{"id":4744,"date":"2024-01-21T14:48:54","date_gmt":"2024-01-21T14:48:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipa-aip.org\/?p=4744"},"modified":"2026-03-12T18:14:28","modified_gmt":"2026-03-12T18:14:28","slug":"a-hundred-years-since-we-lost-comrade-lenin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/2024\/01\/21\/a-hundred-years-since-we-lost-comrade-lenin\/","title":{"rendered":"A Hundred Years Since We Lost Comrade Lenin"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\n

A Hundred Years Since We Lost Comrade Lenin<\/h1>\n\n\n\u064a\u0646\u0627\u064a\u0631 21, 2024\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n
\n\n

Vijay Prashad<\/em><\/strong>, executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research<\/a>, the chief correspondent for Globetrotter, and the chief editor of LeftWord Books<\/a> (New Delhi).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vladimir Ilyich Ulanov (1870-1924) was known by his pseudonym \u2013 Lenin. He was, like his siblings, a revolutionary, which in the context of Tsarist Russia meant that he spent long years in prison and in exile. Lenin helped build the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party both by his intellectual and his organisational work. Lenin\u2019s writings are not only his own words, but the summation of the activity and thoughts of the thousands of activists whose path crossed his own. It was Lenin\u2019s remarkable ability to develop the experiences of the activists into the theoretical realm that shaped what we call Leninism. It is no wonder that the Hungarian Marxist Gy\u00f6rgy Luk\u00e1cs called Lenin \u2018the only theoretician equal to Marx yet produced by the struggle for the liberation of the proletariat\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building a Revolution<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

In 1896, when spontaneous strikes broke out in the St. Petersburg factories, the socialist revolutionaries were caught unawares. They were disoriented. Five years later, Lenin wrote, the \u2018revolutionaries lagged behind this upsurge, both in their \u201ctheories\u201d and in their activity; they failed to establish a constant and continuous organisation capable of leading the whole movement\u2019. Lenin felt that this lag had to be rectified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of Lenin\u2019s major writings followed this insight. Lenin worked out the contradictions of capitalism in Russia (Development of Capitalism in Russia<\/em>, 1896), which allowed him to understand how the peasantry in the sprawling Tsarist Empire had a proletarian character. It was based on this that Lenin argued for the worker-peasant alliance against Tsarism and the capitalists. Lenin understood from his engagement with mass struggle and with his theoretical reading that the social democrats \u2013 as the most liberal section of the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats \u2013 were not capable of driving a bourgeois revolution let alone the movement that would lead to the emancipation of the peasantry and the workers. This work was done in Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution<\/em> (1905). Two Tactics<\/em> is perhaps the first major Marxist treatise that demonstrates the necessity for a socialist revolution, even in a \u2018backward\u2019 country, where the workers and the peasants would need to ally to break the institutions of bondage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These two texts show Lenin avoiding the view that the Russian Revolution could leapfrog capitalist development (as the populists \u2013 narodniki – suggested) or that it had to go through capitalism (as the liberal democrats argued). Neither path was possible nor necessary. Capitalism had already entered Russia \u2013 a fact that the populists did not acknowledge \u2013 and it could be overcome by a worker and peasant revolution \u2013 a fact that the liberal democrats disputed. The 1917 Revolution and the Soviet experiment proved Lenin\u2019s point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having established that the liberal elites within Tsarist Russia would not be able to lead a worker and peasant revolution, or even a bourgeois revolution, Lenin turned his attention to the international situation. Sitting in exile in Switzerland, Lenin watched as the social democrats capitulated to the warmongering in 1914 and delivered the working-class to the world war. Frustrated by the betrayal of the social democrats, Lenin wrote an important text \u2013 Imperialism<\/em> \u2013 which developed a clear-headed understanding of the growth of finance capital and monopoly firms as well as inter-capitalist and inter-imperialist conflict. It was in this text that Lenin explored the limitations of the socialist movements in the West \u2013 with the labour aristocracy providing a barrier to socialist activism \u2013 and the potential for revolution in the East \u2013 where the \u2018weakest link\u2019 in the imperialist chain might be found. Lenin\u2019s notebooks show that he read 148 books and 213 articles in English, French, German, and Russian to clarify his thinking on contemporary imperialism. Clear-headed assessment of imperialism of this type ensured that Lenin developed a strong position on the rights of nations to self-determination, whether these nations were within the Tsarist Empire or indeed any other European empire. The kernel of the anti-colonialism of the USSR \u2013 developed in the Communist International (Comintern) \u2013 is found here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The term \u2018imperialism\u2019, so central to Lenin\u2019s