I was not impressed much by the ideas professed or explained in this classic work. Lenin's writing promotes his own intellectual elitism, how only he can understand Marx, and how everyone distorts Marx's works. I found a lot of his words to feel like empty rhetoric and his solutions to problems identified not of any substance. It did lead me to ask a lot more probing questions and an interest in learning much more about Russian history of where Lenin's ideas succeeded and failed.

Eines der zentralen Texte des Marxismus-Leninismus und sehr anschaulich und interessant geschrieben; man kann verstehen, warum es so stark war. Hier ist jemand, der nicht nur geschrieben hat, sondern auch praktisch anwandte, was er schrieb. Es wäre gut für viele Linke, wenn sie mehr vertraut wären mit den Ideen in diesem Buch, damit sie nicht ständig die gleichen Fragen wieder neu durchkauen. Lenins Darstellung damit, wie es sich mit dem Staat verhält und was der Unterschied ist zwischen dem Bourgeoisstaat und einem wirklich demokratischen Staat, die Notwendigkeit die Revolution zu verteidigen etc. sind alles wichtige Fragen, die meistens ignoriert werden.
Das Buch ist gut geschrieben, doch in jedem Kapitel und in jedem Unterkapitel jedes Kapitels hielt es Lenin für nötig sich aufzuregen über andere Leute, Sozialdemokraten (-chauvinisten), Anarchisten u.v.m. Ich halte es natürlich für notwendig auf andere einzugehen und zu erklären, warum man deren Ansichten für falsch hält, aber Lenin kommt dann teilweise ein wenig repetetiv rüber, weil es sich buchstäblich in jedem Kapitel über die gleichen Leute wie Kautsky oder Bakunin auslässt. Kein großes Problem, aber es wird etwas alt nach einer Zeit.

Can't wait till he finishes chapter 7

Lenin writes a lot of correct things about the relations of the current state apparatus to capital, and a lot of quotes feel like they're picked out of a modern political conversation. Although, it feels as if he's retconning a lot of Marx and Engel's work while injecting his own interpretation into them. His hostility towards anarchists is apparent even though he admits they're working towards a similar end goal.

Some parts were a drag, others were pleasant.

8.5/10 ,so based

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Lenin was deeply intelligent. State and Revolution is a document that is one of the foundational texts of marxism-leninism. In the edition of the book that I have, the introduction mentions that Lenin was so precise in his understanding of theory that if Marx and Engels were correct (which is debatable), then Lenin must also be correct. I completely agree with this statement because I have never seen such depth of analysis of Marx and Engels’ writings. This book focuses on the topics of the role of the state during a communist revolution and its “withering” away thereafter. Lenin’s dedication to the foundational marxist texts leads to him arguing over details with the various other leftist groups such as the anarchists and the democratic socialists. Much of this book focuses on the details of these arguments, mainly against Kautsky who was an important figure of the second internationale. Lenin’s writing here is sharp and fiery, sometimes excessively so to the point of being repetitive. Oftentimes, it is hard to follow Lenin (which was also an issue I encountered in Imperialism) because of his style. It is somewhat of a pattern I noticed in marxist literature to have writing that is either so dense that it is hard to understand or that references something arcane which leads the reader down a rabbit hole of historical research before they can comprehend the context. Nevertheless, I think that despite the difficulty that I encountered in reading this book, it was worth the effort and I did learn a lot about the ideas of Lenin from the man himself. Now, whether or not these ideas have any modern day relevance beyond historical interest is still up for debate. Regardless, this book is important and is a must-read for people interested in the history of the 20th century. Final rating: 4/5 (Imperialism was better!)

comprehensive to a fault, despite its brevity. obviously his refutations meant more at the time of their writing, but a hundred-plus years on they feel like petty sniping. sort of a bogus criticism (hindsight 20/20, etc.), but if Lenin could see where the ideologies of thinkers like Kautsy and Proudhon (lmao, who??) ended up even thirty years after the writing of this literally revolutionary ‘pamphlet’ (lmao, what??), he would have felt more than a little silly. that being said: remarkable, stirring, galvanizing work here. hard to overstate how essential these hundred-some pages are to the twentieth century. harder still to imagine that we will ever get someone like him again.

its such a shame that it took until mao to have proper theory on culture, great book, but u can see some small seeds that, without a focus on culture, can lead to negative side effects (as we saw play out in reality within the USSR)