Category: Political Science Notes

Marxist Definition of State:

Marxist theory of state, besides liberal state, is perhaps the most prominent theory. Marxist theory not only challenges the basic concepts of liberal state but also emphasises that it enslaves majority men of society for the realisation of its aims, it is to be abolished or smashed without which the emancipation of common men will never be possible. However, a problem about academic analysis of Marxist theory of state is that no where Marx has methodically analysed the theory.

Marx (1818- 1883) and his friend Engels (1820-1895) have made different comments and statements which constitute the fabric of state theory. We shall first deal with the definition of state. In the Communist Manifesto (it was written by both Marx and Engels) we find a simple definition of state.

They have said that the state is the “Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another”. In the same book we find them saying, “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”.

Hal Draper in his Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution defines in the following words: “The state is the institution or complex of institutions which bases itself on the availability of forcible coercion by special agencies of society in order to maintain the dominance of a ruling class, preserve the existing property relations from basic change and keep all other classes in subjection.”

Draper’s definition of Marxist state is not basically different from the definitions given by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. The state is fundamentally an instrument of class domination. In other words, the state is used by the bourgeoisie to exploit the common people and in that sense it is a machinery for exploitation. This concept has been elaborated by Lenin.

Origin of State:

Marx, Engels and their followers (particularly Lenin) had no faith on the social contract theory as the origin of state. They have viewed the origin from a materialistic’ standpoint which emphasises that though the state is the creation of man, behind this there is no emotion, idea but the influence of material conditions which they termed as economic conditions.

They have divided the development of society into old communist social system, slave society, feudal society and industrial society. In the old communist society there was no state because there was no existence of private property. The system of private property worked as a potential cause of the rise of state.

The owners of private property felt insecurity as to its protection and they felt the necessity of a super power which could provide protection ultimately. How the system of private property helped the creation of state?

(1) As soon as there was private property, two classes of men there appeared—one was the owner of property and the other was without property.

(2) The conflict between them became prominent. Property owners wanted to subjugate the other class.

(3) Property owners created a force within the society and this force ultimately assumed the status of state.

From the study of history Marx and Engels have concluded that the state—for all practical purposes—was set up in the slave society. Because in the slave society there were mainly two classes—the owners of slaves and the slaves themselves. The owners of the slaves required an organisation to control and dominate slaves.

Engels in his The Origin of Family, Private Property and State has elaborately analysed the origin and development of state. The state is not something coming out of the society. It is rather the product of society. Let us quote him. “The state is, by no means, a power forced on society from without… Rather it is a product of society at a certain stage of development”.

People inhabiting in society laid the foundation of state for the realisation of their class interests. What is the class interest and how could the state fulfill this? Engels in this book has categorically stated that the interests of the owners of property are at diametrically opposite to those who are not the owners; because of this there were clashes of interests between these two classes and the interests were irreconcilable.

At the same time there developed an animosity between these two classes and again this antagonism could not be settled. All these led to a situation which necessitated a state structure.

The owners of the property came to be regarded as a separate class whose sole aims were to control the persons who were not the owners of property and to devise a mechanism whose chief function would be to help the property owners. The state in this way was created as a public power.

The man-made state had two main functions—to provide security to the owners of wealth or owners of means of production and to collect taxes from the members of society. Engels has further observed that though the state is the product of society, slowly but steadily it became the owner of enormous power and it stood above society.

But though the state stood above the society it was always friendly with the owners of property. We, therefore, conclude that the state is the outcome of human contrivance and was made with specific aims. It is now clear that according Marx and Engels the origin of the state has nothing to do with the social contract or the divine right theory. They have analysed the origin purely from materialistic point of view.

Models of the Marxist Theory of State:

The Marxists have discovered two models of the Marxist theory of state. One is instrumentalist model and the other model is relative autonomy model which is in opposition to the other model.

Both the above mentioned models are discussed below in detail:

1. The Instrumentalist Model:

According to Marx and Engels the state was created to safeguard the economic interests (other interests are also included but economic interests are primary) and ultimately the state (along with its police, military and bureaucracy) was converted into an instrument used by the owners of property.

From this special role of the state the Marxists have deduced a particular model of Marxist theory of state which is called the instrumentalist model. The core idea of this model is the state is used as an instrument for the fulfillment of interests of a particular class or section of society.

The chief spokespersons of this model are Ralph Miliband, Sanderson, and Avineri. There are many others who have lent their support to this model. Even Lenin accepted this model in his highly eulogised famous work State and Revolution.

In Class Struggle in France, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of the State, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Marx emphasised this aspect of state. On the eve of Bolshevik Revolution Lenin published State and Revolution and in this book he has said that the state is the result of the irreconcilability of class antagonism.

The bourgeoisie used the state to articulate the interests of the capitalists. Collecting materials from history Marx has shown that without using the state as an instrument the bourgeoisie could not survive at all because its survival depended upon its ability to accumulate and guard wealth.

Central Idea of Instrumentalist Approach:

We have already quoted a long passage from Origin of Family Private Property and State. He said: the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class. It means that the bourgeois state is completely controlled by the dominant class. This economically powerful and dominant class uses the state to serve its own purposes.

This is the
instrumentalist character of state. Why the capitalist class uses the state? We have already said that without the help from the state it would be impossible for the bourgeoisie to keep its citadel of wealth intact.

In a class society this special role of the state is inevitable and this can be explained in the form of the following points:

(a) In any class state/society there are two main classes (there are also other classes but two classes are main. Marx and Engels came to know this from the study of history),

(b) Since the interests of these two main classes are opposite conflict between the two important classes is inevitable because the interests stand in direct opposition,

(c) Because of this the interests are irreconcilable,

(d) The two classes make preparations for aggravating the conflict. On the one hand there is the state and capitalist class and on the other hand there are workers,

(e) The capitalist class uses the state machinery (particularly the police and army) to control the revolt fuelled by the working class,

(f) If the state is not used as an instrument for dominating the working class, exploitation of the workers would not have been possible.

Manifesto and German Ideology:

In many of their writings Marx and Engels have elaborated the instrumentalist idea of state but analysts of Marxism are of opinion that in the Communist Manifesto (full name is Manifest of the Communist Party) and The German Ideology the concept has prominence. The bourgeois class gradually and steadily captured political power and finally established its authority over all aspects of governmental affairs.

In Manifesto Marx and Engels have said, “political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another”.

The bourgeoisie, in order to establish its full control over the industry in particular and the economy in general, has constantly revolutionised the industry, mode of production. The bourgeoisie did it by introducing new machineries and improved techniques of production into industries. By doing this the capitalist class has been able to articulate its full hold over all the branches of economy.

The bourgeoisie has not only controlled the domestic economy and internal market but also the world market. “The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption”.

In other words, the chief aim of the bourgeoisie is to control all the branches of government, the economy with all its ramifications and finally the world market. Marx and Engels have assertively said that the bourgeoisie has performed these tasks through state and in this way the state acts as an instrument.

The instrumentalist approach to politics emphasised by Marx and Engels also occupies an important place in The German Ideology (1846). This large book, consisting of more than 700 pages (Moscow edition), sporadically makes comments which throw light on the instrumentalist interpretation of politics.

This book is the joint product of Marx and Engels. They have said “By the mere fact that it is a class and no longer an estate the bourgeoisie is forced to organise itself no longer locally, but nationally and to give a general form to its average interests”. The control of the bourgeoisie class is not confined within the local political sphere but its influence spreads throughout the national politics.

In other words, the capitalist class is the controller of both local and national politics. In the Manifesto they uttered almost the same words. The state is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests—even the civil society is completely controlled by the bourgeoisie.

Here by civil society Marx and Engels have meant numerous organisations and institutions and the social, political, economic, cultural aspects of society. Marx and Engels have further observed that if there were no classes which means no private property there would not arise the necessity of any state system at all. So we can reasonably conclude that the instrumentalist approach of Marxist political study is intimately related with the emergence of private property and state structure.

Why did Marx Emphasise it?

A pertinent question which is generally raised ii why did Marx, Engels arrive at the conclusion that the state is the instrument of exploitation? Engels wrote a book— The Conditions of Working Class in England—in which he gave us a vivid pen picture of the pathetic conditions of workers in England and in that book he said how the capitalists used the state to exploit the workers. Not only Britain, France was also a capitalist country and the conditions of workers in that country were not better at all.

In these two capitalist states, the state was largely used as an instrument of exploitation. There is another reason. In mature capitalism almost all the members of the bourgeoisie came from the same socio-political-economic environment and while running and managing production and business their leitmotif is how to exploit the workers with the help of the state.

Naturally the exploitation and the instrumen­tality of the state both maintain their continuity. In the third place, the capitalists know it very well that in order to make the citadel of wealth a well-guarded one it is essential that the control over the citadel must be as perfect as possible and the help of the state is an indispensability.

Finally, Miliband (Marxism and Politics) is of opinion that certain structural constraints have forced the capitalists to use the state as instrument. Let us quote him: “The state is the instrument of the ruling class because given its insertion in capitalist mode of production it cannot be anything else”. What Miliband wants to say is that the environment around the capitalists was such that it was impossible for them to come out of that. Most of the capitalists were in favour of exploitation and naturally no one capitalist can go against that trend.

Robert Owen (1771-1858) was a Utopian socialist and also a great industrialist. He wanted to improve the economic conditions of the workers through reforms which he wanted to introduce. But due to the stiff opposition of other industrialists he could not succeed.

The three branches of government—the bureaucracy, the army, police— acted in tandem to exploit the workers and under such circumstances no particular industrialist could do anything against the combined anti-labour strategy.

It was also the question of survival and death. The capitalists must harvest maxi­mum amount of profit so that this profit could be converted into capital formation. In the days when Marx wrote his books there were not enough financial institutions, as they are today, to provide capital.

The prime or only source of capital was savings. The capitalists were determined to augment the quantum of savings/profit at any cost. So we find that maximisation of profit, capital formation, and exploitation, seeking the help of state machinery such as army, police and bureaucracy all are interlinked and there is no scope at all to delink one from the other.

Marx ad Engels viewed the entire episode from the standpoint of exploitation inflicting untold miseries upon the workers and the capitalists overlooked it. Marx gathered from the study of history that the state had always been used as an instrument of exploitation and he observed that during the epoch of industrialization this particular role of the state (that is as an instrument of exploitation) had earned additional momentum and it was so naked that it drew his special attention.

Assessment of Instrumentalist Model:

Critics have raised several objections against Marx’s instrumentalist interpretation of bourgeois state.

Some of these criticisms are:

1. It is generally observed that neither Marx nor Engels has stated clearly this concept
. It is the interpretation of their followers. Their followers have thought that Marx and Engels might have thought on the line of instrumentalist approach.

2. The critics further maintain that it is true that the state sometimes arts as an instrument to favour the bourgeoisie but not all times and on all events. In order to establish its “neutrality” or impartiality it does something in favour of the workers which goes against the interests of the capitalists.

3. Bob Jessop believes that there is uncertainty in the formulation of instrumentalist approach. Jessop further says that state is a simple and ordinary organisation and to impose instrumentalism upon it is quite unjustified.

It is true that sometimes the capitalists use the state for the purpose of exploitation, but at the same time they use it for some other purposes. It is unfortunate that Marx has overlooked this.

4. Jessop has further observed that at different times Marx and Engels have emphasised other roles, but their followers have singled out this particular role and have over-emphasised it. This is not correct. In some countries the capitalists do not’ act as a dominating class. In those cases it is not applicable.

2. Relative Autonomy Model:

Definitions:

The relative autonomy model, in simple language, means that though the capitalist state works as an instrument at the hands of the dominant class that is the bourgeoisie, it very often exercises its power independently.

That is, the state is not always dictated by the capitalists or it does not discharge its functions at the behest of the bourgeoisie. The independent functioning of the state away from the influence of the economically dominant class is interpreted by the renowned Marxists as the relative autonomy of state. Hence the words relative autonomy do not mean that the state always acts independent of dominating class.

The word relative denotes that sometimes it acts without being influenced by the powerful class. Again, the relative autonomy status does not find its place in clear term in the writings of Marx and Engels.

In the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Marx made certain comments which have given rise to this controversial and much talked concept. A number of Marxists, Ralph Miliband being the champion of them, have stressed that though instrumentalist model occupied Marx’s mind considerably he thought of the other model.

The fact is that Marx had no intention to construct a well-knit logical theory of state. What he saw and what he gathered from history he has written. To sum up, Marx closely observed the functioning of the capitalist states of his time and after that he drew certain conclusions. The fact is that all the capitalist states of his time did not play identical role nor did they assume same character.

Explanation of the Concept:

The recent studies of Marxism have revealed that Marx and Engels did not deny the impartial role of state and this is evident in many writings. Ralph Miliband is the champion of relative autonomy of state. In Socialist Registrar (1965) Miliband has said that though the instrumentalist approach is very important, the relative autonomy model is not less important.

If we fail to realise the relative autonomy model of Marxist theory of state our understanding will remain incomplete. Elsewhere (Marxism and Politics) Miliband has said that there is powerful reason for rejecting this, particular formulation as misleading…… While the state does act on behalf of the ruling class, it does not for most part act at its behest. The state does not always act in accordance with the wishes of the ruling class.

The state has an independent character and image. If anybody says that the bourgeois state is always dictated by the ruling class that would be vulgar Marxism. Miliband argues that the activities of the state relate to the process of selections. Different schemes, policies, programmes etc. are placed before the state, and it selects some of them. It does not blindly follow everything.

The state generally adopts those policies and tries to implement those schemes which will produce favourable results in the long run and will serve the purpose of the state as well as that of the bourgeoisie in a better and effective way. The state gives priority to long term interests over short term interests. Moreover, in a pluralist society, there are a number of elite groups.

Sometimes these are involved in conflict and the state authority proceeds cautiously and judiciously. This implies that the state acts independently. The same point has been stressed by another critic, “The capitalist state, legislator of the Factory Acts, is, then, the eye of the otherwise blind capitalist, the stabiliser of a system capitalist activity itself endangers”.

