Leninism:
Pathway to Dictatorship?
By
Samuel Aubrey Summers
Senior Seminar: Hst 499
Professor Bau-Hwa
Hsieh
Western Oregon
University
June 7, 2007
Readers
Professor David Doellinger
Professor Dean Braa
Copyright © Michael Anderson, 2007
Vladimir Lenin’s What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution laid the foundation for a centralist
dictatorship in Russia. In both of these documents, Lenin outlines
plans to create a Marxist state in Russia. Lenin faced the difficulty of an agrarian
society with a small working class ruled by a 300 year-old autocracy. Lenin
wrote What Is to Be Done? in 1903 as
an outline of how to educate an agrarian society and introduce socialism. By July 1917, when he wrote State and Revolution, Russia was in the middle of World
War One and the autocracy had crumbled.
In the fifteen years between the two documents, Lenin faced challenges
to his leadership within the party, and an increasingly chaotic political scene
in Russia. Leninism would shape the outcome of the
October 1917 Revolution and Russia’s
view of the world in the 20th century. A comparison of the two documents reveals an
evolution toward a centralized party entity designed to bring socialism to Russia.
What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution helped bring about
drastic changes in Russia
at the beginning of the 20th century. During the late 19th
and early 20th century, many groups within Russia were trying
desperately to move the country from an agrarian society to an industrialized
one. The autocracy made it difficult for the movements preceding Lenin’s
Bolshevism to bring about the necessary changes to industrialize Russia.
While trying to maintain the authority of the autocracy Russia’s Tsars were unable to change Russia
to the satisfaction of reformists within Russian society. This inflexible
political and social policy would lead to the failure of revolutionary
movements throughout the 19th century that failed to change Russia’s
political and social structure. What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution outlined
organizational changes that Lenin believed the Russian socialist party needed
to challenge the autocracy. Lenin
introduced his Vanguard Party theory as a way to bring socialism to Russia; this
theory introduced organization and discipline to a movement that had possessed
little of either until Lenin’s changes.
The changes that Lenin introduced would aid him in his successful
revolution, but after his death those same changes would open the way for a
dictator to control Russia
and corrupt Lenin’s vision of a utopian worker’s society.
Prior to 1903
there were many failed political movements that tried and failed to reform Russia;
liberalism, populism, and Marxist and non-Marxist socialism. These movements for political reform began
after the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century. Russia’s armies returned from France carrying with them the ideas
of the enlightenment. The enlightenment ideals sparked the call for political
reform from all sectors of Russian society; the nobility, the intelligentsia, the
workers, and the peasants. Reformation of the political and social systems
threatened the Tsar’s hold on Russia.
All of the social movements pushed for reform; Bolshevism was the socialist
movement that succeeded where Liberal and Populist movements failed.
Liberalism was the
first political movement to attempt reform in Russia. In the 1820’s Russian
Liberal’s tried to get the Tsar to introduce a constitution that would give basic
civil rights to Russian citizens and create a representative legislative body
to represent them. The Liberals objective was to reform Russia from the top down. With the
refusal of the Tsar and the lack of popular support the Liberal movement failed
with the defeat of the Decembrist Revolt of 1825, Liberalism lost its
substantial support and became a marginalized movement in Russia. With the marginalization of
the Liberalist movement a populist movement arose in Russia
to try to change Russia
to a representative government.
The Populist
reform movement in Russia
was a marginal movement because of its lack of organization. Populism was an
ideology brought to Russia
by the army’s involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. Populism in Russia evolved from 1815 until
1861. With the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 the movement became popular
with the intelligentsia. The populist movement grew with the intelligentsia’s
recognition of the lack of representation of the serfs’ in the local and
national government. Alexander I. Herzen’s populism movement attempted to bring
socialism to Russia’s
peasants in the 1870’s by introducing peasant farming communes. The
Populist movement never solidified into a party or organization; its advocates
were unable to bring a constituent base of peasants together to challenge the
Tsar. A substantial populist party, with the support of the peasantry, had the
potential to change Russia.
Instead, without a significant party, the populist movement failed and out of
populism grew Russia’s
socialist movement. Many small socialist groups exerted influence the outcome
of the eventual Russian socialist revolution.
Of the many, small
socialist groups formed in Russia
during the 18th century, Marxist and non-Marxist, Narodnaya Volya would be a key influence
on Lenin’s socialist theories. Narodnaya Volya was an influential populist
movement in Russia before that combined populism, Marxism, and Blanquism
before Marx and Engel’s Communist
Manifesto was introduced to Russia in 1882.
Narodnaya Volya’s socialist
status is debated among scholars; its populist and socialist agenda is beyond
the scope of this paper. Narodnaya Volya,
or People’s Will, was a radical, terroristic, party that grew out of the
frustration of failed reformist movements that did not use violence. Narodnaya Volya used violence to try and
collapse the autocracy and force political revolution in Russia. Narodnaya
Volya succeeded in assassinating on Tsar Alexander II in 1881,
and attempted to assassinate another, Alexander III.Narodnaya Volya’s goals had been stated
in a letter to Alexander III two days after his father’s assassination in 1881:
Speaking
to the Emperor as to ‘a citizen and a man of honor,’ the Committee sets forth
the measures that would make it abdicate as a revolutionary body. They are two:
political amnesty and the calling of a Constituent Assembly charged with the
task of ‘reviewing the existing forms of political and social life and altering
them in accordance with the people’s wishes.’ Also, to insure freedom of
elections, civil liberties must be granted….
In this letter you see the
influences of Liberalism and populism. This
letter preceded the attempts on Alexander III’s life and showed the measures
presented in Narodnaya Volya’s doctrine,
which was founded on doctrine set forth by Peter Tkachev. Tkachev believed that
…the
masses must be led by a centralized, elite organization of revolutionaries, a
disciplined party able to impose its will…Unless revolution came soon, capitalism
would destroy the mir [peasant
commune].
