Lenin’s *The State and Revolution*: A Systematic Elaboration of the Marxist View of the State

*The State and Revolution* is an important work completed by Lenin between August and September 1917 in a thatched hut near the Finland Station at the border between Russia and Finland. It was published in May 1918. *The State and Revolution* scientifically answered a series of major questions posed by the international proletarian revolution and the Russian revolution, directly guiding the Bolshevik Party and the Russian proletariat in their successful armed struggle to seize power, achieving the great victory of the “October Revolution” and establishing the world’s first socialist state. It also promoted and guided the vigorous development of the international communist movement in the 20th century, exerting a significant and far-reaching influence on China’s revolution, construction, and reform.

《国家与革命》是列宁于1917年8月至9月间,在俄罗斯、芬兰边界的芬兰拉兹里夫车站附近的茅草棚中完成的重要著作。1918年5月,该著作出版。《国家与革命》科学回答了国际无产阶级革命和俄国革命提出的一系列重大问题,直接指导布尔什维克和俄国无产阶级顺利地进行武装夺取政权的斗争,取得“十月革命”的伟大胜利,建立了世界上第一个社会主义国家,同时也推动和指导了国际共产主义运动在20世纪的蓬勃发展,对中国的革命、建设和改革也产生了重大而深远的影响。

I. Background of Writing

一、写作背景

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, capitalism developed into the stage of imperialism, and the various contradictions inherent in capitalism became increasingly acute. On the one hand, the rapidly developing social productive forces and highly concentrated monopoly economic forms created the material conditions for the advent of socialism; on the other hand, the imperialist powers, in order to redivide the world and compete for spheres of influence, launched the First World War in 1914. The war caused severe damage to the economies of various countries and brought profound disasters to the proletariat and the working people. War gave rise to revolution. After the outbreak of the First World War, the struggle of the proletariat and the working masses against monopoly capitalist rule and the imperialist war rapidly intensified, giving rise to surging anti-war movements and strike movements. A revolutionary situation of the proletariat emerged in many European countries, and the national liberation movements in the Eastern colonial and semi-colonial countries also flourished vigorously. The arrival of the revolutionary high tide placed the fundamental question of revolution—the question of state power—on the agenda.

19世纪末20世纪初,资本主义发展到帝国主义阶段,资本主义所固有的种种矛盾日益尖锐化。一方面,高速发展起来的社会生产力和高度集中的垄断经济形式,为社会主义的到来创造了物质条件;另一方面,帝国主义列强为了重新瓜分世界,争夺势力范围,于1914年发动了第一次世界大战。战争给各国经济造成严重破坏,更给无产阶级和劳动人民带来深重的灾难。战争引起革命。第一次世界大战爆发后,无产阶级和劳动群众反对垄断资本主义统治和帝国主义战争的斗争迅速高涨,掀起了波澜壮阔的反战运动和罢工运动,欧洲许多国家出现了无产阶级革命形势,东方殖民地半殖民地国家的民族解放运动也蓬勃发展。革命高潮的到来,把革命的根本问题——国家政权问题提上了日程。

Under these circumstances, the question of the attitude of the proletarian revolution toward the state acquired particularly great significance, both in theory and in practice. As Lenin pointed out in the “Preface to the First Edition”: “The question of the state now acquires particular importance both theoretically and politically.”

在这种形势下,无产阶级革命对待国家的态度问题,不仅在理论上而且在实践上都具有特别重大的意义。正如列宁在《初版序言》中所指出的:“国家问题,现在无论在理论方面或在政治实践方面,都具有特别重大的意义。”

However, since the 19th century, the major question of the state and revolution had been distorted and thrown into confusion by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois thinkers and opportunists. In particular, the opportunists of the Second International, led by Bernstein and Kautsky, in order to cater to the needs of the bourgeoisie, vigorously distorted and tampered with the Marxist theory of the state, advocating “parliamentary roads” and “peaceful entry into socialism,” opposing violent revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and beautifying bourgeois democracy and freedom. They used the slogan of “defending the fatherland” to incite the proletariat of their own countries to participate in wars that killed their brother workers in other countries, luring the masses away from the revolutionary path and becoming accomplices of imperialism. The opportunist trend of the Second International had an extremely pernicious influence on the proletarian revolutionary movement. Therefore, under these circumstances, if the opportunist prejudices on the question of the state were not opposed, it would be impossible to free the working masses from bourgeois influence and lead them onto the path of proletarian revolution. The writing of *The State and Revolution* was an objective requirement for restoring and defending the Marxist theory of the state and correctly guiding the struggle of the proletarian revolution.

然而,自19世纪以来,国家与革命这一重大问题被资产阶级和小资产阶级思想家和机会主义者搞得面目全非,混乱不堪。特别是以伯恩斯坦、考茨基为首的第二国际机会主义者,为了迎合资产阶级的需要,极力歪曲和篡改马克思主义的国家学说,鼓吹“议会道路”“和平进入社会主义”,反对暴力革命和建立无产阶级专政,美化资产阶级民主、自由;用“保卫祖国”的口号煽动本国无产阶级参加残杀别国工人兄弟的战争,引诱人民群众离开革命道路,成了帝国主义的帮凶。第二国际机会主义思潮,在无产阶级革命运动中造成了极为恶劣的影响。因此,在这种情况下,如果不在国家问题上反对机会主义偏见,就无法使劳动群众摆脱资产阶级影响,走上无产阶级革命的道路。《国家与革命》的写作是恢复和捍卫马克思主义的国家学说,正确指导无产阶级革命斗争的客观要求。

During the First World War, Tsarist Russia was both a focal point of all the contradictions of imperialism and a weak link in the chain of world imperialism. In March 1917 (February in the Russian calendar), the Bolshevik Party led the Russian proletariat and revolutionary masses, taking advantage of the revolutionary situation created by the imperialist war, to launch an armed uprising, overthrow the Tsarist government, and establish the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. This was the famous February Revolution in Russian history. After the February Revolution, Russia formed a situation of dual power, with the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and the bourgeois Provisional Government coexisting, and the possibility of peaceful development of the revolution emerged. Lenin led the Bolshevik Party to envisage achieving the peaceful development of the revolution through the path of “All Power to the Soviets.” However, in July, the bourgeois Provisional Government launched a coup, ending the situation of dual power, and all power fell into the hands of the bourgeois Provisional Government. Given the sharp reversal in the situation of the Russian revolution, peaceful development of the revolution was no longer possible. The proletariat could only directly launch an armed uprising, overthrow the bourgeois regime, and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus, how to treat the bourgeois state power became the primary question of the proletarian revolution.

第一次世界大战期间,沙皇俄国既是帝国主义各种矛盾的集合点,也是世界帝国主义链条中的薄弱环节。1917年3月(俄历2月),布尔什维克党领导俄罗斯无产阶级和革命群众,利用帝国主义战争所造成的革命形势,发动武装起义,推翻了沙皇政府,成立工兵苏维埃,这就是俄国历史上著名的二月革命。二月革命后,俄国形成了工兵代表苏维埃和资产阶级临时政府两个不同性质的政权并存的局面,革命出现了和平发展的可能性。列宁领导布尔什维克党设想通过“全部政权归苏维埃”的途径,积极争取革命的和平发展。但是7月间资产阶级临时政府发动事变,结束了两个政权并存的局面,全部政权落到了资产阶级临时政府手中。鉴于俄国革命的形势发生了急剧的逆转,革命的和平发展已不可能,无产阶级只有直接举行武装起义,推翻资产阶级政权,才能建立无产阶级专政。这样,怎样对待资产阶级国家政权就成了无产阶级革命的首要问题。

In order to restore and defend the Marxist theory of the state of Marx and Engels, eliminate the influence of the opportunism of the Second International, ideologically educate and arm the proletariat and the working masses, and explain to them what they should do in the impending revolution, Lenin, under difficult conditions of hiding, wrote this immortal masterpiece, *The State and Revolution*.