For academic purposes it is necessary to investigate the causes why the state attempts to maintain neutrality or establish its autonomy. One such reason, generally advanced, is that in a pluralist society there are different groups and factions of the ruling class and they are sometimes involved in conflict. The state wants to cohere all the factions together. This aim could not be achieved without the autonomous or neutral stand of the state.

The different groups/factions of the ruling class are very powerful and active and of the interests of some groups are neglected that group will raise hue and cry and disturb the smooth functioning of the political system. The ‘authority of the state treats it as an unwelcome feature or development and will try to combat it. So the state tries to make balance among all the potential forces.

Schwarzmantel has offered another reason, “The state in a liberal democratic system must have some autonomy in order to preserve its legitimacy. If the state was seen to be too closely bound up with and dominated by one set of interests it would not be able to maintain the belief that it represents the general interests”. The mere fact is that though the state acts as an instrument, in numerous cases it tries to maintain its autonomous character and it does so to enhance its image.

Relative Autonomy in Marx’s Writing:

Like many other concepts such as concept of class, theory of rights, historical materialism etc. Marx did not directly refer to the relative autonomy of state, but. The German Ideology, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte contain sufficient hints about this. During Napoleon’s rule the French state was represented by the powerful bureaucracy. It acted on behalf of the class rule of bourgeoisie.

In subsequent regimes the state as an instrument of exploitation did not lose its importance. That is, the instrumentalist approach was quite valid. But “only under the Second Bonaparte does the state seem to have made itself completely independent. As against civil society, the state machine its position thoroughly that the chief of the society of December 10 suffices for its head”.

The Eighteenth Brumaire was written by Marx between December 1851 and March 1852 and during those days he observed the two opposite roles of state—as an instrument of exploitation, as an impartial organ of administration. The state consolidated its power against the civil society because in the latter there was dominating influence of bourgeoisie and other factions of capitalists.

Second Bonaparte took this drastic step not for the general betterment of civil society but for his own sake, to satisfy his own desire for more power. “This would appear”, says Miliband, “to suggest the complete independence of the state power from all social forces in civil society”. Elsewhere he has said that the state sometimes acts independently apparently to prove that it is not controlled by any class or group. Even in that situation an individual’s lust for power works.

Not Full Autonomy:

In the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Marx furt
her makes the following comment, “And yet the state power is not suspended in mid air. Bonaparte represents a class and the most numerous class of French Society at that small holding peasants”.

Marx had stressed that the state did not exist is mid-air or in vacuum. It will always represent a class; it may be that the class is not well articulated or well organised. But its existence cannot be ruled out. Even when a state acts independently the weakness or affiliation of the state for a particular class or to any dominating group cannot be denied.

Marx has, however, said that when the two dominant groups or classes are in perfect balance, in that situation the state might act independently. But this is a rare situation. In the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Marx had admitted that the autonomy or the affiliation of state is not something fixed.

The state must study every situation and consider everything in the background of long term interests and smooth management of general administration. If it considers that these two purposes would be properly served by remaining neutral the state authority would do that.

But if it thinks that supporting the economically dominant class would be for the better interests of the governing elite or would be better for the sake of enhancement of its power it would abundon its own autonomy. Marx did not say these words in clear and unequivocal language. But various situations were active in his mind.

Evaluation:

We have so far discussed the two models of Marx’s theory of state—the instrumentalist model and the relative autonomy model. The conflict between these two models cannot be denied. If the instrumentalist model is accepted the relative autonomy model becomes irrelevant. The question which disturbs the mind of the students of Marxism is which model is to be accepted. No definite answer can be provided to this vital question.

Marx and Engels have not stated anything clearly. It is clear from the analysis of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte that though he depicted the state as an instrument of class rule, of class domination and exploitation, simultaneously he did not hesitate to announce that sometimes the state might act impartially. But what role the state will assume depends upon a particular situation.

Ralph Miliband has said that even though the state acts independently, the relative class character of the state does not vanish. We have already stated that the state must always represent a class or group or faction. If so it will take decisions for its benefits.

A state of the real world always takes decision in the background of circumstances which revolved around it. If prevailing forces compel it to support a particular class the state will do that or if the situation is otherwise it will act independently.

Miliband concludes that whatever the state does, its class character is never lost. We conclude that what exact character the state will assume-depends upon the extent of power and domination of the ruling class and also upon the mentality, attitude of the persons constituting the government. Marx has simply written what he saw. He did not enter into the depth of the issue.

The State and the Ideology:

Though Marx and Engels have viewed the state from the background of materialism, they have never overlooked the ideological aspect of state. The ideology or ideas play a very vital role in the management of state. In The German Ideology Marx and Engels have stressed the point that in every class state the dominant class always dominants the economic, political, cultural and other aspects of state.

This does not mean that the state will always represent a particular ideology. However, the state will represent the views and ideas of the economically dominant class. Let us quote from The German Ideology a large passage:

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling the material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production so that the ideas of those who lacks the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relations”.

In this passage Marx and Engels have stressed several points, some of which are:

(1) A bourgeois state has always some ideology.

(2) This ideology is backed or fostered by the ruling class.

(3) Who is the ruling class? The class that controls the material forces of production.

(4) The ruling class through various means indoctrinates the common people. In other words, the ruling class converts the people in its favour and if it fails it tries to make them neutral. The ruling class adopts the methods of political socialisation.

(5) The ruling class gives stress on the civil society.

Ideology Acts as a Weapon:

Marx and Engels have paid special attention to the importance of ideology. Why? Though they are not quite clear about it, we can frame certain reasons. The purpose of the ruling class is always to exploit the workers and other vulnerable sections of society. But the exploiting class cannot expose the real character. The ruling class always uses the ideology to masquerade its real objective to exploit other classes.

If the nefarious motives of the ruling class come out that may cause embarrassment or displacement of the class rule. In other words, destabilization may be the consequence. To avoid this danger the ruling class uses idea, Schwarzmantel observes: “Even in a situation when the old order is about to be overthrown, the defence of interest and privilege is conducted under the banner of ideas”.

The capitalists want to prove that they rule not for their own benefits but for an ideology. In the garb of an ideology the exploiters advance their justification. The exploiters cannot openly declare their real motive or cannot say what they are doing. In this way ideology or ideas act as an instrument or masquerade.

In The German Ideology they have said: “For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society”.

The bourgeoisie universalises the objective and ideas and also rationalises them. The capitalist class is quite conscious of the fact that if it fails to convince the general mass of the so called benefits of the bourgeois rule agitation is bound to arise. That must be nipped in the bud.

State, Reform and Revolution:

One thing is quite clear from the analysis made so far — the state is an instrument of exploitation and if emancipation is not possible the state will be under the full control of the economically dominant class. The issue is the class character of the state is to be changed. That is the dominant class is to be thrown from power and this can be done through revolution. Besides revolution there is another way and it is reform.

The present structure of the state is to be changed through reforms. Whether Marx supported reforms is not clear from his vast literature. Again there is a controversy on this issue. Interpreters of Marx’s thought are of opinion that Marx believed that without revolution radical change of society is not possible. But the success of revolution depends upon some preconditions.

The workers must be mentally and materially prepared for a revolution. They must form a well-organised and cohesive class. They must be conscious of the extent of the exploitation. The workers will gladly welcome all sorts of troubles and will make sacrifice neede
d for the success of revolution. Naturally revolution is not an easy thing.

Some critics, for the above reason, have argued that Marx in various ways supported reforms. The purpose of the reforms would be to help the working class in its preparation for revolution.

Reforms should not constitute the goals but they are transitory means for arriving at goals. “As far as Marx is concerned it is right to say that in his perspective the workers’ movement should indeed seek improve­ments and reforms within the confines of capitalism but these reforms were to be stages on the way or means for achieving complete transformation”.

Seizure of State Power:

Marx and Engels have repeatedly said that the emancipation of the working class is never possible without the seizure of state power and this can be done through protracted class struggle leading to revolution. In other words, revolution is the only solution to all the problems that are found in a bourgeois state. What the revolution will do? First of all, the task of revolution or revolutionaries is to capture the state power from the hands of the bourgeoisie and to establish the complete authority of the working class which Marx and Engels have designated as ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.

After that the working class will proceed to change the bourgeois structures radically. Thus, we say that the primary objective of proletarians’ revolution is to seize state power, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin (The Problems of Leninism) have said repeatedly that launching of a single revolution by the working class would not be sufficient for achieving the goal.

Revolution should be permanent. Revolution would continue till the communism is achieved. So we find that Marxist theory of state and the theory of revolution are closely connected concepts.

However, Marx and Marxists have drawn differences between different types of revolution. These differences may have full relevance in the field of detailed analysis of Marxist theory of revolution and here we are not concerned with that. Our point is—Marx and Engels did not lay any faith on reforms.

Again, they never thought reforms as alternative to revolution. The capitalists used the state as an instrument of exploiting the proletarians, and the latter would use revolution along with class struggle as an instrument of emancipation.

Withering Away of State:

Before entering into a detailed analysis about the withering away of state we want to quote two important and oft-quoted statements of Engels. The first is: “The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without if, that had no conception of the state and state power”.

The second statement of Engels runs as follows; As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection … as soon as class rule … are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary…. state interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself … The state is not “abolished”. It dies out”.

The above two comments made by Engels are self-explanatory. In the first passage we find Engels to say that the- state is the product of class relations and more specifically class antagonisms. In the earliest phase of social development there did not exist any state because there was no necessity of state due to the non-existence classes, class antagonism and class relations.

Even the concept of state was unknown to the people of this phase. The state is associated with the appearance of classes and class relations. When the proletarians seized political power and did away the class structure and after that established a class-less society which is also called communism the utility of state as an instrument of class rule and exploitation ended. Engels has made a distinction between ‘abolished’ and ‘withers away’. Let us turn to that.

Not Abolished but Withers Away:

Lenin in his The State and Revolution (written in August-September 1917 and published in 1918) has explained the unexplained aspects of Marx’s and Engels’ concept of state and many Marxists hold the view that without Lenin’s The State and Revolution Marxist theory of state would create lot of confusion.

The bourgeois ideologists have picked up the two phrases—the state is not abolished and the state withers away—for their wishful interpretations of Marxist theory of state. Even they did not stop here. Proceeding further they argue that the whole theory of Marxian state/concept is full of number of inconsistencies. In the opinion of bourgeois ideologists the two phrases—not abolished and withers away-convey the same meaning.

Lenin writes: (Lenin: Selected Works II p. 315. Henceforth LSW will mean Lenin Selected Works): “Such an interpretation is the crudest distortion of Marxism, advantageous only to the bourgeoisie”. The bourgeois critics, Lenin has argued, have failed to go into the depth of Marx’s and Engels’ ideas and thought.

They have superficially seen the matter. According to Lenin there is considerable difference between the phrases. The state is not abolished is different from state withers away. The anarchist philosophers launched a movement for the abolition of state because they thought that the state was not only unnecessary but also a harmful political organisation and its main purpose are to curb liberty of individuals. Only the abolition of such a state (usurper of individuals’ liberty) could restore the liberty of the individuals.

Marx, Engels and Lenin viewed the state absolutely from different angle. They viewed the state not only a usurper of human liberty but also an instrument of enslaving human beings. Such a state need not be abolished forcibly. The state power should be seized forcibly and at the same time the supreme authority of working class (proletarians) should be established.

At the same time all classes would be abolished. When these two objectives are achieved there will be no importance of state because it was only the instrument of exploitation. According to Lenin the withering away of state is quite different from abolition of state.

Engels also speaks of another phrase. After seizing political power the proletariat “abolishes the state as state”. This is also a very significant phrase. The phrase ‘ state as state” needs interpretation.

The phrase state as state means the bourgeois state. Bourgeois state implies the police, military, bureaucracy, and other organs/branches of bourgeois state. The proletarians will smash this state. They will not use the police, military and other repressive machineries of the bourgeois state. It will be performed through class struggle and revolution.

Commenting upon Engels’ comment Lenin says that abolishing the bourgeois state is the state as state. But the words withering away refer to the withering away of the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels the bourgeois class does not wither away but is abolished by the proletariat in the course of revolution. What withers away after this revolution is semi-state or proletarian state.

Special Repressive Force:

Engels used this particular term to identify the role of the bourgeois state. The capitalist class used the state to oppress the working class. With the seizure of the state power this special role of the state will end. But with this the state as state would not abolish. After the revolution remnants of the bourgeois state would exist in the socialist state. (Marx calls socialism as the first stage of communism.

This he has stated clearly in his The Critique of the Gatha Programme). Naturally
the socialist state is not the ultimate form of society’ desired by the proletariat class. All the rem­nants of capitalism and the vestiges of bourgeois rule and social structure must be abolished. Question is how could that be achieved? Engels has provided us with an answer; the proletariat class will use the state machinery to suppress the remnants of bourgeois. To put it in other words, the state machinery will be used as a machinery to combat the counter-revolutionary forces and will destroy all other systems and institutions which are anthemic to the interests of the proletarians.

Thus, according to Engels (Lenin also explained it) the state is being used by two classes for two purposes. In the communist society there would not be any class and the special role of the state would prove irrelevant. Finally, the state would wither away. There are also other meanings of the phrase. The state would cease to exist. There shall be no sign of state as a political institution. The political form of state would be superfluous.

Assessment of the Theory of State:

The theory of state stated and elaborated by Marx and Engels is not free from shortcomings.

Some are stated below:

1. Marx and Engels predicted (and confidently) that the proletariat class through protracted class struggle and permanent revolution would succeed in capturing capitalist state and establish its overall supremacy which would finally lead to the creation of a communist society. There are two predictions one is the bourgeois state would, one day, be seized by the working class.

The other is—communism would take the place of capitalism. Only in Russia the working class captured power. Even there is doubt to what extent Russia was a matured capitalist state. There were (and still are) more matured capitalist states such as United States, Britain, France, Germany and nowhere working class has been able to seize political power.

