Vladimir Illyich Lenin: State and Revolution, 1918 - iSites
Vladimir Illyich Lenin: State and Revolution, 1918 - iSites
Vladimir Illyich Lenin: State and Revolution, 1918 - iSites
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Vladimir</strong> <strong>Illyich</strong> <strong>Lenin</strong>:<br />
<strong>State</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Revolution</strong>, <strong>1918</strong><br />
CHAPTER I<br />
Class Society <strong>and</strong> the <strong>State</strong><br />
4. The "Withering Away" of the <strong>State</strong> <strong>and</strong> Violent <strong>Revolution</strong>.<br />
Engels' words regarding the "withering away" of the state enjoy such popularity, they<br />
are so often quoted, <strong>and</strong> they show so clearly the essence of the usual adulteration by<br />
means of which Marxism is made to look like opportunism, that we must dwell on<br />
them in detail. Let us quote the whole passage from which they are taken.<br />
The proletariat seizes state power, <strong>and</strong> then transforms the means of production into<br />
state property. But in doing this, it puts an end to itself as the proletariat, it puts an<br />
end to all class differences <strong>and</strong> class antagonisms, it puts an end also to the state as<br />
the state. Former society, moving in class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is,<br />
an organisation of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its<br />
external conditions of production; therefore, in particular, for the forcible holding<br />
down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, bondage or<br />
serfdom, wagelabour) determined by the existing mode of production. The state was<br />
the official representative of society as a whole, its embodiment in a visible corporate<br />
body; but it was this only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself in its<br />
epoch, represented society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of the slaveowning<br />
citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our epoch, of the bourgeoisie.<br />
When ultimately it becomes really representative of society as a whole, it makes itself<br />
superfluous. As soon as there is no longer any class of society to be held in<br />
subjection; as soon as, along with class domination <strong>and</strong> the struggle for individual<br />
existence based on the former anarchy of production, the collisions <strong>and</strong> excesses<br />
arising from these have also been abolished, there is nothing more to be repressed,<br />
<strong>and</strong> a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act in which<br />
the state really comes forward as the representative of society as a whole-the seizure<br />
of the means of production in the name of society-is at the same time its last<br />
independent act as a state. The interference of a state power in social relations<br />
becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, <strong>and</strong> then becomes dormant of itself<br />
Government over persons is replaced by the administration of things <strong>and</strong> the direction<br />
of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished," it withers away. It is from<br />
this st<strong>and</strong>point that we must appraise the phrase "people's free state"-both its<br />
justification at times for agitational purposes, <strong>and</strong> its ultimate scientific inadequacy<strong>and</strong><br />
also the dem<strong>and</strong> of the socalled Anarchists that the state should be abolished<br />
overnight.<br />
Without fear of committing an error, it may be said that of t his argument by Engels<br />
so singularly rich in ideas, only one point has become an integral part of Socialist<br />
thought among modern Socialist parties, namely, that, unlike the Anarchist doctrine of
the "abolition" of the state, according to Marx the state "withers away." To emasculate<br />
Marxism in such a manner is to reduce it to opportunism, for such an "interpretation"<br />
only leaves the hazy conception of a slow, even, gradual change, free from leaps <strong>and</strong><br />
storms, free from revolution. The current popular conception, if one may say so, of<br />
the "withering away' of the state undoubtedly means a slurring over, if not a negation,<br />
of revolution .<br />
Yet, such an "interpretation" is the crudest distortion of Marxism, which is<br />
advantageous only to the bourgeoisie; in point of theory, it Is based on a disregard for<br />
the most important circumstances <strong>and</strong> considerations pointed out in the very passage<br />
summarising Engels' ideas, which we have just quoted in full.<br />
In the first place, Engels at the very outset of his argument says that, in assuming state<br />
power, the proletariat by that very act "puts an end to the state as the state." One is<br />
"not accustomed" to reflect on what this really means. Generally, it is either ignored<br />
altogether, or it is considered as a piece of "Hegelian weakness" on Engels' part. As a<br />
matter of fact, however, these words express succinctly the experience of one of the<br />
