ON 150TH BIRTH CENTENARY LET US RESSURECT
THE SPIRIT OF COMRADE LENIN OR VLADIMIR ILYICH ULYANOV.
TO GIVE A FITTING BLOW TO NEO-FASCISM OR IMPERIALISM. HE MAY BE PHYSICALLY DEAD
AND BURIED BUT HIS SPIRIT STILL SHIMMERS LIKE AN INEXTINGUISHABLE LAMP IGNITING
THE SPARK OF LIBERATION.FOR THE PROLETARIAT.LENIN SHAPED THE FATE OF MANKIND OR
DEFINED IT MORE THAN ANYONE IN THE 20TH CENTURY BY GIVING
MARXISM A CONCRETE SHAPE. OR ESSENCE.WITHOUT LENINISM THE FLAG OF MAOISM WOULD
NEVER FLY TODAY WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF IT.EVEN IF MAOISM IS THE
QUALITATIVE MARXISM-LENINISM OF TODAY WE ARE STILL IN THE ERA FORMULATED BY
LENIN OF IMPERIALISM AND PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION.
By Harsh Thakor
On April 22nd we rejoice the birth centenary of the figure
who shaped the fate of history of man in the 20th century more
than anyone, Vladmir Lenin (Владимир Ильич Ленин). Lenin defined a new
epoch in the history of mankind through discovering Imperialism, and pioneering
the 1st ever Socialist revolution or State in history. It was
similar to building a new civilization. . Lenin was the first person to
interpret Karl Marx and give concrete shape to Marxism. He developed Marxism to
a new qualitative stage in formulating the new tactics and strategy of the
world proletarian revolution, which hold even till today. There is hardly an
adjective that can describe how Leninism shimmered every corner of the globe to
penetrate the soul and spiritually elevate almost the entire working
class .Lenin was genius in galvanizing the broad masses into a political
movement with his presence reminding one of a comet arriving. Lenin also had
greater mastery of scientific philosophy and was in full praise for Charles Darwin.
Lenin imbibed the nerves or temperament of a military commander, the visions or insight of a painter or scientist with the methodology of
a surgeon or engineer. The interconnection of different events in the preceding
quarter century before the revolution which shaped the political events
culminating the landmark is unprecedented in world history. Even if dead even
today his spirit illuminates the world which all progressive people have to
resurrect to save the world from tyranny of neo-fascism. Even in the darkest
hour with Capitalism and imperialism on the ascendancy spark of
Leninism is never dead and buried and glows in a subtle manner.
It was Lenin who discovered or formulated the Bolshevik party
where for the 1st time in history a proletarian party was founded. Lenin’s
colonial thesis paved the path for the 3rd Communist International which had an
effect in arousing anti imperialist political consciousness in every corner of
the globe. Lenin gave Marxism its concrete form through igniting the essence of
Marxism in perfect accordance to the situation prevailing in Russia and the
world.
All of Mao's great philosophical writings could not have
emerged without the kernel of Leninism in which it had its roots, be it ‘On
dialectics ' ,’on contradiction', ‘On 'Philosophy 'or even ‘On 'mass line’ Even
his Yenan writings have strong basis in Leninism. Without a very sound
grounding of Leninism Mao could not have confronted Soviet revisionism through
the 'Great Debate ' or the revisionism of the capitalist roaders in the
Cultural Revolution. "The great achievements of Soviet Russia during
collectivization and Industry had their basis in Lenin's economic ideas. Even
if Joseph Stalin made gross errors in dealing with opposition and suppressed
dissent wrongly he saved a Socialist state only because of his firm grasp of
Leninist ideology. Only because of mastery of Lenin's teachings did Ho Chi Minh
win independence from the French for Vietnam . Whatever the originality
of Mao's military thesis it had its roots in the formulations of Lenin. Even if
Mao founded a military theory it was Lenin who discovered law of revolutionary
violence.
Leninism spread like wildfire to illuminate the globe and
inspire all the anti-colonial struggles like a spark turning into a Prairie
Fire. Even if not belonging to a Communist party Bhagat Singh of India accepted
Lenin's teachings which formed the axis of his refutation of the pro-colonial
Congress. Led by Gandhi and Nehru, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam shaped all his work
on Lenin's teachings. Even the African continent was infiltrated by Leninism
stirring great anti-colonial feelings. Before Lenin's death the Communist party
was founded in India and China .
Significant that 'Leninism' got its official sanction or
label only after his death and was declared by Stalin. Whatever the discoveries
of Stalin or Chairman Mao we are still in the era of Leninism which is that of
'imperialism and proletarian revolution. ‘Every development of Maoism in a
third stage is still part of Leninism.
