I need a definitive quote from Marx about the state.

[Red Star Rising]

Hello everyone, I'm currently doing an extended project about Communism and the Soviet Union and I'm in the process of writing a comprehensive section of what Marxism actually is ideologically. I need to back it up properly with appropriate quotes, so does anybody have a brief but precise quote from Marx about hie stance on the state? Thanks :)

[ColumnNo.4]

Why not search for one?

[Red Star Rising]

Why not search for one? Well, I could, but I'm no master of Marxism yet and if it is a difficult but important quote, a short accompanying explanation would be appreciated.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I have an article you can use to get started, it has a number of quotes in it but its probably a better idea to read a couple of the source texts it mentions as well : https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state

If this is for school I imagine you'll be expected to defend your position, which you won't be able to do if you're just regurgitating quotes. What is the actual scope of your project? Do you need to convince your teacher or the class as a whole?


Why not search for one?

Why not quit being an ass?

[ColumnNo.4]

Why not quit being an ass?

Not fond of taking your own advice?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You're in the learning section, people are allowed to ask for things here that's what its for. Fuck off im not going to respond to you again.

[Creative Destruction]

I have an article you can use to get started, it has a number of quotes in it but its probably a better idea to read a couple of the source texts it mentions as well : https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state

as far as i can tell, this is the most comprehensive compendium of Marx's thoughts on the state -- aside from Marx himself. it's a great reference, OP, so i'd use it and follow David Adam's citations.

[Red Star Rising]

I have an article you can use to get started, it has a number of quotes in it but its probably a better idea to read a couple of the source texts it mentions as well : https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state

If this is for school I imagine you'll be expected to defend your position, which you won't be able to do if you're just regurgitating quotes. What is the actual scope of your project? Do you need to convince your teacher or the class as a whole?

Thanks for the article, very interesting read so far.

Well, it's an extended project where you can do literally anything you want. I wanted to do something about the Soviet Union but I'm doing that for History A level already so I had to put my own spin on it to make it unique to the rest of my A level work so I decided to do a project as if I was looking at the Soviet Union through Marx's eyes and evaluating its success. I decided to do the following title:

"Would Karl Marx and his collaborators consider the Soviet Union between 1920-1953 a betrayal of Communism?"

Obviously, if I want to answer it I will need quotes from Marx himself. i'm not technically arguing that Marxism is good or correct (though I'll probably end up doing that anyway) I'm arguing that the soviet union is not an example of Marxism in practice.

I've just started and I need to begin with a definition of Communism form a Marxist perspective and then break it down to back it up (I can't just say "this is what Marxism is" without backing up my definition with things from Marx's work. From that point on I won't be regurgitating quotes but comparing Stalinist Russia Marxism and arguing that the crimes of Stalin were neither the result of the work of nor would be condoned by Marx, Engels etc. But first I'll need to demonstrate that I've read some Marx and have an understanding of his definition (seeing as I'm sort of speaking from his perspective) in order to show that I understand the foundational concepts behind my chosen title :)

[Creative Destruction]

you might want to narrow down what you mean by "his collaborators." Kautsky was Marx's heir apparent, and he denounced the Bolsheviks. LaSalle could have been said to be a collaborator as well, in as far as they were in the same milieu, but he had some key disagreements with Marx, especially on what the nature of the state was.

[Tim Cornelis]

Marx, on the first phase of socialist/communist society.

"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor."

Engels on socialism:

"From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product, in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute measure, time. Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by means of the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, in their adequate measure, namely in actual weights, in billionths or quadrillionths of a gramme. Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”. *15

The concept of value is the most general and therefore the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of commodity production. Consequently, this concept contains the germ, not only of money, but also of all the more developed forms of the production and exchange of commodities."

Marx on the revolutionary state:

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

So, quick recap. In capitalism, commodity production exists because social labour is not directly social. Peter Hudis:

"A very different situation exists under capitalism, where individual labor is*not*directly part of the sum total of actual labor. The amount of value created by an individual unit of labor is determined by an abstract, social average that exists apart from the subjectivity of the laborer—socially necessary labor time. In capitalism it is not actual labor time but “currently necessary labor*time*that determines value” [MECW 28, p. 73]). An individual hour of labor therefore counts only as*indirectly*social. It cannot be otherwise so long as value production exists. Yet once value production is abolished individual labor exists “as a*directly*constituent part of the total labor” since labor is no longer governed by socially necessary labor time … *The replacement of*indirect*social labor by*direct*social labor signifies the abolition of capitalist value production."

So socialism is a cooperative society (associated labour) where society owns the means of production (common/social ownership), and no commodity production exists.

The problem is, with your essay, that this will create the tendency to explain WHY (why does indirect social labour mean there is commodity production according to Marx and Engels?), so you need to limit your essay to what Marx and Engels wrote, not why they wrote it.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Lenins The State and Revolution is a great Marxist analysis of the state, and he uses many key quotes from Marx and Engels to substantiate his points, so if you don't want to quote Lenin you could use one of the Marx quotes his uses.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm

[The Feral Underclass]

Hello everyone, I'm currently doing an extended project about Communism and the Soviet Union and I'm in the process of writing a comprehensive section of what Marxism actually is ideologically. I need to back it up properly with appropriate quotes, so does anybody have a brief but precise quote from Marx about hie stance on the state? Thanks :)

I think a better question would probably be: does Marx give a brief but precise definition of the state? Did Marx give brief and precise definitions of anything?

The article Ethics Gradient provided and the quotes provided from Tim are neither brief nor precise. It could easily be argued that the reason for all the verbiage is because, actually, Marx's views on the state were fairly ambiguous.

In the Communist Manifesto, he says, "the executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." This would indicate that his view of a state under capitalism was obviously specifically designed to manage the continued existence of the bourgeoisie. I think this thesis is fairly provable if you look at modern political and judicial organisation in capitalist societies.

In the Communist Manifesto again, he says, "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class." This definition would certainly be consistent with the previous quote and therefore I think it is fair to infer that in Marx's view, the state is simply the tools used by one class to manage its "common affairs."

None of this, however -- and you will find it the case in his writing -- gives any real insight into what Marx defined as "the state" in any practicable sense. And I think there is more to that than many followers of Marx will have us believe.

[Creative Destruction]

The article Ethics Gradient provided and the quotes provided from Tim are neither brief nor precise. It could easily be argued that the reason for all the verbiage is because, actually, Marx's views on the state were fairly ambiguous.

It'd be a crap argument. Marx's views on the state were clear, and they're showed in the excerpts that Tim quoted and in the article. Saying you could easily argue what you propose is about the same as saying "It could easily be argued that the reason for all the verbiage is because, actually, Marx's view on capitalism were fairly ambiguous." Marx was never brief in most explanatory works he wrote.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think a better question would probably be: does Marx give a brief but precise definition of the state? Did Marx give brief and precise definitions of anything?

The article Ethics Gradient provided and the quotes provided from Tim are neither brief nor precise. It could easily be argued that the reason for all the verbiage is because, actually, Marx's views on the state were fairly ambiguous.

In the Communist Manifesto, he says, "the executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." This would indicate that his view of a state under capitalism was obviously specifically designed to manage the continued existence of the bourgeoisie. I think this thesis is fairly provable if you look at modern political and judicial organisation in capitalist societies.

In the Communist Manifesto again, he says, "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class." This definition would certainly be consistent with the previous quote and therefore I think it is fair to infer that in Marx's view, the state is simply the tools used by one class to manage its "common affairs."

None of this, however -- and you will find it the case in his writing -- gives any real insight into what Marx defined as "the state" in any practicable sense. And I think there is more to that than many followers of Marx will have us believe.

I don't get how Marx's view is ambiguous, when you quote such straightforward parts. I also have no idea what you mean by "in any practical sense".

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't get how Marx's view is ambiguous, when you quote such straightforward parts.

I suppose it depends on what you expect from a definition of the state. I don't find the abstract notion of what a state is to be particularly useful.


I also have no idea what you mean by "in any practical sense".

Practicable means, "able to be done or put into practice successfully."

[Red Star Rising]

The matter is, typically for Marx, something he neglected to sum up in one sweeping statement. I gather that he envisioned that the state would become a tool for the proletariat to oppress the bourgeoisie (or, more likely, simply absorb them into the proletariat) rather than the other way around. in this way he viewed it as an organ of class rule, that could be used to annihilate the class system altogether when it becomes an organ of working class rule. I don't suppose he ever espoused this view specifically anywhere?