为了恢复和捍卫马克思恩格斯的国家学说,肃清第二国际机会主义的影响,从思想上教育和武装无产阶级和劳动群众,向他们说明在即将到来的革命中应当做些什么,列宁在艰苦的匿居条件下写成了《国家与革命》这部不朽的名著。

To write this work, *The State and Revolution*, Lenin carefully studied the Marxist theory of the state of Marx and Engels in Zurich in the autumn of 1916 and early 1917, consulted the books of Bernstein, Kautsky, and others, and compiled the collected materials into a notebook, which he titled *Marxism on the State*. Because the notebook cover was blue, it is commonly called the “Blue Notebook.” According to the original plan, this book was to have seven chapters. Lenin finished writing the first six chapters and drafted a detailed outline for the seventh chapter, “The Experience of the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917,” and an outline for the “Conclusion.” Lenin did not have time to write the final chapter because the October Revolution was imminent. Lenin wrote to the publisher, stating that if the seventh chapter was completed too late or was too large in volume, it would be necessary to publish the first six chapters separately as the first fascicle. Therefore, *The State and Revolution* was initially published as the first fascicle.

为了撰写《国家与革命》这一著作,列宁于1916年秋和1917年初在苏黎世精心研究了马克思和恩格斯的国家学说,翻阅了伯恩斯坦、考茨基等人的书籍,并把收集到的材料汇集成了一本笔记,取名为《马克思主义论国家》。因笔记本封面为蓝色,通称“蓝皮笔记”。按原定计划,本书共7章。列宁写完了前6章,拟了第7章《1905年和1917年俄国革命的经验》的详细提纲和《结束语》的提纲。最后一章因十月革命迫近列宁没有来得及写。列宁曾写信告诉出版者,如果第7章完稿太晚,或者分量过大,那就有必要把前6章单独出版,作为第1分册。因此,《国家与革命》最初就是作为第1分册出版的。

When *The State and Revolution* was published, Lenin also specifically addressed in the postscript to the first edition why the final chapter, the seventh, was not completed. He said: “I did not manage to write a single line of this chapter except the title, because the political crisis on the eve of the October Revolution of 1917 ‘prevented’ me.” Lenin also very humorously and profoundly pointed out: “One can only be glad of such a ‘hindrance.’ It seems that it will have to be put off for a long time; ‘making the experience of the revolution’ is more pleasant and more useful than ‘writing about the experience of the revolution.’”

《国家与革命》出版时,列宁在第一版跋中还专门谈到最后一章即第7章为什么没有完成的原因,他说:“这一章除了题目以外,我连一行字也没有来得及写,因为1917年十月革命前夜的政治危机‘妨碍’了我”。列宁还非常幽默而深刻地指出:“对于这种‘妨碍’,只有高兴。”“看来只好长时间拖下去了;做出‘革命的经验’是会比论述‘革命的经验’,更愉快、更有益的。”

II. Basic Content of the Marxist View of the State

二、马克思主义国家观的基本内容

(1) On the Origin and Essence of the State

(一)关于国家的起源和本质

Based on Engels’ exposition of the origin and essence of the state in *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, Lenin discussed that the state of the exploiting classes is inevitably an instrument used by the economically dominant class to suppress the oppressed class. That is to say, the nature of the state is ultimately determined by the economic base; what kind of economic base there is determines what kind of state nature there is. Whichever class is economically dominant will inevitably be politically dominant as well, and will use the state to acquire new means of suppressing and exploiting the oppressed. Although there are exceptional periods when the contending classes reach a balance of forces, and the state power, as an apparent mediator, temporarily becomes independent of the two classes, this by no means indicates that the state is no longer an instrument of class rule. It appears on the surface to be a mediator between the two classes, but in essence it is not.

列宁根据恩格斯《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》一书对国家起源和本质的论述,论述了剥削阶级国家必然是在经济上占统治地位的阶级用来镇压被压迫阶级的工具。也就是说,国家的性质归根结底是由经济基础决定的,有什么样的经济基础就有什么性质的国家,哪个阶级在经济上占统治地位,它必然在政治上也占统治地位,并借助国家获得镇压和剥削被压迫者的新手段。虽然也有例外的时期,即当互相斗争的各个阶级达到势均力敌的时候,国家权力作为表面上的调停人,暂时独立于两个阶级之外,但是,这决不是说此时国家已不是阶级统治的工具了,而是从表面上看似乎是两个阶级的调停人,实质上并非如此。

Lenin deeply analyzed the essence of the bourgeois democratic republic, demonstrating that the bourgeois democratic republic is a more reliable political form for the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat and the broad masses of the people. He pointed out: “A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism” [1]1 The “February Revolution” (March 1917 in the Gregorian calendar) overthrew the Tsarist autocracy and established a Provisional Government, while also creating the Soviets, leading to a period of dual power.P120. In feudal states, wealth exercised its power directly, and people’s political status was arranged according to landholdings; this form of rule constituted the hierarchical system of feudal society. However, within the bourgeois democratic republic, wealth rules indirectly. The bourgeois state differs from previous exploiting-class states in one characteristic: it is adept at wrapping itself in the cloak of “democracy,” proclaiming itself the representative of the interests of the entire people. Lenin cited Marx’s exposure of the essence of bourgeois parliamentary democracy in *The Civil War in France*, pointing out: “To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and oppress the people in parliament — this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics.” Lenin also clearly indicated the situation in which Western democracy is swayed by wealth: “In a democratic republic, ‘wealth exercises its power indirectly but all the more surely,’ and the first method it employs is ‘the direct bribery of officials’ (America), the second is ‘an alliance between the government and the stock exchange’ (France and America).”

列宁深入分析了资产阶级民主共和国的实质,论证了资产阶级民主共和国是资产阶级剥削无产阶级和广大人民的更可靠的政治形式,指出:“民主共和制是资本主义所能采用的最好的政治外壳”[1]P120。在封建制国家里,财富是直接运用它的权力的,人们的政治地位是按照地产来排列的,这种统治形式,形成了封建社会的等级制度。但是,在资产阶级民主共和国内,财富是间接的统治。资产阶级国家与以往的剥削阶级国家有一个不同特点,即它善于用“民主”的外衣进行包装,标榜自己是全民利益的代表者。列宁引证马克思在《法兰西内战》中揭露资产阶级议会民主本质的论述,指出:“每隔几年决定一次由统治阶级中什么人在议会里镇压人民、压迫人民,——这就是资产阶级议会制的真正本质,不仅在议会制的立宪君主国内是这样,而且在最民主的共和国内也是这样”。列宁还明确指出了西方民主受财富所左右的情况:“在民主共和国内,‘财富是间接地但也是更可靠地运用它的权力的’,它所采用的第一个方法是‘直接收买官吏’(美国),第二个方法是‘政府和交易所结成联盟’(法国和美国)。”

Under the new conditions of imperialism, Lenin, combining this with the practice of the February Revolution in Russia, pointed out that the ministers of the bourgeois Provisional Government did their utmost to help the capitalists plunder the people and embezzle state funds through military orders, while the capitalists rewarded them with high “bonuses.” Whether this was direct or indirect bribery of officials had become difficult to distinguish. Thus, the essence of the bourgeois democratic republic system remains a powerful tool for the economically dominant bourgeoisie to rule. However, opportunists were superstitious about the bourgeois universal suffrage system and parliament, believing that under the capitalist system, universal suffrage and the democratic republic could truly reflect the interests of the working people and change the nature of the state.

