Thoughts on State & Revolution?

[SkepticalofYourDogma]

Thoughts, refutations of content within, expansions of content within, etc. Go!

My personal thoughts on the book is that Lenin did a fair job of explaining the quotations within. I personally haven't completed it, but I suspect I will read it once more. This is the main reason for this thread.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Honestly, I think Lenin lacked a correct understanding of the historical genesis of the state and applied, incorrectly, a series of ideological assumptions that don't square with reality. In any case, the notion that class precedes state-formation (a) obscures that, in its earliest iteration, there is no distinction between the ruling class and its state and (b) that many early state/class contradictions did not emerge from internal contradictions but the conquering and enslavement of neighboring tribes by nascent ruling classes. Lenin's fidelity to German Idealism contradicts historical reality.

For more on this, I recommend James C. Scott's "The Art of Not Being Governed", which explores state formation and sovereignty in South-East Asia.

[Antiochus]

(a) obscures that, in its earliest iteration, there is no distinction between the ruling class and its state and (b) that many early state/class contradictions did not emerge from internal contradictions but the conquering and enslavement of neighboring tribes by nascent ruling classes.

This isn't actually a correct statement though. First off, what do we know about the earliest states? The earliest "states" which we have an extensive written and archaeological record of would have to be: The Sumerian city states and Egypt. Undoubtedly there were earlier 'cities' in Anatolia but we simply do not know anywhere near enough about them to draw actual conclusions.

And what do the Sumerian city states look like? Well there was a clearly demarcated, tangible and "internal" class system. In cities like Uruk you had the 'fruits' of labor division and the subsequent enumeration of classes: A well developed state ideology (i.e religion); a ruling clique composed of the high priests and "secular" (don't take this word seriously though; they were interchangeable) representatives. We have plenty of evidence for it too. Sumerian art has a very distinct hierarchical proportion, with larger figures representing 'elevated' classes, you also have embryonic paternalism (men are depicted as much larger and omnipresent than women etc...). Your explanation that it was simply the result of enslaving or conquering neighboring tribes simply does not fit into what we know from the historical record. There is very little evidence for large scale warfare in this period (4th millenium B.C) and the state formation seems to have largely been a result of internal developments. We know this to be true because while Uruk was the "first" state in the area, it was only the beginning and these were created independently of Uruk, but certainly "influenced" by it.

Then we have Egypt. In Egypt state formation was far more violent and not only encompassed state formation but nation-building. Egypt was thus the first "nation" state in history. While there was a conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt, the following rulers of Egypt made no attempt to "subjugate" their northern subjects but rather merely incorporated them wholly and totally into themselves. There was no evidence of slavery in Egypt (at this point in time) and there is no evidence that there was a "Southern" ruling elite that alienated itself from the rest of the nation, as evidenced by the largest monuments in Egyptian history (pyramids) being squarely in the North as well as the capital Memphis.

The interesting thing about early states is that they were theocracies if one applies modern terminology, obviously they wouldn't have "seen" it this way. This state-formation follows in most of the centers of human development. So no, Lenin wasn't wrong in assuming the state was formed as a result of inherent internal contradictions between classes. Indeed, if one REALLY looks deeply, one notices that the first "function" of the state seems to have simply KEPT the classes separate. After all, in a fucking village by the Euphrates there wasn't much MATERIALLY separating a 'peasant' and a ruler, their material wealth wouldn't have been that demarcated (at the time), say 5th/4th millenium. So how would one go about asserting that one is IN FACT a ruler/priest/elder with specially granted privileges and power?

[Noa Rodman]

A translation of Kautsky's polemic with Pannekoek (that Lenin comments on in the book) can be found here: https://libcom.org/library/new-tactic-karl-kautsky

Some argue that Lenin's book was written under the influence of Bukharin (with whom Lenin in 1916 still held a dispute on the state, and allegedly Lenin thus still sided with Kautsky). Others give Pannekoek greater significance (being the first to criticise Kautsky). I claim Lenin did not change his position (that certainly is the impression Lenin himself gives).

There is one error in State and Revolution about a quote from Engels against the Erfurt program. This was written against an earlier draft, not the one actually adopted (which was written by Kautsky and which Engels approved):
https://libcom.org/library/correctio...s-karl-kautsky

[Fellow_Human]

While there was a conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt, the following rulers of Egypt made no attempt to "subjugate" their northern subjects but rather merely incorporated them wholly and totally into themselves. There was no evidence of slavery in Egypt (at this point in time) and there is no evidence that there was a "Southern" ruling elite that alienated itself from the rest of the nation, as evidenced by the largest monuments in Egyptian history (pyramids) being squarely in the North as well as the capital Memphis.

