# The State and Revolution (n. d.)/Chapter 1

THE STATE AND REVOLUTION
CHAPTER I.
Class Society and the State
1. The State as the Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms
Marx's doctrines are now undergoing the same fate, which, more than once in the course of History, has befallen the doctrines of other revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes invariably have meted out to them relentless persecution, and have received their teaching with the most savage hostility, with most furious hatred, and with a ruthless campaign of lies and slanders. After their death, however, attempts are usually made to turn them into harmless saints, canonizing them, as it were, investing their names with a certain halo by way of "consolation" to the oppressed classes, with the object of duping them; while at the same time emasculating and degrading the real essence of their revolutionary theories, blunting their revolutionary edge. At the present time the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement are cooperating in this work of adulterating Marxism. They omit, obliterate, and distort the revolutionary side of this teaching, its revolutionary soul, and push to the foreground and extol what is, or seems, acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the Socialist chauvinists are now "Marxists"—save the mark! And more and more do German bourgeois professors, erstwhile specialists in the demolition of Marx, speak now of the "National-German" Marx who, forsooth, has educated the splendidly organized working class for the present predatory war.
In these circumstances, with the distortion of Marxism so widespread, our first task is to resuscitate the real nature of Marx's teaching on the subject of the State. For this purpose it will be necessary to quote copiously from the works of Marx and Engels themselves. Of course, long extracts will make our text cumbersome, and will in no way add to its lucidity; but we cannot possibly avoid them. All, or at any rate, all the most essential passages in the works of Marx and Engels on the subject of the ​State must be presented as fully as possible, in order that the reader may form an independent and complete judgment of the ideas of the founders of Scientific Socialism, and in order that their distortions by the present predominant Kautsky school may be proved in black and white and made plain to all.
Let us begin with the most popular of Engels' works, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, the sixth edition of which was published in Stuttgart as far back as 1894. Summarizing his historical analysis, Engels says:
"The State in no way constitutes a force imposed on Society from outside. Nor is the State 'the reality of the Moral Idea,' ‘the image and reality of Reason,' as Hegel asserted. The State is the product of Society at a certain stage of its development. The State is tantamount to an acknowledgment that the given Society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has broken up into irreconcilable antagonisms, of which it is powerless to rid itself. And in order that these antagonisms—these classes with their opposing economic interests—may not devour one another and Society itself in their sterile struggle, some force standing, seemingly, above Society, becomes necessary so as to moderate the force of their collisions and to keep them within the bounds of 'order'. And this force arising from Society, but placing itself above it, which gradually separates itself from it—this force is the State." (Pages 177–178 of the Sixth German edition.)
Here, we have, expressed in all its clearness, the basic idea of Marxism on the question of the historical role and meaning of the State. The State is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. When, where, and to what extent the State arises, depends directly upon when, where, and to what extent the class antagonisms of a given Society cannot be objectively reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the State proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.
It is precisely on this most important and fundamental point that distortions of Marxism arise along two main lines.
On the one hand, the middle class (bourgeois) and particularly the lower middle classs (petty bourgeois) ideologists, compelled by the pressure of indisputable historical facts to recognize that the State only exists where there are class antagonisms and class struggles, "correct" Marx in such a way as to make it appear that the State is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. With the middle class and philistine professors and publicists, the State (and this frequently on the strength of generous references to ​Marx), becomes a mediator and conciliator of classes. According to Marx, the State is the organ of class domination, the organ of oppression of one class by another. Its aim is the creation of order which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression and moderates the collisions between the classes. But in the opinion of the lower middle class politicians, the establishment of order is equivalent to the reconciliation of classes, not to the oppression of one class by another. To moderate class collisions does not mean according to them, to deprive the oppressed class of certain definite means and methods in its struggle for throwing off the yoke of the oppressors, but to conciliate the oppressed class.
For instance, when in the Revolution of 1917, the question of the real meaning and role of the State arose, in all its importance as a practical question demanding immediate action on a wide mass-scale, all the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks rattled down, suddenly and without reservation, to the lower middle-class theory of the "conciliation of classes by the State." Innumerable resolutions and articles by publicists of both these parties were saturated through and through with this purely middle-class and philistine theory of conciliation. That the State is the organ of domination over a definite class which cannot be reconciled with its social antipode, this the lower middle-class democracy is never able to understand. Their attitude towards the State is one of the most telling proofs that our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are not Socialists at all (which we Bolsheviks have always maintained), but only lower middle-class democrats, with a phraseology very nearly Socialist.
