What do you think?
Rate this book
Devlet ve Devrim
Sınıf mücadelelerini önemsemek ve bu mücadeleleri temel almak, Marksist olmaya yeter mi? İşçi sınıfı, siyasal iktidarı ele geçirme hedefiyle yetinebilir mi? “Burjuva devlet mekanizmasının parçalanması” ne anlama gelir ve neden gereklidir? “Zora dayalı bir devrim” olmadan olmaz mı? Demokrasi, aşılamaz bir hedef midir? “Proletarya diktatörlüğü”, tam olarak nedir? Ve başka pek çok soru ve cevapları...
Lenin, Rusya’daki çarlık rejimine son veren 1917 Şubat Devrimi ile 1917 Ekim Devrimi arasındaki Ağustos-Eylül aylarında kaleme aldığı bu eserinde, Marx’ın ve Engels’in çalışmalarından hareketle, kapitalizm ile sınıfsız toplum (komünizmin üst evresi) arasındaki geçiş sürecini ve komünizmin “sosyalizm” diye anılan “alt evresi”nin ayırt edici özelliklerini ele alıyor. Marksizmin devlet ve devrim konularındaki temel tezlerini çarpıtma ve örtbas etme girişimlerini amansızca eleştirerek!
Lenin, Rusya’daki çarlık rejimine son veren 1917 Şubat Devrimi ile 1917 Ekim Devrimi arasındaki Ağustos-Eylül aylarında kaleme aldığı bu eserinde, Marx’ın ve Engels’in çalışmalarından hareketle, kapitalizm ile sınıfsız toplum (komünizmin üst evresi) arasındaki geçiş sürecini ve komünizmin “sosyalizm” diye anılan “alt evresi”nin ayırt edici özelliklerini ele alıyor. Marksizmin devlet ve devrim konularındaki temel tezlerini çarpıtma ve örtbas etme girişimlerini amansızca eleştirerek!
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1917
2055 people are currently reading
36569 people want to read
About the author
Vladimir Lenin
1,992 books1,758 followersVladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin, was a Russian revolutionary, leader of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), statesman and political theorist. After the October Revolution he served as the first and founding head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 until his death in 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1924.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,504 reviews
February 6, 2017
Extremely thorough and well written, deals with the question of the state after the revolution, makes distinctions between communists, social democrats and anarchists. Argues that anarchists and communists have the common goal of the abolition of the state, it is simply the methods that they disagree on. Wonderful read, I learned a lot!
December 6, 2020
Point and laugh at anarkiddies😂
October 24, 2024
And the State withers away… how?
Preamble:
1) I recognize the wealth of scholarship and debates over Lenin, Leninism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Communism, the Russian Revolution, the USSR, etc.
2) However, I still intend to apply my (differing) background to engage with this work by Lenin. (I’ll be revisiting this for sure…)
The Good:
--Why do we bother with social theory, as opposed to “facts”? True, specific historical accounts and number-crunching have the appeal of empirical evidence. However, to try and explain causation, you plunge headfirst into ideology even if you wear a blindfold emblazoned with “REASON” or “LOGIC” or “HUMAN NATURE”. Big picture social narratives often require tapestries of theoretic syntheses.
--I enjoyed the direction of Lenin’s censored Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). This book (1917) tackles the pressing questions over the roles of the State and Revolution, with many references to Marx/Engels (esp. the evolution of their ideas in response to the Revolutions of 1848 and 1871 Paris Commune).
--Highlights:
1) The State is the bourgeoisie’s tool to manage the contradictions of class antagonism (often through avoidance).
2) Thus, the State embodies class conflict; it alone cannot resolve its own contradictions (disputing petty bourgeois/reformists “opportunist” claims).
3) Re-iteration of not just class struggle (which was obvious to everyone), but the Marxist view of class being bound to historical phases in the development of production, and of the proletariat’s historical role.
4) A proletarian revolution is required to take State power (bourgeois State abolished, see below) and use the new proletarian State to force the abolition of class antagonism, i.e. suppress bourgeois counterrevolution. After which, the proletarian State withers away.
5) Anarchist’s direct abolition of the State? But how would you defend against the superior resources of the counter-revolution?
6) Liberal “democracy”? This is still within the bourgeois State, i.e. class conflict that forces wage slavery.
--Tactics of the proletarian revolution to abolish the bourgeois State, i.e. replace bourgeois State democracy with proletariat democracy (with a note that this is a transition, unlike anarchist abolition of State):
1) Replace standing army with armed people of the communes.
2) All public officials (including police) to be elected and subject to public recall.
3) Bring public officials’ status + wages to match workers.
4) Commune working body, taking advantage of monopolistic social management (Marxist centralism as opposed to anarchist federalism) while replacing Parliamentary bureaucracy.
The Questionable:
--Obviously, there are many points of contention from the above, but this is a worthy primer to start from and return to test ideas.
--Also interesting considering the evolution of Lenin’s ideas in the changing historical context, and its influence not just in the West but also in the global south: the fabulous Vijay Prashad talking about his new book Red Star Over the Third World here: https://youtu.be/Lc8mh7KeEBM?t=193
Preamble:
1) I recognize the wealth of scholarship and debates over Lenin, Leninism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Communism, the Russian Revolution, the USSR, etc.
2) However, I still intend to apply my (differing) background to engage with this work by Lenin. (I’ll be revisiting this for sure…)
The Good:
--Why do we bother with social theory, as opposed to “facts”? True, specific historical accounts and number-crunching have the appeal of empirical evidence. However, to try and explain causation, you plunge headfirst into ideology even if you wear a blindfold emblazoned with “REASON” or “LOGIC” or “HUMAN NATURE”. Big picture social narratives often require tapestries of theoretic syntheses.
--I enjoyed the direction of Lenin’s censored Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). This book (1917) tackles the pressing questions over the roles of the State and Revolution, with many references to Marx/Engels (esp. the evolution of their ideas in response to the Revolutions of 1848 and 1871 Paris Commune).
--Highlights:
1) The State is the bourgeoisie’s tool to manage the contradictions of class antagonism (often through avoidance).
2) Thus, the State embodies class conflict; it alone cannot resolve its own contradictions (disputing petty bourgeois/reformists “opportunist” claims).
3) Re-iteration of not just class struggle (which was obvious to everyone), but the Marxist view of class being bound to historical phases in the development of production, and of the proletariat’s historical role.
4) A proletarian revolution is required to take State power (bourgeois State abolished, see below) and use the new proletarian State to force the abolition of class antagonism, i.e. suppress bourgeois counterrevolution. After which, the proletarian State withers away.
5) Anarchist’s direct abolition of the State? But how would you defend against the superior resources of the counter-revolution?
6) Liberal “democracy”? This is still within the bourgeois State, i.e. class conflict that forces wage slavery.
--Tactics of the proletarian revolution to abolish the bourgeois State, i.e. replace bourgeois State democracy with proletariat democracy (with a note that this is a transition, unlike anarchist abolition of State):
1) Replace standing army with armed people of the communes.
2) All public officials (including police) to be elected and subject to public recall.
3) Bring public officials’ status + wages to match workers.
4) Commune working body, taking advantage of monopolistic social management (Marxist centralism as opposed to anarchist federalism) while replacing Parliamentary bureaucracy.
The Questionable:
--Obviously, there are many points of contention from the above, but this is a worthy primer to start from and return to test ideas.
--Also interesting considering the evolution of Lenin’s ideas in the changing historical context, and its influence not just in the West but also in the global south: the fabulous Vijay Prashad talking about his new book Red Star Over the Third World here: https://youtu.be/Lc8mh7KeEBM?t=193
January 20, 2021
Lenin's probably most read and most important work. It amazes me how good of a writer he was and understood the mechanisms of capitalism and bourgeoise revolution. It's a short read, if you are reading it for the sake of reading it. But, if you truly want to get deep inside the head of lenin, it will take weeks, perhaps months. I would recommend reading "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism" by Lenin along with it or before it.
PS: if you are reading the Penguin Classics version, you should note that introduction was written by Russian-Historian Robert Service (British nationality), a Hoover institute graduate, a bourgeoisie revisionist at best or an anti-communist at worst whose biography of Lenin as well as of Trotsky has been criticized for being inaccurate by his peers, and he is often regarded as disingenuous hack by many many communist scholars.
PS: if you are reading the Penguin Classics version, you should note that introduction was written by Russian-Historian Robert Service (British nationality), a Hoover institute graduate, a bourgeoisie revisionist at best or an anti-communist at worst whose biography of Lenin as well as of Trotsky has been criticized for being inaccurate by his peers, and he is often regarded as disingenuous hack by many many communist scholars.
December 8, 2008
Being a dirty red, I found it amazing (and surprising) that I had never sat down with this piece. I had read sections in Marxism classes years ago, but it was refreshing to get back into it. Excellent. A must.
