Lenin on the nature of the State (Part-I)

Reviewing Lenin’s lecture delivered at the Sverdlov University

July 11, 1919

Vladimir Ulayvich Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. During the dying days of Czarist regime in Russia, he was part of an active Nihilist group based in St Petersburg and was engaged in the anti-czarist politics. But at the university, he suddenly started reading Marx and Engels, whose socialist ideas influenced his political thinking. Because of the influence of Marxist thought, he became an active socialist revolutionary by formally joining the social democratic party of Russia. In the wake of civil war in 1905, he actively participated with his socialist comrades in overthrowing the Czarist regime but that revolutionary attempt remained abortive because of the division among the revolutionaries.[1] As a hardliner Marxist ideologue, Lenin was forced into exile to Germany, where he lived until the Bolshevik’s victory over czarist regime in 1917. During exile, he actively engaged in the propaganda activities against the czarist regime and finally, it was the event of First Great war that gave the Bolsheviks opportunity to overthrow the Czarist regime in Regime in Russia.

Besides being a socialist revolutionary, V.I Lenin was a great political thinker and writer, who wrote dozens of books on diverse topics ranges from politics, socialism, philosophy, economics and sociology. Among them, his milestone work was the ‘State and Revolution’, ‘Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism’ and ‘the two tactics of Social Democracy’. The most famous of them was the ‘state and revolution’, in which V.I Lenin discussed about the nature and origin of the state.[2] This commentary is about the ‘nature of the state’, which V.I Lenin stipulated during his landmark lecture at Sverdlov University in 1919.

The word ‘State’

V.I Lenin begin the lecture by saying that ‘dear comrades, I know not whether you are already familiar with the chosen topic but anyhow today we are going to study this topic systematically’. Indeed, the fact cannot be denied that the concept of state is very difficult and complex to discuss because for Lenin, the concept of the state has been polluted by the bourgeois scholars, experts and philosophers. In this regard, the overall concept of the state is not easy to grasp through a single lecture or at one sitting. Likewise, even the concept of the state has been misinterpreted by the political scientists by declaring it as something organism or specie, which breathes, respires and lives. But more precisely, the discourse of the state had always been complex and complicated in both theory and practice. Basically, it was the witting attempt of the bourgeois scholars, scientists and philosophers, to deliberately confuse the ordinary masses about the origin and purpose of the state. Some philosophers have confused the concept of the state with religious interpretations or with religious doctrines but even those, who declare themselves as non-religious also indulges prejudice in defining the very concept of the state. [3] Moreover, there is a need of political, philosophical, ideological argumentation on the discourse of the state.

According to Lenin, for the religious scholars, state is something divine, and something supernatural, that it is a certain force by the virtue of which mankind has lived. Thus, with this superstitious argumentation, the religious scholar’s declare state as divine origin, which is a gift and blessing for the mankind? For Lenin, the divine origin of the state is compatible with the definition of the exploiting classes — the landowners and the capitalists — who in their best interest uses state for the exploiting the ordinary masses. In this regard, for Lenin, the question of the state has been confused and complicated because it is a threat to the interests of the ruling class. Likewise, in the contemporary discourse, the doctrine of the state serves to justify social privilege, the existence of exploitation, and the existence of capitalism. In every doctrine and theory of the state, we will see the conflict of interest among the classes — the exploiters and the exploited. For instance, according to Socialists, state has always served as an instrument of the ruling class to dominate and to exploit the ordinary masses.

According to Marx, it was the embryonic stage that gave birth to the private property and with the birth of the private property, the class division or the class conflict began within society. This is how; the millions of years of human history began with the emergence of slavery that continued for millions of years and finally faced the revolt from the slaves and diffused into feudalism. Likewise, with the emergence Feudalism, a new class war emerged among the feudal owners and the peasants.

On the contrary, in order to understand the meaning and discourse of the state in the context of the social science and political science then we are required to explain this question scientifically by underlying the historical connections. However, the historical connection refers to the fact that how the given idea/phenomenon emerged in history? And, what are the principle stages of its development? [4] In his famous book ‘the origin of family, private property and the state’, Frederick Engels claimed that ‘in the beginning there was no state’. Thus, this sentence makes it clear that whenever and wherever, the division of society appears in terms of classes the state emerges. When the first form of exploitation of man by man appeared, the first form class division also appeared — the slave owners and the slaves — there was patriarchal family, which is often referred as the clan family.[5] This was primitive life encompassing primitive tradition of hunting and gathering, where man was only the productive force while women was assigned with home tasks — Frederick Engels called it a primitive society. From this detailed description, it becomes clear that there was a time, when there were no class divisions among slave and slave owners. It was the embryonic stage that gave birth to the concept of the private property, which gave rise to the concept of private property. If we dig out the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, they have talked about the historical evolution of human society and generally the ‘state’. According to Marx, it was the embryonic stage that gave birth to the private property and with the birth of the private property, the class division or the class conflict began within society. This is how; the millions of years of human history began with the emergence of slavery that continued for millions of years and finally faced the revolt from the slaves and diffused into feudalism. Likewise, with the emergence Feudalism, a new class war emerged among the feudal owners and the peasants. The Age of Feudalism also continued for millions of years and finally, the class war began between the peasants and the feudal lords that overthrew Feudalism and with diffusion a new system emerged known as ‘Capitalism’.