[Red Star Rising]

Lenins The State and Revolution is a great Marxist analysis of the state, and he uses many key quotes from Marx and Engels to substantiate his points, so if you don't want to quote Lenin you could use one of the Marx quotes his uses.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm

Yes, that'll one of my sources (I'm going to be talking mainly about Stalin but Lenin and Trotsky are important figures to be included too to provide context and a perspective from within the bolsheviks about Stalin). Does Lenin tend to quote Marx directly throughout?

[The Feral Underclass]

The matter is, typically for Marx, something he neglected to sum up in one sweeping statement. I gather that he envisioned that the state would become a tool for the proletariat to oppress the bourgeoisie (or, more likely, simply absorb them into the proletariat) rather than the other way around. in this way he viewed it as an organ of class rule, that could be used to annihilate the class system altogether when it becomes an organ of working class rule. I don't suppose he ever espoused this view specifically anywhere?

Aside from the quote I gave you from the Communist Manifesto ("the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class"), I don't think he did.

You might find this useful: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm) This is a work that Lenin references throughout The State and Revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

The matter is, typically for Marx, something he neglected to sum up in one sweeping statement. I gather that he envisioned that the state would become a tool for the proletariat to oppress the bourgeoisie (or, more likely, simply absorb them into the proletariat) rather than the other way around. in this way he viewed it as an organ of class rule, that could be used to annihilate the class system altogether when it becomes an organ of working class rule. I don't suppose he ever espoused this view specifically anywhere?

"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another."

Communist Manifesto -- Chapter 2 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

An interesting quote from Engels:

"With the disappearance of an exclusively wealth-possessing minority there also disappears the necessity for the power of armed oppression, or state power. At the same time, however, it was always our view that in order to attain this and the other far more important aims of the future social revolution, the working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew. This is to be found already in The Communist Manifesto of 1847, Chapter II, conclusion."

Engels to Philipp Van Patten In New York (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/letters/83_04_18.htm)

[Red Star Rising]

"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another."

Communist Manifesto -- Chapter 2 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

An interesting quote from Engels:

"With the disappearance of an exclusively wealth-possessing minority there also disappears the necessity for the power of armed oppression, or state power. At the same time, however, it was always our view that in order to attain this and the other far more important aims of the future social revolution, the working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew. This is to be found already in The Communist Manifesto of 1847, Chapter II, conclusion."

Engels to Philipp Van Patten In New York (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/letters/83_04_18.htm)

Interesting, thank you :)

[Red Star Rising]

Marx, on the first phase of socialist/communist society.

"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor."

Engels on socialism:

"From the moment when society enters into possession of the means of production and uses them in direct association for production, the labour of each individual, however varied its specifically useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly social labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product need not then be established in a roundabout way; daily experience shows in a direct way how much of it is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how many hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of wheat of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a certain quality. It could therefore never occur to it still to express the quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which it will then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third product, in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better one, rather than express them in their natural, adequate and absolute measure, time. Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by means of the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, in their adequate measure, namely in actual weights, in billionths or quadrillionths of a gramme. Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not assign values to products. It will not express the simple fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for their production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and meaningless way, stating that they have the value of a thousand hours of labour. It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labour each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labour required for their production, will in the end determine the plan. People will be able to manage everything very simply, without the intervention of much-vaunted “value”. *15

The concept of value is the most general and therefore the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of commodity production. Consequently, this concept contains the germ, not only of money, but also of all the more developed forms of the production and exchange of commodities."

Marx on the revolutionary state:

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

So, quick recap. In capitalism, commodity production exists because social labour is not directly social. Peter Hudis:

"A very different situation exists under capitalism, where individual labor is*not*directly part of the sum total of actual labor. The amount of value created by an individual unit of labor is determined by an abstract, social average that exists apart from the subjectivity of the laborer—socially necessary labor time. In capitalism it is not actual labor time but “currently necessary labor*time*that determines value” [MECW 28, p. 73]). An individual hour of labor therefore counts only as*indirectly*social. It cannot be otherwise so long as value production exists. Yet once value production is abolished individual labor exists “as a*directly*constituent part of the total labor” since labor is no longer governed by socially necessary labor time … *The replacement of*indirect*social labor by*direct*social labor signifies the abolition of capitalist value production."

So socialism is a cooperative society (associated labour) where society owns the means of production (common/social ownership), and no commodity production exists.

