Lenin meant for this work to guide his Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Party. When he wrote this in 1917, the Bolsheviks were attempting to wage revolution in Russia. The editor, Chretien, notes their opponents locked up many leading Bolsheviks by this time. This was not only done by the old regime but also by other factions of the revolutionary parties competing for power.
This is meant to be a guide to how the working class can take hold of power and keep it in the run-up and wake of a revolution. In order to fully understand it, it helps to know the basics of Marx and Engels’ writings on capitalism and socialism. You can find some of their works reviewed here as well as our series of briefings that cover the basics of Marxism.
Lenin understood that the czar would need to be overthrown in Russia by force. Russian political and economic life was too underdeveloped for anything else to happen. But he was less sure what it would take for revolution to triumph in more advanced capitalist stakes. By this, we mean the countries of Germany, the UK, France and the USA. Still, it seemed likely that even their progressive elements would back the existing order. Social democratic parties would insist that smaller reforms would do the job. They would resist larger steps toward what Lenin would have called “full democracy.”
If there was a full democracy, after all, the working class would be able to take full advantage of this. They’d remove the capitalists from power through peaceful means. The capitalists who held power would not allow this. Lenin doubted they”would simply abide by the results of democratic elections, peacefully submitting”. They would have, and would use, any means at their disposal to negate an outcome like that. While it was useful for a working class, revolutionary party to contest elections, they shouldn’t expect elections to do the job. At some point they would be able to build support and clout no further through that process. Revolution would have to take a bolder road, and a bloodier one.
Lenin believed socialists could not use the existing state to achieve a revolution. One had to destroy that system first. When push came to shove, it would always work for the capitalist class and defend their interests. In the wake of its destruction, workers should put up a temporary worker’s state. Marx referred to this as the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. He didn’t mean for this to be the kind of dictatorship we typically think of today. In those societies, a single charismatic leader holds absolute power over citizens’ lives. That kind of system hadn’t existed in Marx’s time. The word did not take on that meaning until later, in the time of fascists like Mussolini and Hitler. Marx meant a “dictatorship” in that the working class would be the one to wield power and direct society. The capitalist class would no longer be able to use the power of the state against them.
This was an area of intense debate among socialists of the time. More moderate Marxist leaders like Karl Kautsky believed differently from Lenin. Kautsky thought that socialists could try to compete in elections, slowly building power. They could reach a majority and institute socialism by passing reforms. Others, like Rosa Luxemburg, supported elections, but only to a point. In the end, she proposed and led more radical measures. She believed a series of general strikes and uprisings would ultimately need to occur to win the day. Then Germany threw its weight behind the imperial war of aggression we call World War I, and suppressed all opposition. The moderate socialists of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) supported it. Lenin felt he had his answer about whether socialism could be won at the ballot box. He concluded that such moderates would support empire and the disastrous wars that hurt the working class. They would keep the old order going, and their reforms would be minor window-dressing.
Keep in mind that Lenin believed in Marx and Engels’ theories about the state. To summarize: the state defends the interests of the ruling class. That is their purpose – to protect their lives, privileges and property. It arises as societies start to have greater division of labor and surpluses of goods. This allows a richer, ruling class to form – and that class ends up hiring armed men to protect their position. These take the form of police, prisons, and soldiers. Because of this, the workers can’t simply win a revolution and take hold of the reins of the state. It has to dismantle it and build a new one over it, and a temporary one, for workers to rule. This state is temporary because the transition to socialism will make it unnecessary. Since most people are working class, a society ruled by them will be the most democratic one possible. One day, the institutions of the state meant to keep people in line won’t be needed. Lenin argues we won’t need any institution set up to act separate from the popular will. We’ll still need committees and officials to administer things. The people will need some way to decide what gets made, where it goes, and how to enact decisions of common concern. But the coercive part of the state, the exclusionary part, the essential part? Gone forever, according to Marx and Lenin, at the end of this transitional period.
I recommend this edition of The State and Revolution because of the thorough introduction. Todd Chretien does a great job of summarizing the key points of the text, chapter by chapter. He also provides context for how Marx and Engels’ ideas influenced Lenin’s in the work. The same goes for the contributions of other thinkers like Nikolai Bukharin. Chretien also provides historical background surrounding socialist views of the state. He focuses on three areas in particular. These are the German socialist movement, the revolutionary activity in Russia, and the Paris Commune of 1871. The German socialists, as mentioned above, were ultimately case studies for Russian revolutionaries. They debated the routes that Marxism could take toward achieving its workers’ revolution. They also showed some of the critical ways in which it could fail before it got off the ground.
The Paris Commune functions similarly, except it served as genuine inspiration for Marx, Engels and Lenin. To Marxists, the commune did what so many other movements before 1917 could not. They seized power in a revolutionary uprising, and tried to remake their society for workers’ sake. Because it took place amidst the Franco-Prussian War, it proves something else. Those competing armies joined forces to quash the commune before its examples and ideas spread. This proved to Marxists that capitalists in all nations had more in common with each other than with the poor citizens they sent to fight wars. In the end, they would stick together against a mortal threat by the working class. This also showed Marxists that decisive force would be necessary to take and hold power. Many believed that if the Commune had been more aggressive early on, it would have defended and spread its revolution. Instead, as a result of its relative indecision, it was crushed. Imagine if they had been able to fully mobilize while smashing the vestiges of the old order and building an alliance with peasants. History could have been very different.
Finally, I recommend this edition’s introduction for its context on Revolutionary Russia and the players in it. After reading Marx, Engels and now Lenin, one thing in particular is clear to me. A full understanding of their work requires us to grasp their viewpoint on other thinkers and revolutionaries. That means anyone who can summarize those thinkers’ stances and those revolutionaries’ actions is a blessing.
Lenin, in particular, spends much of his time in this book (and in What is To Be Done?) responding to others I haven’t read or read much about. Sometimes, it seems that Lenin is disputing a central point about the course of a workers’ revolution. At other times, it almost seems he is taking the opportunity to dig at a rival for competition’s sake. I know some of these divisions are still relevant today. Others are obsolete spats between long-dead revolutionaries. Knowing the difference between what’s relevant and what’s dead-and-buried seems essential. In some cases, while reading Lenin, we see evidence of his own evolution over time. I can tell you reading 1905 Lenin (What is to be Done?) is noticeably different from his work in 1917.
I suppose that’s a good takeaway from this if there ever was one. Lenin is clearly a revolutionary trying to learn from history and experience. He is attempting to refine ideas and avoid repeating his own mistakes and those of others. This is inevitable when you are trying to “storm heaven”, as Marx said of the commune. You’re doing what others consider impossible and unprecedented. Knowing exactly what it will take, and how to avoid the pitfalls of others, is priceless insight. Lenin makes a fascinating and good-faith attempt to provide it here. Budding revolutionaries of all stripes would do well to read it and wrestle with it.
The State and Revolution
Vladimir Lenin's explanation as to why you can't vote your way into socialism or simply wield the capitalists' state in order to build it. Necessary reading for revolutionaries.
Have a comment, or a different reaction to these books? Share it with us below: