Plot

James Lindsay explores Lenin's writings, particularly focusing on the concept of the state withering away under communism, and discusses how Lenin's ideas influence modern political movements.

In this installment of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay dives into Lenin's work "The State and Revolution," analyzing the ideological foundations behind Lenin's concept of the state gradually "withering away" as society transitions from socialism to communism. Lindsay discusses how Lenin differentiates between the proletarian state and the capitalist state, ultimately aiming for a society where the state is no longer necessary due to the elimination of class antagonisms. He draws connections between these historical ideas and contemporary political strategies, particularly how certain modern movements employ similar tactics under the guise of promoting equality and justice. Lindsay emphasizes the dangers of these ideologies, highlighting the paradoxes and potential for authoritarianism inherent in Leninist thought.—J. Spurlin

James Lindsay begins the podcast by introducing the topic of Vladimir Lenin, whom he describes as one of the most famous communists of all time. Lindsay explains that Lenin led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 and significantly influenced the direction of communism in the 20th century, almost as much as Karl Marx did. He suggests that many of the ideas seen in today's woke movement are derived from Lenin's theories.

Lindsay acknowledges that many people might find it surprising to link Lenin and Joseph Stalin to the modern woke movement, as these figures are often considered distant from contemporary social justice issues. He notes that supporters of the woke movement might ridicule the comparison, dismissing it as irrelevant to their "kindly, gentle socialism." However, Lindsay insists that there is a direct connection between the woke ideology and the early programs implemented by Lenin and Stalin in the Soviet Union.

He explains that between 1921 and 1923, Lenin and Stalin developed a program that closely resembles what is now known as DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). The Russian terms they used translate directly to "diversity," "actual equality" (which corresponds to equity), and "indigenization" (which aligns with inclusion). Lindsay highlights the striking similarities between these early Soviet programs and today's DEI initiatives, emphasizing how they both aim to achieve not only economic equality but also social and cultural equality for all, including ethnic and racial minorities.

Lindsay continues by drawing a parallel between the early Soviet Union's goal of overcoming "Great Russian chauvinism" and the modern concept of combating white supremacy within Critical Race Theory (CRT). He notes that Lenin and Stalin viewed this program as the second most important initiative for the development of the Soviet Union. Lindsay hints that he will discuss Lenin frequently in future episodes.

He briefly shifts topics to address those following his ongoing series on "The Future of Mankind" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom he describes as a religious philosopher for the modern left. Lindsay mentions that while the first chapter of this book was particularly dense and interesting, the subsequent chapters are less so. Therefore, he plans to summarize key points from several chapters at once rather than going through them individually. However, for now, he will focus on Lenin.

Lindsay begins his exploration of Lenin's work by discussing a pamphlet Lenin wrote in 1917, titled "The State and Revolution." This pamphlet was composed during a period when Lenin was out of power, following the February Revolution in Russia. Although referred to as a pamphlet, it is 88 pages long, organized into six chapters, with a seventh chapter that was never completed. Lindsay notes that the pamphlet provides a critical insight into Lenin's thoughts on democracy, which are foundational to the modern woke movement's understanding of the term.

Lindsay acknowledges that Marxists often engage in debates about the proper approach to socialism, with various factions arguing over the correct interpretation. He explains that Lenin's work must be understood in the context of these ongoing disputes, but he chooses to focus on the key points rather than getting bogged down in the complex history. Lindsay then introduces Chapter 5 of Lenin's "The State and Revolution," which deals with the economic basis for the withering away of the state. This paradox-how the state is supposed to strengthen in order to eventually disappear-forms the core of Lenin's argument in this chapter.

Lindsay continues by explaining the central question in Lenin's "The State and Revolution," which is the role of the state during and after a revolution. He discusses how the Bolsheviks, following Marx's ideas, sought to transition from a feudal or capitalist society to a socialist one through violent revolution. Lindsay highlights how Lenin distinguishes between a "bourgeois state" and a "proletarian state," a typical Marxist approach to redefining concepts to fit their ideology.

Lindsay describes how, in Lenin's view, the state is both a product of society and a guarantor of that society's existing structure, particularly its class antagonisms. The state, therefore, prevents these class conflicts from erupting into revolution. Lenin argues that the state embodies the class struggles within society and maintains the status quo, whether it be a feudal, capitalist, or other system. Lindsay explains that for Marxists, the state's primary function is to prevent the revolution that would lead to the next stage in historical development, such as from capitalism to socialism.