Narodnaya Volya believed that the
destruction of the mir had the ability to erase the basis for socialism that
had developed within Russia. He stated that after the takeover a temporary
dictatorship would be necessary until the masses were educated about socialism
to preserve Russia’s
society. Tkachev believed that armed
revolution was necessary and advocated assassination and other terrorist
tactics to spread his message. He
preached his message until he went insane; his beliefs would greatly influence
later reformists.
Russia’s socialist parties were small,
insignificant factions within Russia
until 1898. In 1898 the Russian Marxists came together to form the Russian
Social Democratic Labour Party bringing a unified version of communism to Russia.
The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was the predecessor to the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union. The first congress
of the Party was held in Minsk,
Belarus; all
the members of that first congress were arrested soon after the meeting. The
arrests were an abysmal beginning for the party that would soon bring political
and social changes to Russia.
Very soon after the first congress a young man by the name Vladimir Ilyich
Ulyanov, later known as V.I. Lenin, joined the party.
Lenin had many Russian
socialist influences during his life; the group that his brother was a part of
when he was executed for attempting the assassination of the Tsar, Narodnaya Volya, inspired Lenin’s
writings. The parallels between Lenin’s Bolshevism and Tkachevism are apparent
in What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution. Alexander Herzen’s socialist ideas influenced
the way Lenin dealt with the question of the education of peasants. Lenin took his ideology to the peasants after
the 1917 revolution much like the populists who attempted to influence the
peasants by working the fields alongside them.
Liberalism inspired Lenin’s beliefs of a representative governing body
and universal suffrage. These Russian
movements and Marxism influenced Lenin’s socialist ideologies for reform in Russia. Lenin’s socialist theories would split the
Russian Social Democratic Labor Party over his belief in an instigated violent
revolution. Lenin mixes the violent
ideology of Narodnaya Volya, the
populists’ appeal to the masses, Liberalism’s reformist ideologies, and Marx’s
utopian communist vision in his Bolshevik party doctrine which he presents in What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution.
The varying social
movements to reform Russia
prior to 1917 were all unsuccessful. The
Liberals lacked support of the peasants and was mainly a party of the nobility
within Russia. Populism relied too much on intellectuals and
also lacked any solid support of the peasantry.
The early socialist movements in Russia
limited themselves to the small working class in Russia. All of these movements attempted to reform Russia
with no real organization or structure for the common Russian to identify with.
This lack of structure and organization would not aid the Liberal, Socialist,
or Populist movements in their quest to change Russia to a representative society.
Russia’s movements for social change were
ineffectual in changing Russia
into representative government. From 1613 to February, 1917, Russia was
ruled by the autocratic Romanov dynasty, the Romanov family had ruled
absolutely according to Byzantine tradition of
despotism. This
Byzantine tradition was mixed with the idea that the Tsar owned all of Russia
in the medieval feudal, patrimonial tradition.
These two beliefs shaped the growth of Russia from 1613 until the
overthrow of the monarchy in 1917. The last two Tsars, Alexander III and
Nicholas II, used these traditions and beliefs to try and uphold the personal
rule of the Tsar and limit the growth of a bureaucratic system that would limit
the Tsar’s power. What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution provided the basis
for a centralized, well-organized revolutionary movement focused on changing Russia from its
traditional autocracy to any kind of representative government.
Lenin’s essays What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution express a desire
to change Russia
into a society based on his blend of socialism, Tkachevism, and Populism. What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution became the
blueprint of Russian Communism in the 20th century; without these
two documents Lenin might not have been the influence he was within Russia. Out of
these two essays emerged Russia’s
only successful revolutionary movement that was able to change Russia from the
old agrarian society into the new industrialized society.
Scholars of many
different disciplines have examined Lenin’s writings and emphasized their call
for organization, the creation of a vanguard party, and centralization of the
Marxists in Russia.
Scholars that examine What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution, describe them as
two of his most influential works due to the changes they helped bring about in
Russia’s socialism and society. Out of those two writings authors see the basis
for Bolshevik doctrine materialize. Due to the 15 years between the two
documents most authors examine the two documents separately. In these
examinations authors look at the two documents in two separate ways. The
authors either view What Is to Be Done?
as a revolutionary Marxist document dealing with the education of a countries
proletariat and creating a party whose goal was to bring socialism to a state, or
What Is to Be Done? is viewed as an
organizational essay calling for the centralization of Marxist activities in Russia
underneath a group of professional revolutionaries. State and Revolution is seen by scholars either as the blueprint
for Lenin’s attempt to “smash the state” or as a profound deviation from true
Marxist doctrine to establish a dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party in Russia.
Lars T. Lih
examines What Is to Be Done?, and
sees the essay as an answer to the question of how to educate workers and
peasants about Marxism. Lih acknowledges in his article “How a Founding
Document Was Found” that What Is to Be Done?
is an organizational essay, Lih sees the text as a
…pep
talk to the praktiki. It is half-time
and the team is not doing as well as it should, so the coach tells them in the
locker room: come on, guys, you look terrible out there! I know you can do better
than that- I know you can accomplish miracles! All it takes is some attitude
adjustment. Think big, dare to win! We can’t afford to lose this one, so get
out there and show me what you can do!
Lih sees the text as Lenin’s
attempt to energize the Socialist educators who were loosing confidence in the
workers they were trying to educate. Socialism was relatively new to Russia and struggling to become a legitimate
social movement within Russia.
His look at What Is to Be Done? shows
us a document that deals with raising the consciousness of the proletariat by
addressing those who are trying to educate them.
Organization
was needed for the education of the workers. What Is to Be Done? gave instructions on how to organize party
cells to implement that education. Clair Clark explains that
…the
party was seeking a political revolution, not just and economic revolution, a
broadly-based, relatively open, trade-union type of organization would quickly
fail in the struggle against the Tsarist autocracy. Rather, Lenin urged, there
must be an organization of professional
revolutionaries, in constant contact with the workers, guiding but not
representative of them.