在帝国主义新形势下,列宁结合俄国二月革命的实践指出,资产阶级临时政府的部长们,竭力帮助资本家掠夺人民和借军事订货盗窃国库,资本家对此则给他们高额“奖赏”,这是直接收买官吏,还是间接收买官吏,已难以区分了。可见,资产阶级民主共和制度其实质仍然是在经济上占统治地位的资产阶级进行统治的有力工具。但是,机会主义者却迷信资产阶级普选制度和议会,认为在资本主义制度下,普选制及其民主共和国,真正能够体现劳动者利益,能够改变国家的本质。

The history and reality of Western democracy fully prove the correctness of Lenin’s thesis. Jesse Ventura, former governor of the U.S. state of Minnesota and author of *American Conspiracy*, said of the American electoral system: “The entire electoral process has been distorted by money, because big corporations manipulate the U.S. government through political donations.” [2]2 Jesse Ventura (born 1951), former Governor of Minnesota (1999–2003), known for his populist and anti-establishment views. Even former U.S. President Carter had to admit: “The American political system has been twisted into an ‘oligarchic system’ based on massive financial support.”

西方民主的历史和现实,充分证明了列宁论断的正确性。美国明尼苏达州前州长、《美国阴谋》一书的作者杰西·文图拉谈到美国选举制度时说:“整个选举过程已被金钱所扭曲,因为大公司通过政治献金操控了美国政府。”[2]就连美国前总统卡特也不得不承认:“美国政治体系已经扭曲成为一种基于庞大资金支持的‘寡头政治’体系。”

(2) On the Proletariat’s Use of Violent Revolution to Smash the Bourgeois State Machine

(二)关于无产阶级用暴力革命打碎资产阶级国家机器

Carrying out violent revolution and smashing the bourgeois state machine — this is the task of the proletarian revolution with regard to the state. The founders of Marxism extolled violent revolution, pointing out that violence “is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one,” and “is the instrument by which the social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms.” Lenin pointed out: “This eulogy is by no means an ‘exaggeration,’ by no means an overstatement, and by no means a polemical device. It is necessary systematically to educate the masses to understand and to view violent revolution in precisely this way — this is the foundation of the entire doctrine of Marx and Engels.”

实行暴力革命,打碎资产阶级国家机器,这是无产阶级革命在国家方面的任务。马克思主义创始人颂扬暴力革命,指出暴力“是每一个孕育着新社会的旧社会的助产婆”,“是社会运动借以为自己开辟道路并摧毁僵化的垂死的政治形式的工具”。列宁指出:“这种颂扬决不是‘过头话’,决不是夸张,也决不是论战伎俩。必须系统地教育群众这样来认识而且正是这样来认识暴力革命,这就是马克思和恩格斯全部学说的基础。”

Although violent revolution or the seizure of state power by armed force is the general law of proletarian revolution, Marxism, while recognizing the seizure of state power by armed force as the basic form of proletarian revolution, does not exclude the possibility of the peaceful development of revolution under certain conditions. A country’s proletariat can achieve socialist revolution through the path of peaceful development, which can alleviate the “birth pangs” of the transformation of the old society. However, in the history of the international communist movement, there has so far been no precedent of the proletariat seizing power through a non-violent path.

虽然暴力革命或武装夺取政权是无产阶级革命的一般规律,但是,马克思主义在承认武装夺取政权是无产阶级革命的基本形式的同时,并不排除在一定条件下革命和平发展的可能性,一个国家的无产阶级能够通过和平发展的道路实现社会主义革命,可以减轻旧社会转化过程中的“阵痛”。不过,在国际共产主义运动的历史上,至今还没有无产阶级采用非暴力的道路取得政权的先例。

Lenin cited Marx’s exposition in *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, written to summarize the experience of the French bourgeois revolution from 1848 to 1851, which reveals the trend and essence of the evolution of the bourgeois state apparatus, to further explain the attitude the proletariat should take toward the old state machine after seizing state power by armed force. After the bourgeoisie, with the help of the masses of the people, overthrew the feudal autocratic system, it primarily used the form of parliament to carry out class rule, so it first strengthened and perfected parliamentary power. Subsequently, as the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie intensified, the bourgeoisie strengthened administrative power, perfecting its administrative apparatus — this is the general situation of the evolution of the bourgeois state machine.

列宁引证了马克思总结1848年至1851年法国资产阶级革命经验所写的《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》一书中揭示资产阶级国家政权演变的趋势和实质的论述,来进一步说明无产阶级武装夺取政权后对待旧国家机器的态度。资产阶级借助人民群众的力量推翻封建专制制度后,主要利用议会这种形式来进行阶级统治,于是先加强和完备议会权力。其后,随着无产阶级反对资产阶级的阶级斗争尖锐化,资产阶级便加强行政权力,使其行政权力臻于完备,这是资产阶级国家机器演变的一般情况。

Historically, revolutions of the exploiting classes, except for the slave-owning class’s replacement of the primitive communal system of public ownership with private ownership, were all cases of one system of private ownership replacing another. In such cases, the economic base on which the state machine was established was the same, and its purpose and task were the same: to maintain the system of exploitation and consolidate the dictatorship of the exploiting class. Consequently, when one exploiting class overthrew another and seized state power, it regarded the old state machine as a trophy and could continue to use it without smashing it. The proletarian revolution, however, is a revolution that replaces private ownership with public ownership. The proletarian revolution must thoroughly smash the bourgeois state machine — this is determined by the nature and tasks of the proletarian revolution.

历史上剥削阶级的革命,除奴隶主阶级是用私有制代替原始社会的公有制外,都是一种私有制度代替另一种私有制度。在那里,国家机器所建立的经济基础相同,它们的目的和任务相同,都是为了维护剥削制度、巩同剥削阶级专政。因而,一个剥削阶级在推翻另一个剥削阶级而夺取政权后,就把旧的国家机器视为战利品,不需要打碎它,即可以继续运用。无产阶级革命则是用公有制代替私有制的革命。无产阶级革命必须彻底打碎资产阶级国家机器,这是由无产阶级革命的性质和任务所决定的。

Based on the Marxist exposition of the process of the emergence and evolution of the bourgeois state machine, Lenin pointed out that smashing the old state machine first requires the elimination of the bourgeois standing army and bureaucracy. These most clearly embody the characteristics of the state machine, are inextricably linked with the bourgeoisie, and are the most important instruments for the bourgeoisie to suppress the people. Therefore, in revolution, the proletariat must concentrate its forces on smashing this military-bureaucratic apparatus. Lenin further demonstrated the universal significance of Marx’s theory of smashing the bourgeois state machine. Marx’s formulation of this theory was derived from the practice of the French bourgeois revolution of 1848. By the imperialist period, the characteristics of the evolution of the bourgeois state machine were basically the same as the process of the development of the state machine in France between 1848 and 1851: first, its “parliamentary power” was formed; then, as bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties engaged in fierce struggles to carve up official positions and seize power, its administrative power was strengthened, and its bureaucratic-military apparatus was increasingly perfected. Lenin concluded: “Now, the history of the whole world is undoubtedly leading the proletarian revolution, on an incomparably broader scale than in 1852, to ‘concentrate all its forces’ on ‘destroying’ the state machine.”

