TheGodlessUtopian
28th May 2012, 20:47
During the last couple weeks I have been going back through Lenin's The State and Revolution and answering questions I found to an old SWP study guide. I think I have a decent understanding of the core concepts but feel I need to have my answers double checked by those who are knowledgeable in matters relating to Lenin's theory.
Because of this I will be looking for detailed posts written by Leninists, Trotskyists, and Marxist-Leninists. I will not have this thread deteriorate into a flame war so please stay on the topic at hand-Lenin's The State and Revolution.
So lets begin, below are the questions, as well as my answers, to each chapter.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Study Guide: The State and Revolution (V.I Lenin)
Questions for Chapter 1
Q1. According to Engels, the State arises because of “irreconcilable class antagonisms.” The function of the State is to “moderate” these antagonisms. Lenin then adds that conflicts are moderated by enforcing the rule of the oppressor, not by reconciling class interests.
If moderation simply amounts to enforcing class rule, why is it necessary to have an intermediary like the state? Why can’t the ruling class enforce its rule directly? What is the meaning of “moderation” in this context?
A1: The Ruling Class cannot enforce their will directly without the use of a state because of the “irreconcilable” differences it has with the Working class (proletariat). Without a “body of armed men” to enforce their interests the Ruling Class would naturally be overthrown by a proletarian uprising which seizes the means of production for themselves. In this sense Moderation means oppression.
Q2. Are the only “irreconcilable class antagonisms” in society those between the oppressing class and the oppressed class?
A2: In modern Capitalist society yes, the only irreconcilable class antagonisms are between the oppressing and oppressed classes. However, were one to go back and study history one could see the same base antagonisms between serf and landlord, king and peasant, etc.
Q3. Give examples of state “moderation” in American history.
A3: Moderation examples are abounding in American history. Truly anytime during labor struggles when the state crushes strikes, send in replacement workers, or places pressure on the employing class to fire the striking workers, are prime examples of moderation. To take this further one could say moderation is also the implementation of socially liberal economic measures (such as Welfare) to dispel revolutionary fury.
Q4. How does it follow that because the state arises out of class society, places itself above it, increasingly alienating itself from it (Engels), a violent revolution is necessary and also the destruction of the state apparatus (Lenin)?
A4: A violent revolution is needed precisely because of the oppressing nature of its existence. As noted the proletariat cannot harness bourgeois means of control (I.E the state apparatus) for themselves, so hence, it must be forcefully abolished in conjunction with the suppression of the bourgeoisie as a class. The Working Class, after all, cannot erect their own “fully democratic state” if the old oppressive state is still operational.
Q5. Why does Lenin make “special bodies of armed men, prisons,” etc. distinguishing characteristics of the state? Isn’t it true that in modern society there is an increasing “complexity of social life” and “differentiation of functions” ? Wouldn’t this imply modifications of a “self acting armed population” under socialism? Wouldn’t there be a need for prisons under socialism?
A5: Lenin makes the “special bodies of armed men” a distinguishing characteristic because of the absolute necessity of such an instrument. The modern capitalist state cannot maintain itself without such a mass. While it is true that life has become more complex socially this is only true to a certain degree; superficially it has gained complexity but dialectically it has not: there are still only the oppressed and oppressing classes. As for the need for prisons under socialism such might be needed only as far as counterrevolutionaries are concerned; if one asks is in the vein of “will there still be a need for prisons as operated under the bourgeoisie’s standards” then the answer is an explicit “no.”
Q6. What does Engels mean when he says that under conditions of modern capitalism the public power “threatens to devour the whole of society and even the state”?
A6: Here Engels is referring to the destructive potential of the “rivalry in conquest” of the competing imperialist powers. During times of upheaval, when surplus capital must be destroyed in the typical manner of armed inter-imperialist conflict, the effect on society from these conflicts threatens to destroy all of bourgeois society as well as the so-named bourgeois state.
Q7. If the state generally represents the rule of the “economically dominant class,” then in what sense does it place itself “above society”?
A7: It places itself above society in the sense that the economically dominate class only enforces their own rule. Demands and concessions to the oppressed class are only given superfluous attention when revolutionary thought grips the working masses. Not serving the “citizens” which it has thus far divided into territories it effectively places itself above society as a whole.
Q8. If Bonapartism represents two contending classes balancing each other, does this mean that a Bonapartist state has no class character? If not, how can the class character be determined?
