law, etc., are especially conspicuous. But here, again, it by no means follows that during the period of construction, the coercive side of the dictatorship has fallen away, or could do so. The organs of suppression, the army and other organizations, are as necessary now in the period of construction as they were during the civil war. Without these institutions, constructive work by the dictatorship with any degree of security would be impossible. It should not be forgotten that for the time being the revolution has been victorious in only one country. It should not be forgotten that as long as we live in a capitalist encirclement, so long will the danger of intervention, with all the resultant consequences continue.

Finally, Lenin explains what is meant by "the withering away of the state.”

FROM

N. Lenin

STATE AND REVOLUTION

Engels' words regarding the "withering away" of the state enjoy such popularity, they are so often quoted, and they show so clearly the essence of the usual adulteration by means of which Marxism is made to look like opportunism, that we must dwell on them in detail. Let us quote the whole passage from which they are taken.

The proletariat seizes state power, and then transforms the means of production into state property. But in doing this, it puts an end to itself as the proletariat, it puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms, it puts an end also to the state as a state. Former society, moving in class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, an organization of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its external conditions of production; therefore, in particular, for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, bondage or serfdom, wage-labor) determined by the existing mode of production. The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its embodiment in a visible corporate body; but it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself,

in its epoch, represented society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of the slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our epoch, of the bourgeoisie. When ultimately it becomes really representative of society as a whole, it makes itself superfluous. As soon as there is no longer any class of society to be held in subjection; as soon as, along with class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the former anarchy of production, the collisions and excesses arising from these have also been abolished, there is nothing more to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act in which the state really comes forward as a representative of society as a whole-the seizure of the means of production in the name of society—is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of a state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then becomes dormant of itself. Government over persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished," it withers away. It is from this standpoint that we must appraise the phrase "people's free state”. both its justification at times for agitational purposes, and its ultimate scientific inadequacy-and also the demand of the so-called Anarchists that the state should be abolished over night.

Without fear of committing an error, it may be said that of this argument by Engels so singularly rich in ideas, only one point has become an integral part of Socialist thought among modern Socialist parties, namely, that, unlike the Anarchist doctrine of the "abolition" of a state, according to Marx the state "withers away." To emasculate Marxism in such a manner is to reduce it to opportunism, for such an "interpretation" only leaves the hazy conception of a slow, even, gradual change, free from leaps and storms, free from revolution. The current popular conception, if one may say so, of the "withering away" of the state undoubtedly means a slurring over, if not a negation, of revolution.

Yet, such an "interpretation" is the crudest distortion of Marxism, which is advantageous only to the bourgeoisie; in point of theory, it is based on a disregard for the most important circumstances and considerations pointed out in the very passage summarizing Engels' ideas, which we have just quoted in full. In the first place, Engels at the very outset of his argument

says that, in assuming state power, the proletariat by that very act "puts an end to the state as a state." One is "not accustomed" to reflect on what this really means. Generally, it is either ignored altogether, or it is considered a piece of "Hegelian weakness" on Engels' part. As a matter of fact, however, these words express succinctly the experience of one of the greatest proletarian revolutions-the Paris Commune of 1871. . . . As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the destruction of the bourgeois state by the proletarian revolution, while the words about its withering away refer to the remains of proletarian statehood after the Socialist revolution. The bourgeoisie state does not "wither away," according to Engels, but is “put an end to" by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after the revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.

Secondly, the State is a “special repressive force." This splendid and extremely profound definition of Engels' is given by him here with complete lucidity. It follows from this that the "special repressive force" of the bourgeoisie for the suppression of the proletariat, of the millions of workers by a handful of the rich, must be replaced by a "special repressive force" of the proletariat for the suppression of the bourgeoisie (dictatorship of the proletariat). It is just this that constitutes the destruction of "state as the state." It is just this that constitutes the "act" of "the seizure of the means of production in the name of society." And it is obvious that such a substitution of one (proletarian) "special repressive force" for another (bourgeoisie) "special repressive force" can in no way take place in the form of a "withering away."

Thirdly, as to the "withering away" or, more expressively and colorfully, as to the state "becoming dormant," Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after "the seizure of the means of production [by the state] in the name of society," that is after the Socialist Revolution. We all know that the political form of the "state" at that time is complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists who shamefully distort Marx that when Engels speaks here of the state "withering away," or "becoming dormant," he speaks of

democracy. At first sight this seems very strange. But it is "unintelligible" only to one who has not reflected on the fact that democracy is also a state and that, consequently, democracy will also disappear when the state disappears. The bourgeoisie state can only be "put an end to" by a revolution. The state in general, i.e., most complete democracy, can only "wither away.”

These were the doctrines which caught fire in the minds of certain Russian intellectual radicals as the nineteenth century-the Century of Progress-drew to a close. Based upon the Dialectic, and enfused with a "religious" fervor, these doctrines formed the pattern of action on the part of a few Russian Bolsheviks which was to shape the tomorrows of both Russia and a large part of the world.

But if they were to shape events, events were also to shape them. For Marx only preached; Lenin and his colleagues practiced. And they practiced not in the milieu of quiet and books in which Marx wrote, but in the flux and flow of moving life. Inevitably the Marxist pattern underwent change; perforce the doctrines were modified. German Marxism changed into Russian Communism.

At no time, from the days when they came into power until the present, have Communist leaders been willing to admit this change, these modifications. But the facts cannot be verbalized out of existence. To understand Russia it is necessary, therefore, to know not only the original frame of thought and action which guided its Communist leaders, but the modifications made of it.

CHAPTER 4

The Transformation of
German Marxism into
Russian Communism

The following selections clearly

and fully limn these changes and make possible an understanding of the present world of Communist thought.

The first selection, by John Plamenatz, Oxford historian whose grasp of his subject is equaled only by his ability to make it clear to others, is a model exposition of how the master's plan developed in the hands of Lenin. It is taken from his GERMAN MARXISM AND RUSSIAN COMMUNISM. The second, by W. Rostow, carries the story of metamorphosis through Stalin, and succinctly shows how Russian traditions and history bore upon the changes wrought by the Communists. It is taken from THE DYNAMICS OF SOVIET SOCIETY. The "Bernstein" referred to below is Eduard Bernstein, influential German socialist, who held that Marxism could be achieved through a gradual, evolutionary development obviating the need for violent revolution.

The years "1902 until 1926" mark the period which began with Lenin's decision to marry the Russian peasant to the Russian proletariat and to lead both by means of an elite "vanguard," and ended with Stalin's decision-not implemented until 1928-to begin the forced collectivization of Russian agriculture.