greatest proletarian revolutions-the Paris Commune of 1871, of which we shall speak<br />
in greater detail in its proper place. As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the<br />
destruction o the bourgeois state by the proletarian revolution, while the word about<br />
its withering away refer to the remains of proletarian statehood after the Socialist<br />
revolution. The bourgeois state does not "wither away" according to Engels, but is<br />
"put all end to" by the proletariat in the course of the revolution What withers away<br />
after the revolution is the proletarian state or semi state.<br />
Secondly, the state is a "special repressive force." This splendid <strong>and</strong> extremely<br />
profound definition of Engels is given by him here with complete lucidity. It follows<br />
from this that the "special repressive force" of the bourgeoisie for the suppression of<br />
the proletariat, of the millions of workers by a h<strong>and</strong>ful of the rich, must be replaced by<br />
a "special repressive force" of the proletariat for the suppression o the bourgeoisie<br />
(the dictatorship of the proletariat). It is just this that constitutes the destruction of "the<br />
state as the state." It is just as that constitutes the "act" of "the seizure of the means of<br />
production in the name of society." And it is obvious that such a substitution of one<br />
(proletarian) "special repressive force" for another (bourgeois) "special repressive<br />
force" can in no way take place in the form of a "withering away."<br />
Thirdly, as to the "withering away" or, more expressively <strong>and</strong> colourfully as to the<br />
state "becoming dormant," Engels refers quite clearly <strong>and</strong> definitely to the period<br />
after "the seizure of the means of production [by the state] in the name of society,"<br />
that is, after the Socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the "state"<br />
at that time is complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the<br />
opportunists who shamelessly distort Marx that when Engels speaks here of the state<br />
"withering away," of "becoming dormant," he speaks of democracy. At first sight this<br />
seems very strange. But it is "unintelligible" only to one who has not reflected on the<br />
fact that democracy is also a state <strong>and</strong> that, consequently, democracy will also<br />
disappear when the state disappears. The bourgeois state can only be "put an end to"<br />
by a revolution. The state in general, i.e., most complete democracy, can only "wither<br />
away."<br />
***
The replacement of the bourgeois by the proletarian state is impossible without a<br />
violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., of all states, is only<br />
possible through "withering away."<br />
CHAPTER V<br />
The Economic Base of the Withering Away of the <strong>State</strong><br />
1. Formulation of the Question by Marx.<br />
***<br />
The whole theory of Marx is an application of the theory of evolution-in its most<br />
consistent, complete, wellconsidered <strong>and</strong> fruitful form-to modern capitalism. It was<br />
natural for Marx to raise the question of applying this theory both to the coming<br />
collapse of capitalism <strong>and</strong> to the future evolution of future communism.<br />
On the basis of what data can the future evolution of future Communism be<br />
considered?<br />
On the basis of the fact that it has its origin in capitalism, that it develops historically<br />
from capitalism, that it is the result of the action of a social force to which capitalism<br />
has given birth. There is no shadow of an attempt on Marx's part to conjure up a<br />
Utopia, to make idle guesses about that which cannot be known. Marx treats the<br />
question of Communism in the same way as a naturalist would treat the question of<br />
the evolution of, say, a new biological species, if he knew that such <strong>and</strong> such was its<br />
origin, <strong>and</strong> such <strong>and</strong> such the direction in which it changed.<br />
***<br />
The first fact that has been established with complete exactness by the whole theory<br />
of evolution, by science as a whole-a fact which the Utopians forgot, <strong>and</strong> which is<br />
forgotten by the presentday opportunists who are afraid of the Socialist revolution-is<br />
that, historically, there must undoubtedly be a special state or epoch of transition from<br />
capitalism to Communism.<br />
2. Transition From Capitalism to Communism.<br />
Marx continues:<br />
Between capitalist <strong>and</strong> Communist society lies the period of the revolutionary<br />
transformation of the former into the latter To this also corresponds a political<br />
transition period, in which the state can be no other than the revolutionary<br />
dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
This conclusion Marx basses on all analysis of the role played by the proletariat in<br />
modern capitalist society, on the data concerning the evolution of this society, <strong>and</strong> on<br />
the irreconcilability of the opposing interests of the proletariat <strong>and</strong> the bourgeoisie .