A8: Bonapartism is rooted in class society. In admitting that such a society “balances contending classes” one automatically admits that such a state has a class character; in this case the character is more even yet there are, nonetheless, a ruling class for otherwise “balancing out” would be impossible as the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie. To answer more directly, however, all’s one must do to define the characteristic of the state is to see who own the means of production.
Q9. Why is a democratic republic with universal suffrage the best method of bourgeois rule? Best from whose point of view?
A9: Universal Suffrage has often been the most desired form of bourgeois rule because it gives the Working Class illusions of changing the system (state and government) through voting. Owing their existence to the use of Armed bodies of men (police, military, etc) the bourgeoisie understand that lulling the population into compliancy through false means of power sharing is an effective tactic at controlling the revolutionary potential. Obviously this is best from bourgeois perspective.
Q10. What is wrong with the conception of a “free people’s state”? Under what circumstances would its use be permissible? How about the conception of a socialist state?
A10: The conception of a “free people’s state” is wrong insofar as it is a complete contradiction to the very meaning of “state.” A state is a “coercive” force which bends classes to its will. Using this definition there is no such thing as freedom under a state no matter how democratic it is. While for a while Engles was willing to advocate use of such a state for agitation purposes this is not to say he validated its existence as a legitimate form of socialism. Taking this further, an actual socialist state is still a coercive force, hence, not free; simply, under a socialist state the proletariat owns the means of production and works towards its final emancipation (I.E communism).
Q11. Define: State, Society, Government, Regime.
A11: State: A body of armed men // Society: Civilization as defined by social living // Government: The administrative body of the state which creates legality for the state’s infrastructure // Regime: An undaunted governmental body lacking any democratic apparatuses.
Q12. Contrast the opportunist, anarchist, and revolutionary attitudes to the state.
A12: Opportunist attitudes towards the state reflect a willingness to work hand-in-hand with the bourgeoisie so as long as it benefits one’s party. Anarchist attitude towards the state seeks to “abolish” is outright while failing to reconcile the class antagonisms beforehand (I.E skip straight to communism without the working class oppressing the bourgeois class). Finally, revolutionary attitude is to violently destroy the bourgeois apparatus, establish a proletarian dictatorship, and then allow this new workers state to wither away (a trait impossible for a bourgeois state to do).
~ ~ ~
Questions for Chapter 2
Q1. What are the general tasks of the bourgeois revolution? Were these tasks completed by the French Revolution of 1789? By the American Revolution of 1776? Why or why not?
A1: The general tasks of the bourgeois revolution are to establish itself as the dominant political power, as well as to connect its rule to the bureaucratic and military apparatuses. Also completed is the breaking up of the peasantry and petite-bourgeoisie groups. Once accomplished the bourgeoisie promptly begin redistribution of the desired jobs and spoils to those who assisted them in gaining power; this is done while leaving the fundamental base unchanged.
Q2. What was the class character of the French state before the 1848 revolution? How about Germany? The United States?
A2: The Class character of the French state before the 1848 revolution was that of Feudalism. Germany was a Monarchy while the United States was developing as a bourgeois power.
Q3. What was the class character of France and Germany after 1848?
A3: The class character of Germany was that of Feudalism, “to a certain extent” while France now held a character of bourgeois parliamentary.
Q4. Which classes were contending for power in 1848? What was the nature of the revolution? Was it a social or political revolution?
A4: The two classes contending for power were the rising bourgeoisie and the Feudalist Monarchy. The nature of the revolution was a series of coupes thus making it a political revolution rather than social.
Q5. Compare conditions in 1848 and 1789. What are the differences?
A5: Conditions on the ground can be changed as defined by: the working peasants slowly becoming more industrialized thereby becoming proletarian. In turn these new proletarians eventually would become radicalized by the working conditions.
Q6. What were the tactics of Marx and Engels in 1848? After 1848? (in Europe)
A6: The tactics of Marx and Engles in 1848 were that of proletarian uprisings without a firm understanding of how the working class was to assert their dominance. After 1848, however, Marx and Engles began to synthesize their theory of the proletarian dictatorship and how the working class must harness their own power and destroy the bourgeois state with their own.
Q7. Would it be accurate to describe Marx’s policy in 1848 as a Popular Front policy? How about his policy during the American Civil War?
A7: [Question left unanswered. Have not studied the popular front]
Q8. In retrospect, would you say it was an incorrect or a correct policy? Explain.
A8: [Question left unanswered. Do not understand what is meant by “policy.”]
Q9. Was a proletarian revolution possible in 1848? Was the bourgeoisie a progressive class? Was capitalism a progressive system?