So the first prediction remains unfulfilled. As to the second prediction it can naively be observed that there is doubt about to what extent Russia had succeeded in establishing socialism not to speak of communism. The “first socialist state” in the world collapsed in 1991. Communist Party of China claims that China is a socialist state. But her acceptance of market economy casts doubt on that claim.

2. Marx and Engels predicted that state would wither away. The gigantic state structure of erstwhile Soviet Union has falsified this tall claim of Marx and Engels. The Soviet state was as powerful as were Britain, Unite States during the heyday of Cold War. Even after the recession of Cold War the Soviet state was unmistakably the super power along with United States of America. China is another socialist state and today it is a big power.

Her military strength is recognised by all big powers and she is a nuclear power. Though the orthodox Marxists try to interpret the withering away of state with the help of jugglery of words and want to establish that Marxist conception is correct, it remains that, it is no longer a valid concept.

3. Marx and Engels said that only the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat would be able to emancipate the working class. Today the working class is not only united, its bargaining power has enhanced several times. From time to time the workers’ demands have been met by the capitalists.

It may be that the workers are still exploited, but it is also a fact that the extent of exploitation is much less than it was in Marx’s time. Today’s workers are more interested, so far as the agitation is concerned, in democratic or constitutional methods than in revolutionary methods.

The working class today does not think of capturing state power for the fulfillment of the legitimate demands. It sits (along with the capitalists) at a bargaining table and settles all the disputes. We cannot, however, blame Marx and Engels.

The mentality of the workers and that of the capitalists have undergone sea changes during the last century (from 1900 to 1999). Both the workers and capitalists have decided to eschew the path of conflict and both sides feel that all the disputes can amicably settled. But in Marx’s time the capitalists took obstinate attitude towards the workers and the latter retaliated it. In this way conflict multiplied.

4. There is a controversy about the instrumentalist approach and the relative autonomy approach. If we look at-the state structures of modern capitalist states we shall come across the fact that the state acts on all important matters, independently. It is neither controlled nor dictated by the dominant class.

There may be an unholy nexus between the economically powerful class and the state. But bureaucracy, judiciary and legislature act in accordance with certain fixed principles laid down in the constitution of law book. The state gives priority to the general interests of the body politic.

5. Many critics say that Marxist theory of state is out and out Utopian. The proletarians would capture state power and would bring everything of the capitalist state under its supreme authority is nothing but a Utopian thought. The seizure of state power is definitely not an easy task.

The workers are united no doubt, but the capitalists are more united and would fight tooth and nail to resist all attempts of working class to capture state power. But a major part of his theory of state stands on the concept that working class through class struggle and revolution would seize state power.

6. Marxist theory of state suffers from another shortcoming. He has said that the classless society will have no state, it will wither away. If so, who will settle the disputes in such a society. The classless society will not be inhabited by gods. Conflicts in classless society must crop up and for their settlement a sovereign body is essential. Marxist theory of state does not make any provision for such an arrangement.

In spite of the above shortcomings we hold the view that today it may not have any relevance but in the days of Marx it had relevance. In those days the state was really an instrument of exploitation and the proletarians were severely tortured and exploited by the capitalists. This compelled Marx to think of abolishing the capitalist state and bring it under the supreme authority of the working class. Not only capitalism has changed, change has taken place in all spheres of society.

Upload and Share Your Article:

The Sophists: Meaning, Nature and Political Ideas!

Meaning of the Word Sophist:

According to Encyclopedia Britannica—”Sophists, name given by the Greeks about the middle of the 5th century B.C. to certain teachers of superior grade who distinguishing themselves from philosophers on the one hand and from artists and craftsmen on the other, claimed to prepare their pupils not for any particular study or profession but for civic life.”

In other words, the term Sophists implies a group of highly qualified teachers specialized not in any particular field of knowledge. Sophists in ancient Greece were different from philosophers and craftsmen.

From etymological point of view the word “sophist” is derived from Greek word “sophos” this means wise. Subsequently the word stood for “man of wisdom”. Naturally the Sophists came to be regarded as men of knowledge.

Because of the disliking of common people for the phrase man of knowledge the Sophists of early periods refrained from using the particular phrase. In popular parlance the word carried derogatory meaning. Ordinary people of ancient Greece were not interested in hair-splitting and subtle analysis of everything which the Sophists did.

The Sophists were regarded by them as cunning people. A large number of Sophists were fond of jugglery of words and by this method they wanted to defeat the opponents. They also applied logical fallacies. All these were not approved by the general public.

Nature of Sophists:

“The Sophists were the brave and profound innovators in philosophy, logic, epistemology, ethics, politics, rhetoric and many other fields of knowledge.” In a word the Sophists had a free movement in all branches of knowledge.

Barker says— The Sophists are versatile. Because of this versatility the age of enlightenment dawned in Greece. It is said that the teaching of the Sophists did not go in vain. Greeks were able to rationalize their behaviour coming under the influence of Sophists. They completely changed the traditional relationship between polis and individual.

The philosophers of ancient Greece looked at everything in term of cosmos and as a result of it the role and importance of the individual were plunged into utter negligence and disrespect. On the contrary, the Sophists awarded due regard and importance to the individual.

This changed the very nature of society, politics, ethics and many other things. Protagoras, a famous Sophist, said “Man is the measure of all things.”

The special emphasis given by the Sophists to the individual radically changed the nature of society. The people were placed at the centre of society and they took leading part in social change.

The Sophists were professional teachers. The purpose of their teaching was to give practical training to fellow countrymen in politics. Barker observes that the Sophists represented the university. That is, they performed the function of univer­sity.

The function of the university was to prepare the after-life and the after-life was politics. To put it in other words, the Sophists prepared the life of Greeks suitable for politics. In this connection it is to be pointed out that the purpose of education portrayed in The Republic was to prepare the guardians.

Although the Sophists were teachers, at the same time they were journalists and disseminators of things new and strange (Barker, p. 66). Critics are of opinion the Sohpists were in a sense all-rounder.

Another feature of the Sophists is that they never formed any clear-cut school. They did not profess a single set of ideologies or tenets. Different Sophists adhered to different philosophical, political and legal theories.

Even on political conceptions they differed among themselves. Such as, earlier Sophists advocated democracy and they were really democratic—minded. But the Sophists of the later ages were supporters of aristocracy and oligarchy.

As regards the taking of payment there was no uniformity among all the Sophists. It is said that the Sophists of the 5th century B.C. received payment. But they did not take it directly. Their pupils took it on their behalf and the amount was also fixed by them.

Although it is true that the Sophists were encyclopedic thinkers they were not radical thinkers. “Like all Greek thinkers they aimed at communicating something of practical aid to right living.

They offered instruction in goodness or practical wisdom” In fact, the Sophists were practical thinkers and they disseminated the knowledge of how to manage affairs of the state and the family properly.

Another characteristic feature of the Sophists was that by origin they were not Athenians. Most of the famous Sophists came to Athens from different city-states and resided in Athens. But their pupils were Athenians and very rich. The Sophists taught these rich students.

They learnt practical art of politics and other techniques to control election and manipulate politics in their favour. Since the students of the Sophists were rich people they had no feelings and sympathy for democracy and they were extremely eager to set up or restore oligarchic form of government.

We can, therefore, say that the teaching of Sophists were considerably responsible for establishing oligarchy in Athens. It is really an unfortunate aspect of the Sophists’ teachings. Some critics say that because of the faulty teachings of Sophists the class rivalry in ancient Greece arose.

Political Ideas of Few Sophists:

We have already noted that the Sophists of ancient Greece did not form any school of thought. Not only this, there was no coordination among the Sophists. Different Sophists held different views and they lacked coherence or uniformity.

For a clear understanding of their views on politics it is necessary to discuss the political views of some leading Sophists. Protagoras of Addera (500 to 430 B.C.) was a prominent Sophist.

It is said that Protagoras was a conservative thinker. He said, “Man is the measure of all things, of the existence of things that are, and of the non-existence of things that are not.”

Its implication is the existence or non-existence of anything is determined by the common sense of the individual. In other words, individual is the determiner of everything. This comment of Protagoras is the expression of extreme individualism. He had a good deal of faith on the common sense of man.

If a man possesses sufficient amount of good common sense he will be able to understand the nature of things. Barker says that this outlook of Protagoras is the indicator of the fact that he was both a great individualist and empiricist.

The man- measure doctrine of Protagoras has glorified man and has placed him in the centre of universe. This notion of Protagoras is quite different from that of his predecessors who thought that man was the part of cosmos and devoid of self-reasoning and consciousness.

Barker says that Protagoras’s writings throw some light on the origin of human society. He pointed out few stages of the evolution of society. The first stage according to Protagoras was the state of nature.

People of state of nature were to some extent acquainted with the arts of industry and agriculture, but they could not build up political organization. That is, they were far away from civic-life.

The second stage of evolution consisted of founding cities and their preservation or maintenance. People of the second stage did not have the political art which they acquired in the final stage. Although Protagoras spoke of state of nature, he was not a believer of social contract theory of origin of state.

One critic says—.The progress of human society described by Protagoras in the myth shows that he regards the state and the law
s as artificial institutions resulting from the spread of political virtues and man’s increasing skill in the art of government.”

It has been observed that Protagoras has great love for democracy and he wholeheartedly desired its progress. He thought that if justice were fully under the authority of only few persons there could be no state.

Every man has certain amount of skill. Naturally, none is negligible. Each individual of the state must be allowed to have a say in the affairs of the state. But he thought that every man could not have an equal measure of skill and intelligence.

To make them competent the state must take initiative in propagating and spreading education among the citizens. Proper education also helps the citizens to understand law. He thought that the state was the perfect educator.

Prodicus was another important Sophist. He devoted a good deal of labour to the study of the origin of state and emergence of commonwealth. Prodicus never thought that the state was created by God or by any other supernatural element. Men built up human society or state being driven by sheer necessity and for this purpose they had to do hard labour and invest a lot of ingenuity.

Although Prodicus did not clearly say anything about the state of nature in which people lived before laying the foundation of state or political organization, his analysis shows that men had to fight against the nature.

Therefore, it was human labour which banished conflict and brought peace in society and it became possible when an organized polis emerged.

Prodicus also thought that progress of human society and development of consciousness implanted language in the mind of men which helped them to exchange ideas among themselves.

Religion, in Prodicus’s view, was also the result of the progress of society. People created religion to meet their demands. We can say Prodicus looked at religion simply from utilitarian point of view.

They defined only those natural objects such as sun and other natural phenomena. Religion had no connection with elements or phenomena having no utility. It is true that according to Prodicus human Endeavour was solely responsible for the creation of society, but he never made individual the central figure. He was not an individualist. However, we can call him the precursor to 19th century utilitarianism.

Thrasymachus was a renowned Sophist of later 5th century B.C. It is observed that he held unambiguous political views cloaked with realism. He drew a distinction between religion and politics. He did not believe that the gods were the creator of civil society and all other things coming to the benefit of human being.

The human society, in his opinion, is full of injustice and malpractices. If God were the creator of society, injustice would not get any scope to flourish to its fullest form. Men’s behaviour, function attitude etc. are the root causes of injustice. He firmly believed that in actual society there was no justice.

What was going on in the name of justice was nothing but the self-interests of powerful and wealthy persons holding power over the rest of the society. They declared law to suit their own personal interests and justice was interpreted in their own favour. In a nutshell, in every sphere of society there was flagrant violation of law and justice.

Thrasymachus held that the nature of law differed according to the nature of government. In democracy, there were democratic laws and, in tyranny, tyrannical laws.

In a tyrannical form of government common people were forced to show unconditional obligation to law. They were not in possession of any opportunity to judge law or justice. He had no fascination for any particular type of government.

He treated all forms of government with equal view. The sole purpose of every type of government, Thrasymachus thought, was to enhance and simultaneously to protect its own interests.

He had no doubt that force was the basis of state. The authority ruled the state and demanded unconditional obligation simply with the help of force.

The use of force ultimately created a congenial atmosphere for the development of authoritarianism. As regards Thrasymachus’s concept of right, Barker makes the following observation: “In view of Thrasymachus there is no such thing at all as natural right. Right is simply whatever is enforced by the strongest power in the state in accordance with its own view of its own interests”.

The authority never considers people’s problems. If we view Thrasymachus’s concept of politics deeply we shall find that he considered politics in terms of power. There was no place of ethics or religion in his political ideas.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about the relationship between the council of ministers and the parliament.

The Council of Ministers has very close relationship with the Parliament. Each of its member must be a member of either house of Parliament. He can remain a Minister, without his being a member of either House of Parliament, only for a maximum period of 6 months. Within this period he must become a member of the either House, failing which he will have to quit ministerial job.

There have been instances when a Minister had to quit his position, simply because he could not become a member of the either House of Parliament. In case the Prime Minister finds that due to one reason or the other it is not possible to get him elected, to the Lok Sabha he can be nominated to the Rajya Sabha.

Thus, each member of the Council of Ministers, being a member of the either House of Parliament, actively participates in the proceeding of the Parliament.

He is responsible for defending the policies of the government in general and his Ministry in particular. He cannot take shelter on the plea that he has been misguided by civil servants of his Ministry. He also cannot criticise his civil servants on the floor of the House, because they are not there to defend themselves.

As active members of the House the Ministers are required to pilot all legislative financial administrative and other measures. No Minister can take the plea that a particular measure could not be taken because there was no legislative authority behind that. It is the responsibility of the Minister to get the Bill piloted by him passed and see that the work of his department runs smoothly.

The Parliament in turn controls the Council of Ministers in several ways. It checks its activities by putting questions, rejecting the Bills initiated by the Minister, by way of moving adjournment motions and ultimately by moving a vote of no-confidence against the Government.

In the history of Indian Parliament several times votes of no-confidence have been moved against “the Council of Ministers, but it was only in 1979 that for the first time such a motion was carried out.

This time the motion was moved by the leader of the opposition Y.B. Chavan and due to political defections in the Janata Party, the then Prime Minister Morarji Desai resigned from his office.

A motion of vote of no confidence against the Council of Ministers, however, in effect means, exposing the weaknesses of the Government in the House for the consumption of the electorates, because as long as the party enjoys the majority and is solidly behind the government, moving of such a motion is a ritual and a routine exercise.