列宁根据马克思主义关于资产阶级国家机器的产生和演变过程的论述,指出打碎旧的国家机器,首先必须消灭资产阶级的常备军和官吏。它最能表现国家机器的特征,同资产阶级有着千丝万缕的联系,是资产阶级镇压人民的最重要的工具,所以无产阶级在革命中一定要将力量集中在打碎它的军事官僚机构上。列宁还进一步论证了马克思关于打碎资产阶级国家机器的理论具有普遍意义。马克思这一理论的提出是从法国资产阶级1848年革命实践中总结出来的。到了帝国主义时期,资产阶级国家机器演变的特征,和法国1848年至1851年间国家机器发展的过程基本相同,先形成其“议会权力”,其后资产阶级政党和小资产阶级政党为瓜分官吏职位和争夺政权而进行激烈斗争,随即加强其行政权力,使其官僚军事机构日益完善起来。列宁总结说:“现在,全世界的历史无疑正在较之1852年广阔得无比的范围内,把无产阶级革命引向‘集中自己的一切力量’去‘破坏’国家机器。”

(3) On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Socialist Democracy

(三)关于无产阶级专政与社会主义民主

Lenin criticized the fallacies of the Second International revisionists, revealed the essence of bourgeois democracy, and then analyzed the superiority of proletarian democracy (socialist democracy), the dialectical relationship between the dictatorship of the proletariat and democracy, and expounded the necessity of upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat and the path to the withering away of democracy.

列宁批判了第二国际修正主义者的谬论,揭示了资产阶级民主的实质,进而分析了无产阶级民主(社会主义民主)的优越性、无产阶级专政和民主的辩证关系,阐发了坚持无产阶级专政的必要性及民主制消亡的途径。

Lenin pointed out that bourgeois democracy is in essence always a democratic system for the minority, that is, only for the propertied class, only for the rich. The bourgeois democratic system includes universal suffrage, representative government, and the separation of powers. The bourgeois democratic system is the antithesis of the feudal autocratic system, the feudal hierarchical system, and feudal privilege law; compared with medieval feudal autocracy, it is undoubtedly a great step forward and played a quite revolutionary role in history. However, the bourgeois democratic system is determined by the capitalist economic base, reflects the characteristics of capitalist economic relations, and represents the will and interests of the bourgeoisie.

列宁指出,资产阶级民主实质上始终是少数人的即只是有产阶级的、只是富人的民主制度。资产阶级民主制度包括普选制、代议制、二权分立等主要内容。资产阶级民主制是封建专制制度、封建等级制度和封建特权法的对立物;它比起中世纪的封建专制主义,无疑是一大进步,在历史上起过相当革命的作用。但是,资产阶级民主制度是由资本主义经济基础决定的,反映资本主义经济关系的特点,代表资产阶级的意志和利益。

In order to further reveal the essence of bourgeois democracy, Lenin, drawing on the current state of bourgeois democracy, dissected the bourgeois electoral system and parliamentary system. Lenin pointed out that when capitalism develops to the monopoly stage, political power demands a high degree of centralization; in many countries, it is not the parliament that supervises the government, but the government that manipulates the parliament, with the parliament subordinate to the government. On this basis, Lenin argued that the bourgeois “democratic republic is the nearest approach to the dictatorship of the proletariat. For such a republic, while in no way abolishing the rule of capital and hence the oppression of the masses and the class struggle, inevitably leads to the expansion, development, unfolding, and intensification of this struggle to such a point that, as soon as the possibility arises of satisfying the fundamental interests of the oppressed masses, this possibility is realized necessarily and solely through the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., through the leadership of these masses by the proletariat.” [3]3 V. I. Lenin, *The State and Revolution*, Chapter 4, Section 3. The quotation is from Lenin’s commentary on Marx’s *The Civil War in France*.

为了进一步揭示资产阶级民主制的实质,列宁结合资产阶级民主制的现状,剖析了资产阶级的选举制度和议会制度。列宁指出,当资本主义发展到垄断阶段时,政治权力要求高度集中,许多国家不是议会监督政府,而是政府操纵议会,议会从属于政府。据此,列宁认为,资产阶级的“民主共和国是走向无产阶级专政的捷径。因为这样的共和国虽然丝毫没有消除资本的统治,因而也丝毫没有消除对群众的压迫和阶级斗争,但是,它必然会使这个斗争扩大、展开、明朗化和尖锐化,以致一旦出现满足被压迫群众的根本利益的可能性,这种可能性就必然通过而且只有通过无产阶级专政即无产阶级对这些群众的领导得到实现”。

Regarding the essence of proletarian democracy, Lenin made a profoundly deep analysis, pointing out that proletarian democracy is the first democracy to be enjoyed by the broad masses of working people, not a democracy for the rich. However, the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot simply be a matter of expanding democracy; it must also exercise dictatorship over the exploiters and capitalists, deprive them of their freedom, and crush their resistance by force. Proletarian democracy is ultimately determined by the economic base of public ownership it establishes. Every form of state power is composed of two aspects, dictatorship and democracy, and neither is dispensable. The state of the exploiting class practices democracy within the exploiting class and dictatorship over the exploited class. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a new type of state system in history; dictatorship and democracy are likewise a unity of opposites, a mutual combination of democracy for the broad masses of the people and dictatorship over a minority of enemies. Without extensive people’s democracy, the political power of the dictatorship of the proletariat will not be consolidated. Secondly, Lenin emphasized that, in addition to the large-scale expansion of democracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat must also adopt a series of measures to deprive the oppressors, exploiters, and capitalists of their freedom and to exercise effective dictatorship over them. Only in this way can the democracy of the proletariat and the people be guaranteed.

对于无产阶级民主的实质,列宁作了极深刻的剖析,指出无产阶级民主是第一次使广大劳动人民群众享受的民主,不是供富人享受的民主。但是,无产阶级专政决不能简单地只是扩大民主,还要对剥削者、资本家实行专政,剥夺他们的自由,用强力粉碎他们的反抗。无产阶级民主归根结底是由它所建立的公有制的经济基础决定的。任何一种国家政权都是由专政和民主两个方面构成的,二者缺一不可,剥削阶级国家是对剥削阶级内部实行民主,对被剥削阶级实行专政;无产阶级专政是历史上一种新型的国家制度,专政与民主同样是对立统一物,是对广大人民实行民主和对少数敌人实行专政的相互结合,没有广泛的人民民主,无产阶级专政的政权就不巩固。其次,列宁又强调,除了把民主大规模地扩大之外,无产阶级专政还要对压迫者、剥削者、资本家采取一系列剥夺自由的措施,对其实行有效的专政,只有这样,无产阶级和人民的民主才能有保障。

(4) On the Political Form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

(四)关于无产阶级专政的政治形式

The Paris Commune, established by the Paris proletariat in 1871, was the first great attempt by the proletariat to smash the bourgeois state machine by violence and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Building on Marx’s conclusions, Lenin provided a more profound exposition of the essence of the Paris Commune and its form of political organization.

1871年巴黎无产阶级建立的巴黎公社,是无产阶级以暴力摧毁资产阶级国家机器、建立无产阶级专政的第一次伟大尝试。在马克思的论断的基础上,列宁对巴黎公社的实质及其政权组织形式,作了更深刻的阐发。

First, replace the bourgeois standing army with the armed people. Lenin believed that the army is the main component of state power, and the bourgeois army is the principal instrument of force for bourgeois state power. Therefore, the complete destruction of the reactionary bourgeois army and its replacement by the armed people is necessary for the proletariat to defeat the bourgeoisie and consolidate its own political rule.