A9: Proletarian revolution was possible, and not possible, in 1848 as later shown by the experience of the Paris Commune. Had more of the peasants been transformed into proletarians with a radical base than it would have been possible under such conditions for a socialist revolution to take hold. Yet, since the bourgeoisie hadn’t yet initiated French industrialization such was not possible immediately. Both the bourgeoisie and capitalism were progressive only in the sense that both had been leading French society past the decay of feudalism and into the modern industrialized era.
Q10. What conclusions did Marx draw from the 1848 experience about the role of the working class in any future revolutions? The role of the petty bourgeois democrats? The tasks of revolution in regard to the state apparatus? Why?
A10: The experience Marx drew from the upheavals in 1848 was that of the proletariat needing to harness parliamentary power, to that it may be overthrown. Along with this the proletariat needed to organize themselves as the ruling class so that the revolution may ultimately “smash the state apparatus.” Keeping this in mind the only role served by the petty-bourgeois democrats is that of strengthening the state apparatus.
~ ~ ~
Questions for Chapter Three
Q1. In what sense was the Paris Commune “forced upon the workers?”
A1: The Paris Commune was forced on the workers in the sense that the situation to the working class was not favorable; the ruling class was readying to assault them and in response the French proletariat rose to challenge the bourgeoisie despite incredible opposition.
Q2. Lenin calls attention to Marx’s addition to the Communist Manifesto after the Paris Commune. Did his discovery that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes” come from the Commune?
A2: Yes, Karl Marx’s “correction” to the Manifesto came as a direct result of the Paris Commune. The actions of the French workers showed him how a proper working class uprising should handle matters of the state, so because of this, knew he must edit slightly his masterpiece.
Q3. Marx excepted England and America from those nations whose state machinery would have to be smashed. Lenin seems to agree, given the conditions in 1871. Could British and American workers have used existing state machinery in 1871?
A3: No, because no matter what epoch workers are living under they simply cannot use existing state machinery for their own purposes. They must smash said machinery while simultaneously building themselves as the ruling class.
Q4. How does the “peoples’ revolution” discussed by Lenin relate to the “proletarian revolution?” Will there be a “peoples revolution” in the United States?
A4: They relate to each other as a matter of degrees. The “Peoples Revolution” is a mass movement involving all sectors of society regardless of what oppressed class they originate from (Peasant, proletariat, etc). The job of the peoples revolution is to attack the state and begin its dismantling while the “proletarian revolution” is what one may call a secondary phase where the actual socialization of society occurs. In regards to America: eventually there will be a people’s revolution, one might classify the Occupy Movement as an embryonic stage of such a movement still in its infancy.
Q5. What “positive steps” did the Commune take in regard to: The standing army? Representative government? Wages of government officials?
Q6: In regards to the standing army the commune abolished said professional soldiers and replaced the bureaucratic military complex with self-armed people’s militias. In regards to representative government the commune dismantled parliamentarism and replaced it with working representation; the change from so-called “talking shops,” where decisions are made behind closed doors, into working class bodies which were executive and legislature at the same time: this is to say that Marx believed representative institutions were to be converted, not destroyed. In regards to the wages of public officials the commune lowered all workers’ wages, even those of a high ranking official, to that of a “working man’s” wage thus stripping administrative positions of their grandeur and power.
Q6. Lenin describes the Commune as the form of proletarian state. How did this form apply to Russia and Cuba? What has been done about the points in Question # 5?
A6: [Questions left unanswered]: 1) Do not know enough about Cuba and Russia to accurately explain 2) The questions have a twinge of sectarian bias which doesn’t have to do with Lenin’s piece.
Q7. What is the difference between a “working” and a “Parliamentary” body?
A7: A working body is a means of working class control which is simultaneously both executive and legislative. Under a working body the parliamentarns themselves must work to carry out the laws they enacted. Such laws will be passed with frank, open discussion instead of the veiled dictation used by bourgeois parliamentary means.
Q8. Does the discussion of “federalism” versus “centralism” have any relevance today?
A8: The discussion of federalism versus centralism does indeed have relevance today. Many people often mistake the two for the same when in fact there can exist one without the other. A highly centralized socialist state can exist without the federal tidings which make themselves apparent in bourgeois society. In short: centralism can live as a means of organization whereas federalism is a more bureaucratic method of coercion.
~ ~ ~
Questions for Chapter Four
Q1. Lenin seems to rule out private ownership of homes in a workers’ state. Has such ownership been eliminated in present workers’ states, such as Russia and Cuba?
A1: In modern day Cuba, no, it hasn’t while Russia “communism” collapsed.
