A Revolutionary Starting-Line

During the spring of 2021 I was inspired to write as the result of a happy coincidence. Due to the great many train journeys, mostly on Cross Country, I was forced to take at that time I had not only started reading but actually managed to finish ‘State and Revolution’ by Lenin. I had previously read the Communist Manifesto and attempted to read some Kapital (yeah ikr don’t laugh), but what I found so compelling was the perfect mix of detailed, theoretical writing whilst maintaining a relatable and understandable tone. It was in a word: accessible. Whether that’s due to just a really good translation or Lenin’s genuine linguistic ability I confess myself ignorant but regardless it’s a damn good read. Back to the point, the aforementioned coincidence was that whilst I became specifically interested in Lenin’s coverage of Marx’s analysis of the Paris Commune in the book it was at that time 150th anniversary of that very struggle. It was that aptness which led me to write the following for some similarly minded friends:

Revolution not Reform!

On this, the 150th anniversary of the Paris Commune and a time of great reflection for our movement, it is apt that we should look to the greatest lesson Marx himself learnt from the first proletarian revolution and apply that lesson to ourselves now:

“If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people’s revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party Comrades in Paris are attempting.”

(Neue Zeit, VolXX, 1, 1901-02, p.709)

In these words, taken form Marx’s correspondence with Kugelmann from April 12th 1871, we see Marx admitting and then accounting for the fact that a simple ceasing of the Bourgeois state infrastructure is insufficient to the fulfilment of worker’s revolution. For the revolution to be secured, to repulse the menace of counter-revolution and to ensure the transition towards the final stage of society, the Bourgeois State must be destroyed!

To facilitate this destruction and bring forth the era of the majority class’ rule, the proletarian class and its allied oppressed classes, must be organised in their revolutionary intent and united in their endeavour. A Party, of the working masses and by the working masses must lead the revolutionary charge and guide the people towards liberation and a society oof their own design.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

The nature of Bourgeois society is that of the rule of the few. The capitalist mode of production enforces the existence of two great classes with one, the dominant ruling class, being the smaller in size. It is through this circumstance that the infrastructure of the state manifests itself and becomes a medium through which the power of the ruling, capitalist class is amplified and the subjugation of working people is enforced.

The destruction of the Bourgeois state facilitates a reversal in circumstance. The unnatural dominance of the smaller capitalist class is replaced by the vast majority of society who become the new ruling class. Such a reversal in control also begets innate changes in the nature of the political and civic worlds. The nature of this new society can be identified through Marx’s own conclusions about the Paris Commune 150 years ago:

“The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.”

The innate nature of worker’s revolution is that of violence and hence it is reasonable that the first issue of consideration is that of the army and military issues. In capitalist society, the smaller nature of the ruling class is forced to employ “special coercive forces”, such as the police or army, through which it can enforce itself. In the Proletarian Dictatorship, these forces must be destroyed if counter-revolution is to be ensured. However, the mistake must not be made that one capitalist “coercive force” be replaced by a workers’ “coercive force” as this manifests the contradiction that if any “coercive forces” persist, the “withering away” of the state (the movement toward communist society) cannot possibly happen. As Lenin puts it:

“The origin of suppression, however, is here the majority of the population, and not the minority… since the majority of people itself suppresses its oppressors, a “special force” for suppression is no longer necessary!”

Instead, the unique attributes of the proletariat must be harnessed. If the entirety of the Proletariat is to become the ruling class in society, then the entirety of the Proletariat must partake in the functions previously undertaken by the capitalist state. It was for this reason that the communists of the Commune disbanded the armed forces (in that case city guard) and armed the entire citizenry. In making the defence of the revolution the duty of every worker, not only is the infrastructure of the capitalist state beginning to “wither away” but a more absolute and formidable defence can be achieved.

“The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men.”

The second major alteration to the structure of political life in the Commune comes in the form of representation. In the capitalist state, representation would manifest as members of the Bourgeoisie, being selected by Bourgeois parties, would compete for election in a scenario of individual suffrage. Beyond this, the actual business of the executive is done behind closed doors and only loosely reports to an unrepresentative Parliament. In fact, true power is not held by the Bourgeois representatives, but by the unelected body of Government (the civil service). In the Proletarian Dictatorship, representation is enhanced but parliamentarianism is dispensed with. The Bourgeois barriers in elections are removed as through universal suffrage workers elect workers from their own to represent them. Most importantly, no “official grandeur” is granted upon election as representatives are paid a worker’s wage and at all times are revocable.

