"What is to be Done?" Not reading this, for one...

[Ernesto "Che" Guevara]

I recently bought myself Lenin's Essential Works, in an attempt to better understand Leninism. This contains excerpts from the Development of Cap. in Russia, and the complete What is To be Done, Imperialism, and the State and Rev.

After toiling through the Development, I'm fifty pages into What is To Be Done. So far, he's spent most of it polemicising against various newspapers and tendencies within the turn of the century Russian socialist movement.

I'm struggling to follow it - I wasn't very up on pre-revolution history, and this isn't helping, as it's clearly written for a contemporary audience, so very little explanation., just assumed knowledge. Added to that the way Russian-names start to blend together in my mind, I'm struggling somewhat. I'm also not getting much out of it.

How relevant is it today? Are there sections that are more useful from a theoretical viewpoint, as opposed to a just historical interest?

I was mostly interested in Imperialism, and the State, especially as I'm from a more libertarian background anyway.

Cheers.

[Zanthorus]

How relevant is it today?

It isn't. Lenin himself said that the argument in WITBD was related to a specific point in the development of the Russian Marxist movement when the RSDLP consisted of a bunch of scattered groups with no central organisation and the only newspapers being small local ones. If you really want to get your head around that book you should read Lenin Rediscovered: What is to be Done? In Context by Lars Lih.

[BAM]

It was quite a while ago now that I read Lenin and I have to say he was utterly awful, both in style and content.

Thank God I was never a Leninist!

[A.R.Amistad]

What Is To Be Done is a book that needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and it was read into far too much as it is largely esoteric to pre-1905 Russia. Its an important document, but it needs to be understood that Lenin's views on the party and many other things in general changed after 1905 and especially 1914. An excellent book that I highly recommend you read is Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered: "What Is To Be Done" in context. It outlines a basis for a modern Leninism as well as a better translation of the original text to WITBD. (The Stalinists who later published it since the 30's tweaked the translations in their favor, and abused it to pervert true Leninism). Here is a link, I think this is the book you've been looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Rediscovered-Context-Historical-Materialism/dp/9004131205

As for the real basis of Leninism, again, people put way too much emphasis on the Vanguard Party. I support the theory, but thats not what Lenin's bulk of work was about. State and Revolution is a far more important, timeless and essential work of Leninism, as are the April Thesis, Democratic Tasks of the Revolutionary Proletariet, etc. etc. anything that has to do with a Marxist view of the Revolution and the State is probably the best stuff to read. The Lenin Reader is also a great book to read, since it cuts out all of the esoteric and outdated text and focuses on the essentials of lenin's writings and ideas.

Also, for a better essay on Lenin's view of the party, read this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/sep/15a.htm


here is a link to Lenin's most important works:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/sw/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/subject/last/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/subject/democracy/index.htm

Let us not forget that Lukacs may have done an even better job than Lenin in unifying Lenin's Marxist thought and contributions:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/1924/lenin/index.htm

[scarletghoul]

Yeah it's quite boring and honestly I couldn't be arsed to read most of it. There's a few key Leninist ideas on the party in there but its easier to learn them from someone else as Lenin tended to go on and on and on about how everyone else was wrong in a way thats not very relevent or gripping to the modern reader. It was probably awesome at the time, but yeah. I was disappointed when trying to read it as the title sounds so cool - "what is to be done ? burning questions of our time" - like a misleading movie trailer that has explosions and stuff but the film is infact a boring drama .

Imperialism and the State and the Revolution are both great and relevant today.

[Zanthorus]

It outlines a basis for a modern Leninism

Really "Leninism" is actually a misnomer since, as Lih himself documents, Lenin was a Kautskyist.

[A.R.Amistad]

Really "Leninism" is actually a misnomer since, as Lih himself documents, Lenin was a Kautskyist.
Maybe in the pre Third International years, but I don't think he was much of a Kautskyite after his notes on Hegel. He certainly disagreed with Kautsky's mechanistic "Marxism" by the time of the April Theses.

[KC]

What Is To Be Done? actually does have relevance today inasmuch as it is an attack on Economism, in which Stalinism is rooted. Other than that, though, it is mostly just of historical significance.

[A.R.Amistad]

What Is To Be Done? actually does have relevance today inasmuch as it is an attack on Economism, in which Stalinism is rooted. Other than that, though, it is mostly just of historical significance.