It also provides an opportunity to the government to defend its policies and programmes. But a vote of no-confidence against the Government can also have its own repercussions, because if the Government feels that it is likely to be defeated on the floor of the Lok Sabha, then instead of resigning, it may request the President to dissolve the House.

This is what happened in 1979, when the then Prime Minister Choudhary Charan Singh, knowing that Congress (I) had withdrawn its support from the government and that was not likely to survive, he not’ only himself resigned, but also advised the President to dissolve the House.

As is well known that whereas every general election puts heavy economic burden on the country, many members of the. dissolved House may not get re-elected.

In 1979, when the House was dissolved, Lok Dal and Congress (U) were in power at the centre. Immediately before that Janata Party was in power. But in 1980, when elections were again held, many stalwarts of these parties could not get themselves elected and their constituencies returned Congress (I) candidates.

Dissolution of the House has also assumed greater significance, because those members of the House who complete 5 years as a member of Parliament are entitled to get some pension for their whole life.

In case the House is dissolved earlier than this period, which is normal life of the Lok Sabha, then the members lose their pensionery benefits as well, which is no less a loss, for any member of Parliament, because that is for the whole life.

But in its relation with the Parliament, the executive need fear only when the party is indisciplined or when some of the factions or groups in the party fry to be indisciplined. As long as the party is disciplined, it need not fear from the House. This fear has become less since the passing of Anti-Defection Act.

Any defection from political party on whose ticket one was elected to the House entails disqualifications from the membership of the House. It also means set back to political career which many parliamentarians do not like or cannot afford.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about the formation of Muslim league and demand for Pakistan.

Formation of Muslim League:

In December 1907, All India Muslim League was established. Some of the aims of the newly founded body were:

(a) To support all measures emanating from the government,

(b) To advance the interests of the Muslims throughout India,

(c) To control growing influence of the Congress,

(d) To find scope for the Muslims according to their ability for public life, who had in the absence of proper education joined Congress party.

(e) To promote friendly feelings between the Muslims and other communities in India, as far as possible.

The objectives of the League were accepted at its first regular session held in December. 1908, at Amritsar with Sir Syed Ali Imam in the Chair.

In this way from the very beginning League made it clear that it aimed at promoting the interests of the Muslims with the blessings and co-operation of the government, to whom the organisation will always be loyal. For them loyalty of government was more important than the nationalist movement.

In the beginning some of the important leaders did not like the idea of communalism in League. Among others mention may be made of Mr. M.A. Jinnah. Nawab Syed Mohammad, Maulana Shibli Mauwani and Maulana Mohammad Ali.

In 1908, Nawab Sadiq Ali Khan said, “The principle of class and religious representation is most mischievous feature of the scheme.” Still another Muslim leader of those days said that, “The attempt on the part of mv co-religionists to create an irreconcilable ulster in India is not very laudable.”

But as the time passed the League changed its outlook towards the British government as well. Britain was held responsible for what had happened in Turkey, where Sultan of Turkey had been ill treated, though the Muslims all over the world had held him in high esteem.

There were also troubles in Balkans where there was a life and death struggle between the leading Islamic power and four minor kingdoms of Eastern Europe.

The Muslims held Britain responsible for their miseries in Europe. Even in India government annulled the partition of Bengal, without consulting the Muslims League which, therefore, felt that the Muslims of India have been betrayed by the government. Some of the influential Muslim leaders demanded that the League should revise its constitution and lay stress on co-operation with other communities in India.

Accordingly Leagues constitution was revised in 1913 and in that radical changes were introduced, as a result of which Sir Aga Khan resigned from Leagues President-ship. Thereafter both the League and the Congress held their sessions, for quite some time at the same place. In one such session which was held at Lucknow in 1916, both the organisations signed a Pact called Lucknow Pact.

Lucknow Pact:

Lucknow Pact provided that in the future scheme of things as far as possible provinces should be free from the control of the Centre. In the legislative bodies there should be only 20% nominated members, whereas the remaining 80% should be elected by the people.

The Central and Provincial governments, by and large, should go by the decisions of Legislative Councils and the Central Legislative Council shall not interfere in such matters as defence, foreign affairs and political affairs.

It was also provided that the relations of Secretary of State for India with the Government of India should be similar to those of the Colonial Secretary with the government of the Dominions. Both the Hindus and the Muslims demanded that there should be a Dominion Status for the country.

It was also agreed that the franchise should be widened and important minorities should be given special representation. Separate electorate for the Muslims was accepted. It was also provided that no Bill or Resolution will be accepted in any legislature affecting any particular community, unless 3/4 of the representatives of that very community approved of that.

The Pact aimed at winning the co-operation of the Muslims, though that was done at a very high cost. In the words of Dr. Lal Bahadur, “The Pact was bound to be transitory in character, for it was a child of circumstances…. Looked at from whatever angle of vision, the Lucknow Pact was foredoomed failure.”

Once the Congress accepted the demand of separate communal electorate, it became difficult to retreat. It has rightly been said that the policy of appeasement of the Muslims by the Congress started with Lucknow Pact.

But for some time both the Congress and the League worked in close co-operation with each other. In 1917, Raja Mahmudabad who presided over Leagues session held at Calcutta in that year said, “The interests of the country are paramount. We need not try to argue whether we are Muslims first or Indians.” When Gandhiji started his non-co-operation movement in that both the Hindus and the Muslims joined hands.

Khilafat Movement:

Then came Khilafat question. It became clear that British government aimed at dis-memberment of Turkish empire and wanted to reduce Sultan of Turkey to nothingness. This was being done in spite of clear understanding given to the Muslims of India that after the war was over status of Sultan of Turkey in no way will be disturbed.

It was on this understanding that the Muslims of India extended their co-operation to Britain in winning war. When the Muslims in India came to know the damage being done to the Sultan, a powerful agitation started in the country which demanded preservation of Turkish empire.

In this movement both the League and the Congress joined hands. In this way those of orthodox in the League, who did not wish to cooperate with the Congress, received a serious setback.

Unity under Strains:

But this unity came under heavy strains after the withdrawal of non-co-operation movement, when Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in 1926. The riots were only on a trivial matters, but the British government took advantage of the situation and gave these wide publicity so that the differences between the Hindus and the Muslims came to the surface.

The aim also was that the unity between the two major communities should be smashed. But in order to maintain the hard won unity Gandhiji went on 21 days fast, as a result of which a committee of prominent leaders of both the communities was set up to maintain communal harmony.

It was under these circumstances that Simon Commission visited India. The Congress party decided to boycott the Commission and League was to take a decision. The nationalists like Hakim Ajmal Khan, Dr. Kitchlu and Dr. Ansari wanted that the League should also boycott the Commission and thus co-operate with the Congress. But a section led by Mr. Jinnah wanted to co-operate with the Commission.

When nationalists decided to withdraw from the League and founded a new party, Jinnah found himself all alone and saw the end of his political career. He decided to go to England and start his practice there. It was, however, to his good-luck that within next few years many Muslim nationalist leaders died and Jinnah found an opportunity to become the leader of the Muslims in India.

Since the Muslims had the backing of the government, they retarded every measure, which was put forward to solve constitutional deadlock in India. All this was happening when Congress was giving several concessions to the Muslims in India and following appeasement policy towards Muslim League.

When the government put forward several proposals which were not accepted by the Indians, it challenged Indian leaders to give a constitution on then- own which was acceptable to all sections of Indian society. Whereas Congress
produced Nehru Report, Jinnah rejected that and gave his own fourteen-point programme.

It was provided in these points that:

Fourteen Point Programme:

(i) India should be a federation, in which residuary powers should be given to the provinces.

(ii) Provinces should be given uniform type of autonomy.

(iii) In the legislative bodies there should be adequate representation to the minorities.

(iv) In Central Legislature at least 1/3 of the total members should be the Muslims.

(v) There should be system of separate electorates for communal groups.

(vi) There should be no territorial re-distribution which was likely to disturb Muslim majority provinces.

(vii) There should be full liberty of worship and belief for the people of all communities.

(viii) If 3/4 members of a particular community in any elected body felt that a particular resolution adversely effected their interests that resolution should not be passed.

(ix) Sindh should be separated from Bombay.

(x) Immediate reforms should be introduced in Frontier Provinces and Baluchistan.

(xi) The Muslims should be given adequate representation in civil services.

(xii) The Muslims culture, religion and personal law should be duly protected.

(xiii) Each cabinet should have at least 3 Muslim members.

(xiv) Central legislature should have no power to change Constitution without the approval of the provinces.

Two Nation Theory:

Thus all efforts which had been made by the Congress to solve Indian constitutional problems with the co-operation of the Muslims without giving that any religious colour failed. The Muslims under Jinnah tried to solve problems purely on religious basis.

He also expounded his two nation theory in which he clearly said that the Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations. These have different cultures and their gods and goddesses and religious places are different. According to him these two nations have no point of similarity and as such cannot live together.

Thereafter the Congress party and the Muslim League never worked in co-operation with each-other. When Gandhiji started his Civil Disobedience Movement in 1930-31, Jinnah refused to join it saying that the real aim of the Movement was to make the Muslims dependent on Hindu Mahasabha. The League placed itself at the mercy of British bureaucracy and condemned nationalist movement.

In 1930, First Round-Table Conference was held. Congress decided to boycott it but it was attended by Muslim League. On behalf of League Jinnah again laid stress on his Fourteen Point Programme and separate representation for minorities.

MacDonald Award:

In spite of the best efforts of the Congress the Muslim League created obstacles in the way of unity efforts and ultimately succeeded in getting MacDonald Award on 16th August, 1932.

According to this Award:

(a) There will be separate electorates for special interests and minorities and for Muslims in Bengal and Punjab, although they were in majority in these provinces,

(b) Weightage was conceded to the Muslims in provinces in which they were in minority. Likewise the Hindus and the Sikhs were also given weightage in Punjab,

(c) Depressed classes were accorded recognition as minority,

(d) Seats were also reserved for the Muslims, Indian Christians and landlords. Right to vote in general constituencies,

(e) Provision was made for electoral arrangements after a period of 10 years with the consent of communities effected, and

(f) 3% seats in all provinces except N.W.F.P. were reserved for women.

When the Government of India Act, 1935 was passed the Muslims were given separate electorate and seats were reserved for them in the provinces. But when elections were held in 1937, Muslim League did not fair well, which meant great dismay and disappointment for League leadership.

Congress, however, was still willing to offer ministerial berths to the League, provided it accepted certain conditions, which it was not prepared to accept.

The League leadership, therefore, created an atmosphere in which it tried to establish that the Muslims were being subjected to perpetual tyranny. It also set up Pirpur Committee which listed the sufferings for the Muslims under Congress regime. The League did not like mass contact programme of the Congress party under which an attempt was made to bring the Muslims under Congress fold.

The League felt that this will endanger the very existence of the party itself. The Muslim industrialists also felt that under Hindu India their industries would not prosper and that their future was not safe. Mr. Jinnah gave slogan of Islam in danger. Therefore, when in 1939 Congress Ministries in the provinces resigned, the League observed December 23, 1939 as the Deliverance Day.

On that day public meetings were held all over the country. In these meetings resolutions were passed pointing out that, “This meeting, therefore, expresses its deep sense of relief at the termination of Congress regime in various provinces and rejoices in observing this day as Deliverance Day from tyranny, oppression and injustice.”

Demand for Pakistan:

On March 21, 1940 Muslim League ultimately came forward with its for the formation of independent State of Pakistan which should be the homeland of the Muslims. The idea of Pakistan, however, did not originate all of a sudden.

It is believed that the idea of formation of consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State was first mooted by Sir Mohammed Iqbal in 1930. But all that he wanted was a lose federation and not a separate State of Pakistan.

In 1933, Muslim Under-Graduate of Cambridge under Rahmit Ali again renewed the demand of Pakistan which was to include Punjab. NWFP, Baluchistan, Sindh and Kashmir but the scheme did not receive much encouragement. Even Sir Zaffar ullah Khan described it as impracticable.

In 1938, Jinnah demanded the division of India. But the whole idea was given a serious thought in 1940. It was in that year that two nation theory was expounded and Pakistan resolution was passed.

While delivering his Presidential address at the session of the League held at Lahore in that year he said, “To yoke together two such nations under the single state, one as numerical minority and the other a majority, must lead to growing discontentment and final obstruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.”

The Resolution was turning point in the history of India’s freedom struggle. It was the highest culmination of Muslim aspirations roused by Muslim leaders since the times of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. It established leadership and supremacy of Mr. Jinnah, beyond all doubts and as the time passed with that he became the sole leader of Muslims of India.

Thus British government now also paid as much heed to him as to Gandhiji.

It was now also clear that the Muslims of India will not be satisfied with a federal system in which province may even be powerful. What was to satisfy them now was a separate state of Pakistan. Though the League had passed this resolution, yet many political leaders both in India and abroad, felt that it was impossible to divide India and create a new independent and sovereign state of Pakistan for the Muslims of India.

Why was Pakistan Demanded?

But reasonably a question arises as to why Muslim League demanded Pakistan and was not even prepared to join a lose Indian federation with a weak centre and strong provinces enjoying considerable autonomy.

Of course, there were several causes responsible for it. In 1937, when Congress Ministries were formed in several provinces no scheme could be evolved by whic
h both the Congress and League could work together.

The Muslims did not cherish Mass Contact Movement started by the Congress under the leadership of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru. One aim of the movement was to bring the Muslims under Congress fold. This was viewed by Muslim League as a threat to its very existence.

Then middle classes in Muslim society felt that it could not compete with the Hindus in a united India and that their future laid only in a separate Islamic state where they could develop economically and culturally.

Some of them pleaded that their continuance in India was likely to endanger even their religion. It was also hoped that formation of Pakistan might prove a good jumping ground for Pan Islamism and thus it might become possible to relieve the Muslims from foreign yoke. When the Muslims cried for a separate State of Pakistan, some of the Hindus also talked of Hindu Rashtra.