Where for the Paris Commune the many small, local wards were the centre of Proletarian democracy, on a national scale the necessity for a single elected body, above any and all regional and local bodies, remains. Where the capitalists enforced multiple barriers of complication to their legislative and executive bodies so as to prevent infiltration from the subjugated working class, the Proletarian democracy reflects the simplicity, horizontality and vastness of the Proletarian class itself. As Lenin put it:

“The conversion of the representative institutions from talking shops into “working” bodies: ‘The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time.”

Interestingly, it is here that capitalism itself sets the outline for the worker’s state. The vision of Marxism is not utopian. The idea of a new society was not created in Marx’s head, it was set out in the structure of capitalism itself. Marx simply identified, through an analysis of the progress of capitalism, the nature of the society that would surpass it as those blueprints were carved out in the mode of production capitalism manifested. Capitalism, whilst facilitating the oppression of the larger class, thrusts upon the working class the status of the most important class in society within the capitalist mode of production.

The Division of Labour (the relation between individual workers in the workplace) capitalism creates sets out the structure of the society to follow. In the capitalist state the way in which the functions of government are undertaken are replicated from the role of the capitalist class within the workplace, “bossings” as Lenin puts it. Similarly, the Proletarian state replicates the role of the worker within the workplace in how it undertakes the functions of government. Groups of workers will group together to perform a certain function and then pass the outcome onto another group. Just as this in a factory might build a new machine, so in the governance of the Proletarian state does this process undertake the bureaucracy previously done by the capitalist state machine.

Most importantly, for the Proletarian state the executive and legislature are one and the same and not divided needlessly in the interests of maintaining the rule of the few. Roles which undertake executive functions are shared amongst a group of representatives and are linked inseparably with a legislative equivalent. No unelected “Civil Servants”, the job of government is done by the representatives of the workers completely and is transparent through a direct link to the legislative function.

To facilitate this, the ultimate representative body of the workers must be large, mirroring the class itself. It shall elect from itself all individuals involved in the business of government and the leadership roles it requires to function. Just as workers will operate under a foreman, the representatives operate under a chair. Most importantly, every role is elected by the representatives and are revocable to the representatives just as the representatives are revocable to the workers. By spreading the responsibility for these functions as far as possible, the need for the power which the capitalist state used to function is removed. As Lenin put it:

“The more the functions of state power are performed by the people as a whole, the less need there is for the existence of this power.”

Reading this back, I am keen to immediately highlight my failure to adequately explain how the physical structure and organisation of a future socialist society’s political structures would mirror the structure of workers in the capitalist workplace. It was one of Lenin’s points which I found most compelling. Perhaps in the way it represents some practical legitimacy in the ideas being promoted or the potential for the key to effective political tactics to be found within that link. Either way, I think a combination of not entirely understanding Lenin’s explanation and an over eagerness on my part to try and bring across my half-baked understanding of the concept led to the weakness in this section. I think its clear that there is a need for me to re-address ‘State and Revolution’ either in its entirety or by its parts, so I commit myself now to returning to it... eventually.

Earlier on in the piece, I noticed something I had written that linked well to my more recent studies and which has sparked some more inspiration within me to write.

“The capitalist mode of production enforces the existence of two great classes with one, the dominant ruling class, being the smaller in size. It is through this circumstance that the infrastructure of the state manifests itself and becomes a medium through which the power of the ruling, capitalist class is amplified and the subjugation of working people is enforced.”

In this section I gloss-over some very fundamental concepts. Firstly, how capitalism creates 2 great classes but more interestingly to me that the state is an inevitable outcome from class contradictions. At the time of writing, this was something I believed but was not a process I could describe or claim to understand in any detail. My most recent completed read ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State’ by Engles which I came to partly due to its obvious links to ‘State and Revolution’ covers this issue in detail so I think I’ll make this the subject of my next post.

In Solidarity,

A