Earlier the question was put thud to attain its emancipation? the proletariat must<br />
overthrow the bourgeoisie, conquer political power <strong>and</strong> establish its own<br />
revolutionary dictatorship.<br />
Now the question is put somewhat differently: the transition from capitalist society,<br />
developing towards Communism, towards a Communist society, is impossible<br />
without a "political transition period," <strong>and</strong> the <strong>State</strong> in this period can only be the<br />
revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship to democracy?<br />
We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two ideas:<br />
the "transformation of the proletariat into the ruling class" <strong>and</strong> the "establishment ol<br />
democracy." On the basis of all that has been said above, one can define more exactly<br />
how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to Communism.<br />
I n capitalist society, under the conditions most favourable to its development, we<br />
have more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy<br />
is always bound by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation, <strong>and</strong> consequently<br />
always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the possessing<br />
classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains just about the<br />
same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave owners. The<br />
modern wageslaves, owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation are so much<br />
crushed by want <strong>and</strong> poverty that "democracy is nothing to them," "politics is nothing<br />
to them"; that, in the ordinary peaceful course of events, the majority of the<br />
population is debarred from participating in social <strong>and</strong> political life.<br />
The correctness of this statement is perhaps most clearly proved by Germany, just<br />
because in this state constitutional legality lasted <strong>and</strong> remained stable for a<br />
remarkably long time-for nearly half a century (18711914)-<strong>and</strong> because Social<br />
Democracy in Germany during that time was able to achieve far more than in other<br />
countries in "utilising legality," <strong>and</strong> was able to organise into a political party a larger<br />
proportion of the working class than anywhere in the world.<br />
What, then, is this largest proportion of politically conscious <strong>and</strong> active wageslaves<br />
that has so far been observed in capitalist society? One million members of the Social<br />
Democratic party-out of fifteen million wageworkers. Three million organised in<br />
trade unions-out of fifteen million.<br />
Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich- that is the<br />
democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the mechanism of<br />
capitalist democracy, everywhere, both in the "petty" - so called petty - details of the<br />
suffrage (residential qualification, exclusion of women, etc.), <strong>and</strong> in the technique of<br />
the representative institution, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public<br />
buildings are not for "beggars"!), in the purely capitalist organisation of the daily<br />
press, etc., etc.-on all sides we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These<br />
restrictions, exceptions, exclusions obstacles for the poor, seem slight, especially in<br />
the eyes of one who has himself never known want <strong>and</strong> has never been in close<br />
contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (<strong>and</strong> nine tenths, if not ninetynine<br />
hundredths, of the bourgeois publicists <strong>and</strong> politicians are of this class), but in
their sum total these restrictions exclude <strong>and</strong> squeeze out the poor from politics <strong>and</strong><br />
from an active share in democracy.<br />
Marx splendidly grasped this essence of capitalist democracy, when, in analysing the<br />
experience of the Commune, he said that the oppressed were allowed, once every few<br />
years, to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class should be in<br />
parliament to represent <strong>and</strong> repress them!<br />
But from this capitalist democracy-inevitably narrow, subtly rejecting the poor, <strong>and</strong><br />
therefore hypocritical <strong>and</strong> false to the core- progress does not march onward, simply,<br />
smoothly <strong>and</strong> directly, to "greater <strong>and</strong> greater democracy," as the liberal professors<br />
<strong>and</strong> petty bourgeois opportunists would have us believe. No, progress marches<br />
onward, i.e., towards Communism, through the dictatorship of the proletariat; it<br />
cannot do otherwise, for there is no one else <strong>and</strong> no other way to break the resistance<br />
of the capitalist exploiters.<br />
But the dictatorship of the proletariat-i.e., the organisation of the vanguard of the<br />
oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors cannot<br />
produce merely an expansion of democracy. Together with an immense expansion of<br />
democracy which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for<br />
the people, <strong>and</strong> not democracy for the rich folk, the dictatorship of the proletariat<br />
produces a series of restrictions of liberty in the case of the oppressors, the exploiters,<br />
the capitalists. We must crush them in order to free humanity from wage slavery; their<br />
resistance must be broken by force; it is clear that where there is suppression there is<br />
also violence, there is no liberty, no democracy.<br />
Engels expressed this splendidly in his letter to Bebel when he said, as the reader will<br />
remember, that "as long as the proletariat still needs the state, it needs it not in the<br />
interests of freedom, but for the purpose of crushing its antagonists; <strong>and</strong> as soon as it<br />
becomes possible to speak of freedom, then the state, as such, ceases to exist."<br />
Democracy for the vast majority of the people, <strong>and</strong> suppression by force, i.e.,<br />
exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters <strong>and</strong> oppressors of the people-this is the<br />
modification of democracy during the transition from capitalism to Communism.<br />
Only in Communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely<br />
broken, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., there is<br />
no difference between the members of society in their relation to the social means of<br />
production), only then "the state ceases to exist," <strong>and</strong> it becomes possible to speak of<br />
freedom." Only then a really full democracy, a democracy without any exceptions,<br />
will be possible <strong>and</strong> will be realised. And only then will democracy itself begin to<br />
wither away due to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavers from the untold<br />
horrors, savagery, absurdities, <strong>and</strong> infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will<br />
gradually become accustomed to the observance of the elementary rules of social life<br />
that have been known for centuries <strong>and</strong> repeated for thous<strong>and</strong>s of years in all school<br />
books they will become accustomed to observing them without force, with out<br />
compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for compulsion<br />
which is called the state.
The expression "the state withers away," is very well chosen, for it indicates both the<br />
gradual <strong>and</strong> the elemental nature of the process. Only habit can, <strong>and</strong> undoubtedly will,<br />
have such an effect; for we sec around us millions of times how readily people get<br />
accustomed to observe the necessary rules of life in common, if there is no<br />
exploitation, if there is nothing that causes indignation, that calls forth protest <strong>and</strong><br />
revolt <strong>and</strong> has to be suppressed.<br />
Thus, in capitalist society, we have a democracy that is curtailed, poor, false; a<br />
democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the<br />
period of transition to Communism, will, for the first time, produce democracy for the<br />
people, for the majority, side by side with the necessary suppression of the minoritythe<br />
exploiters. Communism alone is capable of giving a really complete democracy,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the more complete it is the more quickly will it become unnecessary <strong>and</strong> wither<br />
away of itself.<br />
In other words: under capitalism we have a state in the proper sense of the word, that<br />
is, special machinery for the suppression of one class by another, <strong>and</strong> of the majority<br />
b! the minority at that. Naturally, for the successful discharge of such a task as the<br />
systematic suppression by the exploiting minority of the exploited majority, the<br />
greatest ferocity <strong>and</strong> savagery of suppression are required, seas of blood are required<br />
through which mankind is marching in slavery, serfdom, <strong>and</strong> wagelabor.<br />
Again, during the transition from capitalism to Communism, suppression is still<br />
necessary; but it is the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of<br />
exploited. A special apparatus, special machinery for suppression, the "state," is still<br />
necessary, but this is now a transitional state, no longer a state in the usual sense, for<br />
the suppression of the minority of exploiters, by the majority of the wageslaves of<br />
yesterday, is a matter comparatively so easy, simple <strong>and</strong> natural that it will cost far<br />
less bloodshed than the suppression of the risings of slaves, serfs or wage laborers,<br />
