NOTES ON N. I. BUKHARIN’S ARTICLE “TOWARD A THEORY OF THE IMPERIALIST STATE”
NB
Notes on Bukharin’s Article (“Toward a Theory of the Imperialist State”) Toward a Theory of the Imperialist State.
? (4)
“The Sociological Theory of the State”: Marxism provides this theory… (?) “…the state is the most general organization of the ruling classes…”
Loria 247 (7)?
S, 7 248 – a quotation from
S. 137. 3rd Edition* 1889
Engels
S. 180. 6th Edition
(?) inaccurate (“as a rule”**) compare S. 178: 6th Edition
(?) Niederhaltung does not mean enslavement, but rather the maintenance of subordination… (?) In exceptional cases… S. 11 – a quotation from Engels (3rd Edition, S. 135 = S. 177

6th Edition) 249. Engels in “Neue Zeit,” XXXII, 1, p. 32 (?) (“On Authority”) 250.

* – edition. Ed.
** – as a general rule. Ed.
*** – by way of exception. Ed.

S. 13: the state “dies out” (but in what sense, precisely?).
S. 14: “a different type” (imprecise)… S. 14: the state =
“the political expression of a vast (comprehensive?) socio‑economic structure” (???)
S. 15–16: the distinction between Marxists and anarchists
on the question of the state is mistaken (compare “Anti-Dühring,” 3rd Edition, p. 303 251).
on state capitalism. Interesting. Legally speaking, in essence
p. 53. “From this arises a specific tactical imperative: Social Democracy must emphatically underscore its fundamental hostility toward state power.” (Bukharin’s italics, p. 53)… (To vote against the budget, etc.)
At the end (pp. 54–55), it is mentioned that the proletariat “creates its own temporary state organization of power” (unclear: “state organization of power… power over whom? Over society as a whole? Power over society—that is, state power. A pleonasm. A tautology)… the proletariat, it is said, “abolishes its own dictatorship,” “driving once and for all a stake of ash into the grave of the state…” (the final sentence of the article).
NB
Written no later than August 1916.
First published in 1932 in the journal “Bol’shevik,” No. 22

Printed from manuscript

* – unclear. Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE ARTICLE “ON THE ROLE OF THE STATE”
COMMENTS ON N. I. BUKHARIN’S ARTICLE “THE IMPERIALIST ROBBER STATE”
The Imperialist
Robber
State
The most important tactical question of our time—indeed, more than just a tactical question—is the so‑called “defense of the fatherland,” since it marks the dividing line between the entire bourgeois world and the proletarian world. Even the very word itself is deceptive, for in reality we are not speaking of the country as such—that is, of its population—but of the state’s institutional framework, of the state itself. If a country loses its independence, that does not mean that its inhabitants lose their independence (for under capitalism they do not possess any real independence to begin with); it merely means that the state’s institutional apparatus ceases to exist. The innocuous little word “country” thus serves to conceal relations of domination and subordination whose substance is blood and tears, enslavement and oppression, robbery and murder. All the more “courageous” are those who, having “retrained” themselves—and quite consistently, starting from the standpoint of defending the fatherland—have come to glorify the state, to sing ecstatic hymns
In No. 25 of “Arbeiterpolitik” 253, the subheading reads: Theoretical (?) considerations on the question of auxiliary service to the fatherland, imprecisely
imprecisely

