Category: Vladimir Lenin

Written between the autumn of 1901 and February 1902 the pamphlet, What is to be done? by V. I. Lenin was first published in Iskra, No. 4 (May 1901), Lenin said that the article represented a skeleton plan to be developed in greater detail in a pamphlet now in preparation for print. It was published as a separate work in March 1902. What is to be done? is a practical, revolutionary guide designed as a blueprint to be applied to the Russian situation in 1902 (Barfield, 1971, 45-56).

It is a detailed review of the dispute over Economism and a detailed account of Lenins views on trade unions. He attacks Economism. Lenins What is to be done? has been seen as the founding document of a party of a new type (Lih, 2005, 387). It was a step that aimed at bringing together the fragmented Russian Social-Democratic groups and circles into a modern centralized party with a central organ (Draper, 2001, 1).

At the time, he thought, this was the great next step that had to be taken; it was what is to be done. It is perceived in two different ways: a model of vanguard party that was the essence of Bolshevism or a manifestation of Lenins elitist and manipulatory attitude towards the workers. Hypothesis: Lenins What is to be done? maybe interpreted as the elaboration of Lenins proposals to provide a deep insight into the necessary requisites for a revolution, or his deep contempt for the working classes.

In What Is To Be Done? Lenin stresses the importance of revolutionary theory. He feels only through the revolutionary theory, any revolutionary movement can succeed in achieving its purposes. Lenin points out that the working class does not have the ability to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a different economic system such as socialism because they do not have any experience of socialism.

All they can do, Lenin says, is conduct strikes and other events of resistance which are not enough to stop the encroachment of capital (PO, 2005). According to Lenin: The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness & The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes &

Spontaneous is the word used by Lenin. He feels that working class people do not have the natural ability to understand many things: that capitalism is not capable of being adjusted so as to provide a decent life for all and the nature of the social system that has to replace it. All this requires class consciousness, i.e., scientific knowledge and understanding.

In the plan of Lenin, it will be the duty of the revolutionary party to disseminate such information and understanding firstly among workers who are more advanced and positively seeking for understanding and then from them out to broader sections of the working class. To quote Lenin: All worship of the spontaneity of the working-class movement, all belittling of the role of the conscious element, of the role of social democracy [communism], means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers.

The most striking feature of this document is that it does not have a single paragraph devoted to a discussion of the importance of the economic side of the workers struggle. Lenin seems more preoccupied with other transgressions of the men labeled Economists. He attacks using strong language, their lack of solid theoretical base and defense of practical spontaneity. Lenin argues that a coherent, strictly controlled party of dedicated revolutionaries is basically necessary for a revolution. Some people see an analogy with the Jesuit Order in his proposals for an elite corps to lead the masses (Halsall, 1997,1).

Lenin differed with the economists on issues of importance of leadership and who should be leaders. Lenin seems to have felt that few workers were capable of really understanding Marxism and that leadership consequently would have to be provided by the intelligentsia, many of whom would be bourgeois in origin, like Marx, Engels, and himself. The Economists, on the other hand, in spite of the fact that they also were predominantly intellectuals, felt that the workers could best provide their own leaders.

The Economists believed that the proletariat could lead them, and that objective developments would cause the working class almost instinctively to follow the proper course. The Economists argued that it was unnecessary for the Social Democratic intellectuals to force their ideology upon the workers; the labor movement, if left to itself, could work out its own independent ideology. Lenin denied this, claiming that if the workers were not indoctrinated with Social-Democratic ideas they would inevitably adopt bourgeois ideas: The only choice is: either bourgeois ideology or socialist ideology.

There is no middle course&. . He further elaborated trade unionism of workers lead to their enslavement to the bourgeoisie. He put it crisply: Hence our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labor movement from its spontaneous, trade unionist striving to go under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social-Democracy.

Statements proclaiming that workers cannot become socialist spontaneously evoked a lot of protest. In fact, a number of Social-Democrats, led by George Plekhanov and Paul Axelrod, wrote articles in Iskra attacking Lenins views on the grounds that he was contradicting one of Marxs basic principles  that the proletariat became socialist spontaneously and that the proletarian revolution was inevitable (Mayer, 1997, 1). Lenin, it appeared was preaching the very opposite. Plekhanov accused Lenin of not being a true representative of Marxism and being more of a new edition of the theory of the hero and the crowd (Mayer, 1997, 14).

It was this basic difference in viewpoint that was to break out time and again during the whole history of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. This basic difference was the reason behind the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and had profound consequences on the subsequent history of the Soviet state (Hammond, 1957, 40). This was the difference in attitude on the role of leadership in the revolutionary movement, on the question of whether the revolution would come about almost automatically, or would have to be planned, directed, and pushed.

Lenins answers to these questions as seen in the brochure show that he was basically saw things from the perspective of a citizen of Russia. He was a man of action who wanted to be part of history. He wanted to ensure the establishment of socialism in his lifetime in Russia. These facts explain why he chose the way of revolution rather than evolution, that he decided to give history a push instead of waiting patiently for the laws of capitalist development to work themselves out (Hammond, 1957, 50).

Since the days of Marx and Engels, socialist theory became widely popular and had spread among the proletarian intelligentsia  workers who have taken up its ideas and made them their own. Socialism, Lenin wrote quoting Karl Kautsky, was the product of profound scientific knowledge& The vehicle of [this] science is not the proletariat but the bourgeois intelligentsia: contemporary socialism was born in the heads of individual members of this class (Caplan, 2007, 1).

Today, it is the proletariat who have embraced socialist theory more gladly than educated representatives of the propertied classes, for the scientific knowledge uncovered by the great scientific socialists only benefits the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie, since it lays bare the fact that the capitalist system has outlived its usefulness and has urgently to be replaced by a socialist system  a system that only the proletariat is materially interested in bringing about (McClendon and McClendon, 2004, 289).

Lenin points out that the experience of the working class people is a huge advantage when it comes to understanding revolutionary theory than the privileged petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy. But along with this possibility, Levin also feels that the working class does not spontaneously generate revolutionary theory. Their spontaneity can take them only as far as trade union politics.

Marx once stated: Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programs. This is a statement that is often cited by people who try to justify activity that lacks any kind of revolutionary orientation. It is also used to attack all theoretical work aimed at bringing about proletarian revolution. It is used to attack the spread of knowledge and class consciousness among the broadest possible layers of the proletariat. Lenin suggests that the words of Marx are not relevant in this particular situation: To repeat these words [of Marx] in a period of theoretical disorder is like wishing mourners at a funeral Many happy returns of the day. (p25)

Generally, theorists are ridiculed as armchair professors by opportunists. Lenin says that though it is important that one does practical work, it is important that the work must serve the cause of the proletarian revolution. The work should not help the preservation of capital. Such kind of conditional work is possible only through guidance through theory. Theory says Lenin, is very practical. Engels, in his book Peasant War in Germany (quoted by Lenin on p28) has said that the revolutionary movement has three aspects: the theoretical, the political and the practical-economic. All three aspects need to be focused on if the movement is to be successful.

