(8) “We” (that is, Engels and Marx) would propose that, wherever it appears in the program, we should speak not of “the state,” but rather of “the commune” (Gemeinwesen), of “the commonwealth”!!! 
From this, it becomes clear how both opportunists—and even Kautsky—have debased and defiled Marx and Engels.
The opportunists failed to grasp even a single one of these eight profoundly rich insights.
They focused solely on the immediate practical need: to harness political struggle, to utilize the modern state as a tool for educating and nurturing the proletariat, for “extracting concessions.” This is certainly correct—indeed, it is a valid approach against the anarchists—but if we may express it arithmetically, it represents only a mere fraction of Marxism.
Kautsky completely obscured—or had he forgotten? or perhaps failed to comprehend?—points 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in his propaganda work and, more generally, in his journalistic writings. Moreover, in his polemic with Pannekoek in 1912 or 1913, Kautsky (see below, pp. 45–47) had already sunk into outright opportunism on this very question.
What distinguishes us from the anarchists is (a) our recognition of the state’s role—not only now, but also during the proletarian revolution (“the dictatorship of the proletariat”)—points that are of paramount importance for immediate practice. (It is precisely these points that Bukharin neglected!)
Compared with the opportunists, we uphold deeper, “more enduring” truths concerning the (??) provisional nature of the state; the (??) harm of idle chatter about the state in the present; the (??) non‑wholly state-like character of the dictatorship of the proletariat; the (??) contradiction between the state and freedom; the (??) more
* See this volume, pp. 289–301. Ed.
correct conception (or notion, programmatic term) of “the commune” instead of “the state”; the (??) “breaking down” (Zerbrechen) of the bureaucratic–military apparatus. We must not forget that Germany’s openly opportunistic figures—Bernstein, Kollmann, and others—directly rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat, while even the official party program, and Kautsky himself, tacitly endorsed it, remaining silent in their day‑to‑day agitation while tolerating the apostasy of Kollmann and his ilk.
Bukharin was advised in August 1916: “Let your thoughts on the state mature.” Yet, instead of allowing them to ripen, he rushed to publish—as a “Nota bene”—and did so in such a way that, far from exposing the Kautskys, he inadvertently aided them through his own errors!! In essence, however, Bukharin was closer to the truth than Kautsky.
NB
“Neue Zeit,” XIX, ? (1900–1901) (Nos. 26, 27, March 1901), p. 804: M. Beer on
the decline of England, with remarks on its imperialism, its decay, and the imperialism of other nations. NB. He also wrote: “Social Imperialism,” “Neue
Zeit,” XX, 1 (1901–1902), p. 209 ff. (the Fabians), and “The Present Situation of Trade Unionism,” ibid., p. 43 (NB) {{“Imperialist–Social Struggle.”)).
XIX, 2, p. 197: Walter’s article on “Russian Imperialism…,” spanning the period from Peter the Great to China in the 20th century.*