1) operates 2) phenomenon
= not “this”… in honor of “the state’s reason,” with all its sacred attributes—from prostituted science and religion down to the army and navy, and even police violence and class-based justice. For this reason, it is of utmost importance to have a clear understanding of the state in general, and of the imperialist robber state in particular.
The state is a historical category. This means that the state 1) does not represent an eternal law of society, but only a transient 2) social formation. In other words: the state arises only at a certain stage of development and, conversely, must disappear at another stage of development. It emerges as the organization of the ruling class—and therein lies its essence. The state is the organization of “the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the state, also becomes the politically dominant class and thereby acquires new means to suppress and exploit the oppressed class” (F. Engels: “The Origin of the Family, etc.,” p. 137). Thus, the concept of the state is predicated upon the concept of class rule. A classless state is as meaningless as, say, classless capitalism or dry water. Karl Marx expressed this as follows: “Even radical and revolutionary politicians,” he writes (see “Critical Notes, etc.”, Literary Heritage, vol. 2, p. 50), “seek the root of evil not in the essence of the state, but in a particular form of the state—which they hope to replace with another.” The goals of socialists, however, are entirely different: “All socialists,” F. Engels asserts (the Italian article “On Authority,” published in “Neue Zeit,” No. 32, 1, p. 39), “agree that the state—and with it, political—
x – ? published in No. 25 of “Arbeiterpolitik” (December 9, 1916)

Materials for the Article “On the Question of the Role of the State”
as a result of the authority of the sages will vanish in the coming social revolution; that is to say,
the public functions enumerated in No. 3 will lose their political character and be reduced to mere administrative duties, overseeing social processes—just as Engels himself wrote in “Anti-Dühring” (a work, as we know, that was reviewed, almost entirely edited, and in part composed by Marx), that the state “dies out.” He advances the same prognosis in “The Origin of the Family.” Society, which reorganizes production on the basis of free and equal association among producers, will consign the entire state apparatus to its proper place: to the museum of antiquities, alongside the spinning wheel and the bronze axe (p. 140). With the abolition of class relations, its political manifestation—the state—will likewise be destroyed (gesprengt), and a classless, socialist society will emerge, one in which the state will no longer exist.
The state is the most general organization of the ruling class; in other words, the objects of exploitation here are not merely certain strata, but the entire exploited class. It is a colossal, monstrous [sucking! machine] that directly—
No. 3 (services)
Incorrect!
The Church? And so forth.

* In this connection, we would like to point out that it is utterly mistaken to seek the distinction between socialists and anarchists in the fact that the former are proponents of the state while the latter are opponents of the state. The real difference lies in the fact that revolutionary social democracy seeks to organize new social production in a centralized manner—that is, in the most technically advanced form—whereas decentralized, anarchic production would merely represent a step backward, a return to old techniques, to old forms of production.
Correct
Incorrect, incomplete it itself exploits the people, while also pursuing the goal of preserving, protecting, and expanding all conditions conducive to “normal” exploitation. In times of peril, the state, with all its—ultimately military—forces, moves against “enemies”: abroad, these take the form of wars; within, they manifest as the brutal suppression of insurgents. The power of arms, | murder
—such is the iron imprecise law of the state and of every state form without exception. Only the quantitative aspect of this phenomenon varies—and even this changes according to the type of state, which, in turn, is determined by the development of the world’s national economy. Precisely in our own time, with the emergence of imperialist states, universal militarization has reached colossal, unprecedented proportions.
II
The state— a comprehensive organization of the ruling class. In
No. 4: “it was, in essence, simply an organization.”
Before the age of imperialism, No. 4 truly was, in essence, an organization. Particularly important areas of social life—especially the economy—remained in a state of utter anarchy. The individual enterprise, the capitalist who “works” independently and deals only with his own laborers, to whom the state provides merely the general conditions for his “rights to exploit”—this was the typical picture of the earlier economy. Things have changed completely now. The individual capitalist has become a member of a union of capitalists. The rapid disappearance of the middle classes and the triumphant advance of big capital gave rise to several new forms of economic life, which, of course, emerged as spe-

* V. I. Lenin’s remark also applies to the analogous term used by Bukharin at the end of this section. These words are circled by Lenin and connected to one another by an arrow. Ed.

