What is the purpose of smashing the old state apparatus?
When people mention smashing the old state apparatus (hereinafter referred to as "smashing"), they will think of violent revolution, and even equate the two. In fact, this is a misunderstanding. Because violent revolution is only one aspect of the problem, that is, the method of "smashing". The original meaning of "smashing" and its main purpose is to transform the state apparatus from the master of society into a servant of society, from the master of the masses' fate to a servant serving the masses.
In the introduction to Marx’s The Civil War in France in 1891 , Engels pointed out:
“What was the characteristic of the state in the past? At first, society, by means of a simple division of labor, created for itself special organs for the protection of its common interests. Later, however, these organs, and chief among them the state power, in pursuit of their own special interests, changed from being the servants of society into its masters. This is to be seen not only in hereditary monarchies, for example, but also in democratic republics. ”[ 1] Engels said here:
In human history, the state organs were initially servants serving society, that is, the masses of the people. It was only later, because of the abuse of power for personal gain, that they degenerated into the masters of society, that is, the masters of the fate of the masses. He also regarded this alienation of power as a characteristic of the old state apparatus. In summarizing Engels’s argument, Lenin emphasized: “Engels repeatedly stressed that not only in monarchies, but also in democratic republics, the state remained a state, that is, it retained its basic characteristic: the transformation of public officials, ‘ servants of society ’ , social organs, into the masters of society.”[ 2]
In his works, Marx repeatedly revealed the process by which the old French state machine developed this alienation to the extreme. It was precisely because the old French state machine had completely degenerated into the master of society and was absolutely incapable of serving the masses that Marx concluded that "the working class cannot simply seize the existing state machine and use it to achieve its own goals" but must "smash it up." [ 3] Marx here points out the fundamental reason why the old state machine must be smashed, explaining that the starting point and end point of "smashing" is to transform the state machine from a master of society into a servant of society, so that it can be used to serve the masses and achieve the class goals of the working class.
The Paris Commune attempted to smash the old state machine. [ 4] How did the Commune smash the old state machine and transform it from a master of society into a servant of society? "The first decree of the Commune was to abolish the standing army and replace it with an armed people." [ 5] The two main components of the state machine are the armed forces and the administrative forces. In terms of the armed forces, the Commune smashed the old state machine by abolishing the standing army and replacing it with the people's militia, because the Commune saw that the standing army had always been an armed force that served the minority of exploiters and oppressed the people. When talking about this change in the Commune, Lenin pointed out that "the organ of repression is now the majority of the population, and not the minority of the population as in the past under slavery, serfdom and wage slavery." It is "the people, the majority, who suppress their oppressors themselves" and "the workers and peasants, with their common strength, suppress the oppressors." [ 6] In this way, the armed forces, as the state machine, were transformed from masters of society into servants of society serving the people themselves.
In terms of the administrative team, that is, the bureaucracy, the Commune smashed the old state machine by abolishing the privileged officials who served the exploiting class and replacing them with a "working class government". "The Commune was composed of city representatives elected by universal suffrage in the various districts of Paris", "most of whom were naturally workers, or representatives of recognized working class teams", and "the resolutions it passed were completely proletarian in nature". [ 7] Since the participants of the Commune were real workers and representatives of the working class, this administrative team was able to serve the masses and was a true public servant. However, due to its different system from the armed forces of the Commune, the latter was composed of the entire masses of the people except the exploiters. At all times, it was the masses serving themselves, while the former was a small number of people selected from the masses. They could serve the masses at present, but what about in the future? Would they, as had happened in human history, after a period of time, for their own selfish interests, alienate themselves from public servants to masters of society? The Commune noticed this problem and took preventive measures that were effective at the time. "In order to prevent the state and its organs from changing from servants of society to masters of society - a phenomenon which has been inevitable in all countries to date - the Commune adopted two correct measures. First, it gave all posts in administration, justice and national education to persons elected by universal suffrage, and provided that the electors could at any time remove the elected persons. Second, it paid all public officials, regardless of their position, the same wages as other workers. The highest salary ever paid by the Commune was 6,000 francs. In this way, even if the Commune had not separately provided for the representatives of the various representative bodies with limited powers of attorney, it would have been a reliable deterrent to the pursuit of officialdom and wealth."[ 8] The experience of the Commune shows that smashing the old state machine and changing the management team of the state machine from masters of society to servants of society is not something that can be accomplished once and for all through a single change. As long as this team is composed of a small number of elected people, it is necessary to prevent them from abusing their power for personal gain. To this end, effective measures must be taken and a sound system must be established to prevent the alienation of power.