第一,用人民的武装代替资产阶级常备军。列宁认为,军队是国家政权的主要成分,资产阶级军队是资产阶级国家权力的主要的强力工具。因此,彻底消灭资产阶级的反动军队,用武装的人民来代替它,是无产阶级战胜资产阶级,巩固自己的政治统治所必需的。

Second, replace bourgeois officials with servants serving the people. Lenin believed that these measures of the Commune might appear to be merely a more complete democracy, but their essence was a change in the nature of the state, “in fact meaning a great replacement of two fundamentally different types of institutions.” This is a practical example of the transformation of quantity into quality, where bourgeois democracy turns into proletarian democracy, i.e., from a state in the original sense into one that is no longer a state in the original sense. Lenin further pointed out that, due to the development of capitalist culture, the vast majority of the functions of “state power” have become extremely simple; every literate person can perform these functions, and it is possible for state functionaries to perform them while receiving only the wages of an “ordinary worker.” Lenin further argued that the above measures pertain to the state transformation of society, i.e., purely political transformation, but these measures will only reveal their full significance when linked to economic measures for depriving the expropriators, i.e., measures for transforming private ownership of the means of production into public ownership. Because in real life, democracy never exists “in isolation.” It is always determined by the economic base, and in turn influences the economy, promotes economic transformation, and is influenced by economic development, and so on. This is the living dialectic of history.

第二,用为人民服务的勤务员来代替资产阶级官吏。列宁认为,公社的这些措施看起来似乎仅仅是更完全的民主,但其实质却是国家本质的改变,“事实上意味着两类根本不同的机构的大更替”。这是一个量转化为质的实际例子,是资产阶级民主变成了无产阶级民主,即由原来意义上的国家变成了一种已不是原来意义上的国家。列宁又指出,由于资本主义文化的发展,“国家政权”的绝大多数职能已经变得极其简单,每一个识字的人都能够行使这些职能,国家工作人员行使这些职能,只付给其“普通工人的工资”是可以做到的。列宁又进一步认为,上述这些措施是关系到社会的国家改造即纯政治改造,但是这些措施只有同剥夺剥夺者的经济措施联系起来,也就是同把生产资料的私有制变为公有制的措施联系起来,才会显示出全部意义来。因为,在实际生活中民主永远不会是“单独存在”的。它总是由经济基础所决定,并影响经济、推动经济的改造,受经济发展的影响等等。这是活生生的历史的辩证法。

Third, replace the bourgeois parliamentary system with a working body that combines legislative and executive functions. Based on Marx’s relevant discussions of the Paris Commune, Lenin exposed and analyzed the essence of the bourgeois parliament. Bourgeois parliamentary states flaunt the “separation of powers” [4]4 “Separation of powers” (三权分立) refers to the doctrine of dividing governmental authority into legislative, executive, and judicial branches, each independent and checking the others, a principle associated with bourgeois political theory, notably by Montesquieu. and the mutual checks and balances among the legislative, executive, and judicial organs, but their purpose is merely to dress up parliament as a representative body expressing the will of the entire people, using parliamentary democracy to disguise the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Lenin also discussed the necessity of establishing new administrative organs, i.e., the proletariat that has achieved political rule still needs administrative organs, needs obedience, supervision, “supervisors and accountants,” and needs to establish new administrative organs.

第三,用议行一致的工作机关代替资产阶级的议会制。列宁根据马克思对巴黎公社的有关论述,揭露和分析了资产阶级议会的本质。资产阶级议会制国家,标榜“三权分立”及权力机关、行政机关和司法机关相互制约,其目的不过是把议会装扮成表达全民意志的代议机关,用议会民主来掩饰资产阶级专政。列宁还论述了建立新的管理机关的必要性,即取得政治统治的无产阶级还需要有管理机关,需要有服从、监督、“监工和会计”,需要建立新的管理机关。

Fourth, replace the bourgeois state of bureaucratic centralism with a unified national political power of proletarian democratic centralism. The Paris Commune opposed bureaucratic centralism and advocated, under the guidance of the principle of democratic centralism, the establishment of a unified, unitary national state. Lenin believed that bureaucratic centralism and democratic centralism are two fundamentally different organizational principles. Bureaucratic centralism is the organizational principle of the bourgeois state, adapted to the political rule of the bourgeoisie. The organizational principle of democratic centralism is the organizational principle of the proletarian state, adapted to the rule of the proletariat over the minority of exploiters. The proletariat cannot use the bourgeois state machine to achieve its own ends, nor can it use the organizational principles of the bourgeois state to establish its own class rule. The proletariat smashing the bourgeois state machine also means abolishing its organizational principles. The proletariat, having smashed the bourgeois state machine and taken state power into its own hands, organizes itself very freely within the Commune, unifying itself into a single nation.

第四,用无产阶级民主集中制的统一的全国政权代替资产阶级官僚集中制的国家。巴黎公社反对官僚集中制,主张在民主集中制的原则的指导下,建立民族统一的单一制国家。列宁认为,官僚集中制和民主集中制是两种根本不同性质的组织原则。官僚集中制是资产阶级国家的组织原则,它适应于资产阶级的政治统治。民主集中制的组织原则是无产阶级国家的组织原则,它适应于无产阶级对少数剥削者的统治。无产阶级不能运用资产阶级国家机器达到自己的目的,同样也不能使用资产阶级国家的组织原则来建立自己的阶级统治。无产阶级打碎资产阶级国家机器,也意味着取消其组织原则。无产阶级打碎资产阶级国家机器,把无产阶级国家政权掌握在自己手中,十分自由地组织在公社之内,统一为一个民族。

(5) On “Bourgeois Right” in the Socialist Stage

(五)关于社会主义阶段的“资产阶级权利”

Based on Marx’s exposition in the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Lenin further developed the theory of the two phases of communist society, pointing out the common features of these two phases and the differences between them. Lenin believed that, economically, both socialism and communism are based on public ownership of the means of production, but socialism and communism are two phases of different degrees of economic maturity. Regardless of their differences, communism develops on the basis of socialism, and socialism is the necessary stage for achieving communism.

列宁根据马克思在《哥达纲领批判》中的论述,进一步发挥了关于共产主义社会两个阶段的学说,指出了这两个阶段的共同特征以及两者之间的差别。列宁认为,在经济上,社会主义和共产主义都是以生产资料公有制为基础,但是,社会主义和共产主义在经济上是成熟程度不同的两个阶段。社会主义社会与共产主义社会不论其区别怎样,共产主义是在社会主义的基础上发展起来的,社会主义是实现共产主义的必经阶段。

The first phase of communism is socialist society. In the first phase of communism, bourgeois right is abolished with respect to the means of production, but in the distribution of consumer goods, the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” is implemented. This principle is a complete negation of the bourgeois exploitative system of distribution according to capital, where labor goes unrewarded, and represents a great historical advance. However, it still contains factual inequality, the existence of “bourgeois right.” The principle of distribution according to work uses labor as the same yardstick applied to different individuals. It appears equal on the surface, but is in fact unequal, because individuals differ in their specific circumstances. Those with greater labor capacity will receive more than those with less capacity when receiving equal products for equal labor. Under conditions of receiving the same quantity of consumer goods, those with lighter family burdens will be better off than those with heavier family burdens. This is unfairness and inequality.