Materials for the Article “On the Question of the Role of the State”
various forms of class life. The formation of associations of entrepreneurs, trusts, syndicates, and the like—and their mutual interconnection through conglomerate enterprises and large banks—completely transformed the old order. If, in the pre-imperialist era, individual capitalist ownership was characteristic, then in modern financial-capitalist economies, collective ownership by capitalists organized into formal associations is the defining feature. But this same process can be observed not only in the realm of economics; it extends to every sphere of class life. While the working class establishes its trade unions, political organizations, cooperatives, cultural and educational circles, and the like, the bourgeoisie does so on a far grander scale. Thus arise the various bourgeois class organizations: in economic life—associations of entrepreneurs, trusts, and the like; in the political arena—political parties with all their branches; in the scientific domain—diverse scholarly organizations that, at the appropriate moment, transform themselves into loyal and compliant servants of the capitalist predator, and so on; in the end, the state grows ever more colossal. Yet the process of organization does not end there. All these ranks tend to merge with one another, coalescing into a single, unified organization of the ruling class. This is the latest stage of development, which became especially clear during the war. Most significant of all is the merger of the state’s bourgeois organizational apparatus with economic organizations. Gradually, state regulation of production is being introduced—in two crucial forms: first, through the establishment of state monopolies in the sphere of production, undertaken primarily for financial reasons (to service war debts, etc.) as well as for state-military considerations (the need for war materials); second, No. 5: + The nationalization of labor power—as embodied in the British Military Training Act, Germany’s “Auxiliary Service to the Fatherland,” and the like—is an inevitable consequence of this developmental process.
comprehensive robber- through a special system of so‑called “mixed enterprises,” where the state and private entrepreneurial organizations jointly hold ownership. The same dynamic is at play in the realm of transportation. The establishment of state‑owned trading monopolies, the merger of state and “private” credit institutions (banks), the imposition of fixed prices, and the state’s intervention in the distribution of goods—all of these signify the absorption of economic life into state‑organized structures. The “national economy” is increasingly becoming a “state‑controlled economy,” a “state‑capitalist trust.” No. 5. But it is not only the state and purely economic organizations of the bourgeoisie that are converging; the same tendency is evident across all other bourgeois and class-based organizations. Science, political parties, the church, and business associations are being drawn into the apparatus of the state. In this way, a single, unified
organization emerges—the modern imperialist
] state, as the omnipotent instrument of the ruling bourgeoisie, endowed with countless functions and wielding colossal power—both spiritual ([various methods of deception: religion, the press, schools, and the like]) and material (the police, the military). This power permeates every fiber of finance‑capitalist society and imposes a distinctive, highly specific imprint upon our era. Here we witness the dialectic of history: the state—which at first was the sole organization of the dominant class—transforms itself into an institution existing alongside others, only to once again become the singular, all‑encompassing organization that subsumes all others. Such is the modern monster, the modern Leviathan of statehood.

* – Under the guise of sweet talk about “war socialism,” the yellow “social‑democrats” are celebrating nothing less than an imperialist, predatory state. – *

MATERIALS FOR THE ARTICLE “ON THE ROLE OF THE STATE” zii.
III
They can overcome this force only by summoning an even greater force—and such a force
The development of the global economy is driving the most intense struggle among state‑organized “national economies.” On the other hand, imperialist wars exert a reverse influence on the very fabric of states. While the type described above may be regarded, so to speak, as the ideal blueprint for an imperialist state—a stage reached only by the most advanced nations—each passing day, and especially each day of war, serves to further expand this phenomenon. This places before the proletariat the task of adapting to the new situation. It is clear that the imperialist |predatory| state |(we call it a predatory state because its external cultural mission consists in the systematic plunder of weak nations, colonial territories, and the like)| represents the highest form of bourgeois class organization. The instruments of violence at the disposal of this organization are colossal. One need only recall the militarism of our time. Thus, workers must confront the combined forces of the entire bourgeois
is the power of the masses; mass action is the indispensable means of revolutionary struggle. For social democracy—which is, or at least ought to be, the educator of the masses—it is now more crucial than ever to emphasize its fundamental hostility toward the state. He who, like today’s social patriots, urges workers to mutually destroy one another under the pretext of defending the fatherland is a traitor to socialism, for in reality war is but the advance of the state—
No. 6 “real” (in No. 25) (clearly a typo! ! or a slip of the pen).
X X
- No. 7 - Instead of this conclusion,
No. 25 “Arbeiterpolitik” offers a completely different ending: namely, that “we left‑radicals” agree with
the social imperialists in the belief that capital

