Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
19 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
the totalitarian manifesto?, 17 Aug 2001
By A Customer
Essentially, this is Lenin's interpretation of Marx's celebrated Communist Manifesto written in a way to win over all that read it. It is not suprising just how good Lenin's intentions were for the future of Russian when it was published at the time of the 1917 revolution and in the same breath, it is easy to tell what went wrong. He forgot about his own book, died too early and all too easily Stalin took over. The so called Leninism in this book is enlightening in how it advocates "complete democracy" to the "state", only by how the state "withers away" so that democracy no longer exists. A brilliant way of summing up Marxism for what it really was meant to be and not how it was distorted by what happened after Lenin's death with Stalinism. This is a must read for anyone with any sort of interest in Russian history and politics in general. In my opinion, it is easier to read than the communist manifesto and certainly must be read as an adjunct to it. The introduction by the brilliant Robert Service is wonderfully written and a joy to read.
|
|
|
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Correcting an oversight ...., 3 Jan 2005
V. I. Lenin wrote this book in 1917, while he was hiding from the Russian government. Lenin pointed out that "The question of the relation of the state to the social revolution, and of the social revolution to the state, like the question of revolution generally, was given very little attention by the leading theoreticians and publicists of the Second International (1889-1914)". He wanted to correct that oversight, and that is probably the main reason why he wrote this book. "The State and revolution" is a very short book, well structured and not difficult to read at all. Initially this pamphlet was going to have seven chapters, but Lenin didn't conclude the seventh, due to the outbreak of the Russian revolution. In the postscript to the first edition he explains that, saying that due to the reasons already explained the conclusion of the seventh chapters would have to be put off for quite a long time, but that all the same "It is more pleasant and useful to go through the `experience of revolution' than to write about it". The main idea in "The State and revolution" is that the State is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, and an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class (a "special coercive force" that rules through violence). The State of the bourgeoisie will disappear, but only through a revolution that will take the people to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat (the working class) will become then the ruling class, "capable of crushing the inevitable and desperate resistance of the bourgeoisie, and of organizing all the working and exploited people for the new economic system. The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population -the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians- in the work of organizing a socialist economy." The dictatorship of the proletariat will be only a first stage in the path to Communism ("Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state"). According to Lenin, the necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with the idea of the necessity of violent revolution lies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and Engels. All throughout this book, Lenin cites and examines Marx and Engels' writings, in order to explain and support his own point of view. The importance of Marxism for nowadays world has diminished enormously, but I advice you to read this book nonetheless. It is certainly not a grueling task, and it will allow you to understand better some notions that many Marxist leaders believed with all their hearts. Ideas drive men, and men make history. "The State and revolution" will help you to get acquainted with some of those ideas, and that is not a small feat. Belen Alcat
|
|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
required reading for leftists, 1 May 2006
Probably Lenin's most often positively-cited work, a close reading dispels a whole host of myths about the man and the bolshevik movement - the idea that they were dictatorial insurgents just itching to impose their will on the hapless Russians is put to rest in Lenin's emphasis on soviet democracy; on the other hand, the mystification of him as a "nice man" who was merely forced by circumstance to be nasty is exposed as a lie too, with many references made to the proletariat's use of the 'full repressive force' of the state to consolidate its victory. Here is 'Leninism' in its purest expression.
The main question of the book is that - unsurprisingly - of the State's role, first in class society and secondly after the Revolution. And it is principally a polemic, against the thinkers of the Second International whom Lenin believed had abandoned Marxism with their support for WWI. This accounts for the rather addictive style in which he writes, with the full force of his sarcasm on show. (Apart from any contributions to Marxism it made, this book is actually quite fun to read, especially considering the rather dry nature of the subject matter.)
There would be no point going through the various arguments in the book here - not only is Lenin his own best advert (and worst smear campaign), a thorough introduction from Robert Service explicates it all (even if, as is the way with bourgeois historians, he seems suspiciously dispassionate), with a lot of attention to the context in which the book was written - vital for the works of revolutionaries.
Those active in leftist politics have no excuse for not reading this. If you're interested in Lenin's thought, this is where to start. If you're an anarchist, flick through it so as better to fight the man rather than the caricature. If you're a social democrat, though, you may find yourself getting a bit angry (especially if you recognise yourself!).
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