The whole structure of the state developed around the community itself, discipline and the ordering of the work were maintained by customs and traditions through authority. In this regard, history shows that the state as a special apparatus through the coercion of the people, especially whenever there appeared class division within society — the division into classes and groups. In we touch the context of class struggle, the whole history of mankind is nothing but the history of class struggle between the slave and slave-owners, between Feudal lords and peasants and between the bourgeoisie and the proletariats.

For Lenin, it was the division of society into classes that gave birth to the fundamental fact of the history. This development has been parallel for every culture, civilization and society around the globe — the whole modern civilized European society went through these stages. For instance, Slavery remained a supreme fundamental fact in the European history for nearly two thousand years then Feudalism followed and reigned over Europe for thousand years to come. Likewise, if we distinctively put out the Russian history, the serfdom reigned for hundreds of years dominated all the aspects of the Russian society. Moreover, the Serfdom in Russia reigned longest of all [the so-called Appanage System] in which the Serfs were totally dependent upon the landowners for everything ranges from food, shelter and clothing.

Similarly, if we compare the history of western Europe and Russia in a single domain, then the history of slavery in Russia remained worst than the history of slavery in western Europe. It is because; in Russian History the peasants and landowners were dialectically bound by the Russian State. [6] It was only in 1861, when Feudalism took over in Russia and suddenly diffused into capitalism within decades to come. With the ascension of capitalism in Russia, the Feudal lords swiftly became the Capitalist or industrialist or the industrial owners. Basically, it was the dawn of Feudalism in Russia in the 1860s and the ascension of Capitalism in Russia with the dawn of the 20th century that gave birth to the revolutionary attempts of 1905 and 1917. Likewise, the rapid shift or the conversion of socio-political system from one form to another expanded the number of Proletarians (Proletariats) and soon, they became the majority. With rapid conversion of the majority of masses into the proletarian majority, the class war became more vivid that finally led the Russian Revolution of 1917 — Vladimir Lenin, in his famous book ‘State and Revolution’ called it a ‘Proletarian Revolution’. If we put this into the perspective of various nations, there are thousands of nations, which went through similar episode of the historical changes. Basically, it was the emergence the new proletarian class that had contributed to the socio-political changes in the history of various states and civilizations. The people, who rise above the society, are known as the rulers or the Statesmen while the people, which are below the society, are known as peasants or labor or Proletarians. [7]

Class, war, revolution and the state

If we dig out the writings of Karl Marx, he developed his theory of socialism or communism based on the ‘Basis’ and ‘Superstructure’ phenomenon. The categories of Basis and superstructure are important because they analyze in concrete terms the importance of modes of production on all other aspects of the life, including the spiritual aspect of the historical process.[8] In contrast, for Marx, the role of the modes of production is central in determining the socio-political and spiritual process of living society. In this regard, whenever, we talk about the modes of production, it refers to two sides of production — the productive forces and the relations of production. Both sides play a key role in determining the ideas. Likewise, when we talk about the state; it is nothing but the reflection of the society in every context — if social relationships are determined by the modes of production then it also determines the nature of the state. Whenever, we talk about state and society then we must have some understanding about the socio-economic formations that determines the life of social organisms. In the meantime, it is the existence of the productive forces that determines the modes of production, hence determines the nature of state and society. For instance, the nature of productive forces within the State of capitalism will give birth to a different modes of production — over-production, while the nature of the productive forces within the State of Socialism will give birth to different mode of production — what Karl Marx in his famous Critique of Gotha Program ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’. Basically, Karl Marx this principle refers to free access and distribution of goods, capital and services — the equal distribution of all existing resources. [9]

In contrast, the whole discourse of the state has been the product of historical development and the socialist view of the state only began to speculate in the late eighteenth century, especially after the socialist writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. According to Christian theology, the state was evil because the nature of man is evil. Likewise, according the rational speculation of enlightenment, the concept of the state is unnatural and hence evil. Various political philosophers such as Hegel, Marx, and Proudhon declared government as evil and hence called ‘annihilate the quackery of government’. Especially among the latter, the Hegelian terminologies had dominated the German intellectual in the nineteenth century, Hegel believed that “as long as the state existed, whatever the form of the government, there would always be the rulers and serfs — perhaps, this opposition will continue until and unless, state, which is the product of polarity, annihilates itself dialectically and give space to a unified social life, which is the actual condition of the community”. Moreover, the state is the product of the superstructure; the superstructure is nothing but the antagonistic formations, with all its ideas and ideological relations and institutions, is the result and an instrument of the struggle between the classes. In this regard, for Marx, state is an instrument of the ruling class to rule, and the exploit the ordinary masses and to protect their interests.