Thank you for the analysis. Just one small correction: it was the north that was dominant over the south, not vice versa.

To this day, "Lower Egypt" (the north) is better developed than "Upper Egypt" (the south), and southerners move northward to sell their labor.

[Antiochus]

^^That might be true after the Assyrian conquest and up until the present day, but I was talking specifically about the Pre-Dynastic/Old Kingdom period (roughly 4th millenium B.C till late 3rd Millenium B.C). Egyptian "culture" (what we traditionally associate with them) came from the South (Upper Egypt). There is plenty of evidence for it. The Badari culture and the Naqada cultures for example are basically embryonic societies that would later coalesce into what we termed "Egyptian". The Narmer Palette also clearly depicts the conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt and the forcible integration of these two regions that where 'distinct' but also culturally similar.

But yes, pre-dynastic Egypt coalesced from a series of independent city states (Hierkonkopolis, Abydos, Naqada etc...) into larger and larger states. The evidence suggests that it was at least partially quite violent (Scorpion King Mace head for example), but given that the patron gods of these cities would later form part of the Egyptian pantheon, it was at least "inclusive" of the local elites as opposed to a process of exterminating local elites and replacing them with one's own. Suggesting it was ultimately an internal process that gravitated outwards (if that makes sense), culminating with the expansion into Northern Egypt.

The interesting thing is the Sumerians never underwent such a process. In a world-historical stage the Egyptian state (30th century-13th century B.C) was most similar to the Chinese dynasties of later times in that it was a process of state centralization that culminated in a highly ossified class system with a nominally very powerful ruler and it very seldom "broke up", meaning when there was civil war or strife the ritual if you will was simply to unify the nation again. The Sumerians on the other hand approached things much like the Maya, they were content with political and cultural hegemony but city states practiced ritualized warfare and there was never any real attempt at creating a Sumerian 'kingdom'.

Why the differences? I can only guess really and I might be horribly wrong, but I just think that Egypt was more culturally homogeneous than the Euphrates valley, the Egyptian "homeland" was much more easily defensible (huge deserts on 3 sides and Mediterranean in the North) than Mesopotamia, curbing unwanted outside influences.

But yeah thats a bit of a rant. Tying it back to the state itself. The state had to, in my opinion, arise from pre-existing modes of production, its not like 10 villagers just decided one day to "hey lets make ourselves better than everyone else! Oh and fuck the women too!". Those structures were most likely, again my opinion, adjudicative conflict resolution 'organs' (think "wise elder") that gradually became more ossified and gradually expanded in both form and function. So perhaps we can imagine this fetus of a state as directing long distance trade and controlling crop surpluses. This would have given the state its skeletal form, with the individuals that would later become the nobility progressively attempting to ideologically justify their new, privileged positions of authority and to make these positions irrevocable and above all: Outside of the "Public" domain. Fused with pre-existing religion, this would have created your early state ideology.

I think the key would have to be long-distance trade since this would be the only tangible way to put capital to use in what was a totally agrarian society to this though because as mentioned there were cities before the ones in Mesopotamia and these usually displayed a certain level of "egalitarianism" (the houses were roughly the same size, there were no seeming divisions in the town that said "nobility live here", grave goods are similar etc...).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Re: Antiochus

You seem to breeze over the roll of conquest here, which seems like a serious methodological mistake. As though you're saying "Well, it only counts as state formation when it arises from internal contradictions, and the incorporation of stateless peoples into states is essentially irrelevant." The Egyptian example you use is telling - statification in the North emerges with invasion from the South, not an internal process of production of surpluses creating a basis for an indigenous ruling class.

[Antiochus]

The Egyptian example you use is telling - statification in the North emerges with invasion from the South, not an internal process of production of surpluses creating a basis for an indigenous ruling class.

Nope. Perhaps you misunderstood me or I omitted too much. Upper Egypt conquered the North and Egyptian "culture" did come from Upper Egypt (the same way we say Roman "culture" came from Central Italy or whatever) but the EXACT same process of stratification, of the division of the people into classes, kings and the state was occurring in Lower Egypt as well. It was merely that the Sourthern Egyptians won in the contest. The same parallel exists in Germany: The Prussians ultimately 'won', but that is not to say that the exact same thing could not have happened at the helm of the Bavarians. The Ubaid culture which gave rise to most of the Mesopotamian cities/kingdoms afterwards was increasingly stratified as can be clearly seen from the archaeological record (prestigious tombs, ornate jewelry etc...). The rise of the Sumerians and Egypt was merely the logical extension of all these things coming together.