On the other hand, the distortion of Marx by the Kautsky school is far more subtle. "Theoretically," there is no denial that the State is the organ of class domination, or that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable. But what is forgotten or overlooked is this: If the State is the product of the irreconcilable character of class antagonisms, if it is a force standing above society and "separating itself gradually from it," then it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible without a violent revolution, and without the destruction of the machinery of State power, which has been created by the governing class and in which this "separation" is embodied. This inference, theoretically quite self-evident was drawn by Marx, as we shall see later, with the greatest precision from a concrete historical analysis of the problems of revolution. And it is exactly this inference which Kautsky—as we shall show fully in our subsequent analysis—has "forgotten" and distorted.
2. The Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, etc.
Engels continues:
"As compared with the ancient gentilic (tribal or clan) organization, the State is distinguished, first of all, by the grouping of the subjects of the State, according to territorial divisions."
Such a grouping seems "natural" to us, but it came after a prolonged and costly struggle against the old form of tribal, gentilic Society.
"The second distinguishing feature is establishment of a public power which is no longer identical with the population and which is organized as an armed force.
"This distinct public power is necessary, because a self-acting armed organization of the population has become impossible with the break-up of Society into classes. … This public authority exists in every State. It consists not only of armed men, but also of material additions in the shape of prisons and repressive institutions of all kinds which were unknown in the gentilic (clan) form of Society."
Engels develops the conception of that "force" which is termed the State—a force arising from Society, but placing itself above it and becoming more and more divorced from it. What does this force consist of, in the main? It consists of special bodies of armed men who have at their command prisons, etc.
We are justified in speaking of special bodies of armed men, because the public power peculiar to every State "is not identical" with the armed population, with its "self-acting armed organization." Like all revolutionary thinkers, Engels tries to draw the attention of the class-conscious workers to that very fact which to the prevailing philistinism appears least of all worthy of attention, most common and sanctified by solid, indeed, one might say, petrified prejudices. A standing army and police are the chief instruments of force of the State authority; but can it, then, be otherwise?
From the point of view of the vast majority of Europeans at the end of the 19th century to whom Engels addressed himself and who had neither lived through nor observed at close quarters a single important revolution, this could not be otherwise. They could not understand what was meant by this. "self-acting armed organization of the population."
To the question whence arose the necessity for the forming of special bodies of armed men (police and standing army) standing above Society and becoming divorced from it, the Western European and Russian philistines are inclined to answer with a ​few phrases, borrowed from Spencer or Mikhailovsky, about the complexity of social life, the differentiation of functions, and so forth.
Such a reference seems "scientific" and effectively dulls the the senses of the average man, obscuring the most important and basic fact, viz., the break-up of Society into irreconcilably antagonistic classes. Without such split the "self-acting armed organization of the population," though differing from the primitive organization of a herd of monkeys merely grasping sticks, or of primitive man united in a clan form of Society, by its complexity, its high technique, and so forth, would still have been possible. It cannot, however, exist now, because Society in the period of civilization is broken up into antagonistic, and indeed, irreconcilably antagonistic classes, the "self-acting" arming of which would lead to armed struggles between them. The State is therefore formed; a special force is created in the form of special bodies of armed men; and every revolution, in shattering the State machinery, demonstrates to us how the governing class aims at the restoration of the special bodies of armed men at its service, and how the oppressed class tries to create a new organization of a similar nature, capable of serving not the exploiting but the exploited class.
In the above discussion Engels poses theoretically the very same question which is presented to us in an actual, palpable form, on a mass-scale, by every great revolution, viz., the question of the relation between "special bodies of armed men" and the "self-acting armed organization of the population." We shall see how this question is illustrated concretely by the experience of the European and Russian revolutions.
But let us return to Engels.