This provided great handle to the orthodox Muslims, who exploited the situation to their own advantage. According to them a day was not far off when the Hindus all over India would dominate, and the Muslims would remain in perpetual subordination and slavery.

But in the whole affair no less role was played by British bureaucracy, which always sided with the Muslims and encouraged them and accepted whatever demand was put forth by that community.

Cripps Mission proposals accepted the basic principle that those provinces which did not accept the constitution of India will have a right to frame their own constitution. This made the Muslims strongly believe that partition of India was a practical proposition, what so far was considered as an impossibility.

From Cripps Mission to Pakistan:

In 1942, Cripps Mission proposals were given to India. Muslim League rejected these stating that in the scheme their demand of a separate state of Pakistan had not been accepted. It was also not satisfied with the Constitution making machinery created under the scheme.

The working committee of the Muslim League in a resolution passed on 11th April, 1942 said, “The Committee while expressing their gratification that the possibility of Pakistan is recognised by implication by providing for the establishment of two or more independent unions in India, regret that the proposals of His Majesty’s Government embodying the fundamentals, are not open to any modification and, therefore, no alternative proposals are needed. Muslim League also makes it clear that any scheme which directly or indirectly torpedoed the scheme of Pakistan will be resisted by the Muslims of India.”

Then came Quit India movement under which whole country under the leadership of Gandhiji and under Congress banner, challenged British supremacy over India. The nation demanded that the Britishers should leave India, leaving the country to her fate.

But the Muslim League did not participate in this movement. By and large the Muslims, under Muslim League, continued to extend their support to the government in her efforts.

Dr. Latif, an eminent Muslim, also gave his scheme for solving constitutional tangle in India. In his scheme he suggested that India should be divided into cultural zones and thereafter confederated. He also suggested that population should also be transferred on a large scale with a view to making these, zone homogeneous.

He wanted that the Muslims of U.P. and Bihar should have a separate state to live and that the ports of Calcutta and Madras should be given to the Muslims. Obviously such a proposal could not be accepted by any section of Indian society, except the Muslims.

Then came Aligarh scheme which was prepared by Prof. Zafrul Hassan and Mohammad Afzal Hassan Qadri for solving India’s constitutional problem.

The Scheme provided that:

(a) Bihar and Karnataka should be given back to Hyderabad.

(b) All towns which have a population of 50,000 or more should be treated as boroughs.

(c) Each borough should be given considerable autonomy.

(d) The Muslims should be treated as a separate nation in India and allowed to have their separate organization.

When no solution to the problem was forthcoming C. Raja Gopalachari gave his own formula. This was much criticised by the Congress, because it accepted in principle the creation of independent State of Pakistan. According to this formula the League was to accept demand for India’s independence and co-operate with the Congress in the formation of interim provisional government.

It also provided that after the war was over a Commission would be appointed for demarcating contiguous districts in North-West and East India where the Muslims were in absolute majority.

In these areas there will be a plebiscite which will decide whether the people wanted or not to remain in the Hindustan. Before plebiscite is held in the country, all political parties will be at liberty to give their view point. Mr. Jinnah, however, rejected this proposal as well.

He wanted that in the proposed plebiscite the non-Muslims should not be allowed to participate. He wanted that in the proposed Pakistan there should be six provinces namely Sindh, Punjab, NWFP, Baluchistan, Bengal and Assam According to him the formula gave a maimed, mutilated and moth eaten Pakistan, which he was not prepared to accept.

In 1945, British government gave Wave 11 plan. The Muslim League rejected this as well. According to Mr. Jinnah acceptance of such a scheme was likely to weaken League’s claim, for an independent State of Pakistan.

The scheme, he felt, was likely to wreck Muslim unity. According to him in the proposed Executive Council of Viceroy the minorities will side with the Congress and the League will suffer defeat on Pakistan issue. He also wanted that the League should have exclusive right to nominate the Muslims on the Executive Council of Viceroy. Thus, due to hard attitude of the League the scheme failed.

Next came Cabinet Mission proposals. The Mission felt that it was not possible to have a separate State of Pakistan. In the view of the Commission even after the partition of India quite a large number of Muslims will remain in India and a good number of Hindus m the newly created state of Pakistan.

It also felt that there was no justification for including in the State of Pakistan such districts of Punjab and Bengal in which non-Muslim were in majority. Not only this, but the creation of Pakistan was likely to create many more problems than solving these and the division of Punjab meant division of the Sikhs.

In the opinion of the Mission administratively, economically and from military point of view, Pakistan was not feasible and bound to create inefficiency in administration. Not only this, but two arms of Pakistan which were to be thousands of miles away were likely to make communication difficult both in times of peace and war.

The British government, therefore, felt that it was not possible for it to transfer power to two independent sovereign states. The Mission was of the view that only solution of the problem was a federal system in which Centre should have few powers. It should be weak, whereas provinces should enjoy vast powers and these should be strong.

Under the scheme an interim government was to be formed and the League agreed to join that. Since the Congress had not accepted the plan the Viceroy thought it better to wait for sometime till that also agreed to join interim government. The League demanded that elections to Constituent Assembly should too be postponed.

But Viceroy did not agree to this and the League decided to revoke its earlier decision. Elections to the Constituent Assembly were, however, held and Congress was returned to power with thumping majority. In frustration on 29th July, 1946 the Muslim League finally rejected Cabinet Mission proposals and decided to take resort to Direct Action on 16th August, 1946.

The aim of such League for celebrating such a Day was to ac
hieve its goal of Pakistan and also to get rid of present slavery under the British regime and contemplated future of Hindu domination. On this day there was unprecedented mob violence and reign of bloodshed and communal hatred was let loose.

In both Sindh and Bengal, the day was declared as holiday. There were abductions, rapes, forced marriages, looting, and forcible conversions. Calcutta and Noakhali were the worst hit areas on this shameful day. Muslim League also boycotted Constituent Assembly, calling it invalid and illegal.

There were again communal riots engineered by League in Lahore, Rawalpindi and in fact, in many parts of Punjab and Bihar.

It was in this atmosphere that on February 20, 1947, British Prime Minister Lord Attlee declared that the government proposed to leave India by June, 1948, positively and in case Indian communities did not reach any compromise, even then the government will leave the country and decide to whom the power in India should be transferred.

The statement that the government could consider the possibility of transfer of power in some areas to existing provincial governments very much encouraged the Muslim League. It now tried to topple non-Muslim League Ministries in NWFP and Punjab, so that power was not transferred to them.

Then came Mountbatten Mission Plan on June 3, 1947 which provided for the creation of separate dominion of Pakistan, which came into being on 14-15 August, 1947. It included the provinces of NWFP, Sindh, West Punjab, East Bengal and British Baluchistan. Mr. Jinnah became the First Governor-General of Pakistan.

Thus, a new State of Pakistan was born just within a period of 17 years, as the idea was first mooted by Sir Muhammed Iqbal in 1930. There was no armed revolt but violence. Opinions are still divided whether Pakistan was at all unavoidable and why it came into being so soon.

Was it due to the supreme leadership of Mr. Jinnah or due to appeasement policy of the Congress towards the Muslims or on account of some secret understanding between the Muslim League and political leadership in Great Britain?

But the fact remains that because of its rigid stand on every political issue, the League could get independent state of Pakistan, which seemed an impracticability even to the Cabinet Mission, as late as in 1946.

It can be said that in the formation of Pakistan rigid attitude of the Muslim League, strong support of Britain and appeasement policy of the Congress combined together resulted in what appeared at one stage an impossibility. But even now a question which has quite often been asked and which is till date a matter of debate is whether the partition of India was unavoidable.

Many feel that it was a hasty decision on the part of Indian National Congress and that the party cannot escape from the responsibility of the mistake. British government extended its patronage during World War II when Congress party declined to extend any cooperation to the government.

In addition, it launched Quit India movement. British government is responsible for flaming communalism and introducing reservation system for the Muslims and other minorities. In the partition of the country Hindu militant approach was somewhat responsible, if not to the extent of Muslim Communalism.

About Congress view point in 1956 Nehru said, “I suppose it was the compulsion of events and the feelings that we could not get out of deadlock of morass by pursuing the way we have done; it became worse and worse.”

Upload and Share Your Article:

Read this article to learn about the New Left in Contemporary Marxism: Origin, Features and Theoretical Aspects!

Origin:

In contemporary Marxism, the New Left occupies a very significant place. In our analysis of Frankfurt School and critical theory it is observed that there was a strong reaction against Stalin’s mode of administration and his attitude towards Marxism-Leninism.

In the thirties and forties of the last century serious efforts were made by a good number of intellectuals haying deep command over Marxism and these efforts related to the unearthing of what Marx and Engels exactly said.

They refused to study and understand Marxism through the Russian interpreters directed by Stalin and his cohorts. The leitmotif was revival of Marxism in its original form or to interpret Marxism in the background of what Marx exactly said.

These thinkers came to be known as the New Left. The members accepted Marxism or Marx’s doctrine, but they wanted to explain Marx’s ideas in a correct and proper perspective. But the above cannot be regarded as the exclusive source or origin of the New Left.

David Held is of opinion that in the second half of the last century some liberal thinkers challenged some of the basic concepts of liberalism, particularly the laissez-faire or free market doctrine and, at the same time, some aspects of neo-liberalism.

It appeared to these thinkers that under neo-liberalism and laissez-faire system the responsibility and freedom of individuals have considerably diminished. This development is unwelcome. At the same time, bureaucratisation proliferated beyond imagination.

Many began to think that shrinkage of the individual’s freedom cannot be accepted. These persons came to be called the New Right.

“The New Right is concerned to advance the cause of liberalism against democracy by limiting the possible uses of state power”.

The New Right thinkers demanded that the policy and the state action should be kept at a minimum level so that the individual gets enough freedom of action and thought. In the opinion of the New Right the policy and action of the state are always imperfect and aim at limiting the freedom of individuals. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom emphasized this aspect of liberalism and the New Right accepted it.

Against the New Right there emerged a new group of thinkers popularly known as the New Left. Held argues the New Left “Emerged primarily as a result of the political upheavals of the 1960s, internal debates on the left and dissatisfaction with the heritage of political theory, liberal and Marxists”.

Another critic is more specific as to the origin of the New Left. It has been observed the “New Left emerged from the disintegration of Soviet hegemony over the international communist movement as shown by the de-Stalinisation process begun at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU in 1956”.

A large number of intellectuals of Soviet Russia were so much dissatisfied with the mode of functioning of Stalin and other leaders that they decided to find out the real meaning of Marxian philosophy.

Large number of thinkers began to analyse Marx’s views on social, political and economic issues few of them are CB Macpherson (The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy), Pateman (Participation and Political Theory—1970), Poulantzas (State Power, Socialism, 1980).

The chief purpose of the New Left thinkers was to analyse and interpret Marx’s doctrine in the perspective of new situations and incidents. The central idea of the New Left is “there are fundamental difficulties with orthodox Marxist theory”. Marxism must be freed from this confinement. The action of the state has created only inequalities. This is to be stopped.

Some Features of the New Left:

Kolakowski, the noted Marxist interpreter, at the very beginning makes the following comment:

“The so-called New Left is a complex of phenomena, witnessing on the one hand, to the universalization of Marxist phraseology and, on the other hand disintegration of the doctrine and its inadequacy to modern social problems”.

This short comment of Kolakowski reveals, at least partially, the nature of the New Left. It is not a coherent concept. Different ideas and views of Marx have met together. When Marx’s main doctrine was faced with serious problems and some noted Marxists challenged the basic aspects of Marx, but did not abandon them and even did not show the sign of abandoning, the New Left emerged.

We can say that in the sixties of the last century fissures in the so-called coherency of Marxism appeared and that showed the beginning of the New Left. We can interpret it in another way.

Academic doctrines are never static, with the change of time and material conditions some of the basic aspects of the academic doctrine are faced with questions Marxism is no exception.

It is generally main­tained by many renowned scholars that Marxism is not a monolithic theory. It has a good number of aspects and many of these are confronted with questions. This is a vital feature of the New Left.

During the last half century Marxists of different countries have made efforts to apply Marxism in their countries and in this attempt they were forced to change some of the vital aspects of Marxism. For example, Lenin did this and he is pioneer in this field.

Mao of China is again a great leader to apply Marxism but not in its original form. Marxists of Italy, Cuba and several other countries also changed many aspects of Marxism to suit their own countries. All these led to the loss of uniformity of Marxism.

The New Left enjoyed the full freedom of thought and expression which was unimaginable in the Stalin era. The members of the New Left condemned Stalinism and supported de-Stalinisation.

The New Left did not support Moscow’s invasion of Hungary. Even it strongly criticised Moscow’s big-brotherly attitude towards the East European states.

The New Left called it a new type of colonialism. On the other hand, the members of the New Left showed their utmost fidelity towards Marxism. The fact is that the New Left was fully loyal to Marxism but could not tolerate its aberrations. The New Left also denounced the degeneration of the Soviet system in general.

During Stalin’s rule there were a number of aberrations and gross misuse of Marxism. This considerably disheartened the Marxists and they were determined to stop the degradation of Marxism in this way.

A very important aspect of the New Left is that New Leftists were quite eager in the revival of Marxism as a living ideology. They were determined to save Marxism from the vortex of misinterpretation and misuse.

It was observed that Marxism was not exclusively meant for the developed capitalist states but for all states particularly the states of the Third World.

Kolakowski writes, “In the sixties the term New Left was generally used in Europe and North America as a collective label for student ideologies which used the phraseology of worldwide anti- capitalist revolution and looked chiefly to the Third World for models and heroes”.

In other words, the New Left has more relevance for the developing countries of Asia and Africa. The nationalist leaders of these states are quite eager to materialize the national goals through the proper and prudential application of Marxism. This is rather the vital point of the New Left.

Theoretical Aspects of the New Left:

The New Leftists are of opinion that only a revolution can bring about radical change of society. But it is needless to wait for the most opportune moment of revolution. That is, it is not correct to say that the “ripeness” of revolution has not yet arriv
ed and in that situation it is not judicious to call for a revolution.

