Essay On Lenin - Bio, Life and Political Ideas

3/9/2018 Essay on Lenin: Bio, Life and Political Ideas
Essay on Lenin: Bio, Life and Political Ideas
Article shared by :
After reading this article you will learn about Lenin:- 1. Short Life History of
Lenin 2. Background of Lenin’s Thought 3. Political Ideas.
Short Life History of Lenin:

The family name of this world famous revolutionary and a great interpreter of
the political ideas of Marx and Engels is Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. He was born on
22 April 1870 (in old style or system of calculation it was 10 April).
Simbirsk was Ulyanov’s birth-place and it is now called Ulyanovsk. From the end
of 1901 he came to be known as ‘Lenin’ because in his writings he used that
pseudonym.
Vladimir’s father Ilya Nikolayevich was an educated person and held the post of
school inspector. He had also direct and strong connection with Russian
particularly Tsarist bureaucracy and in bureaucratic circle he was a respected
person.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/essay/essay-on-lenin-bio-life-and-political-ideas/1285 1/32
Malaysia Holidays
Offer
Discover the magic of
Malaysia and Singapore.
Upto Rs.10,000 Off on
makemytrip.com
holiday packages.
Ilya Nikolayevich took special care of his children’s education. Though he was
very much religious-minded and imparted religion-based education upon his
children he was not a bigot.
His elder brother Alexander was a student of Petersburg University and from his
early-hood he was revolutionary in his attitude and activities. This mentality led
him to be a member of a terrorist and secret organization popularly known as
Narodnaya Volya. This organisation was involved in the assassination of Tsar
Alexander II in 1881, and when Alexander’s involvement was discovered he was
hanged.
Lenin believed that his brother Alexander was innocent and when he was hanged
for no fault of his own Lenin became furious and decided to take revenge. But
Lenin’s mother did not approve his decision and she wanted to divert the
attention of Lenin. His mother took serious e orts to involve him in studies and
because of her e orts Lenin was allowed to be a student of St. Petersburg
University and by 1891 he became a law-graduate.
Lenin’s membership of the university and mother’s e orts failed to bring about
a break on his connection with the secret organizations, particularly Narodnaya
Volya. He was determined to end the autocratic rule of the Tsar and in order to
achieve that ambitious objective he began to study the various revolutionary
literature. By 1890 Lenin came in close contact with the works of Marx and
Plekhanov.
Before Lenin Plekhanov was a great Marxist and he published a number of

booklets and articles explaining and interpreting the thoughts of Marx and
Engels. Plekhanov’s writings impressed Lenin and he began to study seriously
the works of Marx.
His attachment with revolutionary philosophy in general and Marxian

philosophy in particular began to increase in astronomical proportion and
before the end of the 19th century his name appeared to be a very known gure
among the socialist circles.
The secret police and organization of the Tsar intensi ed their surveillance over
Lenin and he was not permitted in the academic a airs of St. Petersburg
University. This, however, could not deter Lenin. With added enthusiasm he
carried on his revolutionary activities.
Background of Lenin’s Thought:

In his letter to Weydemeyer on 5 March 1852 Marx wrote “And now as to myself,
no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern
society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me the bourgeois
historians have described the historical development of this struggle of the
classes and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes.”
Needless to say that the same also holds good for Lenin. Lenin’s political
philosophy or what is better known as Leninism did not emerge accidentally. It
is coupled with a long and multi-faced background whose understanding is
essential for a comprehensive grasp over Leninism.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Malaysia Holidays
Offer
Discover the magic of
Malaysia and Singapore.
Upto Rs.10,000 Off on
makemytrip.com
holiday packages.
When Lenin embarked upon the turmoil political and economic situation of the
then Russia (roughly in the middle of the nineties of the nineteenth century, he
witnessed a host of revolutionaries and socialist thinkers such as Struve, Martov,
Krzhizhanovsky, Potresov etc.
There was also Plekhanov who built up a powerful group of Marxists and
elaborated, interpreted and propagated the main currents of Marxist thought.
Plekhanov’s intellectualism created an impact upon the revolutionary zeal of
Lenin.
In the fties of the nineteenth century Belinsky and Harzen launched, at a