? ?
is indeed working toward socialism—but we differ from them in that we recognize the necessity of “the proletariat’s victory over the imperialist state.” (Sic!)
the state, the mortal enemy of the socialist proletariat.
of capital.
The current war has revealed just how deeply the roots of statehood have taken hold in the souls of workers. Yet the same war has also shown that this psychology is receding further and further into the background. This process bears a striking resemblance to an earlier epoch. Just as, in times past, workers who lived in patriarchal relations with their masters regarded their exploiters’ interests as their own, so too does the proletarian today fight for the interests of his exploiters and plunderers. But just as the factory hammer shattered those idyllic relationships, so too will imperialism obliterate the servitude of the workers; and under the pressure of war, oppressed by frenzied violence, the proletariat will declare the only “just war”—a war against the rule of
Note-Bene
X
?
X
?
= published in No. 25 of “Arbeiterpolitik.”
Written in November, no earlier than the 18th (December 1st), and in December,
no earlier than the 5th (18th), 1916, in both German and Russian.
First published in 1933 in the pamphlet: V. I. Lenin, “Remarks on N. I. Bukharin’s Articles on the State.”

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Jugend-Internationale,” with
V. I. Lenin’s annotations.

Translated from German

* – Indeed! Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE ARTICLE “ON THE ROLE OF THE STATE”
OUTLINE FOR THE ARTICLE “ON THE ROLE OF THE STATE”
On the Role of the State: Communist or Social Democrat?
Socialism and Communism. (Complete commonality of consumer goods—or at least of the necessities among them.)
Democracy, too, is a form of state. Absterben ... “The withering away” of the state.
Why not Abschaffung or Sprengung? “The gradual fading away” of one function after another. Without democracy = without the governance of people. “The roots of statehood in the souls of workers”?
Opportunism and Revolutionary Social Democracy. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The Use of the State Against the Bourgeoisie. Resisting Its Attempts at Restoration. Revolutionary Wars. The Introduction and Defense of Democracy. The Role of Democracy:
The Education of the Masses
Their Transformation Toward a New Order
The Form of Socialist Revolution: The Alliances of 1905.

* - Destruction. Ed.
** - Explosion. Ed.
*** - “Gradual Sleep.” Ed.

Imperialism: the State and the Economic Organizations of Capitalists. “State‑Capitalist Trusts”...
Nothing but a contrast between socialism and politics. Against Ruge’s purely political radicalism.
Before 1847!
The Democratic Reforms of the Imperialists and the Socialist Revolution. Marx, in 1844 (“Nachlaß,” Vol. II, p. 50*, end of the penultimate paragraph) 255.
Engels (“Dell’Autorità” on the Revolution… (+)
on Organization… 256 (+)
Marx (ibid.) ((“Neue Zeit,” 32, I, 1913–1914)) on the Political Impact and the Struggle for Concessions—on the Revolutionary Utilization of State Power… 257
Two Directions in Politics (politics is participation in the affairs of the state, the direction of the state, the determination of the forms, tasks, and content of state activity): the opportunist direction and the revolutionary direction—or two directions in relation to “statehood”?
The Democracy of the Reformists and the Democracy of the Revolution. Two distinct contents: the minority and the mass. To pacify the masses? To aid the struggle of the masses? To subordinate the masses to the authority of the leaders? To rise up against the leaders? Engels’s “lower mass” versus the “mass” aligned with opportunistic leaders. It all boils down to revolution versus opportunism.
Written no earlier than November 18 (December 1), 1916.
First published in 1933, in the Lenin Collection XXI

Printed from manuscript

* - “The Legacy,” Volume II, page 50. Ed.
** - “On Authority.” Ed.
*** - Ibid. Ed.
**** - In relation to. Ed.

341