How Lenin Studied Marx
Marx created a critique of capitalism (which today we call Marxism or Marxist theory) which suggested that class-based capitalism would inevitably exploit. Less often emphasised are Lenin's relationships with women, which in Russia on her way into Marxism, and Lenin made her head of the. The life and work of Lenin were central to the development of Marxism in the .. well as the relationship between revolution and reform remain central topics of.
And the fact that after the socialist revolution in the U. The older social democrats, unlike Marx, had only focused on the proletarian revolution that was to be made in the European industrialized countries.
Many, like Trotsky, could not even understand the revolutionary relationship of the proletariat in these societies with the peasantry. The failure of the Russian Revolution must be attributed in great part to this lack of understanding of the revolutionary potential of the peasantry.
Understanding that China was a mainly peasant country he could see that the main force of the Chinese revolution must be the peasantry, contrary to what reactionaries like Trotsky or other dogmatists said. And although this massive peasant force was led by its most advanced class, the small but revolutionary class of Chinese workers, Mao Zedong made new contributions to Marxism-Leninism with this living application of the revolutionary science.
Mao also opposed the dogmatists who believed, because of the Russian Revolution, that the revolution must begin in the cities and then proceed out to the countryside. Mao first captured the countryside by means of a largely peasant, but worker-led army, and then proceeded to capture the cities. Because China was a semi-colonial country, where feudal relations still predominated, the Chinese struggle was seen by many dogmatists as merely a bourgeois struggle and not genuine proletarian revolution.
It is obvious that such dogmatists had actually not even fully digested the revolutionary teachings of Comrade Lenin! But Mao had fully absorbed Lenin and had even made fully scientific innovations on Marxist theory.
One such innovation, particularly applicable to the oppressed nations and peoples of the third world, was the development not only of the party of the working class, which had been brought to perfection by Lenin in the U. Mao understood that in a colonial country oppressed by imperialism the greater part of the nation, the majority of its classes, are oppressed to some degree by imperialism, foreign domination.
Mao proposed that not only must a proletarian party be developed but that the entire nation, the majority of its classes, would struggle to some extent against foreign domination. But led by the party of the proletariat such a struggle against imperialism would not stop at the stage of bourgeois democracy but would proceed without stopping to socialism!
How Lenin manipulated the Russian Revolution to his own ends | The Spectator
Mao made it clear that the national liberation struggle of the Chinese people against foreign domination must be led by the Chinese proletariat, because they alone would carry the struggle all the way to the end, not only driving out imperialism, but then setting up a socialist society.
The United Front was absolutely necessary so that the entire oppressed nation, all of its classes willing to oppose imperialism, would help drive out foreign domination. But the party of the proletariat and the working masses finally must lead such a revolution, so that it did not stop at bourgeois dictatorship.
Armed struggle was the main form of revolution in China. But in too many cases the national liberation movements in the third world have not been consistently led by the proletariat and the revolution has not been carried out to the end, and in many cases, we have seen foreign domination driven out, but now we are confronted with a neocolonialism, in which a domestic bourgeoisie still linked with the old colonial powers continues to oppress the people!
The need for the fundamental Marxist weapons of class analysis and proletarian organization are critical in the national liberation struggles raging all over the third world as well as in the struggle of the African American people here in the U. Too often the united front structure that is one basic weapon of national liberation is not led by the proletariat. Often this is because the proletariat is very tiny in many third world countries.
This is particularly true in Africa and the Caribbean and for that reason many of the liberation movements have been petty bourgeois or at least with petty bourgeois or bourgeois leadership. It is therefore very significant that in the United States and South Africa there are found two of the largest classes of black workers in the world.
This bodes extremely well for the eventual domination of those liberation movements in the USA and South Africa by the black proletariat.Noam Chomsky - Marxism vs. Leninism
In the United States, the Black Liberation Movement is part of the whole struggle of the people to make revolution, the great majority of the black masses are workers and indeed most of the lower strata of the U. In South Africa, because it is a white settler colony, a national liberation struggle led by the black proletariat could go uninterrupted into socialist revolution, so that the means of production are finally in the hands of the working class as well as its black majority.
So that it is no longer enough to say that political power must be in black hands in Africa and the Caribbean, such power must be in the hands of the working class based on a revolutionary alliance of the workers and peasants.
In the industrialized West however, too often the would-be revolutionary political parties have been rendered sterile by opportunism. That is, by the so-called revolutionaries settling for short-term gains at the expense of long-range revolutionary goals.
The economic basis of this opportunism is the superprofits imperialism has gouged out of the third world through superexploitation which are used to bribe sections of the working class and middle class. Lenin warned that the struggle against imperialism could not go forward militantly unless it was accompanied by an uncompromising struggle against opportunism.
How Lenin manipulated the Russian Revolution to his own ends
This is why today in the U. The importance of spreading revolutionary theory and organizing communist forces throughout the third world and in the Black Liberation Movement in the U. No amount of metaphysics or cultural nationalism will free the oppressed and superexploited masses of the third world and the Afro-American nation. Only revolution, led by the most revolutionary class in society, the working class, can bring about the end of national oppression, neocolonialism, racism, Zionism and all forms of reaction, including the oppression of women.
The Black Liberation Movement is one key aspect in making such a revolution. He delved instead into a resentful if disciplined self-education in socialist classics and discovered Marx — a writer tsarist censors thought no one would read. His mother Maria fought for his education and provided him with financial assistance for much of his life.
He was close to his sisters. A classic socialist love triangle defined his private life. Infellow socialist Nadezhda Krupskaya married him and followed him into Siberian exile, European exile, and eventually into the Kremlin. The two women kept cordial relations.
Such was the revolutionary milieu. Variations on that biography would not be hard to find. But the personality that shaped the humanitarian inferno after is more inscrutable. Sebestyen presents unsettling evidence of a man whose objectives seemed to possess him, rather than the other way around. When tsarist forces shelled to death hundreds of Moscow workers and their families inhe practically celebrated: He was in a race not only against liberals, reactionaries and rival socialists, but also with his own mortality and sense of self-worth.
Past middle age, childless, short of money and with a life invested in quarrel and conspiracy, his mission to capture the revolution and contain it within his Marxist innovations seems to have been an existential concern for him.
His careless planning for his succession suggests as much.
Portraying the man in power, Sebestyen demonstrates with memorable examples his cold cynicism and easy recourse to terror and his seemingly pathological reliance on censorship and disinformation.
The impression is less of an idealist trying to implement a lofty plan than of a half-conscious charlatan trying to run out the clock before he discovers himself. Weighing his research against the views of other leading historians, Smith offers a well-proportioned and skilfully condensed panorama of the revolutionary situation in the Russian empire and its aftermath, covering nearly 40 years. The central tension in his account is between idealism and tyranny.
He begins with an epigraph from the dewy-eyed Pierre Bezukhov arguing for the ideals of the French Revolution in War and Peace.