共产主义第一阶段,即社会主义社会。在共产主义的第一阶段,在生产资料方面取消了资产阶级权利,但在消费品分配方面,实行“各尽所能,按劳分配”的原则,这一原则是对资产阶级按资分配、劳而不获的剥削制度的彻底否定,是历史上的一大进步。可是它仍然存在着事实上的不平等,存在“资产阶级权利”。按劳分配的原则是以劳动作为同一尺度,运用在不同等的人身上,看起来似乎是平等,但是在事实上是不平等的,因为各个人的具体情况是不相同的,按等量劳动领取等量产品,那些劳动能力强的,就会比劳动能力弱的分得多些,在领取同等数量消费品的情况下,家庭负担轻的,就会比家庭负担重的富裕些,这就是不公平、不平等。

Lenin pointed out that the socialist society which has just emerged from the womb of capitalist society still bears the birthmarks of the old society from which it has come in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually. Economically, socialism cannot yet create the economic preconditions for the immediate realization of the transformation “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” That is to say, although the establishment of the socialist system opens up broad paths and prospects for the development of the productive forces, the productive forces have not yet developed to such a high level that they can provide abundant products to realize “distribution according to need”; differences still exist between town and country, between workers and peasants, and between mental and manual labor, and these differences are inevitably reflected in distribution. In the moral and intellectual spheres, after the overthrow of capitalism, people cannot immediately learn to work for society without any norms of right. According to the Marxist principle of dialectical materialism, ideological consciousness possesses relative independence. Although the proletarian revolution abolishes the system of exploitation, the ideology of the exploiting classes cannot quickly disappear; it will persist for a considerable historical period. Therefore, people cannot yet completely shake off the influence of exploiting-class ideology and fully transcend the “narrow horizon of bourgeois right.”

列宁指出,刚刚从资本主义社会中脱胎出来的社会主义社会,在各方面,在经济、道德和精神方面都还带着它脱胎出来的那个旧社会的痕迹。在经济方面,社会主义还不能为立即实现“各尽所能,按需分配”这种变革创造经济前提。这就是说,社会主义制度的建立,虽然为生产力的发展开辟了广阔的道路和前景,但是生产力还没有发展到那样高的水平,还不能提供丰富的产品来实现“按需分配”;城乡之间、工农之间、脑力劳动和体力劳动之间还存在着差别,这些差别必然要反映在分配方面。在道德和精神方面,在推翻资本主义之后,人们还不能立即学会不需要任何权利规范而为社会劳动。根据马克思主义辩证唯物主义原理,思想意识具有相对的独立性,尽管无产阶级革命废除了剥削制度,但是剥削阶级思想不可能很快消失,还会在相当长的历史时期内存在,因此人们还不能完全摆脱剥削阶级思想的影响,完全超出“资产阶级权利的狭隘眼界”。

In short, bourgeois right exists in socialist society. Although this is a “defect,” it is inevitable. The existence of bourgeois right in the sphere of distribution in socialist society is a necessity of historical development. In *The State and Revolution*, Lenin not only pointed out the inevitability of its existence but also analyzed its necessity. Bourgeois right still plays the role of regulator and determinant in the distribution of products and labor among the various members of society. It is needed to compel every able-bodied person, in accordance with the social division of labor, to complete a certain amount of labor before receiving a certain amount of remuneration. In the final analysis, this is because the “economic preconditions that make any norms of right unnecessary” do not yet exist.

总之,在社会主义社会存在着资产阶级权利,这虽然是一个“缺点”,但它是不可避免的,社会主义社会在分配方面存在着资产阶级权利,是历史发展的必然。列宁在《国家与革命》中不仅指出了它存在的必然性,也分析了它的必要性,资产阶级权利在社会各个成员间分配产品和分配劳动方面,依然起着调节者和决定者的作用,需要它迫使每个有劳动能力的人,按照社会的劳动分工,完成一定量的劳动,然后才能领取一定量的报酬,归根结底是因为还不具备“不需要任何权利的经济前提”。

(6) On the Withering Away of the State

(六)关于国家的自行消亡

The withering away of the state refers specifically to the proletarian state. The bourgeois state is an instrument for suppressing and exploiting the proletariat; it cannot wither away of its own accord and must be destroyed by the proletariat in revolution. How does the proletarian state wither away? In *The State and Revolution*, Lenin profoundly expounded the inevitability and necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat during the transitional period, the characteristics of the two phases of communist society, the relationship between the development of future society and the withering away of the state, and clarified that the economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is the high development of communism. He also discussed the significance of the development of socialist democracy and the participation of the working masses in state administration and economic management for the withering away of the state. After the proletariat seizes political power, democracy undergoes an essential change; that is, it transforms from the democracy of the bourgeois minority into the democracy of the vast majority of society. The more complete this democracy of the vast majority becomes, the closer it approaches the point where it becomes superfluous. As Lenin pointed out, “The more democratic the ‘state’ which consists of armed workers, and which is ‘no longer a state in the proper sense of the word,’ the more rapidly does every state begin to wither away.”

国家的自行消亡是专指无产阶级国家。资产阶级国家是镇压和剥削无产阶级的工具,是不可能自行消亡的,需要由无产阶级在革命中来消灭它。无产阶级国家如何自行消亡?在《国家与革命》中,列宁深刻论述了过渡时期实行无产阶级专政的必然性和必要性、共产主义社会两个阶段的特征,论述了未来社会的发展与国家消亡的关系,阐明了国家完全消亡的经济基础是共产主义的高度发展。他还论述了社会主义民主的发展、劳动群众参加国家管理和经济管理对于国家消亡的重要意义。无产阶级取得政权后,民主起了本质的变化,也就是说,它已由资产阶级少数人的民主转变为社会绝大多数人的民主。这种绝大多数人的民主愈完全,它就成为多余的时候就愈接近。正如列宁指出的,“由武装工人组成的、‘已经不是原来意义上的国家’的‘国家’愈民主,则任何国家就会愈迅速地开始消亡。”

Lenin criticized Bukharin on the question of the withering away of the state. Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin was one of the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) and the Communist International, a Marxist theorist and economist. He served as a member of the Central Committee and the Political Bureau of the CPSU(B), a member of the Executive Committee, the Presidium, and the Political Secretariat of the Communist International, and editor-in-chief of *Pravda*. He was once hailed as the “Party’s foremost thinker.” Lenin repeatedly pointed out that Bukharin made some minor errors on the question of the state, which manifested as a certain metaphysical coloring in his understanding of the state issue. When citing Engels’ discussion of the class character of the state in *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, Bukharin forgot to cite Engels’ discussion of the social character of the state; when discussing the future society’s need to smash the state, he also forgot the need to utilize the state during the period of proletarian revolution and construction. Lenin pointed out: “Our difference with the anarchists is that we advocate (α) utilizing the state now, and (β) utilizing the state during the period of proletarian revolution (‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’)—these two points are of extreme practical importance at the present time.” Lenin immediately and clearly stated: “Bukharin precisely forgot these two points!” This forgetting was precisely caused by a lack of Marxist dialectical thinking.