Q2. Do Marxists favor the “abolition of the state?” How does the Marxist attitude differ from that of anarchists?
A2: Marxists do not favor the abolition of the state in a board usage but rather are in favor of the abolition of the bourgeois state with the erection of a proletarian state as a strictly transitory tool; once the ousted bourgeoisie have been crushed though and it “becomes possible to speak of freedom” the proletarian state will have served its purpose and thus dissolve.
Q3. What is the Marxist attitude toward religion? In a workers’ state? Within the party? Under communism?
A3: Pending on one’s interpretation religion as practiced by individuals is solely a private matter yet one which does not exclude The Party from relentlessly attacking it in an effort to wipe it out as “the opium of the people.” Within a workers state one would assume that atheism would be encouraged. Under communism there would be no organized religion.
Q4. Explain what Lenin means when he declares that communism will “abolish democracy?”
A4: This phrase is used in the sense that communism will abolish bourgeois democracy and usher in what we now call proletarian democracy. In the Marxist understanding of the world one can only have actual “working” democracy when the oppressive coercions of the state are abolished and the minority (the bourgeoisie) are subjected to the will of the majority (the proletarians).
~ ~ ~
Questions for Chapter Five
Q1. What will the relation between “democracy” and “dictatorship” be in a workers’ state? What will be done about freedom of speech, the press, etc.?
A1: As explained before, the relationship between democracy and dictatorship would be of function under different systems. Under bourgeois control actual democracy is impossible so as long as the majority is oppressed by the minority. For this reason democracy is only obtained through the through suppression of the bourgeoisie by a proletarian dictatorship (I.E “state”). Democracy is thus transformed from democracy for the minority (the ruling bourgeoisie) into the majority (the working poor).
Q2. Explain “equal rights are unjust.”
A2: Equal rights as being described by Lenin are unjust because so as long as “the bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie” remains it is impossible to have real equality precisely because not everyone is equal at such a stage. Equal rights are unjust because society cannot operate currently among utopian lines of “equal pay for equal labor.” With such a state still existing funds must be placed aside for the maintenance of the means of production as well as the construction of societal places of need (schools, retirement homes, recreation centers, etc). With these deductions, and with everyone performing equal amounts of labor, people thus become unequal; hence, forcing “equal rights” transforms into inequality.
Q3. What will the American workers’ state do with the petty bourgeoisie? What will be done about wages? Does the labor law of value still apply in a workers’ state? Will there be surplus value?
A3: The petty bourgeoisie will be suppressed by the workers state. Wages, it would be safe to assume, would be allocated evenly with a cap on what a worker could earn (much like what happened in the commune). Both the law of value and surplus value will still exist and apply (at least in this transitional stage).
Q4. Explain: “It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state – without the bourgeoisie.”
A4: This refers to bourgeois law in the sense that after the lower phase of communism has emerged from its “prolonged birth pangs” and the mean of production of been converted from private owner ship to public ownership there still remains a degree of property. Though it has now been taken over by the public the fact remains that the Means of Production are still owned.
Q5. Will the division of labor between mental and physical labor be broken under communism? What is the difference between socialism and communism? Is there a difference between socialism, workers’ state, dictatorship of the proletariat?
A5: Under communism the divide between mental and physical labor will be broken and the two joined as one. The difference between socialism and communism has been outlined, in part, above: inequality still exists in socialism while in communism actual equality, in all spheres of life, exists. The difference between “Socialism, a workers state, and the dictatorship of the proletariat” exists insofar as how one defines each; for instance, the Petty-bourgeois ideologue Lassalle, contends that equal distribution, coupled with a device which suspiciously sounds like labor vouches, is socialism, when, in fact, it is not (as defined in the above answers).
Q6. Lenin says that ordinary workers can administer a workers’ state. Will there no longer be a need for technically trained people?
A6: Lenin means this in regards to the operation of society (housing, occupation, and distribution) and not in the modern day fields, such as computers and technology, which are vital to 21st century living. He means that the apparatus can be wielded by ordinary people with the more technically trained ones serving in other sectors of society (space travel, agricultural revitalization, scientific (biological and computer) advancement, etc.).
~ ~ ~
Question for Chapter Six
Q1. Identify: Plekhanov, Bakunin, Kautsky, Bernstein, Blanqui, Pannekoek, Luxemburg, Radek
A1: All, or almost all with the possible exception of Luxemburg, are, in Lenin's conception, opportunists of one kind or another (reformist, social-democrats, Anarchist) who refuse to take into thought the question that the state plays in relation to revolution. Some believe that the state can be wielded by the working class while other believes that parliament can be utilized. Such theories run contrary to what Marx and Engels had laid out in detail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The End.
