A criticism of some problems in
Lenin's "State and Revolution"

at present the opportunists ask nothing better than
to "quite safely leave to the future" all fundamental
questions of the tasks of the proletarian revolution
-- Lenin, State and Revolution, Chapter 6

Introduction

Lenin's State and Revolution is one of his most popular and widely read works. Our study group recently read this work and, as we did so, I noted several formulations of Lenin (see boldfaced quotes below) which are inadequate or misleading today as far as giving activists a realistic understanding of how a modern economically developed society will function when it is run by the working class.

In the light of the fiasco and failure of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions (which eventually became totally corrupt police states) revolutionary theoreticians today must recognize the significance of the principle that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and be vigilant against any attempt to conceptualize workers' rule as being based on any kind of restriction of the democratic rights of speech and organization which the masses will need in order to self-organize.

This is important and necessary so that hundreds of thousands of activists can understand that an alternative to the existing system of bourgeois rule is both possible and necessary. If workers' rule (ie: the dictatorship of the proletariat) is understood to be a police state--then the overwhelming majority of activists will reject this as a goal since a police state would be worse than the presently existing system of class rule by the bourgeoisie (ie: the big capitalists). The goal of the progressive movements in society must be something which is better than bourgeois rule, not worse.

Workers' rule is the central organizing idea in progressive thought

The theory of workers' rule is the heart of marxism. Without the goal of workers' rule, Marxism is reformism. The theory of workers' rule is the central organizing idea in progressive thought--destined to play the same role in progressive thought as (a) the theory of evolution plays in biology or (b) the theory of plate tectonics plays in geology or (c) the periodic table plays in chemistry or (d) the big bang theory plays in astrophysics. Without this theory a revolutionary movement in a country such as the United States can never be possible.

Until we can understand at least the most basic and fundamental principles that will guide workers' rule in a country like the United States in this century--we do not have a theory of workers' rule that is deserving of the least amount of respect. The ideas which currently circulate concerning workers' rule have very little respect outside of tiny cult-like circles. This is because these ideas are not deserving of respect. It is as simple as that. We need to understand the fundamental principles of how workers' rule will work under modern conditions. Without this we have nothing.

What is important--and what is not

I will add that it is irrelevant what the reasons are that Lenin's words (see below) are inadequate today. For example: Lenin could have simply been mistaken in his thinking. Or Lenin's formulations might be understood today in some way other than how Lenin meant them. Or Lenin may have been focused on the conditions in Russia of 1917 rather than in a modern country with a developed economy in the 21st century. What is important is that activists today need formulations that make clear that:

(1) workers' rule will be the rule of the entire working class as a class and
(2) the working class will need the democratic rights of speech and organization
..... in order to self-organize and exercise its class rule.

If these democratic rights must also be given to counter-revolutionaries (who will use these rights in their attempts to mobilize support for a return to a society ruled by capitalists) in order to make certain that the working class can self-organize, this is a small (and necessary) price to pay in the context of a modern society where everyone has access to the internet.

How will the working class defend its rule?

Some activists (including many of those who call themselves "marxist-leninists") argue that it will be necessary to suppress the voices of those who advocate a return to capitalist rule or who promote backward or reactionary ideas. But the idea that the working class would need to suppress the free speech rights of a section of the population is is itself a backward idea.

The struggle against reactionary ideology can never be successfully fought by a small group of censors with the right to decide what ideas everyone else is allowed to express or know about. On the contrary, backward and reactionary ideas will be opposed by the mass of the working class itself in billions of confrontations as questions large and small are discussed and debated in person and on the internet.

The rule of the working class will be secure and stable because it will correspond to the material interests of the overwhelming majority of the population and, in turn, will enjoy the support of a stable majority of the population. Only such a society is deserving of being described as "workers' rule".

By contrast, Soviet rule in the early 1920's (ie: when the democratic rights of the population were abolished) was not secure and was not based on the kind of majority support that would have allowed it to win in elections against its opponents. The conditions of 1920's Russia (and the repression which flowed from these conditions) has, unfortunately, shaped existing conceptions of workers' rule.

What do we call these things?

To deal with the important distinction between:

(1) Stable and secure workers' rule as it will exist in the future in countries
..... with a modern economy and communications infrastructure and
(2) Soviet rule in Russia in the early 1920's

I have proposed that the former be known as fully developed workers' rule with a functioning immune system and the latter as an embryonic form of workers' rule (see "Appendix B: Stages in Workers' Rule" in the "Links to related articles" below). Workers' rule with an immune system (ie: the term "immune system" is a reference to workers having the right to mobilize mass opposition to incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption within the workers' state--in the same way as an individual's immune system coordinates opposition to things which make us sick) would rest on stable popular support and represent the rule of society by the working class. On the other hand, the embryonic form of workers' rule would not be rule by the working class but would represent a short-lived (ie: temporary) phenomena -- rule by a relatively small group of people (or an organization) which may intend (or hope) to bring about rule by the class.

