The foundations of Leninism is a big subject. To exhaust it a whole volume would be required. Indeed, a whole number of volumes would be required. Naturally, therefore, my lectures cannot be an exhaustive exposition of Leninism; at best they can only offer a concise synopsis of the foundations of Leninism. Nevertheless, I consider it useful to give this synopsis, in order to lay down some basic points of departure necessary for the successful study of Leninism.
Expounding the foundations of Leninism still does not mean expounding the basis of Lenin’s world outlook. Lenin’s world outlook and the foundations of Leninism are not identical in scope. Lenin was a Marxist, and Marxism is, of course, the basis of his world outlook. But from this it does not at all follow that an exposition of Leninism ought to begin with an exposition of the foundations of Marxism. To expound Leninism means to expound the distinctive and new in the works of Lenin that Lenin contributed to the general treasury of Marxism and that is naturally connected with his name. Only in this sense will I speak in my lectures of the foundations of Leninism.
And so, what is Leninism?
Some say that Leninism is the application of Marxism to the conditions that are peculiar to the situation in Russia. This definition contains a particle of truth, but not the whole truth by any means. Lenin, indeed, applied Marxism to Russian conditions, and applied it in a masterly way. But if Leninism were only the application of Marxism to the conditions that are peculiar to Russia it would be a purely national and only a national, a purely Russian and only a Russian, phenomenon. We know, however, that Leninism is not merely a Russian, but an international phenomenon rooted in the whole of international development. That is why I think this definition suffers from one-sidedness.
Others say that Leninism is the revival of the revolutionary elements of Marxism of the forties of the nineteenth century, as distinct from the Marxism of subsequent years, when, it is alleged, it became moderate, non-revolutionary. If we disregard this foolish and vulgar division of the teachings of Marx into two parts, revolutionary and moderate, we must admit that even this totally inadequate and unsatisfactory definition contains a particle of truth. This particle of truth is that Lenin did indeed restore the revolutionary content of Marxism, which had been suppressed by the opportunists of the Second International. Still, that is but a particle of the truth. The whole truth about Leninism is that Leninism not only restored Marxism, but also took a step forward, developing Marxism further under the new conditions of capitalism and of the class struggle of the proletariat.
What, then, in the last analysis, is Leninism?
Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. Marx and Engels pursued their activities in the pre-revolutionary period, (we have the proletarian revolution in mind), when developed imperialism did not yet exist, in the period of the proletarians’ preparation for revolution, in the period when the proletarian revolution was not yet an immediate practical inevitability. But Lenin, the disciple of Marx and Engels, pursued his activities in the period of developed imperialism, in the period of the unfolding proletarian revolution, when the proletarian revolution had already triumphed in one country, had smashed bourgeois democracy and had ushered in the era of proletarian democracy, the era of the Soviets.
That is why Leninism is the further development of Marxism.
It is usual to point to the exceptionally militant and exceptionally revolutionary character of Leninism. This is quite correct. But this specific feature of Leninism is due to two causes: firstly, to the fact that Leninism emerged from the proletarian revolution, the imprint of which it cannot but bear; secondly, to the fact that it grew and became strong in clashes with the opportunism of the Second International, the fight against which was and remains an essential preliminary condition for a successful fight against capitalism. It must not be forgotten that between Marx and Engels, on the one hand, and Lenin, on the other, there lies a whole period of undivided domination of the opportunism of the Second International, and the ruthless struggle against this opportunism could not but constitute one of the most important tasks of Leninism.
love to wear my Marx hat backwards and hop on my skateboard with the entire text of Combat Liberalism on it
Just read my first work of Joseph Stalin thought. It's an interview by HG Wells linked in the comments on this post:
https://hexbear.net/post/166277
It was fascinating. He seems like he's kinda underrated in the west.. I look forward to reading more.
That's one of my favorite interviews. I like how at one point HG Wells tries saying FDR is more of a socialist than Stalin. Stalin takes it in good faith and argues that even though FDR might be a talented and skilled leader, it wouldn't matter if he's a socialist because the American economy is operated by capitalists.
It's better than that. HG Wells says that he is to the left of Stalin. There's several exchanges like that. At one point in the interview Stalin feels the need to point out that he does actually have some personal experience with fighting for socialism.
Edit: Salute to HG Wells for calling Stalin a liberal to his face.
:gigachad:
2nd Edit: What's the consequence for calling Stalin a lib and telling him he needs to learn a little bit about communism? Stalin invited Wells to the upcoming Writers' Union Congress.
I really appreciate that first statement, but I think the standard American reaction would be to say that the USSR was just 100 million people being exploited for Stalin's personal benefit.
The post about the inventory of Stalin's belongings is probably my absolute favorite. He had ten pairs of pants. For some reason that really stuck out to me. I like to think that he really wanted to be sure he could always quickly change into a clean pair. He took the reason for his paranoia to his grave.
I think it's pretty logical, pants get wrinkly and dirty a lot easier than tops do. They're closer to the ground so they can get splashed on, and they're also right next to your groin and asscrack, both zones well known for being stinky and filthy.
In the same way it's always a good idea to have new and fresh underwear, it's a good idea to have a nice set of fresh pants as well.
Alaskaball: "You see Stalin, you and I are not so different."
I can't wait to read those. I'm reading through some Marx with a friend, which will take a while. Then we'll move onto some Lenin, and finally Stalin.
State and Rev makes a very careful point to NOT distort Marx. Lenin translated quotations from the original German to Russian instead of working off a translated text to make damn sure
Oh yeah, Lenin is breezy as fuck. Like, aside from Capital most theory is pretty easy readin'. And like, you don't actually have to read capital, it's most likely you pretty much get the core points anyway. It's a thorough examination of what you can intuit as a leftist most likely anyway. It ain't that hard folks.
If the path my friend wants to take becomes too much of a slog, I might propose doing the same thing.
Bzzzt. wrong. Skipping Marx to read Stalin is like skipping reading the Hobbit book to watch the lord of the rings trilogy movie
Actually I'll do you better, Skipping Marx and jumping to Stalin is akin to skipping the silmarillion and going straight to the movie theaters to watch the LotR trilogy
Uh... Skipping Marx and jumping straight to Stalin is akin to skipping Demon Souls, and going straight to Bloodbourne
I can't be too critical of Occupy activists, because I was one too, but I can be very wary of them.
No please Stalin is not really worth reading. His achievements are not within the realm of theory. His version of dialectical materialism is dogmatic and directly lead to the rigidification of the soviet bueracracy after his death. Stalin was by no means dogmatic, but his writings were because that was what the soviets needed to survive at the time.
this is indeed not a bad take, read marx and lenin instead of stalin, there's a reason its called marxist leninism lol
there’s a reason its called marxist leninism lol
Weird. I thought it was called that because someone that was a huge fan of Lenin took the Foundational teachings of Lenin and put it into a easy to understand book.
Wonder who wrote that book
Nah it's Karl ouleanovissarovich Leningels. Hitler's arts school teacher.
He wrote a good introduction to dialectical materialism, but yeah don't take it as anything other than a super basic intro that requires more nuanced understanding
The dude even admitted that he just didn't understand Hegel
:stalin-smokin: Time for recess, class! Remember to share. Two puffs then pass.
What’s the original? This is too based for Ben. Not enough anti vaxx shit in here
Young pioneers should be happy as the song says
All people on the big planet
Should always be friends.
Children should always laugh
And live in a peaceful world!
That's the world I want to fight for
Actually just got a copy of Stalins "Foundations of Leninism" for myself after finishing Blackshirts and Reds. Excited to give it a go!