Thoughts?
Because of this I will be looking for detailed posts written by Leninists, Trotskyists, and Marxist-Leninists. I will not have this thread deteriorate into a flame war so please stay on the topic at hand-Lenin's The State and Revolution.
So lets begin, below are the questions, as well as my answers, to each chapter.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Study Guide: The State and Revolution (V.I Lenin)
Questions for Chapter 1
Q1. According to Engels, the State arises because of “irreconcilable class antagonisms.” The function of the State is to “moderate” these antagonisms. Lenin then adds that conflicts are moderated by enforcing the rule of the oppressor, not by reconciling class interests.
If moderation simply amounts to enforcing class rule, why is it necessary to have an intermediary like the state? Why can’t the ruling class enforce its rule directly? What is the meaning of “moderation” in this context?
A1: The Ruling Class cannot enforce their will directly without the use of a state because of the “irreconcilable” differences it has with the Working class (proletariat). Without a “body of armed men” to enforce their interests the Ruling Class would naturally be overthrown by a proletarian uprising which seizes the means of production for themselves. In this sense Moderation means oppression.
Q2. Are the only “irreconcilable class antagonisms” in society those between the oppressing class and the oppressed class?
A2: In modern Capitalist society yes, the only irreconcilable class antagonisms are between the oppressing and oppressed classes. However, were one to go back and study history one could see the same base antagonisms between serf and landlord, king and peasant, etc.
Q3. Give examples of state “moderation” in American history.
A3: Moderation examples are abounding in American history. Truly anytime during labor struggles when the state crushes strikes, send in replacement workers, or places pressure on the employing class to fire the striking workers, are prime examples of moderation. To take this further one could say moderation is also the implementation of socially liberal economic measures (such as Welfare) to dispel revolutionary fury.
Q4. How does it follow that because the state arises out of class society, places itself above it, increasingly alienating itself from it (Engels), a violent revolution is necessary and also the destruction of the state apparatus (Lenin)?
A4: A violent revolution is needed precisely because of the oppressing nature of its existence. As noted the proletariat cannot harness bourgeois means of control (I.E the state apparatus) for themselves, so hence, it must be forcefully abolished in conjunction with the suppression of the bourgeoisie as a class. The Working Class, after all, cannot erect their own “fully democratic state” if the old oppressive state is still operational.
Q5. Why does Lenin make “special bodies of armed men, prisons,” etc. distinguishing characteristics of the state? Isn’t it true that in modern society there is an increasing “complexity of social life” and “differentiation of functions” ? Wouldn’t this imply modifications of a “self acting armed population” under socialism? Wouldn’t there be a need for prisons under socialism?
A5: Lenin makes the “special bodies of armed men” a distinguishing characteristic because of the absolute necessity of such an instrument. The modern capitalist state cannot maintain itself without such a mass. While it is true that life has become more complex socially this is only true to a certain degree; superficially it has gained complexity but dialectically it has not: there are still only the oppressed and oppressing classes. As for the need for prisons under socialism such might be needed only as far as counterrevolutionaries are concerned; if one asks is in the vein of “will there still be a need for prisons as operated under the bourgeoisie’s standards” then the answer is an explicit “no.”
Q6. What does Engels mean when he says that under conditions of modern capitalism the public power “threatens to devour the whole of society and even the state”?
A6: Here Engels is referring to the destructive potential of the “rivalry in conquest” of the competing imperialist powers. During times of upheaval, when surplus capital must be destroyed in the typical manner of armed inter-imperialist conflict, the effect on society from these conflicts threatens to destroy all of bourgeois society as well as the so-named bourgeois state.
Q7. If the state generally represents the rule of the “economically dominant class,” then in what sense does it place itself “above society”?
A7: It places itself above society in the sense that the economically dominate class only enforces their own rule. Demands and concessions to the oppressed class are only given superfluous attention when revolutionary thought grips the working masses. Not serving the “citizens” which it has thus far divided into territories it effectively places itself above society as a whole.
Q8. If Bonapartism represents two contending classes balancing each other, does this mean that a Bonapartist state has no class character? If not, how can the class character be determined?
A8: Bonapartism is rooted in class society. In admitting that such a society “balances contending classes” one automatically admits that such a state has a class character; in this case the character is more even yet there are, nonetheless, a ruling class for otherwise “balancing out” would be impossible as the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie. To answer more directly, however, all’s one must do to define the characteristic of the state is to see who own the means of production.