The Paris Commune made the first attempt in human history to smash the old state machine. This was a great initiative and the experience was very valuable, but the model of the Commune was not unchangeable. In terms of the armed forces, the practice of replacing the standing army with militia when the Commune smashed the old state machine was changed shortly after the October Revolution. This was because it could not meet the needs of resisting imperialist armed intervention. It was understandable that Marx and Engels affirmed the above practice of the Paris Commune in the 1870s, because they envisioned that the future proletarian socialist revolution would be victorious in several major capitalist countries at the same time. After the victory of the revolution, the proletariat did not need to consider foreign invasion and could completely rely on the militia to complete various tasks. Moreover, the abolition of the standing army could greatly reduce the burden on taxpayers. Since Marx and Engels affirmed the experience of the Paris Commune, workers' parties in various countries have written into their programs the requirement to replace the standing army with militia. Since the Second Congress of the Russian Party in 1903 , it has been stipulated in its program that "the standing army should be replaced by the armed forces of the whole people."[ 9]
In 1916 , based on the law of uneven development of capitalism in various countries in the era of imperialism, Lenin made the scientific conclusion that socialism might first triumph in one country. At the same time, Lenin also believed that the bourgeoisie of other countries would inevitably launch a war against the victorious proletariat. But at that time, Lenin could not have considered in detail the difficulties faced by the victorious proletariat in resisting foreign armed intervention. On the eve of the October Revolution, when Lenin wrote the book "The State and Revolution" to systematically expound the Marxist theory of the state, he focused on the current task facing the proletariat, that is, the proletariat must smash the old state machine through violent revolution. When the victory of the revolution was still to be won, Lenin could not have considered the issue of foreign armed intervention that would only arise after the victory of the revolution. Therefore, in his book State and Revolution, Lenin still affirmed the Commune’s practice of replacing the standing army with militia, and even criticized the Russian Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks for refusing to implement the above requirements in their own program after the February Revolution of 1917. [ 10 ]
Shortly after the October Revolution, the Soviet regime not only encountered rebellions from various domestic counter-revolutionary forces, but also encountered attacks from foreign imperialist armies armed to the teeth. The militia (the workers’ Red Guards) who were not separated from their jobs had neither undergone rigorous military training nor were they able to conduct mobile warfare, and were completely unable to perform the mission of a regular army. Faced with life and death, the Russian Party was forced to change its past stance in early 1918 and establish a regular Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army. In March 1919 , the Eighth Party Congress included the reform of the armed forces system in the new program and revised the relevant provisions in the program of the Second Congress in 1903 (“replacing the standing army with the whole people’s armed forces”). The new program stated that the establishment of a militia force was not an immediate goal, but a future task. "Our active army, that is, the standing army or the army ready for war at any time", "is a class army, not a militia army, in terms of its social composition, and is 'standing' and 'regular' in terms of its organization and training methods." [ 11]
It was inevitable for Lenin and the Party to change their previous ideas in the system of the armed forces and establish a regular army of the proletariat shortly after the October Revolution and at the beginning of foreign armed intervention. Faced with the severe situation at that time, no sober revolutionary could ignore the safety of the young republic and stick to the programmatic requirements formulated under different historical conditions and the model of the Paris Commune. However, the armed system of the Commune state can change, but the main purpose of the Commune to smash the old state machine cannot change. The Commune replaced the standing army with the People's Militia in order to transform the armed forces as the state machine from the masters of society to the servants of society. This was also the purpose pursued by Lenin and the Party when they re-established the regular army. However, it was simple and easy for the Commune to achieve this goal, because the People's Militia was composed of all the working people, "the people, the majority, suppressing their oppressors themselves", which in itself was the working people serving themselves, and the armed forces as the state machine were indeed the servants of society. The situation of the Soviet Workers' and Peasants' Red Army was different. As a regular army, the Red Army could not be composed of all the working people, but only of a part of them. Moreover, the young Red Army, due to its lack of combat experience, had to use bourgeois military experts.