February 11, 2018
The opening of this book is perhaps the most enlightening thing I’ve ever read on Marxism (I guess technically it’s Marxist-Leninism since here we are reading Lenin). The initial reflection on what the function and the history of the State is in relation to Bourgeois democracy and premodern slave societies is brilliant.
I remember reading the Communist Manifesto and being so confused. Everyone had said that Communism was violent, but I had been willing to defend it tooth and nail as peaceful. That didn’t really work out when Marx started talking about “dictatorships of the proletariat.” But Lenin spells out what Engels also explained – that all government is a dictatorship, and that “democratic republics” are bought and paid for dictatorships as well. These governments are “dictatorships of capital”. Lenin explores the relationship between capital and political office and goes in depth explaining how, exactly, capital rules over the proletariat. He also unpacks some of the tactics of the capitalists, like how states are seen as existing “because of class conflict” in order to mitigate this conflict, when in fact the conflicts are not mitigated, but in fact exacerbated by the state. Any bourgeois democracy sets in place “impartial” rules which, in practice, only benefit one class – the bourgeoisie – and heavily constrict and permit the oppression of the other class – the proletariat. Any benefit afforded to the proletariat is not only constantly on the verge of being removed, but also only the absolute minimum necessary to avoid violent revolution from below. An excellent introduction to class society and the state. Should be required reading for EVERY political science student.
The next 2 chapters are fine. I wasn’t sure that we needed to hear a lot about the revolutions of 1848, but Marx’s class analysis of the Paris Commune was great. I had heard of it before, but him laying out the details of the class composition therein was super helpful in understanding the Marxist conception of proletarian government. Neither of these chapters, in my opinion, hold a candle to Engels’ opinions in the next chapter – his supplementary explanations regarding the Paris Commune and his address to the anarchists’ and social democrats’ ideological faults was a wild and brilliant exposition. More potential for required reading in comparative political thought. One of the most interesting things for me is how much effort Vladimir spends unpacking the differences between Engels and Marx vs. the anarchists like Proudhon. It’s an almost off-hand assumption that Proudhon aligns with Marx, but only in the sense that they both dislike bourgeois rule. Further explanation of the nature of the state in revolution and how anarchists fall short in necessary action is extremely well-developed. Still on board.
Okay, disappointed with the ending. The chapters of this book I highlighted above should be required reading for EVERY political science major. The chapters I didn’t should probably just be overlooked. It’s not every day that I find a book which should be picked apart and should have significant chunks discarded, but this is one of them.
That said, the good parts are EPIC and I highly recommend.
I remember reading the Communist Manifesto and being so confused. Everyone had said that Communism was violent, but I had been willing to defend it tooth and nail as peaceful. That didn’t really work out when Marx started talking about “dictatorships of the proletariat.” But Lenin spells out what Engels also explained – that all government is a dictatorship, and that “democratic republics” are bought and paid for dictatorships as well. These governments are “dictatorships of capital”. Lenin explores the relationship between capital and political office and goes in depth explaining how, exactly, capital rules over the proletariat. He also unpacks some of the tactics of the capitalists, like how states are seen as existing “because of class conflict” in order to mitigate this conflict, when in fact the conflicts are not mitigated, but in fact exacerbated by the state. Any bourgeois democracy sets in place “impartial” rules which, in practice, only benefit one class – the bourgeoisie – and heavily constrict and permit the oppression of the other class – the proletariat. Any benefit afforded to the proletariat is not only constantly on the verge of being removed, but also only the absolute minimum necessary to avoid violent revolution from below. An excellent introduction to class society and the state. Should be required reading for EVERY political science student.
The next 2 chapters are fine. I wasn’t sure that we needed to hear a lot about the revolutions of 1848, but Marx’s class analysis of the Paris Commune was great. I had heard of it before, but him laying out the details of the class composition therein was super helpful in understanding the Marxist conception of proletarian government. Neither of these chapters, in my opinion, hold a candle to Engels’ opinions in the next chapter – his supplementary explanations regarding the Paris Commune and his address to the anarchists’ and social democrats’ ideological faults was a wild and brilliant exposition. More potential for required reading in comparative political thought. One of the most interesting things for me is how much effort Vladimir spends unpacking the differences between Engels and Marx vs. the anarchists like Proudhon. It’s an almost off-hand assumption that Proudhon aligns with Marx, but only in the sense that they both dislike bourgeois rule. Further explanation of the nature of the state in revolution and how anarchists fall short in necessary action is extremely well-developed. Still on board.
Okay, disappointed with the ending. The chapters of this book I highlighted above should be required reading for EVERY political science major. The chapters I didn’t should probably just be overlooked. It’s not every day that I find a book which should be picked apart and should have significant chunks discarded, but this is one of them.
That said, the good parts are EPIC and I highly recommend.
December 23, 2011
This is the famous book in which Lenin asserted (quoting Engels) that “the state will wither away” under Communism, and which is therefore sometimes oddly accused of being “utopian” and “anarchist.” It is neither of these, but it does require some work to parse out.
Historically, this essay was written at the moment when Lenin was in exile in Switzerland, after the February, 1917 revolution and before the October revolution which ended with him and his party in power. One would think that his mind would be on Russia at a time like this, on its possibilities and how it should be handled. There is little evidence of that here. What seems to have preoccupied him at this particular moment is how he could defeat Karl Kautsky, the leading Social Democrat in Germany, in a debate regarding the correct interpretation of Marxist theory. I’d be tempted to interpret that as an attempt to distract himself during a period of depression, but I suspect that it’s not that simple. I suspect that Lenin really was crazy enough to believe that clarifying a minor point of theory by carefully studying the sacred words of Holy Saints Marx and Engels actually was the best way to prepare himself for the coming revolution.
That said, his arguments are still not terribly convincing, even if we take him at his word as a revolutionary and ignore the actual facts of history. Much of his argument is based upon a highly selective reading of Marx’s discussions of the Paris Commune which ignores his (Marx’s) deep ambiguity towards the Commune and the communards' ambiguity towards Marx. He asserts multiple times the importance of the revolution in which the proletariat “smashes the machinery of the state,” and also significance of the “opportunist” Kautsky’s willingness to simply “take it over.” However, his idea of “smashing” the state remains obscure, since he admits that the proletariat will still need its apparatus for an undetermined period, and it seems that many of its previous functionaries will remain in place, albeit at a lowered wage and with the possibility of recall by “the workers” at any time. “The workers,” of course, remains a code for the Vanguard Party which means that the dictatorship of the proletariat remains a dictatorship by an elite with the very police forces which had kept them in line previously.
Lenin’s centralism and authoritarianism remain clear from this book for readers to observe. He takes every opportunity, in fact, to discredit anarchists, utopians, “opportunists,” and “social chauvinists” (his term for Social Democrats who supported their governments in World War One). The centralism, bureaucracy, and authoritarian imperialism of the former Soviet Union are established facts today which serve to discredit his belief in his own interpretation of theory. This book is therefore useful mostly as a warning against hubris in revolutionaries and radicals today.
Historically, this essay was written at the moment when Lenin was in exile in Switzerland, after the February, 1917 revolution and before the October revolution which ended with him and his party in power. One would think that his mind would be on Russia at a time like this, on its possibilities and how it should be handled. There is little evidence of that here. What seems to have preoccupied him at this particular moment is how he could defeat Karl Kautsky, the leading Social Democrat in Germany, in a debate regarding the correct interpretation of Marxist theory. I’d be tempted to interpret that as an attempt to distract himself during a period of depression, but I suspect that it’s not that simple. I suspect that Lenin really was crazy enough to believe that clarifying a minor point of theory by carefully studying the sacred words of Holy Saints Marx and Engels actually was the best way to prepare himself for the coming revolution.
That said, his arguments are still not terribly convincing, even if we take him at his word as a revolutionary and ignore the actual facts of history. Much of his argument is based upon a highly selective reading of Marx’s discussions of the Paris Commune which ignores his (Marx’s) deep ambiguity towards the Commune and the communards' ambiguity towards Marx. He asserts multiple times the importance of the revolution in which the proletariat “smashes the machinery of the state,” and also significance of the “opportunist” Kautsky’s willingness to simply “take it over.” However, his idea of “smashing” the state remains obscure, since he admits that the proletariat will still need its apparatus for an undetermined period, and it seems that many of its previous functionaries will remain in place, albeit at a lowered wage and with the possibility of recall by “the workers” at any time. “The workers,” of course, remains a code for the Vanguard Party which means that the dictatorship of the proletariat remains a dictatorship by an elite with the very police forces which had kept them in line previously.
Lenin’s centralism and authoritarianism remain clear from this book for readers to observe. He takes every opportunity, in fact, to discredit anarchists, utopians, “opportunists,” and “social chauvinists” (his term for Social Democrats who supported their governments in World War One). The centralism, bureaucracy, and authoritarian imperialism of the former Soviet Union are established facts today which serve to discredit his belief in his own interpretation of theory. This book is therefore useful mostly as a warning against hubris in revolutionaries and radicals today.