Q9. Why is a democratic republic with universal suffrage the best method of bourgeois rule? Best from whose point of view?
A9: Universal Suffrage has often been the most desired form of bourgeois rule because it gives the Working Class illusions of changing the system (state and government) through voting. Owing their existence to the use of Armed bodies of men (police, military, etc) the bourgeoisie understand that lulling the population into compliancy through false means of power sharing is an effective tactic at controlling the revolutionary potential. Obviously this is best from bourgeois perspective.
Q10. What is wrong with the conception of a “free people’s state”? Under what circumstances would its use be permissible? How about the conception of a socialist state?
A10: The conception of a “free people’s state” is wrong insofar as it is a complete contradiction to the very meaning of “state.” A state is a “coercive” force which bends classes to its will. Using this definition there is no such thing as freedom under a state no matter how democratic it is. While for a while Engles was willing to advocate use of such a state for agitation purposes this is not to say he validated its existence as a legitimate form of socialism. Taking this further, an actual socialist state is still a coercive force, hence, not free; simply, under a socialist state the proletariat owns the means of production and works towards its final emancipation (I.E communism).
Q11. Define: State, Society, Government, Regime.
A11: State: A body of armed men // Society: Civilization as defined by social living // Government: The administrative body of the state which creates legality for the state’s infrastructure // Regime: An undaunted governmental body lacking any democratic apparatuses.
Q12. Contrast the opportunist, anarchist, and revolutionary attitudes to the state.
A12: Opportunist attitudes towards the state reflect a willingness to work hand-in-hand with the bourgeoisie so as long as it benefits one’s party. Anarchist attitude towards the state seeks to “abolish” is outright while failing to reconcile the class antagonisms beforehand (I.E skip straight to communism without the working class oppressing the bourgeois class). Finally, revolutionary attitude is to violently destroy the bourgeois apparatus, establish a proletarian dictatorship, and then allow this new workers state to wither away (a trait impossible for a bourgeois state to do).
~ ~ ~
Questions for Chapter 2
Q1. What are the general tasks of the bourgeois revolution? Were these tasks completed by the French Revolution of 1789? By the American Revolution of 1776? Why or why not?
A1: The general tasks of the bourgeois revolution are to establish itself as the dominant political power, as well as to connect its rule to the bureaucratic and military apparatuses. Also completed is the breaking up of the peasantry and petite-bourgeoisie groups. Once accomplished the bourgeoisie promptly begin redistribution of the desired jobs and spoils to those who assisted them in gaining power; this is done while leaving the fundamental base unchanged.
Q2. What was the class character of the French state before the 1848 revolution? How about Germany? The United States?
A2: The Class character of the French state before the 1848 revolution was that of Feudalism. Germany was a Monarchy while the United States was developing as a bourgeois power.
Q3. What was the class character of France and Germany after 1848?
A3: The class character of Germany was that of Feudalism, “to a certain extent” while France now held a character of bourgeois parliamentary.
Q4. Which classes were contending for power in 1848? What was the nature of the revolution? Was it a social or political revolution?
A4: The two classes contending for power were the rising bourgeoisie and the Feudalist Monarchy. The nature of the revolution was a series of coupes thus making it a political revolution rather than social.
Q5. Compare conditions in 1848 and 1789. What are the differences?
A5: Conditions on the ground can be changed as defined by: the working peasants slowly becoming more industrialized thereby becoming proletarian. In turn these new proletarians eventually would become radicalized by the working conditions.
Q6. What were the tactics of Marx and Engels in 1848? After 1848? (in Europe)
A6: The tactics of Marx and Engles in 1848 were that of proletarian uprisings without a firm understanding of how the working class was to assert their dominance. After 1848, however, Marx and Engles began to synthesize their theory of the proletarian dictatorship and how the working class must harness their own power and destroy the bourgeois state with their own.
Q7. Would it be accurate to describe Marx’s policy in 1848 as a Popular Front policy? How about his policy during the American Civil War?
A7: [Question left unanswered. Have not studied the popular front]
Q8. In retrospect, would you say it was an incorrect or a correct policy? Explain.
A8: [Question left unanswered. Do not understand what is meant by “policy.”]
Q9. Was a proletarian revolution possible in 1848? Was the bourgeoisie a progressive class? Was capitalism a progressive system?