列宁在国家消亡问题上对布哈林进行了批评。尼古拉·伊万诺维奇·布哈林是联共(布)党和共产国际的领导人之一,马克思主义理论家和经济学家,曾任联共(布)党中央委员会委员和政治局委员,共产国际执行委员会委员、主席团委员、政治书记处书记,《真理报》主编,曾经被誉为苏共“党内头号思想家”。列宁一再指出,在国家问题上,布哈林存在着一些小错误,这表现为对国家问题理解上带有某种形而上学的色彩。布哈林在引用恩格斯《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》中关于国家阶级性的论述时,就忘记了引用恩格斯关于国家社会性的论述;他在谈到未来社会要炸毁国家时,也忘记了在无产阶级革命和建设时期要利用国家。列宁指出:“我们同无政府主义者的区别是:我们主张(α)现在利用国家,并且(β)在无产阶级革命时期利用国家(‘无产阶级专政’),——这两点现在就对实践极其重要。”列宁紧接着马上明确指出:“布哈林正是忘记了这两点!”这种忘记恰恰是缺乏马克思主义辩证思维造成的。

III. The Contemporary Significance of *The State and Revolution*

三、《国家与革命》的现实意义

Revisiting *The State and Revolution* today has at least three points of significance.

今天重温《国家与革命》,至少有三点重要意义。

First, it is of great significance for us to uphold the Marxist view of the state and democracy, to break down all superstitions about Western democratic states and Western democratic systems, to effectively prevent falling into the trap of Western democratization, to correctly understand the nature and role of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to scientifically grasp the relationship between proletarian democracy and dictatorship, to better strengthen the Four Confidences [5]5 The Four Confidences (四个自信) refers to confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics. and achieve the Two Upholds [6]6 The Two Upholds (两个维护) refers to upholding the core position of General Secretary Xi Jinping in the Party Central Committee and the Party as a whole, and upholding the authority and centralized, unified leadership of the Party Central Committee., to maintain our strategic resolve, to unswervingly consolidate the state system of the people’s democratic dictatorship, to continue deepening political system reform in the correct direction, to promote the integration of Marxist state theory with the concrete realities of modern state construction and development in contemporary China, and to advance the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity. In *The State and Revolution*, Lenin profoundly pointed out that there is no “pure” democracy as claimed by Kautsky, only class democracy. Western capitalist democracy is based on the economic base of capitalist private ownership of the means of production, is nourished by the milk of capital, is the democracy of the bourgeoisie, safeguards only the democratic rights of the minority, and protects only the interests of the minority. Although the Western democratic system legally stipulates that everyone enjoys the democratic rights of freedom and equality, it always “leaves many loopholes or reservations” in the constitution and laws regarding the democratic rights that the broad masses of the people should enjoy, imposing numerous political, economic, cultural, and social restrictions. These numerous restrictions mean that the democratic rights stipulated in the constitution and laws become, for the broad masses of the people, merely a formal or procedural democratic right; they are in fact excluded from democratic rights. For example, the “equal” right to vote trumpeted by Western public opinion never reflected so-called “natural rights” or “equality of rights” from the outset; on the contrary, it vividly demonstrates the combination of power and money. Huge election expenses make Western democratic elections an invisible means for the rich to monopolize political power and restrict the people’s rights. Moreover, it is widely recognized in the world that Western democracy usually means endless debate, indecision, and declining economic efficiency. In contrast, the socialist democratic system with Chinese characteristics—such as the system of people’s congresses, the system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the system of regional ethnic autonomy, the system of urban and rural grassroots democracy, and the leadership system of democratic centralism—is a great creation of the Communist Party of China in adhering to the integration of the basic principles of Marxist democratic theory with China’s concrete realities. It fully reflects the common interests and common aspirations of the people of all ethnic groups across the country. It possesses significant advantages in ensuring that the country always advances in the socialist direction, in relying closely on the people to drive national development, in effectively safeguarding social fairness, justice, and people’s rights, and in concentrating resources to accomplish major tasks. Practice has repeatedly proven that they are the institutional guarantee for the people to be masters of the country and to control their own destiny.

第一,对我们坚持马克思主义国家观民主观,破除一切有关西方民主国家、西方民主制度的迷信,切实防止误入西方的民主化陷阱,正确认识无产阶级专政国家的性质和作用,科学把握无产阶级民主与专政的关系,更好坚定“四个自信”,做到“两个维护”,对我们保持战略定力,坚定不移巩固人民民主专政的国体,始终沿着正确方向继续深化政治体制改革,推进马克思主义国家理论同当代中国现代化国家建设和发展的具体实际相结合,推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化,具有重要意义。列宁在《国家与革命》一书中深刻指出,没有考茨基所谓的“纯粹”民主,只有阶级民主。西方资本主义民主以生产资料的资本主义私人占有为经济基础,是靠资本的乳汁喂养的,是资产阶级的民主,保障的只是少数人的民主权利,维护的只是少数人的利益。西方民主制度虽然从法律上规定人人享有自由和平等的民主权利,但又总是在宪法和法律上对广大人民应该享有的民主权利“留下许多后路或保留条件”,加以政治、经济、文化和社会的诸多限制。这诸多的限制,使得宪法和法律规定的民主权利,对广大人民来说,仅仅成为一种形式上的民主权利或者说程序民主权利,他们事实上被排除在民主权利之外。比如西方舆论鼓吹的“平等的”选举权,从一开始就根本没有体现所谓“天赋人权”“权利平等”,恰恰相反,淋漓尽致地表现出权力与金钱的结合。巨额选举经费使西方的民主选举成为富人垄断政权和限制人民权利的无形手段。不仅如此,世界还普遍认为,西方民主通常意味着争论不休,举棋不定,经济效率下降,等等。而中国特色社会主义民主制度,如人民代表大会制度、中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度、民族区域自治制度、城乡基层民主制度和民主集中制的领导制度等民主制度,是中国共产党坚持把马克思主义民主理论的基本原理同中国具体实际相结合的伟大创造,充分反映了全国各族人民的共同利益和共同愿望,具有确保国家始终沿着社会主义方向前进的显著优势、紧紧依靠人民推动国家发展的显著优势、切实保障社会公平正义和人民权利的显著优势、集中力量办大事的显著优势等诸多优势。实践一再证明,它们是人民当家作主、掌握自己前途命运的制度保障。

Second, it is of great significance for our profound understanding of the protractedness and arduousness of socialist modernization and the realization of communism. Regarding the doctrine of the two phases of communism, Marx and Engels had put forward some important views, but they did not and could not propose a detailed theory. Lenin inherited the ideas of Marx and Engels while deepening the understanding of this issue. Studying Lenin’s exposition on the stages of communist development in *The State and Revolution* helps us to more profoundly recognize the basic national condition that China is still in and will long remain in the primary stage of socialism, and to fully appreciate the protractedness and arduousness of socialist modernization. A very important reason for this arduousness of socialist modernization lies in the fact that “China’s socialism is still in its primary stage, and we still face many issues that have not been clarified and problems yet to be solved. The understanding and handling of many major issues are still in a process of continuous deepening, and this is beyond doubt. Understanding things requires a process, and regarding socialism, which we have only been practicing for a few decades, our understanding and grasp are still very limited, and need to be continuously deepened and developed in practice.” [5]5 The Four Confidences (四个自信) refers to confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics.P60 The protractedness of realizing communism determines that “to think that one can enter communism in one or two moves is unrealistic.” [6]6 The Two Upholds (两个维护) refers to upholding the core position of General Secretary Xi Jinping in the Party Central Committee and the Party as a whole, and upholding the authority and centralized, unified leadership of the Party Central Committee.P115 Deng Xiaoping pointed out that consolidating and developing the socialist system still requires a very long historical stage, requiring the unremitting efforts of several generations, a dozen generations, or even several dozen generations of our people. Looking at the issue in this way fully demonstrates the political sobriety of us Chinese Communists.