August 14, 2020
Were he alive today, Lenin would have the best Twitter dunks.
Seriously though, it is succinct and straight to the point. Worth reading if Anarchism or Social Democracy is starting to sound appealing.
Seriously though, it is succinct and straight to the point. Worth reading if Anarchism or Social Democracy is starting to sound appealing.
Read
July 17, 2019There's an episode of The Simpsons in which an enraged gigantic Lenin smashes out of his tomb and starts stomping on people in Red Square shouting "Crush Capitalism".
As far as I can recall this is a surprisingly concise and accurate synopsis of "State and Revolution" (so long as one substitutes the term bourgeoise for capitalism).
Presumably in the political context of 1917 this pamphlet urging readers to crush the bourgeoise was an attempt to create clear blue water, or choppy red water, between the Bolsheviks and the better known Socialist Revolutionaries. Given that the major problem that the Bolsheviks faced after their seizure of power was that the state had pretty much withered away and that they would have to spend the civil war years trying to rebuild government structures I doubt if this particular work is significant in Lenin's work as a whole.
As far as I can recall this is a surprisingly concise and accurate synopsis of "State and Revolution" (so long as one substitutes the term bourgeoise for capitalism).
Presumably in the political context of 1917 this pamphlet urging readers to crush the bourgeoise was an attempt to create clear blue water, or choppy red water, between the Bolsheviks and the better known Socialist Revolutionaries. Given that the major problem that the Bolsheviks faced after their seizure of power was that the state had pretty much withered away and that they would have to spend the civil war years trying to rebuild government structures I doubt if this particular work is significant in Lenin's work as a whole.
August 16, 2018
‘The State and Revolution’ is a standout read in which Lenin, confronting a revolution that came too much before advanced capitalism had developed, found himself between a part of the left ready to hand back power to the capitalists in return for concessions, and the anarchists ready to take the fight to the next level without a clear plan. Armed with the theories of Marx and Engels and the lessons gleaned from the 1848 revolutions and the Paris Commune of 1871, Lenin fashioned a dictatorship of the proletariat that would take over the state apparatus and that state would eventually engender its own withering away and welcome the arrival of pure communism. The fact that it didn’t work is beside the point. This is not a place for communist versus anti-communist assessments. It was an important attempt to effect a social revolution on a scale never seen before or since, and all of us who dream of creating a better world should learn from it. Maybe for the program to be a success it needed the people to be ready for that change. Maybe some of the answer lies in the need to begin by working on a real social revolution before considering the political change to back it. Good for an understanding of the political positions prior to the second revolution and well worth the time spent reading it.
November 13, 2016
Another pre 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution (October not February!) read. More to come.
Written in the summer of 1917 in exile, 'State and Revolution' is one of Lenin's key works on state power , class and capitalism. And very timely as we slowly recover from 3 decades of neoliberal paralysis and are hopefully getting real re: organizing a socialist left and state of the 21st century!
Obviously, Lenin is a little too strong for the gentle soul of the 21st century, so one must add some Gramsci and Foucault to taste (as was done throughout the 20th century) - but not to a point of total distortion either!
In the book, Lenin presents a specific break with Western parliamentary democracy in favour of a 'proletarian dictatorship'. Now, obviously that does ring some freedom and fundamental rights alarm bells nearly 100 years after the Revolution. The struggle for socialism is not a struggle for a replacement of one form of autocracy (capitalism) by another.
Socialism is, after all, a project of freedom and emancipation. However, it is so in essence, not merely form. And therein lies the relevance of the core argument, or one of the core arguments: parliamentary democray is not a neutral shell which can be just taken over by the oppressed classes to capture state power. It is an expression of the ruling class. I guess Poulantzas, and later Jessop and gang, developed this argument quite nicely and described the state as a 'condensation of power'.
So, guys, seriously, we do need to talk about the state and state power. And this is a pretty good starting point.
Written in the summer of 1917 in exile, 'State and Revolution' is one of Lenin's key works on state power , class and capitalism. And very timely as we slowly recover from 3 decades of neoliberal paralysis and are hopefully getting real re: organizing a socialist left and state of the 21st century!
Obviously, Lenin is a little too strong for the gentle soul of the 21st century, so one must add some Gramsci and Foucault to taste (as was done throughout the 20th century) - but not to a point of total distortion either!
In the book, Lenin presents a specific break with Western parliamentary democracy in favour of a 'proletarian dictatorship'. Now, obviously that does ring some freedom and fundamental rights alarm bells nearly 100 years after the Revolution. The struggle for socialism is not a struggle for a replacement of one form of autocracy (capitalism) by another.
Socialism is, after all, a project of freedom and emancipation. However, it is so in essence, not merely form. And therein lies the relevance of the core argument, or one of the core arguments: parliamentary democray is not a neutral shell which can be just taken over by the oppressed classes to capture state power. It is an expression of the ruling class. I guess Poulantzas, and later Jessop and gang, developed this argument quite nicely and described the state as a 'condensation of power'.
So, guys, seriously, we do need to talk about the state and state power. And this is a pretty good starting point.
June 4, 2021
I can't believe Lenin described woke capitalism (and the liberal side of breadtube) in the first paragraph of this text — that those in power will appropriate radical sentiments whilst voiding them of all revolutionary power (check out Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire and Machiavelli's Prince for earlier articulations of this). Turns out those militant Trotskyites were right — I should have read the classics.
September 17, 2020
In his “State and Revolution” Lenin pretty much comments on Engels’s ideas concerning the state and how some of those ideas were misinterpreted by different political factions of the Marxist movement. As I was reading it, I kept thinking how funny it is that conservatives also misunderstand the idea of communism as Engels initially imagined it and keep stating that if people implemented communism, “the state would dictate to them what to do.” No; in fact, in Engels’s vision, there wouldn’t be any state at all. It would simply cease to exist along with classes. State, as in parliamentary apparatus, was created to control the masses. If there is no social division, there would simply be no need to control anyone at all. In Engels’s vision, armed citizens would keep the order; all officials would be elected by the people and easily removed if they fail to fulfill their functions. No long political tenures, no corruption (as all political appointees would be paid the same as any regular worker instead of raking up millions as they do now), no bribes, no power struggles as there would be no power to fight for - the state is the people and the people are the state.
The trouble is, while criticizing communism, people don’t understand one simple fact: not a single country lived under communism in its pure form. Neither China nor even the USSR. The USSR was a coalition of socialist countries that were building communism, but the union fell apart before they could get there. Again, due to our own human nature that took good ideas and corrupted them to the point where the people’s state turned into a dictatorship with secret police and camps for the dissidents. I’ll say the same thing here that I said after reading “The Communist Manifesto”: Marx’s and Engels’s ideas were good and at least some of them are implementable (I’m personally all for politicians and CEOs getting the same wages as people they represent and workers who build their empires, respectively), it’s just our own corrupt human nature makes it virtually impossible.
The trouble is, while criticizing communism, people don’t understand one simple fact: not a single country lived under communism in its pure form. Neither China nor even the USSR. The USSR was a coalition of socialist countries that were building communism, but the union fell apart before they could get there. Again, due to our own human nature that took good ideas and corrupted them to the point where the people’s state turned into a dictatorship with secret police and camps for the dissidents. I’ll say the same thing here that I said after reading “The Communist Manifesto”: Marx’s and Engels’s ideas were good and at least some of them are implementable (I’m personally all for politicians and CEOs getting the same wages as people they represent and workers who build their empires, respectively), it’s just our own corrupt human nature makes it virtually impossible.
October 20, 2021
I'll do a summary when I have the chance, but in the meantime:
'State and Revolution' is really indispensable. There is nothing better for understanding Marxist theory of the state, which is of course quite an important thing. Is the state a neutral body that the working class can simply take over and introduce socialism? Or is the state an instrument of oppression by one social class of another; does the state have a class character; is the modern 'democratic' state in fact a form of capitalist class rule? If the latter is the case, then the logical conclusion is that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes"; rather, the path to socialism requires dismantling the capitalist state and installing a socialist state in its place.
This theory is essential to understand, but it doesn't relieve us of doing some hard thinking. A hundred years have passed. What does the road to socialism look like now? What does it take to dismantle a modern capitalist state? What impact does a century of 'actually existing socialism' have? Where does all this fit into a framework of multipolarity? etc. No easy answers that I know about.
'State and Revolution' is really indispensable. There is nothing better for understanding Marxist theory of the state, which is of course quite an important thing. Is the state a neutral body that the working class can simply take over and introduce socialism? Or is the state an instrument of oppression by one social class of another; does the state have a class character; is the modern 'democratic' state in fact a form of capitalist class rule? If the latter is the case, then the logical conclusion is that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes"; rather, the path to socialism requires dismantling the capitalist state and installing a socialist state in its place.