limited scale, the revolutionary movement in Russia which created a stir among
the peasants, because they believed that only the Russian peasants could form a
potential force to save Russia from the Tsarist misrule.
In the 1860s some Russian thinkers and revolutionaries believed that only a
reform movement could be a right way. Chernyshevsky gave leadership to this
movement. Though many people call Chernyshevsky’s reform movement
revolutionary, in practice, it was not so.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Best Health
Insurance
Free Health Check-Up +
Bonus on No Claim. Get
Policybazaar.com
Instant Policy Online.
Many people think that the purpose of this reform movement was to slow down
the terrorist movement which was gathering momentum under the leadership of
Lenin. His movement was partially anarchist and partially individualist. It was,
however, anti-establishment.
Narodnik (Populist) and Narodnaya Volya (People’s will) parties emerged in the
seventies to press the cause of common people, particularly the peasants. The
populist or Narodnik Party had no practical experience of revolution or leading
the toiling masses to revolutionary activities and, as such, the Narodnik Party
failed to achieve even moderate success. After sometimes the party gave the
Slogan “Go to the people”. The activities of the party went o to the countryside
to raise their enthusiasm.
The successive failures of the Narodnik Party split it into two groups—one
terrorist and the other, to some extent, reformist. The former was called
Narodnaya Volya and Lenin had weakness for this group.
Lenin’s elder brother was connected with this terrorist group and the group was
responsible for the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. Tsar police did not
hesitate to adopt most repressive measures and some were hanged. This could
not generate any deterrent e ect upon the revolutionaries. Conspiratorial
activities went unabated.
In the mid 1880s some Marxists in exile intensi ed their activities for the cause
of emancipation of the working class and most prominent among them were
Plekhanov and Axelrod.
Plekhanov was rated as the key factor for transforming populism into Marxism.
In has been observed by a critic that Plekhanov’s writings not only converted
Lenin but also reared a whole generation of Russian Marxists. Plekhanov
emphasized that populists’ method of terrorism was in bankruptcy and hence it
could not be relied upon.
He was sure that capitalism was rapidly developing in Russia and would create a
vast army of proletariat who would overthrow the autocratic rulers from power.
This analysis of Russian capitalism impressed Lenin and he took active interest.
It has been pointed out by Christopher Hill that Russia during the Tsar rule was
in fact divided into two opposite class’s landlord and bourgeois on the one hand,
and toiling masses on the other. There was no middle class as it is to be found in
other capitalist countries of Europe.
In the midst of this terrorist and revolutionary movement the liberal philosophy
of the 19th century could not get any scope to ourish in Russia. Moreover, the
landed and industrial interests in Russia were chie y dominated by the
foreigners who created a strong resentment among the common people.
This was quite favourable for the advancement of revolutionary movement and,
needless to say, Lenin took the full opportunity of this situation. A large number
of socialist thinkers and activities had already prepared an academic atmosphere
by interpreting and propagating Marx’s thought and ideas.
Political Ideas of Lenin:

1. The Russian Revolution:
A number of Russian revolutionaries ploughed the eld for sowing the seeds of
revolution and Lenin was undoubtedly the most prominent personality. In fact,
without the dynamism and bold leadership of Lenin the Russian revolution
would never have been being a reality.
The ruthless administration of Russia sent him to jail and exile for a number of
times, but everywhere he continued his schemes of revolution with added zeal
and enthusiasm.
In 1893 he returned to St. Petersburg and made e orts to unite the various
revolutionary groups. But Russian police did not allow him to remain outside jail
to continue revolutionary activities. He was arrested and sent to Siberia.
Lenin was an inborn revolutionary and while in exile he continued his revolu-
tionary activities which resulted in the formation of a revolutionary party known
as Russian Social Democratic Labour party (R.S.D.L.P).
Under its leadership number of strikes in the textile factories of St. Petersburg
took place. Lenin was at that time in Siberia and when he returned in 1900 he
witnessed that Russian social and political situation was quite ripe for a
revolution.
At the same time he strongly felt the necessity of a journal to spread and
inculcate the principle of revolution among the workers and with the help of
Potresov and Martov he clandestinely published a journal called Iskra (The
Spark) and immediately it was received by the workers and revolutionaries
enthusiastically.
Lenin thought that the publication of Iskra was a positive step towards the
materialisation of revolutionary objectives. The years following 1893 were years
of confusion and indecision.
In the Minsk Congress the RSDLP was formed, but it could not proceed rapidly
towards the ful lment of revolutionary goals. It simply organized few strikes.
There were, moreover, dissensions among the revolutionaries.
How to organize a movement?
What would be the objectives of revolution any movement?
Some revolutionaries advanced the argument that the workers should form
trade unions to press their demands upon the capitalists.
The political objectives of any organization will de nitely divide the workers.
But the core group set up by Lenin, when he was in Geneva, strongly opposed
this move. His argument was trade union based on economic factors would make
the workers reform-minded and enslave them to capitalists. So Lenin advised
his followers to discard such trade unionism.
Before 1905 Lenin was convinced that the peasants and workers must under-
stand the necessity of a revolution and in order to organize and unite them a
party organization is a must.
Lenin once said:
It is not su cient for revolution that the exploited and oppressed masses
understand the impossibility of living in the old way and demand changes. For
revolution it is essential, rst, that a majority of the workers (or at least a
majority of the class-conscious, thinking, politically active workers) should fully
understand that revolution is necessary and be ready to sacri ce their lives for it,
secondly, that the ruling classes be in a state of governmental crisis.
Lenin thought that if the government were in crisis that would encourage the
backward and politically conscious people to assemble together and form a
coherent movement against the government which will precipitate the fall.
This fundamental principle of revolution formulated by Lenin is not imaginary.

The revolution of 1905 and two revolutions of 1917 corroborate Lenin’s
fundamental law. He was of opinion that the mere presence of objective situation
was not enough for any revolution, it must be organized.
Lenin fully realized that the prevailing political situation of Russia was quite
congenial for a revolution. The Tsar government was weak and to cover up its
weakness it resorted to repressive measures and for that purpose it employed a
large number of agent provocateurs. Lenin thought that intensive propaganda
and large scale organization of masses could be alienated from the government
and simultaneously its misdeeds and weakness should be exposed to the people
so that they can form an anti-government attitude.
He also emphasized that the Russian economy was dominated by the foreign
investors and capitalists. Lenin was convinced that for the emancipation of the
working class it is necessary to seize political power because it is the cause of
exploitation.
2. The Revolution of 1905:
In the 1905-war with Japan Russian army received a severe defeat at the hands
of Japanese army and this brought about several setbacks for the Russian
government.
The autocratic and repressive rule of the Tsar already created an anti-
government attitude and the abortive Russia-Japanese war fuelled that
dissension beyond all sorts of paci cation. People of all sections of Russian
society adopted the agitative tactics to curb the governmental activities.
The working class was more militant; Strikes, demonstrations and other tactics
were adopted by them. The peasants also joined hands with them and,
ultimately, the countrywide agitation made the Tsar rulers helpless.
The workers, peasants and even the members of the bourgeoisie formed
organizations to give concrete shape to their movements. In such a situation a
revolution took place in Russia in 1905 (22 January). It is also called “Bloody
Sunday”.
Russian people demonstrated before the palace of the Tsar peacefully, but
repressive and ruthless measures were perpetrated by the Tsar police upon them
and this made the people furious. Waves of strikes and demonstrations ooded
the Russian Society.
At the time of 1905 Russian revolution Lenin was in Geneva. So the revolution
was absolutely spontaneous.
The activities and the policies of the Tsar government crossed all the limits of
toleration. But the revolution could not succeed; it was crushed by the Tsar
Government.
On the question of leadership of revolution and the tactics to be followed in it