A9: Proletarian revolution was possible, and not possible, in 1848 as later shown by the experience of the Paris Commune. Had more of the peasants been transformed into proletarians with a radical base than it would have been possible under such conditions for a socialist revolution to take hold. Yet, since the bourgeoisie hadn’t yet initiated French industrialization such was not possible immediately. Both the bourgeoisie and capitalism were progressive only in the sense that both had been leading French society past the decay of feudalism and into the modern industrialized era.
Q10. What conclusions did Marx draw from the 1848 experience about the role of the working class in any future revolutions? The role of the petty bourgeois democrats? The tasks of revolution in regard to the state apparatus? Why?
A10: The experience Marx drew from the upheavals in 1848 was that of the proletariat needing to harness parliamentary power, to that it may be overthrown. Along with this the proletariat needed to organize themselves as the ruling class so that the revolution may ultimately “smash the state apparatus.” Keeping this in mind the only role served by the petty-bourgeois democrats is that of strengthening the state apparatus.
~ ~ ~
Questions for Chapter Three
Q1. In what sense was the Paris Commune “forced upon the workers?”
A1: The Paris Commune was forced on the workers in the sense that the situation to the working class was not favorable; the ruling class was readying to assault them and in response the French proletariat rose to challenge the bourgeoisie despite incredible opposition.
Q2. Lenin calls attention to Marx’s addition to the Communist Manifesto after the Paris Commune. Did his discovery that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes” come from the Commune?
A2: Yes, Karl Marx’s “correction” to the Manifesto came as a direct result of the Paris Commune. The actions of the French workers showed him how a proper working class uprising should handle matters of the state, so because of this, knew he must edit slightly his masterpiece.
Q3. Marx excepted England and America from those nations whose state machinery would have to be smashed. Lenin seems to agree, given the conditions in 1871. Could British and American workers have used existing state machinery in 1871?
A3: No, because no matter what epoch workers are living under they simply cannot use existing state machinery for their own purposes. They must smash said machinery while simultaneously building themselves as the ruling class.
Q4. How does the “peoples’ revolution” discussed by Lenin relate to the “proletarian revolution?” Will there be a “peoples revolution” in the United States?
A4: They relate to each other as a matter of degrees. The “Peoples Revolution” is a mass movement involving all sectors of society regardless of what oppressed class they originate from (Peasant, proletariat, etc). The job of the peoples revolution is to attack the state and begin its dismantling while the “proletarian revolution” is what one may call a secondary phase where the actual socialization of society occurs. In regards to America: eventually there will be a people’s revolution, one might classify the Occupy Movement as an embryonic stage of such a movement still in its infancy.
Q5. What “positive steps” did the Commune take in regard to: The standing army? Representative government? Wages of government officials?
Q6: In regards to the standing army the commune abolished said professional soldiers and replaced the bureaucratic military complex with self-armed people’s militias. In regards to representative government the commune dismantled parliamentarism and replaced it with working representation; the change from so-called “talking shops,” where decisions are made behind closed doors, into working class bodies which were executive and legislature at the same time: this is to say that Marx believed representative institutions were to be converted, not destroyed. In regards to the wages of public officials the commune lowered all workers’ wages, even those of a high ranking official, to that of a “working man’s” wage thus stripping administrative positions of their grandeur and power.
Q6. Lenin describes the Commune as the form of proletarian state. How did this form apply to Russia and Cuba? What has been done about the points in Question # 5?
A6: [Questions left unanswered]: 1) Do not know enough about Cuba and Russia to accurately explain 2) The questions have a twinge of sectarian bias which doesn’t have to do with Lenin’s piece.
Q7. What is the difference between a “working” and a “Parliamentary” body?
A7: A working body is a means of working class control which is simultaneously both executive and legislative. Under a working body the parliamentarns themselves must work to carry out the laws they enacted. Such laws will be passed with frank, open discussion instead of the veiled dictation used by bourgeois parliamentary means.
Q8. Does the discussion of “federalism” versus “centralism” have any relevance today?
A8: The discussion of federalism versus centralism does indeed have relevance today. Many people often mistake the two for the same when in fact there can exist one without the other. A highly centralized socialist state can exist without the federal tidings which make themselves apparent in bourgeois society. In short: centralism can live as a means of organization whereas federalism is a more bureaucratic method of coercion.
~ ~ ~
Questions for Chapter Four
Q1. Lenin seems to rule out private ownership of homes in a workers’ state. Has such ownership been eliminated in present workers’ states, such as Russia and Cuba?
A1: In modern day Cuba, no, it hasn’t while Russia “communism” collapsed.
Q2. Do Marxists favor the “abolition of the state?” How does the Marxist attitude differ from that of anarchists?