He points out that sometimes (for instance, here and there in North America) this public power is weak (he has in mind here rare exceptions in capitalist society and parts of North America in its pre-Imperialist days, when the free colonist predominated), but that in general it tends to become stronger:
"The above-mentioned public force increases with the intensification of class antagonisms within the State, and with the growth in size and population of adjacent States. One has but to glance at present-day Europe in which the class-struggle and rivalry in conquests have screwed up that public force to such a pitch that it threatens to swallow up the whole of Society and even the State itself. …"
This was written as far back as the beginning of the 'nineties ​of last century, Engels' last preface being dated June 16, 1891. The turn towards Imperialsm, in the shape both of a complete domination of the trusts and of the all-powerful large banks, and of a colonial policy on a grand scale, had only just begun in France, and was even weaker in North America and in Germany. Since then the "rivalry in conquests" has made gigantic advances—especially as the beginning of the second decade of the 20th century found the whole world finally divided up between these "rival conquerors"—that is between the great predatory powers. Military and naval armaments then grew to monstrous proportions, and the predatory war of 1914–17 for the domination of the world by England or Germany, for the division of spoils, bids fair to bring about the "swallowing up" of all the forces of Society by the rapacious State power, and to lead to a complete catastrophe.
Already in 1891 Engels was able to point to "rivalry in conquests" as one of the most important features of the foreign policy of the Great Powers, but in 1914–17, when this rivalry, many times intensified, had given birth to an Imperialist war, the rascally Social-chauvinists cover up their defense of the policy of grab of "their" capitalist classes by phrases about the "defense of the Fatherland," or “"defense of the Republic and the Revolution," and so on, and so on!
3. The State as an Instrument of Exploitation of the Oppressed Class.
For the maintenance of a special public force standing above Society, taxes and State loans are indispensable.
"Wielding public power and the right to exact taxes, the officials [Engels writes] are raised as organs of Society above Society. The free, voluntary respect enjoyed by the organs of the tribal (clan) Society is no longer sufficient for them, even could they win it."
Special laws are enacted regarding the sanctity and the inviolability of the officials. "The most insignificant police servant" has more authority than the representative of the clan, but even the head of a civilized State might well envy the elder of a clan in respect to the "spontaneous, unforced regard on the part of Society" enjoyed by that elder.
Here is raised the question of the privileged position of the officials as agents of the State power, and the fundamental query to be answered is this: What is it that places them above ​Society? We shall see how this theoretical problem was solved in practice by the Paris Commune in 1871, and how it was slurred over in 1912 by Kautsky.
"Since the State arose out of the need of keeping in check the antagonisms of classes; since at the same time it arose as a result of the collisions of these classes, it is, as a general rule, the State of the most powerful and economically predominant class, which by means of the State also becomes the predominant class politically, thereby obtaining new means for the oppression and exploitation of the oppressed class."
It was not only the ancient and feudal States which were organs of exploitation of the slaves and serfs, but the "Modern representative State, too, is the means of exploitation of wage labor by capital. By way of exceptions, however, there are periods when the warring classes attain such an equilibrium of strength that the State power for a time becomes, to an extent, independent of both classes and appears as a mediator between them. …"
Such, for instance, were the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Bonapartism of the First and Third Empires in France, and the Bismarck regime in Germany.
Such, we may add, is now the Kerensky Government in Republican Russia after it has initiated the persecution of the revolutionary proletariat, at a moment when the Soviets, thanks to the leadership of the lower middle-class democrats, have already become impotent, whilst the capitalist class is not yet strong enough to dissolve them.
"In a democratic Republic [Engels continues] wealth uses its power indirectly, but so much the more securely, first, by means of direct bribery of officials (as in America); second, by means of an alliance between the Government and the Stock Exchange (as in France and America)."