However, it is possible to have a division of labor within the movement, which will allow individuals to participate according to their talents. These three aspects of the revolutionary movement and the theory cannot be neglected. Lenin goes on to make it clear that even trade union struggles are not as powerful as they are regarded by the left-wing movement. They are limited only the economic struggle. On the other hand, the revolutionary movement would focus on the political education of the working class and the development of its political consciousness. Lenin of course accepts that social democracy (communism) leads the struggle of the working class both for better wages and abolition of bonded labor.

He concludes: Hence, it follows that not only must social democrats not confine themselves exclusively to the economic struggle, but that they must not allow the organization of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their activities. We must take up actively the political education of the working class and the development of its political consciousness.

Lenin is often credited with the creation of the concept of professional revolutionary in his pamphlet What is to be done. Lenin defined the primary need of a revolutionary movement in terms of a secret, small, tightly knit, highly disciplined organization of professional revolutionariesthat is, men who devote their entire life to revolution, who turn revolution into a calling, a vocation, a mission (Rejai, 1980, 1).

Lenin charges the Economists of making the mistake of confusing trade unions with the Party. It is only natural, he charged, that a Social-Democrat who conceives of the political struggle as being identical with the economic struggle against the employers and the government should conceive of the organization of revolutionists as being more or less identical with the, organization of workers (p. 446).

According to Lenin, organization of revolutionary Social-Democrats must be different from the organizations of the workers.. While the workers organizations must be ideologically trade organizations, they should also be wide and public. But the organizations of revolutionaries must be comprised first and foremost of people whose profession is revolution and will not be open to public. There would thus be a division of function between the Party and the trade unions, with a corresponding distinction in the organization of the two bodies. Since only highly conscious, professional revolutionaries could belong to the Party, this would mean that many non-Party members would be admitted, indeed welcomed, into the trade unions.

Lenin says: The workers organizations for carrying on the economic struggle should be trade union organizations; every Social-Democratic worker should, as far as possible, support and actively work inside these organizations&. But it would not be at all to our interests to demand that only Social-Democrats be eligible for membership in trade unions. He urges every worker who wants to participate in struggle against the employer and the government to join the trade unions. He opined that The wider these organizations are, the wider our influence over them will be. (p. 448)

But how were trade unions to be secret organizations and at the same time achieve the goal of mass membership? Lenins answer was a mass trade union, so free and loose that the need for secret methods becomes almost negligible as far as the mass of the members are concerned. However, the mass trade union will be secretly directed and controlled by a small Social-Democratic Party, whose compact organization would make up for the looseness of the trade union organization.

The trade union movement, said Lenin, could not operate efficiently under conditions of illegality without a stable organization of leaders to maintain continuity and wide contact. The Social-Democratic leaders could maintain connections among the various unions by secret methods, unknown to the mass of members. Thus, the trade unions, in Lenins plan, would be used as organs for drawing the masses into participation in the revolution, while leadership of the mass movement would be exercised by members of the Party. In that way, said Lenin, the trade union organizations may not only be of tremendous value in developing and consolidating the economic struggle, but may also become a very useful auxiliary to the political, agitational, and revolutionary organs (p. 450).

Many statements show that what Lenin wanted was not neutral trade unions, but a trade union movement permeated with Social-Democratic propaganda, controlled by Social-Democrats, and used for the pursuit of Social-Democratic goals. Though he had been suspected of not trusting the workers by many historians, according to Maureen Perrie, in reality, Lenin wanted a party with a national center and a full time corps of activists because of his optimistic confidence that even the relatively backward Russian proletariat enduring tsarist repression could be moved to revolution (Perrie and Suny, 2006, 712).

What is to be done? was published in 1902 when the revolutionary movement was still in its infancy. That was when Lenin had voiced that the mass trade union must be directed and controlled by a small Social Democratic Party. But in 1905 the situation in Russia changed drastically, and Lenin declared that the new situation called for new tactics. He now demanded that membership in the Party and affiliated organizations are greatly increased.

During 1905 Lenin also temporarily reversed his position on the issue of spontaneity. In What Is to Be Done? Lenin had expressed grave doubts about the spontaneous labor movement, claiming that it led to Reformism unless guided by conscious leaders. The spontaneous labor movement, he had said, is able by itself to create& only trade unionism. Yet in 1905 he made several statements to the effect that the spontaneous labor movement led naturally toward socialism. He said that the working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic. The change in position may be due to the fact that Lenin in 1905 was more convinced of the ability of the proletariat to be revolutionary in approach.

However, Lenin never changed in one aspect  A careful reading of Lenins 1902 document and his views in 1905 suggest that Lenin always felt that the Party vanguard had to provide leadership for the mass trade unions. While admitting in one quotation that the working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic, he declared that ten years of work by the Party had done a great deal to transform this spontaneity into class consciousness. What he may mean is that the condition of the workers under capitalism naturally led the workers onto the road toward socialism, but the Party had to guide them along the twists and turns of the road.

Lenins points out that these mass trade unions should not be given more importance over genuinely revolutionary work because of the following reasons: trade union struggles can easily lead to reformism; workers are capable of spontaneously generating trade union activity for themselves; they do not need revolutionaries to lead these struggles; even the very best type of trade union activity cannot bring about revolution (PO, 2005, 1).

The core concept of Lenins ideas in What is to be done? is as follows: Concessions should not be made to spontaneity which will only undermine the partys role. The partys role is not primarily to improve the conditions of workers under capitalism, but to lead the working class to proletarian revolution, to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and to build socialism. This model of the party is similar to the many secret societies of new men established by more extreme populist movements with basic elements such as: absolute centralization, a military vision of the class struggle, Jesuit-type disciple, and amoral moralism (Pellicani, 2003, 110).

Only by the creation of a revolutionary Party Lenin believed that people can be made politically conscious. This is Lenins starting point: there can be no revolutionary movement without a revolutionary theory (75). He believed that such a theory would help the mass of the people move from spontaneity (or trade union consciousness) to class (or revolutionary) consciousness. He tried to visualize a new path through his revolutionary party model. Lenin seems to have been influenced by Marxs co-writer, Friedrich Engels. Living until only a decade before Lenin was writing, Engels was a close observer of the British trade union scene and Lenin has this experience in mind when he talks of trade union consciousness.

Lenin is not concerned as such with how to maximize the role of trade unions, but how to revolutionize the working class (Stevenson, 2004, 1). However, this does not mean he does not care about trade union struggle. The more rapidly our employers join together in all sorts of societies and syndicates, the more urgent does the need for this organization by trades become. But Lenin stresses that political agitation must be unified throughout Russia, illuminating all sides of life and directed to the broadest masses (216).