This theory is essential to understand, but it doesn't relieve us of doing some hard thinking. A hundred years have passed. What does the road to socialism look like now? What does it take to dismantle a modern capitalist state? What impact does a century of 'actually existing socialism' have? Where does all this fit into a framework of multipolarity? etc. No easy answers that I know about.
November 22, 2020
An excellent look at the state and the future of the state in a social revolution. Lenin examines thoroughly writings from Marx and Engels on the French Revolution of 1871 in the Paris Commune as a source for options for future organization of a new truly democratic state that would be effected by the proletariat following the destruction of the existing state. Lenin also examples other writings of Marx and Lenin as he argues with the issues of his day in 1917. Lenin was concerned the revolution was being co-opted and misdirected in Russia by the Menshiveks and Social-Revolutionary Party. This work could stand on it's own in terms of the reasoning related to the state but the arguments with existing thinkers or parties are obviously based in issues of that time. Issues following the 2nd internationale and issues Lenin see as a misunderstanding of Marx by Social Democratic parties across the world. Lenin works to resolve the misunderstandings and set the record straight for what Marx and Engels truly believed and expressed in their writing. A valuable read for anyone.
April 11, 2023
Full review on my upcoming podcast
December 13, 2014
The February Revolution of 1917 goaded the fall of the Romanov dynasty when tsar Nicholas II abdicated, and things started to look surprisingly auspicious for Vladimir Ilich Lenin and his Bolshevik party. However, the Provisional Government of Georgi Lvov, in the midst of the colossal military turmoil of World War I, wasn't particularly sympathetic of Lenin's anti-war stance. After his arrival in Petrograd (to be renamed after him Leningrad), Lenin was falsely accused of being a German agent and after the issuance of a warrant for his arrest, he was forced to flee to Sestroretsk then to Finland. That's where he wrote his vehement communist rant "The State and Revolution".
Continuously referring to Marx and Engels and commenting on famous passages extracted from their work, Lenin sought to deliver a pure and untainted account of Marxist thought, since he was enraged at the petty-bourgeois democrats like Kautsky, Plekhanov and Bernstein and he kept reiterating the need to "purge Marxism of its distortions" (glad he didn't live to see the brutality of Stalinism)
Beyond that, he elaborated on ideas of the state, social classes, The Paris Commune of 1871, the polemic with anarchists, democracy and most importantly, the 'withering away of the state' and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.
My notes go much further than that but I'll limit my review to titles and generalities.
Very interesting read for anyone interested in communism, political science and wanting to explore Lenin's ideas just before the October Revolution.
He ends his book saying that it's a much more fulfilling experience to carry out and live the proletarian revolution than to write about it.
Continuously referring to Marx and Engels and commenting on famous passages extracted from their work, Lenin sought to deliver a pure and untainted account of Marxist thought, since he was enraged at the petty-bourgeois democrats like Kautsky, Plekhanov and Bernstein and he kept reiterating the need to "purge Marxism of its distortions" (glad he didn't live to see the brutality of Stalinism)
Beyond that, he elaborated on ideas of the state, social classes, The Paris Commune of 1871, the polemic with anarchists, democracy and most importantly, the 'withering away of the state' and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.
My notes go much further than that but I'll limit my review to titles and generalities.
Very interesting read for anyone interested in communism, political science and wanting to explore Lenin's ideas just before the October Revolution.
He ends his book saying that it's a much more fulfilling experience to carry out and live the proletarian revolution than to write about it.
April 27, 2020
I understand the ML viewpoint a lot better now. I am struck by the amount of inevitability that Lenin sees in the transition from the dictatorship of the proletariate (the first stage of communism, socialism) to a stateless society (the second stage of communism, true communism). How he arrives a this viewpoint is made clear in this book, but thinking of the history of Russia and the international forces that might be able to cripple any revolutionary movement, perhaps this 'inevitability' needs to be redressed.
February 1, 2021
A twitter conversation:
Marx: So capitalism through its contradictions necessarily leads to its own demise, with the proletarian becoming the dominant class and bringing an end to the history of class struggle.
Kautsky: You mean we should take over the state right?
Bernstein: That sounds potentially violent, we should just win elections and nationalize a few things. Bourgeois democracy is democracy.
Kautsky: Then you're not a marxist, but a social democrat. The proletarian cannot simply play the burgeois game. But we need to have power over the state. I am an orthodox Marxist.
Lenin: Shut up you effing opportunist, bloody Kauskyite. You disgust me! You're no better than that wussy you criticize Bernstein. You both have joined the burgeois and betray Marx's real message. We must smash the state, which is inherently bourgeois and impose instead the proletarian state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bourgeois democracy is not democracy anyway and neither will the dictatorship of the proletarian. The state will later wither away!
Bakunin: I think we should smash the state and be done with it from the start. The state is tyranny!
Lenin: Effing anarchist! You suffer from an infantile disorder.
Me: How exactly would any of this work? The withering away of the state?! I could totally see this just perpetuating a "party of the proletarian" in power persecuting anyone who disagrees under the guise of "protecting the revolution"
Stalin: Let's put this guy in the gulag!
Lenin: I second that. It's for the good of the revolution.
Me: Wait what? What can I do to make it up to you?
Lenin: Rate my book 4 stars!
...
Marx: So capitalism through its contradictions necessarily leads to its own demise, with the proletarian becoming the dominant class and bringing an end to the history of class struggle.
Kautsky: You mean we should take over the state right?
Bernstein: That sounds potentially violent, we should just win elections and nationalize a few things. Bourgeois democracy is democracy.
Kautsky: Then you're not a marxist, but a social democrat. The proletarian cannot simply play the burgeois game. But we need to have power over the state. I am an orthodox Marxist.
Lenin: Shut up you effing opportunist, bloody Kauskyite. You disgust me! You're no better than that wussy you criticize Bernstein. You both have joined the burgeois and betray Marx's real message. We must smash the state, which is inherently bourgeois and impose instead the proletarian state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bourgeois democracy is not democracy anyway and neither will the dictatorship of the proletarian. The state will later wither away!
Bakunin: I think we should smash the state and be done with it from the start. The state is tyranny!
Lenin: Effing anarchist! You suffer from an infantile disorder.
Me: How exactly would any of this work? The withering away of the state?! I could totally see this just perpetuating a "party of the proletarian" in power persecuting anyone who disagrees under the guise of "protecting the revolution"
Stalin: Let's put this guy in the gulag!
Lenin: I second that. It's for the good of the revolution.
Me: Wait what? What can I do to make it up to you?
Lenin: Rate my book 4 stars!
...
June 4, 2020
This was quite an enjoyable book; delves deep into the ideology and mind of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, otherwise known as Vladimir Lenin.
This greatly helped me understand how they imagined the state would wither away, how democracy doesn't work in a communist society, as well as helping understand Leninism and the communist ideology itself.
Issue is, if you don't know very much about the history and philosophy of that time when it was published, you'd be constantly reaching for Google to understand who's who and what the meanings of certain words are - even I, someone who considers themself an expert in Soviet history, sometimes had to search up certain people and ideas such as Proudhonism or the word 'banality' and such.
Highly recommended for history students and those interested in Lenin and Soviet Russia. I am definitely using this book in my history coursework.
This greatly helped me understand how they imagined the state would wither away, how democracy doesn't work in a communist society, as well as helping understand Leninism and the communist ideology itself.
Issue is, if you don't know very much about the history and philosophy of that time when it was published, you'd be constantly reaching for Google to understand who's who and what the meanings of certain words are - even I, someone who considers themself an expert in Soviet history, sometimes had to search up certain people and ideas such as Proudhonism or the word 'banality' and such.
Highly recommended for history students and those interested in Lenin and Soviet Russia. I am definitely using this book in my history coursework.
August 30, 2019
It was a more polemical explanation of Engels and Marx's ideas of what will happen to the state as history moves forward through its changes and revolutions. Lenin is someone that takes to task many other thinkers of his day in order to show them that he is the one with the correct interpretation which makes the dense ideas quite digestible.
it was however, very interesting to read about the concept of the state that goes beyond the usual capitalist versus socialist versus anarchist debate.
I think it helped me to understand why the Soviet Union was what it became and many things in it are very relevant to China today.
it was however, very interesting to read about the concept of the state that goes beyond the usual capitalist versus socialist versus anarchist debate.
I think it helped me to understand why the Soviet Union was what it became and many things in it are very relevant to China today.
May 16, 2023
The State and Revolution (1917) is an unfinished pamphlet by political activist - and some might say criminal or even terrorist - Vladimir Lenin. Written during his exile and finished on the eve of the culmination Russian Revolution, the text contains Lenins ideas about the relationship between the State and the Social Revolution which would pretty soon engulf the entire Western world - or so Lenin thought.