At the present time Imperialism and the domination of the banks have reduced to a fine art both these methods of defending and enforcing the omnipotence of wealth in democratic Republics of all descriptions. If, for instance, in the very first months of the Russian Democratic Republic—one might say during the honeymoon of the union of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks with the bourgeoisie in the Coalition Ministry—M. Paltchinski obstructed every measure of restraint against the capitalists and war-profiteering, or the plunder of the public treasury by army contractors; and if, after his resignation, M. Paltchinski (replaced, of course, by an exactly similar Paltchinski) was "rewarded" by the capitalists with a "cushy" little job ​carrying a salary of 120,000 roubles ($60,000) per annum, what was this? Direct or indirect bribery? A league of the Government with the capitalist syndicates, or "only" friendly relations? What is the precise role played by Tchernoff, Tseretelli, Avksentieff and Skobeleff? Are they "direct," or "only" the indirect, allies of the millionaire thieves who are plundering the public treasury? The omnipotence of "wealth" is also more "secure" in a democratic Republic, because it does not depend on the bad political form of capitalism. The democratic Republic is the best possible political form for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained control (through the Paltchinskis, Tchernoffs, Tseretellis & Co.) of this very best form, it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons or institutions or parties, in the bourgeois Republic, can shake it.
We must also note that Engels quite definitely regards universal suffrage as a means of capitalist domination. Universal suffrage, he says (summing up obviously the long experience of German Social Democracy), is "an index of the maturity of the working class; it cannot and never will give anything more in the present State." The lower middle-class democrats such as our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and also their twin brothers, the Social-chauvinists and Opportunists of Western Europe, all expect a "great deal" from this universal suffrage. They themselves hold and instill into the minds of the people the wrong idea that universal suffrage in the "present State" is really capable of expressing the will of the majority of the laboring masses and of securing its realization.
Here we can only note this wrong idea, and point out that this perfectly clear, exact, and concrete statement by Engels is distorted at every step in the propaganda and agitation of the "official" (that is, Opportunist) Socialist parties. A detailed exposure of the falsity of this idea, which Engels simply brushes aside, is given in our further account of the views of Marx and Engels on the "modern" State.
A general summary of his views is given by Engels in the most popular of his works, in the following words:
"Thus, the State has not always existed. There were societies which did without it, which had no idea of the State or of State power. At a given stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the break-up of Society into classes, the State became a necessity as a result of this division. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production in which the existence of these classes is not only no longer ​necesary, but also is becoming a direct impediment to production. Classes will vanish as inevitably as they inevitably arose in the past. With the disappearance of classes the State, too, will inevitably disappear. When organizing production anew on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, Society will banish the whole State machine to a place which will then be the most proper one for it—to the museum of antiquities side by side with the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe."
It is not often that we find this passage quoted in the propagandist literature of contemporary Social Democracy. But even when we do come across it, it is generally quoted as some sacred or ritual formula, that is, merely to show official respect for Engeis, without any attempt to gauge the width and the depth of the revolutionary act presupposed by this "banishment of the whole State machine to the museum of antiquities." And often one cannot trace even the least comprehension of what Engels calls the State machine.
4. The Withering Away of the State, and Revolution by Force.
Engels' words regarding the "withering away" of the State enjoy such a popularity, are so often quoted, and reveal so clearly the essence of the common adulteration of Marxism in an opportunist sense, that we must examine them in detail. Let us give the whole argument from which they are taken:
"The proletariat seizes control of the State authority and, first of all, converts the mans of production into State property. But by this very act it destroys itself as a proletariat, destroying at the same lime all class differences and class antagonisms, and with this, also, the State as such. Past and present Society, which moved amidst class antagonisms, had to have the State, that is, an organization of the exploiting class for the support of its external conditions of production, therefore, in particular, for the forcible retention of the exploited class in such conditions of oppression {such as slavery, serfdom, wage labor) as are determined by the given methods of production. The State was the official representative of the whole of Society, its embodiment in a visible corporation; but it was such only in so far as it was the State of that class which, in the given epoch, alone represented the whole of Society, In ancient times it was the State of the slave-owners—the only citizens of the State; in the middle ages it was the State of the feudal nobility; in our own times it is the State of the capitalists. When, ultimately, the State really becomes the ​representative of the whole of Society, it will make itself superfluous. From the time when, together with class domination and the struggle for individual existence, resulting from the present anarchy in the production those conflicts and excesses which arise from this struggle will all disappear—from that time there will be nobody lo be oppressed; there will, therefore, be no need for the State. The first act of the State, in which it really acts as the representative of the whole of Society, namely, the assumption of control over the means of production on behalf of Society, is also its last independent act as a State. The inference of the authority in the State with social relations will then become superfluous one field after another, and finally will cease of itself. The authority of the Government over persons will be replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The State will not be "abolished"; it will wither away. It is from this point of view that we must appraise the phrase, 'a free popular State'—a phrase which, for a time, had a right to be employed as a purely propaganda slogan, but which in the long run is scientifically untenable, It is also from this point of view that we must appraise the demand of the so-called anarchists that the State "should be abolished overnight!" (Herr Eugen Duehrings Unwaelzumg der Wissenschaft; p. 302–303, third German edition.)