Trade union consciousness can lack a wider national perspective. As Lenin puts it local activists are too immersed in local work, For Lenin the need for a revolutionary Party is paramount, and he says it clearly: our first and most urgent practical task: to create an organization of revolutionaries able to guarantee the energy, stability, and continuity of the political struggle (150). There were those who thought there was no basis yet for a revolutionary socialist party in Russia and that Marxists should take part in the movements of the liberal bourgeoisie, whilst others believed that a revolutionary Party was important, but that it should be directed by the workers as to what it should do and say.

But Lenin argued that militancy was not enough and developing the organizational base of the revolutionary party was the core of Lenins concern (Stevenson, 2005, 1). For there will be no transformation of the capitalist system into a socialist one without a revolutionary party. Achieving a revolutionary transformation of society requires a conscious and clear body of revolutionaries. Inevitably, to understand the character of society they live in and seek to change, they will need to study, analyze and theorize upon it in order that they can guide isolated grievances into a coherent revolutionary struggle.

Hence revolutionaries need to be always prepared: We must always carry on our everyday work and always be prepared for everything, because very often it is almost impossible to foresee in advance the change from period of explosion to periods of calm.(13) In the final pages of the book, Lenin gives a short answer to the question What is to be done?  Thats to say to liquidate (222) the period of Russian socialist history which began in 1897-98 and which Lenin characterizes as a period of disarray, disintegration, and vacillation (220). He compares it to the breaking of a boys voice in adolescence, a stage in growing-up.

Lenin, more than anyone, also understood the tremendous significance of revolutionary circlism, i.e. the close ideological and comradely welding of revolutionaries based upon unconditional faith in one another. Many of the best pages in his What is to be Done? are devoted to the clarification of this significance. But Lenin also understood that when the Party moves out into the broad arena of political struggle, it must supplement ideological unity with the character of external unity, it must put Party institutions in the place of the circle (Pashukanis, 1925, 132-64).

Thus, the main theme of this pamphlet is to provide an understanding that there can be no revolutionary movement without a revolutionary theory and that trade union consciousness needs to be developed into a revolutionary consciousness in order to achieve socialism. In this pamphlet What is to be done? Lenin provides the blueprint of the revolutionary party and at the same time expresses strongly his belief that worshipping spontaneity can only lead to trade unionism which will not be enough to fight the rise of capitalism.

Bibliography

Books

Hammond, Taylor Thomas (1957). Lenin  on Trade Unions and Revolution 1893-1917. Columbia University Press. New York. 1957.

McClendon, H. John and McClendon, H. John III (2004). C.L.R. Jamess Notes on Dialectics. Lexington Books. 2004.

Perrie, Maureen, Lieven, D. C. B. and Suny, Grigor Ronald (2006). The Cambridge History of Russia. Cambridge University Press. 2006.

Monographs

Lenin, V. I. (1902). What is to be done? Oxford University Press. Panther Modern Society Edition.

Lih, T. Lars (2005). Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? In Context. Brill Publishers. 2005

Pellicani, Luciano (2003). Revolutionary Apocalypse: Ideological Roots of Tomorrow. Praeger/Greenwood Publishers. 2003.

Journal Articles

Barfield, Rodney (1971). Lenins Utopianism: State and Revolution. Slavic Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1971), pp. 45-56.

Caplan, Bryan (2007). Museum of Communism. Web.

Draper, Hal (2001). Lenin and the myth of revolutionary defeatism. Workers Liberty Magazine. Volume 2, Issue 1. Web.

Halsall, Paul (1997). Modern History Sourcebook: Vladimir Illyich Lenin: What is to be Done, 1902. Web.

Mayer, Robert (1997). Studies in East European Thought 49: 159185, 1997. Web.

Pashukanis (1925). Lenin and the Problems of Law: Lenin i voprosy prava, Revoliutsiia prava: Sbornik 1 (1925). Kommunisticheskaia akedemiia Moscow. 132-64

PO (Proletarian Online) (2005). Theory: Lenins What is to be done? Proletarian. Issue 4. Web.

Rejai, Mostafa (1980). The Professional Revolutionary: A Profile. Air University Review. Web.

Stevenson, Graham (2004). Whats in What is to be done?? Web.

International relations is a discipline that involves the interactions between states. This discipline has especially become critical due to recent experiences with colonization and the two world wars in the first half of the nineteenth century. Even before these experiences, such interactions had not escaped thinkers who existed. Social philosophers such as Karl Marx delved on the subject of economics, a critical aspect of international relations, albeit out of the need to rectify what they thought were problems in government policies that existed during their time. In fact, Karl Marx theories were more so inspired by the industrial revolution which happened during his time. These ideas were too new and contradicted already established political systems such as Monarchies. Even then, Marxism gained traction with time and attracted a following that enhanced and put the ideas into practice marking the beginning of an economic revolution revolutionary. Vladimir Lenin and Immanuel Wallerstein were among the most important enhancers of Marxist theories. My paper aims at supporting and demystifying the elements of theories formulated by these two great thinkers.

Background of Marx and Engel Theories

Karl Heinrich Marx was an economist philosopher from Germany who was a strong critic of political and cultural establishments of his time. He was born in 1818 in Prussia to Jewish parents (Aitken & Valentine, eds., 2014, 60). He studied at the University of Bonn and later to the University of Berlin where he was influenced by his Professor Hegel to challenge ideas and institutions at that time. After his degree, he delved into journalism eventually becoming a writer. He later collaborated in many works with Engel who had similar opinions.

Karl Marx formulated Marxism as an economic theory. Marxism postulates that society is made up of capitalists and proletariat. While capitalists own and decide methods of production, proletariats only provide the needed labor for the production. Marxism identifies this as unequal criticizing it as an inefficient economic model (Roemer, J., 2009). Marxism critiques capitalist theories such as Adam Smith’s free-market capitalism. Free market capitalism is based on established laws of demand and supply which are influenced by competition. Marxism opposes the demand and supply basis rather than the ability of a human to make the good.

An important component of Marxism is the labor theory of value. Underlying this concept is the notion that the value of an economic good should be derived from the amount of work required to produce it (Adler, P., 2011). For instance, if a cup takes two days to produce while a Jug takes one, the cup is more (twice) valuable than the jug. This component only demonstrates that Marxism strives to achieve the balance needed in the society between owner and laborers. From a Marxist perspective, capitalism will always focus on the profit by competition and reducing the cost of production by technological progress with disregard to laborers. This view offers many explanations to other problems that arise in capitalistic societies and has often led to Marxism being attributed to socialism.

Relationship Between International Law and Marxism

Marxism is a critique of the capitalist economic model. As such, this theory is relevant to international relations since economic power is one of the most significant components of states. Marxism reasons that the world population is categorized into economic classes. As a result, problems created by capitalistic systems due to the unending commitment to increase profits diversely affect the majority of the population composed of common laborers. Marxism examines the effects of the capitalistic system. Specifically, Marxism focusses on the use of economic power to exploit others. Economic exploitation is an important element of international relations since economics power is crucial to the functioning of every state. This is even more relevant to the contemporary world where globalization is becoming more significant.

