State and Revolution Question

[Pavlov's House Party]

I'm reading the state and revolution currently, and came across a quote that I don't quite understand. I'll include the whole paragraph to give context but the quote I'm having difficulty with is in bold:



Thirdly, in speaking of the state “withering away", and the even more graphic and colorful “dying down of itself", Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after “the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society", that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the “state” at that time is the most complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists, who shamelessly distort Marxism, that Engels is consequently speaking here of democracy “dying down of itself", or “withering away". This seems very strange at first sight. But is is “incomprehensible” only to those who have not thought about democracy also being a state and, consequently, also disappearing when the state disappears. Revolution alone can “abolish” the bourgeois state. The state in general, i.e., the most complete democracy, can only “wither away".


Please keep secterianism out of this, I want an answer, not a flame war.

[chegitz guevara]

Democracy is a form of the state. If there is no state, it cannot have a form. Lenin isn't saying that a stateless society will have no government or be a dictatorship. There will still be some kind of coordinating body, and it will be run democratically.

What Lenin is trying to do here is draw a distinction between revolutionaries, who understand that bourgeois democracy is still a bourgeois state, and social democrats, who see the bourgeois democratic state divorced of its class content and as a thing in itself. The social democrats claim we already have democracy, so there is no need for revolution. Lenin is trying to point out that a democratic state is still a state, and we are trying to abolish the state, albeit via a workers state.

[FSL]

Thirdly, in speaking of the state “withering away", and the even more graphic and colorful “dying down of itself", Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after “the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society", that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the “state” at that time is the most complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists, who shamelessly distort Marxism, that Engels is consequently speaking here of democracy “dying down of itself", or “withering away". This seems very strange at first sight. But is is “incomprehensible” only to those who have not thought about democracy also being a state and, consequently, also disappearing when the state disappears. Revolution alone can “abolish” the bourgeois state. The state in general, i.e., the most complete democracy, can only “wither away".

It's an answer to claims and accusations that communists aim to abolish democracy.

Democracy is a form of government where decisions are based on the will of the majority. It translates in "People holding power". Democracy and capitalism are things that contradict one another since the constitution, any laws, the state's repressive apparatus will always work in favor of the few that own the means of production. There may be no money to spend on improving public healthcare but that changes the minute a bank is in danger.

Socialism is genuine democracy. Constitution and the laws benefit the majority, the workers, and hurt the few members of the bourgeoisie. So, people do in fact have the power here.

This stops gradually as we move to communism. Less resistance from the previous owners means less reasons for the workers to be alert, for the state to be ready to crash any counter-revolution. The socialist state, as a tool in the hands of the workers used to defend the revolution, dies out or fades away, since it has served its purpose.
But with it today's notion of democracy dies too. You don't have the majority of people holding any kind of power. Decisions can only benefit the working population as a whole and are taken after dialogue. The many don't rule over the few, so democracy as a repressive form of governemnt is a thing of the past.
What is described as "the most complete democracy" begins.