Without fear of committing an error, it can be said that the only point in this argument by Engels, so singularly rich in ideas, which has become an integral part of Socialist thought among modern Socialist parties has been that, according to Marx, the State "withers away," in contradiction to the anarchist teaching of the "abolition" of the State. To emasculate Marxism in such a manner is simply to reduce it to, opportunism, for such an "interpretation" only leaves the semi-articulate-conception of a slow, even, continuous 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 is undoubtedly that it means a quenching, if not negation, of Revolution. Yet, such an "interpretation" is a most vulgar distortion of Marxism, advantageous only to the capitalist classes, based theoretically on the neglect of the most important conditions and considerations pointed out in the very passage summarizing Engels' ideas, which we have just quoted in full.
In the first place, at the very outset of his argument, Engels says that in assuming State power, the proletariat "by that very act destroys the State as such." It is not usual to reflect on what this really means. Generally, it is either ignored altogether or ​it is considered as 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, of which we shall speak in greater detail in its own place. In reality, Engels speaks here of the destruction of the capitalist State by the proletarian revolution, while the words about its withering away refer to the remains of a proletarian State after the Socialist revolution. The capitalist State does not wither away, according to Engels, but is destroyed by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. Only the proletarian State or semi-State withers away after the revolution.
Second, the State is a "particular power of suppression." This splendid and extremely profound definition of Engels' is presented with complete lucidity. It follows therefrom that the "particular power of suppression" of the proletariat by the capitalist class, of the millions of workers by the handful of rich, must be replaced by a "particular power of suppression" of the capitalist class by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat). It is just this that constitutes the destruction of the State as such. It is just this that constitutes the "act" of taking possession of the means of production on behalf of Society. And it is obvious that such a substitution of one (capitalist) "particular power" by another (proletarian) "particular power" could in no way take place in the form of a "withering away."
Third, in using the term "withering away," Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after "the taking over the means of production by the State on behalf of the whole of Society," that is, after the Socialist Revolution. We all know that the political form of the "State" is then an absolutely complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the Opportunists who shamelessly distort Marxism that Engels deals here with the withering away of the Democracy. At first sight this seems very strange. But it will only be unintelligible to one who had not reflected on the fact that. Democracy is also a State and that, consequently, Democracy will also disappear when the State disappears. Only a revolution can "destroy" the capitalist State. The State in general, that is, complete Democracy, can only wither away.
Fourth, having formulated his famous proposition that "the State withers away," Engels at once explains concretely that this proposition is directed equally against the Opportunists and the Anarchists. In doing this, however, Engels draws, in the first ​place, that deduction from his proposition which is directed against the Opportunists.
One can wager that out of every ten thousand persons who have read or heard of the "withering away" of the State, 9,990 do not know at all, or do not remember, that Engels did not direct his conclusions from this proposition against the Anarchists alone. And out of the remaining ten, nine do not know the meaning of "a free popular state" nor the reason why an attack on this watchword contained an attack on the Opportunists. This is how History is written! This is how a great revolutionary doctrine is imperceptibly adulterated and adapted to current philistinism! The reference to the Anarchists has been repeated thousands of times, had been vulgarized in the crudest fashion possible, until it has acquired the strength of a prejudice, whereas the reference to the Opportunists has been hushed up and "forgotten."
"A free popular State" was the demand in current use in the program of the German Social Democrats of the 'seventies. There is no political substance in this slogan other than a pompous middle-class circumlocution of the idea of democracy. In so far as it pointed in "lawful" manner at a democratic Republic, Engels was prepared "for a time" to justify it from a propaganda point of view. But this slogan was really Opportunist, for it not only exaggerated the attractiveness of bourgeois democracy, but also conveyed a misunderstanding of the Socialist criticism of the State in general. We are in favor of a democratic Republic as the best form of the State for the proletariat under Capitalism, but we have no right to forget that wage slavery is the lot of the people even in in the most democratic middle-class Republic. Furthermore, every State is a "particular power of suppression" of the oppressed class. Consequently, no state is either "free" or "popular." Marx and Engels explained this repeatedly to their party comrades in the 'seventies.