The New Leftists are against the theory of “ripeness” for revolution: “There is no reason to wait existing states and growing elites must be destroyed by force, without arguing about the political and economic organisation of future the revolution will decide these in its own good time”.

The New Leftists argue that there is nothing like ripeness of revolution. The true revolutionaries must call for a revolution.

If the revolutionaries think that the existing system must be destroyed or changed then they must call for a revolution. Not only this, the revolution must be total; that is, it will be against the whole structure of the society or system.

The members of the Frankfurt School and the theoreticians of the critical theory advocated for a total revolution.

The New Leftists demanded true revolution and not reform, because reforms and revolution do not fall in the same category. So a true revolutionary must oppose reform.

Marx, Engels and their followers relied heavily on the ability of the working class to lead a revolution. But the New Leftists have rejected this. They are of opinion that only revolution is capable of changing a bourgeois society, but this revolution must be led by the students and not workers.

The working class is not a completely deprived class; on the other hand, the students are really oppressed. Again, the student community is resolute in its aim and decision. The students are not easily purchasable.

Marx, Engels, Lenin and many others emphasized the importance of revolution in the field of radical change of society but they have been found to be silent on the nature of revolution and in this regard the members of the New Left are quite outspoken.

The revolution in all senses must be total and all-embracing. The revolution conceived by the New Leftists is of a different nature.

It is not aimed at the bourgeois class; it is “directed against fraudulent academic institutions”.

The revolution of the New Left aims at cleansing the academic institutions of all categories. This revolution must remove corrupt and inefficient teachers and unworthy education system.

Another aspect of revolution of the New Left is that the revolution must check over-population, pollution of environment, and misuse of scarce natural resources. The objective of revolution must be to remove backwardness, poverty, and check all sorts of tension particularly political and military. This revolution must save society from all types of insecurity, parochialism, and narrowness. It shall be the objective of revolution to free mankind from hunger and fear.

The central idea of the New Left revolution is the people of the Third World are in the midst of all types of crises and, naturally, the revolution must be total so that a new society can be built up on the ashes of the old society. The members of the New Left believe that students are the victims of maximum frustration, oppression, deprivation.

They are alienated from the mainstream of society. They do not calculate loss and profit, they do not hesitate. Naturally, only the students can provide bold and necessary leadership in any form of total and violent revolution. In the fifties and sixties of the last century many capitals and academic institutions were in the grip of revolution’ led by students.

Pateman and Poulantzas are two pioneers of the New Left movement. Pateman’s book: Participation and Democratic Theory (1970) and Poulantzas’s book: State, Power, Socialism (1980) throw ample light on the various aspects of capitalist society.

They have thoroughly investigated the nature and functioning of capitalist society and have arrived at the conclusion that the bourgeois concept of liberty is ill-conceived and highly limited because this does not treat liberty in proper perspective.

In the opinion of the bourgeois liberty and equality before law is enough. If this condition is fully satisfied people will enjoy liberty. But both Pateman and Poulantzas argue that “to enjoy liberty means not only to enjoy equality before law, but also to have the capacities to be able to choose between different courses of action”.

According to Pateman and Poulantzas the bourgeois theoreticians have imagined about liberty, freedom etc. in their own way. But, in practice, such type of conception is not found in practical society.

These two pioneers of the New Left have further announced that in theory and ideology many types of liberty and right are found but in practice there is no existence of these rights and freedom.

In other words, paper announcement of rights is not enough, people must have free access to all these rights and freedoms. But for this a new type of society is required and only a revolution can ensure such a situation.

The doors of Justice and the doors of a Five Star Hotel are open to all. But how many people have the capacity to go to the house of Justice and the hotel? Only a new society, radically reconstructed, can ensure the liberty, rights and justice.

Marx and Engels strongly advocated for the seizure of political power for the emancipation of the common people from capitalist exploitation. The New Left, Poulantzas and Pateman have lent their unqualified support to this concept. But they differ in certain vital aspects.

They are of opinion that mere seizure of power can never be treated as Aladdin’s lamp capable of solving each and every problem. Rosa Luxemburg once said democratic and parliamentary procedures can effec­tively be used for the realisation of certain basic demands of the workers and Engels in his Preface to Class Struggle in France supported this. Luxemburg once said: without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution.

Poulantzas is of opinion that there are innumerable inequalities in societies and if these are not removed for ever there cannot be free development of all men.

Supporting Poulantzas’s view David Held says:

“Inequalities of class, sex and race substantially hinder the extent to which it can legitimately be claimed that individuals are free and equal”.

“Poulantzas emphasizes two sets of changes which he believes are vital for the transformation of state in West and East into forms of what he calls “socialist pluralism”.

The state must be democratised by making parliament, state bureaucracies and political parties more open and accountable while new forms of struggle at the local level must ensure that the society as well as the state, is democratised, that is, subject to procedures which ensure accountability”. This is the central idea of the political thought of the New Left.

The members of the New Left do not subscribe to the popular view that with the advent of communism the state will wither away. That is absolutely a Utopian thought.

In the past there were states, today there are states, and, in future, there will exist states. But the New Left wants to emphasise that the state shall be democratised, socialised and pluralism shall be the foundation of every state.

In other words, the state conceived by the New Left is pluralist, socialist and democratic. Only in such a state inequality cannot thrive in any form. The state can be a vehicle to achieve certain coveted goals and these goals are related to economic, social, political, cultural etc.

If the state is not democratised these goals will remain a far cry. Both Lenin and Stalin adopted an erroneous way of building up a socialist society. They ignored the democratic feeling of the common people.

They thought that the party was all in all and the supremacy of the party could help people in attaining their goals. But ultimately it proved wrong. It is painful that Lenin failed to estimate the importance of representative institutions, and their contributions to the development of thought
and ideas of the common people.

Lenin absolutely neglected the importance of multiplicity of power centres in a society. The New Left firmly believes that through the multiplicity of power centres people can develop their multiplicity of thought and, in this way, the society can be democratised.

By ignoring the democratisation both Lenin and Stalin committed a Himalayan blunder. The New Left, it can be said, made some modest attempts to rectify the mistakes of Lenin and Stalin. But the problem is the vision of the New Left is yet to be achieved. The vision is faced with a big question mark.

Upload and Share Your Article:

After reading this article you will learn about Lenin:- 1. Short Life History of Lenin 2. Background of Lenin’s Thought 3. Political Ideas.

Short Life History of Lenin:

The family name of this world famous revolutionary and a great interpreter of the political ideas of Marx and Engels is Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. He was born on 22 April 1870 (in old style or system of calculation it was 10 April).

Simbirsk was Ulyanov’s birth-place and it is now called Ulyanovsk. From the end of 1901 he came to be known as ‘Lenin’ because in his writings he used that pseudonym.

Vladimir’s father Ilya Nikolayevich was an educated person and held the post of school inspector. He had also direct and strong connection with Russian particularly Tsarist bureaucracy and in bureaucratic circle he was a respected person.

Ilya Nikolayevich took special care of his children’s education. Though he was very much religious-minded and imparted religion-based education upon his children he was not a bigot.

His elder brother Alexander was a student of Petersburg University and from his early-hood he was revolutionary in his attitude and activities. This mentality led him to be a member of a terrorist and secret organization popularly known as Narodnaya Volya. This organisation was involved in the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, and when Alexander’s involvement was discovered he was hanged.

Lenin believed that his brother Alexander was innocent and when he was hanged for no fault of his own Lenin became furious and decided to take revenge. But Lenin’s mother did not approve his decision and she wanted to divert the attention of Lenin. His mother took serious efforts to involve him in studies and because of her efforts Lenin was allowed to be a student of St. Petersburg University and by 1891 he became a law-graduate.

Lenin’s membership of the university and mother’s efforts failed to bring about a break on his connection with the secret organizations, particularly Narodnaya Volya. He was determined to end the autocratic rule of the Tsar and in order to achieve that ambitious objective he began to study the various revolutionary literature. By 1890 Lenin came in close contact with the works of Marx and Plekhanov.

Before Lenin Plekhanov was a great Marxist and he published a number of booklets and articles explaining and interpreting the thoughts of Marx and Engels. Plekhanov’s writings impressed Lenin and he began to study seriously the works of Marx.

His attachment with revolutionary philosophy in general and Marxian philosophy in particular began to increase in astronomical proportion and before the end of the 19th century his name appeared to be a very known figure among the socialist circles.

The secret police and organization of the Tsar intensified their surveillance over Lenin and he was not permitted in the academic affairs of St. Petersburg University. This, however, could not deter Lenin. With added enthusiasm he carried on his revolutionary activities.

Background of Lenin’s Thought:

In his letter to Weydemeyer on 5 March 1852 Marx wrote “And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me the bourgeois historians have described the historical development of this struggle of the classes and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes.”

Needless to say that the same also holds good for Lenin. Lenin’s political philosophy or what is better known as Leninism did not emerge accidentally. It is coupled with a long and multi-faced background whose understanding is essential for a comprehensive grasp over Leninism.

When Lenin embarked upon the turmoil political and economic situation of the then Russia (roughly in the middle of the nineties of the nineteenth century, he witnessed a host of revolutionaries and socialist thinkers such as Struve, Martov, Krzhizhanovsky, Potresov etc.

There was also Plekhanov who built up a powerful group of Marxists and elaborated, interpreted and propagated the main currents of Marxist thought. Plekhanov’s intellectualism created an impact upon the revolu­tionary zeal of Lenin.

In the fifties of the nineteenth century Belinsky and Harzen launched, at a limited scale, the revolutionary movement in Russia which created a stir among the peasants, because they believed that only the Russian peasants could form a potential force to save Russia from the Tsarist misrule.

In the 1860s some Russian thinkers and revolutionaries believed that only a reform movement could be a right way. Chernyshevsky gave leadership to this movement. Though many people call Chernyshevsky’s reform movement revolu­tionary, in practice, it was not so.

Many people think that the purpose of this reform movement was to slow down the terrorist movement which was gathering momen­tum under the leadership of Lenin. His movement was partially anarchist and partially individualist. It was, however, anti-establishment.

Narodnik (Populist) and Narodnaya Volya (People’s will) parties emerged in the seventies to press the cause of common people, particularly the peasants. The populist or Narodnik Party had no practical experience of revolution or leading the toiling masses to revolutionary activities and, as such, the Narodnik Party failed to achieve even moderate success. After sometimes the party gave the Slogan “Go to the people”. The activities of the party went off to the countryside to raise their enthusiasm.

The successive failures of the Narodnik Party split it into two groups—one terrorist and the other, to some extent, reformist. The former was called Narodnaya Volya and Lenin had weakness for this group.

Lenin’s elder brother was connected with this terrorist group and the group was responsible for the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. Tsar police did not hesitate to adopt most repressive measures and some were hanged. This could not generate any deterrent effect upon the revolu­tionaries. Conspiratorial activities went unabated.

In the mid 1880s some Marxists in exile intensified their activities for the cause of emancipation of the working class and most prominent among them were Plekhanov and Axelrod.

Plekhanov was rated as the key factor for transforming populism into Marxism. In has been observed by a critic that Plekhanov’s writings not only converted Lenin but also reared a whole generation of Russian Marxists. Plekhanov emphasized that populists’ method of terrorism was in bankruptcy and hence it could not be relied upon.

He was sure that capitalism was rapidly developing in Russia and would create a vast army of proletariat who would overthrow the autocratic rulers from power. This analysis of Russian capitalism impressed Lenin and he took active interest.

It has been pointed out by Christopher Hill that Russia during the Tsar rule was in fact divided into two opposite class’s landlord and bourgeois on the one hand, and toiling masses on the other. There was no middle class as it is to be found in other capitalist countries of Europe.

In the midst of this terrorist and revolutionary movement the liberal philosophy of the 19th century could not get any scope to flourish in Russia. Moreover, the landed and industrial interests in Russia were chiefly dominated by the foreigners who created a strong resentment among the common people.

This was quite favourable for the advancement of revolutionary movement and, needless to say, Lenin took the full opportunity of this situation. A large number of socialist thinkers and activities had already prepared an academic atmosphere by interpreting and propagating Marx’s thought and ideas.

Political Ideas of Lenin:

1. The Russian Revolution:

A number of Russian revolutionaries ploughed the field for sowing the seeds of revolution and Lenin was undoubtedly the most prominent personality. In fact, without the dynamism and bold leadership of Lenin the Russian revolution would never have been being a reality.

The ruthless administration of Russia sent him to jail and exile for a number of times, but everywhere he continued his schemes of revolution with added zeal and enthusiasm.

In 1893 he returned to St. Petersburg and made efforts to unite the various revolutionary groups. But Russian police did not allow him to remain outside jail to continue revolutionary activities. He was arrested and sent to Siberia.

Lenin was an inborn revolutionary and while in exile he continued his revolu­tionary activities which resulted in the formation of a revolutionary party known as Russian Social Democratic Labour party (R.S.D.L.P).

Under its leadership number of strikes in the textile factories of St. Petersburg took place. Lenin was at that time in Siberia and when he returned in 1900 he witnessed that Russian social and political situation was quite ripe for a revolution.

At the same time he strongly felt the necessity of a journal to spread and inculcate the principle of revolution among the workers and with the help of Potresov and Martov he clandestinely published a journal called Iskra (The Spark) and immediately it was received by the workers and revolutionaries enthusiastically.

Lenin thought that the publication of Iskra was a positive step towards the materialisation of revolutionary objectives. The years following 1893 were years of confusion and indecision.

In the Minsk Congress the RSDLP was formed, but it could not proceed rapidly towards the fulfilment of revolutionary goals. It simply organized few strikes. There were, moreover, dissensions among the revolutionaries.

How to organize a movement?

What would be the objectives of revolution any movement?

Some revolutionaries advanced the argument that the workers should form trade unions to press their demands upon the capitalists.

The political objectives of any organization will definitely divide the workers. But the core group set up by Lenin, when he was in Geneva, strongly opposed this move. His argument was trade union based on economic factors would make the workers reform-minded and enslave them to capitalists. So Lenin advised his followers to discard such trade unionism.