第二,对我们深刻认识社会主义现代化建设和实现共产主义的长期性和艰巨性,具有重要意义。关于共产主义两个阶段的学说,马克思恩格斯曾经提出过一些重要观点,但他们没有也不可能提出周详的理论。列宁继承了马克思恩格斯的思想,同时深化了对这一问题的认识。学习列宁在《国家与革命》中关于共产主义发展阶段的论述,有助于我们更加深刻地认识我国仍处于并将长期处于社会主义初级阶段的基本国情,充分认识社会主义现代化建设的长期性和艰巨性。社会主义现代化建设的这种艰巨性,很重要的一个原因就在于,“我国社会主义还处在初级阶段,我们还面临很多没有弄清楚的问题和待解的难题,对许多重大问题的认识和处理都还处在不断深化的过程之中,这一点也不容置疑。对事物的认识是需要一个过程的,而对社会主义这个我们只搞了几十年的东西,我们的认识和把握也还是非常有限的,还需要在实践中不断深化和发展”[5]P60。实现共产主义的长期性决定了,“想一下子、两下子就进入共产主义,那是不切实际的”[6]P115。邓小平指出,巩固和发展社会主义制度,还需要一个很长的历史阶段,需要我们几代人、十几代人、甚至几十代人坚持不懈地努力奋斗。这样看问题,充分说明了我们中国共产党人政治上的清醒。

Third, it is of great significance for strengthening our communist ideal and conviction. Since Marx put forward the theory of communism, some bourgeois scholars have consistently described communism as an unrealizable “utopia.” The historical tragedy of the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe caused the utopian theory to raise its head again. Some Western scholars who advocate the “theory of the failure of socialism” put forward views such as “utopian social engineering is fundamentally incompatible with the complex human environment.” The American scholar Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his book *The Grand Failure*, described communism as “concocted by a German Jewish immigrant intellectual in the reading room of the British Museum.” “It attempts to impose thoroughgoing rationality on social life.” Some Western scholars also propagate the “end of history” thesis. In *The State and Revolution*, Lenin profoundly analyzed the scientific basis on which Marx proposed the theory of communism. He pointed out: “Marx does not in the least want to create a utopia, does not want to indulge in idle guessing about things that cannot be known. Marx poses the question of communism as a natural scientist would pose the question of the development of a new biological species, once he knows how it originated and in which direction it is changing.” [1]1 The “February Revolution” (March 1917 in the Gregorian calendar) overthrew the Tsarist autocracy and established a Provisional Government, while also creating the Soviets, leading to a period of dual power.P187 Some people also worry that once the communist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is realized, people will lose their motivation to strive and will no longer be able to “work according to their ability.” Marx and Engels in the *Communist Manifesto*, and Lenin in *The State and Revolution*, all analyzed and criticized such views. The existence of such views only illustrates one fact: people, constrained by the influence of thousands of years of private ownership and private property concepts, have not yet broken free from the narrow horizon of bourgeois right. When Lenin discussed the communist system of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” he pointed out: “From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to describe such a social system as ‘pure utopia’ and to sneer that socialists promise everyone the right to receive from society any quantity of chocolates, automobiles, pianos, etc., without any control over the labor of each citizen.” [1]1 The “February Revolution” (March 1917 in the Gregorian calendar) overthrew the Tsarist autocracy and established a Provisional Government, while also creating the Soviets, leading to a period of dual power.P198 Lenin’s answer to this view was: “The great socialists, in foreseeing the advent of this stage, assumed as premises neither the present productivity of labor nor the present philistine.” [1]1 The “February Revolution” (March 1917 in the Gregorian calendar) overthrew the Tsarist autocracy and established a Provisional Government, while also creating the Soviets, leading to a period of dual power.P198 In Lenin’s view, after a long process of socialist development, with the growth of productive forces, the spiritual world of people will gradually enter an entirely new realm, the influence of bourgeois right on people will disappear, labor will become the primary need of life, and people’s compliance with the basic rules of public life will change from obligatory to habitual. “Then the door will be wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it the complete withering away of the state.”

第三,对我们坚定共产主义理想信念具有重要意义。自从马克思提出共产主义学说以来,一些资产阶级学者一直把共产主义说成是不可能实现的“乌托邦”。苏联东欧剧变的历史悲剧使乌托邦论再次抬头。有些鼓吹“社会主义失败论”的西方学者提出所谓的“乌托邦社会工程与复杂的人类环境水火不相容”之类的观点。美国学者布热津斯基在《大失败》一书中则把共产主义说成是“一个犹太血统的德国移民知识分子在大英博物馆公共阅览室中苦思冥想出来的”。“它企图把彻头彻尾的理性强加于社会生活。”一些西方学者还宣扬“历史终结论”。列宁在《国家与革命》一书中深刻分析了马克思提出共产主义学说的科学依据。指出:“马克思丝毫不想制造乌托邦,不想凭空猜测无法知道的事情。马克思提出共产主义的问题,正像一个自然科学家已经知道某一新的生物变种是怎样产生以及朝着哪个方向演变才提出该生物变种的发展问题一样。”[1]P187还有人担忧一旦实现了共产主义的“按需分配”,人们就会失去奋斗的动力,也就不可能“各尽所能”了。马克思、恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中,列宁在《国家与革命》中都对这类观点进行过分析和批判。这类观点的存在只是说明一个事实:人们囿于几千年来私有制和私有观念的影响,尚未摆脱资产阶级权利的狭隘眼界。列宁在谈到共产主义社会“各尽所能,按需分配”的制度时指出:“从资产阶级的观点看来,很容易把这样的社会制度说成是‘纯粹的乌托邦’,并冷嘲热讽地说社会主义者许诺每个人都有权利向社会领取任何数量的巧克力糖、汽车、钢琴等等,而对每个公民的劳动不加任何监督。”[1]P198列宁对这种看法的回答是:“伟大的社会主义者在预见这个阶段将会到来时所设想的前提,既不是现在的劳动生产率,也不是现在的庸人。”[1]P198在列宁看来,社会主义经过漫长的发展过程,随着生产力的增长,人的精神世界也将逐步进入一个全新的境域,资产阶级权利对人的影响将消失,劳动将成为生活的第一需要,人们对公共生活基本规则从必须遵守变为习惯遵守,“到那时候,从共产主义社会的第一阶段过渡到它的高级阶段的大门就会敞开,国家也就随之完全消亡”。

Therefore, we must profoundly understand that the realization of communism is a historical process achieved step by step through phased goals. We must unify the lofty ideal of communism with the common ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and with the things we are doing now. We must strengthen our confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics [7]7 This refers to the “Four Confidences” (四个自信), a core political slogan of the CPC: confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics., uphold the ideal and conviction of Communists, and, like Marx, strive for communism all our lives.

因此,我们要深刻认识实现共产主义是由一个个阶段性目标逐步达成的历史过程,把共产主义远大理想同中国特色社会主义共同理想统一起来、同我们正在做的事情统一起来,坚定中国特色社会主义道路自信、理论自信、制度自信、文化自信,坚守共产党人的理想信念,像马克思那样,为共产主义奋斗终身。

Of course, the inspiration and significance of *The State and Revolution* for us are far more than these few points. This work is an extremely rich theoretical treasure trove, worthy of our repeated and serious reading. We also believe that as long as one reads it seriously, one will surely find new insights with each reading.

当然,《国家与革命》对我们的启示和意义远不止这样几点,这部著作是一个储藏量极其丰富的理论宝库,值得我们反复认真阅读,我们也相信,只要认真阅读,肯定能常读常新。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