The problem is, with your essay, that this will create the tendency to explain WHY (why does indirect social labour mean there is commodity production according to Marx and Engels?), so you need to limit your essay to what Marx and Engels wrote, not why they wrote it.
Thank you for the quotes and info.

And yeah, I will likely run into such problems, I have a long time to do it so length is not really an issue but it needs to be clear and concise so I should avoid going off on such tangents (I could maybe include footnotes). But I also have to do a presentation, so I will need to trim down a lot of it so it doesn't go on for hours. But again, this might not be an issue at all because I am writing about whether Marx would consider Stalinist Russia a betrayal, so limiting myself to what was written would probably still answer the question (I'm technically comparing Soviet Russia to Marxist theory so most of the argument would be dedicated to debunking the notion that Stalinism was Marxism in practice). I should still avoid regurgitating quotes though.

[Blake's Baby]

OK - then taking the notion that for Marx and Engels the state is the organisation that one class uses to suppress another is reasonable enough I think.

As to whether Stalinism is a 'betrayal', I think that's misunderstanding how Marx saw historical process. He would have regarded it as a failure, I think, because the revolution didn't overthrow capitalism (a worldwide system, so how could it be overthrown in a single country?). A 'betrayal'? Perhaps in the sense that it claimed to be Marxist but had little to do with what Marx theorised (which is why he is supposed to have declared 'all I know is, if that's Marxism, I'm not a Marxist' in reference to the French socialists in the 1870s). But I'm not so sure he'd have been concerned about the notion of 'betraying' an idea. He'd have analysed its failure as being the result of material conditions (ie, the failure of the revolution to successfully spread to Russia's neighbours).

[John Nada]

Thank you for the quotes and info.

And yeah, I will likely run into such problems, I have a long time to do it so length is not really an issue but it needs to be clear and concise so I should avoid going off on such tangents (I could maybe include footnotes). But I also have to do a presentation, so I will need to trim down a lot of it so it doesn't go on for hours. But again, this might not be an issue at all because I am writing about whether Marx would consider Stalinist Russia a betrayal, so limiting myself to what was written would probably still answer the question (I'm technically comparing Soviet Russia to Marxist theory so most of the argument would be dedicated to debunking the notion that Stalinism was Marxism in practice). I should still avoid regurgitating quotes though.Marx probably would've had a good laugh that the revolution happened first in Russia. That their leader was a Georgian(Stalin), with the runner up a Jew(Trotsky), would have made it all the more hysterical.

Marx thought Russia was them most reactionary and underdeveloped country in Europe. He viewed Russia as a threat to potential revolutions in other countries. He supported the liberation of Ireland and Poland, but not of the South Slavs ruled by the ottoman because the South Slavs independence was tied to pro-czar pan-Slavism. So much so that he hoped the Ottoman Empire would kick Russia's ass.
This crisis [Russo-Turkish war and Near Eastern crisis] is a new turning point in European history. Russia has long been standing on the threshold of an upheaval, all the elements of it are prepared--I have studied conditions there from the original Russian sources, unofficial and official (the latter only available to a few people but got for me through friends in Petersburg). The gallant Turks have hastened the explosion by years with the thrashing they have inflicted, not only upon the Russian army and Russian finances, but in a highly personal and individual manner on the dynasty commanding the army (the Tsar, the heir to the throne and six other Romanovs). The upheaval will begin secundum artem [according to the rules of the art] with some playing at constitutionalism and then there will be a fine row. If Mother Nature is not particularly unfavourable towards us we shall still live to see the fun! The stupid nonsense which the Russian students are perpetrating is only a symptom, worthless in itself. But it is a symptom. All sections of Russian society are in complete disintegration economically, morally and intellectually.

This time the revolution will begin in the East, hitherto the unbroken bulwark and reserve army of counter-revolution.

Herr Bismarck was pleased to see the thrashing, but it ought not to have gone so far. Russia too much weakened could not hold Austria in check again as she did in the Franco-Prussian War! And if it were even to come to revolution there, where would the last guarantee of the Hohenzollern dynasty be?

For the moment everything depends on the Poles (in the Kingdom of Poland) lying low. If only there are no risings there at the moment! Bismarck would at once intervene and Russian chauvinism would once more side with the czar. If on the other hand the Poles wait quietly till there is a conflagration in Petersburg and Moscow, and Bismarck then intervenes as a saviour, Prussia will find its--Mexico!