Therefore, how to ensure that this army absolutely serves all working people and prevent this part of the state machine from changing from a public servant to a social master has become a matter of course. Lenin and the Party attached great importance to this issue from the very beginning. In the new program adopted by the Eighth Party Congress, the system of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army as a standing army was determined, and at the same time, an organizational guarantee was provided for this army to adhere to the correct political direction. The new program stated: The Red Army is a tool of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it must be composed entirely of the proletariat and the semi-proletarian peasant stratum close to the proletariat; reliable and selfless Communist Party members must be selected as political commissars to work with the army leaders; Communist Party branches must be established in each unit; the most capable and perseverant soldiers who are loyal to the cause of socialism must be trained as commanders; military experts who were trained in the old army in the past must be widely recruited to participate in the work of organizing the army and guiding the army's operations, and the political leadership of the army and the comprehensive supervision of the commanders must be concentrated in the hands of the working class , and so on. [ 12] Soviet Russia’s practice shows that the model of the Paris Commune in smashing the old state machine can be changed, but the main purpose of the Commune in smashing the old state machine cannot be changed. In terms of the armed forces system, whether it is a militia system or a standing army system, we must make every effort to ensure that the armed forces serve the people wholeheartedly and prevent them from changing from being public servants to being masters of society.
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, our country has generally smashed the old state apparatus, but this project cannot be solved once and for all through a single reform. Although our country has been taking measures to combat corruption and prevent degeneration for many years, power can be alienated as long as a certain amount of power is held without external supervision or supervision is inadequate. In particular, the corruption that has emerged in the process of institutional transformation since the reform and opening up has reached a point where it is difficult to solve it by continuing to use the current governance methods because it involves a large number of people . [ 13] In some places and departments, public officials have violated laws and disciplines and even committed crimes in order to pursue "their own special interests", which is shocking. All this shows that the struggle against the alienation of state power will continue for a long time, and the idea of "smashing" proposed by the proletarian revolutionary mentor will never be outdated.
Notes :
[ 1] Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2 , 2nd edition , pp . 334-335 .
[ 2] The Collected Works of Lenin, vol. 31 , p. 74 , 2nd edition .
[ 3] Selected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2 , p. 372 , vol . 4 , p . 392 .
[ 4] See ibid., Vol. 4 , p. 392 ; The Collected Works of Lenin, 2nd Chinese edition , Vol . 31 , p. 53 .
[ 5] Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol . 2 , 2nd edition, p. 374 .
[ 6] See the Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 31 , pp. 40-41 , 2nd edition.
[ 7] Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol . 2 , 2nd edition, pp. 378 , 375 , 330 .
[ 8] See ibid., p. 335 .
[ 9] Collection of Resolutions of the CPSU, Volume 1, p . 38 .
[ 10] See the Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 31 , p. 39 , 2nd edition .
[ 11] See Collection of Resolutions of the CPSU, Volume 1, pp. 536 , 551 , 553 , 555 .
[ 12] See ibid., pp . 536-537 .
[ 13] See Yu Jintao’s article in Oriental Outlook Weekly, No. 23 , 2004 .
(Published in the 2005 issue 1 of the Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin Studies . An abridged version of this article was published in the Central Party School’s Study Times, issue 524 , February 22 , 2010 )
.jpg)
No comments