A2: Marxists do not favor the abolition of the state in a board usage but rather are in favor of the abolition of the bourgeois state with the erection of a proletarian state as a strictly transitory tool; once the ousted bourgeoisie have been crushed though and it “becomes possible to speak of freedom” the proletarian state will have served its purpose and thus dissolve.
Q3. What is the Marxist attitude toward religion? In a workers’ state? Within the party? Under communism?
A3: Pending on one’s interpretation religion as practiced by individuals is solely a private matter yet one which does not exclude The Party from relentlessly attacking it in an effort to wipe it out as “the opium of the people.” Within a workers state one would assume that atheism would be encouraged. Under communism there would be no organized religion.
Q4. Explain what Lenin means when he declares that communism will “abolish democracy?”
A4: This phrase is used in the sense that communism will abolish bourgeois democracy and usher in what we now call proletarian democracy. In the Marxist understanding of the world one can only have actual “working” democracy when the oppressive coercions of the state are abolished and the minority (the bourgeoisie) are subjected to the will of the majority (the proletarians).
~ ~ ~
Questions for Chapter Five
Q1. What will the relation between “democracy” and “dictatorship” be in a workers’ state? What will be done about freedom of speech, the press, etc.?
A1: As explained before, the relationship between democracy and dictatorship would be of function under different systems. Under bourgeois control actual democracy is impossible so as long as the majority is oppressed by the minority. For this reason democracy is only obtained through the through suppression of the bourgeoisie by a proletarian dictatorship (I.E “state”). Democracy is thus transformed from democracy for the minority (the ruling bourgeoisie) into the majority (the working poor).
Q2. Explain “equal rights are unjust.”
A2: Equal rights as being described by Lenin are unjust because so as long as “the bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie” remains it is impossible to have real equality precisely because not everyone is equal at such a stage. Equal rights are unjust because society cannot operate currently among utopian lines of “equal pay for equal labor.” With such a state still existing funds must be placed aside for the maintenance of the means of production as well as the construction of societal places of need (schools, retirement homes, recreation centers, etc). With these deductions, and with everyone performing equal amounts of labor, people thus become unequal; hence, forcing “equal rights” transforms into inequality.
Q3. What will the American workers’ state do with the petty bourgeoisie? What will be done about wages? Does the labor law of value still apply in a workers’ state? Will there be surplus value?
A3: The petty bourgeoisie will be suppressed by the workers state. Wages, it would be safe to assume, would be allocated evenly with a cap on what a worker could earn (much like what happened in the commune). Both the law of value and surplus value will still exist and apply (at least in this transitional stage).
Q4. Explain: “It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state – without the bourgeoisie.”
A4: This refers to bourgeois law in the sense that after the lower phase of communism has emerged from its “prolonged birth pangs” and the mean of production of been converted from private owner ship to public ownership there still remains a degree of property. Though it has now been taken over by the public the fact remains that the Means of Production are still owned.
Q5. Will the division of labor between mental and physical labor be broken under communism? What is the difference between socialism and communism? Is there a difference between socialism, workers’ state, dictatorship of the proletariat?
A5: Under communism the divide between mental and physical labor will be broken and the two joined as one. The difference between socialism and communism has been outlined, in part, above: inequality still exists in socialism while in communism actual equality, in all spheres of life, exists. The difference between “Socialism, a workers state, and the dictatorship of the proletariat” exists insofar as how one defines each; for instance, the Petty-bourgeois ideologue Lassalle, contends that equal distribution, coupled with a device which suspiciously sounds like labor vouches, is socialism, when, in fact, it is not (as defined in the above answers).
Q6. Lenin says that ordinary workers can administer a workers’ state. Will there no longer be a need for technically trained people?
A6: Lenin means this in regards to the operation of society (housing, occupation, and distribution) and not in the modern day fields, such as computers and technology, which are vital to 21st century living. He means that the apparatus can be wielded by ordinary people with the more technically trained ones serving in other sectors of society (space travel, agricultural revitalization, scientific (biological and computer) advancement, etc.).
~ ~ ~
Question for Chapter Six
Q1. Identify: Plekhanov, Bakunin, Kautsky, Bernstein, Blanqui, Pannekoek, Luxemburg, Radek
A1: All, or almost all with the possible exception of Luxemburg, are, in Lenin's conception, opportunists of one kind or another (reformist, social-democrats, Anarchist) who refuse to take into thought the question that the state plays in relation to revolution. Some believe that the state can be wielded by the working class while other believes that parliament can be utilized. Such theories run contrary to what Marx and Engels had laid out in detail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The End.
Thoughts?