Lindsay further elaborates on the Marxist perspective, where a feudal state is designed to prevent the rise of capitalism, just as a capitalist state is meant to prevent the emergence of socialism. He notes that Marxists, including Lenin, believe that the existence of a capitalist state, such as the current United States government, serves to stop a socialist revolution from occurring. This perspective views the state as inherently oppressive, structured to maintain the power of the ruling class and suppress any transformative change that would threaten the existing social order.

Lindsay delves deeper into Lenin's ideas about the state and its role after a socialist revolution. He explains that, for Lenin, the proletarian state is composed of individuals who possess an "awakened socialist consciousness," meaning they have no desire to maintain class antagonisms and instead seek to eliminate them entirely. Lindsay highlights that this leads to the concept of the "economic basis of the withering away of the state," a central theme in Lenin's work. According to Lenin, after the Bolshevik Vanguard Party takes over, smashes the existing government, and seizes the means of production, a new state will emerge. However, Lenin argues that this new state is not a "true state" but rather a "semi-state" because it is guided by proletarian ideology aimed at eventually ending the state and class altogether.

Lindsay critiques the inherent contradictions in Lenin's theory, pointing out that despite the claim that the state will wither away, in practice, this concept has never materialized. Instead, it leads to more theoretical discussions and justifications for further purges and totalitarian control. Lindsay connects this with Marx's famous assertion that the state would naturally wither away in a socialist society, giving rise to a transcendent form of communism where humanity can return to its "true social nature."

Lindsay explains that Lenin's strategy borrows heavily from the failed Paris Commune, which Marx and Engels regarded as the best attempt at communism up to that time. Lenin envisioned a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that would operate as a totalitarian state to build socialism, transform society, and push people to adopt socialist values. However, Lindsay questions how such a totalitarian entity could ever wither away, referencing Stalin's later claim that the state would wither at the zenith of its power. This, according to Lindsay, would only occur after everyone had been completely transformed or brainwashed-though, in practice, it led to more purges of those deemed non-compliant.

Lindsay shifts to discuss the stakeholder capitalism model, which he argues is not true capitalism but rather a form of "sovietism" where stakeholders replace shareholders. He explains that in Russia, a "Soviet" refers to a council with the power to decide what the people or workers need, drawing a parallel to the current use of the term "stakeholder." Lindsay attributes this concept to Henry Kissinger and Klaus Schwab, suggesting that it was developed in the late 1960s. He also points out that Schwab has a bust of Lenin on his bookshelf, indicating a connection to Leninist ideas.

Lindsay connects the modern "Great Reset" movement to Lenin's vanguard concept, stating that today's revolutionaries are the stakeholders, which he equates to a Soviet-like structure. He then refers back to Lenin's work, highlighting how Lenin addresses the concept of the withering away of the state. Lindsay explains that Lenin elaborates on Marx's ideas about this topic, particularly in the context of Lenin's critique of the Gotha Program, an incrementalist socialist initiative that Marx criticized for being too moderate.

Lindsay elaborates on the Gotha Program, explaining that it was an incrementalist, moderate approach to socialism that Marx criticized for being too soft. He mentions two key figures involved in the program, August Bebel and Ferdinand Lassalle, both prominent socialists in Germany. Lindsay emphasizes that Marx's critique of the Gotha Program provides the most comprehensive description Marx ever gave of the concept of the withering away of the state during the development of communism.

Lindsay mentions that he has previously discussed the critique of the Gotha Program in his "degrowth" podcast, where he compared green growth or the Green New Deal to the Gotha Program as a "dirty half measure." He explains that just as Marx critiqued the Gotha Program, some modern Marxists critique green capitalism, advocating instead for "degrowth communism" as a purer, more radical alternative.

Lindsay reads from Lenin's discussion of the Gotha Program, noting that while much of it is polemical, criticizing what he calls "Lassalleanism," it also contains significant analysis on the connection between the development of communism and the withering away of the state. He emphasizes that Lenin's text provides insight into how communism is supposed to evolve, a theme he recently explored in a workshop he conducted in Dallas, Texas, which he describes as a great success with high energy and strong participation.

Lindsay continues by characterizing Marxism, particularly Leninism and Stalinism, as the second iteration of communism, which he refers to as "Communism 2.0." He describes this phase as "industrial communism" or "state communism," distinguishing it from Marx's more theoretical "Communism 1.0," which focused on building workers' movements and evangelizing among the working class. Lindsay contrasts this with what he calls "Communism 3.0," which has moved away from the industrial model and into a more corporate structure. He mentions that this evolution into "Communism 3.0" will be discussed in a future podcast.

Lindsay then begins analyzing Lenin's text on the withering away of the state, highlighting how Lenin sets the stage by superficially comparing Marx's and Engels's positions. Lenin argues that Marx might appear more supportive of the state than Engels, based on a superficial comparison of their writings. Lindsay notes that Lenin refutes this idea, explaining that both Marx and Engels were aligned on the issue, and that the distinction between their views is only apparent, not real.

Lindsay delves into the "word trick" that Lenin uses to differentiate between the types of states. He explains that, according to Lenin, the capitalist state must be abolished, while the proletarian state, which will seize the means of production, is intended to wither away because it doesn't maintain class antagonisms. Lindsay points out that Lenin argues this resolves the apparent contradiction between Marx and Engels regarding the state's role under communism.

Lindsay quotes Lenin, who states that there can be no question of specifying the moment when the withering away of the state will occur, comparing it to the biblical idea that "no man knows the date or the hour." Lindsay explains that Lenin views the withering away as a lengthy process, not something that can be precisely timed. He also notes that the perceived difference between Marx and Engels arises from their focus on different subjects, with Engels aiming to debunk misconceptions about the state, while Marx was more concerned with the development of communist society.

Lindsay pauses to express appreciation for Lenin's clarity, contrasting it with the often convoluted writing of other Marxist thinkers like Marx himself, Paulo Freire, and Herbert Marcuse. He suggests that Lenin's straightforwardness might stem from the differences between Russian materialism and German idealism. Lindsay argues that Marx was an idealist who channeled his ideas through materialism, a perspective that is often misunderstood.

Lindsay discusses the clarity of Lenin's writing compared to other Marxist thinkers. He argues that Lenin, unlike figures such as Marx, Paulo Freire, and Herbert Marcuse, did not obscure his intentions. Lindsay suggests that Lenin's straightforwardness, possibly due to his role as a Bolshevik leader, stands in contrast to the deliberately vague and complex language used by later Marxists, who, Lindsay believes, learned that being too clear made them vulnerable to criticism.

Lindsay criticizes the writing of other Marxists, such as George Lukács and Max Horkheimer, for being difficult and unclear, contrasting them with Lenin's more direct style. He mentions that while Lenin was quick and to the point, figures like Marcuse often used vague language to obscure their true intentions. Lindsay reflects on how reading Lenin is somewhat refreshing because of his clear communication, attributing this clarity to either a lack of pressure to hide his intentions or simply a different strategic approach compared to Western Marxists.

Lindsay quotes Lenin, who asserts that Marx's theory is essentially the application of the theory of development to modern capitalism. Lindsay interprets this as a theory of development encompassing society, man, and nature, all of which Marxists believe must be transformed according to their worldview. He explains that this theory of development is, in essence, a form of transformational religion, which Lindsay terms "theosophical" or "social hermeticism." He argues that Marx, despite his materialistic focus, was an idealist with a vision of an ideal society, man, and nature in perfect harmony.

Lindsay continues by explaining that Marx's theory, as understood by Lenin, aimed to apply this transformative vision to the collapse of capitalism and the future development of communism. He notes that Lenin wrote under duress, leading to some repetitive phrases, such as "future development of future communism." Despite these quirks, Lindsay acknowledges that Lenin's writing still provides insight into the Marxist approach to development and transformation, which Lindsay likens to a form of political or social hermeticism.

Lindsay continues to explore Lenin's interpretation of Marx, particularly focusing on the idea that communism arises naturally from capitalism. He discusses how Lenin and Marx both believed that each society is "pregnant" with the next stage of development, leading to the conclusion that communism is inevitable. Lindsay critiques this as a utopian idea, pointing out that only those deeply embedded in Marxist ideology would believe in a stateless, classless society where everyone has unlimited resources.

Lindsay argues that Marx did engage in speculative guesswork about things that cannot be known, contrary to what Marxists claim. He references Marx's "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts" to illustrate this, particularly the concept of an infinite regress in the creation of man. Lindsay highlights how Marx ultimately dismisses the question of humanity's origins by urging readers to abandon the question altogether, which he sees as an evasion rather than a scientific approach.

Lindsay criticizes Marx's claim to have developed a universal science that explains the progression of history toward a predetermined endpoint -- communism. He explains that for Marx, history ends in communism, and the task of communists is to hasten this inevitable outcome. Lindsay describes this as an attempt to "speed up the eschaton," a term he uses to describe the Marxist drive to bring about a utopian end state sooner.

Lindsay notes that Lenin fully embraced Marx's deterministic view of history, comparing the development of communism to the evolution of a new biological variety. He remarks that this analogy is central to Lenin's argument, which he then ties to the ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who similarly viewed evolution as leading toward greater consciousness. Lindsay identifies this as an inherently religious perspective, noting that both Marx and Lenin believed humanity was evolving toward a higher, socialist consciousness.

Lindsay then returns to Lenin's critique of the Gotha Program, pointing out how Lenin admired Marx's ability to cut through the confusion that the program introduced regarding the relationship between the state and society. Lindsay quotes a passage from Marx that he finds particularly convoluted, contrasting it with Lenin's clearer writing. He observes that Marx's description of the state as a fiction that changes based on a country's development is strikingly similar to postmodern thought, though it is rooted in Marxist theory.

Lindsay highlights Marx's idea that, despite their differences, all modern states share the characteristic of being based on capitalist society. He explains that Marx saw these states as temporary structures that would eventually be replaced by a communist society where the state would wither away. Lindsay points out that Marx viewed the state as inherently tied to its economic base, meaning that as capitalism dies, so too will the state in its current form.

Lindsay explains how Lenin addresses the transition from capitalism to communism, emphasizing that this period is characterized by the "Revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." He notes that this phase is essentially socialism, where the state owns and runs the means of production with the goal of transitioning from capitalism to communism. Lindsay points out that in socialism, the state controls everything and distributes resources according to its own criteria, making it a form of distributism.

Lindsay critiques the idea that communism can ever be fully realized, arguing that it is a fictional ideal akin to a religious vision of heaven. He asserts that socialism, as a transitional phase, either leads to total collapse and destitution, as seen in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, or it provokes a reaction that results in fascism. Lindsay explains that Marx viewed each stage of history as negating the previous one, with communism being the "negation of the negation" following capitalism. However, Lindsay argues that in reality, the negation of socialism often leads to fascism rather than communism.

Lindsay continues by discussing how Marx believed that each historical stage arises from the contradictions of the previous one. He explains that capitalism negates feudalism by allowing individual ownership, and socialism is supposed to negate capitalism. However, in practice, Lindsay argues that socialism often fails, leading instead to the establishment of a totalitarian state that suppresses communism and results in fascism. He criticizes this outcome as a stark departure from the idealized progression envisioned by Marx and Lenin.

Lindsay discusses how attempts to achieve communism often result in fascism instead. He argues that communism, as a religion, inevitably produces fascism, as evidenced by historical examples from the 20th century. Lindsay points out that even in modern China, the economic model adopted after Mao's death reflects a fascist structure rather than true communism. He explains that China's system, known as "one country, two systems," combines a communist government with a National Socialist economic model, which he equates to fascism. According to Lindsay, this shows that the negation of capitalism does not lead to communism but to fascism, which he believes is the true outcome of Marxist attempts to create a utopia.

Lindsay urges Marxists to abandon their "fantastical religion" and recognize that their efforts to create a heaven on earth actually result in the very thing they consider to be hell. He then returns to Lenin's analysis of the state and its role during the transition from capitalism to communism. Lindsay explains that for Lenin, the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, seize political power, and establish a revolutionary dictatorship. However, he notes that Lenin's interpretation shifts, emphasizing that the transition to communism requires a political period in which the state becomes a dictatorship that operates in the name of the proletariat.

Lindsay highlights the distinction between a dictatorship "of the proletariat" and a dictatorship that works in the name of the proletariat. He argues that this model allows for a "Workers Party" that may not actually represent workers, using them as tokens while advancing its own agenda. Lindsay compares this to modern concepts like stakeholder capitalism, which he believes operates similarly, with elites determining what is best for everyone. He suggests that Lenin's revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is analogous to the social credit system in China, where the state dictates behavior under the guise of representing the people.

Lindsay then addresses the relationship between this dictatorship and democracy, noting how communists frequently manipulate the concept of democracy to suit their needs. He quotes Lenin, who highlights the goal of "raising the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" while simultaneously "winning the battle of democracy." Lindsay draws a parallel to the current rhetoric of the Democratic Party in the United States, arguing that the same language is used to justify anti-democratic actions.

Lindsay continues by discussing Lenin's view of democracy within a capitalist society. Lenin argues that while the United States might appear to achieve democracy, it is actually a democracy for the minority, specifically the property-owning classes or the rich. Lindsay explains that Lenin equates this to the freedom seen in ancient Greek republics, where freedom was only for the slave owners. According to Lenin, modern wage slaves are so burdened by poverty and overwork that they cannot engage in politics, effectively barring them from participating in public and political life.

Lindsay acknowledges that Lenin's critique, written in 1917, reflects the conditions of the time, particularly during the era of monopolistic and crony capitalism. Although reforms like those led by Teddy Roosevelt had begun to address these issues in the United States, Lenin's argument hinges on the idea that capitalist exploitation leaves workers too exhausted to engage in democracy. Lenin uses Germany as an example, where the Social Democrats organized a significant portion of the working class into a political party, showing that workers can be mobilized even under a capitalist system.

Lindsay points out that Lenin's party was called the Social Democratic Party, and he highlights that the current leftist media in the West often downplays or misrepresents the true nature of figures like Kamala Harris by labeling them as "Social Democrats" rather than communists. He notes that Lenin viewed Social Democrats as those on the path to communism, challenging the narrative that Social Democrats are somehow less radical or dangerous than communists.

Lindsay quotes Lenin, who describes capitalist democracy as "democracy for an insignificant minority," specifically for the rich. He explains that Lenin criticized the suffrage system, residential qualifications, exclusion of women, and other restrictions as obstacles that prevent true democracy from being realized. Lindsay draws a parallel to the modern Democratic Party, arguing that many of these criticisms still apply today, particularly in how obstacles to democracy disproportionately affect the poor and oppressed classes.

Lindsay discusses how Lenin's critique of capitalist democracy still resonates today. He notes that Lenin argues capitalist democracy is hypocritical because it excludes the poor and marginalized from full participation. Lindsay draws a parallel to modern Democratic rhetoric, where politicians claim that certain groups, like Black people or LGBTQ+ individuals, cannot fully participate in democracy due to systemic barriers. He explains that Lenin viewed capitalist democracy as a tool for the ruling class to maintain control by allowing the oppressed to choose their oppressors, reinforcing the system rather than dismantling it.

Lindsay continues by quoting Lenin, who argues that the development toward communism must proceed through the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin believed that the resistance of capitalist exploiters could only be broken by establishing a dictatorship of the working class, which would suppress the bourgeoisie. Lindsay critiques this idea, pointing out that history shows reforms can be achieved without violent revolution or dictatorship, making Lenin's claim fundamentally flawed.

Lindsay emphasizes that Lenin's vision for the dictatorship of the proletariat was not about running the government efficiently but about suppressing the bourgeoisie. He notes that this concept is evident in modern leftist rhetoric, where the focus is on dismantling the systems of oppression rather than governing effectively. Lindsay finds this similar to recent statements by politicians like Pete Buttigieg, who advocate for a democracy that prioritizes the poor and oppressed while restricting the freedom of those deemed oppressors.

Lindsay critiques Lenin's justification for using violence to achieve freedom and democracy, pointing out the inherent contradiction in the idea of crushing oppressors through force while claiming to promote freedom. He compares this to the modern left's use of the term "radical joy" to describe the excitement of suppressing their class enemies. Lindsay argues that this approach mirrors the Gnostic concept of becoming the demiurge to destroy the existing order, only to assume its role with the promise of eventually withering away once true consciousness is achieved.

Lindsay continues by discussing Lenin's reliance on Engels and Marx for the idea of smashing class enemies through the state. He explains that Lenin's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat was not his own invention but was borrowed from Engels, who stated that the proletariat needs the state not in the interest of freedom, but to hold down its adversaries. Lindsay emphasizes that the goal of this state is to repress and oppress the bourgeois class, cutting their influence out of society entirely. He warns that this approach inevitably leads to destructive outcomes, such as brain drains and societal collapse.

Lindsay draws parallels between Lenin's ideas and current societal trends, highlighting how people today are forced into compliance, such as with vaccine mandates or censorship on social media. He argues that the same Marxist-Leninist principles are at work today, with certain groups being silenced, censored, or excluded from democratic processes because they are labeled as oppressors. Lindsay points out that the transition from capitalism to communism involves a transformation of democracy, where it becomes democracy for the vast majority, excluding those deemed exploiters or oppressors.

Lindsay explains how Lenin envisioned a complete democracy only becoming possible after the total suppression of capitalists and the elimination of class distinctions. He contrasts this with the views of Adam Smith, who believed that democracy and capitalism thrive through the interaction and competition of various societal interests. According to Lenin, only after the destruction of class enemies can true democracy emerge, and only then will the state begin to wither away. Lindsay criticizes this as another example of the flawed Marxist projection, where the proponents of communism accuse others of the very horrors they intend to implement.