Marxists criticize various shortcomings in international relations by focusing on multinational companies that source cheap labor from poor countries that have no human rights protection. Marxism also identifies how political systems create economic elites that manipulate the working class for individual benefit. On an international level, international organizations can be criticized for policies that exploit workers or disregard the environment. Marxism focuses to help people from the working class to liberate themselves from economic exploitation. In this way, it would eliminate most social problems and advance world peace (Buecker, 2003).

Vladimir Lenin

One of the greatest contributors to Marxism is Vladimir Lenin. Lenin utilized Marxist theory to analyze the eruption of imperialism that was already headed for a crisis. This was just after the death of Karl Marx characterized by the rise of colonial power. During this time imperialism had divided the countries into two; countries that exploited others and those that were oppressed and dependent. The transition of capitalism to imperialism during this colonial era established the international relations perspective (Kubálková & Cruickshank, 2015, 13). Lenin described imperialism as the decay of capitalism which was massively parasitic. Lenin’s theory identified significant contradictions of the transition of capitalism to imperialism which in effect only served to increase crisis and favored revolution. The crisis was two-fold: within their industrial metropolis and in colonial outposts. First, the contradiction between labor and capital where workers from industrial areas in the third world were put into positions of power. Secondly, imperialist cartels contradicted each other interests leading to imperialist wars to redevise their resources. Lenin utilized his theory when he became the leader of Russia to overthrow capitalism. In this way, he established the contradiction between imperialism and socialism.

A central aspect of Lenin’s theory was his connection between oppressed nations and the oppressors which was named the national question which claims that a nation is only free insofar as it does not enslave another nation. This question incites and encourages the working class from oppressors to join hands and ally with the oppressed to bring down the rulers who were the main beneficiaries of the colonial times (Brewer, 2002, 110). In this way, he creates the perspective that proletariats from both sides were the biggest losers while capitalists won. Lenin’s argument was correctly utilized in the Chinese revolution led by Mao Zedong and led revolutions from worker-led armies in the countryside to the cities.

Lenin’s theory remains relevant for as long as capitalism models the economic structure. Capitalism suits the civil structure of humans but provides for numerous problems of inequality. Contemporary economic issues such as the sovereign debt crisis have become so common in many countries. Such instances only demonstrate the new form of capitalist problems. A recent example is the deliberate lending of huge loans to African countries in order to control them when they fail to pay. This instance is similar to Lenin’s oppressor-oppression position. Such problems are accumulating and proving more than ever that capitalism is a failure. As such, there is a need for a revolution to counter these effects. Leninism inspires the need for a revolution to reset these evils.

Immanuel Wallerstein

A more recent Marxist theory and one of the most successful was put forward by Immanuel Wallerstein called the world systems theory. This theory incorporated redefined imperialism as a state-led process from the traditional view. In an attempt to understand the development of states since as early as the 16th century in relative to each other, Wallerstein distinguished three groups of states. From this analysis, the dependency between different states specific to the industries and economies they have more expertise can be established. In this way, his theory widened its scope from states into broader units.

Wallerstein described the world system as a larger system composing the core, periphery, and semi-periphery (Martínez-Vela, C., 2001, 4). The core is made of the wealthy states that own the most resources from their own states and in poor states. These states in the core benefit from methods of production by utilizing poorer countries to meet their labor needs. Those in the semi-periphery lie in the middle as they do not benefit fully and are not fully exploited. While poorer countries provide labor and resources, wealthy countries develop foreign policies that establish a balance in the system of inequality. This theory maps the exploitative situation of the world economy depicting wealth as flowing from the periphery into the center making rich countries even more economically stable.

Another important postulation aspect of the world system theory is its prediction of temporal trends. The theory predicts that global capitalist economies undergo a series of temporal periods of economic growth and decline. The accumulation of these inherent temporal features would increase the probability of a crisis in the international economic system that would bring production to a standstill. At this time, the world system would require a reset by replacing it with another new system.

Wallerstein’s theory has direct relevance in international economic relations. The theory can be applied to anticipate and explain the effects of the failing of the current world system. Recent events in the global economy prove the theory true. The financial crisis of 2008 represents one of many global economic crises that would eventually vent out to create one massive economic blackout (Blundell-Wignall, Atkinson, Lee, 2009). Although the crisis may not hit the world all at once, significant economic blocks may be hit and the effect magnified from countries to continents.

Criticism of Marxism International Relations

There are numerous criticisms raised to Marx’s thoughts on international relations. One of the problems is the undeterred focus on economics. The theory focusses on domestic and international economies while there are many other factors at play. It is simplistic and fails to account for the effect of politics, diplomacy, and power by tying all world issues and motivations on economic interest (Davenport, A., 2013). As such, it does not achieve anything further than being a critic of the problems of modern capitalism.

Although capitalism is accepted as a bad economic model as Marx posited, some predictions offered by Marxism have not yet had occurred. For instance, there is still no communism, large scale classless society. In addition, workers have not abandoned identities to dispel economic inequality internationally. This failure may be a suggestion of many factors that Marx left out of the equation when postulating his theory.

Finally, some occurrences that Marxism claims are not entirely Marxist ideas. For example, the exploitation of resources through foreign policies of rich states is not entirely a Marxist conception. This feature may be explained through other theories such as political realism. Therefore, Marxism possesses some insufficiencies that limit it only as a critique of capitalism as an economic model.

Conclusion

Karl Marx’s theory provided an elaborate critique of capitalism as a suitable economic model. Marxism has particularly highlighted the problem of inequality between two social classes: capitalists who own resources and proletariats who provide the labor (Callinicos, A., 2007, 545). This problem has been attributed to the capitalists’ need to make more profits and reduce the cost of production in order to create value for the products.

After Marx’s death, Lenin’s thoughts of imperialism took the stage at a time when colonialism was widespread. In his thoughts, he highlighted the division of states into two oppressor and oppressed states. Oppressor states used resources from the oppressed states to produce goods for their own use. Lenin identified contradictions and temporal problems in imperialism. He called on for revolutions by uniting proletariats from oppressed and oppressor states by aligning their interests.

Wallerstein established that the world economy is divided into three factions of states: the core, periphery, and semi-periphery. He showed that resources move from the periphery flowing into the core through the capitalist laws of demand and supply. This serves to show that rich countries remain richer while poor ones are exploited. However, Wallerstein also predicts the eventual dawn of an economic crisis that will signify the end phase of capitalism.

From the discourse, Marxism is a classic theory that offers a critical approach to capitalism. It identifies various areas of inequality focusing on global economics. Many other thinkers have contributed to its ideology and made it more complete and practical. As such, it is successful since it has accurately established economic problems in capitalism from which thinkers such as Lenin have based their approaches. However, it has been weak in that it only suffices as an economic model that does not account for other factors contributing to social problems. This has narrowed its adoption and limited it as a way to highlight constantly evolving problems under capitalism.

