PRAGOTI

Leninism, having drawn from the historical experiences and errors of the Paris Commune, was alone capable of being the Marxism of the era of imperialism and hegemony

II: Marxism

“Leninism was thus a development and enrichment of, not departure from, the Marx-Engels theory that socialist revolutions take place”-E.M.S. Namboodiripad

Marxism & Leninism

Thesis II: Leninism is the Marxism of the current stage of Historical Development

Sverdlov University has played host to many an important, yet accessible rendition of the theory and praxis of Marxism-Leninism. One does not know how long he spoke for, but Lenin succinctly encapsulated his theory of the state in what to us is only known as an eighteen-page-short lecture to the students of that University in 1919. With the undertaking of the Lenin Enrollment in 1924, J.V. Stalin delivered an extended lecture at the same University entitled Foundations of Leninism, where he, as we previously noted, defined Leninism as “Marxism in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution.” “To be more exact” he added, “Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the Dictatorship of the proletariat in particular”.

The most pivotal point to note from above is that Leninism is the Marxism of proletarian revolution. But then, the semi-initiated observer would ask: did not Marx and Engels themselves formulate the theory of the proletarian revolution? Was not the Paris Commune, which Marx and Engels deeply studied and wrote upon, an example of a proletarian revolution in the time of the founders of Marxism? Then where does the need arise for the existence of Leninism as a separate development of Marxism in the era of the proletarian revolution?

We must now note that:

1. Marx and Engels, while they observed that the class struggle of the proletariat culminates in the proletarian revolution, could not have elucidated a strategic line for the Proletarian revolution during the onset of the imperialist hegemony over society and the domination of Monopoly Houses and finance capital of pivotal sectors ranging from munitions to the media. In a situation characterized by such developments, Proletarian class struggle, if it is to lead to victory, has to be reorganized along Leninist lines.

2. The Paris Commune, due to its brevity, could, and can not serve as a comprehensive example of the mode and method of the Proletarian Revolution. In The Class Struggles in France, Marx talks of Socialism as “the declaration of the permanence of the revolution”. This is not some Trotskyite sophistry, but the statement of the fact that the revolution does not consist solely in the usurpation of state power by the proletariat, but the destruction of the old state apparatus and the creation of a new one to aid the State Dictatorship of the Proletariat in its accentuated class war against the bourgeoisie. Thus, the revolution is only complete when it becomes superfluous; i.e. the revolution, like the proletarian state, attains its finality only when its raison d’etre – the existence of classes – no longer exists.

3. In the case of the Paris Commune of 1871, it is imperative to note that whilst establishing the contours for the state Dictatorship of the proletariat, the Commune itself did not constitute a complete picture of the State Dictatorship. First, it did not smash the state apparatus that was previously in existence, and therefore, could not harness the state with the efficiency of particularity to meet its own proletarian ends. Secondly, the fact that the Paris proletariat did not have a specific party of its own put it in a position where, despite holding on to state power, it could not channel its class interest through an organizational mentality. The adversity of such a predicament, compounded by the non-conformity of the still-existent bourgeois state apparatus, played no small role in the downfall of the heroic Communards.

We have talked as much as we have about the Paris Commune, because, in many respects, it forms the nodal point in the correlation between Marxism and Leninism, whilst playing a significant part in the inception of Leninism. Marx and Engels’ assessment of the triumphs and pitfalls of the Commune had an enormous bearing on Lenin’s formulation of the practices that could imbibe the best assets and features of the Commune, while also taking measures and creating mechanisms that would serve to eliminate its’ shortfalls. The Leninist tenant of an organizational vanguard that can champion the interests of the proletariat in the class struggle drew much from the failure of the Paris Proletariat. It can even be said that many of the Leninist adaptations of revolutionary tactic to correspond to the current state of historical development owes a large part to the experiences of the civil war in France. One could stretch as far as to say that the formulation of Leninism as Marxism of the current age would have been impossible without the practical lessons and rectifications it drew from Marx’s and Engels’ extensive commentary on the France of 1871. Any serious study of Leninism, therefore, must take the Paris Commune as an important point of departure.

Leninism, having drawn from the historical experiences and errors of the Paris Commune, was alone capable of being the Marxism of the era of imperialism and hegemony

The instrumentality of the critique of Marxism’s founders of the nationalist, idealist weaknesses of the Communards had great bearing on Leninism’s militant materialism. However, I shall skirt over this issue now, as we have dedicated a large part of the forthcoming chapters to Lenin’s war against idealism. What we shall deal with next is possibly the greatest lesson that the failure of the Paris proletariat has taught the Leninists – the centrality of proletarian hegemony in the state Dictatorship.

Continued

Part I

Part III

Part IV

Part V