expansion of the Marxist tradition, refers to the uneven development of capitalism on a global scale and the use of force to maintain that unevenness. Certain parts of the planet \u2013 mostly those that had a previous history of colonisation \u2013 remain in a position of subordination, with their ability to craft an independent, national development agenda constrained by the tentacles of foreign political, economic, social, and cultural power. In our time, new theories have emerged that suggest that the new conditions no longer can be understood by the Leninist theory of imperialism. Some people on the Left reject the idea of the neo-colonial structure of the world economy, with the imperialist bloc \u2013 led by the United States \u2013 using its every source of power to maintain this structure. Others, even on the Left, argue that the world is now flat and that there is no longer a Global North that oppresses a Global South, and that the elites of both zones are part of an international bourgeoisie. Neither of these objections stand when confronted with both the increasing levels of violence perpetuated by the imperialist bloc and by the increasing levels of relative inequality between North and South (despite the growth of capitalist elites in the South). Elements of Lenin\u2019s Imperialism<\/em> are, of course, dated \u2013 it was written a hundred years ago \u2013 and would require careful reworking. But the essence of the theory is valid \u2013 the insistence on the tendency of capitalist firms to become monopolies, the ruthlessness with which finance capital drains the wealth of the Global South, and the use of force to contain the ambitions of countries of the South to chart their own development agenda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of Lenin\u2019s most vital interventions, which appealed to those in the colonies, was the idea that imperialism would never develop the colony, and that only the socialist forces in collaboration with the national liberation sections would be capable of both fighting for national independence and then advancing their countries to socialism. Lenin\u2019s fierce anti-colonial determination drew his ideas to those in the colonised world, which is why they rallied so enthusiastically to the Comintern after 1919. Ho Chi Minh read the Comintern\u2019s thesis on national and colonial issues and wept. It was a \u2018miraculous guide\u2019 for the struggle of the people of Indochina, he felt. \u2018From the experience of the Russian Revolution\u2019, Ho Chi Minh wrote, \u2018we should have to people \u2013 both the working-class and the peasants \u2013 at the root of our struggle. We need a strong party, a strong will, with sacrifice and unanimity at our centre\u2019. \u2018Like the brilliant sun\u2019, Ho Chi Minh wrote, \u2018the October Revolution shone over all five continents, awakening millions of oppressed and exploited people around the world. There has never existed such a revolution of such significance and scale in the history of humanity\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Lenin spent the period from 1893 to 1917 studying the limitations of the party of the old type \u2013 the social democratic party. Lenin\u2019s text \u2013 Our Programme<\/em> \u2013 makes the point that the party must be involved in continuous activity and not rely upon spontaneous or initial [stikhiinyi] outbreaks. This continuous activity would bring the party into intimate and organic touch with the working-class and the peasantry as well as help to germinate the protests that then might take on a mass character. It was this consideration that led Lenin to work out his understanding of the revolutionary party in What is To Be Done?<\/em> (1902). The remarkable intervention highlighted the role of the class-conscious workers as the vanguard of the party and the importance of political agitation amongst workers to develop a genuinely powerful political consciousness against all tyranny and all oppression. The workers, Lenin argued, need to feel the intensity of the brutality of the system and of the importance of solidarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These texts \u2013 from 1896 to 1916 \u2013 prepared the terrain for the Bolsheviks and Lenin to understand how to operate during the struggles in 1917. It is a measure of Lenin\u2019s confidence in the masses and to his theory that Lenin wrote his audacious pamphlet Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?<\/em> a few weeks before the seizure of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building a State<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Having prevailed, Lenin now had to confront the problems of building a socialist project in the former Tsarist Empire, which had been devastated by its avarice and by the war. Before the Soviets had time to organise themselves, the imperialists attacked from all directions. Direct interventions on behalf of the peasants and workers, as well as national minorities, prevented large scale defections from the new Revolution to the counter-revolutionaries armies. The peasants, with their limited means, held fast to the new beginning. But that was the point \u2013 the \u2018limited means\u2019. How does one build socialism in a poor country, with social development held down by the Tsarist autocracy?