<strong>and</strong> will cost mankind far less. This is compatible with the diffusion of democracy<br />
among such an overwhelming majority of the population, that the need for special<br />
machinery of suppression will begin to disappear. The exploiters are, naturally, unable<br />
to suppress the people without a most complex machinery for performing this task;<br />
but the people can suppress the exploiters even with very simple "machinery," almost<br />
without any "machinery," without any special apparatus, by the simple organisation<br />
of the armed masses (such as the Soviets of Workers' <strong>and</strong> Soldiers Deputies, we may<br />
remark. anticipating a little).<br />
Finally, only Communism renders the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one<br />
to be suppressed-"no one" in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle<br />
with a definite section of the population. We are not Utopians, <strong>and</strong> we do not in the<br />
least deny the possibility <strong>and</strong> inevitability of excesses on the part of individual<br />
persons, nor the need to suppress such excesses. But, in the first place, no special<br />
machinery, no special apparatus of repression is needed for this; this will be done by<br />
the armed people itself, as simply <strong>and</strong> as readily as any crowd of civilised people,<br />
even in modern society, parts a pair of combatants or does not allow a woman to be<br />
outraged. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses<br />
which consist in violating the rules of social life is the exploitation of the masses, their<br />
want <strong>and</strong> their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably<br />
begin to "wither away." We do not know how quickly <strong>and</strong> in what succession, but we
know that they will wither away. With their withering away, the state will also wither<br />
away.<br />
Without going into Utopias, Marx defined more fully what can now be defined<br />
regarding this future, namely, the difference between the lower <strong>and</strong> higher phases<br />
(degrees, stages) of Communist society.<br />
Marx continues:<br />
4. Higher Phase of Communist Society.<br />
***<br />
In a higher phase of Communist society, when the enslaving subordination of<br />
individuals in the division of labour has disappeared, <strong>and</strong> with it also the antagonism<br />
between mental <strong>and</strong> physical labour; when labour has become not only a means of<br />
living, but itself the first necessity of life; when, along with the allround development<br />
of individuals, the productive forces too have grown, <strong>and</strong> all the springs of social<br />
wealth are flowing more freely - it is only at that stage that it will be possible to pass<br />
completely beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights, <strong>and</strong> for society to inscribe<br />
on its banners: from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs!<br />
Only now can we appreciate the full correctness of Engels' remarks in which he<br />
mercilessly ridiculed all the absurdity of combining the words "freedom" <strong>and</strong> "state."<br />
While the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no<br />
state.<br />
The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is that high stage of<br />
development of Communism when the antagonism between mental <strong>and</strong> physical<br />
labour disappears, that is to say, when one of the principal sources of modern social<br />
inequality disappears-a source, moreover, which it is impossible to remove<br />
immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property,<br />
by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.<br />
This expropriation will make a gigantic development of the productive forces<br />
possible. And seeing how incredibly, even now, capitalism retards this development,<br />
how much progress could be made even on the basis of modern technique at the level<br />
it has reached, we have a right to say, with the fullest confidence, that the<br />
expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in a gigantic development of the<br />
productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will go<br />
forward, how soon it will reach `the point of breaking away from the division of<br />
labour, of removing the antagonism between mental <strong>and</strong> physical labour, of<br />
transforming work into the "first necessity life"- this we do not <strong>and</strong> cannot know.<br />
Consequently, we have a right to speak solely of the inevitable withering away of the<br />
state, emphasising the protracted nature of this process <strong>and</strong> its dependence upon the<br />
rapidity of development of the higher phase of Communism; leaving quite open the<br />
question of lengths of time, or the concrete forms of withering away, since material<br />
for the solution of such questions is not available.
