Lenin's The State and Revolution critical summary Essay

Lenin's The State and Revolution critical summary - Essay Example For many Marxists, grasping the essence of State and Revolution is regarded as the hallmark of genuine communists. The social analysis presented by Lenin ultimately justifies violent revolution. Lenin explains that those who continue to claim that they are Marxists too are exposed as fraud if they dispute the concept that only a violent uprising led by the proletariat and participated by all working masses can bring about the downfall of the bourgeoisie and lead to the construction of a new society where the majority are indeed superior to the minority, one that is also the cornerstone for the achievement of communism in the future. Lenin’s articulation is not just based on the earlier works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels though. This is also a by-product of the actual revolutionary experiences in Germany and France. Because of this, his ideas are not entirely new but are the more timely and practical perspective of Marxism. However, not everyone, even among the ranks of th ose who claim to be socialists, appreciate the points raised by Lenin. Even as he presented his criticisms against the reformists and the anarchists alike, his concepts were also heavily bombarded by the very people he criticized. From whatever perspective, whether left or right, State and Revolution is undoubtedly one of the foremost texts that shape theories useful in political science. This means that it is definitely not just the Marxists or the revolutionaries who should comprehend its meaning. The State: Establishment and ‘Withering Away’ In the first chapter of State and Revolution, Lenin reiterated the essential point raised by Engels regarding the principal character of the state. In defining the state, he merely re-emphasized Engels’ theory that it is a reflection of the reality that class antagonisms could be resolved in societies according to the current level of historical development. In Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels points out that the state â€Å"is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel† (Engels, 2004, p.157). Social hierarchy as represented by the government is a means of instilling order, one that favors the economic elite, the bourgeoisie. It is precisely because there is a majority of working masses that need to be oppressed to instill subservience that the state creates armed components such as the armed forces and the police, aided by the judiciary and the penal system. The state, as Lenin explains, is therefore an instrument of those who are dominant also in the economic sphere. It is a coercive mechanism that is employed by the bourgeoisie in order to maintain its power seemingly, at first, in the sphere of politics. However, it ultimately serves as weapon against those who may wa nt to change the status quo in the economy and production as well. However, the establishment of the state apparently does not resolve contradictions among the classes. Instead, it only sharpens these to the point that the oppressed and exploited would deem it necessary to wage a revolution. Lenin clarifies that revolutions are not just abnormal reactions of the masses to intense oppression and exploitation. Revolutions occur as a natural response to the realities of class antagonisms. Therefore, for as long as classes