththeevasive declarationsinthearticlesoftheparty'sideologicalleader,Kautsky,whichthrowthedoorwideopento opportunism,andendingwiththeattitudeofthepartytowardsthe"LosvonKircheBewegung23"(the "LeavetheChurch"movement)in1913. Butletusseehow,20yearsaftertheCommune,Engelssummedupitslessonsforthefightingproletariat. HerearethelessonstowhichEngelsattachedprimeimportance: "...Itwaspreciselytheoppressingpoweroftheformercentralizedgovernment,army,political parties,bureaucracy,whichNapoleonhadcreatedin1798andwhicheverynewgovernment hadsincethentakenoverasawelcomeinstrumentandusedagainstitsopponentsitwasthis powerwhichwastofalleverywhere,justasithadfalleninParis. "FromtheveryoutsettheCommunehadtorecognizethattheworkingclass,onceinpower, couldnotgoonmanagingwiththeoldstatemachinethatinordernottoloseagainitsonly justgainedsupremacy,thisworkingclassmust,ontheonehand,doawaywithalltheold machineryofoppressionpreviouslyusedagainstititself,and,ontheother,safeguarditself againstitsowndeputiesandofficials,bydeclaringthemall,withoutexception,subjectto recallatanytime...." Engelsemphasizedonceagainthatnotonlyunderamonarchy,butalsounderademocraticrepublicthe stateremainsastate,i.e.,itretainsitsfundamentaldistinguishingfeatureoftransformingtheofficials,the 'servantsofsociety",itsorgans,intothemastersofsociety. "Againstthistransformationofthestateandtheorgansofthestatefromservantsofsociety intomastersofsocietyaninevitabletransformationinallpreviousstatestheCommuneused twoinfalliblemeans.Inthefirstplace,itfilledallpostsadministrative,judicial,and educationalbyelectiononthebasisofuniversalsuffrageofallconcerned,subjecttorecallat anytimebytheelectors.And,inthesecondplace,itpaidallofficials,highorlow,onlythe wagesreceivedbyotherworkers.ThehighestsalarypaidbytheCommunetoanyonewas 6,000francs.Inthiswayadependablebarriertoplacehuntingandcareerismwassetup,even apartfromthebindingmandatestodelegatestorepresentativebodies,whichwereadded besides...."

Engelshereapproachedtheinterestingboundarylineatwhichconsistentdemocracy,ontheonehand,is transformedintosocialismand,ontheother,demandssocialism.For,inordertoabolishthestate,itis necessarytoconvertthefunctionsofthecivilserviceintothesimpleoperationsofcontrolandaccounting thatarewithinthescopeandabilityofthevastmajorityofthepopulation,and,subsequently,ofevery singleindividual.Andifcareerismistobeabolishedcompletely,itmustbemadeimpossiblefor honorablethoughprofitlesspostsintheCivilServicetobeusedasaspringboardtohighlylucrativeposts inbanksorjointstockcompanies,asconstantlyhappensinallthefreestcapitalistcountries. Engels,however,didnotmakethemistakesomeMarxistsmakeindealing,forexample,withthequestion oftherightofnationstoselfdetermination,whentheyarguethatisisimpossibleundercapitalismandwill besuperfluousundersocialism.Thisseeminglycleverbutactuallyincorrectstatementmightbemadein regardtoanydemocraticinstitution,includingmoderatesalariesforofficials,becausefullyconsistent democracyisimpossibleundercapitalism,andundersocialismalldemocracywillwitheraway. Thisisasophismliketheoldjokeaboutamanbecomingbaldbylosingonemorehair. Todevelopdemocracytotheutmost,tofindtheformsforthisdevelopment,totestthembypractice,andso fortallthisisoneofthecomponenttasksofthestruggleforthesocialrevolution.Takenseparately,no kindofdemocracywillbringsocialism.Butinactuallifedemocracywillneverbe"takenseparately"it willbe"takentogether"withotherthings,itwillexertitsinfluenceoneconomiclifeaswell,willstimulate itstransformationandinitsturnitwillbeinfluencedbyeconomicdevelopment,andsoon.Thisisthe dialecticsoflivinghistory. Engelscontinued: "...Thisshattering[Sprengung]oftheformerstatepoweranditsreplacementbyanewand trulydemocraticoneisdescribedindetailinthethirdsectionofTheCivilWar.Butitwas necessarytotouchbrieflyhereoncemoreonsomeofitsfeatures,becauseinGermany particularlythesuperstitiousbeliefinthestatehaspassedfromphilosophyintothegeneral consciousnessofthebourgeoisieandevenofmanyworkers.Accordingtothephilosophical conception,thestateisthe'realizationoftheidea',ortheKingdomofGodonearth,translated intophilosophicalterms,thesphereinwhicheternaltruthandjusticeare,orshouldbe, realized.Andfromthisfollowsasuperstitiousreverenceforthestateandeverythingconnected withit,whichtakesrootthemorereadilysincepeopleareaccustomedfromchildhoodto imaginethattheaffairsandinterestscommontothewholeofsocietycouldnotbelookedafter otherthanastheyhavebeenlookedafterinthepast,thatis,throughthestateandits lucrativelypositionedofficials.Andpeoplethinktheyhavetakenquiteanextraordinarybold stepforwardwhentheyhaveridthemselvesofbeliefinhereditarymonarchyandswearbythe democraticrepublic.Inreality,however,thestateisnothingbutamachinefortheoppression ofoneclassbyanother,andindeedinthedemocraticrepublicnolessthaninthemonarchy. Andatbestitisanevilinheritedbytheproletariatafteritsvictoriousstruggleforclass supremacy,whoseworstsidesthevictoriousproletariatwillhavetolopoffasspeedilyas possible,justastheCommunehadto,untilagenerationrearedinnew,freesocialconditionsis abletodiscardtheentirelumberofthestate." EngelswarnedtheGermansnottoforgettheprinciplesofsocialismwithregardtothestateingeneralin

connectionwiththesubstitutionofarepublicforthemonarchy.Hiswarningsnowreadlikeaveritable lessontotheTseretelisandChernovs,whointheircoalitionpracticehaverevealedasuperstitiousbelief in,andasuperstitiousreverencefor,thestate! Twomoreremarks.1.Engels'statementthatinademocraticrepublic,"noless"thaninamonarchy,the stateremainsa"machinefortheoppressionofoneclassbyanother"bynomeanssignifiesthattheformof oppressionmakesnodifferencetotheproletariat,assomeanarchiststeach.Awider,freerandmoreopen formoftheclassstruggleandofclassoppressionvastlyassiststheproletariatinitsstrugglefortheabolition ofclassesingeneral. 2.Whywillonlyanewgenerationbeabletodiscardtheentirelumberofthestate?Thisquestionisbound upwiththatofovercomingdemocracy,withwhichweshalldealnow. EngelsontheOvercomingofDemocracy Engelscametoexpresshisviewsonthissubjectwhenestablishingthattheterm"SocialDemocrat"was scientificallywrong. Inaprefacetoaneditionofhisarticlesoftheseventiesonvarioussubjects,mostlyoninternational questions(InternationalesausdemVolkstaat),datedJanuary3,1894,i.e.,writtenayearandahalfbefore hisdeath,EngelswrotethatinallhisarticlesheusedthewordCommunist,andnot"SocialDemocrat", becauseatthattimetheProudhonistsinFranceandtheLassalleans24inGermanycalledthemselvesSocial Democrats. "...ForMarxandmyself,"continuedEngels,"itwasthereforeabsolutelyimpossibletouse suchaloosetermtocharacterizeourspecialpointofview.Todaythingsaredifferent,andthe word["SocialDemocrat"]mayperhapspassmuster[magpassieren],inexact[unpassend, unsuitable]thoughitstillisforapartywhoseeconomicprogrammeisnotmerelysocialistin general,butdownrightcommunist,andwhoseultimatepoliticalaimistoovercomethewhole stateand,consequently,democracyaswell.Thenamesofrealpoliticalparties,however,are neverwhollyappropriatethepartydevelopswhilethenamestays."25 ThedialecticianEngelsremainedtruetodialecticstotheendofhisdays.MarxandI,hesaid,hada splendid,scientificallyexactnamefortheparty,buttherewasnorealparty,i.e.,nomassproletarianparty. Now(attheendofthe19thcentury)therewasarealparty,butitsnamewasscientificallywrong.Never mind,itwould"passmuster",solongasthepartydeveloped,solongasthescientificinaccuracyofthe namewasnothiddenfromitanddidnothinderitsdevelopmentontherightdirection! PerhapssomewitwouldconsoleusBolsheviksinthemannerofEngels:wehavearealparty,itis developingsplendidlyevensuchameaninglessanduglytermasBolshevikwill"passmuster",although itexpressesnothingwhateverbutthepurelyaccidentalfactthatattheBrusselsLondonCongressof1903 wewereinthemajority.PerhapsnowthatthepersecutionofourPartybyrepublicansandrevolutionary pettybourgeoisdemocratsinJulyandAugusthasearnedthenameBolsheviksuchuniversalrespect, nowthat,inaddition,thispersecutionmarksthetremendoushistoricalprogressourPartyhasmadeinits realdevelopmentperhapsnowevenImighthesitatetoinsistonthesuggestionImadeinApriltochange thenameofourParty.PerhapsIwouldproposeacompromisetomycomrades,namely,tocallourselves

theCommunistParty,buttoretainthewordBolshevikinbrackets. ButthequestionofthenameofthePartyisincomparablylessimportantthanthequestionoftheattitudeof therevolutionaryproletariattothestate. Intheusualargumentaboutthestate,themistakeisconstantlymadeagainstwhichEngelswarnedand whichwehaveinpassingindicatedabove,namely,itisconstantlyforgottenthattheabolitionofthestate meansalsotheabolitionofdemocracythatthewitheringawayofthestatemeansthewitheringawayof democracy. Atfirstsightthisassertionseemsexceedinglystrangeandincomprehensibleindeed,someonemayeven suspectusofexpectingtheadventofasystemofsocietyinwhichtheprincipleofsubordinationofthe minoritytothemajoritywillnotbeobservedfordemocracymeanstherecognitionofthisveryprinciple. No,democracyisnotidenticalwiththesubordinationoftheminoritytothemajority.Democracyisastate whichrecognizesthesubordinationoftheminoritytothemajority,i.e.,anorganizationforthesystematic useofforcebyoneclassagainstanother,byonesectionofthepopulationagainstanother. Wesetourselvestheultimateaimofabolishingthestate,i.e.,allorganizedandsystematicviolence,alluse ofviolenceagainstpeopleingeneral.Wedonotexpecttheadventofasystemofsocietyinwhichthe principleofsubordinationoftheminoritytothemajoritywillnotbeobserved.Instrivingforsocialism, however,weareconvincedthatitwilldevelopintocommunismand,therefore,thattheneedforviolence againstpeopleingeneral,forthesubordinationofonemantoanother,andofonesectionofthepopulation toanother,willvanishaltogethersincepeoplewillbecomeaccustomedtoobservingtheelementary conditionsofsociallifewithoutviolenceandwithoutsubordination. Inordertoemphasizethiselementofhabit,Engelsspeaksofanewgeneration,"rearedinnew,freesocial conditions",whichwill"beabletodiscardtheentirelumberofthestate"ofanystate,includingthe democraticrepublicanstate. Inordertoexplainthis,itisnecessarytoanalyzetheeconomicbasisofthewitheringawayofthestate.

ChapterV:TheEconomicBasisoftheWitheringAwayofthe State
MarxexplainsthisquestionmostthoroughlyinhisCritiqueoftheGothaProgramme(lettertoBracke, May5,1875,whichwasnotpublisheduntil1891whenitwasprintedinNeueZeit,vol.IX,1,andwhich hasappearedinRussianinaspecialedition).Thepolemicalpartofthisremarkablework,whichcontainsa criticismofLassalleanism,has,sotospeak,overshadoweditspositivepart,namely,theanalysisofthe connectionbetweenthedevelopmentofcommunismandthewitheringawayofthestate.