The state will be able to wither away completely when society has realised the rule:<br />
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs"; i.e., when people<br />
have become accustomed to observe the fundamental rules of social life, <strong>and</strong> their<br />
labour is so productive, that they voluntarily work according to their ability. "The<br />
narrow horizon of bourgeois rights," which compels one to calculate, with the hard<br />
heartedness of a Shylock, whether he has not worked half an hour more than another,<br />
whether he is not getting less play than another- this narrow horizon will then be left<br />
behind. There will then be no need for any exact calculation by society of the quantity<br />
of products to be distributed to each of its members; each will take freely "according<br />
to his needs."<br />
***<br />
What is generally called Socialism was termed by Marx the "first" or lower phase of<br />
Communist society. In so far as the means of production became public property, the<br />
word "Communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that it is not<br />
full Communism. The great significance of Marx's elucidations consists of this: that<br />
here, too, he consistently applied materialist dialectics. the doctrine of evolution,<br />
looking upon Communism as something which evolves out of capitalism. Instead of<br />
artificial, "elaborate," scholastic definitions <strong>and</strong> profitless disquisitions on the<br />
meaning of words (what Socialism is, what Communism is), Marx gives an analysis<br />
of what may be called stages in the economic ripeness of Communism.<br />
In its first phase or first stage Communism cannot as yet be economically ripe <strong>and</strong><br />
entirely free of all tradition <strong>and</strong> of all taint of capitalism. Hence the interesting<br />
phenomenon of Communism retaining, in its first phase, "the narrow horizon of<br />
bourgeois rights." Bourgeois rights, with respect to distribution of articles of<br />
consumption, inevitably presupposes, of course, the existence of the bourgeois state,<br />
for rights are nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the<br />
rights.<br />
Consequently, for a certain time not only bourgeois rights, but even the bourgeois<br />
state remains under Communism, without the bourgeoisie !<br />
T his may look like a paradox, or simply a dialectical puzzle for which Marxism is<br />
often blamed by people who would not make the least effort to study its<br />
extraordinarily profound content.<br />
But, as a matter of fact, the old surviving in the new confronts us in life at every step,<br />
in nature as well as in society. Marx did not smuggle a scrap of "bourgeois" rights<br />
into Communism of his own accord; he indicated what is economically <strong>and</strong> politically<br />
inevitable in a society issuing from the womb of capitalism.<br />
Democracy is of great importance for the working class in its struggle for freedom<br />
against the capitalists. But democracy is by no means a limit one may not overstep; it<br />
is only one of the stages in the course of development from feudalism to capitalism,<br />
<strong>and</strong> from capitalism to Communism.<br />
Democracy means equality. The great significance of the struggle of the proletariat<br />
for equality, <strong>and</strong> the significance of equality as a slogan, are apparent, jf we correctly
interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal<br />
equality. Immediately after the attainment of equality for all members of society in<br />
respect of the ownership of the means of production, that is, of equality of labour <strong>and</strong><br />
equality of wages, there will inevitably arise before humanity the question of going<br />
further from formal equality to real equality, i.e., to realising the rule, "From each<br />
according to his ability; to each according to his needs." By what stages, by means of<br />
what practical measures humanity will proceed to this higher aim-this we do not <strong>and</strong><br />
cannot know. But it is important to realise how infinitely mendacious is the usual<br />
bourgeois presentation of Socialism as something lifeless, petrified, fixed once for all,<br />
whereas in rea1ity, it is only with Socialism that there will commence a rapid,<br />
genuine, real mass advance, in which first the majority <strong>and</strong> then the whole of the<br />
population will take part - an advance in all domains of social <strong>and</strong> individual life.<br />
Democracy is a form of the state - one of its varieties. Consequently, like every other<br />
state, itconsists in organised, systematic application of force against human beings.<br />
This on the one h<strong>and</strong>. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, however, it signifies the formal recognition<br />
of the equality of all citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure <strong>and</strong><br />
administration of the state. This, in turn, is connected with the fact that at a certain<br />
stage in the development of democracy, it first rallies the proletariat as a revolutionary<br />
class against capitalism, <strong>and</strong> gives it an opportunity to crush, to smash to bits, to wipe<br />
off the face of the earth the bourgeois state machinery- even its republican variety: the<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ing army, the police, <strong>and</strong> bureaucracy; then it substitutes for all this b more<br />
democratic, but still a state machinery in the shape of armed masses of workers,<br />
which becomes transformed into universal participation of the people in the militia.<br />
Here "quantity turns into quality": such a degree of democracy h bound up with the<br />
ab<strong>and</strong>onment of the framework of bourgeois society <strong>and</strong> the beginning of its Socialist<br />
reconstruction . If everyone really takes part in the administration of the state,<br />
capitalism cannot retain its hold. In its turn, capitalism, as it develops, itself creates<br />