severe di erences of opinion developed between Lenin representing Bolshevik
group and the Mensheviks.
The main cause of the con ict between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks was that the
former wanted to cooperate with the bourgeois democratic groups in their ght.
Lenin said that the help of the bourgeois democratic liberals should be sought
and on this issue he had no di erence of opinion with the Mensheviks. But the
moot question is are the members of the bourgeoisie liberal?
He was convinced that the Russian bourgeoisie was not liberal at all and
accepting the help of this bourgeoisie does not arise at all. During the reign of
Alexander II, Zemstovs were set up.
These were local assemblies and were given extensive powers for self-
government. But the Zemstovs were in favour of autocratic rule and for that
reason Lenin did not support any cooperation with them which the Mensheviks
refused to accept.
Lenin could not nd any revolutionary trait among the members of the
bourgeoisie and he thought that it was anti-revolutionary.
It has been observed by Marcel Leibman “Between the end of revolution of 1905
and the outbreak of war in 1914, Lenin’s struggle against Menshevism became
very largely a struggle against liberation and against all tendencies towards
alliance between Social Democrats and Constitutional Democrats”.
3. The Revolution of 1917:
Lenin investigated the causes of the failure of the revolution of 1905 and he
stated his conclusions in Lessons of Revolution published in 1910.
His analysis contains the followings points:
(a) No cooperation with the so-called Russian liberals,
(b) Only a revolutionary struggle of the masses can lead to victory,
(c) Mere underestimation of Tsarism is not enough; all e orts must be made to
destroy it.
(d) Only the working class can provide proper leadership because the peasants
are weak and unorganized.
(e) Constitutional tactics adopted by the Tsar government should be discarded,
(f) Mensheviks were the tools of Russian liberals and democrats and hence they
cannot be relied upon.
Keeping the above lessons in mind Lenin wanted to launch a nal strike against
the Tsar authority. From the activities of the Tsar government he realized that it
was gradually becoming weak and reckless and trying to save itself from
complete disaster.
The agitation of the masses was increasing rapidly. Lenin was determined to
utilize the large scale mass discontent.
Lenin was convinced that it was beyond the capacity of the Tsar government to
provide bread and other necessaries and ensure peace and allot land to the
landless people and under such situation he gave a clarion call to the masses to
rise against all sorts of odds and repressions. He openly declared that he would
not accept parliament.
By October 1917 the weakness and ine ciency of the government reached their
zenith and Lenin thought that the most opportune moment had arrived to
launch a nal attack and he did that immediately.
The bold leadership of Lenin and the enthusiastic support of the people helped
him to corner the Mensheviks. The Bolshevik group under his leadership
marched ahead and in October 25, 1917 (New system 7 November), the Bolshevik
party captured power. R. N. Carew Hunt writes… “both the social revolutionaries
and the Mensheviks were outplayed by a party far smaller, but better
organized”.
The success of the revolution of 1917 demonstrates that the fundamental

di erence between Lenin and the Mensheviks was that the former wanted to
adopt a pragmatic policy to win the ght against the Tsar government and the
latter were orthodox Marxists. They held that the Russian situation was not ripe
for seizure of power.
This orthodox attitude towards the Russian situation was the chief factor of
debacle from which the Mensheviks su ered and from which they never
recovered. Some critics (mainly from Western countries) accuse Lenin of
distorting Marxism. But a proper assessment reveals that he possessed unbound