This type of organization would
allow Lenin’s Bolshevik agenda to spread rapidly and be more effective. Clark explains that Lenin’s goal was to “…give the
workers class consciousness” and to “…organize the party as a collective
consciousness and a rigidly centralized vanguard.” Clark sees What Is
to Be Done? as Lenin’s view on how to organize and implement Bolshevik
education, and as an over-all organizational essay. Lih’s view is Lenin is
specifically addressing his revolutionary educators to organize them and make
their efforts more efficient.
Organization was
the key to the success of the Bolshevik movement. Without efficient, strict
organization the Bolshevik movement may never have gained the control it had
over the Russian people. Henry M. Christman looks at What Is to Be Done? as Lenin’s blueprint for the basic Bolshevik
doctrine. He points out that What Is to
Be Done? states that the revolution is a movement of both workers and
intellectuals. Christman points out that “Lenin believed that revolution must
be carefully and systematically planned and carried through; he scorned those
who anticipated “spontaneous” revolution by the people themselves.”
Essentially Lenin gives a manual for Bolshevik organizers on how to go about
organizing their efforts to further the efforts of the party. While Christman views What Is to Be Done? as a manual, Clark
sees the document as laying out how Lenin wants to organize the socialist party,
and Lih looks at What Is to Be Done?
as the answer to the revolutionaries’ need for organization to aid in the
education of the masses.
Lenin’s
What Is to Be Done? is unusually open-ended.
The document describes how to organize a revolution and how to plan for that
revolution, but it does not explain how to implement the revolution its
followers are to plan for. Lenin’s belief in organization and preparation would
not allow him to leave his plan for carrying out the Bolshevik revolution go
unwritten. In 1917 Lenin finally addressed how to implement a Leninist
socialist revolution with State and
Revolution. Scholars view this document as Lenin’s deviation from Marxism
and his plan to build an economic and social system by way of Leninist
revolution. Or State and Revolution completes
his Leninist doctrine and gives his plan to destroy any kind of democratic
system within a state to implement a socialist agenda and build a Leninist state.
Scholars
generally view State and Revolution
as Lenin’s work that had the most impact on his followers. Within its pages
Lenin described how to destroy a Western democracy and implement a socialist,
Leninist based system through active, violent revolution. Christman observes
that S&R brings forth the idea
that “…Leninists cannot participate in democracy for any purpose other than to
destroy it.” In his
analysis of State and Revolution Christman
points out that Lenin “…rejects not only capitalist, but also all Western
political forms and institutions…” Christman
sees State and Revolution as a
prediction for Lenin’s revolution and his building of the new Russian state.
Mel
Rothenberg has a different view of State
and Revolution than Christman. Rothenberg states that Lenin’s view of the
state in State and Revolution is it
is an entity in a “…period of transition.”
Rothenberg explains that in Lenin’s push to destroy the democratic system in Russia
to build his socialist, Leninist state, State
and Revolution explains how to counter a bourgeoisie liberal democracy and
institute a centralized socialist system. Rothenberg’s analysis of State and Revolution views the work as
Lenin’s blueprint to counter capitalism and democracy to build a socialist
state, rushing through the capitalism stage when the state experiences class
struggle; as stated within Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto. While Christman sees State and Revolution as Lenin’s prediction that Socialism and
Western-style democracy cannot co-exist.
The
varying analyses of What Is to Be Done?
and State and Revolution are
important. They show us the differing views scholars have regarding the two
documents. Lih looks at What Is to Be Done? as a document
describing how to educate people for the advancement of Marxism, others like
Clark and Christman see it as an organizational document. State
and Revolution is seen in two ways; Rothenberg sees it as a blueprint on
how to smash a non-socialist state as an organizational document for the
Bolshevik party, while Christman sees State
and Revolution as a prediction by Lenin of what the future holds for
Russian socialism. They also highlight the historical importance of the two
documents; they became the basis of his ideology.
These analyses
point out the strengths and weaknesses of the two documents; their continuity
of the main ideas, like strict organization and centralization, strengthens
them, while the variation from “true” Marxism weakens them. But none of the scholars
analyze the documents together. When comparing the two documents many scholars see
obvious similarities and glaring differences. One reason that a close
comparison has not been done is the varying times of publication; the essays
were written 15 years apart. By examining the context of the writings an
argument can be made that the two belong side by side.
Lenin wrote What Is to Be Done? in 1902 before the
1903 Russian Social Democratic Labour Party’s second congress where Lenin
presented the paper to his fellow Marxists. What
Is to Be Done? was written by Lenin during his exile to Siberia, and while
he was traveling throughout Europe after his
exile ended. Lenin’s beliefs separated his followers from the main party’s
beliefs. Among many other points Lenin disputed the requirements for party
membership, due to his beliefs about the party and its membership the party
split into two factions; the Mensheviks (Minoritarians) and the Bolsheviks
(Majoritarians). The Bolsheviks were led by Lenin, and adhered
to the theories he laid out in What Is to
Be Done?. They organized themselves
along Lenin’s prescribed lines and the core of the party, the Central
Committee, issued orders to the rest of the party. The Mensheviks believed in traditional
Marxism. The Mensheviks wanted to follow a path similar to that of the German
Social Democrats and attempt to change Russia from within the current
system.
What Is to Be Done? examines the problem
of how to educate workers in an industrial society. The purpose of educating
workers was to elevate their class consciousness. This education makes workers
aware of the situation in which they toil; once this was accomplished Lenin
believed a socialist revolution would occur. Lenin saw the problem as the fact
that the workers were not conscious of their position. Lenin’s believed that
“…the
strength of a modern movement lies in the awakening of the masses(principally,
the industrial proletariat), and that its weakness lies in the lack of
consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders.”
Lenin explained that workers don’t
know that they are exploited by the capitalist class, and therefore their
consciousness must be raised. A revolutionary group is needed to raise the
working class’ consciousness.