Reading this pamphlet is like finally seeing an object one is told about: you know what it is but upon seeing the object yourself you get a new, more lively understanding. You read about communist regimes perpetrating the most heinous crimes and cause immense suffering for millions of innocent people. You read about Lenin, Stalin, Mao and the likes. But reading Lenins The State and Revolution you will read Lenins plans for all this future horror.
His main thesis is pretty simple: the workers have to unite and "overthrow the bourgeous State". Then, they will install a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which will use repression and violence to weed out the bourgeouis from society. Having done this, the State will continue to use violence and repression in order to cultivate the mindset of the people (so they won't pursue individualistic goals anymore) and dissolve all social classes (by enforcing equality on everyone). When this is done and class society has disappeared, the State will dissolve itself and paradise has arrived.
Of course, this is not what happened. And it doesn't take much intelligence to see where this ideological extremism collapses back on itself - leaving millions of dead and destitute in its wake.
For Lenin, there is absolutely no doubt that his theories hold and that they should be applied as soon as possible. Violence is morally good since it will reduce suffering: he literally says that killing off and disowning the ruling class is the morally superior solution to the problem of socioeconomic inequality since it will cancel their oppression of the proletarian and thus lead to more human happiness. To parafrase Lenin himself (at an earlier point in his life): "You can't bake an omelet without breaking some shells."
In my opinion this pamphlet should be on a level with Hitler's Mein Kampf or Mao's writings - and all of them should be read and taught in schools. People nowadays have no idea what the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" means. The Hitlers and Lenins of the past all were fanatics who clung to their ideas and in applying these ideas to the real world were truly convinced that what they were doing was the right thing - leaving unspeakable suffering in their wakes. Nowadays debates revolve around intentions; consequences are mostly irrelevant to discussions (or at best subordinate to intentions); and people have a hard time believing others can conjure up the worst horrors out of sheer belief in some idea or other.
Must-read for anyone interested in the Russian Revolution, marxism-leninism, or (twentieth century) history in general.
Reading this pamphlet is like finally seeing an object one is told about: you know what it is but upon seeing the object yourself you get a new, more lively understanding. You read about communist regimes perpetrating the most heinous crimes and cause immense suffering for millions of innocent people. You read about Lenin, Stalin, Mao and the likes. But reading Lenins The State and Revolution you will read Lenins plans for all this future horror.
His main thesis is pretty simple: the workers have to unite and "overthrow the bourgeous State". Then, they will install a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which will use repression and violence to weed out the bourgeouis from society. Having done this, the State will continue to use violence and repression in order to cultivate the mindset of the people (so they won't pursue individualistic goals anymore) and dissolve all social classes (by enforcing equality on everyone). When this is done and class society has disappeared, the State will dissolve itself and paradise has arrived.
Of course, this is not what happened. And it doesn't take much intelligence to see where this ideological extremism collapses back on itself - leaving millions of dead and destitute in its wake.
For Lenin, there is absolutely no doubt that his theories hold and that they should be applied as soon as possible. Violence is morally good since it will reduce suffering: he literally says that killing off and disowning the ruling class is the morally superior solution to the problem of socioeconomic inequality since it will cancel their oppression of the proletarian and thus lead to more human happiness. To parafrase Lenin himself (at an earlier point in his life): "You can't bake an omelet without breaking some shells."
In my opinion this pamphlet should be on a level with Hitler's Mein Kampf or Mao's writings - and all of them should be read and taught in schools. People nowadays have no idea what the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" means. The Hitlers and Lenins of the past all were fanatics who clung to their ideas and in applying these ideas to the real world were truly convinced that what they were doing was the right thing - leaving unspeakable suffering in their wakes. Nowadays debates revolve around intentions; consequences are mostly irrelevant to discussions (or at best subordinate to intentions); and people have a hard time believing others can conjure up the worst horrors out of sheer belief in some idea or other.
Must-read for anyone interested in the Russian Revolution, marxism-leninism, or (twentieth century) history in general.
June 17, 2021
VERY good. One day I’ll write a longer review.
December 15, 2021
This was Lenin commentary on Marx and Engels views about role and fate of state during and after proletariat revolution in response to criticism by social democrats and anarchists during Bolshevik revolution. writing is straightforward, to the point and clear position of these three different political theories regarding state. would try to summaries with quotations in bold.
Thesis start with giving a quick historical background of origin of state in light of dialectical materialism. state was not formed consensual agreement by all members of society, but During a certain stage of development with the emergence of classes in society contradictions between them became insoluble and the need for an organ for the oppression of one class by another ; it is the creation of “order”, which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes. Given this description of state as an organ of oppression, arguments of social democrats to work within the existing state can be called anything (Lenin used to call them opportunists) but Marxism. not only under a monarchy, but also under a democratic republic the state remains a state, i.e., it retains its fundamental distinguishing feature of transforming the officials, the 'servants of society", its organs, into the masters of society.
On the other hand anarchists being against any type of authoritarianism call for complete abolition of state . Lenin called them utopians for thinking that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. The class which was dethroned from a privileged position would sit idle and won't try to take charge back. Capitalism won't be abolished overnight and Workers of vanguard party need to take charge of the affairs and use machinery of old bourgeois state to suppress any counter revolutionary attempt as well as take control of sources of production. And since the majority of people itself suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force" for suppression is no longer necessary! In this sense, the state begins to wither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority (privileged officialdom, the chiefs of the standing army), the majority itself can directly fulfil all these functions which .......have become so simplified and can be reduced to such exceedingly simple operations of registration, filing, and checking that they can be easily performed by every literate person, can quite easily be performed for ordinary "workmen's wages", stripping them of every shadow of privilege, of every semblance of "official grandeur" The more the functions of state power are performed by the people as a whole, the less need there is for the existence of this power.
This phrase "wither away " explain the transition of socialism to the ultimate goal , a communist society, a common goal with anarchists but to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources, and methods of state power against the exploiters, just as the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class is necessary for the abolition of classes. It is after the opportunities provided during this transitional phase that people will get used to observe basic elements of social interaction without force, without coercion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state.
October 18, 2015
في زيورخ عام 1917 بدأ لينين بكتابة هذا الكتاب تحت اسم (الماركسية والدولة) لينتهي منه في العام التالي في فنلندا تحت اسم (الدولة والثورة)، فيُعيد إحياء تعاليم ماركس الأولى بشأن الموقف من الدولة، وليخرج بفكرة جوهرية عن الثورة هي ضرورة تحطيم جهاز (الدولة)، ففكرة الاستحواذ على هذا الجهاز وتطويعه لخدمة الثورة أمر غير وارد، فهو مرتبط عضويًا بالطبقة البرجوازية المُستغلة الحاكمة، ولا يُمكن أن يتخلى عن دوره في تمكينها من استغلال الطبقات الشعبية العاملة الكادحة.
فهذه الطبقة العاملة التي ستُحرر المجتمع وتبني الاشتراكية بشكل أُممي (والتي يُعبر عنها لينين - ومن قبله كارل ماركس وفريدريك أنجلس - بمُصطلح البروليتاريا) لا تحتاج إلى الدولة إلا لزمن محدود كافي لتحطيم الدولة ذاتها، فهي تستخدم مؤقتًا أدوات ووسائل وأساليب سُلطة الدولة ضد الرأسماليين والبرجوازيين، كما أن إلغاء الطبقات يستلزم - كأمر موقوت - ديكتاتورية الطبقة المظلومة، وإسقاط هذه الدولة وطبقاتها لا يُمكن أن يتم إلا بالقضاء على الجيش النظامي لها وإحلال الشعب المُسلح محله، وهذا أهم شرط للقضاء على الدولة البرجوازية - من وجهة نظر لينين - وهو ما حققته بالفعل الثورة الروسية عام 1921 فيما يُعرف بـ (حرب التدخل) أي قبل وفاة لينين بثلاث سنوات.
لقد كان هذا الكتاب بالنسبة للثورة الروسية ككتاب (الحكومة الإسلامية) للخميني بالنسبة للثورة الإيرانية، إذ كل منهما في الثورتين بمثابة مُرشد ومُلهم ودستور، قطعًا مع اختلاف طبيعة الثورتين ومادة الكتابين وتوَجُه الكاتبين.
والكتاب على صغر حجمه لكنه يتعرض للكثير من القضايا السياسية والفلسفية والأفكار الثورية الهامة كأصل الدولة وغايتها، ودورها في الحفاظ على سيطرة الطبقة البرجوازية المُهيمنة اقتصاديًا، وضرورة إطاحة الطبقة العاملة بهذه الدولة، والأُسس الاقتصادية لاضمحلال الدولة، وديكتاتورية البروليتاريا كشبه دولة مُقابلة لديكتاتورية رأس المال، وأطوار الانتقال للاشتراكية والشيوعية التي تكتمل مع اختفاء الطبقات والدولة تمامًا، ومعظم أفكاره في هذه القضايا مُستمد بصفة أساسية من كتابات كارل ماركس وفريدرك أنجلس.