1.PresentationoftheQuestionbyMarx
FromasuperficialcomparisonofMarx'slettertoBrackeofMay5,1875,withEngels'lettertoBebelof March28,1875,whichweexaminedabove,itmightappearthatMarxwasmuchmoreofa"championof thestate"thanEngels,andthatthedifferenceofopinionbetweenthetwowritersonthequestionofthe

statewasveryconsiderable. EngelssuggestedtoBebelthatallchatteraboutthestatebedroppedaltogether,thatthewordstatebe eliminatedfromtheprogrammealtogetherandthewordcommunitysubstitutedforit.Engelseven declaredthattheCommunewaslongastateinthepropersenseoftheword.YetMarxevenspokeofthe "futurestateincommunistsociety",i.e.,hewouldseemtorecognizetheneedforthestateevenunder communism. Butsuchaviewwouldbefundamentallywrong.AcloserexaminationshowsthatMarx'sandEngels' viewsonthestateanditswitheringawaywerecompletelyidentical,andthatMarx'sexpressionquoted abovereferstothestateintheprocessofwitheringaway. Clearly,therecanbenoquestionofspecifyingthemomentofthefuture"witheringaway",themoreso sinceitwillobviouslybealengthyprocess.TheapparentdifferencebetweenMarxandEngelsisduetothe factthattheydealtwithdifferentsubjectandpursueddifferentaims.EngelssetouttoshowBebel graphically,sharply,andinbroadoutlinetheutterabsurdityofthecurrentprejudicesconcerningthestate (sharedtonosmalldegreebyLassalle).Marxonlytoucheduponthisquestioninpassing,beinginterested inanothersubject,namely,thedevelopmentofcommunistsociety. ThewholetheoryofMarxistheapplicationofthetheoryofdevelopmentinitsmostconsistent,complete, consideredandpithyformtomoderncapitalism.Naturally,Marxwasfacedwiththeproblemofapplying thistheorybothtotheforthcomingcollapseofcapitalismandtothefuturedevelopmentoffuture communism. Onthebasisofwhatfacts,then,canthequestionofthefuturedevelopmentoffuturecommunismbedealt with? Onthebasisofthefactthatithasitsoriginincapitalism,thatitdevelopshistoricallyfromcapitalism,thatit istheresultoftheactionofasocialforcetowhichcapitalismgavebirth.Thereisnotraceofanattempton Marx'sparttomakeupautopia,toindulgeinidleguessworkaboutwhatcannotbeknown.Marxtreated thequestionofcommunisminthesamewayasanaturalistwouldtreatthequestionofthedevelopmentof, say,anewbiologicalvariety,onceheknewthatithadoriginatedinsuchandsuchawayandwas changinginsuchandsuchadefinitedirection. Tobeginwith,MarxbrushedasidetheconfusiontheGothaProgrammebroughtintothequestionofthe relationshipbetweenstateandsociety.Hewrote: "'Presentdaysociety'iscapitalistsociety,whichexistsinallcivilizedcountries,beingmoreor lessfreefrommedievaladmixture,moreorlessmodifiedbytheparticularhistorical developmentofeachcountry,moreorlessdeveloped.Ontheotherhand,the'presentday state'changeswithacountry'sfrontier.ItisdifferentinthePrussoGermanEmpirefromwhat itisinSwitzerland,anddifferentinEnglandfromwhatitisintheUnitedStates.'Thepresent daystate'is,therefore,afiction. "Nevertheless,thedifferentstatesofthedifferentcivilizedcountries,inspiteoftheirmotley diversityofform,allhavethisincommon,thattheyarebasedonmodernbourgeoissociety,

onlyonemoreorlesscapitalisticallydeveloped.Thehave,therefore,alsocertainessential characteristicsincommon.Inthissenseitispossibletospeakofthe'presentdaystate',in contrastwiththefuture,inwhichitspresentroot,bourgeoissociety,willhavediedoff. "Thequestionthenarises:whattransformationwillthestateundergoincommunistsociety?In otherwords,whatsocialfunctionswillremaininexistencetherethatareanalogoustopresent statefunctions?Thisquestioncanonlybeansweredscientifically,andonedoesnotgetaflea hopnearertotheproblembyathousandfoldcombinationofthewordpeoplewiththeword state26." Afterthusridiculingalltalkabouta"people'sstate",Marxformulatedthequestionandgavewarning,asit were,thatthoseseekingascientificanswertoitshoulduseonlyfirmlyestablishedscientificdata. Thefirstfactthathasbeenestablishedmostaccuratelybythewholetheoryofdevelopment,byscienceasa wholeafactthatwasignoredbytheutopians,andisignoredbythepresentdayopportunists,whoare afraidofthesocialistrevolutionisthat,historically,theremustundoubtedlybeaspecialstage,oraspecial phase,oftransitionfromcapitalismtocommunism.

2.TheTransitionfromCapitalismtoCommunism
Marxcontinued: "Betweencapitalistandcommunistsocietyliestheperiodoftherevolutionarytransformation oftheoneintotheother.Correspondingtothisisalsoapoliticaltransitionperiodinwhichthe statecanbenothingbuttherevolutionarydictatorshipoftheproletariat." Marxbasesthisconclusiononananalysisoftheroleplayedbytheproletariatinmoderncapitalistsociety, onthedataconcerningthedevelopmentofthissociety,andontheirreconcilabilityoftheantagonistic interestsoftheproletariatandthebourgeoisie. Previouslythequestionwasputasfollows:toachieveitsemancipation,theproletariatmustoverthrowthe bourgeoisie,winpoliticalpowerandestablishitsrevolutionarydictatorship. Nowthequestionisputsomewhatdifferently:thetransitionfromcapitalistsocietywhichisdeveloping towardscommunismtocommunistsocietyisimpossiblewithouta"politicaltransitionperiod",andthe stateinthisperiodcanonlybetherevolutionarydictatorshipoftheproletariat. What,then,istherelationofthisdictatorshiptodemocracy? WehaveseenthattheCommunistManifestosimplyplacessidebysidethetwoconcepts:"toraisethe proletariattothepositionoftherulingclass"and"towinthebattleofdemocracy".Onthebasisofallthat hasbeensaidabove,itispossibletodeterminemorepreciselyhowdemocracychangesinthetransition fromcapitalismtocommunism. Incapitalistsociety,providingitdevelopsunderthemostfavourableconditions,wehaveamoreorless completedemocracyinthedemocraticrepublic.Butthisdemocracyisalwayshemmedinbythenarrow limitssetbycapitalistexploitation,andconsequentlyalwaysremains,ineffect,ademocracyforthe

minority,onlyforthepropertiedclasses,onlyfortherich.Freedomincapitalistsocietyalwaysremains aboutthesameasitwasintheancientGreekrepublics:freedomfortheslaveowners.Owingtothe conditionsofcapitalistexploitation,themodernwageslavesaresocrushedbywantandpovertythat"they cannotbebotheredwithdemocracy","cannotbebotheredwithpolitics"intheordinary,peacefulcourse ofevents,themajorityofthepopulationisdebarredfromparticipationinpublicandpoliticallife. ThecorrectnessofthisstatementisperhapsmostclearlyconfirmedbyGermany,becauseconstitutional legalitysteadilyenduredthereforaremarkablylongtimenearlyhalfacentury(18711914)andduring thisperiodtheSocialDemocratswereabletoachievefarmorethaninothercountriesinthewayof "utilizinglegality",andorganizedalargerproportionoftheworkersintoapoliticalpartythananywhere elseintheworld. Whatisthislargestproportionofpoliticallyconsciousandactivewageslavesthathassofarbeenrecorded incapitalistsociety?OnemillionmembersoftheSocialDemocraticPartyoutof15,000,000wage workers!Threemillionorganizedintradeunionsoutof15,000,000! Democracyforaninsignificantminority,democracyfortherichthatisthedemocracyofcapitalistsociety. Ifwelookmorecloselyintothemachineryofcapitalistdemocracy,weseeeverywhere,inthepetty supposedlypettydetailsofthesuffrage(residentialqualifications,exclusionofwomen,etc.),inthe techniqueoftherepresentativeinstitutions,intheactualobstaclestotherightofassembly(publicbuildings arenotforpaupers!),inthepurelycapitalistorganizationofthedailypress,etc.,etc.,weseerestriction afterrestrictionupondemocracy.Theserestrictions,exceptions,exclusions,obstaclesforthepoorseem slight,especiallyintheeyesofonewhohasneverknownwanthimselfandhasneverbeeninclosecontact withtheoppressedclassesintheirmasslife(andnineoutof10,ifnot99outof100,bourgeoispublicists andpoliticianscomeunderthiscategory)butintheirsumtotaltheserestrictionsexcludeandsqueezeout thepoorfrompolitics,fromactiveparticipationindemocracy. Marxgraspedthisessenceofcapitalistdemocracysplendidlywhen,inanalyzingtheexperienceofthe Commune,hesaidthattheoppressedareallowedonceeveryfewyearstodecidewhichparticular representativesoftheoppressingclassshallrepresentandrepresstheminparliament! Butfromthiscapitalistdemocracythatisinevitablynarrowandstealthilypushesasidethepoor,andis thereforehypocriticalandfalsethroughandthroughforwarddevelopmentdoesnotproceedsimply, directlyandsmoothly,towards"greaterandgreaterdemocracy",astheliberalprofessorsandpetty bourgeoisopportunistswouldhaveusbelieve.No,forwarddevelopment,i.e.,developmenttowards communism,proceedsthroughthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,andcannotdootherwise,fortheresistance ofthecapitalistexploiterscannotbebrokenbyanyoneelseorinanyotherway. Andthedictatorshipoftheproletariat,i.e.,theorganizationofthevanguardoftheoppressedastheruling classforthepurposeofsuppressingtheoppressors,cannotresultmerelyinanexpansionofdemocracy. Simultaneouslywithanimmenseexpansionofdemocracy,whichforthefirsttimebecomesdemocracyfor thepoor,democracyforthepeople,andnotdemocracyforthemoneybags,thedictatorshipofthe proletariatimposesaseriesofrestrictionsonthefreedomoftheoppressors,theexploiters,thecapitalists. Wemustsuppresstheminordertofreehumanityfromwageslavery,theirresistancemustbecrushedby forceitisclearthatthereisnofreedomandnodemocracywherethereissuppressionandwherethereis violence.

EngelsexpressedthissplendidlyinhislettertoBebelwhenhesaid,asthereaderwillremember,that"the proletariatneedsthestate,notintheinterestsoffreedombutinordertoholddownitsadversaries,andas soonasitbecomespossibletospeakoffreedomthestateassuchceasestoexist". Democracyforthevastmajorityofthepeople,andsuppressionbyforce,i.e.,exclusionfromdemocracy,of theexploitersandoppressorsofthepeoplethisisthechangedemocracyundergoesduringthetransition fromcapitalismtocommunism. Onlyincommunistsociety,whentheresistanceofthecapitalistshavedisappeared,whenthereareno classes(i.e.,whenthereisnodistinctionbetweenthemembersofsocietyasregardstheirrelationtothe socialmeansofproduction),onlythen"thestate...ceasestoexist",and"itbecomespossibletospeakof freedom".Onlythenwillatrulycompletedemocracybecomepossibleandberealized,ademocracy withoutanyexceptionswhatever.Andonlythenwilldemocracybegintowitheraway,owingtothesimple factthat,freedfromcapitalistslavery,fromtheuntoldhorrors,savagery,absurdities,andinfamiesof capitalistexploitation,peoplewillgraduallybecomeaccustomedtoobservingtheelementaryrulesofsocial intercoursethathavebeenknownforcenturiesandrepeatedforthousandsofyearsinallcopybook maxims.Theywillbecomeaccustomedtoobservingthemwithoutforce,withoutcoercion,without subordination,withoutthespecialapparatusforcoercioncalledthestate. Theexpression"thestatewithersaway"isverywellchosen,foritindicatesboththegradualandthe spontaneousnatureoftheprocess.Onlyhabitcan,andundoubtedlywill,havesuchaneffectforwesee aroundusonmillionsofoccassionshowreadilypeoplebecomeaccustomedtoobservingthenecessary rulesofsocialintercoursewhenthereisnoexploitation,whenthereisnothingthatarousesindignation, evokesprotestandrevolt,andcreatestheneedforsuppression. Andsoincapitalistsocietywehaveademocracythatiscurtailed,wretched,false,ademocracyonlyforthe rich,fortheminority.Thedictatorshipoftheproletariat,theperiodoftransitiontocommunism,willforthe firsttimecreatedemocracyforthepeople,forthemajority,alongwiththenecessarysuppressionofthe exploiters,oftheminority.Communismaloneiscapableofprovidingreallycompletedemocracy,andthe morecompleteitis,thesooneritwillbecomeunnecessaryandwitherawayofitsownaccord. Inotherwords,undercapitalismwehavethestateinthepropersenseoftheword,thatis,aspecial machineforthesuppressionofoneclassbyanother,and,whatismore,ofthemajoritybytheminority. Naturally,tobesuccessful,suchanundertakingasthesystematicsuppressionoftheexploitedmajorityby theexploitingminoritycallsfortheutmostferocityandsavageryinthematterofsuppressing,itcallsfor seasofblood,throughwhichmankindisactuallywadingitswayinslavery,serfdomandwagelabor. Furthermore,duringthetransitionfromcapitalismtocommunismsuppressionisstillnecessary,butitis nowthesuppressionoftheexploitingminoritybytheexploitedmajority.Aspecialapparatus,aspecial machineforsuppression,thestate,isstillnecessary,butthisisnowatransitionalstate.Itisnolongera stateinthepropersenseofthewordforthesuppressionoftheminorityofexploitersbythemajorityofthe wageslavesofyesterdayiscomparativelysoeasy,simpleandnaturalataskthatitwillentailfarless bloodshedthanthesuppressionoftherisingsofslaves,serfsorwagelaborers,anditwillcostmankindfar less.Anditiscompatiblewiththeextensionofdemocracytosuchanoverwhelmingmajorityofthe populationthattheneedforaspecialmachineofsuppressionwillbegintodisappear.Naturally,the exploitersareunabletosuppressthepeoplewithoutahighlycomplexmachineforperformingthistask,but