How
does someone change an entire social class’s consciousness? To do so, the
social class must be educated to realize that they are being exploited. Lenin
believed the Russian Social Democratic Party had lost its focus
It was
not so much the downright rejection of “grand phrases” that the heroes of this
period engaged in as in the “vulgarization” of these phrases: scientific
socialism ceased to be an integral revolutionary theory and became a
hodge-podge idea “freely” diluted with the contents of every new German
textbook that appeared; the slogan “class struggle” did not impel them forward
to wider and more strenuous activity but served as a soothing syrup, because
the “economic struggle is inseparably linked up with the political struggle”;
the idea of a party did not serve as a call for the creation of a militant
organization of revolutionaries, but was used to justify some sort of a
“revolutionary bureaucracy” and infantile playing at “democratic” forms.
Lenin believed that if socialists
maintained their revolutionary goals workers realizing their situation, workers
would become aware of the oppression the capitalist class was forcing upon
them. In order to educate the workers on class position and conflict, a group
of focused, professional revolutionaries were needed.
Professional
revolutionaries were seen by Lenin as necessary to challenge well organized
capitalist governments. These revolutionaries would be chosen from among the
workers and students. Lenin states that “…no movement can be durable without a
stable organization of leaders to maintain continuity.” Lenin’s
revolutionaries would be well trained and highly organized, much like the
governments they meant to topple. “…the organization must consist chiefly of
persons engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession.”
Therefore this small group formed the core of the revolutionary group, made
executive decisions, and led the revolution. This became the basic idea behind
war communism; it is also the basis for a “vanguard party.”
The
idea of a vanguard party leading the way into communism was preposterous to
most orthodox Marxists. They believed that such a party would lead to a
dictatorship of the few elites over the workers. The ideal socialist revolution
is the working class rising up as one to challenge the controlling capitalist
class. If the workers were able to defeat the capitalists then they would
control their destinies. Lenin initiated his unique strain of communism in
order to challenge the Russian autocratic state, and to prepare to fight what
he saw as an inescapable war against other capitalist countries who would
challenge the revolution. The end of World War I proved Lenin right as the
Allies supported his opponents and landed troops in Russia to protect their holdings.
The
vanguard party’s struggle to raise the consciousness of the country’s workers
was necessary to fight trade unionism. Lenin’s observation of Germany’s Social Democratic Labor Party’s
transformation into an organization willing to cooperate with an imperialist
government to change Germany
from with in was highly critical.
Lenin believed that in order to create a socialist state the socialist party
must work outside the oppressive system that it exists in. Lenin viewed the
Germans as traitors to Marxism for conceding its revolutionary status to work
within Germany’s political
system to change Germany.
Working with imperialists and capitalists, although for change, was impossible
for Lenin to conceive.
What Is to Be Done? explains how Lenin
planned to preempt what he viewed as conspiracy with the enemy in Russia.
His goal was to educate Russian citizens and Marxists to prevent cooperation
with imperialists and capitalists. This education would ready Russian socialists
for the revolution that Lenin thought was approaching Russia, and
lend to a socialist government. The first challenge for Lenin’s revolutionary
party theory was the 1905 Russian revolution.
From
1905-1917 Lenin shaped his socialist theories, these changes would impact the
way he brought socialism to Russia. Lenin observed the political changes within Russia, the weakening of the Tsar, and the
ineptitude of Russia’s
politicians. World War I changed the
country even further, the Tsar’s government was critically weakened by
incompetence and defeat on the battlefields. The support that the Tsar had prior
to the war vanished with the unpopular decisions regarding Russia’s
direction in the war. The most important influence on Lenin during this time
period was his travels in Europe and his
struggles within the party. All of these events greatly influenced Lenin and
helped to shape his socialist theories.
In 1905 Russia
experienced its first major political upheaval. In the wake of the unsuccessful
and unpopular 1904 Russo-Japanese war, discontent regarding the current Tsar,
Nicholas II, was at its height. In early January 1905 15,000 peasants marched
peacefully to the winter palace to confront the Tsar. Instead of receiving the
peaceful column led by a religious Tsarist supporter; Father Gapon,
the crowd was fired upon by the Tsar’s troops. 200 dead and 800 wounded,
in what would come to be known as Bloody Sunday, inspired strikes and protests
throughout Russia’s
cities and eventually spread to the Russian countryside. The uprising forced
the Tsar to sue Japan
for peace, and in October 1905 Tsar Nicholas II agreed to create a
representative assembly.[i]
During
December 1905 both the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks staged strikes and began to
arm workers. By the 10th
of December 1905 Moscow
had become a “battleground” according to Aleksi Gorky.
By the 12th of December
1905 rebel armies controlled good portions of the city and the
railway stations. But with the arrival of military reinforcements the attempted
uprising was defeated and many party members were arrested. The Tsar’s
formation of the Duma briefly consoled the 1905 revolutionaries.
Despite the
creation of a representative legislative body, Tsar Nicholas II had no
intention of relinquishing any of his powers. In his Fundamental Laws, released
in April 1906, the
Tsar made clear his view that he was still in control of Russia. Constitutional Articles
like Article 5, “the person of the Tsar is sacred and inviolable,”
gave Nicholas II supremacy over the Duma and any laws it created. With its
power limited, the Duma’s inability to adequately represent average Russians
quickly became all too apparent. Even with the newly granted Duma the Bolshevik
party planned an armed insurrection, one not intended to seize power but
instead to “….The point is not about victory but about giving the regime a
shake and attracting the masses to the movement……”
as put by V.I. Lenin after the failure of the 1905 revolution.
Despite the
failure of the December Revolution, the Marxists had gained the attention and
notoriety they desired. The revolution had shaken the Tsarist regime as
intended by Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders. After the October Manifesto
and the December Revolution the Duma appeared to have the power desired by
political reformists within Russia;
in reality the Tsar maintained his hold on Russia. Socialist leaders who were
not satisfied with the apparent political victory continued to push for social
revolution.
The first hint of
the Duma’s lack of power came 72 days after the first assembly was called. On the 8th of July 1906
the Tsar dissolved the new Duma
and called for new elections for the following year’s session.
