The State and Revolution

In State and Revolution, Lenin seeks to address what he regards as some of the misconceptions that have accrued in the Marxist ideological tradition. Lenin openly criticizes fellow Marxists who, in his opinion, have lost sight of the true theory and put forth a watered-down version. Lenin asserts that the whitewashing of Marxist theory jeopardizes the true revolutionary mission of genuine Marxists.

Throughout the text, Lenin heaps insults upon socialists and Marxists whom he regards as misrepresenting Marxism, calling them “opportunists” whose works are a “hideous distortion” (6.2) of the true theory. They are “sham socialists” (2.1) who either unwittingly or intentionally serve the interests of the ruling class by pruning Marxism of its revolutionary vigor. They are “bourgeois reformists” (4.2.) naively assuming that they can reform capitalism, while playing by capitalist rules of legitimate political activity. Lenin is thus especially explicit in denouncing socialists who, in embracing parliamentary democracy, ignore or doubt the role of The State as Instrument of Class Warfare.

Lenin argues that some of these socialists seem to behave out of squeamishness, insisting that they are “anti-authoritarians” (4.1.2) who refuse on principle to adapt the violent tactics of their adversaries. He uses Karl Kautsky (See: Key Figures) as an example, arguing that Kautsky has publicly wavered in committing to the necessity of violent revolution. He claims that others enjoy the perks of participation in a bourgeois system, like prestigious offices and proximity to the corridors of power. Whatever the reason, Lenin asserts that they cede the title of Marxists if they fail to acknowledge that the ultimate goal must be the seizure of state power, the subsequent use of that power to destroy the bourgeois, and then the withering away of the state as true communism comes into being.

In some sections, Lenin qualifies his critique of his fellow socialists by acknowledging the importance of politicking as a worthwhile step on the road to revolution. He himself had been a member of the Social Democratic Labor Party, which held seats in the Russian Duma (parliament) after the 1905 uprising against the Tsar. Lenin concedes that socialist parties, especially in Germany, “were able to achieve far more than in other countries in the way of ‘utilizing legality’” (5.2), even though their members represented only a fraction of the actual working classes. These organizations performed on a small scale what a true people’s democracy would enact on a larger scale; to that extent, they were and can be valuable.

However, Lenin stresses that the problem arises when they regard such activities as ends unto themselves, rather than as an intermediate phase before the proletarian revolution smashes state power, leading to the ultimate dissolution of all political activity.