thepeoplecansuppresstheexploitersevenwithaverysimplemachine,almostwithoutamachine, withoutaspecialapparatus,bythesimpleorganizationofthearmedpeople(suchastheSovietsof Workers'andSoldiers'Deputies,wewouldremark,runningahead). Lastly,onlycommunismmakesthestateabsolutelyunnecessary,forthereisnobodytobesuppressed nobodyinthesenseofaclass,ofasystematicstruggleagainstadefinitesectionofthepopulation.We arenotutopians,anddonotintheleastdenythepossibilityandinevitabilityofexcessesonthepartof individualpersons,ortheneedtostopsuchexcesses.Inthefirstplace,however,nospecialmachine,no specialapparatusofsuppression,isneededforthis:thiswillbedonebythearmedpeoplethemselves,as simplyandasreadilyasanycrowdofcivilizedpeople,eveninmodernsociety,interferestoputastoptoa scuffleortopreventawomanfrombeingassaulted.And,secondly,weknowthatthefundamentalsocial causeofexcesses,whichconsistintheviolationoftherulesofsocialintercourse,istheexploitationofthe people,theirwantandtheirpoverty.Withtheremovalofthischiefcause,excesseswillinevitablybeginto "witheraway".Wedonotknowhowquicklyandinwhatsuccession,butwedoknowtheywillwither away.Withtheirwitheringawaythestatewillalsowitheraway. Withoutbuildingutopias,Marxdefinedmorefullywhatcanbedefinednowregardingthisfuture,namely, thedifferencesbetweenthelowerandhigherphases(levels,stages)ofcommunistsociety.

3.TheFirstPhaseofCommunistSociety
IntheCritiqueoftheGothaProgramme,MarxgoesintodetailtodisproveLassalle'sideathatunder socialismtheworkerwillreceivetheundiminishedor"fullproductofhislabor".Marxshowsthatfrom thewholeofthesociallaborofsocietytheremustbedeductedareservefund,afundfortheexpansionof production,afundforthereplacementofthe"wearandtear"ofmachinery,andsoon.Then,fromthe meansofconsumptionmustbedeductedafundforadministrativeexpenses,forschools,hospitals,old people'shomes,andsoon. InsteadofLassalle'shazy,obscure,generalphrase("thefullproductofhislabortotheworker"),Marx makesasoberestimateofexactlyhowsocialistsocietywillhavetomanageitsaffairs.Marxproceedsto makeaconcreteanalysisoftheconditionsoflifeofasocietyinwhichtherewillbenocapitalism,andsays: "Whatwehavetodealwithhere[inanalyzingtheprogrammeoftheworkers'party]isa communistsociety,notasithasdevelopedonitsownfoundations,but,onthecontrary,justas itemergesfromcapitalistsocietywhichisthusineveryrespect,economically,morally,and intellectually,stillstampedwiththebirthmarksoftheoldsocietyfromwhosewombitcomes." Itisthiscommunistsociety,whichhasjustemergedintothelightofdayoutofthewombofcapitalismand whichisineveryrespectstampedwiththebirthmarksoftheoldsociety,thatMarxtermsthefirst,or lower,phaseofcommunistsociety. Themeansofproductionarenolongertheprivatepropertyofindividuals.Themeansofproductionbelong tothewholeofsociety.Everymemberofsociety,performingacertainpartofthesociallynecessarywork, receivesacertificatefromsocietytotheeffectthathehasdoneacertainamountofwork.Andwiththis certificatehereceivesfromthepublicstoreofconsumergoodsacorrespondingquantityofproducts.After adeductionismadeoftheamountoflaborwhichgoestothepublicfund,everyworker,therefore,receives

fromsocietyasmuchashehasgiventoit. Equalityapparentlyreignssupreme. ButwhenLassalle,havinginviewsuchasocialorder(usuallycalledsocialism,buttermedbyMarxthe firstphaseofcommunism),saysthatthisis"equitabledistribution",thatthisis"theequalrightofalltoan equalproductoflabor",LassalleismistakenandMarxexposesthemistake. "Hence,theequalright,"saysMarx,inthiscasestillcertainlyconformsto"bourgeoislaw",which,likeall law,impliesinequality.Alllawisanapplicationofanequalmeasuretodifferentpeoplewhoinfactarenot alike,arenotequaltooneanother.Thatiswhythe"equalright"isviolationofequalityandaninjustice.In fact,everyone,havingperformedasmuchsociallaborasanother,receivesanequalshareofthesocial product(aftertheabovementioneddeductions). Butpeoplearenotalike:oneisstrong,anotherisweakoneismarried,anotherisnotonehasmore children,anotherhasless,andsoon.AndtheconclusionMarxdrawsis: "...Withanequalperformanceoflabor,andhenceanequalshareinthesocialconsumption fund,onewillinfactreceivemorethananother,onewillbericherthananother,andsoon.To avoidallthesedefects,therightinsteadofbeingequalwouldhavetobeunequal." Thefirstphaseofcommunism,therefore,cannotyetprovidejusticeandequalitydifferences,andunjust differences,inwealthwillstillpersist,buttheexploitationofmanbymanwillhavebecomeimpossible becauseitwillbeimpossibletoseizethemeansofproductionthefactories,machines,land,etc.andmake themprivateproperty.InsmashingLassalle'spettybourgeois,vaguephrasesaboutequalityandjustice ingeneral,Marxshowsthecourseofdevelopmentofcommunistsociety,whichiscompelledtoabolishat firstonlytheinjusticeofthemeansofproductionseizedbyindividuals,andwhichisunableatonceto eliminatetheotherinjustice,whichconsistsinthedistributionofconsumergoods"accordingtotheamount oflaborperformed"(andnotaccordingtoneeds). Thevulgareconomists,includingthebourgeoisprofessorsandourTugan,constantlyreproachthe socialistswithforgettingtheinequalityofpeopleandwithdreamingofeliminatingthisinequality.Sucha reproach,aswesee,onlyprovestheextremeignoranceofthebourgeoisideologists. Marxnotonlymostscrupulouslytakesaccountoftheinevitableinequalityofmen,buthealsotakesinto accountthefactthatthemereconversionofthemeansofproductionintothecommonpropertyofthe wholesociety(commonlycalledsocialism)doesnotremovethedefectsofdistributionandtheinequality of"bourgeoislaws"whichcontinuestoprevailsolongasproductsaredivided"accordingtotheamountof laborperformed".Continuing,Marxsays: "Butthesedefectsareinevitableinthefirstphaseofcommunistsocietyasitiswhenithasjust emerged,afterprolongedbirthpangs,fromcapitalistsociety.Lawcanneverbehigherthanthe economicstructureofsocietyanditsculturaldevelopmentconditionedthereby." Andso,inthefirstphaseofcommunistsociety(usuallycalledsocialism)"bourgeoislaw"isnotabolished initsentirety,butonlyinpart,onlyinproportiontotheeconomicrevolutionsofarattained,i.e.,onlyin respectofthemeansofproduction."Bourgeoislaw"recognizesthemastheprivatepropertyofindividuals.

Socialismconvertsthemintocommonproperty.Tothatextentandtothatextentalone"bourgeoislaw" disappears. However,itpersistsasfarasitsotherpartisconcerneditpersistsinthecapacityofregulator(determining factor)inthedistributionofproductsandtheallotmentoflaboramongthemembersofsociety.The socialistprinciple,"Hewhodoesnotworkshallnoteat",isalreadyrealizedtheothersocialistprinciple, "Anequalamountofproductsforanequalamountoflabor",isalsoalreadyrealized.Butthisisnotyet communism,anditdoesnotyetabolish"bourgeoislaw",whichgivesunequalindividuals,inreturnfor unequal(reallyunequal)amountsoflabor,equalamountsofproducts. Thisisadefect,saysMarx,butitisunavoidableinthefirstphaseofcommunismforifwearenotto indulgeinutopianism,wemustnotthinkthathavingoverthrowncapitalismpeoplewillatoncelearnto workforsocietywithoutanyrulesoflaw.Besides,theabolitionofcapitalismdoesnotimmediatelycreate theeconomicprerequisitesforsuchachange. Now,therearenootherrulesthanthoseof"bourgeoislaw".Tothisextent,therefore,therestillremainsthe needforastate,which,whilesafeguardingthecommonownershipofthemeansofproduction,would safeguardequalityinlaborandinthedistributionofproducts. Thestatewithersawayinsofarastherearenolongeranycapitalists,anyclasses,and,consequently,no classcanbesuppressed. Butthestatehasnotyetcompletelywitheredaway,sincethestillremainsthesafeguardingof"bourgeois law",whichsanctifiesactualinequality.Forthestatetowitherawaycompletely,completecommunismis necessary.

4.TheHigherPhaseofCommunistSociety
Marxcontinues: "Inahigherphaseofcommunistsociety,aftertheenslavingsubordinationoftheindividualto thedivisionoflabor,andwithitalsotheantithesisbetweenmentalandphysicallabor,has vanished,afterlaborhasbecomenotonlyalivelihoodbutlife'sprimewant,afterthe productiveforceshaveincreasedwiththeallrounddevelopmentoftheindividual,andallthe springsofcooperativewealthflowmoreabundantlyonlythencanthenarrowhorizonof bourgeoislawbeleftbehindinitsentiretyandsocietyinscribeonitsbanners:Fromeach accordingtohisability,toeachaccordingtohisneeds!" OnlynowcanwefullyappreciatethecorrectnessofEngels'remarksmercilesslyridiculingtheabsurdityof combiningthewordsfreedomandstate.Solongasthestateexiststhereisnofreedom.Whenthereis freedom,therewillbenostate. Theeconomicbasisforthecompletewitheringawayofthestateissuchahighstateofdevelopmentof communismatwhichtheantithesisbetweenmentalandphysicallabordisappears,atwhichthere consequentlydisappearsoneoftheprincipalsourcesofmodernsocialinequalityasource,moreover, whichcannotonanyaccountberemovedimmediatelybythemereconversionofthemeansofproduction

