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
theFabians
1
inEngland,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.
4
Andthisperson'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(seetheconcludingpassagesofThePovertyofPhilosophy
5
and
theCommunistManifesto
6
,withtheirproudandopenproclamationoftheinevitabilityofaviolent
revolutionseewhatMarxwrotenearly30yearslater,incriticizingtheGothaProgrammeof1875
7
,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,inthemagazineNeueZeit
11
(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
totheabolitionofallclassesandtoaclasslesssociety
12
."
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,andrevocable
15
."
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
MontesquieuandtheGirondins
16
visualizedit)...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
articlesappearedinGermaninNeueZeit
18
.
"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,
20
sentby
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,
21
orrecallingallmannerofoverhastypronouncementsmadeduringthereignof
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.
22
Thissummary,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"LosvonKircheBewegung
23
"(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",
becauseatthattimetheProudhonistsinFranceandtheLassalleans
24
inGermanycalledthemselvesSocial
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
state
26
."
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
stories
27
,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,andissuingappropriatereceipts
28
.
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]International
29
,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
MarxistZarya
30
,whichwaspublishedinStuttgartin190102,andadvocatedrevolutionaryproletarian
views,wasforcedtoenterintocontroversywithKautskyanddescribeaselasticthehalfhearted,evasive
resolution,conciliatorytowardstheopportunists,thatheproposedattheInternationalSocialistCongressin
Parisin1900
31
.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,asinterpretedbytheWebbs
32
.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.
TotherightofKautskyininternationalsocialismtherearetrendssuchasSocialistMonthly
33
inGermany
(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.