The State and Revolution (Classic, 20th-Century, Penguin)

This is a classic work and as such deserves 5 stars. The editor's introduction is very good and sets the context for the rest of the book. I do not know how well it is translated as I am not a only speak English but it reads consistent with what I know of his views.The transition of the USSR to socialism completely failed from the get-go due to the material conditions the revolution took place in. Something like 90% of the population was the peasantry while the proletariat made up a very small percentage -- what this meant is in order to succeed the proletariat, with genuine revolutionary intentions, was forced to ally with the peasantry in order to succeed. The different aims resulted in the peasantry abandoning the cause once their goals were met and the failure of any transition to socialism. We instead ended up with state capitalism and a dominant party.The biggest issue with Lenin is the concept of a vanguard party that has to awaken the unconscious masses -- to bring them socialism. This simply cannot work as a successful revolution has to come spontaneously from the proletariat and their organization has to be a direct product of their needs, not a theory put upon them by a more awakened class of elite revolutionaries. This is how the highly praised Paris Commune came to be, not from some application of existing theory.tldr go away tankies; "actually existing socialism" === "not actually socialism but has a red flag."

My favorite book of theory highly recommend for anyone, anyone can read this and learn something

A must-read for all leftists, no matter your tendency. You might not agree with all of Lenin's conclusions, or at least be skeptical of them like I am (I can't help but compare what he said to what he did, personally) but his arguments are so well thought out that he deserves your time and consideration regardless.

Lenin explains his program in great detail. A very useful reference point in this respect. However at times possibly too much detail. A bit repetitive in places. It was translated 100 years ago, so some of the expressions ate no longer in common usage.

As always with Penguin Classics, "The State and Revolution" is beautifully introduced, this time by Robert Service. It is a must have for any Marxist-Leninist as well as anyone interested in the rich history of Russia and the path Lenin saw as the way forward.

great edition, useful information

Many people dismiss Lenin, and Marxism in general, because they are usually associated with the bureaucratic tyranny of the Stalinist regimes of Russia, Eastern Europe, China etc. But these regimes had/have nothing to do with genuine Marxism, as anyone who reads this book will see. The so-called “communist” states were actually state capitalist systems controlled by a ruling class of bureaucrats who betrayed the democratic aims of the 1917 Russian Revolution.Lenin follows Marx and Engels in showing that the existence of the state is a result of the existence of class exploitation and class conflict in society. (In pre-class societies, the state did not exist.) As Marx said, “...the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another...”This is obvious in the case of ancient Roman slave society or medieval feudalism, but it is less obvious in modern capitalist societies, because capitalists usually hide their class rule behind a veneer of “democracy”. But as Lenin says in this book:“Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich, and a snare and deception for the exploited...”In modern capitalist “democracies” the electorate and parliaments do not have real power. The ruling class capitalists can use their economic power to force governments into line; they control the media and the top levels of the civil service; and if all else fails they can resort to force, through their control of the police and armed forces.Lenin agreed with Marx’s view that a revolution was necessary in order to achieve socialism for two reasons: firstly, because the ruling class would not give up power peacefully; and secondly, because it was by going through the experience of class struggle that the working class’s ideas would change on a mass scale and the majority would be won over to socialist ideas and become “fitted to found society anew.”Lenin did not want to seize power in a coup. He wanted to win over the majority of the exploited and for THEM to take power. When Marx and Lenin talked about the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, they did not mean that Marxists would rule OVER the working class, they meant rule BY the working class. This workers’ state would then gradually be replaced by a classless society in which the state would “wither away”.Marx’s model for a democratic workers’ state was the short-lived Paris Commune, where all officials were elected, subject to recall at any time, and paid only an average worker’s wage; and where the army and police were replaced by a workers’ militia. Lenin’s idea was that the soviets (workers’ councils) would also follow this highly democratic model. Bourgeois “democracy” should be replaced by something much MORE democratic. John Reed's book "Ten Days That Shook The World", for example, shows how democratic the soviets were in their early days.The February Revolution of 1917 had got rid of the Tsar, but it brought to power the Provisional Government which continued to take part in the bloodbath of World War One. Lenin argued for a new revolution, which eventually took place in October.October would only be a "coup" if the Bolsheviks took power without majority support. In fact they only took power when they had won a majority on the soviets, with the previous majority of SRs and Mensheviks having been voted out. Even the Menshevik Martov admitted that the workers were solidly behind the Bolsheviks by October.Lenin’s idea was that the Bolshevik party should compete with other parties on the soviets. The fact that the soviets later ended up as being a one-party system was a sign of the FAILURE of the revolution: it was not what Lenin had intended.Lenin expected the Russian Revolution to spark off revolutions in other countries. (Indeed there was a failed revolution in Germany.) But the isolation of the Russian Revolution, the horrors of the Civil War initiated by the “Whites” and intervention by foreign powers in support of the White armies combined to destroy the foundations of the new regime.It is claimed by anti-Marxist historians that Leninism led directly to Stalinism. But Stalin actually had to DESTROY the last vestiges of genuine Leninism in order to consolidate his counter-revolution. Incidentally, given that it was the isolation of the Russian Revolution which ultimately led to its demise under Stalin, it was not the politics of Lenin's Bolsheviks which led to Stalinism, it was the LACK of mass Leninist parties in other countries.After Lenin’s death Trotsky kept alive the genuine Marxist idea that socialism means workers’ democracy, but unfortunately he clung to the idea that Russia had become a degenerated workers’ state, whereas in fact it had become under Stalin a bureaucratic state capitalist regime.Phil Webster.(England)

This is one of the most important Marxist/Marxist-Leninist texts. It discusses the the vulgarization of Marxism by the opportunists (Kautsky, Bernstein, Lasalle, etc.), the function of the state, the withering away of the state, and more. It is highly important for any Marxist to read this.

Extrem wichtiges und heute immer noch relevantes Buch!

Absolutely fantastic, a must read for any leftist. Should be taught in schools. Well written, easy to follow and grasp, and entertaining.

Very good book

As expected

Exactly the book I was looking for...