intopublicproperty,bythemereexpropriationofthecapitalists. Thisexpropriationwillmakeitpossiblefortheproductiveforcestodeveloptoatremendousextent.And whenweseehowincrediblycapitalismisalreadyretardingthisdevelopment,whenweseehowmuch progresscouldbeachievedonthebasisoftheleveloftechniquealreadyattained,weareentitledtosay withthefullestconfidencethattheexpropriationofthecapitalistswillinevitablyresultinanenormous developmentoftheproductiveforcesofhumansociety.Buthowrapidlythisdevelopmentwillproceed, howsoonitwillreachthepointofbreakingawayfromthedivisionoflabor,ofdoingawaywiththe antithesisbetweenmentalandphysicallabor,oftransforminglaborinto"life'sprimewant"wedonotand cannotknow. Thatiswhyweareentitledtospeakonlyoftheinevitablewitheringawayofthestate,emphasizingthe protractednatureofthisprocessanditsdependenceupontherapidityofdevelopmentofthehigherphase ofcommunism,andleavingthequestionofthetimerequiredfor,ortheconcreteformsof,thewithering awayquiteopen,becausethereisnomaterialforansweringthesequestions. Thestatewillbeabletowitherawaycompletelywhensocietyadoptstherule:"Fromeachaccordingtohis ability,toeachaccordingtohisneeds",i.e.,whenpeoplehavebecomesoaccustomedtoobservingthe fundamentalrulesofsocialintercourseandwhentheirlaborhasbecomesoproductivethattheywill voluntarilyworkaccordingtotheirability."Thenarrowhorizonofbourgeoislaw",whichcompelsoneto calculatewiththeheartlessnessofaShylockwhetheronehasnotworkedhalfanhourmorethananybody elsethisnarrowhorizonwillthenbeleftbehind.Therewillthenbenoneedforsociety,indistributingthe products,toregulatethequantitytobereceivedbyeacheachwilltakefreely"accordingtohisneeds". Fromthebourgeoispointofview,itiseasytodeclarethatsuchasocialorderis"sheerutopia"andtosneer atthesocialistsforpromisingeveryonetherighttoreceivefromsociety,withoutanycontroloverthelabor oftheindividualcitizen,anyquantityoftruffles,cars,pianos,etc.Eventothisday,mostbourgeois savantsconfinethemselvestosneeringinthisway,therebybetrayingboththeirignoranceandtheir selfishdefenceofcapitalism. Ignoranceforithasneverenteredtheheadofanysocialisttopromisethatthehigherphaseofthe developmentofcommunismwillarriveasforthegreatestsocialists'forecastthatitwillarrive,it presupposesnotthepresentordinaryrunofpeople,who,liketheseminarystudentsinPomyalovsky's stories27,arecapableofdamagingthestocksofpublicwealth"justforfun",andofdemandingthe impossible. Untilthehigherphaseofcommunismarrives,thesocialistsdemandthestrictestcontrolbysocietyandby thestateoverthemeasureoflaborandthemeasureofconsumptionbutthiscontrolmuststartwiththe expropriationofthecapitalists,withtheestablishmentofworkers'controloverthecapitalists,andmustbe exercisednotbyastateofbureaucrats,butbyastateofarmedworkers. Theselfishdefenceofcapitalismbythebourgeoisideologists(andtheirhangerson,liketheTseretelis, Chernovs,andCo.)consistsinthattheysubstitutearguingandtalkaboutthedistantfutureforthevitaland burningquestionofpresentdaypolitics,namely,theexpropriationofthecapitalists,theconversionofall citizensintoworkersandotheremployeesofonehugesyndicatethewholestateandthecomplete subordinationoftheentireworkofthissyndicatetoagenuinelydemocraticstate,thestateoftheSovietsof

Workers'andSoldiers'Deputies. Infact,whenalearnedprofessor,followedbythephilistine,followedinturnbytheTseretelisand Chernovs,talksofwildutopias,ofthedemagogicpromisesoftheBolsheviks,oftheimpossibilityof introducingsocialism,itisthehigherstage,orphase,ofcommunismhehasinmind,whichnoonehas everpromisedoreventhoughttointroduce,because,generallyspeaking,itcannotbeintroduced. Andthisbringsustothequestionofthescientificdistinctionbetweensocialismandcommunismwhich Engelstouchedoninhisabovequotedargumentabouttheincorrectnessofthename"SocialDemocrat". Politically,thedistinctionbetweenthefirst,orlower,andthehigherphaseofcommunismwillintime, probably,betremendous.Butitwouldberidiculoustorecognizethisdistinctionnow,undercapitalism, andonlyindividualanarchists,perhaps,couldinvestitwithprimaryimportance(iftherestillarepeople amongtheanarchistswhohavelearnednothingfromthePlekhanovconversionoftheKropotkins,of Grave,Corneliseen,andotherstarsofanarchismintosocialchauvinistsor"anarchotrenchists",asGhe, oneofthefewanarchistswhohavestillpreservedasenseofhumorandaconscience,hasputit). Butthescientificdistinctionbetweensocialismandcommunismisclear.Whatisusuallycalledsocialism wastermedbyMarxthefirst,orlower,phaseofcommunistsociety.Insofarasthemeansofproduction becomescommonproperty,thewordcommunismisalsoapplicablehere,providingwedonotforgetthat thisisnotcompletecommunism.ThegreatsignificanceofMarx'sexplanationsisthathere,too,he consistentlyappliesmaterialistdialectics,thetheoryofdevelopment,andregardscommunismassomething whichdevelopsoutofcapitalism.Insteadofscholasticallyinvented,concocteddefinitionsandfruitless disputesoverwords(Whatissocialism?Whatiscommunism?),Marxgivesananalysisofwhatmightbe calledthestagesoftheeconomicmaturityofcommunism. Initsfirstphase,orfirststage,communismcannotasyetbefullymatureeconomicallyandentirelyfree fromtraditionsorvestigesofcapitalism.Hencetheinterestingphenomenonthatcommunisminitsfirst phaseretains"thenarrowhorizonofbourgeoislaw".Ofcourse,bourgeoislawinregardtothedistribution ofconsumergoodsinevitablypresupposestheexistenceofthebourgeoisstate,forlawisnothingwithout anapparatuscapableofenforcingtheobservanceoftherulesoflaw. Itfollowsthatundercommunismthereremainsforatimenotonlybourgeoislaw,buteventhebourgeois state,withoutthebourgeoisie! ThismaysoundlikeaparadoxorsimplyadialecticalconundrumofwhichMarxismisoftenaccusedby peoplewhohavenottakentheslightesttroubletostudyitsextraordinarilyprofoundcontent. Butinfact,remnantsoftheold,survivinginthenew,confrontusinlifeateverystep,bothinnatureandin society.AndMarxdidnotarbitrarilyinsertascrapofbourgeoislawintocommunism,butindicatedwhat iseconomicallyandpoliticallyinevitableinasocietyemergingoutofthewombofcapitalism. Democracymeansequality.Thegreatsignificanceoftheproletariat'sstruggleforequalityandofequality asasloganwillbeclearifwecorrectlyinterpretitasmeaningtheabolitionofclasses.Butdemocracy meansonlyformalequality.Andassoonasequalityisachievedforallmembersofsocietyinrelationto ownershipofthemeansofproduction,thatis,equalityoflaborandwages,humanitywillinevitablybe confrontedwiththequestionofadvancingfurtherfromformalequalitytoactualequality,i.e.,tothe

operationoftherule"fromeachaccordingtohisability,toeachaccordingtohisneeds".Bywhatstages, bymeansofwhatpracticalmeasureshumanitywillproceedtothissupremeaimwedonotandcannot know.Butitisimportanttorealizehowinfinitelymendaciousistheordinarybourgeoisconceptionof socialismassomethinglifeless,rigid,fixedonceandforall,whereasinrealityonlysocialismwillbethe beginningofarapid,genuine,trulymassforwardmovement,embracingfirstthemajorityandthenthe wholeofthepopulation,inallspheresofpublicandprivatelife. Democracyisofenormousimportancetotheworkingclassinitsstruggleagainstthecapitalistsforits emancipation.Butdemocracyisbynomeansaboundarynottobeoversteppeditisonlyoneofthestages ontheroadfromfeudalismtocapitalism,andfromcapitalismtocommunism. Democracyisaformofthestate,itrepresents,ontheonehand,theorganized,systematicuseofforce againstpersonsbut,ontheotherhand,itsignifiestheformalrecognitionofequalityofcitizens,theequal rightofalltodeterminethestructureof,andtoadminister,thestate.This,inturn,resultsinthefactthat,ata certainstageinthedevelopmentofdemocracy,itfirstweldstogethertheclassthatwagesarevolutionary struggleagainstcapitalismtheproletariat,andenablesittocrush,smashtoatoms,wipeoffthefaceofthe earththebourgeois,eventherepublicanbourgeois,statemachine,thestandingarmy,thepoliceandthe bureaucracyandtosubstituteforthemamoredemocraticstatemachine,butastatemachinenevertheless, intheshapeofarmedworkerswhoproceedtoformamilitiainvolvingtheentirepopulation. Here"quantityturnsintoquality":suchadegreeofdemocracyimpliesoversteppingtheboundariesof bourgeoissocietyandbeginningitssocialistreorganization.Ifreallyalltakepartintheadministrationofthe state,capitalismcannotretainitshold.Thedevelopmentofcapitalism,inturn,createsthepreconditionsthat enablereallyalltotakepartintheadministrationofthestate.Someofthesepreconditionsare:universal literacy,whichhasalreadybeenachievedinanumberofthemostadvancedcapitalistcountries,thenthe "traininganddisciplining"ofmillionsofworkersbythehuge,complex,socializedapparatusofthepostal service,railways,bigfactories,largescalecommerce,banking,etc.,etc. Giventheseeconomicpreconditions,itisquitepossible,aftertheoverthrowofthecapitalistsandthe bureaucrats,toproceedimmediately,overnight,toreplacetheminthecontroloverproductionand distribution,intheworkofkeepingaccountoflaborandproducts,bythearmedworkers,bythewholeof thearmedpopulation.(Thequestionofcontrolandaccountingshouldnotbeconfusedwiththequestionof thescientificallytrainedstaffofengineers,agronomists,andsoon.Thesegentlemenareworkingtodayin obediencetothewishesofthecapitalistsandwillworkevenbettertomorrowinobediencetothewishesof thearmedworkers.) Accountingandcontrolthatismainlywhatisneededforthe"smoothworking",fortheproper functioning,ofthefirstphaseofcommunistsociety.Allcitizensaretransformedintohiredemployeesofthe state,whichconsistsofthearmedworkers.Allcitizensbecomesemployeesandworkersofasingle countrywidestatesyndicate.Allthatisrequiredisthattheyshouldworkequally,dotheirpropershareof work,andgetequalpaytheaccountingandcontrolnecessaryforthishavebeensimplifiedbycapitalismto theutmostandreducedtotheextraordinarilysimpleoperationswhichanyliteratepersoncanperformof supervisingandrecording,knowledgeofthefourrulesofarithmetic,andissuingappropriatereceipts28. Whenthemajorityofthepeoplebeginindependentlyandeverywheretokeepsuchaccountsandexercise suchcontroloverthecapitalists(nowconvertedintoemployees)andovertheintellectualgentrywho

preservetheircapitalisthabits,thiscontrolwillreallybecomeuniversal,general,andpopularandtherewill benogettingawayfromit,therewillbe"nowheretogo". Thewholeofsocietywillhavebecomeasingleofficeandasinglefactory,withequalityoflaborandpay. Butthisfactorydiscipline,whichtheproletariat,afterdefeatingthecapitalists,afteroverthrowingthe exploiters,willextendtothewholeofsociety,isbynomeansourideal,orourultimategoal.Itisonlya necessarystepforthoroughlycleansingsocietyofalltheinfamiesandabominationsofcapitalist exploitation,andforfurtherprogress. Fromthemomentallmembersofsociety,oratleastthevastmajority,havelearnedtoadministerthestate themselves,havetakenthisworkintotheirownhands,haveorganizedcontrolovertheinsignificant capitalistminority,overthegentrywhowishtopreservetheircapitalisthabitsandovertheworkerswho havebeenthoroughlycorruptedbycapitalismfromthismomenttheneedforgovernmentofanykind beginstodisappearaltogether.Themorecompletethedemocracy,thenearerthemomentwhenitbecomes unnecessary.Themoredemocraticthestatewhichconsistsofthearmedworkers,andwhichis"no longerastateinthepropersenseoftheword",themorerapidlyeveryformofstatebeginstowitheraway. Forwhenallhavelearnedtoadministerandactuallytoindependentlyadministersocialproduction, independentlykeepaccountsandexercisecontrolovertheparasites,thesonsofthewealthy,theswindlers andother"guardiansofcapitalisttraditions",theescapefromthispopularaccountingandcontrolwill inevitablybecomesoincrediblydifficult,sucharareexception,andwillprobablybeaccompaniedbysuch swiftandseverepunishment(forthearmedworkersarepracticalmenandnotsentimentalintellectuals,and theyscarcelyallowanyonetotriflewiththem),thatthenecessityofobservingthesimple,fundamentalrules ofthecommunitywillverysoonbecomeahabit. Thenthedoorwillbethrownwideopenforthetransitionfromthefirstphaseofcommunistsocietytoits higherphase,andwithittothecompletewitheringawayofthestate.

