Leninism, although contradictory, manage to coexist and even reciprocally potentiatethemselves, the result being a schizoid ideology in whose theoretical texture one canfind modern or ultramodern conceptualizations (Leninist ones, like the orientationtowards future as a legitimizing source for the present or exacerbated positivism, theregime considering it has the scientific mission to lead Romania on the road of ‘building socialism’, but also fascist ideas, Fascism being on its turn a modernphenomenon, and here we could include the diminishing role of the party in relationto that of the leader, xenophobic discourses or the affinities for military theories andactivities), respectively pre or antimodern conceptualizations (romanticism exemplifiedtrough the cult of heroism or the exaggerated nationalism through which the regimetried to mobilize the apathetic population, purging it in the same time of its‘bourgeois’ or ‘counterrevolutionary’ categories).
Aspects regarding the ideological content of romantic Leninism
Confronted with the danger of dismemberment for the young Soviet statedue to its centrifugal nationalist forces, Lenin advanced the formula ‘national in form,socialist in content’, a compromise through which the cultural and nationalparticularities of the Soviet republics, the former Tsarist provinces, were recognizedalong with their economic, social and political transformation according with the mainideas of the Bolshevik revolution.
Referring to Ceauescu’s Romania, GeorgeSchöpflin considers that the Leninist desideratum had metamorphosed so much untilit became ‘socialist in form’ and ‘national in content’.
No matter how percussive thisexpression, I argue that it does not fully reflect the ideological content of romanticLeninism. On short, Leninism, in its post-revolutionary form,
was never inferior toFascistic nationalism, even if sometimes its visibility was lower; within romanticLeninism, nationalism and Leninism have approximately the same share. The attemptof comparing them can only provide disappointing results.Next, we shall shortly analyze the main political concepts of romanticLeninism, respectively their international equivalents. We will start with ‘revolutionary
I widely analyze romantic Leninism in my doctoral thesis entitled
Geneza leninismului romantic. O perspectiv
ionale a comunismului românesc, 1948-1989
, defended in December 2011 at theBabe-Bolyai University.
Emanuel Copila “The «Moscow centre» and its peripheries: an ideological overview of the Soviet’sUnion difficulties as a multinational state”,
Political studies forum
, 1 (2009): 113-146.
George Schöpflin “Gorbachev, Romania and «Leninist nationalities policiy»”,
Background Report. Eastern Europe
, no. 96, 12 June, Arhiva 1989, 3.
I have advanced, in the article Counter-idea of the 20th century. Varieties of Leninism in Soviet andpost-Soviet Russia, under review at Communist and Post-Communist Studies, a typology of SovietLeninism as it follows: revolutionary Leninism (classical), post-revolutionary Leninism (Stalinism),Europeanized Leninism (Khrushchevism), systemic Leninism, (Brezhnevism) and post-Bolshevik Leninism (Gorbachevism). Without entering into details, I consider the first three types as revolutionary,in the sense that, in different degrees, appreciated the global revolution as unavoidable and acted, indifferent ways, for its reification, while at the last two types the revolutionary substance disappears, in thefirst case because of using strict political means and of the slow renunciation of ideology (globalrevolution) in the relations with ‘imperialism’, and in the last case due to the repudiation of the Bolshevik dimension of Leninism, of the ‘democratic centralism’ which instituted the infallibility of the communistparty and its role as the unique guide of the revolutionary process.