Lenin uses in State and Revolution the phrase "violent revolution" in contradistinction to social-democracy of socialism only by the rules and a ill-thought out idea of "withering away of the state" as the objective of struggle. Generations of communists have read far more into a few phrase (does anyone know the Russian word which has been translated into violent, perhaps it has more than this meaning?) and seen this as the preferred and sometimes only method to achieve change (not that many were prpared to actually face the military consequences of it).
Lenin was not of this persuasion, although Leninists seem to be.
The point being that State and Revolution was written in August 1917 and there was some real political point to the emphasis then (even so it was not published until 1918 and the last chapter was never written because October interfered with the author's time).
However, the quote from Engels he uses is very revealing (reproduced below) as Engels is actually tracing out the role of force (extra-legal force not necessarily the taking up of arms) and added a cautionary point:
"And this in Germany, where a violent collision - which may, after all, be forced on the people"
When we try to rescue Lenin's entire concept (and not just rely on quotes as some do) and separate out his theoretical statements from his political expression we end up, with a classic statement about class forces, not necessarily military forces. Violent revolution, becomes far less dependant on violence than on a concept of revolution as such (which i9s always a question of force in general).
Please note that Engels is very specific on violence being imposed on the people, imposed by the ruling class - in this he is being nothing but realistic as the history of Germany has shown. But what of Lenin - on the brink of seizing power, within a vacuum and admist an ongoing war, State and Revolution was a call to arms politically but under-written by a clear understanding of the theoretical questions (unfortunately largely buried by the previoius concerns).
Your point about one-eyed views about the course in which things must take is sound and no reading of "Empire" or anything else will dissolve that reification. We are not faced with the problem of Lenin's State and Revolution but with what has been accredited to it and for the most part based on a few phrases repeated in one section for an entirely different purpose.
State and Revolution remains a summing up of the revolutionary experience until 1917, based on a very sound understanding of the state and overwritten with the immediate concerns of 1917.
The state remains I think central to the whole question, especially within the context of "Empire", however, isolation within the borders of anyone state is politically and practically impossible. Seizure of the state now compacts much more in itself than past generations would have supposed.
Seizure less and less can be conceived as a single act, or something that can take place in national isolation. I would cling to it as a general concept, but in itself it is misleading for it suggests an act that is both splendid in its isolation and singular in execution none of which cannot now be sustained as a practical objective today.
I would not accuse Carrol, but the problem we face is one of utopianinsm, otherwise the book Empire could be taken on for what it says (especially the critical pages 229 - 234) rather than what is presumed to have said (I find no problem gliding over much of the prose to find these few pages of insight and feel well rewarded for doing so - I only wish others would).
One thing is for certain the role of force is not yet written out of history, nor is it a question removed from Empire as such.
The quote: "...That force, however, plays yet another role [other than that
of a diabolical power] in history, a revolutionary role; that,
in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society
which is pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with
which social movement forces its way through and shatters the
dead, fossilized political forms — of this there is not a
word in Herr Duhring. It is only with sighs and groans that he
admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for
the overthrow of an economy based on exploitation —
unfortunately, because all use of force demoralizes, he says,
the person who uses it. And this in Germany, where a violent
collision — which may, after all, be forced on the people
— would at least have the advantage of wiping out the
servility which has penetrated the nation's mentality following
the humiliation of the Thirty Years' War. And this person's
mode of thought — dull, insipid, and impotent — presumes to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that
history has ever known!
(p.193, third German edition,
Part II, end of Chap.IV)
How can this panegyric on violent revolution, which Engels
insistently brought to the attention of the German
Social-Democrats between 1878 and 1894, i.e., right up to the
time of his death, be combined with the theory of the 'withering
away" of the state to form a single theory?
--- Message Received --- From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:25:29 +0100 Subject: Re: Negri interview
At 24/10/01 18:15 -0500, Carroll wrote:
>Thomas Seay wrote:
> >
> > <<It's this proposition, which derives from nothing
> > and leads to nothing,
> > which makes me think that _Empire_ is too frivolous to
> > be worth a
> > critique.>>
> >
> > Carrol, Have you even read the book?
> >
>
>I read it, carefully, in January. I reread it twice, annotating it and
>scribbling notes in August. At every single point where they made some
>claim that needed justification, they would have footnoe, cf. xxxx. And
>there is the slightest hint in the work as to how the world can be
>changed.
>
>Carrol
"Empire" I think I am right in saying, does not contain a single statistic. It is essentially, I suggest, an extensive review of the ideological constructions around the rise of the capitalist nation state, and the imminent demise of these structures as globalised markets await a globalised juridical and administrative system.
It is a book intended to capture the imagination of the progressive intelligentsia. It is seductive and teasing. You can spot initiates by those who slip the word "aporia" into their communications. But that is not to say it is without solid content.
My barbed comments on an adjacent thread were not intended primarily for Carrol, but the book is an invitation to the reader to do some active thinking for themselves. If one is still in a marxist mode that regards "State and Revolution" as the height of orthodoxy, and is ready to smite all opportunists who suggest that revolution may not come only through the violent seizure of power within each separate state, all study of Empire, no matter how diligent, will be meaningless.
It does however have a very good index.
The book deals quietly but carefully with Lenin's important arguments against super (ultra) imperialism, Kautsky and Hilferding. Pages 229 - 234.
I would invite Carrol, and others to address these comments at their strongest not at their weakest, and to say what the problems with them are. If capitalism has so interpenetrated that it has gone beyond the nation state, then marxists should start orientating their strategy and tactics to that fact. That involves active not passive involvement of anyone who is serious.
Chris Burford
London