state officials—proletarian leadership; these officials must be guided by organized, centralized proletarians.
The precondition for all of this is the reduction of the working day to 8, 6, or even 4 hours—and the integration of productive labor with the participation of all in “state” administration.
The Russian Revolution arrived at this same approach, albeit on one hand more timidly (more hesitantly) than the Paris Commune, while on the other hand it expanded the scope of “Soviets of Workers’ Deputies,” “Railway Deputies,” “Soldier and Sailor Deputies,” “Peasant Deputies.” This is a Nota Bene.
cf.: “Neue Zeit,” XXX, 2 (1912), cf. pp. 723–725 and 732—the polemic between Kautsky and Pannekoek. This is of great importance! Here, Kautsky represents the reformist (and the charlatan); Pannekoek remains ambiguous, yet he is searching for a revolutionary tactic.
NB: Especially p. 723: § IV, 1: “The Destruction of the State”...
Changes since 1871? Are they all of a kind, or do they share a common character? The fact is that bureaucracy has grown rampant everywhere—in parliamentarism itself, within its very institutions, in local self-government, in joint-stock companies, in trusts, and so forth. That is one thing. And second: the workers’ “socialist” parties have likewise “grown into” this same bureaucratic mold. Consequently, the split between social-patriots and internationalists, between reformists and revolutionaries, runs even deeper.
* The text enclosed in brackets was written by V. I. Lenin in the upper left corner of one of the preceding pages of the manuscript. Ed.
229