acumen of dealing with practical situations and this made him victorious.
4. Theory of Party:
During their lifetime Marx and Engels could not nd su cient time and scope to
prepare a full-dress theory of party. In Manifesto of the Communist Party
(henceforth Manifesto) they have said that the working class must form a party
to seize political power and establish its dictatorship without which the in
emancipation would never be possible.
In his Civil War in France Marx clearly stated that the chief cause of the failure of
the commune was workers’ inability to form a party. But when Lenin appeared in
the Russian political scene and decided to launch an uncompromising struggle
against Tsardom, he felt the necessity of a party and this realization came as
early as 1901.
Two issues dominated Lenin’s mind when he was seriously thinking about
organizing a party. One is, he thought that a political party of the Western type
(bourgeoisie democratic party of Western Europe) could never be able to ful l
the objective of the Russian working class whose chief aim was to overthrow the
rule of the Tsar.
Political parties of Western bourgeois democracies always follow a tactics of

compromise and cooperation with the capitalist’s class.
The second issue is on the role of the party. Lenin openly challenged the
argument and stand of the economists. “The economists interpreted historical
materialism as a theory of primacy of the proletariat’s economic struggle as
compared with political aims”.
The argument of the economists was that the material interests of the workers is
economic interests and those must be met at rst and after that they will
spontaneously ght for political struggle and domination. To unite the workers,
they held, this condition must be ful lled.
In his famous work what is to Be Done, Lenin attacked this economism. He said
that the chief objective of the workers would be to capture political power and
emancipation from economic bondage would follow. He also refuted the econo-
mists’ argument of spontaneity. The revolutionary principles shall be spread
through various means among the workers so that they can form a de nite
opinion about the exploitation of the capitalists. Hence the theory of spontaneity
does not hold good at all.
Lenin has said that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary
movement. Only a well-organized party can preach and propagate it among the
workers. He has further observed that left to themselves the workers were not
capable of attaining consciousness of the fundamental opposition between their
class as a whole and the existing social system.
The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own
e orts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness. But for a complete
emancipation trade union movement and spontaneity cannot work
satisfactorily.
The role of vanguard ghter can be ful lled only by a party that is guided by the
most advanced concepts and ideas of the theory of socialist revolution.
While Lenin was channelizing his e orts for organizing a party for conducting
revolution he simultaneously thought of spreading ideology among the workers.
It is not true that the working class will develop an independent ideology of its
own while guiding a movement.
Only a struggle can form the foundation of an ideology. This naive contention of
some persons has been challenged by Lenin. He is of opinion that no
independent ideology can develop in the process of labour movement.
In any society there can be only two ideologies bourgeois and socialist and the
working class will have to select any one of these two. There is no middle course
and hence there is no third ideology.
It is the most important task of a revolutionary party to convince the workers of

the necessity of socialist ideology, because only this course will convince them of
the extent of capitalist exploitation.
The task of the party is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working class
movement from the spontaneous trade union movement to the umbrella of
revolutionary movement.
At the beginning of twentieth century, in Russia, there were a number of