في النهاية الكتاب يتعارض في أفكاره مع الفكرة الإصلاحية الإسلامية، والتصور الثوري الإسلامي ضد الدولة القومية والنظام الرأسمالي، غامض ومتناقض في فكرته بشأن الديمُقراطية، ويتكلم عن فكرة تحطيم جهاز الدولة أكثر مما يتكلم عن الاستبعاد الفعلي للطبقات المُستغِلَّة، وأفكاره تبدو لأول وهلة فوضوية داعمة للحركة الأناركية (الغياب التام للسُّلطة)، وهي مُتناقضة بشكل عام تذم الديكتاتورية الرأسمالية وتُؤسس لإسقاط الطبقية البرجوازية، وتدعو في نفس الوقت لإحلال نوع آخر من الديكتاتورية وشكل جديد من الطبقية هي البروليتارية.
لكن يتبقى أن الكتاب يُعد من أفضل الكُتب الفكرية والفلسفية - بعيدة التعقيد نوعًا ما - التي تصف النموذج الماركسي ورؤيته الثورية أو الإصلاحية في فترة بعينها، ويُمكن الاعتماد عليه كمرجع فلسفي يُعالج أُسس الثورة الروسية أو الماركسية.
فهذه الطبقة العاملة التي ستُحرر المجتمع وتبني الاشتراكية بشكل أُممي (والتي يُعبر عنها لينين - ومن قبله كارل ماركس وفريدريك أنجلس - بمُصطلح البروليتاريا) لا تحتاج إلى الدولة إلا لزمن محدود كافي لتحطيم الدولة ذاتها، فهي تستخدم مؤقتًا أدوات ووسائل وأساليب سُلطة الدولة ضد الرأسماليين والبرجوازيين، كما أن إلغاء الطبقات يستلزم - كأمر موقوت - ديكتاتورية الطبقة المظلومة، وإسقاط هذه الدولة وطبقاتها لا يُمكن أن يتم إلا بالقضاء على الجيش النظامي لها وإحلال الشعب المُسلح محله، وهذا أهم شرط للقضاء على الدولة البرجوازية - من وجهة نظر لينين - وهو ما حققته بالفعل الثورة الروسية عام 1921 فيما يُعرف بـ (حرب التدخل) أي قبل وفاة لينين بثلاث سنوات.
لقد كان هذا الكتاب بالنسبة للثورة الروسية ككتاب (الحكومة الإسلامية) للخميني بالنسبة للثورة الإيرانية، إذ كل منهما في الثورتين بمثابة مُرشد ومُلهم ودستور، قطعًا مع اختلاف طبيعة الثورتين ومادة الكتابين وتوَجُه الكاتبين.
والكتاب على صغر حجمه لكنه يتعرض للكثير من القضايا السياسية والفلسفية والأفكار الثورية الهامة كأصل الدولة وغايتها، ودورها في الحفاظ على سيطرة الطبقة البرجوازية المُهيمنة اقتصاديًا، وضرورة إطاحة الطبقة العاملة بهذه الدولة، والأُسس الاقتصادية لاضمحلال الدولة، وديكتاتورية البروليتاريا كشبه دولة مُقابلة لديكتاتورية رأس المال، وأطوار الانتقال للاشتراكية والشيوعية التي تكتمل مع اختفاء الطبقات والدولة تمامًا، ومعظم أفكاره في هذه القضايا مُستمد بصفة أساسية من كتابات كارل ماركس وفريدرك أنجلس.
في النهاية الكتاب يتعارض في أفكاره مع الفكرة الإصلاحية الإسلامية، والتصور الثوري الإسلامي ضد الدولة القومية والنظام الرأسمالي، غامض ومتناقض في فكرته بشأن الديمُقراطية، ويتكلم عن فكرة تحطيم جهاز الدولة أكثر مما يتكلم عن الاستبعاد الفعلي للطبقات المُستغِلَّة، وأفكاره تبدو لأول وهلة فوضوية داعمة للحركة الأناركية (الغياب التام للسُّلطة)، وهي مُتناقضة بشكل عام تذم الديكتاتورية الرأسمالية وتُؤسس لإسقاط الطبقية البرجوازية، وتدعو في نفس الوقت لإحلال نوع آخر من الديكتاتورية وشكل جديد من الطبقية هي البروليتارية.
لكن يتبقى أن الكتاب يُعد من أفضل الكُتب الفكرية والفلسفية - بعيدة التعقيد نوعًا ما - التي تصف النموذج الماركسي ورؤيته الثورية أو الإصلاحية في فترة بعينها، ويُمكن الاعتماد عليه كمرجع فلسفي يُعالج أُسس الثورة الروسية أو الماركسية.
March 6, 2022
Bloody hell, the main figures of the Second International seem pretty goddamn anaemic. As my friends in London would say, these dickheads should ‘pattern up’. It makes me laugh every time Lenin pulls out some quote from Kautsky and then proceeds to take an absolutely steaming syphilitic piss all over it. Great commie fun for all the family!
June 21, 2024
'El Estado y la revolución' o de repensar el pensamiento de Lenin
Algunos datos significativos de la vida de Lenin:
1. Nació el 22 de abril de 1870 en Simbirsk, Rusia.
2. Su hermano mayor, Aleksandr, fue ejecutado en 1887 por participar en un complot para asesinar al zar Alejandro III, lo que le influyó de forma profunda.
3. Estudió derecho en la Universidad de Kazán, pero fue expulsado por participar en actividades políticas. Continuó sus estudios de manera independiente y se graduó como abogado en 1891.
4. Fue exiliado a Siberia entre 1897 y 1900 por sus actividades políticas. Tras su exilio en Siberia, Lenin pasó varios años en Europa Occidental, donde escribió y organizó desde el extranjero.
5. Regresó a Rusia en abril de 1917, tras el estallido de la Revolución de Febrero.
6. Lideró los bolcheviques en la Revolución de Octubre de 1917, que derrocó al Gobierno Provisional. Se convirtió en el líder de la nueva Rusia soviética y luego de la Unión Soviética, establecida en 1922.
7. Sufrió varios ataques cerebrovasculares a partir de 1922, lo que debilitó su salud.
8. Murió el 21 de enero de 1924 en Gorki, cerca de Moscú.
Pensamiento de Lenin
1) Marxismo-Leninismo:
- Adaptó las ideas de Karl Marx y Friedrich Engels a la realidad rusa, desarrollando lo que se conocería como marxismo-leninismo. El desarrollo de sus postulados se desarrolló en contraposición a las ideas de Plejánov, Mártov y Kautsky.
- Afirmaba que una vanguardia revolucionaria debía liderar la clase obrera para derrocar al capitalismo.
2) Teoría del imperialismo:
- En su obra 'Imperialismo, fase superior del capitalismo' (1916), argumentó que el imperialismo era la última fase del capitalismo, caracterizada por el dominio de los monopolios y el capital financiero.
3) La dictadura del proletariado:
- Lenin defendió la necesidad de una dictadura del proletariado como un período transitorio para eliminar las clases sociales y establecer el socialismo.
- La idea central del marxismo, ocultada por el ala más conservadora (o más socialdemócrata) era demostrar que la tesis de que el marxismo había descubierto la lucha de clases iba acompañada de la dictadura del proletariado.
4) Organización del Partido:
- En '¿Qué hacer?' (1902), Lenin enfatizó la necesidad de un partido de vanguardia disciplinado y centralizado para dirigir la revolución.
- Introdujo el concepto de centralismo democrático, donde las decisiones se toman de forma democrática, pero una vez adoptadas, se aplican de manera unificada.
5) Internacionalismo:
- Lenin promovió la revolución mundial (el comunismo sólo se podía entender de forma internacional) y ayudó a fundar la Internacional Comunista (Comintern) en 1919 para coordinar los esfuerzos revolucionarios en todo el mundo.
'El Estado y la revolución' es una de las obras más importantes de Vladimir Lenin, escrita en 1917. En ella, el pensador y político ruso expone sus ideas sobre el papel del Estado en la sociedad y la necesidad de la revolución proletaria para derrocar el capitalismo
1. Escrita en 1917:
- Lenin escribió esta obra durante el verano de 1917, mientras estaba en la clandestinidad en Finlandia, antes de la Revolución de Octubre.
- Fue un período crucial en la historia rusa, con la Primera Guerra Mundial en curso y la Revolución de Febrero habiendo derrocado al zar Nicolás II.
- Lenin quería clarificar su posición sobre el Estado y contrarrestar las interpretaciones revisionistas del marxismo que habían surgido entre algunos socialistas y socialdemócratas. Buscaba preparar a los bolcheviques para la toma del poder y la posterior construcción de un Estado comunista.