Political reform favored by the Kadets, a party that favored political reforms
but not social revolution, was not achieved during the sessions of the first
and second Dumas. Instead the Dumas of 1906 and 1907 were used as propaganda
tools by the Tsarists supporters and the Marxist factions.
At the beginning
of the 1905 revolution Lenin was in Geneva,
Switzerland.
When his comrades in Russia
called for him to join them he left Geneva
behind and entered Russia
with forged passport papers. He stayed in Russia
through the failure of the 1905 revolution until 1907 when, for safety reasons,
he moved to Finland.
From the end of the revolution in 1906 until his move in 1907 Lenin was
fighting for leadership within the Bolsheviks. Many Russian Socialists wanted
to mend the rift between the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions, Lenin was still
adamant in his view that professional revolutionaries were needed to raise the
consciousness of the working class. After a short struggle Lenin’s ideology was
maintained and the organizational apparatus of the party was kept separate from
the rest of the party, it was at this time a secret Bolshevik Centre was
established.
Lenin stayed in Finland until 1908 when he relocated to Stockholm, once again on
the run from Tsarist agents. In Stockholm Lenin continued to dictate policy to
the party, his lifestyle was funded by royalties from his books and the party
funds, which came from armed robberies and legacies. From Stockholm Lenin
toured Europe lecturing and meeting with other
Bolsheviks about party policy. He was competing with Alexander Bogdanov for
control of the party. In 1909 at a Bolshevik conference in Paris Lenin forced
Bogdanov out of the party
and he became the premier theorist in the Bolshevik party. This placed all actions of the party firmly
under his control where he was free to exert his principles on his followers.
The
period of 1909 until 1914 Lenin spent solidifying the Bolshevik organization into a revolutionary party, through his
representatives in Russia
who communicated with him while he traveled around Europe
and attended Russian socialist conferences. Then in 1914, the World War broke
out, Lenin was in Poland
at the time and was imprisoned in Nowy Targ. After his release in August 1914
Lenin and his family moved to Switzerland
to avoid anti-Russian persecution and the advancing Tsarist imperial army.
From 1914 until 1917 Lenin spent his time in Switzerland trying to undermine the
Russian war effort and speaking out against the German Social Democratic
Party’s support of the war.
Lenin
saw the World War as an imperialist, bourgeoisie conflict spurned by capitalist
forces within the participating countries. His essay Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, which was published in
early 1916, argues that World War I was a capitalist war that was the result of
conflicts over territorial ambitions of capitalist governments. During the
decades prior to the war the world was becoming divided by spheres of
influence. European governments sought so extend their control by colonialism.
The colonies of Europe would come into conflict, especially in Africa and Asia, in order to expand for their sponsoring country.
The governments of the world were created by capitalists to further their
ambitions and profits. These capitalists sought to gain national blocks of
capital, or buy into government, to expand their interests and drive up
profits. These capitalist governments did not support workers, many of whom
already lived in oppression or poverty. The spheres of capitalist influence
would grow until the entire world’s population would be living in poverty.
Tsarist Russia’s
support of the war led to a rapid degeneration of the absolute authority it
maintained over the working class and peasantry. Initial successes at Galicia and Lvov
would be overshadowed by tragic defeats at Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes.
Bad decision-making, industrially and militarily, led to shortages of munitions
and supplies for the army.
As conditions on the front deteriorated the army’s moral fell apart and
eventually allow it to become a mob favoring revolutionary change within Russia.
As the World War
plodded on Russian casualties rose, by the end of the war in 1918 over 12
million Russian men had been mobilized. Of those 12 million men 1.7 million
lost their lives,
staggering losses like these coupled with the shortage of bread and fuel in
Russian cities would spark riots that would turn into a revolution. On the 25th of February 1917
a crowd faced a squadron of Cossacks near where, in 1905, Tsarist troops fired
on a crowd of peaceful protestors during Bloody Sunday. Over the next few days
Tsarist troops fired upon civilians, but more and more soldiers began joining
the protestors. Before long regiments of soldiers had mutinied and joined the
revolution. Despite
the obvious revolutionary ardor in the streets socialist leaders did not
believe that the revolution was imminent, “What revolution? Give the workers a
pound of bread and the movement will peter out.” said the leading Bolshevik in
the capital.
With the
revolution underway in February 1917 Lenin was still in Switzerland. In March the Bolshevik
situation in Russia clearly
needed a leader, and in April 1917 Lenin traveled across Germany and entered Russia.
During the trip Lenin composed his April
Thesis which denounced the Provisional Government and encouraged a
Bolshevik led socialist revolution. The Provisional government which he railed
against was led by the Menshevik faction of Russia’s Socialists. Lenin’s encouragement of a
Bolshevik uprising gained him many enemies in Russia;
Mensheviks and Tsarist supporters used his crossing of Germany to suggest that he was a
German agent. Despite
support from many Marxists including Leon Trotsky, lack of popular support mad
it so Lenin was unable to implement a successful Bolshevik revolution in July
of 1917 and he was forced to flee to Finland. In Finland Lenin composed an essay that, along with
What Is to Be Done?, laid out how the
Bolsheviks would organize and carryout the revolution, and how the Bolshevik
Party would bring socialism to Russia.
That essay, State and Revolution, influenced Bolshevik politics until the fall
of the communist government in 1989.
With the
revolution fast approaching Russia,
Lenin needed to define what to do in the event of a successful revolution. The
essay State and Revolution was his
plan to Russia
to accept his vision of Marxism to replace the provisional government. First, though, he addressed the problem of the
state’s relationship to the capitalist class. Lenin saw the governments in
countries like England and Germany
as extensions of the capitalist sectors. He believed that the governments were
the tool of the capitalist class’s expansion, created by capitalists to serve
capitalist interests. The government is the “executive committee” of the
bourgeoisie passing favorable legislation and regulations to further capitalist
interests.
Lenin
believed that once people recognized the contradiction between the capitalist
and the working class and the desire to foment a revolution in order to create
a workers paradise would become prevalent in the society. There were four steps to the revolution
according to Lenin. First comes the
realization of the state’s role as the capitalist class’s executive committee;
Lenin defined the state as an organ of class oppression and exploitation.
