Introduction by Alan Woods¶
Core Argument¶
In the introduction to this volume, Alan Woods establishes the state as a foundational question for Marxism, one whose true nature is deliberately obscured by the ruling class and taken for granted by most workers. Drawing on Engels and Lenin, Woods argues that every state is an instrument of class oppression, rooted in the relations of production rather than the personal qualities of its officials. It is a centralised, hierarchical, and bureaucratic apparatus, mystified through ceremony and cults of personality, that arises from irreconcilable class antagonisms and, while appearing to stand above society, in fact serves the ruling class. Lenin’s definition of the state as “groups of armed men” — an organ of repression — is central to this analysis.
Woods sharply critiques reformist conceptions of the state as an impartial arbiter, insisting that bourgeois democracy is merely the dictatorship of big business, concealed by formal freedoms. The reformist bureaucracy, he argues, acts as a brake on workers’ movements, protecting its own material interests. The British monarchy, far from a harmless anachronism, is a reserve weapon of reaction, possessing powers to suspend parliament and rule through the Privy Council, as demonstrated by the 2019 prorogation. Bagehot’s analysis confirms the monarchy’s function as a disguise, keeping the “ignorant masses” content while real power remains with the ruling class.
Marx’s concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, based on the Paris Commune of 1871, is presented as workers’ democracy, not totalitarianism. The Commune demonstrated the masses’ courage and creativity but was defeated by a lack of bold leadership and a clear programme, allowing the counter-revolution to massacre over 30,000 people. Woods contrasts the Marxist position with that of the anarchists, who correctly identify the state as an oppressive instrument but fail on the question of what replaces it. The Spanish Revolution of 1936 is cited as proof of anarchist theory’s practical failure, where anarchist workers controlled Barcelona but refused to form a workers’ government, allowing the bourgeoisie, with Stalinist aid, to reconstitute the old state and crush the revolution. Trotsky dismissed anarchist theories of the state as “an umbrella full of holes.”
Marx argued that the working class must smash the existing bourgeois state machinery and establish its own “semi-state,” more democratic than any bourgeois republic. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 created such a state, based on soviets, with elected officials subject to recall and no official receiving more than a skilled worker’s wage. This workers’ democracy degenerated under Stalin due to Russia’s backwardness and isolation, producing a bureaucratic totalitarian regime that was the enemy of Bolshevism, not its product. The only solution to the current crisis, Woods concludes, is socialist transformation through a workers’ government that nationalises banks and monopolies under democratic control, confronting inevitable ruling-class resistance. The central international task for Marxists is building a revolutionary tendency with a base among workers and youth, requiring revolutionary theory. The revolutionary party serves as the working class’s memory, with a duty to transmit the traditions and works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, among whom State and Revolution remains as relevant as when first written a century ago.