http://bot.devops.indosystem.com/map30.php Login via Institution. State and Revolution in Finland. Author: Risto Alapuro. By analysing the experience of Finland, Risto Alapuro shows how upheavals in powerful countries shape the internal politics of smaller countries.
This linkage, a highly topical subject in the twenty-first century world, is concretely studied by putting the abortive Finnish revolution of into a long historical and a broad comparative perspective. In the former respect the revolution appears as a tragic culmination in the unfolding of a small European state. In the latter respect it appears as one of those crises that new states experienced when they emerged from the turmoils of the First World War.
This second edition inlcudes a new Postscript.
More Options Prices excl. Add to Cart. View PDF Flyer. Contents About. Pages: 1— Pages: 19— It is an area shrouded in mystery. Even the way they communicate is difficult to understand as one of their top jobs is to conceal from us what really is going on.
Of course, even the slippery ways of the executive do not always work. And that is when the doors of the cellar can be opened and the repressive forces of the state let out onto the street. Lenin makes clear that for most of the time the system does not need to rely big time on the heavy handed use of force.
It is dangerous for them.
One effect of relying too overtly on the repressive state apparatus doing is to rip the democratic mask from the face of the ruling class and its institutions. In fact the American Marxist, Hal Draper, presses the allusion further.
Sometimes Caliban does not do as he is told but can be brought to heel if needs must. And talk of this this leads me to the issue of territory. A point not always brought out by those summarising State and Revolution is that the state, unlike in pre-class societies, defines a physical space which has been carved out of conflict. The state not only protects the ruling class from internal threats but external ones too.
Drawing on Engels, Lenin points out that as capitalism is a system of geo-political rivalry, the armed forces can be used to defend, expand, or destroy territory and those living in it. During the 19 th century military expenditure expanded massively. Today spending on the military is so great it could feed the world many times over. This helps the state to appear as though it stands above society ensuring order in all aspects of life at home and abroad and can therefore seem neutral in class terms. This leads some who should know better, argues Lenin, to claim that the existing state can be used to usher in socialism.
Firstly, the traditional separation of the making of rules and carrying them out were now done by the same people. Subversion by an unaccountable bureaucracy could be prevented at a stroke. Finally, the Commune ensured that the special bodies of armed men were replaced by the armed people. This point is worth elaborating as it seems so distant from our experience. The idea here is that we should oversee ourselves.
Of course, there would still be classes in existence and the new state is shaped by this. And here the language Lenin uses often shocks people. But words change their meaning.
If we really want to find out if Lenin was the psychopath of popular myth maybe we should look at what happens to words over time. Language changes like everything else. This was the constitutional right of the legally formed republic, in times of emergency, to delegate some. Secondly, then, the meaning is tied to the idea of the delegation of power which was temporary-6 months maximum- and it was limited to military decisions and suspension of laws but not the creation of new ones. The state form is temporary, and having completed its work, it withers away.
Why Lenin asks? Because the state is the product of irreconcilable class antagonism and the class basis for the state has disappeared. After a revolution decisive action needs to be taken. Lenin makes this point. But what modern commentators do is suggest that this is unlike anything that has ever happened before in the UK.
Later in , in another important text, Leftwing Communism: an infantile disorder , Lenin argues decisively NO, especially in the context of an important debate with some British ultra-lefts who wanted to boycott the Labour Party.
Organising to defend the NHS or pensions, or campaigning to put a left-wing leader into office can build political relationships that allow for a deeper understanding of the state and its nature. The ruling ideas about the state can be challenged in struggle and those who previously thought the state could be used, can be won to a different perspective.
The modern state stands in the way of progressive and fundamental change and needs to be replaced. It is just as relevant a hundred years after its publication.
Book now. He is a leading thinker and writer on socialist strategy, race in the United States and politics in Africa as well as an internationally recognised expert on Marx. Lucia Pradella is an activist and writer who has written two acclaimed books on Marx's Capital. Paul Le Blanc is a world renowned writer on revolutionary history and the Russian revolution in particular.