Relevance of Lenin, 100 Years after His Death
M A Baby
VLADIMIR Ilyich Lenin published an article in 1913 on the occasion of the 30th death anniversary of Karl Marx. This was published in a monthly journal of the Bolsheviks `Prosveshcheniye’ (Enlightenment) titled: `The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism’. The often quoted and famous, aphorism type formulation of Lenin: “The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true” forms part of this writing. One would be compelled to say the same about Lenin’s teachings also, on the occasion of his 100th death anniversary.
We should recall a formulation of Lenin, which was published when he was hardly 30 years of age: “We do not regard Marx’s theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life. We think that an independent elaboration of Marx’s theory is especially essential for Russian socialists; for this theory provides only general guiding principles, which, in particular, are applied in England differently than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in Germany differently than in Russia. We shall therefore gladly afford space in our paper for articles on theoretical questions and we invite all comrades openly to discuss controversial points.” (Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. IV, pp. 211-212)
At first sight, the above quote, which is from his article on the Programme written in the year 1898-99 and the 1913 article paying tribute to Karl Marx, just four years before the great October Socialist Revolution of 1917, appear to be contradictory. The article of 1913 underlined that the indivisible `theory and practice’ of Marxism is all powerful/`omnipotent, because it is true’. This assertion may lead one to an impression that everything formulated and stated as part of `Marxist theory’ by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are like gospel truth!
On the other hand, in the latter quote from Vol. IV of Collected Works, Lenin stated that: “Marx’s theory is neither completed, nor inviolable!” One would be tempted to announce, from the ordinary reading of these passages, that Lenin had made contradictory formulations on the very character of Marx’s theory during the gap of one and a half decades. One may even accuse Lenin of theoretical inconsistency!
However, those who know well the theory and practice of `dialectics’ would not agree with this criticism. Both the formulations are complementary and underline the scientific and evolving character of dialectical and historical materialism.
The truth is that Marx’s theory has only laid the foundation stone of the science. Socialists and Communists need to continuously develop it, from the foundation stone, to `all directions’.
In the same section, Lenin underlines the importance of an independent elaboration of Marx’s theory in the context of each country: essential for Russian Socialists. In order to sharpen the theoretical understanding, Lenin advocated open discussion on such vital issues in `our paper’ which would help to settle `controversies’.
It was due to the theoretical courage and conviction of Lenin and the Bolshevik party under his leadership that the objective revolutionary condition developed in Russia could be properly utilised by the working class-peasant alliance with the support of soldiers. That is how the October Socialist Revolution became successful. April thesis of Lenin is testimony to his ability to concretely analyse an emerging revolutionary situation so as to give shape to correct and timely steps for storming of the winter palace.
In this process, Lenin had to fight theoretically and practically the dogmatic arguments of Georgi Plekhanov (1856-1918), who was rightly considered, though, as the father figure of Marxism in Russia.
Similarly, when Karl Kautsky (1854-1938) considered to be a disciple of Friedrich Engels, advanced revisionist arguments against the October Revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin rebuffed him in the famous work, `The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky’. Major theoretical and practical contributions of remarkable importance by Lenin are: detailed formulations on the working class party structure, principles of democratic centralism, stages of revolution, breaking of weakest link of imperialist chain theory, development and stabilisation of socialism in one country, new economic policy as part of the above; development of capitalism into imperialism, importance of internationalist work of Communists through Comintern, fighting Leftist and reformist deviations, translating party programme into the mass awakening slogans of `Land, Peace and Bread’ and last but not the least, `All Power to Soviets’.
One of the biggest tragedies that occurred in the history of the world communist movement was the death of Lenin before his completing 54 years!
After Lenin’s death too, significant achievements were recorded in the Soviet Union, in the fields of agriculture, industry, health, education, science and technology, women’s equality and empowerment, culture, housing, eradication of illiteracy and poverty etc, which are all well-known. The heroic role played by the Soviet Red Army in the defeat of fascism and Nazism was an astounding feat. The support of USSR and the socialist bloc to the national liberation movements and newly-liberated countries too need special mention. It was Lenin who laid the foundation for these epoch making policies, which inaugurated the transition from an exploitative social order to experiments with constructing an exploitation free- egalitarian society moving towards socialism and beyond.
However, 67 years after Lenin’s death, the USSR and East European socialist experiments disintegrated. Why the Soviet Communist Party founded by Lenin reached such an impasse, is a question. The 14th Congress of CPI(M) held in 1992 in Madras tried to analyse some of the reasons. Today, we may sum-up the answer in a different form as well: the CPSU failed to continue the task proposed by Lenin: “To develop in all directions, from the foundation stone of the science” laid by Marx’s theory.
The direct impact of Lenin’s creative approach of applying the scientific theory in concrete conditions is visible in today’s world too. The remarkable general progress in the Chinese economy and eradication of extreme poverty and other positive aspects in encountering the overall crisis situation can be linked to the adaptation of Lenin’s NEP experiments in the Chinese context, to a large extent. The same can be stated about a few other countries like Vietnam and Cuba.
What we have been trying to do in Kerala since the Communist government of 1957 can also be seen in a limited way in this context, because Kerala is only a small state within India, where a bourgeois-landlord system prevails. However, various steps taken by the Communist-led state governments starting with land reforms, strengthening public education and health systems, welfare measures in an imaginative manner to provide relief to the working people and a decentralisation of powers to local bodies and people’s plan – took some inspiration and ideas from the Leninist approach. The decision of the LDF government of Kerala to shape the state into a modern knowledge based society and economy comparable to the middle income developed economies of the world, ensuring eradication of acute poverty completely from the state within the next two years is another significant move. This could lead to a paradigm shift, considering the fact that the effort is planned within a country where neo-liberal policies are predominant.
In the drastically changed world today, due to a variety of reasons, including prevalence of total technology based surveillance and various applications of AI, communists in each country need to deeply analyse the nature and character of the changes happening and how these affect the lives of various sections of people and the democratic movement. Only then correct approaches can be designed to take the revolutionary movement forward. What Lenin would have single-handedly achieved with the help of his colleagues, will have to be collectively undertaken by the working class party / parties now, as a whole.
It is interesting to note that Marx and Engels were prescient about the possibility of Russia initiating the revolutionary upsurge before any European (developed) capitalist country and some `very best comrades’ emerging in the revolutionary movement from Russia.
The 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto had the last preface written jointly by Marx and Engels (which was translated by Georgi Plekhanov in Geneva). There, in the last para, they discussed the possibility of Russia directly becoming a socialist society due to the common land-holding system in villages. But a decade ahead of this, in June 1872, Engels wrote a letter to Johann Philipp Becker, a German revolutionary. The letter, after having discussed the Russian translation of the first volume of Capital (It was the first translation after the German edition even before the English or French translations) and its very wide reception among Russian people, he made the following observations: “As for the Russians in general, there is an enormous difference between those who came to Europe earlier on – noble, aristocratic Russians … and those who are coming now, all of whom are of the people. As far as talent and character are concerned, some of these are absolutely among the very best in our party. They have a stoicism, a strength of character and at the same time a grasp of theory which are truly admirable.”
What Marx and Engels saw as glimmerings of revolutionary potential in Russia, came to fruition with the genius of Lenin’s revolutionary theory and practice.