Thanks for mentioning the problem with Economism, KC. Or maybe even better "economic determinism." It could be said that WITBD and the more advanced subsequent works by Lenin on the role of a vanguard party are the basis of a Humanist Marxism in which the human individual is responsible for changing the material course of history. Stalinism, and economic determinism in general, holds that "Iron Laws of History" dictate everything, so for them there is no need for revolutionary action or practice, since "history" will do that for them. It was also an excuse for abuses of worker's rights by Stalinist regimes and also is used even today as an excuse my neo-Stalinist parties to justify doing things like supporting bourgeois parties. The vanguard party is neceassary because "man makes history, but he does not make it as he pleases."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

For what it's worth:

"The necessity to concentrate all forces on establishing a regularly appearing and regularly delivered organ arises out of the peculiar situation of Russian Social-Democracy as compared with that of Social-Democracy in other European countries and with that of the old Russian revolutionary parties. Apart from newspapers, the workers of Germany, France etc. have numerous other means for the public manifestation of their activity, for organizing the movement -- parliamentary activity, election agitation, public meetings, participation in local public bodies (rural and urban), the open conduct of trade unions (professional, guild), etc., etc. In place of all that, yes, all of that, we must be served -- until we have won political liberty -- by a revolutionary newspaper, without which no broad organization of the working-class movement is possible." - Lenin, 1899

Bold added for emphasis.

"At the third congress in 1921 we adopted a resolution on the structure of communist parties and the methods and content of their activities. It is an excellent resolution, but it is almost entirely Russian, that is to say, everything in it is taken from Russian conditions. That is its good side, but it is also its bad side, bad because scarcely a single foreigner – I am convinced of this, and I have just re-read it - can read it. Firstly, it is too long, fifty paragraphs or more. Foreigners cannot usually read items of that length. Secondly, if they do read it, they cannot understand it, precisely because it is too Russian… it is permeated and imbued with a Russian spirit. Thirdly, if there is by chance a foreigner who can understand it, he cannot apply it… My impression is that we have committed a gross error in passing that resolution, blocking our own road to further progress. As I said, the resolution is excellent, and I subscribe to every one of the fifty paragraphs. But I must say that we have not yet discovered the form in which to present our Russian experience to foreigners, and for that reason the resolution has remained a dead letter. If we do not discover it, we shall not go forward." - Lenin

[A.R.Amistad]

For what it's worth:

"The necessity to concentrate all forces on establishing a regularly appearing and regularly delivered organ arises out of the peculiar situation of Russian Social-Democracy as compared with that of Social-Democracy in other European countries and with that of the old Russian revolutionary parties. Apart from newspapers, the workers of Germany, France etc. have numerous other means for the public manifestation of their activity, for organizing the movement -- parliamentary activity, election agitation, public meetings, participation in local public bodies (rural and urban), the open conduct of trade unions (professional, guild), etc., etc. In place of all that, yes, all of that, we must be served -- until we have won political liberty -- by a revolutionary newspaper, without which no broad organization of the working-class movement is possible." - Lenin, 1899

Bold added for emphasis.

"At the third congress in 1921 we adopted a resolution on the structure of communist parties and the methods and content of their activities. It is an excellent resolution, but it is almost entirely Russian, that is to say, everything in it is taken from Russian conditions. That is its good side, but it is also its bad side, bad because scarcely a single foreigner – I am convinced of this, and I have just re-read it - can read it. Firstly, it is too long, fifty paragraphs or more. Foreigners cannot usually read items of that length. Secondly, if they do read it, they cannot understand it, precisely because it is too Russian… it is permeated and imbued with a Russian spirit. Thirdly, if there is by chance a foreigner who can understand it, he cannot apply it… My impression is that we have committed a gross error in passing that resolution, blocking our own road to further progress. As I said, the resolution is excellent, and I subscribe to every one of the fifty paragraphs. But I must say that we have not yet discovered the form in which to present our Russian experience to foreigners, and for that reason the resolution has remained a dead letter. If we do not discover it, we shall not go forward." - Lenin

Very good, which is why Lenin changed a great deal of his views, especially on membership requirements, after relative political liberty had been won after the failed 1905 Revolution. In fact, with the exception of only few documents, I would say only Lenin's post-1905 works are particularly relevant as theory (of course, this is the bulk of his works, so naturally one doesn't need to constantly look to the young, amateur Lenin in relation to the experienced revolutionary Lenin.)

[A.R.Amistad]

Here's a good article on the revolutionary vanguard party. Its by Lukacs, not Lenin, but the essence is there:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/1920/moral-mission.htm

[Q]

Maybe in the pre Third International years, but I don't think he was much of a Kautskyite after his notes on Hegel. He certainly disagreed with Kautsky's mechanistic "Marxism" by the time of the April Theses.

No, Lenin essentially remained an "Erfurtian" until the day he died. These articles are a transcript of Lars Lih's CU lectures last year in which he explains the relations between Lenin and Kautsky to some detail:
VI Lenin and the influence of Kautsky (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/783/vileninandtheinfluence.php)
Lenin, Kautsky, and 1914 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/784/leninkautsky.php)
The four wagers of Lenin in 1917 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/785/thefourwagers.php)

[A.R.Amistad]

Hm, thats not exactly the jist I got from Lenin's notes on Hegel's Logic.