I have rammed this home again and again to any Poles I am in contact with who can influence their fellow-countrymen.

Compared with the crisis in the East, the French crisis is an altogether secondary affair. Still it is to be hoped that the bourgeois republic will be victorious or else the old game will begin all over again, and a nation can repeat the same stupidities once too often.Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/letters/77_09_27.htm He was referring to this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_%281877%E2%80%9378%29

Later in life, Marx took up an interest in Russia. A lot of people there were fans of him. He was studying Russia, and thought that their communal farming could serve as a starting point for a revolution.
The analysis in Capital therefore provides no reasons either for or against the vitality of the Russian commune. But the special study I have made of it, including a search for original source* material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia. But in order that it might function as such, the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be assured the normal conditions for spontaneous development.What he would of thought of Stalin? I don't know, it's hard to say. He'd probably like some things but criticizes a lot of things. He'd like that the czar got shot, the industrialization, victory over fascism, relatively progressive measures, the threat of a Russian intervention for reactionaries being eliminated, and that he's worshiped like a god(okay maybe not). He'd probably criticize the botched collectivization, the bad advise to Chinese Communist, the purges of innocent Communist, disregard for the possibility of capitalist restoration from within, and their neutrality pact with the fascist. Marx was very critical, but often realized the material limits.

Have you looked up what Stalinism is exactly? What crimes do you want to address?

[Red Star Rising]

OK - then taking the notion that for Marx and Engels the state is the organisation that one class uses to suppress another is reasonable enough I think.

As to whether Stalinism is a 'betrayal', I think that's misunderstanding how Marx saw historical process. He would have regarded it as a failure, I think, because the revolution didn't overthrow capitalism (a worldwide system, so how could it be overthrown in a single country?). A 'betrayal'? Perhaps in the sense that it claimed to be Marxist but had little to do with what Marx theorised (which is why he is supposed to have declared 'all I know is, if that's Marxism, I'm not a Marxist' in reference to the French socialists in the 1870s). But I'm not so sure he'd have been concerned about the notion of 'betraying' an idea. He'd have analysed its failure as being the result of material conditions (ie, the failure of the revolution to successfully spread to Russia's neighbours).

Yeah, the term 'betrayal' is a little...ambiguous at best. In my defining of it I would probably say that from an objective point of view, Russia was simply a failure of a thoroughly botched dictatorship of the proletarian. Also that the Soviet bureaucracy undermined any hope of democracy and the fading of class boundaries and the withering of the state (I can't quite get my head round what Marx said about bureaucracy though). From a subjective view, 'betrayal' makes more sense as Stalinism caused widespread disillusionment and the failure of the Soviet Union has misled people into believing that Communism is flawed in areas that it is not, it is pro-state and all Communists support Stalin (in my experience anyway, partly why I decided on that topic). I think I settled on "betrayal" because it better conveys the message "that [Stalinism] is not what most Communists advocate." (I have to present it to more students and if

As for the failure for the revolution to spread more globally, I will probably look at Trotsky a lot and his criticisms of Stalin to include a contemporary alternative perspective on world revolution. As well as looking at the material conditions ad how they contributed.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, one problem with looking at Trotsky is that Trotsky was wrong as well. Not about whether there needed to be a world revolution, but on whether it was going to happen. It also plays into a narrative that either goes 'Great and Successful Leader Stalin successfully and leaderfully defended Glorious Octoberist Russia against evil wrecker (Jewish) plot', or 'Great but tragically sidelined Leader Trotsky heroically and unsuccessfully battled against horrible monstrous pro-Hitlerite betrayer Stalin'.

Neither of these is really accurate. The failure of the revolution in Russia wasn't about which of Stalin or Trotsky was right. Neither was. There was no Marxist 'solution' to an isolated revolution, no matter who might been in charge. You'd be better of saying that the revolution in Russia depended on revolutions elsewhere, but the pro-war German Social-Democrats stopped WWI and used proto-Nazi troops to massacre German workers and communists, thus ensuring that the revolution failed in Germany and capitalism survived.

[Firebrand]

You might want to look for some quotes by Engels as well as Marx. The manifesto had two authors and honestly, Engels is a bit less wordy.

You may also want to bring in something about classless stateless societies as well.