Before 1905 Lenin was convinced that the peasants and workers must under­stand the necessity of a revolution and in order to organize and unite them a party organization is a must.

Lenin once said:

It is not sufficient for revolution that the exploited and oppressed masses understand the impossibility of living in the old way and demand changes. For revolution it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, politically active workers) should fully understand that revolution is necessary and be ready to sacrifice their lives for it, secondly, that the ruling classes be in a state of govern­mental crisis.

Lenin thought that if the government were in crisis that would encourage the backward and politically conscious people to assemble together and form a coherent movement against the government which will precipitate the fall.

This fundamental principle of revolution formulated by Lenin is not imaginary. The revolution of 1905 and two revolutions of 1917 corroborate Lenin’s fundamental law. He was of opinion that the mere presence of objective situation was not enough for any revolution, it must be organized.

Lenin fully realized that the prevailing political situation of Russia was quite congenial for a revolution. The Tsar govern­ment was weak and to cover up its weakness it resorted to repressive measures and for that purpose it employed a large number of agent provocateurs. Lenin thought that intensive propaganda and large scale organization of masses could be alienated from the government and simultaneously its misdeeds and weakness should be exposed to the people so that they can form an anti-government attitude.

He also emphasized that the Russian economy was dominated by the foreign investors and capitalists. Lenin was convinced that for the emancipation of the working class it is necessary to seize political power because it is the cause of exploitation.

2. The Revolution of 1905:

In the 1905-war with Japan Russian army received a severe defeat at the hands of Japanese army and this brought about several setbacks for the Russian government.

The autocratic and repressive rule of the Tsar already created an anti-government attitude and the abortive Russia-Japanese war fuelled that dissension beyond all sorts of pacification. People of all sections of Russian society adopted the agitative tactics to curb the governmental activities.

The working class was more militant; Strikes, demonstrations and other tactics were adopted by them. The peasants also joined hands with them and, ultimately, the countrywide agitation made the Tsar rulers helpless.

The workers, peasants and even the members of the bourgeoisie formed organizations to give concrete shape to their movements. In such a situation a revolution took place in Russia in 1905 (22 January). It is also called “Bloody Sunday”.

Russian people demonstrated before the palace of the Tsar peacefully, but repressive and ruthless measures were perpetrated by the Tsar police upon them and this made the people furious. Waves of strikes and demonstrations flooded the Russian Society.

At the time of 1905 Russian revolution Lenin was in Geneva. So the revolution was absolutely spontaneous.

The activities and the policies of the Tsar government crossed all the limits of toleration. But the revolution could not succeed; it was crushed by the Tsar Government.

On the question of leadership of revolution and the tactics to be followed in it severe differences of opinion developed between Lenin representing Bolshevik group and the Mensheviks.

The main cause of the conflict between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks was that the former wanted to cooperate with the bourgeois democratic groups in their fight. Lenin said that the help of the bourgeois democratic liberals should be sought and on this issue he had no difference of opinion with the Mensheviks. But the moot question is are the members of the bourgeoisie liberal?

He was convinced that the Russian bourgeoisie was not liberal at all and accepting the help of this bourgeoisie does not arise at all. During the reign of Alexander II, Zemstovs were set up.

These were local assemblies and were given extensive powers for self-government. But the Zemstovs were in favour of autocratic rule and for that reason Lenin did not support any cooperation with them which the Mensheviks refused to accept.

Lenin could not find any revolutionary trait among the members of the bourgeoisie and he thought that it was anti-revolutionary.

It has been observed by Marcel Leibman “Between the end of revolution of 1905 and the outbreak of war in 1914, Lenin’s struggle against Menshevism became very largely a struggle against liberation and against all tendencies towards alliance between Social Democrats and Constitutional Democrats”.

3. The Revolution of 1917:

Lenin investigated the causes of the failure of the revolution of 1905 and he stated his conclusions in Lessons of Revolution published in 1910.

His analysis contains the followings points:

(a) No cooperation with the so-called Russian liberals,

(b) Only a revolutionary struggle of the masses can lead to victory,

(c) Mere underestimation of Tsarism is not enough; all efforts must be made to
destroy it.

(d) Only the working class can provide proper leadership because the peasants are weak and unorganized.

(e) Constitutional tactics adopted by the Tsar government should be discarded,

(f) Mensheviks were the tools of Russian liberals and democrats and hence they cannot be relied upon.

Keeping the above lessons in mind Lenin wanted to launch a final strike against the Tsar authority. From the activities of the Tsar government he realized that it was gradually becoming weak and reckless and trying to save itself from complete disaster.

The agitation of the masses was increasing rapidly. Lenin was determined to utilize the large scale mass discontent.

Lenin was convinced that it was beyond the capacity of the Tsar government to provide bread and other necessaries and ensure peace and allot land to the landless people and under such situation he gave a clarion call to the masses to rise against all sorts of odds and repressions. He openly declared that he would not accept parliament.

By October 1917 the weakness and inefficiency of the government reached their zenith and Lenin thought that the most opportune moment had arrived to launch a final attack and he did that immediately.

The bold leadership of Lenin and the enthusiastic support of the people helped him to corner the Mensheviks. The Bolshevik group under his leadership marched ahead and in October 25, 1917 (New system 7 November), the Bolshevik party captured power. R. N. Carew Hunt writes… “both the social revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were outplayed by a party far smaller, but better organized”.

The success of the revolution of 1917 demonstrates that the fundamental difference between Lenin and the Mensheviks was that the former wanted to adopt a pragmatic policy to win the fight against the Tsar government and the latter were orthodox Marxists. They held that the Russian situation was not ripe for seizure of power.

This orthodox attitude towards the Russian situation was the chief factor of debacle from which the Mensheviks suffered and from which they never recovered. Some critics (mainly from Western countries) accuse Lenin of distorting Marxism. But a proper assessment reveals that he possessed unbound acumen of dealing with practical situations and this made him victorious.

4. Theory of Party:

During their lifetime Marx and Engels could not find sufficient time and scope to prepare a full-dress theory of party. In Manifesto of the Communist Party (henceforth Manifesto) they have said that the working class must form a party to seize political power and establish its dictatorship without which the in emancipation would never be possible.

In his Civil War in France Marx clearly stated that the chief cause of the failure of the commune was workers’ inability to form a party. But when Lenin appeared in the Russian political scene and decided to launch an uncompromising struggle against Tsardom, he felt the necessity of a party and this realization came as early as 1901.

Two issues dominated Lenin’s mind when he was seriously thinking about organizing a party. One is, he thought that a political party of the Western type (bourgeoisie democratic party of Western Europe) could never be able to fulfil the objective of the Russian working class whose chief aim was to overthrow the rule of the Tsar.

Political parties of Western bourgeois democracies always follow a tactics of compromise and cooperation with the capitalist’s class.

The second issue is on the role of the party. Lenin openly challenged the argument and stand of the economists. “The economists interpreted historical materialism as a theory of primacy of the proletariat’s economic struggle as compared with political aims”.

The argument of the economists was that the material interests of the workers is economic interests and those must be met at first and after that they will spontaneously fight for political struggle and domination. To unite the workers, they held, this condition must be fulfilled.

In his famous work what is to Be Done, Lenin attacked this economism. He said that the chief objective of the workers would be to capture political power and emancipation from economic bondage would follow. He also refuted the econo­mists’ argument of spontaneity. The revolutionary principles shall be spread through various means among the workers so that they can form a definite opinion about the exploitation of the capitalists. Hence the theory of spontaneity does not hold good at all.

Lenin has said that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. Only a well-organized party can preach and propagate it among the workers. He has further observed that left to themselves the workers were not capable of attaining consciousness of the fundamental opposition between their class as a whole and the existing social system.

The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness. But for a complete emancipation trade union movement and spontaneity cannot work satisfactorily.

The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced concepts and ideas of the theory of socialist revolution.

While Lenin was channelizing his efforts for organizing a party for conducting revolution he simultaneously thought of spreading ideology among the workers. It is not true that the working class will develop an independent ideology of its own while guiding a movement.

Only a struggle can form the foundation of an ideology. This naive contention of some persons has been challenged by Lenin. He is of opinion that no independent ideology can develop in the process of labour movement.

In any society there can be only two ideologies bourgeois and socialist and the working class will have to select any one of these two. There is no middle course and hence there is no third ideology.

It is the most important task of a revolutionary party to convince the workers of the necessity of socialist ideology, because only this course will convince them of the extent of capitalist exploitation.

The task of the party is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working class movement from the spontaneous trade union movement to the umbrella of revolutionary movement.

At the beginning of twentieth century, in Russia, there were a number of revolutionary groups who were fighting against Tsardom. Lenin felt the necessity of a united party, because only such an organization could succeed in capturing political power. He wanted to call it a homogeneous All Russian Party.

A centralized and well-organized party was to him the only way. “As against the populists, he conceived of this party as proletarian, as against the legal Marxists, as a party of action as well as of theory, and as against the economists as a party with a political as well as an economic programme”

Lenin thought that in order to be the vanguard of the proletariat the party must be an “iron party”, that is, it must enforce discipline and principles of revolution and protracted class struggle among the members.

Without an “iron party” it was impossible to carry out the dictatorship of the proletarian. Party should be the highest form of organisation for carrying out proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie.

What Lenin wants to emphasize is that without a nod from the central committee or organisation regional branches cannot take any decision.

To fulfill the goals of revolution Lenin thought that the party should be small so that it can function swiftly and quite effectively.

The central committee of the party will dominate the ideological and other aspects of the organisation and from this view of Lenin critics draw the conclusion that he was thinking about the dictatorship of party. From the political experience
of Russia, Lenin formed the opinion that only a small party can work efficiently.

As regards the organisation of the party Lenin states that it will not only be small, but will consist of professional revolutionaries. These persons will take revolution­ary activity as the in profession.

The allegiance of these persons to both ideology and party shall be beyond all sorts of doubt and suspicion. Explaining Lenin’s view Kolakowski says that such a party of professional revolutionaries must not only gain the confidence of the workers and take over the spontaneous movement, but must make itself the centre of all forms of protest against social oppression.

A small well-organized party will highlight the class interest and expose the class antagonism among the workers and peasants. It will warn the working class against any possible onslaught released by the capitalist and their puppet counter-revolutionary forces.

It may suitably be called general campaign of exposure. Lenin laid great faith on the party. He believed that it was the duty of the party to expose the motives and character of religious fundamentalists and reactionary forces.

Lenin believed that the leadership of the party shall be at the hands of professional revolutionaries who may be workers or intellectuals. But his preference was always for the workers dedicated to the cause of revolution and emancipation of workers. It has been maintained by Christopher Hill that he had very little faith on the intellectuals because they can easily be purchased by the capitalists.

The latter offer them lucrative employment and other comfortable opportunities and amenities and this make them oblivious of revolu­tion. Even they may abandon revolutionary activities. The intellectuals prefer seminars and declarations. They very seldom think how to implement the decla­rations.

This view of Lenin about the intellectuals was opposed by many of his own party. Even a number of top revolutionaries held the view that large numbers of intellectuals were in favour of revolution and they believed that only a revolution could emancipate the working class.

In 1920 Lenin laid down that the basis of the party should be “democratic centralism” which implies the combination of democratism and centralism or centralisation. Lenin elaborated the principles of democratic centralism under the new historical conditions when the age of proletarian revolution had come. Lenin wanted to apply the principle in the party congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.

All organisations of the party, according to Lenin, are subordinated to the central authority, the decisions of the higher party organisation are obligatory for lower party organisations.

All the units of the party are well-connected and the office-bearers are elected by the members of the party. All the important issues shall be threadbare by analyses in different units of the party and the final decision will be taken by the majority which will be binding on all.

Lenin’s theory of party as well as its role in the Russian revolution may also be explained in the light of the relationship between the party and Soviets. In State and Revolution and other works he has stressed that the proletarian revolution will smash the bourgeois state and that will be replaced by the Soviets.

“The decisive feature in Lenin’s analysis, and those to which he attached the greatest importance were his insistence on smashing the old state apparatus, on replacing it by the dictatorship of the proletariat and his new vision of Soviets as the political machinery through which this dictatorship could best be exercised”.

Lenin thought that after the revolution the proletariat will seize power and dictatorship will be established. All these were categorically stated by Lenin before 1919.

In this year he said:

“The party must win for itself undivided mastery over the Soviets” Critics are of opinion that with the change of time and situation Lenin had jumped from one concept to another.

Dictatorship of the Soviets, dictatorship of the party and dictatorship of the proletariat are not identical terms.

Subsequently the matter was clarified according to the following line. The party will guide and lead the Soviets and will never replace them. That means the Soviets will be in full control of ail the activities of the state and society.

Stalin in his Problems of Leninism has offered a slightly different explanation. He has said that the dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat which is organized into society and is led by the party.

The party, in essence, exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets are the direct expressions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not a single important political or organizational question is decided by our Soviet without guiding direction from our party.

Criticism:

Lenin’s theory of party has been subject to severe criticisms by both Marxists and non-Marxists.

He and his adherents have always assured us that Lenin is neither distorting nor amending the central principles of Marxism. But if we look at his theory of party we will witness a clear negation of this contention. Both Marx and Engels have all long advocated the establishment of dictatorship of proletariat after the seizure of power by the proletarians.

Instead of advocating for dictatorship of proletariat, Lenin ultimately supported the dictatorship of party which Marx and Engels never wanted. His advocacy for the mastery of party over all the affairs of state clearly curtails the power and rule of the Soviets. Dictatorship of party undoubtedly makes Marxism a mockery.

His criticism of his opponents’ view reveals that he was intolerant and very often used indecent phrases.

Marcel Liebman has said:

“One could go on indefinitely accumulating examples of the invectives indulged in by Lenin in his pursuit of what he himself called an “implacable campaign”.

Once he described Trotsky a Judas Trotsky. Though Lenin himself had sufficient sense of decency. Martov was also subjected to his thunderbolts. Lenin even went so far as to insinuate that Martov was in the service of Tsar”. Such insinuations are unworthy for Lenin.

