The question of State After Lenin not much thought is given to the subject by practitioners of societal change in relations

and confusion reigns, though many relevant new features have taken shape. The institution of state has assumed much more attributes than it had initially and since Lenin studied the subject. It needs a re-appraisal. In his days Lenin characterised the state as an armed instrument of oppression; as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the masses. It must be stressed that the institution of State is an instrument of minority to subdue the majority by dint of its armed strength. State is not neutral either, as is dished by theory and believed by many. The state acts and has ability to act in favour of only the powerful and resourceful minority. In the present era it has assumed the characteristic of an institution to serve capital; help generate and defend it while Industry and trade are its chosen priorities for commoditisation to serve capital. By now the state is impersonalised in its practice. So is capital. Like capital, the state has the intrinsic tendency to centralise and perpetuate itself. One cannot subdue the state, neither the capital; they subdue others to the goal; both have the tendency to convert their one-time masters and subdue them. One-time masters of the state are masters not to convert its basic characteristic to serve capital and commoditisation. Disinherited majority hardly needs the institution of state. They can manage for themselves if left free. To self-manage its own affairs need not be an anarchist idea either. Society was habitual to do it once. It can do it again if conditions are allowed to take shape afresh. After feudatory, the institution of State has taken a different characteristic altogether. It is not dependent for sustenance. It has its own independent and coercive source. State is now a self-perpetuating entity and in fact independent of social sanction. Conversely, it has come to dominate social sanction. It usually has the tools to manipulate things in its favour. Capital-based industry and commerce, in this era of financial oligarchies, have taken over this super-institution and mastered it basically as its instrument, with certain additional functions that look like for the commons. The state is thus inverted to safeguard the interests of this moneyed-minority in means and help it to flourish by maintaining a congenial atmosphere by persuasion and coercion. Presently the added attribute to the concept of state as an instrument of development has given a twist to its basic character. Political forces justify their craze for grabbing state authority on this account. The state does shower privileges to a lot of hangers on. It can dispense largesse to the loyal. But hardly can it create a society of abundance, justice and peace. The system is destined to act otherwise which mass of the people is not likely to realise initially. Recent history of the experiment to build socialism through the organ of state in Soviet Union and companion countries of the camp amply corroborates this lesson. The practice that Soviet Socialist camp developed had given the state a face of doer, which it is not. A facilitator cannot act as doer; if at all the state is made one. A fallacy gained currency that characteristic of the state changes when operator changes: when the operator is a communist the state structure assumes the role of a doer! It is absurdity of first grade with theory of its own make. Still, it got stuck. Another factor worked. The people had hated the pervious state apparatus of repressive regimes most and when the communist leadership advocated the prospect of wielding its reigns, the argument went into their consciousness. They

were simply hilarious and enthusiastic when this leadership explained the gains in terms of state power in hand, as a sure lever to end their misery and strife. They were charmed with the prospect of handling the state power in the interest of common good, as also scoring over their previous oppressors. The level of energy exhibited by the common masses during a considerable period of building and defending socialism was in expectation of the new argument, as reasoned by such a leadership of revolution. The ruse, however resided in the representative claim of the ruling party and the fissure that remained in the foundation so laid down. People could not realise and leadership did not tell that the system to rule has its own dynamics to operate. And against the people themselves ultimately! The question of fighting against social, economic and culture exploitation while defending human dignity and the question of peace were the questions for the people to be seriously concerned about. The socialist revolution brought them this hope of coming closure to realisation. That did not happen. Apart from others, one reason was their ill-conceived faith they nurtured in the state and its structures as something that can bring good to them. They could not realise that it can never. The system was destined to act otherwise. That is the basic weakness of state structure from standpoint of the people. The leaders explained there at the time of revolution that state power in their hands, is a sure instrument to end the misery and strife in society. Masses could naturally be charmed with this prospect of handling the state power in the interest of common good for all honest workmen and their kins. In their honest simplicity the masses start believing that state structure could as well be a lever to liberate them from misery, ignorance and strife. People can hardly realise initially that the state is not endowed with such powers of benevolence. That does not happen. Nonetheless, without distributive justice, equity and peace, development means nothing but perpetuating the system that expropriates labour-power in real terms. Human history testifies this bare truth to the hilt. State does not dispense justice; it is to justify injustice on the ruled majority. Moreover, the way how question of grabbing state power is focused as a central issue of revolution necessarily develops a mindset that sanctifies struggle for power among fellow beings by hook or crook breeding worst type of jealousies, cliques and violence against their own comrades. In such a setting, it was not surprising that Khrushchev combining with some others, ultimately killed or got killed Stalin, in a hurry to grab state power. By now it is highly developed feature universally with no end in sight. Any and every one has now a justification for such behaviour in grabbing power for common good. Deceit, treachery, lies and corruption then find a valuable market with no awkward question to answer. For power, the question of principles is relegated to background in routine when it is posed as a sanctimonious object. This played havoc in Russia while people were busy in raising production for abundance! It is playing havoc in other places too without fail. Curiously, in Hindi the term routinely for politics is rajniti i.e. programming for wielding power! In our context, the theory of check and balances built in the scheme of running different organs of state power are irrelevant, since we are concerned about its basic attributes in relation to its authority to coerce as against the ruled i.e. the people.