Fifth, in the same work of Engels from which everyone remembers this arguments on "withering away" of the State, there is also a disquisition on the nature of a violent revolution; and the historical appreciation of its role becomes, with Engels, a veritable panegyric of a revolution by force. This, of course, no one remembers. To talk or even think of the importance of this idea, is not considered respectable by our modern Socialist parties, and in the daily propaganda and agitation among the masses it plays no part whatever. Yet it is indissolubly bound up with the "withering away" of the State in one harmonious whole. Here is Engels' argument:
​"That force also plays another part in History (other than that of the perpetuation of evil), namely, a revolutionary part; that, as Marx says, it is the midwife of every old Society when it is pregnant with a new one; that force is the instrument and the means by which social movements hack their way through and break up the dead and fossilized political forms;—of all this not a word by Herr Duehring. Duly, with sighs and groans, does he admit the possibility that for the overthrow of the system of exploitation, force may, perhaps, be necessary, but most unfortunate, if you please, because all use of force, forsooth, demoralizes its user! And this is said in face of the great moral and intellectual advance which has been the result of every victorious revolution! And this is said in Germany, where a violent collision—which might, perhaps, be forced on the people—should have, at the very least, this advantage that it would destroy the spirit of subservience which has been permeating the national mind ever since the degradation and humiliation of the Thirty Years' War. And this turbid, flabby, impotent parson’s mode of thinking dares offer itself for acceptance to the most revolutionary party History has ever known!" (P. 193, third German edition.)
How can this eulogy of a revolution by force, which Engels propounded to the German Social Democrats between 1878–94, that is, up to the very day of his death, be reconciled with the theory of the "withering away" of the State, and combined into one doctrine? Usually the two views are combined by a process of eclecticism, by an unprincipled, sophistic, arbitrary selection of passages here and there (to oblige the powers that be)—and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred (if not more often), it is the idea of the "withering away of the State" that is especially emphasized. Dialectics is replaced by eclectics—this is the most usual, the most widespread method used in the official Social-Democratic literature of our day in respect of Marxist teachings. Such a substitution is, of course, not new: one can see it even in the history of classic Greek philosophy. In the process of camouflaging Marxism as Opportunism, the substitution of eclecticism for dialectics is the best method of deceiving the masses. It gives an illusory satisfaction. It seems to take into account all sides of the process, all the tendencies of development, all the contradictory factors, etc., whereas, in reality, it offers no consistent revolutionary view of the process of social development at all.
We have already said above and shall show more fully at a later stage that the teaching of Marx and Engels regarding the ​inevitability of a violent revolution refers to the Capitalist State. It cannot be replaced by the proletarian State (the dictatorship of the proletariat) through mere "withering away," but, in accordance with the general rule, can only be brought about by a violent revolution. The hymn of praise sung in its honor by Engels, fully corresponding to the repeated declarations of Marx (see the concluding passages of the Poverty of Philosophy and the Communist Manifesto, with its proud and open declaration of the inevitability of a violent revolution; also Marx's Criticism of the Gotha Program of 1875, in which, thirty years after, he mercilessly castigates its Opportunist character)—this praise is by no means "a mere impulse," a mere declamation, or a mere polemical sally. The necessity of systematically fostering among the masses this and only this point of view about violent revolution lies at the root of the whole of Marx's and Engels' teachings, and it is just the neglect of such propaganda and agitation both by the present, predominant Social-chauvinists and the Kautskian schools that brings their betrayal into prominent relief.
The substitution of the proletarian for the capitalist State is impossible without a violent revolution, while the abolition of the proletarian State, that is, of all States, is only possible through "withering away."
Marx and Engels gave a full and concrete illustration of these views in their study of each revolutionary situation separately, by an analysis of the lessons of the experience of each individual revolution. To this, undoubtedly the most important part of their work, we shall now turn.