And what do you mean discounting 'conquest'? Conquest 'counts' in so far as it "injects" the state. So for example, we could say that the "state" was injected into much of Africa as a result of European imperialism but that cannot be said about the two examples I gave. The structures that led to the states were present in Egypt and Mesopotamia well before anyone 'conquered' anyone. And anyway its not some mutually exclusive process. An internal process can than be projected outwards via conquest/violence, it does not mean that the internal causation was not required for its initial formation.As an example, the French bourgeois brought capitalism to many parts of Europe by force, but the genesis of Capitalism lies in the internal antagonisms of Feudalism, of the parasitic nobility.

The same is ultimately true for state formation. If state formation were merely some bizarre externality than people would readily dispose of it when they pleased or it would simply disappear at times. But it doesn't. Generally speaking when a major catastrophe struck (civil strife/famine/earthquake) the 'state collapsed' if you will, as it has in Somalia or the former USSR. But as soon as there is sufficient labor and resources, the state is quickly reformed, usually in its previous form, with similar or identical features. That isn't to say that it doesn't 'change', so maybe if the famine killed off large portions of the population for a time the state will be "less stratified" as happened after the Black Plague or whatever.

This I think is proof in itself that the state arises from an imperative to separate and reinforce class divisions.

[SkepticalofYourDogma]

You seem to breeze over the roll of conquest here, which seems like a serious methodological mistake. As though you're saying "Well, it only counts as state formation when it arises from internal contradictions, and the incorporation of stateless peoples into states is essentially irrelevant." The Egyptian example you use is telling - statification in the North emerges with invasion from the South, not an internal process of production of surpluses creating a basis for an indigenous ruling class.

Correlation does not imply causation. Wealth and strength separated ancients from each other. Later it becamd more wealth than strength on the personal level.. Regardess, the conquering of tribes served to gain wealth through thieving or slavery.

This wealth contributed to their class divide, but it did not cause it. It could of easily happened if they remained isolated and focused on their progression.

Antiochus explained the state's role quite well. Honestly, the larger society becomes, the more need their is for organized governing. Things simply need to be put into order and on the right track to the state withering away altogether.

[SkepticalofYourDogma]

You seem to breeze over the roll of conquest here, which seems like a serious methodological mistake. As though you're saying "Well, it only counts as state formation when it arises from internal contradictions, and the incorporation of stateless peoples into states is essentially irrelevant." The Egyptian example you use is telling - statification in the North emerges with invasion from the South, not an internal process of production of surpluses creating a basis for an indigenous ruling class.

Correlation does not imply causation. Wealth and strength separated ancients from each other. Later it becamd more wealth than strength on the personal level.. Regardess, the conquering of tribes served to gain wealth through thieving or slavery.

This wealth contributed to their class divide, but it did not cause it. It could of easily happened if they remained isolated and focused on their progression.

Antiochus explained the state's role quite well. Honestly, the larger society becomes, the more need their is for organized governing. Things simply need to be put into order and on the right track to the state withering away altogether.

[blake 3:17]

I've carried over it over my left breast pocket to stop bullets.

[Heretek]

I've carried over it over my left breast pocket to stop bullets.

I did the same with my Bible, where upon I was crucified for defamation and blasphemy

[Sewer Socialist]

i have a clarifying question - how can class precede the state, rather than coinciding with it? how could class exist without the state to defend it?

i also don't see in what way identifying the origin of the state with class societies downplays conquest? saying the state arose with class societies, which then conquered (and sometimes enslaved) stateless societies seems like a reasonable explanation - and one which doesn't seem to actually contradict what either antioqus or garbage disposal unit are saying?

[Antiochus]

These things would have taken hundreds and thousands of years to fully develop. The formation of classes and the state would have had a positive-feedback relationship most likely: The greater the demarcation of social classes, the greater need for a state to form and as the state formed, a greater need for classes in order to properly staff the state.

[SkepticalofYourDogma]

garbage disposal unit

The irony. When are these anti-Stalin people going to realize they will never achieve anything and never have historically. It's almost comical, the do-nothings criticizing one of the most successful industrialists and statesmen in the history of mankind.

[Sewer Socialist]

skepticalofyourdogma

lol

[SkepticalofYourDogma]

skepticalofyourdogma

lol

>that moment I realize you weren't calling me a garbage disposal unit >sorry m8, what a peculiar name though