We have to meticulously learn from Lenin's method of work in
terms of revolutionary practice .Lenin displayed great ingenuity and mastery in
printing pamphlets in perfect consonance to the political consciousness of the
workers of Russia .
Lenin made a very accurate demarcation of the more advanced political workers
to the politically backward ones as well as the difference between the mass
organizations with the professional party organization. Both publishing of
'Iskra' and 'Pravda' were testimony to Lenin's mastery of Marxist ideology.
Lenin also displayed his innate political genius when signing the Brest-Litovsk
treaty.
Leninism is not classical Marxism but Marxism as relevant to Russia and to
the state of the world in his era. Unlike Marx, Lenin understood how Socialism
could not be built in a traditional bourgeois democratic structure or parties.
The achievements that occurred in the transformation of Russia into USSR in Lenin's life time are
unprecedented in the history of mankind whether in Education, electricity,
housing, health medicine or employment. Never had the working class enjoyed
such rights through Soviets or had an army so linked to its interests. True
excesses occurred on sections like the intelligentsia, artists etc. but they
were plane in comparison with the achievements.
Today there is a tendency amongst writers to wedge a
demarcation between Leninism and Marxism like Bernard de Mello who fail to
evaluate the subjective conditions prevailing in USSR in Lenin's era. They blame
Lenin for bureaucratization of the Soviets, suppressing revolt of Kronsdat,
etc. This is a semi-Trotskyite approach. Even if it conventionally appeared
sectarian Lenin had no choice but to outlaw the bourgeois opposition after the
revolution. Morally it is Leninism that developed Marx's thesis of the
dictatorship of the proletariat in a concrete form and even chairman Mao's
concept of continuous revolution under dictatorship of the proletariat is an
integral part of Leninism. Even if Mao founded a military theory it was Lenin
who discovered law of revolutionary violence. What was most praiseworthy about
Lenin were his conscious efforts to combat any personality cult and uphold
spirit of democratic centralism
Quoting Bernard De Mello on Lenin in his article on Maoism
"A very remarkable feature of State and Revolution, given the importance
Lenin always attributed to the role of the party, is the quite subsidiary role
it is allotted in this instance."
"But Lenin's vision of the socialist state "did not
survive the Bolshevik seizure of power". Yet, he "never formally
renounced the perspectives which had inspired State and Revolution". Can
we thus conclude that Lenin wanted "the creation of a society in which the
state would be strictly subordinated to the rule and self-government of the
people" (Miliband 2000b: 525)? The contrast between theory and practice,
in this respect, couldn't have been starker. Frankly, one has to clearly
distinguish between what one says and what one does. After all, what happened
to the Congress of Soviets -- soviets which had the potential to be
self-governing organs of the workers and the peasants -- that had arisen almost
spontaneously from the movement of February 1917? By the summer of 1918 the
soviets had no more than a mere formal existence. The main institution of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies
(independent of any one party), took the back seat, with the party leadership
at the steering (Miliband 1970). Indeed, the dictatorship of the proletariat
was deemed impossible except through the leadership of the single party;
socialist pluralism too got precluded (Ibid). But, to be fair, it is important
though to note that Lenin, in his last writings, expressed the need to create
the basis for popular self-governance, for which, he felt, there must be a
genuine revolution, where culture flowers among the people. Was he then calling
for a "cultural revolution", something that Mao launched in China in 1966
with the aim of "preventing capitalist restoration" (Thomson 1970:
125)?"
Bernard simply fails to understand the complexities of the
Situation USSR faced at that time which compelled Lenin to take certain
measures. If he had allowed multiple parties bourgeois democracy would have
triumphed and the white army would have taken over. Lenin made every move to
democratize the Soviets but without the Bolshevik party the very backbone of
the Soviets would have been destroyed, No doubt valid points about bureaucracy
emerging which was consolidated but history has absolved that any major
revolutionary democratic development needed the fulcrum of the Leninist party
,be it the Socialist Revolution or Cultural revolution in China.
POLITICAL HISTORY OF LENIN
Lenin received his revolutionary baptism in a Marxist circle
in University of Kazan St Petersburg where he
had moved, he united all the Marxist circles into a single league of Struggle
for the emancipation of the Working class. This was the breeding ground for the
birth of the revolutionary party. While giving his exams in St. Petersburg
Lenin had developed Marxist contacts there and got a supply of Marxist
literature. In Samara Lenin spent a large part of his time giving lectures in
illegal study circles of workers and others. He also formed the first Marxist
study circle of Samara. Lenin soon became a leading figure bringing new life to
the numerous secret study-circles of St.