2. Definición del Estado:
- Lenin define el Estado como un instrumento de opresión de una clase hacia otra, nacido de la necesidad de mantener el dominio de una clase sobre otra. El único estado que ha habido hasta la fecha es el estado burgués y éste es opresor del proletariado.
- Argumenta que el Estado es una herramienta de la clase dominante para mantener su control sobre la sociedad. La esencia del estado es la burocracia y una organización militar estable (policía y militar).
- Lenin retoma y desarrolla las ideas de Marx y Engels sobre el Estado, destacando la necesidad de destruir el Estado burgués y reemplazarlo por un Estado proletario.
3. La Comuna de París:
- Utiliza la experiencia de la Comuna de París de 1871 (al igual que Marx) como modelo y marco para el Estado proletario, destacando su carácter democrático y su esfuerzo por eliminar la burocracia y la jerarquía estatal.
- Sostiene que la Comuna fue un ejemplo de dictadura del proletariado. Un ejemplo que sin embargo fracasó porque no supo ejercer correctamente la violencia.
- Lenin insiste en la necesidad de una revolución violenta para derrocar el Estado burgués, ya que considera que la clase dominante nunca cederá el poder de manera pacífica. Propone la creación de un nuevo tipo de Estado, basado en los soviets (consejos de trabajadores), que serviría como instrumento de la dictadura del proletariado.
4. El Estado transitorio:
- Argumenta que el Estado proletario es una forma transitoria que debe conducir a la desaparición del Estado mismo.
- Una vez que las clases sociales hayan sido abolidas y no haya más opresión de una clase sobre otra, el Estado se extinguirá (esa deberá ser su finalidad).
- Lenin subraya la importancia del centralismo democrático en la organización del Estado proletario, combinando la toma de decisiones democrática con una disciplina centralizada.
5. Influencia en la Revolución de Octubre:
- Esa obra jugó un papel crucial en la justificación ideológica de la Revolución de Octubre y en la formación del gobierno soviético.
- Las ideas expresadas en el libro fueron fundamentales para la estrategia bolchevique de derrocar el Gobierno Provisional y establecer un Estado socialista.
- Las concepciones de Lenin sobre el Estado y la dictadura del proletariado sirvieron como base para la estructura del Estado soviético.
- La obra sigue siendo un texto clave para entender la teoría y la práctica del comunismo en el siglo XX. Algunos critican el énfasis de Lenin en la violencia revolucionaria y el centralismo, mientras que otros lo consideran una guía esencial para la revolución socialista.
Algunos datos significativos de la vida de Lenin:
1. Nació el 22 de abril de 1870 en Simbirsk, Rusia.
2. Su hermano mayor, Aleksandr, fue ejecutado en 1887 por participar en un complot para asesinar al zar Alejandro III, lo que le influyó de forma profunda.
3. Estudió derecho en la Universidad de Kazán, pero fue expulsado por participar en actividades políticas. Continuó sus estudios de manera independiente y se graduó como abogado en 1891.
4. Fue exiliado a Siberia entre 1897 y 1900 por sus actividades políticas. Tras su exilio en Siberia, Lenin pasó varios años en Europa Occidental, donde escribió y organizó desde el extranjero.
5. Regresó a Rusia en abril de 1917, tras el estallido de la Revolución de Febrero.
6. Lideró los bolcheviques en la Revolución de Octubre de 1917, que derrocó al Gobierno Provisional. Se convirtió en el líder de la nueva Rusia soviética y luego de la Unión Soviética, establecida en 1922.
7. Sufrió varios ataques cerebrovasculares a partir de 1922, lo que debilitó su salud.
8. Murió el 21 de enero de 1924 en Gorki, cerca de Moscú.
Pensamiento de Lenin
1) Marxismo-Leninismo:
- Adaptó las ideas de Karl Marx y Friedrich Engels a la realidad rusa, desarrollando lo que se conocería como marxismo-leninismo. El desarrollo de sus postulados se desarrolló en contraposición a las ideas de Plejánov, Mártov y Kautsky.
- Afirmaba que una vanguardia revolucionaria debía liderar la clase obrera para derrocar al capitalismo.
2) Teoría del imperialismo:
- En su obra 'Imperialismo, fase superior del capitalismo' (1916), argumentó que el imperialismo era la última fase del capitalismo, caracterizada por el dominio de los monopolios y el capital financiero.
3) La dictadura del proletariado:
- Lenin defendió la necesidad de una dictadura del proletariado como un período transitorio para eliminar las clases sociales y establecer el socialismo.
- La idea central del marxismo, ocultada por el ala más conservadora (o más socialdemócrata) era demostrar que la tesis de que el marxismo había descubierto la lucha de clases iba acompañada de la dictadura del proletariado.
4) Organización del Partido:
- En '¿Qué hacer?' (1902), Lenin enfatizó la necesidad de un partido de vanguardia disciplinado y centralizado para dirigir la revolución.
- Introdujo el concepto de centralismo democrático, donde las decisiones se toman de forma democrática, pero una vez adoptadas, se aplican de manera unificada.
5) Internacionalismo:
- Lenin promovió la revolución mundial (el comunismo sólo se podía entender de forma internacional) y ayudó a fundar la Internacional Comunista (Comintern) en 1919 para coordinar los esfuerzos revolucionarios en todo el mundo.
'El Estado y la revolución' es una de las obras más importantes de Vladimir Lenin, escrita en 1917. En ella, el pensador y político ruso expone sus ideas sobre el papel del Estado en la sociedad y la necesidad de la revolución proletaria para derrocar el capitalismo
1. Escrita en 1917:
- Lenin escribió esta obra durante el verano de 1917, mientras estaba en la clandestinidad en Finlandia, antes de la Revolución de Octubre.
- Fue un período crucial en la historia rusa, con la Primera Guerra Mundial en curso y la Revolución de Febrero habiendo derrocado al zar Nicolás II.
- Lenin quería clarificar su posición sobre el Estado y contrarrestar las interpretaciones revisionistas del marxismo que habían surgido entre algunos socialistas y socialdemócratas. Buscaba preparar a los bolcheviques para la toma del poder y la posterior construcción de un Estado comunista.
2. Definición del Estado:
- Lenin define el Estado como un instrumento de opresión de una clase hacia otra, nacido de la necesidad de mantener el dominio de una clase sobre otra. El único estado que ha habido hasta la fecha es el estado burgués y éste es opresor del proletariado.
- Argumenta que el Estado es una herramienta de la clase dominante para mantener su control sobre la sociedad. La esencia del estado es la burocracia y una organización militar estable (policía y militar).
- Lenin retoma y desarrolla las ideas de Marx y Engels sobre el Estado, destacando la necesidad de destruir el Estado burgués y reemplazarlo por un Estado proletario.
3. La Comuna de París:
- Utiliza la experiencia de la Comuna de París de 1871 (al igual que Marx) como modelo y marco para el Estado proletario, destacando su carácter democrático y su esfuerzo por eliminar la burocracia y la jerarquía estatal.
- Sostiene que la Comuna fue un ejemplo de dictadura del proletariado. Un ejemplo que sin embargo fracasó porque no supo ejercer correctamente la violencia.
- Lenin insiste en la necesidad de una revolución violenta para derrocar el Estado burgués, ya que considera que la clase dominante nunca cederá el poder de manera pacífica. Propone la creación de un nuevo tipo de Estado, basado en los soviets (consejos de trabajadores), que serviría como instrumento de la dictadura del proletariado.
4. El Estado transitorio:
- Argumenta que el Estado proletario es una forma transitoria que debe conducir a la desaparición del Estado mismo.
- Una vez que las clases sociales hayan sido abolidas y no haya más opresión de una clase sobre otra, el Estado se extinguirá (esa deberá ser su finalidad).
- Lenin subraya la importancia del centralismo democrático en la organización del Estado proletario, combinando la toma de decisiones democrática con una disciplina centralizada.
5. Influencia en la Revolución de Octubre:
- Esa obra jugó un papel crucial en la justificación ideológica de la Revolución de Octubre y en la formación del gobierno soviético.
- Las ideas expresadas en el libro fueron fundamentales para la estrategia bolchevique de derrocar el Gobierno Provisional y establecer un Estado socialista.
- Las concepciones de Lenin sobre el Estado y la dictadura del proletariado sirvieron como base para la estructura del Estado soviético.
- La obra sigue siendo un texto clave para entender la teoría y la práctica del comunismo en el siglo XX. Algunos critican el énfasis de Lenin en la violencia revolucionaria y el centralismo, mientras que otros lo consideran una guía esencial para la revolución socialista.
December 1, 2017
State and Revolution Lenin Review:
The most dangerous lies start with fragments of truth and become full-fledged deceptions.
The first thing that striked and shocked me was the initial anti state stance on a correct notion of it as an evil and a monopoly of coercion that today it is found in libertarianism. But here is where the truth stops !!