Written between the autumn of 1901 and February 1902 the pamphlet, “What is to be done?” by V. I. Lenin was first published in Iskra, No. 4 (May 1901), Lenin said that the article represented “a skeleton plan to be developed in greater detail in a pamphlet now in preparation for print”. It was published as a separate work in March 1902. “What is to be done?” is a practical, revolutionary guide designed as a blueprint to be applied to the Russian situation in 1902 (Barfield, 1971, 45-56).

It is a detailed review of the dispute over Economism and a detailed account of Lenin’s views on trade unions. He attacks Economism. Lenin’s “What is to be done?” has been seen as the founding document of a ‘party of a new type’ (Lih, 2005, 387). It was a step that aimed at bringing together the fragmented Russian Social-Democratic groups and circles into a modern centralized party with a central organ (Draper, 2001, 1).

At the time, he thought, this was the great next step that had to be taken; it was “what is to be done”. It is perceived in two different ways: a model of ‘vanguard party’ that was the essence of Bolshevism or a manifestation of Lenin’s elitist and manipulatory attitude towards the workers. Hypothesis: Lenin’s “What is to be done?” maybe interpreted as the elaboration of Lenin’s proposals to provide a deep insight into the necessary requisites for a revolution, or his deep contempt for the working classes.

In What Is To Be Done? Lenin stresses the importance of revolutionary theory. He feels only through the revolutionary theory, any revolutionary movement can succeed in achieving its purposes. Lenin points out that the working class does not have the ability to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a different economic system such as socialism because they do not have any experience of socialism.

All they can do, Lenin says, is conduct strikes and other events of resistance which are not enough to stop the encroachment of capital (PO, 2005). According to Lenin: “The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness … The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes …”

‘Spontaneous’ is the word used by Lenin. He feels that working class people do not have the natural ability to understand many things: that capitalism is not capable of being adjusted so as to provide a decent life for all and the nature of the social system that has to replace it. All this requires class consciousness, i.e., scientific knowledge and understanding.

In the plan of Lenin, it will be the duty of the revolutionary party to disseminate such information and understanding firstly among workers who are more advanced and positively seeking for understanding and then from them out to broader sections of the working class. To quote Lenin: “All worship of the spontaneity of the working-class movement, all belittling of the role of the ‘conscious element’, of the role of social democracy [communism], means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers”.

The most striking feature of this document is that it does not have a single paragraph devoted to a discussion of the importance of the “economic” side of the workers’ struggle. Lenin seems more preoccupied with other transgressions of the men labeled “Economists”. He attacks using strong language, their lack of solid theoretical base and defense of practical “spontaneity”. Lenin argues that a coherent, strictly controlled party of dedicated revolutionaries is basically necessary for a revolution. Some people see an analogy with the Jesuit Order in his proposals for an elite corps to lead the masses (Halsall, 1997,1).

Lenin differed with the economists on issues of importance of leadership and who should be leaders. Lenin seems to have felt that few workers were capable of really understanding Marxism and that leadership consequently would have to be provided by the intelligentsia, many of whom would be bourgeois in origin, like Marx, Engels, and himself. The Economists, on the other hand, in spite of the fact that they also were predominantly intellectuals, felt that the workers could best provide their own leaders.

The Economists believed that the proletariat could lead them, and that “objective developments” would cause the working class almost instinctively to follow the proper course. The Economists argued that it was unnecessary for the Social Democratic intellectuals to force their ideology upon the workers; the labor movement, if left to itself, could work out its own independent ideology. Lenin denied this, claiming that if the workers were not indoctrinated with Social-Democratic ideas they would inevitably adopt bourgeois ideas: “The only choice is: either bourgeois ideology or socialist ideology.

There is no middle course…. “. He further elaborated trade unionism of workers lead to their enslavement to the bourgeoisie. He put it crisply: “Hence our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labor movement from its spontaneous, trade unionist striving to go under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social-Democracy”.

Statements proclaiming that workers cannot become socialist spontaneously evoked a lot of protest. In fact, a number of Social-Democrats, led by George Plekhanov and Paul Axelrod, wrote articles in Iskra attacking Lenin’s views on the grounds that he was contradicting one of Marx’s basic principles – that the proletariat became socialist spontaneously and that the proletarian revolution was inevitable (Mayer, 1997, 1). Lenin, it appeared was preaching the very opposite. Plekhanov accused Lenin of not being a true representative of Marxism and being more of a new edition of “the theory of the hero and the crowd” (Mayer, 1997, 14).

It was this basic difference in viewpoint that was to break out time and again during the whole history of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. This basic difference was the reason behind the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and had profound consequences on the subsequent history of the Soviet state (Hammond, 1957, 40). This was the difference in attitude on the role of leadership in the revolutionary movement, on the question of whether the revolution would come about almost automatically, or would have to be planned, directed, and pushed.

Lenin’s answers to these questions as seen in the brochure show that he was basically saw things from the perspective of a citizen of Russia. He was a man of action who wanted to be part of history. He wanted to ensure the establishment of socialism in his lifetime in Russia. These facts explain why he chose the way of revolution rather than evolution, that he decided to give history a push instead of waiting patiently for the “laws of capitalist development” to work themselves out (Hammond, 1957, 50).

Since the days of Marx and Engels, socialist theory became widely popular and had spread among the proletarian intelligentsia – workers who have taken up its ideas and made them their own. Socialism, Lenin wrote quoting Karl Kautsky, was the product of “profound scientific knowledge… The vehicle of [this] science is not the proletariat but the bourgeois intelligentsia: contemporary socialism was born in the heads of individual members of this class” (Caplan, 2007, 1).

Today, it is the proletariat who have embraced socialist theory more gladly than “educated representatives of the propertied classes”, for the scientific knowledge uncovered by the great scientific socialists only benefits the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie, since it lays bare the fact that the capitalist system has outlived its usefulness and has urgently to be replaced by a socialist system – a system that only the proletariat is materially interested in bringing about (McClendon and McClendon, 2004, 289).

Lenin points out that the experience of the working class people is a huge advantage when it comes to understanding revolutionary theory than the privileged petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy. But along with this possibility, Levin also feels that the working class does not spontaneously generate revolutionary theory. Their spontaneity can take them only as far as trade union politics.

Marx once stated: “Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programs”. This is a statement that is often cited by people who try to justify activity that lacks any kind of revolutionary orientation. It is also used to attack all theoretical work aimed at bringing about proletarian revolution. It is used to attack the spread of knowledge and class consciousness among the broadest possible layers of the proletariat. Lenin suggests that the words of Marx are not relevant in this particular situation: “To repeat these words [of Marx] in a period of theoretical disorder is like wishing mourners at a funeral ‘Many happy returns of the day’.” (p25)

Generally, theorists are ridiculed as armchair professors by opportunists. Lenin says that though it is important that one does practical work, it is important that the work must serve the cause of the proletarian revolution. The work should not help the preservation of capital. Such kind of conditional work is possible only through guidance through theory. Theory says Lenin, is very practical. Engels, in his book “Peasant War in Germany” (quoted by Lenin on p28) has said that the revolutionary movement has three aspects: the theoretical, the political and the practical-economic. All three aspects need to be focused on if the movement is to be successful.