prerequisites for "every one" to be able really to take part in the administration of the<br />
state. Among such prerequisites are universal literacy, already realised in most of the<br />
advanced capitalist countries, then the "training <strong>and</strong> disciplining" of millions of<br />
workers by the huge, complex, <strong>and</strong> socialised apparatus of the postoffice, the<br />
railways, the big factories, largescale commerce, banking, etc., etc.<br />
With such economic prerequisite it is perfectly possible, immediately within twentyfour<br />
hours after the overthrow of the capitalists <strong>and</strong> bureaucrats, to replace them, in<br />
the control of production <strong>and</strong> distribution, in the business of control of labour <strong>and</strong><br />
products, by the armed workers, by the whole people in arms. (The question of<br />
control <strong>and</strong> accounting must not be confused with the question of the scientifically<br />
educated staff of engineers, agronomists, <strong>and</strong> so on. These gentlemen work today,<br />
obeying the capitalists; they will work even better tomorrow, obeying the armed<br />
workers.)<br />
Accounting <strong>and</strong> control,-these are the chief things necessary ,for the organising <strong>and</strong><br />
correct functioning of the first phase of Communist society. All citizens are here<br />
transformed into hired employees of the state, which is made up of the armed<br />
workers. All citizens become employees <strong>and</strong> workers of one national state<br />
"syndicate." All that is required is that they should work equally, should regularly do<br />
their share of work, <strong>and</strong> should receive equal pay. The accounting <strong>and</strong> control
necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost, till these have<br />
become the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording <strong>and</strong> issuing<br />
receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read <strong>and</strong> write <strong>and</strong> knows the first four<br />
rules of arithmetic. [note: When most of the functions of the state are reduced to this<br />
accounting <strong>and</strong> control by the workers themselves, then it ceases to be a "political<br />
state," <strong>and</strong> the "public functions will lose their political character <strong>and</strong> be transformed<br />
into simple administrative functions."]<br />
When the majority of the people begin everywhere to keep such accounts <strong>and</strong><br />
maintain such control over the capitalists (now converted into employees) <strong>and</strong> over<br />
the intellectual gentry, who still retain capitalist habits, this control will really become<br />
universal, general, national <strong>and</strong> there will be no way of getting away from it, there<br />
will be "nowhere to go".<br />
The whole of society will have become one office <strong>and</strong> one factory with equal work<br />
<strong>and</strong> equal pay.<br />
But this "factory" discipline which the proletariat will extend t the whole of society<br />
after the defeat of the capitalists <strong>and</strong> the overthrow of the exploiters, is by no mean<br />
our ideal, or our final aim. It is but a foothold necessary for the radical cleansing of<br />
society of all the hideousness <strong>and</strong> foulness of capitalist exploitation, in order to<br />
advance further.<br />
From the moment when all members of society, or even only the overwhelming<br />
majority, have learned how to govern the state themselves, have taken this business<br />
into their own h<strong>and</strong>s, have "established" control over the insignificant minority of<br />
capitalists, over the gentry with capitalist leanings, <strong>and</strong> the workers thoroughly<br />
demoralised by capitalism-from this moment the need for any government begins to<br />
disappear. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it begins<br />
to be unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" consisting of armed workers,<br />
which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word," the more rapidly does<br />
every state begin to wither away.<br />
For when all have learned to manage, <strong>and</strong> independently are actually managing by<br />
themselves social production, keeping accounts, controlling the idlers, the gentlefolk,<br />
the swindlers <strong>and</strong> similar "guardians of capitalist traditions," then the escape from this<br />
national accounting <strong>and</strong> control will inevitably become so increasingly difficult, such<br />
a rare exception, <strong>and</strong> will probably be accompanied by such swift <strong>and</strong> severe<br />
punishment (for armed workers are men of practical life, not sentimental intellectuals,<br />
<strong>and</strong> they will scarcely allow any one to trifle with them), that very soon the necessity<br />
of observing the simple, fundamental rules of everyday social life in common will<br />
have become a habit.<br />
The door will then be wide open for the transition from the first phase of Communist<br />
society to its higher phase, <strong>and</strong> along with it to the complete withering away of the<br />
state.<br />
V. I. <strong>Lenin</strong>, <strong>State</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Revolution</strong> (New York: International Publishers Co., Inc.,<br />
1932), pp. 1517, 20, 70-75, 7885.
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a<br />
collection of public domain <strong>and</strong> copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in<br />
modern European <strong>and</strong> World history.<br />
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.<br />
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational<br />
purposes <strong>and</strong> personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source.<br />
No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.<br />
(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997<br />
halsall@murray.fordham.edu