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A close reading of State and Revolution (1918) anticipates the problems faced by the Soviets in their new task \u2013 they could not only inherit the state structure, but had to \u2018smash the state\u2019, build a new set of institutions and a new institutional culture, create a new attitude by the cadre towards the state and society. In April 1918, Lenin\u2019s The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government summarises the work of the first few months and shows that the Soviets were well-aware of the deep problems that they had to confront. Their revolution did not take place in an advanced capitalist country, but in what Marx had called the \u2018realm of scarcity\u2019. To increase the productive forces and to socialise the means of production at the same time was a task of immense proportions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Without literacy\u2019, Lenin wrote, \u2018there can be no politics. There can only be rumours, gossip, and prejudice\u2019. What limited resources were there before the Soviet state went toward literacy, with the Party cadre determined to ensure that they turn around the fact that only a third of men were literate and less than a fifth of women. Between the Likbez campaign and the policy of indigenisation (korenizatsiya), the use of regional and minority languages, the Soviets were able \u2013 in two decades \u2013 to ensure that literacy levels rose to 86 percent for men and 65 percent for women. The centrality of workers and peasants to building Soviet Russia is often forgotten (Mikhail Kalinin came from a peasant family; Joseph Stalin came from a family of cobblers and housemaids). Education, health, housing, and control over the economy as well as cultural activities and social development were the heart of the work of the new Soviet Russia, led by Lenin. No amount of right-wing drivel about the Soviet Union can erase the immense achievement of this workers\u2019 state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the last year of his life, Lenin wrote four formidable texts: \u2018On Cooperation\u2019, \u2018Our Revolution\u2019, \u2018How We Should Reorder the Workers\u2019 and Peasants\u2019 Inspection\u2019, and \u2018Better Fewer, But Better\u2019. In these texts, Lenin acknowledged the difficulties in the process of transformation of capitalism to socialism. He wrote of the \u2018enormous, boundless significance\u2019 of cooperative societies, the need to rebuild the productive base and to build societies to advance the confidence of the masses. What Lenin indicated was the need for a cultural transformation, a new way of life for the workers and the peasants, and new and creative ways for the workers and peasants to have power over their society and to build their clarities in action. The workers have inherited the architecture of a hideous state, and this must be totally transformed. But how? Lenin\u2019s reflection in Better Fewer, but Better<\/em> is fiercely honest:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

What elements have we for building this apparatus? Only two. First, the workers who are absorbed in the struggle of socialism. These elements are not sufficient educated. They would like to build a better apparatus for us, but they do not know how. They cannot build one. They have not yet developed the culture required for this; and it is culture that is required. Nothing will be achieved in this by doing things in a rush, by assault, by vim or vigour, or in general, by any of the best human qualities. Secondly, we have elements of knowledge, education, and training, but they are ridiculously inadequate compared with all other countries.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In his last public appearance \u2013 at the Moscow Soviet in November 1922 \u2013 Lenin praised the achievements of the young Soviet Republic, but also cautioned about the hard path forward. Our Party<\/em>, he said, \u2018a little group of people in comparison with the country\u2019s total population, has tackled this job. This tiny nucleus has set itself the task of remaking everything, and it will do so\u2019. But this is not just the task of the Party, but of the workers and peasants, who see the new Soviet apparatus as their own. \u2018We have brought socialism into everyday life and must here see how matters stand. That is the task of our day, the task of our epoch\u2019. The Soviet Union lasted only seventy-four years, but in those years, it experimented fiercely to overcome the wretchedness of capitalism. Seventy-four years is the average global life expectancy. There was simply not enough time to advance the socialist agenda before the USSR was destroyed. But Lenin\u2019s legacy in not merely in the USSR. It is in the global struggle to transcend the dilemmas that confront humanity by advancing to socialism.<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On January 21st, we commemorate the passing of Vladimir Lenin, a visionary leader whose indelible mark on history continues to inspire the fight for justice, equality, and socialism<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4748,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[16,13],"class_list":["post-4744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","tag-anti-capitalism","tag-anti-imperialism"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4744","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4744"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4744\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7084,"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4744\/revisions\/7084"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4748"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4744"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4744"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aip.eita.coop.br\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4744"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}