However, it is possible to have a division of labor within the movement, which will allow individuals to participate according to their talents. These three aspects of the revolutionary movement and the theory cannot be neglected. Lenin goes on to make it clear that even trade union struggles are not as powerful as they are regarded by the left-wing movement. They are limited only the economic struggle. On the other hand, the revolutionary movement would focus on the political education of the working class and the development of its political consciousness. Lenin of course accepts that social democracy (communism) leads the struggle of the working class both for better wages and abolition of bonded labor.

He concludes: “Hence, it follows that not only must social democrats not confine themselves exclusively to the economic struggle, but that they must not allow the organization of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their activities. We must take up actively the political education of the working class and the development of its political consciousness”.

Lenin is often credited with the creation of the concept of professional revolutionary in his pamphlet “What is to be done”. Lenin defined the primary need of a revolutionary movement in terms of a secret, small, tightly knit, highly disciplined organization of professional revolutionaries–that is, men who devote their entire life to revolution, who turn revolution into a calling, a vocation, a mission (Rejai, 1980, 1).

Lenin charges the Economists of making the mistake of confusing trade unions with the Party. “It is only natural,” he charged, “that a Social-Democrat who conceives of the political struggle as being identical with the ‘economic struggle against the employers and the government’ should conceive of the ‘organization of revolutionists’ as being more or less identical with the, organization of workers” (p. 446).

According to Lenin, organization of revolutionary Social-Democrats must be different from the organizations of the workers.. While the workers’ organizations must be ideologically trade organizations, they should also be wide and public. But the organizations of revolutionaries must be comprised first and foremost of people whose profession is revolution and will not be open to public. There would thus be a division of function between the Party and the trade unions, with a corresponding distinction in the organization of the two bodies. Since only highly conscious, professional revolutionaries could belong to the Party, this would mean that many non-Party members would be admitted, indeed welcomed, into the trade unions.

Lenin says: “The workers’ organizations for carrying on the economic struggle should be trade union organizations; every Social-Democratic worker should, as far as possible, support and actively work inside these organizations…. But it would not be at all to our interests to demand that only Social-Democrats be eligible for membership in trade unions”. He urges every worker who wants to participate in struggle against the employer and the government to join the trade unions. He opined that “The wider these organizations are, the wider our influence over them will be”. (p. 448)

But how were trade unions to be secret organizations and at the same time achieve the goal of mass membership? Lenin’s answer was a mass trade union, “so ‘free’ and ‘loose’ that the need for secret methods becomes almost negligible as far as the mass of the members are concerned”. However, the mass trade union will be secretly directed and controlled by a small Social-Democratic Party, whose compact organization would make up for the looseness of the trade union organization.

The trade union movement, said Lenin, could not operate efficiently under conditions of illegality without a stable organization of leaders to maintain continuity and wide contact. The Social-Democratic leaders could maintain connections among the various unions by secret methods, unknown to the mass of members. Thus, the trade unions, in Lenin’s plan, would be used as organs for drawing the masses into participation in the revolution, while leadership of the mass movement would be exercised by members of the Party. In that way, said Lenin, the “trade union organizations may not only be of tremendous value in developing and consolidating the economic struggle, but may also become a very useful auxiliary to the political, agitational, and revolutionary organs” (p. 450).

Many statements show that what Lenin wanted was not neutral trade unions, but a trade union movement permeated with Social-Democratic propaganda, controlled by Social-Democrats, and used for the pursuit of Social-Democratic goals. Though he had been suspected of not trusting the workers by many historians, according to Maureen Perrie, in reality, Lenin wanted a party with a national center and a full time corps of activists because of his optimistic confidence that even the relatively backward Russian proletariat enduring tsarist repression could be moved to revolution (Perrie and Suny, 2006, 712).

“What is to be done?” was published in 1902 when the revolutionary movement was still in its infancy. That was when Lenin had voiced that the mass trade union must be directed and controlled by a small Social Democratic Party. But in 1905 the situation in Russia changed drastically, and Lenin declared that the new situation called for new tactics. He now demanded that membership in the Party and affiliated organizations are greatly increased.

During 1905 Lenin also temporarily reversed his position on the issue of ‘spontaneity’. In ‘What Is to Be Done?’ Lenin had expressed grave doubts about the spontaneous labor movement, claiming that it led to Reformism unless guided by “conscious” leaders. “The spontaneous labor movement,” he had said, “is able by itself to create… only trade unionism.” Yet in 1905 he made several statements to the effect that the spontaneous labor movement led naturally toward socialism. He said that “the working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic”. The change in position may be due to the fact that Lenin in 1905 was more convinced of the ability of the proletariat to be revolutionary in approach.

However, Lenin never changed in one aspect – A careful reading of Lenin’s 1902 document and his views in 1905 suggest that Lenin always felt that the Party vanguard had to provide leadership for the mass trade unions. While admitting in one quotation that “the working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic,” he declared that ten years of work by the Party had “done a great deal to transform this spontaneity into class consciousness.” What he may mean is that the condition of the workers under capitalism naturally led the workers onto the road toward socialism, but the Party had to guide them along the twists and turns of the road.

Lenin’s points out that these mass trade unions should not be given more importance over genuinely revolutionary work because of the following reasons: trade union struggles can easily lead to reformism; workers are capable of spontaneously generating trade union activity for themselves; they do not need revolutionaries to lead these struggles; even the very best type of trade union activity cannot bring about revolution (PO, 2005, 1).

The core concept of Lenin’s ideas in “What is to be done?” is as follows: Concessions should not be made to spontaneity which will only undermine the party’s role. The party’s role is not primarily to improve the conditions of workers under capitalism, but to lead the working class to proletarian revolution, to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and to build socialism. This model of the party is similar to the many secret societies of ‘new men’ established by more extreme populist movements with basic elements such as: absolute centralization, a military vision of the class struggle, Jesuit-type disciple, and “amoral moralism” (Pellicani, 2003, 110).

Only by the creation of a revolutionary Party Lenin believed that people can be made politically conscious. This is Lenin’s starting point: “there can be no revolutionary movement without a revolutionary theory” (75). He believed that such a theory would help the mass of the people move from spontaneity (or trade union consciousness) to class (or revolutionary) consciousness. He tried to visualize a new path through his revolutionary party model. Lenin seems to have been influenced by Marx’s co-writer, Friedrich Engels. Living until only a decade before Lenin was writing, Engels was a close observer of the British trade union scene and Lenin has this experience in mind when he talks of trade union consciousness.

Lenin is not concerned as such with how to maximize the role of trade unions, but how to revolutionize the working class (Stevenson, 2004, 1). However, this does not mean he does not care about trade union struggle. The “more rapidly our employers join together in all sorts of societies and syndicates, the more urgent does the need for this organization by trades become”. But Lenin stresses that political agitation must be “unified throughout Russia, illuminating all sides of life and directed to the broadest masses” (216).