Petersburg . He also influenced the Moscow circles. Besides lecturing in the
circles he was always interested in learning every minute detail of the
workers’ lives. In the circles he convinced a big section of the
revolutionaries to move from selective propaganda (propaganda in those days was
understood as similar to our political education classes today) in small
circles to mass agitation among the broad mass of workers.
Lenin tooth and nail refuted opportunist trends of Plekhanov,
Karl Kautsky and later Leon Trotsky which was based on the erroneous line of
the 2nd Communist International. He hit Menshevik
ideology at its very roots exposing Trotsky's conspiratorial theories of
factions, converting trade Unions into military organizations by attaching
armed wings, disregarding anti colonial struggles Lenin at the very base
countered left-wing communism...
The right trend within the 2nd Communist
International had a profound impact in blocking the development and growth of
revolutionary Marxism. It promoted centrism and right opportunism of the
variety of the Fabians or Kautsky. Lenin made a profound influence in refuting the
ideology of the Mensheviks, Narodniks and economism within the working class
movement all influenced by the line of the 2nd Communist
International and supporting the alliance and involvement of the peasantry with
the working class. With razor sharp depth he combated the views of Kaustky on
the role of the peasantry and the revisionism of Bernstein. He confronted the
tendency of Narodism by refuting people like Plekhanov and advocating the
alliance of the peasantry. His first major work on this was “What the friends
of the people are and how they fight against Social democrats .”Lenin also
ideologically rebuked the ‘legal Marxists”. To challenge Narodism Lenin
published “What the friends of the people are and How they fight against Social
democrats.”
Lenin waged an ideological war against Bernsteinian form of
revisionism which rose in the form of a manifesto in 1899. It propagated the
idea of an independent political party and of independent political demands was
negative. Through the pages of a political organ ‘Iskra’ Lenin waged
an ideological war against the manifesto Later in 1902 in ‘What is to be Done’
Lenin hit the philosophy of the Opportunists in its very belly. Bernstein sowed
the seeds of his ideas in “Evolutionary Socialism.” He rejected Marxism,
ridiculed ’Dictatorship of the Proletariat” and felt there was no need for a
revolution. His views were a reflection and product of rise of
imperialism in Germany.Bernstein attempted to even use Engels’ “Introduction to
Marx’s class Struggles in France ”
written in 1895. Bernstein propagated a ‘gradualist’ approach to Socialism and
advocated ‘flexible institutions’ of ‘capitalism needed.’
To challenge Narodism Lenin published “What the “Friends of
the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats.”
Lenin attacked Menshevism within the platform of Iskra itself
where he confronted Martov, and Trotsky. In 1904 in a book “One step forward,
two steps back,” Lenin made a detailed study of the intra-party
struggle and on the basis propounded the main organizational base or
guidelines of the Bolshevik party. A major leap in Marxist theory was
established here. The circulation of the book enabled the majority of the local
organizations of the party to rally around it. Significant that by the time of
the 1905 Russian Revolution, the main enemies of Marxism came within the
proletarian parties themselves. This ironically set the tone of later Socialist
revolutionary history like that of the capitalist roaders in China after 1956 and earlier Nikolai Bukharin,
Kamenev or Zinoviev in USSR .
In July 1905 Lenin through “Two tactics of Social democracy
in the Democratic Revolution” superbly illustrated the Bolshevik tactics and
exposed the idealism of the Mensheviks. It paved the path for the preparation
of the Bolshevik party. The Mensheviks wished the leadership was still in the
hands of the bourgeoisie and the working class had to support the bourgeoisie
to overthrow the autocracy. Mensheviks rejected the revolutionary role of the
peasantry and the vanguard role of the working class. Lenin’s ideology gave
shape to ideology needed in conditions of modern imperialism, which refuted the
revisionism of the second Communist International.
With great methodology Lenin split the Social democrats in
1905 to form the Bolshevik group and displayed in depth mastery of carrying out
secretist methods of work. Both publishing of 'Iskra' and 'Pravda' were
testimony to Lenin's mastery of Marxist ideology.
Lenin's "What is to be Done" write in 1902 is a
Marxist classic which is relevant till today. It shows his great enlightenment
on Marxist ideology in the context prevailing and his innate mastery of the
language of the working class. In “What is to be Done? Lenin
points out that at the root the Economists’ right-opportunism was their worship
of the spontaneous movement and undermining the role of socialist
consciousness. And Lenin forcefully made the point that a socialist
understanding of the world, or Marxism, arose outside the working class and had
to be taken to its proletarian home (Freedom Road Socialist Organization).