The most powerful idea of our time

The concept of workers' rule remains the most powerful and liberating idea of our time--and is too important to remain associated with the idea of a police state. The necessity of developing a conception of workers' rule which corresponds to the needs of a society with a modern economy and communications infrastructure--and bringing this idea to the masses in their millions--represents the most important ideological struggle of our time and the core of the war of ideas destined to shake the 21st century.

-- Ben Seattle

Excerpts from State and Revolution (see below) are colored brown. Boldfaced emphasis is by me.

From Chapter 5, Section 2:

And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence.

Engels expressed this splendidly in his letter to Bebel when he said, as the reader will remember, that "the proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist".

Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people--this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism.

Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state... ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom". Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever. And only then will democracy begin to wither away, owing to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims. They will become accustomed to observing them without force, without coercion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state.

Reference:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm
Chapter 5 - The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State
Section 2 - The Transition from Capitalism to Communism

Comments by Ben:
Bold-faced comments by Lenin in section 2 (above) have several problems:

(1) This appears to define the dictatorship of the proletariat as "the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class". This is highly misleading. The phrase "the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed" is often used to refer to the workers' party. But it is the working class which will rule--not the party. Substituting the party for the class is usually referred to as "substitutionalism" and, from the point of view of theory is completely wrong. Activists today need to know that it will be the class that rules--not an organization. This is completely fundamental.

(2) The formulations: "for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors" and "the proletariat needs the state ... in order to hold down its adversaries" are also misleading. Yes, the proletariat will need the state for the purpose of defeating the resistance of the old ruling class--but this will only be the defensive aspect of the work of the state (ie: the shield). We must not lose sight of the offensive aspect of the work of the state (ie: the sword) which will be helping to create a powerful economy with a higher productivity of labor than was possible under capitalist rule. Until the sword is exercised the rule of the proletariat will remain insecure.

(3) The formulations (paraphrased here) on "imposing restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors", "excluding from democracy" and "only when the resistance of the capitalists has disappeared can there be a democracy without exceptions" are likely to be interpreted today as suppressing the democratic rights of speech and organization of a section of the population that wants a return to capitalist rule. But this would not be practical nor desirable (nor even possible) in a modern economy in the age of the internet because any attempt to suppress the democratic rights of a section of the population would, as a practical matter, end up restricting and reducing the ability of the working class as a whole to to exercise its rule (ie: something that requires the working class to have unrestricted ability to understand what is going on and self-organize to oppose the incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption that will inevitably appear even in its own state). Yes, it is true that the proletariat will impose restrictions on the former ruling class--but this will be more along the line of preventing commercial resources from being used to artificially amplify reactionary voices (ie: enforcing the separation of speech and property). Speech which is based on commercial resources or wage labor (ie: slick and/or expensive productions) will be regulated and restricted by the workers' state. On the other hand, speech based on free (ie: voluntary) labor (ie: leaflets, blogs and news sites based on unpaid volunteers) will not be regulated or controlled.

From Chapter 5, Section 4:

Given these economic preconditions, it is quite possible, after the overthrow of the capitalists and the bureaucrats, to proceed immediately, overnight, to replace them in the control over production and distribution, in the work of keeping account of labor and products, by the armed workers, by the whole of the armed population. (The question of control and accounting should not be confused with the question of the scientifically trained staff of engineers, agronomists, and so on. These gentlemen are working today in obedience to the wishes of the capitalists and will work even better tomorrow in obedience to the wishes of the armed workers.)

Accounting and control--that is mainly what is needed for the "smooth working", for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens becomes employees and workers of a single countrywide state “syndicate”. All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay; the accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations--which any literate person can perform--of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts.

Reference:
Section 4 - The Higher Phase of Communist Society

Comment by Ben:
Bold-faced comments by Lenin in section 4 (above) lend weight to the idea that dictatorship of proletariat will assume the form of a single giant, centralized bureaucracy. Such a form does not fit a complex economy such as exists in the United States in the 21st century. In fact such a form did not fit the vastly simpler Russian economy of the 1920's either.

Links to related articles or discussion

• Related Kasama thread: Should Reactionaries Have Free Speech?

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/mao-zedong-should-reactionaries-have-free-speech/

From the first comment:
If people can’t speak, they can’t think.
If people can’t think, they can’t rule.
If people can’t rule, then socialism is impossible
and we should all find something else to do.

• The Dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist democracy (from a trotskyist group - 1985)
  http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article921

• Workers' Rule: Is it Dead or Alive?
• by Ben Seattle
  http://struggle.net/ben/2008/eric/moment_of_truth.htm

Appendix B: What Does Victory Look Like? Stages in Workers' Rule
http://struggle.net/ben/2008/eric/b.htm

(Ben has written on this topic for the last 15 years)