Trade union consciousness can lack a wider national perspective. As Lenin puts it “local activists are too immersed in local work”, For Lenin the need for a revolutionary Party is paramount, and he says it clearly: “our first and most urgent practical task: to create an organization of revolutionaries able to guarantee the energy, stability, and continuity of the political struggle” (150). There were those who thought there was no basis yet for a revolutionary socialist party in Russia and that Marxists should take part in the movements of the liberal bourgeoisie, whilst others believed that a revolutionary Party was important, but that it should be directed by the workers as to what it should do and say.

But Lenin argued that militancy was not enough and developing the organizational base of the revolutionary party was the core of Lenin’s concern (Stevenson, 2005, 1). For there will be no transformation of the capitalist system into a socialist one without a revolutionary party. Achieving a revolutionary transformation of society requires a conscious and clear body of revolutionaries. Inevitably, to understand the character of society they live in and seek to change, they will need to study, analyze and theorize upon it in order that they can guide isolated grievances into a coherent revolutionary struggle.

Hence revolutionaries need to be always prepared: “We must always carry on our everyday work and always be prepared for everything, because very often it is almost impossible to foresee in advance the change from period of explosion to periods of calm.”(13) In the final pages of the book, Lenin gives a short answer to the question What is to be done?’ – That’s to say to “liquidate” (222) the period of Russian socialist history which began in 1897-98 and which Lenin characterizes as a “period of disarray, disintegration, and vacillation” (220). He compares it to the breaking of a boy’s voice in adolescence, a stage in growing-up.

Lenin, more than anyone, also understood the tremendous significance of revolutionary circlism, i.e. the close ideological and comradely welding of revolutionaries based upon unconditional faith in one another. Many of the best pages in his “What is to be Done?” are devoted to the clarification of this significance. But Lenin also understood that when the Party moves out into the broad arena of political struggle, it must supplement ideological unity with the character of external unity, it must put Party institutions in the place of the circle (Pashukanis, 1925, 132-64).

Thus, the main theme of this pamphlet is to provide an understanding that there can be no revolutionary movement without a revolutionary theory and that trade union consciousness needs to be developed into a revolutionary consciousness in order to achieve socialism. In this pamphlet “What is to be done?” Lenin provides the blueprint of the revolutionary party and at the same time expresses strongly his belief that worshipping spontaneity can only lead to trade unionism which will not be enough to fight the rise of capitalism.

Bibliography

Books

Hammond, Taylor Thomas (1957). Lenin – on Trade Unions and Revolution 1893-1917. Columbia University Press. New York. 1957.

McClendon, H. John and McClendon, H. John III (2004). C.L.R. James’s Notes on Dialectics. Lexington Books. 2004.

Perrie, Maureen, Lieven, D. C. B. and Suny, Grigor Ronald (2006). The Cambridge History of Russia. Cambridge University Press. 2006.

Monographs

Lenin, V. I. (1902). “What is to be done?” Oxford University Press. Panther Modern Society Edition.

Lih, T. Lars (2005). Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? In Context. Brill Publishers. 2005

Pellicani, Luciano (2003). Revolutionary Apocalypse: Ideological Roots of Tomorrow. Praeger/Greenwood Publishers. 2003.

Journal Articles

Barfield, Rodney (1971). Lenin’s Utopianism: State and Revolution. Slavic Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1971), pp. 45-56.

Caplan, Bryan (2007). Museum of Communism. Web.

Draper, Hal (2001). Lenin and the myth of revolutionary defeatism. Workers Liberty Magazine. Volume 2, Issue 1. Web.

Halsall, Paul (1997). Modern History Sourcebook: Vladimir Illyich Lenin: What is to be Done, 1902. Web.

Mayer, Robert (1997). Studies in East European Thought 49: 159–185, 1997. Web.

Pashukanis (1925). Lenin and the Problems of Law: “Lenin i voprosy prava”, Revoliutsiia prava: Sbornik 1 (1925). Kommunisticheskaia akedemiia Moscow. 132-64

PO (Proletarian Online) (2005). Theory: Lenin’s What is to be done? Proletarian. Issue 4. Web.

Rejai, Mostafa (1980). The Professional Revolutionary: A Profile. Air University Review. Web.

Stevenson, Graham (2004). What’s in “What is to be done?”? Web.

People create history, and behind every notable change, there is a significant figure or group of them. However, a series of events happen by forming the basis for the great accomplishments of each great personality. Vladimir Lenin is one of the defining figures in history since he stood at the head of one of the most crucial revolutions in the world and laid the foundation for one of the most influential states in the twentieth century. However, this success was possible due to the events of Lenin’s childhood and consequences before the October Revolution, since the Russian Empire was in crisis and depression for years.

The family and childhood of a person have a significant impact on his or her future, and for Vladimir Lenin, they were decisive. The real last name of Vladimir is Ulianov, and he was born in 1870 in the family of a school inspector and was the fourth of seven children (Possony). Both of his parents were educated; they instilled in him the enjoyment of learning, so after graduation, Vladimir showed high academic success, which allowed him to receive higher legal education.

Crucial events that influenced the formation of Lenin’s views were the unreasonable dismissal of his father from work and his death because of it, as well as the execution of his elder brother Alexander for revolutionary activity (Schmermund and Edwards). These misfortunes were a shock to the young Ulianov and made him doubt the rightfulness and adequacy of the government.

Lenin was also expelled from the university for participating in a student demonstration, although he managed to finish his studies later (Spielvogel). During his student years, Lenin made the first steps in opposition and political work. A significant influence on the young revolutionary had a reading of Marx’s Capital, which formed the basis of his ideology for the revolution and the creation of a new state in the future. In addition, after graduation, Lenin began his legal practice, and his main clients were Russian peasants experiencing constant injustice, which only reinforced Lenin’s ideas about class inequality (“Vladimir Lenin”).

For this reason, the young revolutionary tried to conduct more activities to discredit the authorities, and as a result, he was exiled to Siberia for three years (Spielvogel). The banishment also affected reinforcing the ideas of Lenin since he could read and write political works during these years.

The main external circumstances that made the October Revolution possible were the protracted crisis of the Russian Empire and the people’s discontent with the government. The first impetus was the Japan-Russia War, which caused significant damage to the Russian economy, and also popularized revolutionary moods among people. The soldiers who returned from the Japanese captivity endorsed the ideas about the necessary changes in the country, and the high level of inflation, poverty, and hunger only encouraged the population to act (Possony).

For this reason, the years 1905-1907 in the Russian Empire were marked by a number of strikes, rebellions, bloody battles, and rallies. These events forced Tsar Nicholas II to establish an elected legislative assembly, known as the Duma, and also adopt a constitution guaranteeing the democratic freedom of the people (Spielvogel). Vladimir Lenin, at that time, had been living in Europe and conducting political activities by developing the ideas of Marxism. This revolution was the first circumstance that made possible the triumph of Lenin.