In “What is to be Done?” Lenin at the very root confronted
the economist tendency and sharply demarcated genuine Socialist trend from it.
Trade Unions are a necessity but the problem of economists was their trade
Unionist economist approach, They rejected politics of overthrowing the Czar
establishing dictatorship of the proletariat or workers rule but demanded
protective measures or legal rights for labour. They rejected the concept of a
tightly, centralized, well-knit party and wanted an admixture of labour union
and socialist organization. Martov's concept was refuted tooth and nail by
Lenin who diametrically opposed the concept of a party as a vanguard.
Here is how Lenin put it in “What is to be Done?”:
“We have said that there could not have been
Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought
to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working
class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union
consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions,
fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary
labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the
philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated
representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals.”
'What is to be done' is equally relevant today with powerful
economist or legalist trends within the working class movement worldwide,
approaches rejecting need of vanguard party and anarchist tendencies.
Lenin showed great political ingenuity and acumen in handling
the situation Russia
faced in 1905 after defeat in the Russo-Japanese war and the subsequent strikes
of workers and other protests led by bourgeoisie forces. Lenin and the
Bolsheviks captured the tide with immaculate precision. With incisive depth of
analysis he advocated the political strike of 1905 as weapon against the enemy.
He introduced the perfect work methods with the situation the Russian working
class faced after 1905 with the revolutionary movement scattered. Significant
the institution of the Soviets was galvanized in this period which laid the
basis of proletarian democracy. The Soviet of workers duties were assemblies of
delegates of all mills and factories and to the Bolsheviks the embryo of
political power. Which was the model of Soviet power established in 1917. The
defining event or turning point was the firing on the workers in St Petersburg on January
22nd in Bloody Sunday Lenin and the Bolsheviks upheld the
all-Russia political Strike which set and lifted the tempo of the revolutionary
working class movement and sowed the seeds for the Bolshevik lead armed uprisings
in December. A impact of a tornado engulfed Soviet Russia with over
a million workers participating in the strike of 1906 and 740,000 in 1907. Half
of the districts of Russia
were encompassed with the peasant movement and about one-fifth in the later part
of the year.
Lenin wrote “Materialism and Empirio”-criticism
in 1909 to defend Marxist dialectical materialism and counter subjectivist
idealism that is systematically reduced to the empirical basis required by
science and is presented as the third-party philosophy between materialism and
idealism. The philosophical work is important because it refutes the bourgeois
subjectivists who invoke empiricism and science to distort the objective
reality and inner contradictions of problematic social phenomena to be solved
and deny the conscious capacity of the people to solve their problems. It laid
the very basis of the Marxist dialecticical materialist philosophy for the
concrete circumstances of the time and sowed the seeds for confronting all
bourgeois idealist tendencies. (Quoting Joma Sison)
Lenin advanced our understanding of dialectical materialism
by identifying the unity of opposites as the most fundamental among the laws of
contradiction at work in society and nature and in the social and natural sciences.
The simple expression of this is to divide one into two. One should not be
dumbfounded by anything whole that is impressive or sacralized. Anything whole
in the real world can be dissected, analyzed and critiqued. At the same time,
anything that appears static, or anything that apparently emerges randomly from
chaos, can be deeply understood in the movement of opposites that lurk within
it. With his consciousness of the unity of opposites, Lenin was sharp and
profound in his examination and analysis of events and issues in society and on
both revolutionary and counterrevolution sides. (Quoting Chairman Joma Sison)
This work has relevance today with the rise of post-modernist
trends of Alan Badiou, Zizek, etc. which represent the New Left. It hits such
tendencies in its very backyard which are idealist in essence and violate
Marxist dialectics. It sharpened the sword of Marxist dialectics like no other
work. The grounding of this work was the basis of the success of many
scientists in Socialist USSR in combating bourgeois idealism and developing
proletarian science.
Lenin made an invaluable contribution in refuting Kautsky's
concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the very thick of the skin.
Lenin with meticulous depth with the sharpness of a sword defended the
Proletarian party as the vanguard to enable the proletariat to seize power.
Kaustky adamantly resisted all attempts to supress counter-revolutionaries and
accused Bolsheviks of despotism. Lenin’s refutations here set the guidelines for
his work “State and Revolution."