[1] During the abortive revolutionary attempt in Russia in 1905, two major groups emerged within the social democrats: the Bolsheviks (the hardliners) and the Menshevik (the bourgeoisie socialists). Whereas, the hardliners or the Bolsheviks were completely anti-czarists while the Mensheviks, were the pragmatic opportunists, who compromised with czarist regime for incentives such as the establishment of Provincial government under quasi-ceremonial Czar.

[2] In the ordinary domain of the political science, the definition of the state is very different because it resembles structure, area, government and population. Famous British Geographer Halford Mackinder during his 1887 lecture to the Royal geographical society deemed geography as the essence of the state. He defined geography as ‘the science of distribution, the science, that is, which traces the arrangement of things in general on the earth surface’. In the Carl Schmitt’s context, the essence and existence of the state has always been defined with the idea of firm land and sea; the land appropriation and the sea appropriation. In the literal context, the existence of the state resembles the sense of honor, in the famous words of Czar Alexander II; “In the life of states just as in that of private individuals there are moments when one must forget all but the defense of his honor”.

[3] According to the state theory of Thomas Hobbes, state always exists as a result of ‘the mutual relations between the protection and obedience’. Famous Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt during the heights of Nazi totalitarianism reinvented the writings of Thomas Hobbes through which he attempted to reconnect himself to the past. Because Carl Schmitt always stressed on the essence and existence of the state with the following dictum: ‘Starker Staat Und gesunde wirtshaft’ — Strong state and sound economy. Basically, here Schmitt tried to differentiate between two essential spheres of the state — the political sphere that refers to the state and the nonpolitical sphere, which refers to the society. But Carl Schmitt has broadened the discourse of the state through his qualitative total concept of the state that refers to the above society that constructs the reality of the monopoly at the political level to distinguish between the friend and the enemy. He also gave the concept of the quantitative state that refers to state ‘totality’, which intervenes indiscriminately into every sphere of human realm and existence. Thus, in the context of the quantitative state not a single domain of human realm is free of state intervention and interference because the state is no longer able to distinguish between the friend and the enemy.

[4] To understand the origin of the state, we must have the understanding of the origins of the private property. In this regard, it was Frederick Engels, who wrote a famous book ‘the origin of the family, private property and the state’ in which Frederick Engels gave a detailed account of the origin of family, property and the state through historical connection and different stages of development. This was indeed a milestone work in the history of modern socialism that overhauled both the domain of historical and dialectical materialism.

[5] The word ‘Clan’ refers to the blood Kin that forms a tribe from a single blood line.

[6] The appanage system emerged during the diffusion of Kievan Russ into centralized Russian State — the Russian historians call this ‘Appanage Era’that refers to the period between the collapse of Kievan Russian and the emergence of Centralized Russian State.

[7] The concept of the state as necessarily evil is springing from man’s fallen nature was rooted in the Christian traditions. Because, what we have seen during the Middle Ages, there was a power balance between the ecclesiastical authority and the political power in which the ecclesiastical authority was enjoying a supreme power. Moreover, it was the reformation that has subordinated the authority of the church to the state and in this way the modern state came into being. Even Thomas More in his famous book ‘Utopia’ trace the evils of the government rooted in the institution of private property. For Thomas More, who was utopian Communist saw the genesis of state in the institution of private property — basically, it is the private property that gave birth to the state.

[8] Kovalson, V. Kelle and M. Historical Materialism: An outline of the Marxist theory of Society. Moscow: Progress Publisher, 1973.

[9] There are various types of Justice, distributive, retributive, and compensatory which is directly linked with the nature of the state. Likewise, there various theories of Just Distribution — these theories emerged with two major questions: Is it shape, color, race, creed, religion, and sexual orientation? Are differences in character, ability, need, effort, or productivity relevant? With the help these question, the theories about the distribution of social benefits and burdens emerged? The theories includes Egalitarianism; which stresses that for just distribution each member of the society should completely get equal shares of the burden and benefit — there is no relevance differences among the members of society, Socialism; which stresses on ensuring the distribution based on needs and abilities — burdens and benefits should be distributed based on needs and abilities of the individuals, Protestant work Ethic; which stresses on the distribution based on contribution, which sometimes also referred as ‘puritan work ethic’ — the protestant work ethics confers that each member of the society should be rewarded in proportion to his/her contribution — the main premise of the Protestant work Ethics is that ‘Working hard is good to get big rewards’, Libertarianism; which stresses on distribution based on Freedom, it also opines that the just distribution is always the result of free exchange — in contrast, the libertarian ethics opines that the distribution of benefits and burdens always resulted from the free choices of the member of the society. On the contrary, the whole discourse of Libertarianism revolves around the notion of Negative Rights, Positive Rights and Contractualism. Whereas the Negative Rights refers to observance of the right without interference from the outside — the freedom from within e.g. Right to property, freedom of conscience, and freedoms of Press, while the Positive Rights, it refers to the observance of Right with a service to the holder. For instance, the right to healthcare is one of the examples of positive right. Lastly, Contractualism, it is based on the some ethical position, which opines that one has no positive moral obligations to anyone else other than those one freely accepts.