Second war must be made against the oppressive governmental system and the
capitalist class, effectively smashing the executive committee. Once the
executive committee is smashed, the state will wither away leaving a socialist
state advocating democracy as the third step. The final step is the
“dictatorship of the proletariat,” in which workers dictate to the bourgeoisie
what to produce and how to produce it.
Lenin
attacked the provisional Menshevik government after his arrival in Russia
in April 1917, claiming that their continued support of the World War, which he
viewed as a capitalist war, and their commitment to liberal reforms were
bourgeoisie policies. Lenin proposed creating a vanguard party to lead Russia
through capitalism into socialism. Much like the professional revolutionaries
he described in What Is to Be Done?,
the party would be a highly disciplined, paramilitary group rigidly controlled
from the center. The organization would embrace the common Russian citizen, and
in turn the common Russian citizen would embrace the organization.
The
provisional government formed by the Menshevik party under Alexander Kerensky has
been devoted to liberal reforms. The Allies in World War I promised the
fledgling Russian Government support if it maintained the large Russian front.
The desire shared by Russian civilians to pull out of the war gave Lenin all
the leverage he needed. Kerensky wanted to cooperate with capitalists to create
a working class and a situation in which traditional Marxism was possible.
Lenin railed against the Mensheviks for their cooperation with the capitalist
class, this in his eyes made the provisional government inherently capitalist
like any other capitalist country, therefore illegitimate.
State and Revolution seems to justify
taking power from the Mensheviks by force and instituting Bolshevik party rule
in Russia.
This justification helps to lend legitimacy to Lenin’s government in the eyes
of Russia’s
citizenry. State and Revolution describes Lenin’s distrust of ballot box
reform, he saw the failure of the German Social democratic Labor Party to
reform through the ballot box as evidence to the inefficiency of the system. In
Lenin’s eyes liberal elections are capitalist by nature and they do not
encourage socialism.
Legitimacy
was what Lenin had been seeking for his socialist vision all along. Beginning
in 1902 with What Is to Be Done?
Lenin offered up his vision of how to change Russia into a legitimate socialist
state, specifically his strain of Marxism. In 1917 he continued that search for
legitimacy with State and Revolution.
Both documents presented party organization and the vanguard party model. What Is to Be Done?’s vanguard party is
for education of the proletariat. State
and Revolution’s vanguard would be the whole Bolshevik party itself. The Party would be responsible for leading Russia
through capitalism into communism. The
party itself was the vanguard entity that Lenin spoke of in both his papers.
The function of the party was changed due to the events surrounding Russia
at the time, but both essays revolved around the party. Both What
Is to Be Done? and State and
Revolution insisted on the centralization of the party and its activities.
This centralization aided Lenin and his Bolshevization of Russia, but the
reliance on this centralized entity would have disastrous results.
The
emphasis of both What Is to Be Done? and
State and Revolution is
organization. Without organization Lenin
realized that socialism would fail in any country. In What
Is to Be Done? the organization is aimed at cadres of Marxists working to
educate workers and raise their consciousness. This education would be used to
enlighten workers about the benefits that Marxism would bring to their lives
through a representative, socialist government.
State and Revolution’s
organization was aimed at smashing the state entity to instill the discipline
necessary to challenge a capitalist government in a physical, violent
revolution. The organization provided by both writings was essential to
successful Bolshevik revolution in 1917; prior to 1917 the populists and
liberals had failed with little to no organization and the Menshevik Marxists
would loose out to the militarily organized Bolsheviks in 1917. With the dissention caused by the World War
aiding the Bolsheviks takeover, by promising immediate reform their popularity
rose and gave them the numbers to challenge the provisional government, What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution gave the party
purpose, direction, and legitimacy. Lenin took a relatively unorganized group of
socialists and turned them into an organized, efficient party capable of the
revolution that he foresaw.
This
issue of organization in both essays was aimed at the vanguard party theory. In
What Is to Be Done? Lenin intended
the vanguard party to be an instrument
of education. The party would be
organized into cadres of “…persons engaged in revolutionary activities as a
profession.” The revolutionary activities consisted of
undermining the Tsar’s regime and bringing people to the cause through
education. This education was taking
place in a hostile environment; all Marxists were outlawed under the Tsarist
regime. These educators not only had to
be knowledgeable, they also had to be stealthy and efficient. Without those attributes they would be caught
and prosecuted by the ruling autocracy.
State and Revolution’s organization was
aimed at destroying all vestiges of a society that was not Marxist or
Leninist. The vanguard was composed of
political Leninists who were to guide Russia through the revolutionary
stages and capitalism into socialism.
These men had to be willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of the
party. This sacrifice would bring Russia
through the stages of society laid out by Marx and Lenin to the utopian society
that was envisioned by Lenin.
Both What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution had separate
objectives for the vanguard party. What
Is to Be Done? and S&R can be
seen as the mission statement for the Bolsheviks during 1902 and 1917,
respectively. Put them together and
Lenin’s plan for Bolshevism in Russia
is evident. With the organization of the party under the vanguard complete
Lenin addresses who would direct the vanguard. From the center of the party
which, was secret at first, the central committee would direct the actions of
the vanguard party.
The centralization
of party power was central to both papers.
Lenin’s believed that the efficient spread of Bolshevism is possible
through tight control of the party from the central committee, with rigid
discipline the party could create his vision for Russia similar to the way an army
fights a war. His Menshevik and
Bolshevik opponents criticized him because his belief that the Central
Committee should function in secret.
Their belief was that a secret central committee would limit the
effectiveness of the party. His rebuttal
to their opposition in What Is to Be
Done? argues for eventual centralization in all facets of Russian life, and
the continued secrecy of certain functions of the Party;
The
centralization of the more secret functions in an organization of
revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and the
quality of the activity of a large number of other organizations intended for
wide membership and which, therefore, can be as loose and public as possible,
for example, trade unions, workers’ circles for self-education and the reading
of illegal literature, and the socialist and also democratic circles for all other sections of the population, etc.,
etc.