ChapterVI:TheVulgarisationofMarxismbyOpportunists
Thequestionoftherelationofthestatetothesocialrevolution,andofthesocialrevolutiontothestate,like thequestionofrevolutiongenerally,wasgivenverylittleattentionbytheleadingtheoreticiansand publicistsoftheSecondInternational(18891914).Butthemostcharacteristicthingabouttheprocessof thegradualgrowthofopportunismthatledtothecollapseoftheSecondInternationalin1914isthefact thatevenwhenthesepeopleweresquarelyfacedwiththisquestiontheytriedtoevadeitorignoredit. Ingeneral,itmaybesaidthatevasivenessoverthequestionoftherelationoftheproletarianrevolutionto thestateanevasivenesswhichbenefitedandfosteredopportunismresultedinthedistortionofMarxism andinitscompletevulgarization. Tocharacterizethislamentableprocess,ifonlybriefly,weshalltakethemostprominenttheoreticiansof Marxism:PlekhanovandKautsky.

1.PlekhanovsControversywiththeAnarchists

Plekhanovwroteaspecialpamphletontherelationofanarchismtosocialism,entitledAnarchismand Socialism,whichwaspublishedingermanin1894. Intreatingthissubject,Plekhanovcontrivedcompletelytoevadethemosturgent,burning,andmost politicallyessentialissueinthestruggleagainstanarchism,namely,therelationoftherevolutiontothe state,andthequestionofthestateingeneral!Hispamphletfallsintotwodistinctparts:oneofthemis historicalandliterary,andcontainsvaluablematerialonthehistoryoftheideasofStirner,Proudhon,and otherstheotherisphilistine,andcontainsaclumsydissertationonthethemethatananarchistcannotbe distinguishedfromabandit. ItisamostamusingcombinationofsubjectsandmostcharacteristicofPlekhanovswholeactivityonthe eveoftherevolutionandduringtherevolutionaryperiodinRussia.Infact,intheyears1905to1917, Plekhanovrevealedhimselfasasemidoctrinaireandsemiphilistinewho,inpolitics,trailedinthewakeof thebourgeoisie. Wehavenowseenhow,intheircontroversywiththeanarchists,marxandEngelswiththeutmost thoroughnessexplainedtheirviewsontherelationofrevolutiontothestate.In1891,inhisforewordto MarxsCritiqueoftheGothaProgramme,Engelswrotethatwethatis,EngelsandMarx"wereat thattime,hardlytwoyearsaftertheHagueCongressofthe[First]International29,engagedinthemost violentstruggleagainstBakuninandhisanarchists." TheanarchistshadtriedtoclaimtheParisCommuneastheirown,sotosay,asacollaborationoftheir doctrineandtheycompletelymisunderstooditslessonsandMarxsanalysisoftheselessons.Anarchism hasgivennothingevenapproximatingtrueanswerstotheconcretepoliticalquestions:Musttheoldstate machinebesmashed?Andwhatshouldbeputinitsplace? Buttospeakofanarchismandsocialismwhilecompletelyevadingthequestionofthestate,and disregardingthewholedevelopmentofMarxismbeforeandaftertheCommune,meantinevitablyslipping intoopportunism.Forwhatopportunismneedsmostofallisthatthetwoquestionsjustmentionedshould notberaisedatall.Thatinitselfisavictoryforopportunism.

2.KautskysControversywiththeOpportunists
Undoubtedly,animmeasurablylargernumberofKautskysworkshavebeentranslatedintoRussianthan intoanyotherlanguage.ItisnotwithoutreasonthatsomeGermanSocialDemocratssayinjestthat KautskyisreadmoreinRussiathaninGermany(letussay,inparenthesis,thatthisjesthasafardeeper historicalmeaningthanthosewhofirstmadeitsuspect.TheRussianworkers,bymakingin1905an unusuallygreatandunprecedenteddemandforthebestworksofthebestSocialDemocraticliteratureand editionsoftheseworksinquantitiesunheardofinothercountries,rapidlytransplanted,sotospeak,the enormousexperienceofaneighboring,moreadvancedcountrytotheyoungsoilofourproletarian movement). BesideshispopularizationofMarxism,Kautskyisparticularlyknowninourcountryforhiscontroversy withtheopportunists,withBernsteinattheirhead.Onefact,however,isalmostunknown,onewhich cannotbeignoredifwesetouttoinvestigatehowKautskydriftedintothemorassofunbelievably disgracefulconfusionanddefenceofsocialchauvinismduringthesupremecrisisof191415.Thisfactis

asfollows:shortlybeforehecameoutagainstthemostprominentrepresentativesofopportunisminFrance (MillerandandJaures)andinGermany(Bernstein),Kautskybetrayedveryconsiderablevacillation.The MarxistZarya30,whichwaspublishedinStuttgartin190102,andadvocatedrevolutionaryproletarian views,wasforcedtoenterintocontroversywithKautskyanddescribeaselasticthehalfhearted,evasive resolution,conciliatorytowardstheopportunists,thatheproposedattheInternationalSocialistCongressin Parisin190031.KautskysletterspublishedinGermanyrevealnolesshesitancyonhispartbeforehetook thefieldagainstBernstein. Ofimmeasurablygreatersignificance,however,isthefactthat,inhisverycontroversywiththe opportunists,inhisformulationofthequestionandhismanneroftreatingit,wecannewsee,aswestudy thehistoryofKautskyslatestbetrayalofMarxism,hissystematicdeviationtowardsopportunismprecisely onthequestionofthestate. LetustakeKautskysfirstimportantworkagainstopportunism,BernsteinandtheSocialDemocratic Programme.KautskyrefutesBernsteinindetail,buthereisacharacteristicthing: Bernstein,inhisPremisesofSocialism,ofHerostrateanfame,accusesMarxismofBlanquism(an accusationsincerepeatedthousandsoftimesbytheopportunistsandliberalbourgeoisieinRussiaagainst therevolutionaryMarxists,theBolsheviks).InthisconnectionBernsteindwellsparticularlyonMarxsThe CivilWarinFrance,andtries,quiteunsuccessfully,aswehaveseen,toidentifyMarxsviewsonthe lessonsoftheCommunewiththoseofProudhon.Bernsteinpaysparticularattentiontotheconclusion whichMarxemphasizedinhis1872prefacetotheCommunistManifesto,namely,thattheworkingclass cannotsimplylayholdofthereadymadestatemachineryandwielditforitsownpurposes". ThisstatementpleasedBernsteinsomuchthatheuseditnolessthanthreetimesinhisbook,interpreting itinthemostdistorted,opportunistway. Aswehaveseen,Marxmeantthattheworkingclassmustsmash,break,shatter(sprengung,explosion theexpressionusedbyEngels)thewholestatemachine.ButaccordingtoBernsteinitwouldappearas thoughMarxinthesewordswarnedtheworkingclassagainstexcessiverevolutionaryzealwhenseizing power. AcrudermorehideousdistortionofMarxsideacannotbeimagined. How,then,didKautskyproceedinhismostdetailedrefutationofBernsteinism? HerefrainedfromanalyzingtheutterdistortionofMarxismbyopportunismonthispoint.Hecitedthe abovequotedpassagefromEngelsprefacetoMarxsCivilWarandsaidthataccordingtoMarxthe workingclasscannotsimplytakeoverthereadymadestatemachinery,butthat,generallyspeaking,itcan takeitoverandthatwasall.KautskydidnotsayawordaboutthefactthatBernsteinattributedtoMarx theveryoppositeofMarxsrealidea,thatsince1852Marxhadformulatedthetaskoftheproletarian revolutionasbeingtosmashthestatemachine. TheresultwasthatthemostessentialdistinctionbetweenMarxismandopportunismonthesubjectofthe tasksoftheproletarianrevolutionwasslurredoverbyKautsky! Wecanquitesafelyleavethesolutionoftheproblemsoftheproletariandictatorshipofthe

future,saidKautsky,writingagainstBernstein.(p.172,Germanedition) ThisisnotapolemicagainstBernstein,but,inessence,aconcessiontohim,asurrendertoopportunism foratpresenttheopportunistsasknothingbetterthantoquitesafelyleavetothefutureallfundamental questionsofthetasksoftheproletarianrevolution. From1852to1891,orfor40years,MarxandEngelstaughttheproletariatthatitmustsmashthestate machine.Yet,in1899,Kautsky,confrontedwiththecompletebetrayalofMarxismbytheopportunistson thispoint,fraudulentlysubstitutedforthequestionwhetheritisnecessarytosmashthismachinethe questionfortheconcreteformsinwhichitistobesmashed,andthensoughrefugebehindthe indisputable(andbarren)philistinetruththatconcreteformscannotbeknowninadvance!! AgulfseparatesMarxandKautskyovertheirattitudetowardstheproletarianpartystaskoftrainingthe workingclassforrevolution. Letustakethenext,moremature,workbyKautsky,whichwasalsolargelydevotedtoarefutationof opportunisterrors.Itishispamphlet,TheSocialRevolution.Inthispamphlet,theauthorchoseashis specialthemethequestionoftheproletarianrevolutionandtheproletarianregime".Hegavemuchthat wasexceedinglyvaluable,butheavoidedthequestionofthestate.Throughoutthepamphlettheauthor speaksofthewinningofstatepowerandnomorethatis,hehaschosenaformulawhichmakesa concessiontotheopportunists,inasmuchasitadmitsthepossibilityofseizingpowerwithoutdestroyingthe statemachine.TheverythingwhichMarxin1872declaredtobeobsoleteintheprogrammeofthe CommunistManifesto,isrevivedbyKautskyin1902. Aspecialsectioninthepamphletisdevotedtotheformsandweaponsofthesocialrevolution".Here Kautskyspeaksofthemasspoliticalstrike,ofcivilwar,andoftheinstrumentsofthemightofthemodern largestate,itsbureaucracyandthearmy"buthedoesnotsayawordaboutwhattheCommunehas alreadytaughttheworkers.Evidently,itwasnotwithoutreasonthatEngelsissuedawarning,particularly totheGermansocialists.againstsuperstitiousreverenceforthestate. Kautskytreatsthematterasfollows:thevictoriousproletariatwillcarryoutthedemocraticprogramme", andhegoesontoformulateitsclauses.Buthedoesnotsayawordaboutthenewmaterialprovidedin 1871onthesubjectofthereplacementofbourgeoisdemocracybyproletariandemocracy.Kautsky disposesofthequestionbyusingsuchimpressivesoundingbanalitiesas: Still,itgoeswithoutsayingthatweshallnotachievesupremacyunderthepresentconditions. Revolutionitselfpresupposeslonganddeepgoingstruggles,which,inthemselves,will changeourpresentpoliticalandsocialstructure." Undoubtedly,thisgoeswithoutsaying,justasthefactthathorseseatoatsoftheVolgaflowsintothe Caspian.Onlyitisapitythatanemptyandbombasticphraseaboutdeepgoingstrugglesisusedtoavoid aquestionofvitalimportancetotherevolutionaryproletariat,namely,whatmakesitsrevolutiondeep goinginrelationtothestate,todemocracy,asdistinctfromprevious,nonproletarianrevolutions. Byavoidingthisquestion,Kautskyinpracticemakesaconcessiontoopportunismonthismostessential point,althoughinwordshedeclaressternwaragainstitandstressestheimportanceoftheideaof