5. Theory of State:

A very important contribution of Lenin lies in his interpretation and elaboration of the concept of state of which Marx had said very little. The best treatment is found in Engels’s The Origin of Family, Private Property and-State.

Lenin, borrowing the central idea from Marx and Engels, has expounded the Marxian doctrine in his The State and The State and Revolution. The latter was published in August 1917 and the former in 1919. The State and Revolution is regarded by many scholars as a very important writing of Lenin. What Engels did not say but wanted to say, Lenin has explained in The State and Revolution.

Following Marx and Engels Lenin says that in the primitive society there was no existence of state because there were no classes. When the society came to the divided into opposing classes as a result of the emergence of private property the necessities of state became inevitable. History shows that the state is a special apparatus for coercing people.

One class uses this apparatus to coerce another class. The state is by no means a power forced on society from without. It is the product of society at a certain stage of development. This society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself.

It is now clear that according to Lenin also Marx and Engels the state is a human product not bestowed upon man by any invisible power: A product of irreconcilability of class antagonism.

Marx, Engels and also Lenin have viewed history from the standpoint of materialist conception. They have said that the study of history reveals that in different periods of time different classes arose and their interests were diametr
ically opposite; and because of this the in interests could not be reconciled.

In the slave society there were slave-owners and slaves, in the feudal period there were landlords and serfs. Finally, in industrial society, there arose capitalists and working class or proletarians.

In all these epochs these classes stood against each other. One class wanted to dominate another. But ultimately it was found that the economically dominant class got an upper hand and established its mastery over the weaker class which was in numerical majority.

The powerful class with the help of police, army, bureaucracy and other coerce- enforcing machinery succeeded in controlling the weaker class. These forces are state forces and controlled and maintained by state. It may also be put in a different way.

The economically stronger class created machinery which could help it in exploitation. It is now obvious that if the interests of the opposing classes could be reconciled such an apparatus could not have arisen.

Let us sum up the matter in the words of Lenin:

The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises, where when and in so far as class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled. The existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

The state is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. It has been maintained by Lenin that although the state represents the powerful class, it sometimes plays the role of arbitrator in cases of disputes and this state does to show its neutrality. But ultimately the state fails to settle the disputes simply because these cannot be reconciled.

When the settlement fails the real character of state is exposed, it takes the side of the dominant class state. The state is the rule of a definite class.

Immediately after October Revolution (November Revolution, New Style) Lenin castigated the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. They argued that the state could reconcile the classes. Lenin called this petty bourgeois theory. He also called it petty bourgeois and Philistine reconciliation theory.

He concluded that the state is an organ of class rule and product of class antagonisms. This specific role of the state helps its alienation from the rest of the society. It keeps itself above the society and rule from above. Hence the emancipation of the working class shall be preceded by destruction of ruling class and seizure of state power.

An Instrument for Exploitation:

The chief role of state according to Marx, Engels and Lenin is it is an instrument of exploitation. The dominant class controlling the sources of production uses the state for its own benefits. So if there were no classes there could not arise the necessity of state.

In the State Lenin makes the following observation:

The state is a machine for maintaining the rule of one class over another. How the state plays the role of exploitation? It has a vast army of bureaucracy which from time to time makes laws fulfilling the interests of the ruling class and again when these laws prove redundancy they are abolished or amended and in this way the process continues. In case of violation of state laws, army or police are pressed into service.

The state is a machine for the oppression of one class by another, a machine for holding the obedience to one class other subordinate classes. There are various forms of this machine. The slave owning state could be a monarchy, an aristocratic, republic or even a democratic republic.

In fact, the forms of government varied, but their essence was always the same. The slaves could not enjoy any rights. The condition of serfs in feudal state was better in comparison with slaves, but they were oppressed and exploited. The industrial workers in the same way were also oppressed and exploited.

In a democratic republic wealth exercises its power indirectly, but all the more surely, first, by means of the direct corruption of officials as in America and secondly by means of an alliance with government and Stock Exchange as in France and other capitalists countries. In all the capitalist countries, Lenin observes, banks and other financial institutions have developed exceptionally and these are controlling the financial world.

Moreover, these financial institutions are in the full control of the wealthiest section of the community. These capitalist countries are called democra­cies or republics, but these terms are misnomers.

People hardly enjoy any rights or privileges. The interests of Stock Exchange and financial institutions are fully protected by the various machinery of state. Political, economic and other interests of the working class and peasants received no importance at the hand of persons manning the state machinery.

Some petty-bourgeois democrats, socialist revolution­aries and Mensheviks liberally eulogies the so-called democratic methods of bourgeois state. These are universal suffrage and party system.

Lenin is of opinion that these petty-bourgeois democrats have dismally failed to understand the real character of the exploitative role of the capitalist state. These are subterfuges employed by the state.

Withering Away of State:

Engels, in his pamphlet Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, says “interference in social relation becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself. The state is not abolished, it dies out.” This is, in nutshell, the famous doctrine of withering away of state.

This doctrine has been variously interpreted and the bourgeois theoreticians and sociologist have distorted the concept to suit their motives. Lenin in The State and Revolution has offered us a clear exposition of the theory.

Lenin’s clarification of withering away of state is:

First, Engels said in seizing state power the proletarial thereby abolishes “The state as state”. This phrase of Engels is the source of a lot of confusion.

Detractors of Marxism say that Engels advocated for an abolition of state and in that case he was at par with anarchists, because the anarchists also wanted to destroy the state.

Lenin’s clarification is that after the proletarian revolution, the bourgeois state will be abolished. But such a state will not immediately wither away. Why? When the proletarian seizes state power, for its own convenience and benefit it will keep certain elements of the bourgeois state.

Only the repressive aspects of bourgeois state will be abolished, not the whole structure of such a state. After the socialist revolution there will be no classes. The proletarian state will be a symbol of perfect democracy.

The phrase withering away means the remnants of the proletarian state will die or wither away. Lenin emphasizes that there is difference between the abolition of state as state and withering away of state. Bourgeois thinkers, because of their shallow knowledge, have failed to realize this difference.

Second, about the withering away of state Lenin says that the central idea of what Engels wanted to say had not been fully understood by the bourgeois thinkers. In speaking of the state as dying down of itself Engels refers clearly and definitely to the period after the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole society, that is, after the socialist revolution.

A socialist revolution will abolish state as state. But when there will be a perfect democracy there will be no need of any state apparatus. The remnants of the bourgeois state will then wither away. In other words, the withering away of state is in full consonance of perfect democracy.

Third, Lenin says that the proposition the state withers away is mainly directed against opportunists and anarchists, particularly the latter. This is due to the feet that the anarchists raised a slogan that state should be destroyed to ensure maximum freedom of people. Engel
s threw a challenge to it. So long there would be necessity of state it could not be destroyed.

In Manifesto Marx and Engels have said:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands the proletariat organized as the ruling class.

Commenting upon this observation of Marx and Engels Lenin says that this is the most remarkable and important formulation of Marx about state. Here they have also given a brief definition of state proletariat organized as ruling class.

In order to suppress the counter-revolutionary forces and reactionary elements the proletariat will need a State.

Let us put it in the words of Lenin:

“The working people need the state only to suppress the resistance of the exploiters, and only the proletariat can direct this suppression, can carry it out.”

When the dictatorship of proletariat will be established there will no longer be any classes in society, that is, it will be a classless society. Lenin says that the chief role of the bourgeois state is to exploit the proletariat, and when the proletariat will seize power the role of the state as an instrument of exploitation will be redundant. By interpreting Marxian theory of state in his way Lenin was successful in removing all sorts of confusion and propaganda let loose by the bourgeois theoreticians.

6. Liberalism:

Lenin’s attitude to liberalism and specifically to liberal philosophy of the bourgeoi­sie has been a controversial one. Critics say that he did not hold any definite view. He expressed different opinions at different times.

In 1903, when the Russian Social Democracy was split into two broad groups Mensheviks and Bolsheviks the issue of cooperating with the liberals or accepting their assistance in overthrowing autocratic rulers of Russia was first raised and debated.

It was thought at that time that if the social democrats refused to take any help of the liberal elements of the bourgeoisie, they will be ultimately isolated in their protracted struggle against Tsardom, and in order to avoid this it would be prudent to make an alliance with the liberals. Lenin shared this view.

The struggle against the reactionary and autocratic sections of Russia must be broad-based and, in order to isolate them from the majority, of the masses, the progressive section must be brought into confidence.

This opinion Lenin expressed as early as 1897. But subsequently he added “This support does not presuppose, nor does it call for, any compromise with non-socialist-democratic programmes and principles”. The naive implication is alliance might be sought but not at the cost of democratic principles of the Bolshevik party.

In What is to be Done? Lenin said that the bourgeois democrats are the natural and desirable allies of Social Democracy, but the essential condition of such an alliance must be the full opportunity for the socialists to reveal to the working class that its interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie. From the above comments it is quite obvious that so far as the alliances with the progressive section of the bourgeoisie are concerned Lenin did not adhere to any orthodox stand.

The only point he harped upon was that principles and ideology of Social Democracy could not be jettisoned; they must be strictly followed at any cost. It further means that Lenin had always indulged in distrust about bourgeois liberalism.

Any alliance with it was absolutely for advancing class struggle and isolating the bourgeoisie. But the Russo-Japanese war of 1905 brought about a radical change in the political scene of Russia.

Russia’s defeat exposed her bankruptcy in all spheres, and the working class and peasants, utilizing the opportunity, intensified agitation throughout the country and under such circumstances. Lenin was not in favour of any alliance with the liberals.

On the contrary the Mensheviks decided to support the liberals and Zemostovs. Zemstovs were the local assemblies. Mensheviks believed that the liberals were part of the struggle against autocracy. Lenin discarded this contention and said that they were more counter-revolutionaries.

Lenin’s difference with the Mensheviks began to multiply after 1904 and assumed enormous shapes between 1905 and 1914. He differed from the Mensheviks on two issues organisation of party and alliance with the liberals.

His struggles against Menshevism was largely a fight against liberalism He could not accommo­date himself with the Constitutional Democratic Party because in his view it was the symbol of reactionism and the bourgeoisie.

Again, the Mensheviks were in favour of participating in the Duma (Russian Parliament). Even they planned to forge an electoral alliance with the Constitutional Democrats. But Lenin rejected such a proposal outright.

He believed that within the four walls of Duma, the Social Democrats would hardly get any scope to fight the Tsar rulers. Moreover, with their limited membership and practically no power they would not be able to force the autocratic government to concede to their demands.

It is not easy to assess the steps taken by Lenin and the attitude he adopted. Whatever he said depended upon the prevailing situation. But Lenin always held the view that the liberals could not be wholly relied upon and in no case could they be allowed to capture the leadership of proletarian struggle. He by saying this made clear his position, although to his leaders it was not always clear.

7. Parliamentarism:

In order to understand Lenin’s views on the Russian Parliament (Duma) it is necessary to know what Mensheviks and other leaders held about it.

One of the main planks of dissension between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks is the participation in the activities of the Duma, 1906 and years following it saw the intensifications of conflict between the two parties. Mensheviks and other leaders such as Plekhanov, Axelrod etc. held the view that the powers of the Duma were highly limited and in some cases fictitious.

But in spite of this the socialists under the banner of Menshevism could easily participate in the activities of Duma and whenever any opposition to Tsarism would arise the socialists must not hesitate to utilize it for mass struggle and to expose the misdeeds of the Tsar. A section of Menshevik Party desired to convert the floor of Duma for socialist movement.

In this way Mensheviks proceeded to reformism and parliamentarism which was strongly presented by Bolsheviks. The Menshevik leaders thought that in most of the European countries the socialist movement was graced by parliamentarism and naturally they cannot go against the tide.

This tendency of the Mensheviks was vehemently opposed by Lenin and he warned his comrades against the Menshevik trap. He advised them to go to the workers of factory and villagers and peasants of countryside and to propagate among them that without class struggle and revolution it was impossible to seize power.

He told them of the “Impossibility of achieving political freedom by parliamentary means as long as real power remains in the hands of Tsarist government and to show the people the utter uselessness of the Duma as a means of achieving the demands of the proletarian and the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie especially the peasantry”.

Though Lenin called the Mensheviks’ decision to join Duma as opportunism, he was faced with a dilemma. A section of the Bolshevik Party was in favour of participating in the Duma and it was not possible for him to disregard it.

Softening his rigid stand he said that the socialists must see that the participation in parliamentary activities was to further the socialist movement and the goals of the party.

In other words, the objective of participat
ion in parliament would be “debunking of parliamentarism”. Socialists must remember that the Duma was the spawn of counter-revolution and that no real good could be expected from it.

The socialists or Social-Democratic members may join the Duma on the condition that they will carry out the task of criticism, propaganda agitation and organisation. They will use the general elections as broad and effective platform of propaganda.

It would never be the purpose of the socialist members of the Duma to sincerely participate in the legislative functions of the Duma.

Lenin stressed another point about the participation in the Duma. He said that the socialist members must be preserved from contamination of bourgeois parlia­mentary members. How could it be achieved? Lenin said that cooperation between socialist and bourgeois members must be forbidden.

The Social-Democrats must strictly adhere to the principles of revolution and militancy, any deviation of socialist ideology resulting from the participation in the Duma would be a suicidal policy.

Lenin also said that the Constitutional Democrats would adopt all possible steps to purchase or motivate the Social-Democrats.

It would be the duty of the Bolshevik Party to keep a close watch over that. Because the manoeuvring capacity of the Constitutional Democrats is superb and they would not hesitate to adopt any measure to disrupt the socialist programme. This proposal of Lenin emanated from the Menshevik move for a joint meeting between the Social-Democrats and Constitutional Democrats.

Lenin was also not in very much favour of electoral alliance with the Constitu­tional Democrats in all cases. He said that only under exceptional circumstances such electoral alliance might be forged. On this issue he differed from Mensheviks. He was of opinion that in order to fight the right wing and reactionary candidate’s alliance might be made. Lenin thus adopted a mid and moderate path so far as participation in parliament was concerned.

Upload and Share Your Article: