Reformism or Revolution 11 The state and revolution

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument¶

This article argues that the question of the state is the central question of any revolution, and that the theory of "21st Century Socialism" advanced by Heinz Dieterich fundamentally misunderstands the Marxist theory of the state. The central thesis is that Dieterich's project is not a revolutionary socialist programme at all, but a form of bourgeois reformism that seeks to retain the capitalist state while attempting to render it harmless — an impossibility. Woods contends that Dieterich's advocacy of "participative democracy" within the existing state framework, his opposition to expropriation of the bourgeoisie, and his insistence on moderating revolutionary measures for fear of provoking counter-revolution, amount to a programme of surrender dressed in revolutionary rhetoric. The article claims that the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, and revolutionary movements across Latin America, face a stark choice: either the working class takes state power, smashes the old state apparatus, and expropriates the ruling class, or the counter-revolution will eventually triumph. The article is a polemical defence of the classical Marxist position that the working class cannot simply take over the existing state machinery and wield it for its own purposes, but must destroy it and replace it with a workers' state — a "semi-state" destined to wither away.

Theoretical Grounding¶

The analysis is grounded in the classical Marxist theory of the state as developed by Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Woods draws directly on Engels' Anti-Dühring and Lenin's State and Revolution, citing the key formulation that the state is a "special repressive force" arising from class antagonisms, and that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery. The article situates itself firmly within the revolutionary Marxist tradition that rejects both reformism and anarchism. It draws on the experience of the Paris Commune as interpreted by Marx and Engels, and on the lessons of the Russian Revolution of 1917, particularly the role of the Bolshevik Party in winning over the majority of workers and soldiers before the insurrection. The article also deploys the Marxist concept of Bonapartism — the phenomenon where the state acquires a degree of independence when class forces reach an unstable equilibrium — though this concept is mentioned rather than developed. The theoretical framework is explicitly anti-revisionist: Woods argues that Dieterich's positions represent a regression to pre-Marxian utopian socialism, specifically to the ideas of Proudhon, Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, and that this is "entirely reactionary" given the theoretical advances of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.

Conjunctural Relevance¶

The article is written in 2008, at a specific conjuncture in the Bolivarian Revolution. Woods references key events: the April 2002 coup against Hugo Chávez, defeated by a mass uprising; the bosses' lockout of 2002-03, defeated by workers occupying factories and oil installations; the recall referendum of 2004; and the December 2006 presidential election won by Chávez with an overwhelming majority. The article also discusses the situation in Bolivia, referencing the mass insurrections of 2005, the election of Evo Morales, and the subsequent counter-revolutionary mobilisations around the demand for "autonomy" in the eastern departments. Woods notes the December 2007 defeat of the constitutional referendum in Venezuela, interpreting it not as a sign that the revolution had gone too far, but as a protest against the slow pace of change. The article situates these events within a broader Latin American leftward shift, mentioning movements in Ecuador and Peru, and the 2006 electoral fraud in Mexico against López Obrador. Geopolitically, the article argues that US imperialism has shifted from supporting military dictatorships to supporting formal democracy where possible, but will revert to supporting open dictatorship if working-class movements fundamentally threaten capitalist rule. The conjuncture is one of revolutionary opportunity but also of danger: the masses are moving leftwards, but lack revolutionary leadership, and reformist elements within the Bolivarian movement threaten to demobilise and demoralise them.

Where the Argument Continues¶

This article is the eleventh in a series titled "Reformism or Revolution," indicating that the argument is part of a sustained polemic. The preceding article (number 10) deals with nationalism or internationalism, and the following article (number 12) addresses the Venezuelan Revolution directly. The argument about the state and revolution is developed in other IDOM articles on Venezuela, Bolivia, and the broader Latin American situation. The article references Lenin's State and Revolution as the key text for understanding the Marxist theory of the state, and Engels' Anti-Dühring for the concept of the state "withering away." The polemic against Dieterich is part of a broader IDOM critique of "21st Century Socialism" as a reformist project. The article's argument about the necessity of a revolutionary party — which it notes is absent in Bolivia — points towards IDOM's political project of building revolutionary Marxist parties in Latin America. The critique of "local minipower" and the Zapatistas connects to IDOM's ongoing polemic against anarchist and autonomist currents in the Latin American left.

Connections¶

Lenin, State and Revolution: The foundational text for the Marxist theory of the state, cited extensively.
Engels, Anti-Dühring: Source of the classic formulation on the state withering away.
Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto: For the definition of the executive of the modern state as a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie.
Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: Referenced by Dieterich, and the theoretical source for the concept of Bonapartism.
Trotsky's writings on Bonapartism and the state: Implicitly present in the analysis of the state's relative independence.
Heinz Dieterich, El Socialismo del Siglo XXI and Hugo Chávez y el socialismo del siglo XXI**: The primary targets of the polemic.
Other IDOM articles on Venezuela and Bolivia: For the concrete application of the theoretical argument.
The experience of the Paris Commune: The historical model for the workers' state as a "semi-state."

Key Quotes¶

"Marx, Engels and Lenin explained many times that every state is an instrument of repression. How is it possible to retain the state, which by definition is an instrument of repression, and remove its repressive features? Only somebody completely ignorant of the ABCs of Marxism could suggest such a thing."
"The working class must include in its revolutionary programme the tasks that were left undone by the bourgeoisie. This includes not only a revolutionary solution to the land problem and national independence, but also a democratic constitution."
"The real lesson of Chile is this: that it is impossible to pacify the counter-revolution with beautiful speeches about democracy. It is necessary to disarm the counter-revolution and force it to submit to the will of the majority. It is not possible to make half a revolution."
"If one buys a television set one can demand a guarantee and they will give you a very nice one, valid for twelve months, parts and labour included. Unfortunately, in war there can be no such guarantee, and the outcome of every battle is determined by the struggle itself."
"The working class is interested in democracy because it requires the broadest and freest camp of action upon which to develop the class struggle and fight for socialism. What is 'ethically desirable' does not come into it."
"The question that must be asked is this: is it possible to achieve socialism (whether of the 21st or any other century) as long as the land, the banks and the key industries remain in the hands of the landowners, bankers and capitalists? Comrade Dieterich says that it is. But he immediately contradicts himself."