Lenin believed
that centralization and secrecy would promote the quick, efficient spread of
Bolshevism.
State
and Revolution’s centralization had an entirely different intent. The need
for centralization was to direct the violent revolution necessary to replace a
bourgeois state with a proletarian state. This centralization was necessary to direct
the revolutionary actions of the different branches of revolutionary activity
taking place. Without centralization the
revolution had the opportunity to fail, much like the failure of the
Provisional Government’s failure in the face of Bolshevism. The successful
October Revolution reinforced the need for a central authority to smash the entity Lenin
referred to as the state.
Though written 15 years apart, What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution have many
similarities. These similarities show Lenin’s program holds to the same ideas
of organization and centralization over time, and gives much needed legitimacy in
the eyes of Russia’s
citizenry to the Bolsheviks during a time of social upheaval when Russians were
seeking a stable government. Both call
for organization of the party into a vanguard entity to challenge the
state. Once the party was organized,
power would be centralized, to conduct revolutionary activities or to challenge
the existing state ultimate power, in terms of the party, lay in the hands of
the men at the center. This type of power would be ominous for Russia’s
future.
With the Bolshevik takeover in October
1917, Russia’s
future revolved around Lenin. Lenin’s support of a centralized state was his
way of shepherding Russia
through the capitalist phase of societal evolution presented by Marx. His feeling was that the party’s guidance
could bring Russia rapidly
through this phase and allow the country into his utopian vision for Russia. But Lenin’s centralization was the downfall
of his vision; power from the center would ultimately pervert Lenin’s vision
and form an authoritarian society under Joseph Stalin.
The need for centralization was
re-enforced by the beginning of Russia’s
civil war in 1918. The Bolsheviks not
only fought the forces that wanted to re-install the Tsar or a similar
autocratic figure, they were also threatened by an intervening force of the
World War allies at Archangelsk
and Vladivostok.
The presence of foreign troops on Russian soil strengthened the resolve of the
Bolsheviks, the allies voicing their support of the Bolshevik’s Russian
opponents in the civil war rallied peasant support to the Bolsheviks. From 1918-1921 during the Civil War the
Bolsheviks centralized all facets of Russian life to make fighting the war more
efficient for the fledgling Bolshevik government. In 1918 Lenin named Leon Trotsky the
“People’s Commissar for War” and
the chain of command was created. With
Lenin at the top and his commissars laid out below him in a rigid, militarily
inspired command structure. This was the
format for war communism. The use of this rigid command structure continued
until the Bolshevik regime faced violent uprising in 1924. In 1924 Lenin changed his policy until only
the Party and the military was highly centralized. The centralization of the party in response
to civil war Lenin opened the avenue for a Leninist dictator in the future.
Russia’s
centralization under Lenin allowed one man to rule Russia much like the Tsar had
before the 1917 revolution. Lenin’s
centralization of power in Russia
was two-fold. First it was to make the
education of the masses easier in order to raise the consciousness of the
oppressed classes in Russia,
the peasants and workers. Then, during the 1918-1921 civil war, centralization
served to create an easy flow of orders from the top down; an army would be
unable to wage a successful war if the soldiers had to vote on every action
taken by that army. A clear chain of
command permits smooth communication and orders to travel along the chain of
command.
The Bolsheviks rigid command structure, outlined
in What Is to Be Done? to allow
efficient education towards the foreseen revolution, transferred easily to
Russian society. The transfer to a rigid
system of control was unquestioned due to the former autocratic Tsarist regime,
and because of the control needed to successfully fight the civil war. Once the Bolsheviks solidified their power in
Russia
leadership still came from one man, Lenin.
Upon Lenin’s death in 1924 a struggle commenced to replace him at the
center of the party. By 1924 the
Bolshevik party controlled Russia,
the Central Committee (CC) dictated to the party. Lenin’s successor, who would
be at the center of the CC, carried enormous political influence within the CC. This position of power had been filled by
Lenin, when the long struggle for succession ended in the late 1930’s Stalin
was at the center of the CC. From the
dictatorship of a centralized party to the dictatorship of Stalin, Lenin’s
writings played a key role.
Lenin wrote What Is to Be Done? and State
and Revolution to bring a vision of Marxism to Russia that he felt was compatible
as swiftly as possible. He envisioned a utopian workers state where no
bourgeoisie existed to oppress the workers. Lenin foresaw a society where workers
would reap the rewards of their labor and live in relative harmony with each
other. Despite his good intentions,
Lenin’s vision did not succeed due to the political conditions he left in Russia when he
died. Despite his failure to secure
socialism in Russia;
Lenin’s doctrine survived him. His
support of a highly organized, centralized party organ allowed men like Stalin
to dominate Russia’s
politics after his death.
The
importance of What Is to Be Done? and
State and Revolution lies not in how
they were used by Lenin to implement the 1917 revolution, but in how their
doctrine was used after the civil war and after Lenin’s death. After Russia’s brutal civil war Lenin
used his essays to maintain a rigid governmental system that received
operational orders from the Central Committee.
While Lenin was alive the Central Committee followed his orders, after
his death the party’s orders emanated from the Committee itself. The party’s centralization allowed its orders
to maintain consistency throughout the Bolshevik regime.
While
centralization allowed for easy governing, it also made fighting wars more
efficient. The organization and
centralization of Russia’s
official government and military branches created an efficient, machine-like
organism that the Central Committee was able to manipulate to maintain
control. The efficiency of the Russian
system aided in the victory over the Bolsheviks’ opponents of the civil war,
and it allowed the government and military to recover from initial defeats in
World War II and drive the Nazis back into Germany. This efficiency allowed Russia to export its ideology to
other countries after World War II and aid in the creation of the group of
states that became the Soviet Block.