The next circumstance was the participation of the Russian Empire in the First World War, although the state of its economy and armament was too weak for fighting. As a result of the war, Russia suffered significant losses since there were not enough weapons to win in large-scale battles. Thus, millions of soldiers died, most of the economic resources were spent on the army, and people in the cities had a food shortage. Besides, ministers did not respect the freedom guaranteed by the constitution and did not make any reforms, which only deepened the crisis.

For this reason, in 1917, a new March revolution broke out even more ambitious and brutal, which forced Nicholas II to dissolve the Duma, and later abdicate (“Vladimir Lenin”). Thus, in the Russian Empire, the monarchy regime was overthrown, and the Provisional Government came to power (“Vladimir Lenin”).

At that time, Lenin lived in Munich, where he had been working as a political activist by developing and popularizing the ideas of Marxism. This work was for him a kind of preparation before one of the most ambitious events in the history of Russia. However, the March revolution was one of the last circumstances for the victory of the October Revolution, although Lenin himself did not take part in those events.

Therefore, by the time Lenin returned to Russia, the most favorable conditions for the realization of the October Revolution were formed in the country. The people were tired of constant instability and poverty, so they willingly believed in the slogans and principles of Marxism that the Bolsheviks proclaimed. Class equality, the rule of the people, justice, and the increase in the country’s wealth through honest work were necessary for those who were eager for change. The state was vulnerable, and any correctly substantiated proposals could be accepted by society.

However, one should not underestimate the significance of Lenin himself, since his charisma, persuasion skills, and ability to built communication ensured him the support of the people and the victory of the Bolsheviks. His political agenda based on the ideas of Marxism was clearly designed and attractive to the broad public, and his experience in Europe allowed him to develop the necessary skills to shape his image. After the victory of the October Revolution, a massive upsurge of faith combined with violent methods, known as the Red Terror, contributed to the creation of the USSR under the leadership of Lenin (“Vladimir Lenin”).

This country, for many years, remained one of the most significant players in the international arena. Hence, Lenin’s belief in the need for change, high intellect, and the ability to impose his ideas were crucial factors for the achievement of the October Revolution. Nevertheless, Lenin’s efforts would be doomed to failure without the circumstances formed over the years.

In conclusion, Vladimir Lenin is an important figure in the history of Russia and the world since he managed to lead and win a large-scale revolution and start a new historical era. He reached much of his success because of his skills, knowledge, and ambitions; however, circumstances shaped his identity, and also political conditions in the state made his achievements possible. Consequently, if the described revolutionary events of the early twentieth century had not happened, then perhaps Lenin would have been such a significant person in history.

Works Cited

Possony, Stefan T. Lenin: The Compulsive Revolutionary. Routledge, 2017.

Schmermund, Elizabeth, and Judith Edwards. Vladimir Lenin and the Russian Revolution. Enslow Publishing, 2016.

Spielvogel, Jackson J. “Russian Revolution.” Western Civilization: A Brief History, 10th ed., Cengage Learning, Inc, 2017. Web.

“Vladimir Lenin. Biography.” Biography.com. 2017. Web.

The story One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich depicts life grievances and hardship caused by Soviet system and Bolshevism to ordinary citizens like Ivan Denisovich Shukhov. In this story, Solzhenitsyn unveils drawbacks and limitations of the Lenin’s views and their consequences for an ordinary man. Repressions and spying was a result of Soviet ideology and the suppression of local initiative. Thus, it is possible to find the roots of these problems in Lenin’s April Theses promulgated dominance of the working class and struggle against dissidents.

The main thesis which influenced the course of Russian history was a strong leadership role of the Party. Solzhenitsyn unveils that the party ruled lives of people and determined their destiny. The use of “cellule” for the smallest party units, and “rayon” for the next level of regional organization were typical for camps. The most lasting effect of Stalinization was the proletarianization of the party leadership. Leninism initially rationalized the existence of a disciplined revolutionary party made up of intellectuals and downwardly mobile persons claiming to be the avante-garde of the working class. Solzhenitsyn unveils that even in concentration camps the Party paid special attention to propaganda and ideology: “There were three artists in the camp. They painted pictures for the bosses, free, and also took turns painting numbers on work parade.” (Solzhenitsyn).

Many of the characteristics associated with Stalinism were a logical consequence of the party’s dominance. April Theses shows that the Bolsheviks spontaneously opened their ranks to politically conscious workers only during the revolutionary months of 1917. The Party very early became a mass party led by bureaucrats recruited through a deliberate policy of selecting the most talented of the workers for special training and promotion. Stalinist bureaucratic techniques proved to be adaptable for specifically internal reasons. While they did nothing to help the Bolsheviks achieve revolution, they did effectively block integration. The unschooled workers who came to leadership positions looked for guidance to the USSR.

The Russians obliged by providing advisers and policy directives which could be mechanically applied. The Lenin’s Theses provided a justification for the elite’s domination and conceptual tools easy to master and adequate to explain the world in which the party operated. The promotion of proletarian literature and socialist-realist art helped insure that workers would continue to dictate to intellectuals rather than the reverse. When the party entered political coalitions, however, its mode of co-opting elites came into conflict with the values of the new social strata to which the party had to appeal. Solzhenitsyn portrays: “The zeks go in through the camp gates like warriors returning from a campaign — blustering, clattering, swaggering: “Make way there, can’t you!” (Solzhenitsyn). Strict order and dominance of the ruling elite was established in Lenin’s thesis. Given these contradictions, internal struggles invariably erupted within the party leadership, always carefully hidden to prevent nonCommunist opinions and attitudes from weighing in the outcome. Indications of struggle could be gleaned from the party press, however, and the party oscillated back and forth in its line. The structure and Bolsheviks’ views were reflected in April Thesis: “The masses must be made to see that the Soviets’ of Workers. As long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses” (Lenin).

The horrors of the Soviet system were a result of ideology stipulated by Lenin. Communist party organization became a corollary of colonial classification. Conscientious objection, while courageous, was individualist and unsuitable for mass emulation. Desertion was cowardice and sabotage treason. Lenin taught that the duty of a Communist was to depart for any war into which he had been conscripted and carry on the (party) struggle where circumstances placed him. In order to fulfill this thesis, Stalin introduced concentration camps as the main tool of oppression and civil control. The Party was not against nationalization. But it was fearful of the electoral consequences of too radical an image and stressed that only the largest industries were ripe for takeover. Nothing was sacred except the strong ideology protected with state control. Lenin states: “As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticizing and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience” (Lenin). This thesis reflects life and ideology of the camp where the Bolshevists reserved the highest category of associated state, denoting equal and independent status.

In sum, Solzhenitsyn reveals that life experiences and hardship faced by his character were inevitable stipulated and promulgated by Lenin in 1917. Solzhenitsyn unveils that concentration camps and strict control were the main tools used by Stalin but the ideology and dominance of workers as a social class been promulgated in April Theses by Lenin

Works Cited

Lenin, V. April Thesis. n.d. Web.

Solzhenitsyn, A. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. n.d. Web.