revolution(howmuchisthisideaworthwhenoneisafraidtoteachtheworkerstheconcretelessonsof revolution?),orsays,revolutionaryidealismbeforeeverythingelse",orannouncesthattheEnglish workersarenowhardlymorethanpettybourgeois". Themostvariedformofenterprisesbureaucratic[??],tradeunionist,cooperative,private... canexistsidebysideinsocialistsociety,Kautskywrites....Thereare,forexample, enterpriseswhichcannotdowithoutabureaucratic[??]organization,suchastherailways. Herethedemocraticorganizationmaytakethefollowingshape:theworkerselectdelegates whoformasortofparliament,whichestablishestheworkingregulationsandsupervisesthe managementofthebureaucraticapparatus.Themanagementofothercountriesmaybe transferredtothetradeunions,andstillothersmaybecomecooperativeenterprises." ThisargumentiserroneousitisastepbackwardcomparedwiththeexplanationsMarxandEngelsgavein theseventies,usingthelessonsoftheCommuneasanexample. Asfarasthesupposedlynecessarybureaucraticorganizationisconcerned,thereisnodifference whateverbetweenarailwayandanyotherenterpriseinlargescalemachineindustry,anyfactory,large shop,orlargescalecapitalistagriculturalenterprise.Thetechniqueofalltheseenterprisesmakesabsolutely imperativethestrictestdiscipline,theutmostprecisiononthepartofeveryoneincarryouthisallottedtask, forotherwisethewholeenterprisemaycometoastop,ormachineryorthefinishedproductmaybe damaged.Inalltheseenterprisestheworkerswill,ofcourse,electdelegateswhowillformasortof parliament". Thewholepoint,however,isthatthissortofparliamentwillnotbeaparliamentinthesenseofa bourgeoisparliamentaryinstitution.Thewholepointisthatthissortofparliamentwillnotmerely establishtheworkingregulationsandsupervisethemanagementofthebureaucraticapparatus,as Kautsky,whosethinkingdoesnotgobeyondtheboundsofbourgeoisparliamentarianism,imagines.In socialistsociety,thesortofparliamentconsistingofworkersdeputieswill,ofcourse,establishthe workingregulationsandsupervisethemanagementoftheapparatus,butthisapparatuswillnotbe bureaucratic. KautskyhasnotreflectedatallonMarxswords:TheCommunewasaworking,notparliamentary, body,executiveandlegislativeatthesametime." Kautskyhasnotunderstoodatallthedifferencebetweenbourgeoisparliamentarism,whichcombines democracy(notforthepeople)withbureaucracy(againstthepeople),andproletariandemocracy,which willtakeimmediatestepstocutbureaucracydowntotheroots,andwhichwillbeabletocarrythese measuresthroughtotheend,tothecompleteabolitionofbureaucracy,totheintroductionofcomplete democracyforthepeople. Kautskyheredisplaysthesameoldsuperstitiousreverenceforthestate,andsuperstitiousbeliefin bureaucracy. LetusnowpasstothelastandbestofKautskysworksagainsttheopportunists,hispamphletTheRoadto Power(which,Ibelieve,hasnotbeenpublishedinRussian,foritappearedin1909,whenreactionwasat itsheightinourcountry).Thispamphletisabigstepforward,sinceitdoesnotdealwiththerevolutionary

programmeingeneral,asthepamphletof1899againstBernstein,orwiththetasksofthesocialrevolution irrespectiveofthetimeofitsoccurrence,asthe1902pamphlet,TheSocialRevolutionitdealswiththe concreteconditionswhichcompelsustorecognizethattheeraofrevolutionsissettingin. Theauthorexplicitlypointstotheaggravationofclassantagonismsingeneralandtoimperialism,which playsaparticularlyimportantpartinthisrespect.Aftertherevolutionaryperiodof17891871inWestern Europe,hesays,asimilarperiodbeganintheEastin1905.Aworldwarisapproachingwithmenacing rapidity.It[theproletariat]cannolongertalkofprematurerevolution.Wehaveenteredarevolutionary period.Therevolutionaryeraisbeginning". Thesestatementsareperfectlyclear.ThispamphletofKautskysshouldserveasameasureofcomparison ofwhattheGermanSocialDemocratspromisedtobebeforetheimperialistwarandthedepthof degradationtowhichthey,includingKautskyhimself,sankwhenthewarbrokeout.Thepresent situation,Kautskywroteinthepamphletundersurvey,isfraughtwiththedangerthatwe[i.e.,the GermanSocialDemocrats]mayeasilyappeartobemoremoderatethanwereallyare.Itturnedoutthat inrealitytheGermanSocialDemocraticPartywasmuchmoremoderateandopportunistthanitappeared tobe! Itisallthemorecharacteristic,therefore,thatalthoughKautskysoexplicitlydeclaredthattheeraof revolutionhadalreadybegun,inthepamphletwhichhehimselfsaidwasdevotedtoananalysisofthe politicalrevolution",heagaincompletelyavoidedthequestionofthestate. Theseevasionsofthequestion,theseomissionsandequivocations,inevitablyaddeduptothatcomplete swingovertoopportunismwithwhichweshallnowhavetodeal. Kautsky,theGermanSocialDemocratsspokesman,seemstohavedeclared:Iabidebyrevolutionary views(1899),Irecognize,aboveall,theinevitabilityofthesocialrevolutionoftheproletariat(1902),I recognizetheadventofaneweraofrevolutions(1909).Still,IamgoingbackonwhatMarxsaidasearly as1852,sincethequestionofthetasksoftheproletarianrevolutioninrelationtothestateisbeingraised (1912). ItwasinthispointblankformthatthequestionwasputinKautskyscontroversywithPannekoek.

3.KautskysControversywithPannekoek
InopposingKautsky,PannekoekcameoutasoneoftherepresentativesoftheLeftradicaltrendwhich includedRosaLuxemburg,KarlRadek,andothers.Advocatingrevolutionarytactics,theywereunitedin theconvictionthatKautskywasgoingovertotheCentre,whichwaveredinanunprincipledmanner betweenMarxismandopportunism.Thisviewwasprovedperfectlycorrectbythewar,whenthis Centrist(wronglycalledMarxist)trend,orKautskyism,revealeditselfinallitsrepulsivewretchedness. Inanarticletouchingonthequestionofthestate,entitledMassActionandRevolution(NeueZeit,1912, Vol.XXX,2),Pannekoekdescribedkautskysattitudeasoneofpassiveradicalism",asatheoryof inactiveexpectancy".Kautskyrefusestoseetheprocessofrevolution,wrotePannekoek(p.616).In presentingthematterinthisway,Pannekoekapproachedthesubjectwhichinterestsus,namely,thetasks oftheproletarianrevolutioninrelationtothestate.

Thestruggleoftheproletariat,hewrote,isnotmerelyastruggleagainstthebourgeoisiefor statepower,butastruggleagainststatepower....Thecontentofthis[theproletarian] revolutionisthedestructionanddissolution[Auflosung]oftheinstrumentsofpowerofthe statewiththeaidoftheinstrumentsofpoweroftheproletariat.(p.544)Thestrugglewill ceaseonlywhen,astheresultofit,thestateorganizationiscompletelydestroyed.The organizationofthemajoritywillthenhavedemonstrateditssuperioritybydestroyingthe organizationoftherulingminority.(p.548) TheformulationinwhichPannekoekpresentedhisideassuffersfromseriousdefects.Butitsmeaningis clearnonetheless,anditisinterestingtonotehowKautskycombatedit. Uptonow,hewrote,theantithesisbetweentheSocialDemocratsandtheanarchistshas beenthattheformerwishedtowinthestatepowerwhilethelatterwishedtodestroyit. Pannekoekwantstodoboth.(p.724) AlthoughPannekoeksexpositionlacksprecisionandconcretenessnottospeakofothershortcomingsof hisarticlewhichhavenobearingonthepresentsubjectKautskyseizedpreciselyonthepointofprinciple raisedbyPannekoekandonthisfundamentalpointofprincipleKautskycompletelyabandonedthe Marxistpositionandwentoverwhollytoopportunism.HisdefinitionofthedistinctionbetweentheSocial DemocratsandtheanarchistsisabsolutelywronghecompletelyvulgarizesanddistortsMarxism. ThedistinctionbetweenMarxistsandtheanarchistsisthis:(1)Theformer,whileaimingatthecomplete abolitionofthestate,recognizethatthisaimcanonlybeachievedafterclasseshavebeenabolishedbythe socialistrevolution,astheresultoftheestablishmentofsocialism,whichleadstothewitheringawayofthe state.Thelatterwanttoabolishhestatecompletelyovernight,notunderstandingtheconditionsunder whichthestatecanbeabolished.(2)Theformerrecognizethataftertheproletariathaswonpoliticalpower itmustcompletelydestroytheoldstatemachineandreplaceitbyanewoneconsistingofanorganization ofthearmedworkers,afterthetypeoftheCommune.Thelatter,whileinsistingonthedestructionofthe statemachine,haveaveryvagueideaofwhattheproletariatwillputinitsplaceandhowitwilluseits revolutionarypower.Theanarchistsevendenythattherevolutionaryproletariatshouldusethestatepower, theyrejectitsrevolutionarydictatorship.(3)Theformerdemandthattheproletariatbetrainedforrevolution byutilizingthepresentstate.Theanarchistsrejectthis. Inthiscontroversy,itisnotKautskybutPannekoekwhorepresentsMarxism,foritwasMarxwhotaught thattheproletariatcannotsimplywinstatepowerinthesensethattheoldstateapparatuspassesintonew hands,butmustsmashthisapparatus,mustbreakitandreplaceitbyanewone. KautskyabandonsMarxismfortheopportunistcamp,forthisdestructionofthestatemachine,whichis utterlyunacceptabletotheopportunists,completelydisappearsfromhisargument,andheleavesaloophole fortheminthatconquestmaybeinterpretedasthesimpleacquisitionofamajority. TocoveruphisdistortionofMarxism,Kautskybehaveslikeadoctrinaire:heputsforwardaquotation fromMarxhimself.In1850,Marxwrotethataresolutecentralizationofpowerinthehandsofthestate authoritywasnecessary,andKautskytriumphantlyasks:doesPannekoekwanttodestroyCentralism? Thisissimplyatrick,likeBernsteinsidentificationoftheviewsofMarxismandProudhonismonthe

subjectoffederalismasagainstcentralism. Kautskysquotationisneitherherenorthere.Centralismispossiblewithboththeoldandthenewstate machine.Iftheworkersvoluntarilyunitetheirarmedforces,thiswillbecentralism,butitwillbebasedon thecompletedestructionofthecentralizedstateapparatusthestandingarmy,thepolice,andthe bureaucracy.Kautskyactslikeanoutrightswindlerbyevadingtheperfectlywellknownargumentsof MarxandEngelsontheCommuneandpluckingoutaquotationwhichhasnothingtodowiththepointat issue. Perhapshe[Pannekoek],Kautskycontinues,wantstoabolishthestatefunctionsofthe officials?Butwecannotdowithoutofficialseveninthepartyandtradeunions,letaloneinthe stateadministration.Andourprogrammedoesnotdemandtheabolitionofstateofficials,but thattheybeelectedbythepeople....Wearediscussingherenottheformtheadministrative apparatusofthefuturestatewillassume,butwhetherourpoliticalstruggleabolishes [literallydissolvesauflost]thestatepowerbeforewehavecapturedit.[Kautskysitalics] Whichministrywithitsofficialscouldbeabolished?Thenfollowsanenumerationofthe ministeriesofeducation,justice,finance,andwar.No,notoneofthepresentministrieswill beremovedbyourpoliticalstruggleagainstthegovernment....Irepeat,inordertoprevent misunderstanding:wearenotdiscussingheretheformthefuturestatewillbegivenbythe victoriousSocialDemocrats,buthowthepresentstateischangedbyouropposition.(p.725) Thisisanobvioustrick.Pannekoekraisedthequestionofrevolution.Boththetitleofhisarticleandthe passagesquotedaboveclearlyindicatethis.Byskippingtothequestionofopposition,Kautksy substitutestheopportunistfortherevolutionarypointofview.Whathesaysmeans:atpresentwearean oppositionwhatweshallbeafterwehavecapturedpower,thatweshallsee.Revolutionhasvanished! Andthatisexactlywhattheopportunistswanted. Thepointatissueisneitheroppositionnorpoliticalstruggleingeneral,butrevolution.Revolutionconsists intheproletariatdestroyingtheadministrativeapparatusandthewholestatemachine,replacingitbya newone,madeupofthearmedworkers.Kautskydisplaysasuperstitiousreverenceforministriesbut whycantheynotbereplaced,say,bycommitteesofspecialistsworkingundersovereign,allpowerful SovietsofWorkersandSoldiersDeputies? Thepointisnotatallwhethertheministrieswillremain,orwhethercommitteesofspecialistsorsome otherbodieswillbesetupthatisquiteimmaterial.Thepointiswhethertheoldstatemachine(boundby thousandsofthreadstothebourgeoisieandpermeatedthroughandthroughwithroutineandinertia)shall remain,orbedestroyedandreplacedbyanewone.Revolutionconsistsnotinthenewclasscommanding, governingwiththeaidoftheoldstatemachine,butinthisclasssmashingthismachineandcommanding, governingwiththeaidofanewmachine.KautskyslursoverthisbasicideaofMarxism,orhedoesnot understanditatall. HisquestionaboutofficialsclearlyshowsthathedoesnotunderstandthelessonsoftheCommuneorthe teachingsofMarx.Wecannottowithoutofficialseveninthepartyandthetradeunions...." Wecannotdowithoutofficialsundercapitalism,undertheruleofthebourgeoisie.Theproletariatis oppressed,theworkingpeopleareenslavedbycapitalism.Undercapitalism,democracyisrestricted,

