studying The State and Revolution

[humbabba]

So, hypothetically, if you were doing a presentation or leading a discussion on "The State and Revolution," what points would you emphasize? What discussion questions might you ask? If you were in the crowd, what questions would you have?

[ArrowLance]

What is the state and its goals

What is revolution and its goals

What do they have to do with each other

[OriginalGumby]

This book comes out of a specific time when Lenin and company realized the failure of the 2nd international socialist groups who supported their own capitalist class and their own governments in conflict with other capitalists in WWI. The Bolshevik organization that Lenin was a part of was the only group that opposed the war altogether and found the origin of this problem in the strategy that other organizations in other countries were taking. They were slowly trying to take over the existing state as a way to achieve socialism. This book is an argument against that starting from an analysis of what the state is. Its main points are that the state in capitalism whether it be a dictatorship or a democracy is still a state that is designed for the ruling class to rule and that it can not be a tool for us to take over and use. We should see the state as part of the system that we challenge and raise demands for reforms to but that ultimately it needs to be replaced with a new system. The current state exists as a repressive apparatus designed to facilitate capitalist exploitation and imperial conflict in the interest of a national ruling class. The state is a section of society organized to enforce its will upon another section. In the present tense the minority against the majority. The revolutionary movement also needs a state but it is quite different. We need an institution that is thoroughly democratic in that workers control production and that is recognized as the legitimate political force by society. This state at the service of the majority of society is to defeat capitalism and reorganize production along the line of human needs. This state is repressive in that it is repressing the capitalists, telling them no you can't exploit, yet it is doing so as an expression of collective participation and interest of the majority. As it achieves these goals its purpose becomes much less important and ceases being necessary. It withers away as a state.

http://socialistworker.org/2008/07/22/state-and-revolution

[New Tet]

"In the first place, at the very outset of his argument, Engels says that, in seizing state power, the proletariat thereby “abolishes the state as state". It is not done to ponder over over the meaning of this. Generally, it is either ignored altogether, or is considered to be something in the nature of “Hegelian weakness” on Engels' part. As a matter of fact, however, these words briefly express the experience of one of the greatest proletarian revolutions, the Paris Commune of 1871, of which we shall speak in greater detail in its proper place. As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution “abolishing” the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away", but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s4)

Assuming Lenin's interpretation of Engels' reference is correct, what is the social, economic or political mechanism by which this post-revolutionary "semi-state" withers away?

[OriginalGumby]

Here is a video from the San Fransisco Socialism 2009 conference on Lenin's State and Revolution. This conference was put on by the ISO.
http://vimeo.com/5515953

[OriginalGumby]

I see a socialist state as the economic system democratically controlled by the working class majority for starters. I'm not talking about an undemocratic state where workers control of the economy does not exist such as China or Cuba. The state Lenin is describing exists to reorganize societies economic structure and remove from power any capitalists. What remains after this task is completed is basically just an institution that manages the functioning of the economy. This does not mean "manage" in the way capitalists do now. I think of co-op housing when I think of this. The elected officers organize the house activities and responsibilities at the behest of the house membership. This is not a state as Lenin describes which is an apparatus for one class to force its will upon another. Once this task is accomplished what remains ceases being a state and just becomes a forum for coordinating things.

[New Tet]

I see a socialist state as the economic system democratically controlled by the working class majority for starters. I'm not talking about an undemocratic state where workers control of the economy does not exist such as China or Cuba. The state Lenin is describing exists to reorganize societies economic structure and remove from power any capitalists. What remains after this task is completed is basically just an institution that manages the functioning of the economy. This does not mean "manage" in the way capitalists do now. I think of co-op housing when I think of this. The elected officers organize the house activities and responsibilities at the behest of the house membership. This is not a state as Lenin describes which is an apparatus for one class to force its will upon another. Once this task is accomplished what remains ceases being a state and just becomes a forum for coordinating things.

How do you respond, then, to those who accuse Lenin of having contributed to keeping workers away from the decision-making process of the government, especially in matters of economic control?

[OriginalGumby]

It really depends on what you mean specifically. I don't think that accusation is true generally because that is simply not what happen and not what lenin specifically advocated. One of the biggest misconceptions comes from the pamphlet "what is to be done" which was written in very specific circumstances. Here is some stuff on that.
http://socialistworker.org/2008/09/29/what-is-to-be-done
http://www.isreview.org/issues/60/feat-leninmyth.shtml