Lenin's most significant contribution is his work on
‘Imperialism the Highest Stage of capitalism’ written in 1916 which virtually
elevated Marx's theory of capitalism to a higher plane. With the insight of a
great architect or engineer in depth he analyzed the grave idealist theory of
Karl Kautsky which supported the collaboration of imperialism with a goal of
preventing division. Here Lenin summarized how Kautsky's theory would smash the
citadel of the international proletariat. Lenin combined the methodology of a
professor with the vision or imagination of a great poet or musical composer in
this writing, placing his research in perfect tune to the happenings in Russia
and the world at that time. Kaustky adamantly resisted all attempts to supress
counter-revolutionaries and accused Bolsheviks of despotism. Lenin’s
refutations here set the guidelines for his work 'State and Revolution."
Lenin was the pioneer in formulating moribund capitalism.
Imperialism is moribund capitalism, because it is capitalism in transition to
socialism. Monopoly, which grows out of capitalism, is already dying
capitalism, the beginning of its transition to socialism. The tremendous
socialization of labour by imperialism produces the same result. The basic
contradiction of capitalism between the social character of production and the
private character of ownership only gets further intensified under imperialism.
Thus Lenin says, “Imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the
proletariat, Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which
the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in
which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the
division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the
division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers
has been completed.”
The fact that imperialism is parasitic or decaying capitalism
is manifested first of all in the tendency to decay, which is characteristic of
every monopoly under the system of private ownership of the means of
production.
Lenin made an invaluable contribution in refuting Kautsky's
concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the very thick of the skin.
Lenin with meticulous depth with the sharpness of a sword defended the
Proletarian party as the vanguard to enable the proletariat to seize power.
Kaustky adamantly resisted all attempts to suppress counter-revolutionaries and
accused Bolsheviks of despotism. Lenin’s refutations here set the guidelines
for his work 'State and Revolution. Kautsky attacked Lenin’s Proletarian
dictatorship theory in his ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat where he accused
the Bolsheviks for suppressing counter revolution. Lenin countered it through
his “Proletarian Revolution and Renegade kautsky” where he with the sharpness
of a dagger upheld the unparalleled superiority of proletarian democracy over
bourgeois democracy.
In his 'State and Revolution' published in
1918 Lenin in most incisive detailed defined the bourgeois state and
how any multiple party bourgeois democratic system was in essence a
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie The State and Revolution written in
1918 is considered to be Lenin's most important work on the state
and has been called by Lucio Colletti "Lenin's greatest contribution to
political theory".[2] Here in deep depth he sum sup the oppressive or
authoritative nature of the bourgeois state whose machinery is always aligned
with the oppressor classes .Lenin refuted the Nikolai Bukharinist view of the
state immediately withering away after the revolution, dismissing it as an
idealist view. Lenin insisted on an alternative state machinery. Here he laid
down the framework for the state with proletarian and attacked anarchist views
at their very root.. It was the most comprehensive work on how proletarian
power would be established in the new state. According to the Marxologist David
McLellan, "the book had its origin in Lenin's argument with Bukharin in
the summer of 1916 over the existence of the state after a proletarian
revolution. Bukharin had emphasized the 'withering' aspect, whereas Lenin
insisted on the necessity of the state machinery to expropriate the
expropriators. In fact, it was Lenin who changed his mind, and many of the
ideas of State and Revolution, composed in the summer of 1917 - and
particularly the anti-Statist theme - were those of Bukharin"[3]Till today
more than any Marxist revolutionary Lenin has defined how a proletarian state
machinery replaces a bourgeois or dictatorial one. With vivid clarity he
defined how essentially the bourgeois state was fundamentally a bourgeois
dictatorship.
Lenin's direct and simple definition of the State is that
"the State is a special organization of force: it is an organization of
violence for the suppression of some class."[4] Lenin completely rejected
the bourgeois parliament which he felt was an instrument to oppress the toiling
class by the exploiter classes. "To decide once every few years which
member of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through
parliament - this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in
parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic
republics"[5]
Citing Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, Lenin examines
theoretical questions about the existence of the State after the proletarian
revolution, addressing aspects of anti-authoritarians, anarchists, social
democrats, and reformists, in describing the progressive stages of societal
change — the revolution, establishing “the lower stage of communist society”
(the socialist commune), and the “higher stage of communist society” that will
sow the seeds of a society where personal freedom might be fully expressed.
Social chauvinism of nations was a predominant trend in the
World War 1 period. Lenin displayed political genius in his analysis of the
International currents in light of Russia and assessed the dialectical
relationship of all the wars of aggression staged in Europe In perfect tune he
exploited the contradiction s of the imperialist powers in the 1st world war.
In 1914 Lenin wrote his theses on the war ,"The Tasks of Revolutionary
Democracy in the European War .Here he stated "The European and world war
has the clearly defined character of the bourgeoisie, imperialistic A struggle
for markets and for freedom to loot foreign countries ,a striving to suppress
the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and democracy in the individual
countries, a desire to deceive, disunite, and slaughter the proletariat of all
countries by setting the wage slaves of one nation against those of another so
as to benefit the bourgeoisie-these are the only content and significance of
the war."
In 1914 under the guidance of the RSDLP issued a manifesto on
the war .giving the call for turning the imperialist war into a ca civil war and
called for the formation of the 3rd international. Lenin circulated his
pamphlet "Socialism and War "in the First Zimmerwal conference in
1915 to organize leftist anti-war elements. The pamphlet outlined the
guidelines for revolutionary democrats in Russia as well as the International
level.
With great insight Lenin induced practice of War Communism in
Russia
after 1918 where the Military took control over the production in the farms. It
was in absolute consonance to the crisis Russia faced at that time. Middle
and small-scale industries were taken over, in addition to large scale industry;
it introduced a state monopoly of grain trade and prohibited private trading in
grain; it established the surplus-appropriation system ,under which all surplus
produce of the peasants had to be handed over to the state at all fixed prices;
and finally it introduced universal labour service for all classes.
Lenin also displayed his innate political genius when signing
the Brest-Litovsk treaty. With great polemic mastery Lenin fought Trotskyite
stand during the war and signed the Brest Litovsk theory in August 1918 which
was of great tactical significance for saving the Soviet Revolution in Russia .
Trotsky, Bukharin and Kautsky were staunch opponents of Russian surrender or
compromise with Germany
in the War. There could be few more perfect illustrations of the correctness of
Leninism and how its difference with Trotskyism was like chalk and cheese.
With great depth of scientific skill he devised the correct
formulations for the third international which defined the correct
international proletarian strategy and tactics. Lenin made major contributions
to Marxist theory in connection with the Congress of the 3rd international in
1919.. He prepared what he intended as a handbook of Communist party strategy
and tactics, which was distributed among the delegates of the Congress. It was
called “Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder,” and concentrated on
correcting the ‘leftist’ errors then prevalent in many parties who had joined
the International. Lenin also prepared the Theses on the National and Colonial
Question adopted at the Congress. It was a landmark document which laid the
Marxist-Leninist theoretical foundations for understanding and leading the
national liberation struggles then gathering momentum in all the colonies and
semi-colonies. Besides, Lenin outlined the basic tasks of the Communist
International and the Theses on the Agrarian Question adopted at this Congress.
The Congress also adopted theses on the role of the Communist Party in the
proletarian revolution, on the trade union movement, on Communist Parties and
parliament, and the Statutes and Conditions of admission of the Communist
International. In its statutes the Comintern (Communist International) clearly
declared that it “breaks once and for all with the traditions of the Second
International, for whom only white-skinned people existed”. It inspired
ant-conical movements worldover who steered its path with Lenin's
understanding. The whole world literally revolved around it.
In the post revolutionary period we must grasp the
significance of Lenin's New economic policy of 1921 when he inducted capitalist
reforms within a proletarian state. It displayed his great insight into the
post-war condition prevailing in Russia where it was imperative to
give a private plot of land to the farmers. Leon Trotsky was at loggerheads
with Lenin on this which illustrates the political bankruptcy of his thinking.
CONCLUSION ON LENINISM AND ITS IMPORTANCE TODAY
Today like a boulder resisting the stormiest or most powerful
of gales we must defend the essence of Leninism from all counter-revolutionary
winds that undermine the ideology whether from Trotskyites .New left or other
counter-revolutionary sections. Every nail should be banged into the coffin to
silence Trotskyites who equate Lenin’s teachings and practice with that of Leon
Trotsky and thus fuse Leninism with Trotskyism. Cadres should study writers who
prove that in essence Trotskyism is an anti-thesis of Leninism in every respect
As already researched to the a last straw Trotskysim is in essence counter to
Marxism-Leninism, negating all the fundamental principles of the ideology. We
must guard against tendencies that equate Maoism as a rupture from Leninism,
undermine the Leninist party or feel that there is a qualitative leap from the
Leninist era. Sections of Gonzaloites feel that Mao discovered anew era where
imperialism would crash in the next 50 to hundred years while some feel
vanguard concept of party is outdated like Alan Badiou. Zizek and partially
Joshua Moufawad Paul. Lin Biaoism or third worldism also devalues Leninism with
its asessment that imperialism is collapsing. For a period we had an infection
in the World Communist movement wit terms like 'principally Maoism' which
relegated Leninism to the museum or that it was the era of 'Maoism' with
imperialism on the verge of collapse. The debacle within Revolutionary Internationalist
movement which destroyed it was its pushing back fundamentals of Leninism and
underestimating the era. Such formulations caused havoc and today cadres should
read the writings of Comrades like Chairman Joma Sison who meticulously explain
that Leninist tactics and strategy are still principal. I would suggest cadres
to thoroughly read the writings of late Comrade Harbhajan Sohi, Chairman Joma
Sison and those on the Jan Muktikami or red barricade blog. They do justice to
the foundation of Leninism. To an extent Chairman Gonzalo in great depth
defended Lenin but delved into ecclectical areas when upholding 'Principally
Maoism" or 'Gonzalo thought’. Still we have to credit Gonzolaites like
Struggle sessions or what represented formally views of Red Guards Austin and Los Angeles groups for
negating concept of Maoism being a rupture from Leninism.
Cadres should study writers who prove that in essence
Trotskyism is an anti-thesis of Leninism in every respect. Today even sections
of Maoists in India
like Ajith or Kobadh Gandhy are upholding relevance of post modernist writers
or those of era of enlightenment. Instead of confronting revisionism with the
sword of Leninism they are propagating concepts of 'humanism' or 'individual
freedom. ‘We have to guard against tendencies that negate Maoism as a
qualitative development of Leninism like the Stalinists of the Enver Hoxhaite
variety. Maoism is the Leninism of today and denying that is anti-marxist. In
my view like Stalinists to uphold Stalin’s views and practice as 100 % correct
is negating Leninist theory and practice. In important ways Stalin did negate
Leninism like in agriculture, violating democratic centralism and arriving at
metaphysical conclusions with regards to the Society having no contradictions.
Today with sharpened imperialist contention worldwide
Leninist theory of imperialism is all the more relevant. Even if
Neo-colonialism is prevalent the contradiction of oppressed nations with oppressor
countries of imperialism has sharpened. The worst economic crisis in the world
including imperialist countries accentuated by the latest COVID-19 Crisis is
testimony to the accuracy of Lenin's thesis on the proletariat, with
unemployment and price rise on a crescendo. Economist tendencies have
penetrated the working class movement more deeply than a century ago. We have
many an example of a genuine working class struggle being diffused like the
strike of British coal miners in 1984, the Kanoria Jute mill workers in West
Bengal in India ,
Chattisgarh mine workers, Maruti workers or even French transport
workers. State repression on the working class is even stronger than that in
Lenin’s time with a genuine fascist threat even in developed countries. Leninist
concept of working within the yellow Unions as fractions and only capture them
by the party when sufficient political consciousness is developed is important
even today.
With regard to nationality movements in India Leninism is of
great relevance in demarcating the proletarian essence and discarding the pro-imperialism
sections. Kashmir is an ideal example. Due to
weakness of Leninist grasp certain sections tailed behind reformist nationality
movements like ULFA in Assam .
Or even Islamic currents at the International level. Discarding essence of
Leninism sections of revolutionaries even within the Maoist camp are even
equating Ambedkarism with Marxism or Ambedkar as a revolutionary. Groups are
also neglecting Leninist understanding of secret party concept and resorting to
open functioning.
Of course we must be vary of not mechanically applying
Leninism but understanding the concrete situations facing us and applying it in
accordance. True Leninism cannot solve every problem of humanity and more
deeply we have to penetrate into the study of human psychology and inner
spiritual transformation of man. Even Leninist party had weaknesses and we have
to more deeply analyze the reasons or reversal of Genuine Socialist Societies.
In particular we have to dialectically assess reversals like that of the
Revisionists usurping power in USSR in 1956.collpase Shanghai Commune, victory
of capitalist roaders in China, The Leninist party concept and theory of the
dictatorship of the proletariat has to be developed further to grant
greater autonomy to mass organizations of people and to facilitate greater
democratic governance. The world situation has also turned upside down with the
advent of globalization which has virtually bred a new type of proletariat with
the modern technology and machinery dividing them helter skelter. Methods
of organizing the working class have to be devised with regard to the situation
currently which is of great variance from the days of Lenin. Today the working
class is divided at work place as never before, cutting genuine interaction. We
have to take into account the mechanization of the modern era with the monopoly
of computerization which as even made high-tech workers a component of the
proletariat.
I'm getting. Thanks
Comrade.
My own musings about the life
of VI Lenin
By SJ Otto
After reading this tribute to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (Владимир
Ильич Ленин), by Harsh Thakor, I felt I had to write some of my own tributes to
this great revolutionary. As with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, to be any
kind of a Marxist, Maoist or any Marxist-Leninist, one has to understand the
basics of Lenin. Lenin was more, to me, of a strategist than a philosopher.
Marx and Engels write about the vision of communism, while Lenin is a kind of
“how to” writer. One of my favorite writings of his was “Left Wing Communism,
An Infantile Disorder.” I mostly like the strategy of the book. I found it very
inspiring. From this book I got the idea that there is always a way to find an
enemy’s shortcomings. From there we can always find what a person, or group of
people’s vulnerabilities are. From this we can find a way to overcome our
enemies.
It may seem simple, but it made a lot of sense to me at the
time. Other writings of his became somewhat out of date by the time I read
them. For example he wrote “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.” It
was a good writing for its time, but not nearly as good as Kwame Nkrumah’s
“Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism.” Things change over time. As
time goes on it is just expected that some writers will advance ideas that
Lenin first developed.
While there are those who claim that Stalinism (of Joseph
Stalin/ Russian Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин/ Georgian, იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე სტალინი) is the
logical extension of Lenin, there are those who disagree. There are arguments
from both the left and the right on that point of view.
From the right are such so called “historians and writers”
as David Henderson. As with many capitalist revisionist historians he wants to
portray Lenin as a horrible tyrant, similar to the established view of both
Stalin and Hitler. According to “The Essence of Lenin,”
Henderson writes:
“I had known that Lenin was one
of the most evil people in history. (Gary Saul) Morson convinced me that he was more evil than I had
thought. Morson is the Lawrence B. Dumas Professor of the Arts and Humanities
at Northwestern University
From the right, there are many conservative writers who have
gone out of their way to portray Lenin as a monster, similar to the quotations
of the writer above. To them, nothing of good could come from Lenin. That is because
they are greedy capitalist trolls and they don’t want anyone to get in their
way of making money.
Stalin is also attacked by parties on the left, including Trotskyists (of Leon Trotsky/Лев Дави́дович Тро́цкий) and Democratic Socialists. While I have respect for groups of Marxist who call themselves Stalinists,
along with some Maoists who are also very favorable to Stalin, However, I would
argue there are significant differences between Lenin and Stalin. While Stalin
did some good for his role in history, I think Lenin was a much better theoretician
as well as a more humane leader.
Lenin had a lot of opponents on the left, including the
anarchist party of Russia
which called themselves Socialist
Revolutionaries, at the time. He and his Bolshevik Party were also opposed
by the Mensheviks, which were the Democratic Socialists faction of the Soviet Union at the time. One of his major opponents of
his lifetime was Karl Kautsky, who Lenin described as a "renegade" in his classic pamphlet "The
Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky."
Thakor’s article goes into the various historical and theoretical aspects of Lenin’s life and his impact on history. There is not a lot I can add to that. I am a Maoist (of Mao Zedong/毛泽东) and we could not have Maoists without having Marx, Engels and Lenin. Lenin lived in the early 20th century, slightly less than a century after Marx and Engels. Through-out history one group of theoreticians live off of the backs of those theoreticians who come before them. Marx was influenced by the early Greek philosopher Democritus (Δημόκριτος) and he based a lot of his ideas off of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Engels was influenced by Thomas Müntzer, Protestant minister and Peasant rebel leader. Each school of thought is based on schools of thought before them. Lenin was responsible for Maoists, Gonzaloists, Stalinists, and like it or not Trotskyists. From those basic beliefs come many other Marxist philosophers.
In the Don McLean song “American Pie” Lenin is casually
mentioned as the architect of communism:
“Oh and
while the king was looking down
The jester stole his thorny crown
The courtroom was adjourned
No verdict was returned
The jester stole his thorny crown
The courtroom was adjourned
No verdict was returned
And while Lenin read a book on Marx
The quartet practiced in the park
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died”
The quartet practiced in the park
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died”
While this song has little or nothing to do with Marxism,
Leninism or communism, it is about nostalgia and the various ideas we all come
across in our life times and in this way the song has meaning.
So I am grateful to Lenin. He played a very important role in history and he has influenced my life as well as that of others all around me.
No comments:
Post a Comment