cramped,curtailed,mutilatedbyalltheconditionsofwageslavery,andthepovertyandmiseryofthe people.Thisandthisaloneisthereasonwhythefunctionariesofourpoliticalorganizationsandtrade unionsarecorruptedorrathertendtobecorruptedbytheconditionsofcapitalismandbetrayatendency tobecomebureaucrats,i.e.,privilegedpersonsdivorcedfromthepeopleandstandingabovethepeople. Thatistheessenceofbureaucracyanduntilthecapitalistshavebeenexpropriatedandthebourgeoisie overthrown,evenproletarianfunctionarieswillinevitablybebureaucratizedtoacertainextent. AccordingtoKautsky,sinceelectedfunctionarieswillremainundersocialism,sowillofficials,sowillthe bureaucracy!Thisisexactlywhereheiswrong.Marx,referringtotheexampleoftheCommune,showed thatundersocialismfunctionarieswillceasetobebureaucrats,tobeofficials,theywillceasetobeso inproportionasinadditiontotheprincipleofelectionofofficialstheprincipleofrecallatanytimeis alsointroduced,assalariesarereducedtothelevelofthewagesoftheaverageworkman,andas parliamentaryinstitutionsarereplacedbyworkingbodies,executiveandlegislativeatthesametime". Asamatteroffact,thewholeofKautskysargumentagainstPannekoek,andparticularlytheformers wonderfulpointthatwecannotdowithoutofficialseveninourpartyandtradeunionorganizations,is merelyarepetitionofBernsteinsoldargumentsagainstMarxismingeneral.Inhisrenegadebook,The PremisesofSocialism,Bernsteincombatstheideasofprimitivedemocracy,combatswhathecalls doctrinairedemocracy":bindingmandates,unpaidofficials,impotentcentralrepresentativebodies,etc.to provethatthisprimitivedemocracyisunsound,BernsteinreferstotheexperienceoftheBritishtrade unions,asinterpretedbytheWebbs32.Seventyyearsofdevelopmentinabsolutefreedom",hesays(p.137, Germanedition),convincedthetradeunionsthatprimitivedemocracywasuseless,andtheyreplaceditby ordinarydemocracy,i.e.,parliamentarismcombinedwithbureaucracy. Inreality,thetradeunionsdidnotdevelopinabsolutefreedombutinabsolutecapitalistslavery,under which,itgoeswithoutsaying,anumberofconcessionstotheprevailingevil,violence,falsehood, exclusionofthepoorfromtheaffairsofhigheradministration,cannotbedonewithout".Under socialismmuchofprimitivedemocracywillinevitablyberevived,since,forthefirsttimeinthehistoryof civilizedsocietythemassofpopulationwillrisetotakinganindependentpart,notonlyinvotingand elections,butalsointheeverydayadministrationofthestate.Undersocialismallwillgoverninturnand willsoonbecomeaccustomedtonoonegoverning. MarxscriticoanalyticalgeniussawinthepracticalmeasuresoftheCommunetheturningpointwhichthe opportunistsfearanddonotwanttorecognizebecauseoftheircowardice,becausetheydonotwantto breakirrevocablywiththebourgeoisie,andwhichtheanarchistsdonotwanttosee,eitherbecausetheyare inahurryorbecausetheydonotunderstandatalltheconditionsofgreatsocialchanges.Wemustnot eventhinkofdestroyingtheoldstatemachinehowcanwedowithoutministriesandofficials>arguesthe opportunist,whoiscompletelysaturatedwithphilistinismandwho,atbottom,notonlydoesnotbelievein revolution,inthecreativepowerofrevolution,butlivesinmortaldreadofit(likeourMensheviksand SocialistRevolutionaries). Wemustthinkonlyofdestroyingtheoldstatemachineitisnouseprobingintotheconcretelessonsof earlierproletarianrevolutionsandanalyzingwhattoputintheplaceofwhathasbeendestroyed,andhow, arguestheanarchist(thebestoftheanarchist,ofcourse,andnotthosewho,followingtheKropotkinsand Co.,trailbehindthebourgeoisie).Consequently,thetacticsoftheanarchistbecomethetacticsofdespair

insteadofaruthlesslyboldrevolutionaryefforttosolveconcreteproblemswhiletakingintoaccountthe practicalconditionsofthemassmovement. Marxteachesustoavoidbotherrorsheteachesustoactwithsupremeboldnessindestroyingtheentire oldstatemachine,andatthesametimeheteachesustoputthequestionconcretely:theCommunewasable inthespaceofafewweekstostartbuildinganew,proletarianstatemachinebyintroducingsuchandsuch measurestoprovidewiderdemocracyandtouprootbureaucracy.Letuslearnrevolutionaryboldnessfrom theCommunardsletusseeintheirpracticalmeasurestheoutlineofreallyurgentandimmediatelypossible measures,andthen,followingthisroad,weshallachievethecompletedestructionofbureaucracy. Thepossibilityofthisdestructionisguaranteedbythefactthatsocialismwillshortentheworkingday,will raisethepeopletoanewlife,willcreatesuchconditionsforthemajorityofthepopulationaswillenable everybody,withoutexception,toperformstatefunctions",andthiswillleadtothecompletewithering awayofeveryformofstateingeneral. Itsobject[theobjectofthemassstrike],Kautskycontinues,cannotbetodestroythestate poweritsonlyobjectcanbetomakethegovernmentcompliantonsomespecificquestion,or toreplaceagovernmenthostiletotheproletariatbyonewillingtomeetithalfway [entgegenkommende]...Butnever,undernocircumstancescanit[thatis,theproletarian victoryoverahostilegovernment]leadtothedestructionofthestatepoweritcanleadonlyto acertainshifting[verschiebung]ofthebalanceofforceswithinthestatepower....Theaimof ourpoliticalstruggleremains,asinthepast,theconquestofstatepowerbywinningamajority inparliamentandbyraisingparliamenttotheranksofmasterofthegovernment.(pp.726, 727,732) Thisisnothingbutthepurestandmostvulgaropportunism:repudiatingrevolutionindeeds,while acceptingitinwords.Kautskysthoughtsgonofurtherthanagovernment...willingtomeetthe proletariathalfway"astepbackwardtophilistinismcomparedwith1847,whentheCommunist Manifestoproclaimedtheorganizationoftheproletariatastherulingclass". KautskywillhavetoachievehisbelovedunitywiththeScheidmanns,Plekhanovs,andVanderveldes, allofwhomagreetofightforagovernmentwillingtomeettheproletariathalfway". We,however,shallbreakwiththesetraitorstosocialism,andweshallfightforthecompletedestructionof theoldstatemachine,inorderthatthearmedproletariatitselfmaybecomethegovernment.Thesearetwo vastlydifferentthings. KautskywillhavetoenjoythepleasantcompanyoftheLegiensandDavids,Plekhanovs,Potresovs, Tseretelis,andChernovs,whoarequitewillingtoworkfortheshiftingofthebalanceofforceswithinthe statepower",forwinningamajorityinparliament",andraisingparliamenttotheranksofmasterofthe government".Amostworthyobject,whichiswhollyacceptabletotheopportunistsandwhichkeeps everythingwithintheboundsofthebourgeoisparliamentaryrepublic. We,however,shallbreakwiththeopportunistsandtheentireclassconsciousproletariatwillbewithusin thefightnottoshiftthebalanceofforces",buttooverthrowthebourgeoisie,todestroybourgeois parliamentarism,forademocraticrepublicafterthetypeoftheCommune,orarepublicofSovietsof

WorkersandSoldiersDeputies,fortherevolutionarydictatorshipoftheproletariat. TotherightofKautskyininternationalsocialismtherearetrendssuchasSocialistMonthly33inGermany (Legien,David,Kolb,andmanyothers,includingtheScandinavianStauningandBranting),Jaures followersandVanderveldeinFranceandBelgiumTurait,Treves,andotherRightwingersoftheItalian PartytheFabiansandIndependents(theIndependentlaborParty,which,infact,hasalwaysbeen dependentontheLiberals)inBritainandthelike.Allthesegentry,whoplayatremendous,veryoftena predominantroleintheparliamentaryworkandthepressoftheirparties,repudiateoutrightthedictatorship oftheproletariatandpursueapolicyofundisguisedopportunism.Intheeyesofthesegentry,the dictatorshipoftheproletariatcontradictsdemocracy!!Thereisreallynoessentialdistinctionbetween themandthepettybourgeoisdemocrats. Takingthiscircumstanceintoconsideration,wearejustifiedindrawingtheconclusionthattheSecond International,thatis,theoverwhelmingmajorityofitsofficialrepresentatives,hascompletelysunkinto opportunism.TheexperienceoftheCommunehasbeennotonlyignoredbutdistorted.farfrominculcating intheworkersmindstheideathatthetimeisnearingwhentheymustacttosmashtheoldstatemachine, replaceitbyanewone,andinthiswaymaketheirpoliticalrulethefoundationforthesocialist reorganizationofsociety,theyhaveactuallypreachedtothemassestheveryoppositeandhavedepicted theconquestofpowerinawaythathasleftthousandsofloopholesforopportunism. Thedistortionandhushingupofthequestionoftherelationoftheproletarianrevolutiontothestatecould notbutplayanimmenseroleatatimewhenstates,whichpossessamilitaryapparatusexpandedasa consequenceofimperialistrivalry,havebecomemilitarymonsterswhichareexterminatingmillionsof peopleinordertosettletheissueastowhetherBritainorGermanythisorthatfinancecapitalistorule theworld. TheMS.continuesasfollows: ChapterVII:TheExperienceoftheRussianRevolutionsof1905and1917 Thesubjectindicatedinthetitleofthischapterissovastthatvolumescouldbewrittenaboutit.Inthe presentpamphletweshallhavetoconfineourselves,naturally,tothemostimportantlessonsprovidedby experience,thosebearingdirectlyuponthetasksoftheproletariatintherevolutionwithregardtostate power.[HerethemanuscriptbreaksoffEd.]

PostscripttotheFirstEdition
ThispamphletwaswritteninAugustandSeptember1917.Ihadalreadydrawnuptheplanforthenext, theseventhchapter,"TheExperienceoftheRussianRevolutionsof1905and1917".Apartfromthetitle, however,IhadnotimetowriteasinglelineofthechapterIwas"interrupted"byapoliticalcrisistheeve oftheOctoberrevolutionof1917.Suchan"interruption"canonlybewelcomedbutthewritingofthe secondpartofthispamphlet("TheExperienceoftheRussianRevolutionsof1905and1917")will probablyhavetobeputoffforalongtime.Itismorepleasantandusefultogothroughthe"experienceof revolution"thantowriteaboutit. TheAuthor Petrograd November30,1917
1FabiansmembersoftheFabianSociety,aBritishreformistorganisationfoundedin1884.Itgroupedmostlybourgeois intellectualsscholars,writers,politiciansincludingSydneyandBeatriceWebb,RamsayMacDonaldandBernard Shaw.TheFabiansdeniedthenecessityfortheproletarianclassstruggleandforthesocialistrevolution.Theycontended thatthetransitionfromcapitalismtosocialismcouldonlybeeffectedthroughminorsocialreforms,thatis,gradual changes.LenindescribedFabianideasas"anextremelyopportunisttrend"(seepresentedition,Vol.13,p.358). In1900theFabianSocietybecamepartoftheBritishLabourParty."Fabiansocialism"isasourceoftheLabourParty's ideology. DuringtheFirstWorldWartheFabianstookasocialchauviniststand.ForLenin'scharacterisationofFabianprinciples,see Lenin'sarticle"BritishPacifismandtheBritishDislikeofTheory"(presentedition,Vol.21,pp.26065). 2SeeFrederickEngels,TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState(KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,Selected Works,Vol.3,Moscow,1973,pp.32627). Furtherbelow,onpp.39395,39599ofthevolume,LeninisquotingfromthesameworkbyEngels(op.cit.,pp.32730). 3SeeFrederickEngels,AntiDuhring,Moscow,1969,pp.33233. Furtherdown,onp.404ofthisvolume,LeninisquotingfromthesameworkbyEngels(op.cit.,p.220). 4ThirtyYears'War(161848),thefirstEuropeanwar,resultedfromanaggravationoftheantagonismsbetweenvarious alignmentsofEuropeanstates,andtooktheformofastrugglebetweenProtestantsandCatholics.Itbeganwitharevolt inBohemiaagainstthetyrannyoftheHapsburgmonarchyandtheonslaughtofCatholicreaction.Thestateswhichthen enteredthewarformedtwocamps.ThePope,theSpanishandAustrianHapsburgsandtheCatholicprincesofGermany, whoralliedtotheCatholicChurch,opposedtheProtestantcountriesBohemia,Denmark,Sweden,theDutchRepublic, andanumberofGermanstatesthathadacceptedtheReformation.TheProtestantcountrieswerebackedbytheFrench kings,enemiesoftheHapsburgs.Germanybecamethechiefbattlefieldandobjectofmilitaryplunderandpredatory claims.Thewarendedin1648withthesigningofthePeaceTreatyofWestphalia,whichcompletedthepolitical dismembermentofGermany. 5SeeKarlMarx,ThePovertyofPhilosophy,Moscow,1973,pp.15152. 6SeeKarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks,Vol.1,Moscow,1973,p.137.