What Is to Be Done? and State and Revolution became the
guidelines along which Lenin tried to bring his vision for Russia to the reform-hungry lower
classes. Lenin’s vision for Russia
was a society that existed with no social class and no envy of others’
possessions. Lenin saw his Russia
as a utopian society that accommodated the wants and needs of everyone within
the society. He did not foresee the
possibility of a takeover by a power-hungry individual, nor did he foresee the
abuses of power, like the bloody purges that were committed by Stalin in the
1930’s and 1940’s. In his effort to free
Russia
from the autocratic rule of the Tsar Lenin formed a system that would allow a
small, elite group of society to dictate the rest of society; exactly like the
Tsars had done for 300 years.
For
300 years a monarchy had ruled Russia’s
agrarian society. A demanding, largely peasant population was looking for a
stable, legitimate government to rule in its stead. The Bolsheviks organization allowed the Party
to prevail in the political and military struggle for supremacy in Russia,
while their rigid organization and command structure gave the peasantry what
they were looking for in their government; someone to tell them what to do. The betrayal of Lenin’s ideals for his
vanguard was betrayed by the very man who envisioned the bright, Russian
future. His blindness to the danger of
centralization of power allowed men who sought power to fight for the right to
wield such power. When the struggle for
political supremacy ended in 1938, Stalin controlled Russia, and Lenin’s vision was lost
to a cruel dictatorship that killed many Russians and defamed socialism in
Western society. While Lenin did not
envision this outcome, his adaptation of Marxism into Leninism for Russia
brought it about.
Bibliography-
Brinkley,
George. “Leninism: What it Was and What it Was Not.” Review of Politics.
60, no. 1 (1998): 151-164
Commission
of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U., ed. History of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks). New York: International
Publishers, 1939
Christman,
Henry M. Essential Works of Lenin: “What Is to Be Done?” and Other Writings. New York: Bantam Books, Inc. 1987.
Clark,
Claire. “Lenin the Revolutionary” Melbourne
Historical Journal. no. 9 (1970): 25-29.
Cohen,
Stephan F. “Bukharin, Lenin and the Theoretical Foundations of Bolshevism.” Soviet Studies. 21, no. 4: (1970)
436-457.
Conquest,
Robert. Stalin: Breaker of Nations. New York: Penguin Group. 1992.
Ehrenberg,
John. “Class Politics and The State: Lenin and the Contradictions of Socialism.” Science and Society.
59, no. 3 (1995): 437-463.
Evans,
Alfred B. “Rereading Lenin's 'State and Revolution'” Slavic Review. 46,
no. 1 (1987): 1-19.
Farber,
Samuel. “The Relevance of Lenin Today.” Science
and Society. 60, no. 1 (1996): 90-96.
Fer’shtinski,
Iuri. “The Mystery of Lenin’s Death.” Russian
Studies in History. 46, no 3 (2003):
26-76.
Figes,
Orlando. A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924. New York: Penguin
Group. 1998.
Fitzpatrick,
Sheila. The Russian Revolution. 3rd ed. New
York: Oxford
University Press. 1994.
Hudis,
Peter. “Developing a Philosophically Grounded Alternative to Capitalism.” Socialism and Democracy. 19, no. 2 (2005):
91-98.
Krylova,
Anna. Beyond the Spontaneity-Conciousness Paradigm: “Class Instinct” as a Promising Category of Historical Analysis. Slavic Review. 62, no. 1 (2003): 1-23.
Lih,
Lars T. “How a Founding Document Was Found, or One Hundred Years of Lenin’s 'What is to Be Done?'” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and
Eurasian History. 4, no. 1
(2003): 5-49.
MacKenzie, David and Michael
W. Curran. A History of Russia, the Soviet Union,
and Beyond. Belmont, CA:
West/Wadsworth publishing 1999.
Marx,
Karl and Friedrich Engels. The
Communist Manifesto. New York:
Signet Classic. 1998.
Mayer,
Robert. “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat From Plekhanov to Lenin.” Studies
in East European Thought. 45, no.
4 (1993): 255-280.
McNeal,
Robert. “Lenin’s Attack on Stalin: Review and Reappraisal.” American Slavic and East European Review. 18, no. 3 (1959):
295-314.
Page,
Stanley W.
“Lenin’s Assumption of International Proletarian Leadership.” Journal of
Modern History. 26 no. 3 (1954): 233-245.
Pipes,
Richard. Three “Whys” of the Russian Revolution. New York: Vintage books. 1997.
Reed,
John. Ten Days That Shook the World. Penguin Group. 1977.
Riegel,
Klaus-Georg. “Marxism-Leninism as a Political Religion.” Totalitarian Movements and
Political Religions. 6, no. 1 (2005): 97-126.
Robinson, James Harvey and
Charles Beard. Readings in Modern European History. Boston: Ginn and Company,
1908.
Roth,
Guenther. The Social Democrats in
Imperial Germany.
Totowa, New Jersy: The Bedminster
Press, 1984.
Rothenberg,
Mel. “Lenin on The State.” Science and Society. 59, no. 3 (1995): 418- 436.
Rusche, Harry. “The Human
Cost.” http://www.english.emory.edu/LostPoets/Casualties.html
(accessed 17 April 2007).
Service, Robert. Lenin: A Biography. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 2000.
Shaw,
William H. “Towards the One-Party State in Zimbabwe: A Study in African Political Thought.” Journal of Modern African Studies. 24 no. 3 (1986): 373- 394.
Smith,
David G. “Lenin's 'Imperialism”: A Study in the Unity of Theory and Practice.” Journal of Politics. 17, no. 4 (1955):
546-569.
Swain,
Goeffrey. “Lenin, Tyrant or Savior?” Modern
History Review. 16, no. 1 (Jan
2004): 2-6.
Tucker,
Robert C. “Towards a Comparative Politics of Movement-Regimes.” American Political
Science Review. 55, no. 2 (1961): 281-290.
Ward,
Chris. Stalin’s Russia.
New York: Oxford University
Press. 1999.
Weeks, Albert L. The First Bolshevik, a Political Biography
of Peter Tkachev. New York:
New York University Press. 1968.
Yarmaolinsky, Avrahm. Road to Revolution. Toronto: Collier Books 1969.