What comes next is a text that resembles the interpretation and explanation of the christian teachings with examples and quotations from The Bible, against another rival christian teaching… Thus Lenin quotes Marx and Engels and interprets their actions and writings to suit him in his battle with the ones that also interpret Marx.
Now I admit that I know quite a lot about Marxism but not from the man himself, Marx; the amount of writing he has done is huge ! Who is right on what Marx meant is debatable even today. But as I will expand later, the important thing here is to have a calm and academic discussion of Marx, wich Lenin does not have…
Lenin and Marxism speak as if they invented a new science as fix as mathematics.. They interpret history as physical observation and create models on wich they make predictions.
In Marxism-Leninism all social elements and forces are absolute, classes of people are simple entities to describe and their goals are all held in common, groups and institution act in an absolute and individual matter.
They realy belive that their political theory is a science and they use history to gather proofs… Anyone who is familiar with Karl Popper will immediately notice that this makes Marxism an pseudo-science from the start !!
Lenin thinks of society in simple and organic terms. The classes are organic elements, the exploiters are the embodiment of all the evil of society, they can only act evil; the workers are the embodiment of all that is good in humanity but is suppressed…He denotes a total inability to grasp human nature. Good and evil are present in all people, the class antagonism he speaks about is also found among the members of a class. Thus he believes that the proletarian state build by the workers will not be as evil as the capitalist state because the workers can not be evil… I call this blind faith…
Power corrupts, the proletarian state was bound to be corrupted, his plan of a new society was not based on any moral principles, actually I could even say it was based on revenge and hatred. Thus the greatest counter argument of him is the countless examples from the history of the 20th century wich caused only death and misery… But yet Marxists are selective in their gathering of evidence from history…
They always belive that they can do better…
Also we se here the naïve idea that the economical live of society can be collectively organized so as to be more just and efficient than the capitalistic method of production… This view was common in his time in all socialist groups but today history and the experience of his legacy proved him wrong, and the theoretical debunking of it has been done by Mises. Maybe Russia was different, but in the rest of Europe there was already quite the social mobility already, workers everywhere were doing better.
To say that the poorer were getting more poor is stupid, sure the richer were also getting more rich but not on the back of the poor classes. What was actually happened is the growth of the middle class.
Lenin’s internal pillars of Marxism are his belief that his interpretation of Marx and Engels is 100% right, he never misses the occasion to point out that “out of 100 people if one truly understands what Marx meant here”…that person being him… His second belief is that Marx and Engels are always right…
Noam Chomsky in a YT video I saw explained that in the history of the development of political and economical theory, those who studied a great author pondered on his arguments, took what was right, ignored what was wrong, Adam Smith is not worshiped today by liberals and no author is ! No liberal will dare to say that Adam was 100% right in all or any author !!
For Lenin Marx is the ultimate truth, nothing can be added, Marxism is a complete science/religion, and he his the prophet of that Truth…… Now that is not only un scientific but also irrational for a person who claims is driven by logic !!
I also realized the impact Leninism and the victory of the Bolsheviks and Leninism had on the development of the Marxist theory. Lenin has harsh words for those who interpret Marx in a different way or those who question some aspects of it… I actually liked more the quotes of the opportunist of wich I will talk immediately. Lenin and his interpretation were not mainstream, but because he won power mainstream Marxism of those days become Marxism-leninism…
So about those opportunists as Lenin describes them… What Lenin imputes them is actually their questioning of Marx and some of the aspects of his theory. Marxists in Germany and not only actually started to get in power, they were confronted with reality of politics and the wishes of the masses. The mythical evil state of Lenin actually permitted them to improve the life of workers and workers had other things in mind, the question of the need of revolution was raised, is a revolutionnecesary anymore, can we not work with the state and through it? They become social democrats as Lenin told us ! And maybe if Lenin did not took power Marxism would have changed as al theories do and Marxism would have withered away…… !!
PS: The one star I gaved it is just fot the cool title !
The most dangerous lies start with fragments of truth and become full-fledged deceptions.
The first thing that striked and shocked me was the initial anti state stance on a correct notion of it as an evil and a monopoly of coercion that today it is found in libertarianism. But here is where the truth stops !!
What comes next is a text that resembles the interpretation and explanation of the christian teachings with examples and quotations from The Bible, against another rival christian teaching… Thus Lenin quotes Marx and Engels and interprets their actions and writings to suit him in his battle with the ones that also interpret Marx.
Now I admit that I know quite a lot about Marxism but not from the man himself, Marx; the amount of writing he has done is huge ! Who is right on what Marx meant is debatable even today. But as I will expand later, the important thing here is to have a calm and academic discussion of Marx, wich Lenin does not have…
Lenin and Marxism speak as if they invented a new science as fix as mathematics.. They interpret history as physical observation and create models on wich they make predictions.
In Marxism-Leninism all social elements and forces are absolute, classes of people are simple entities to describe and their goals are all held in common, groups and institution act in an absolute and individual matter.
They realy belive that their political theory is a science and they use history to gather proofs… Anyone who is familiar with Karl Popper will immediately notice that this makes Marxism an pseudo-science from the start !!
Lenin thinks of society in simple and organic terms. The classes are organic elements, the exploiters are the embodiment of all the evil of society, they can only act evil; the workers are the embodiment of all that is good in humanity but is suppressed…He denotes a total inability to grasp human nature. Good and evil are present in all people, the class antagonism he speaks about is also found among the members of a class. Thus he believes that the proletarian state build by the workers will not be as evil as the capitalist state because the workers can not be evil… I call this blind faith…
Power corrupts, the proletarian state was bound to be corrupted, his plan of a new society was not based on any moral principles, actually I could even say it was based on revenge and hatred. Thus the greatest counter argument of him is the countless examples from the history of the 20th century wich caused only death and misery… But yet Marxists are selective in their gathering of evidence from history…
They always belive that they can do better…
Also we se here the naïve idea that the economical live of society can be collectively organized so as to be more just and efficient than the capitalistic method of production… This view was common in his time in all socialist groups but today history and the experience of his legacy proved him wrong, and the theoretical debunking of it has been done by Mises. Maybe Russia was different, but in the rest of Europe there was already quite the social mobility already, workers everywhere were doing better.
To say that the poorer were getting more poor is stupid, sure the richer were also getting more rich but not on the back of the poor classes. What was actually happened is the growth of the middle class.
Lenin’s internal pillars of Marxism are his belief that his interpretation of Marx and Engels is 100% right, he never misses the occasion to point out that “out of 100 people if one truly understands what Marx meant here”…that person being him… His second belief is that Marx and Engels are always right…
Noam Chomsky in a YT video I saw explained that in the history of the development of political and economical theory, those who studied a great author pondered on his arguments, took what was right, ignored what was wrong, Adam Smith is not worshiped today by liberals and no author is ! No liberal will dare to say that Adam was 100% right in all or any author !!
For Lenin Marx is the ultimate truth, nothing can be added, Marxism is a complete science/religion, and he his the prophet of that Truth…… Now that is not only un scientific but also irrational for a person who claims is driven by logic !!
I also realized the impact Leninism and the victory of the Bolsheviks and Leninism had on the development of the Marxist theory. Lenin has harsh words for those who interpret Marx in a different way or those who question some aspects of it… I actually liked more the quotes of the opportunist of wich I will talk immediately. Lenin and his interpretation were not mainstream, but because he won power mainstream Marxism of those days become Marxism-leninism…
So about those opportunists as Lenin describes them… What Lenin imputes them is actually their questioning of Marx and some of the aspects of his theory. Marxists in Germany and not only actually started to get in power, they were confronted with reality of politics and the wishes of the masses. The mythical evil state of Lenin actually permitted them to improve the life of workers and workers had other things in mind, the question of the need of revolution was raised, is a revolutionnecesary anymore, can we not work with the state and through it? They become social democrats as Lenin told us ! And maybe if Lenin did not took power Marxism would have changed as al theories do and Marxism would have withered away…… !!
PS: The one star I gaved it is just fot the cool title !
May 14, 2011
Lenin's books are not worth reading. Calling upon people to destroy the state is easy enough; building up something after that, not so easy. Claiming that people will magically fall in love with laboring for others doesn't actually solve the problem, even if Marx (the great prophet) declared it so.
Also, I can't help but mock the "scientific" nature of Lenin's plans. As we all know, Russia was indeed ripe for communism. If only we could all live in a world as good as the Soviet Union! Oh, wait...
What's that you say, classical liberals? Those who lead the revolution will be reluctant to give up their absolute power? No way!
Also, I can't help but mock the "scientific" nature of Lenin's plans. As we all know, Russia was indeed ripe for communism. If only we could all live in a world as good as the Soviet Union! Oh, wait...
What's that you say, classical liberals? Those who lead the revolution will be reluctant to give up their absolute power? No way!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,504 reviews