7GothaProgrammetheprogrammeadoptedbytheSocialistWorkers'PartyofGermanyin1875,attheGothaCongress, whichunitedtwoGermansocialistparties,namely,theEisenachersledbyAugustBebelandWilhelmLiebknechtand influencedbyMarxandEngclsandtheLassalleans.Theprogrammebetrayedeclecticismandwasopportunist,because theEisenachershadmadeconcessionstotheLassalleansonmajorissuesandacceptedLassalleanformulations.Marxin hisCritiqueoftheGothaProgramme,andEngelsinhislettertoBebelofMarch1828,11475,devastatedtheGotha Programme,whichtheyregardedasaseriousstepbackwardscomparedwiththeEisenachprogrammeof1869. 8SeeKarlMarx,ThePovertyofPhilosophy,Moscow,1973,P.151. 9SeeKarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks,Vol.1,Moscow,1973,pp.11819and126. 10SeeKarlMarx,TheEighteenthBrumaireofLouisBonaparte(KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks,Vol.I, Moscow,1973,p.477). Furtherbelow,onpp.41415ofthisvolume,LeninisquotingfromEngels'sprefacetothethirdeditionofthework(op.cit., p.396). 11DieNeueZeit(NewTimes)theoreticaljournaloftheGermanSocialDemocraticParty,publishedinStuttgartfrom1883 to1923.ItwaseditedbyKarlKautskytillOctober1917andbyHeinrichCunowinthesubsequentperiod.Itpublished someofMarx'sandEngels'swritingsforthefirsttime.Engelsofferedadvicetoitseditorsandoftencriticisedthemfor departuresfromMarxism. Inthesecondhalfofthenineties,uponEngels'sdeath,thejournalbegansystematicallytopublishrevisionistarticles, includingaserialbyBernsteinentitled"ProblemsofSocialism".whichinitiatedarevisionistcampaignagainstMarxism. DuringtheFirstWorldWarthejournaladheredtoaCentristposition,andvirtuallyhackedthesocialchauvinists. 12SeeKarlMarxandIrederickEngels,SelectedCorrespondence,Moscow,1965,p.tb'). 13SeeKarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks,Vol.1,Moscow,1962,p.22. 14SeeKarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedCorrespondence.Moscow,1965,pp.26263. 15SeeKarlMarx,TheCivilWarinFrance(KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks,Vol.2,Moscow,1973,pp. 21721). Furtherbelow,onpp.426,427,432436ofthisvolume,LeninisquotingfromthesameworkbyMarx(op.cit.,pp.222,220 23). 16TheGirondistsapoliticalgroupingduringtheFrenchbourgeoisrevolutionofthelateeighteenthcentury,expressedthe interestsofthemoderatebourgeoisie.Theywaveredbetweenrevolutionandcounterrevolution,andmadedealswith themonarchy. 17SeeFrederickEngels,TheHousingQuestion(KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks,Vol.2,Moscow,1973, pp.31718). Furtherbelow,onpp.43940ofthisvolume,LeninisquotingfromthesameworkbyEngels(op.cit.,pp.370,355). 18Leninisreferringtothearticles"L'indifferenzainmateriapolitica"byKarlMarxand"Dell'Autorita"byFrederickEngels (AlmanaccoRepublicanoperl'anno1874).Furtherbelow,onpp.44041,442,44243ofthisvolume,Leninisquoting fromthesamearticles. 19SeeKarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedCorrespondence,Moscow,1965,pp.29394. 20ErfurtProgrammetheprogrammeadoptedbytheGermanSocialDemocraticPartyatitsErfurtCongressinOctober1891. AstepforwardcomparedwiththeGothaProgramme(1875),itwasbasedonMarx'sdoctrineoftheinevitabledownfall ofthecapitalistmodeofproductionanditsreplacementbythesocialistmode.Itstressedthenecessityfortheworking classtowageapoliticalstruggle,pointedouttheparty'sroleastheleaderofthatstruggle,andsoon.Butitalsomade seriousconcessionstoopportunism.EngelscriticisedtheoriginaldraftoftheprogrammeindetailinhisworkA CritiqueoftheDraftSocialDemocraticProgrammeof1891ItwasvirtuallyacritiqueoftheopportunismoftheSecond

Internationalasawhole.ButtheGermanSocialDemocraticleadersconcealedEngels'scritiquefromtherankandfile, anddisregardedhishighlyimportantcommentsindrawingupthefinaltextoftheprogramme.Leninconsideredthefact thattheErfurtProgrammesaidnothingaboutthedictatorshipoftheproletariattobeitschiefdefectandacowardly concessiontoopportunism. 21TheAntiSocialistLaw(ExceptionalLawAgainsttheSocialists)wasenactedinGermanybytheBismarckgovernmentin 1878tocombattheworkingclassandsocialistmovement.Underthislaw,allSocialDemocraticPartyorganisations,all massorganisationsoftheworkers,andtheworkingclasspresswerebanned,socialistliteraturewasconfiscatedandthe SocialDemocratswerepersecuted,tothepointofbanishment.Theserepressivemeasuresdidnot,however,breakthe SocialDemocraticParty,whichreadjusteditselftoillegalconditions.DerSozialDemokrat,theparty'sCentralOrgan, waspublishedabroadandpartycongresseswereheldatregularintervals(1880,1883and1887).InGermanyherself,the SocialDemocraticorganisationsandgroupswerecomingbacktolifeunderground,anillegalCentralCommittee leadingtheiractivities.Besides,thePartywidelyusedlegalopportunitiestoestablishcloserlinkswiththeworking people,anditsinfluencewasgrowingsteadily.AttheReichstagelectionsin1890,itpolledthreetimesasmanyvotesas in1878.MarxandEngelsdidmuchtohelptheSocialDemocrats.In1890popularpressureandthegrowingworking classmovementledtotheannulmentoftheAntiSocialistLaw. 22SeeKarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks,Vol.2,Moscow,1973,pp.17889. Furtherbelow,onpp.454,455,45658ofthisvolume,Leninisquotingfromthesamework(op.cit.,pp.17980,184,187 89). 23TheLosvonKircheBewegung(the"LeavetheChurch"movement),orKirchenaustrittsbewegung(MovementtoSecede fromtheChurch)assumedavastscaleinGermanybeforetheFirstWorldWar.InJanuary1914NeueZeitbegan,with therevisionistPaulGdhre'sarticle"KirchenaustrittsbewegungundSozialdemokratie"("TheMovementtoSecedefrom theChurchandSocialDemocracy"),todiscusstheattitudeoftheGermanSocialDemocraticPartytothemovement. DuringthatdiscussionprominentGermanSocialDemocraticleadersfailedtorebuffGhre,whoaffirmedthattheparty shouldremainneutraltowardstheMovementtoSecedefromtheChurchandforbiditsmemberstoengageinpropaganda againstreligionandtheChurchonbehalfoftheparty. LenintooknoticeofthediscussionwhileworkingonmaterialforImperialism,theHighestStageofCapitalism(seepresent edition,Vol.39,p.591). 24LassalleanssupportersoftheGermanpettybourgeoissocialistFerdinandLassalle,membersoftheGeneralAssociation ofGermanWorkersfoundedattheCongressofWorkers'Organisations,heldinLeipzigin1863,tocounterbalancethe bourgeoisprogressistswhoweretryingtogaininfluenceovertheworkingclass.ThefirstPresidentoftheAssociation wasLassalle,whoformulateditsprogrammeandthefundamentalsofitstactics.TheAssociation'spoliticalprogramme wasdeclaredtobethestruggleforuniversalsuffrage,anditseconomicprogramme,thestruggleforworkers'production associations,tobesubsidisedbythestate.Intheirpracticalactivities,Lassalleandhisfollowersadaptedthemselvesto thehegemonyofPrussiaandsupportedtheGreatPowerpolicyofBismarck."Objectively,"wroteEngelstoMarxon January27,1865,"thiswasabaseactionandabetrayalofthewholeworkingclassmovementtothePrussians."Marx andEngelsfrequentlyandsharplycriticisedthetheory,tactics,andorganisationalprinciplesoftheLassalleansasan opportunisttrendintheGermanworkingclassmovement. 25SeeFrederickEngels,"VorwortzurBroschreInternationalesausdem'Volksstaat'(18711875)",MarxEngels,Werke,Bd. 22,Berlin,1963,S.41718. 26SeeKarlMarx,CritiqueoftheGothaProgramme(KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks,Vol.3,Moscow, 1973,p.26). Furtherbelow,onpp.464,470,47173ofthisvolume,LeninisquotingfromthesameworkbyMarx(op.cit.,pp.26,17, 19). 27Referenceistothepupilsofaseminarywhowonnotorietybytheirextremeignoranceandbarbarouscustoms.Theywere portrayedbyN.G.Pomyalovsky,aRussianauthor. 28Originalfootnotebytheauthor:Whenthemoreimportantfunctionsofthestatearereducedtosuchaccountingand controlbytheworkersthemselves,itwillceasetobea"politicalstate"and"publicfunctionswilllosetheirpolitical

characterandbecomemereadministrativefunctions"(cf.above,ChapterIV,2,Engels'controversywiththeanarchists). 29TheHagueCongressoftheFirstinternationalsatfromSeptember27,1872.Itwasattendedby65delegates,among whomwereMarxandEngels.ThepowersoftheGeneralCouncilandthepoliticalactivityoftheproletariatwereamong theitemsontheagenda.TheCongressdeliberationsweremarkedthroughoutbyasharpstruggleagainstthe Bakuninists.TheCongresspassedaresolutionextendingtheGeneralCouncilspowers.ItsresolutionOnthePolitical ActivityoftheProletariatstatedthattheproletariatshouldorganiseapoliticalpartyofitsowntoensurethetriumphof thesocialrevolutionandthatthewinningofpoliticalpowerwasbecomingitsgreattask.TheCongressexpelled BakuninandGuillaumefromtheInternationalasdisorganisersandfoundersofanew,antiproletarianparty. 30Zarya(Dawn)aMarxistscientificandpoliticaljournalpublishedinStuttgartin190102bytheeditorsofIskra.Four issuesappearedinthreeinstalments. 31ReferenceistotheFifthWorldCongressoftheSecondinternational,whichmetinParisfromSeptember23to27,1900. Onthefundamentalissue,TheWinningofPoliticalPower,andAllianceswithBourgeoisParties",whosediscussion waspromptedbyA.MillerandbecomingamemberoftheValdeckRousseaucounterrevolutionarygovernment,the CongresscarriedamotiontabledbyKautsky.TheresolutionsaidthattheentryofasingleSocialistintoabourgeois Ministrycannotbeconsideredasthenormalbeginningforwinningpoliticalpower:itcanneverbeanythingbuta temporaryandexceptionalmakeshiftinanemergencysituation".Afterwardsopportunistsfrequentlyreferredtothis pointtojustifytheircollaborationwiththebourgeoisie. Zaryapublished(No.1,April1901)anarticlebyPlekhanoventitledAFewWordsAbouttheLatestWorldSocialist CongressinParis.AnOpenLettertotheComradesWhoHaveEmpoweredMe",whichsharplycriticisedKautskys resolution. 32ThisreferstoSydneyandBeatriceWebb,IndustrialDemocracy. 33SocialistMonthly(SozialistischeMonatshefte)theprincipaljournaloftheopportunistsamongtheGermanSocial Democrats,aperiodicalofinternationalopportunism.ItwaspublishedinBerlinfrom1897to1933.Duringtheworld imperialistwarof191418ittookasocialchauviniststand.