The State and Revolution

To understand the concept of state from Marxist point of view and to get in to Marxism, It is a must read.

Good Quality and easy readable text for senior citizens as well

Such an informative analysis of the state.

Very interesting work of Lenin.

Good book but small hence it feels that the price is a bit in higher side.

a classic link. filled with so much knowledge and reallity.,perfect for a Proletariat.

Good

I got this edition to search for references to alienation and Marx's materialism. There were a few relevant passages. This book is strong on revolutionary socialism.

Many people dismiss Lenin, and Marxism in general, because they are usually associated with the bureaucratic tyranny of the Stalinist regimes of Russia, Eastern Europe, China etc. But these regimes had/have nothing to do with genuine Marxism, as anyone who reads this book will see. The so-called “communist” states were actually state capitalist systems controlled by a ruling class of bureaucrats who betrayed the democratic aims of the 1917 Russian Revolution.Lenin follows Marx and Engels in showing that the existence of the state is a result of the existence of class exploitation and class conflict in society. (In pre-class societies, the state did not exist.) As Marx said, “...the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another...”This is obvious in the case of ancient Roman slave society or medieval feudalism, but it is less obvious in modern capitalist societies, because capitalists usually hide their class rule behind a veneer of “democracy”. But as Lenin says in this book:“Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich, and a snare and deception for the exploited...”In modern capitalist “democracies” the electorate and parliaments do not have real power. The ruling class capitalists can use their economic power to force governments into line; they control the media and the top levels of the civil service; and if all else fails they can resort to force, through their control of the police and armed forces.Lenin agreed with Marx’s view that a revolution was necessary in order to achieve socialism for two reasons: firstly, because the ruling class would not give up power peacefully; and secondly, because it was by going through the experience of class struggle that the working class’s ideas would change on a mass scale and the majority would be won over to socialist ideas and become “fitted to found society anew.”Lenin did not want to seize power in a coup. He wanted to win over the majority of the exploited and for THEM to take power. When Marx and Lenin talked about the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, they did not mean that Marxists would rule OVER the working class, they meant rule BY the working class. This workers’ state would then gradually be replaced by a classless society in which the state would “wither away”.Marx’s model for a democratic workers’ state was the short-lived Paris Commune, where all officials were elected, subject to recall at any time, and paid only an average worker’s wage; and where the army and police were replaced by a workers’ militia. Lenin’s idea was that the soviets (workers’ councils) would also follow this highly democratic model. Bourgeois “democracy” should be replaced by something much MORE democratic. John Reed's book "Ten Days That Shook The World", for example, shows how democratic the soviets were in their early days.The February Revolution of 1917 had got rid of the Tsar, but it brought to power the Provisional Government which continued to take part in the bloodbath of World War One. Lenin argued for a new revolution, which eventually took place in October.October would only be a "coup" if the Bolsheviks took power without majority support. In fact they only took power when they had won a majority on the soviets, with the previous majority of SRs and Mensheviks having been voted out. Even the Menshevik Martov admitted that the workers were solidly behind the Bolsheviks by October.Lenin’s idea was that the Bolshevik party should compete with other parties on the soviets. The fact that the soviets later ended up as being a one-party system was a sign of the FAILURE of the revolution: it was not what Lenin had intended.Lenin expected the Russian Revolution to spark off revolutions in other countries. (Indeed there was a failed revolution in Germany.) But the isolation of the Russian Revolution, the horrors of the Civil War initiated by the “Whites” and intervention by foreign powers in support of the White armies combined to destroy the foundations of the new regime.It is claimed by anti-Marxist historians that Leninism led directly to Stalinism. But Stalin actually had to DESTROY the last vestiges of genuine Leninism in order to consolidate his counter-revolution. Incidentally, given that it was the isolation of the Russian Revolution which ultimately led to its demise under Stalin, it was not the politics of Lenin's Bolsheviks which led to Stalinism, it was the LACK of mass Leninist parties in other countries.After Lenin’s death Trotsky kept alive the genuine Marxist idea that socialism means workers’ democracy, but unfortunately he clung to the idea that Russia had become a degenerated workers’ state, whereas in fact it had become under Stalin a bureaucratic state capitalist regime.Phil Webster.

If you need to know , want to know what lenin was about its a good bookIts well worht the money for the aboveLenin is however pretty well totally nuts and thats not a political view I think jeremy corbin is a wonderful man. Lenin goes on about opinions ideas and history as does the comunist manafesto but there is very very little actuall content other than we hate everything except the working class that should smash everythnig and dictate everythnig from a working class dictatorship.Its so simplistic its child like . Full of long complex sentences hiding the fact it says nothing. Trying to sound interlectul when its just adjectiveSmash the system , remove all personal weath replace it with state ownership , run it from a workers cooperatve , let the state fade away as its not needed , workers must contol the means of production etcThis they could say making statements that at least mean someting.They Leinin Marx engles all go onthe protalitariate are salves to the petty this or that and the state is in control of them and we need to do the right thing and take away the power of the producers and control the state to get rid of the state becasue we dont need the state to control because they are only the state to contol the working class in the class stuggle of the masses to overthrough the state . And they do that sort of thing in ONE sentenace over and over again saying this person or that person sees it slightly differntly but its all the samePs and its doomed to failure becasue they were all daft as a brush never went into factories ( I worked in loads most of my life). They had no consept of human nature at all.So a must read but only if you need or want to know exactly what and who leinin was and how he throughtNot a good idea for a good read or story or anything much else

The book itself a well printed and of decent quality. The content can be hard to follow at times if you don’t understand some of the terminology used but on the whole it gives a great insight into the mind of Lenin. It certainly shows his utter contempt of State, Class and Capitalism and how through revolution it must be smashed. Also clear is his love of the writings of Marx and Engels - and how, in his mind, their work was completely misinterpreted by the opportunists of the day. Worth a read if you are at all interested in political history.

That’s pretty much it