revolutionary groups who were ghting against Tsardom. Lenin felt the
necessity of a united party, because only such an organization could succeed in
capturing political power. He wanted to call it a homogeneous All Russian Party.
A centralized and well-organized party was to him the only way. “As against the
populists, he conceived of this party as proletarian, as against the legal
Marxists, as a party of action as well as of theory, and as against the
economists as a party with a political as well as an economic programme”
Lenin thought that in order to be the vanguard of the proletariat the party must
be an “iron party”, that is, it must enforce discipline and principles of revolution
and protracted class struggle among the members.
Without an “iron party” it was impossible to carry out the dictatorship of the
proletarian. Party should be the highest form of organisation for carrying out
proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie.
What Lenin wants to emphasize is that without a nod from the central
committee or organisation regional branches cannot take any decision.
To ful ll the goals of revolution Lenin thought that the party should be small so
that it can function swiftly and quite e ectively.
The central committee of the party will dominate the ideological and other
aspects of the organisation and from this view of Lenin critics draw the
conclusion that he was thinking about the dictatorship of party. From the
political experience of Russia, Lenin formed the opinion that only a small party
can work e ciently.
As regards the organisation of the party Lenin states that it will not only be
small, but will consist of professional revolutionaries. These persons will take
revolutionary activity as the in profession.
The allegiance of these persons to both ideology and party shall be beyond all
sorts of doubt and suspicion. Explaining Lenin’s view Kolakowski says that such
a party of professional revolutionaries must not only gain the con dence of the
workers and take over the spontaneous movement, but must make itself the
centre of all forms of protest against social oppression.
A small well-organized party will highlight the class interest and expose the
class antagonism among the workers and peasants. It will warn the working
class against any possible onslaught released by the capitalist and their puppet
counter-revolutionary forces.
It may suitably be called general campaign of exposure. Lenin laid great faith on
the party. He believed that it was the duty of the party to expose the motives and
character of religious fundamentalists and reactionary forces.
Lenin believed that the leadership of the party shall be at the hands of
professional revolutionaries who may be workers or intellectuals. But his
preference was always for the workers dedicated to the cause of revolution and
emancipation of workers. It has been maintained by Christopher Hill that he had
very little faith on the intellectuals because they can easily be purchased by the
capitalists.
The latter o er them lucrative employment and other comfortable opportunities

and amenities and this make them oblivious of revolution. Even they may
abandon revolutionary activities. The intellectuals prefer seminars and
declarations. They very seldom think how to implement the declarations.
This view of Lenin about the intellectuals was opposed by many of his own party.
Even a number of top revolutionaries held the view that large numbers of
intellectuals were in favour of revolution and they believed that only a revolution
could emancipate the working class.
In 1920 Lenin laid down that the basis of the party should be “democratic
centralism” which implies the combination of democratism and centralism or
centralisation. Lenin elaborated the principles of democratic centralism under
the new historical conditions when the age of proletarian revolution had come.
Lenin wanted to apply the principle in the party congress of the Russian Social
Democratic Labour Party.
All organisations of the party, according to Lenin, are subordinated to the

central authority, the decisions of the higher party organisation are obligatory
for lower party organisations.
All the units of the party are well-connected and the o ce-bearers are elected
by the members of the party. All the important issues shall be threadbare by
analyses in di erent units of the party and the nal decision will be taken by the
majority which will be binding on all.
Lenin’s theory of party as well as its role in the Russian revolution may also be
explained in the light of the relationship between the party and Soviets. In State
and Revolution and other works he has stressed that the proletarian revolution
will smash the bourgeois state and that will be replaced by the Soviets.
“The decisive feature in Lenin’s analysis, and those to which he attached the
greatest importance were his insistence on smashing the old state apparatus, on
replacing it by the dictatorship of the proletariat and his new vision of Soviets as
the political machinery through which this dictatorship could best be exercised”.
Lenin thought that after the revolution the proletariat will seize power and
dictatorship will be established. All these were categorically stated by Lenin
before 1919.
In this year he said:
“The party must win for itself undivided mastery over the Soviets” Critics are of
opinion that with the change of time and situation Lenin had jumped from one
concept to another.
Dictatorship of the Soviets, dictatorship of the party and dictatorship of the

proletariat are not identical terms.
Subsequently the matter was clari ed according to the following line. The party
will guide and lead the Soviets and will never replace them. That means the
Soviets will be in full control of ail the activities of the state and society.
Stalin in his Problems of Leninism has o ered a slightly di erent explanation.

He has said that the dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat which is
organized into society and is led by the party.
The party, in essence, exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets
are the direct expressions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not a single
important political or organizational question is decided by our Soviet without

guiding direction from our party.
Criticism:
Lenin’s theory of party has been subject to severe criticisms by both Marxists
and non-Marxists.
He and his adherents have always assured us that Lenin is neither distorting nor
amending the central principles of Marxism. But if we look at his theory of party
we will witness a clear negation of this contention. Both Marx and Engels have
all long advocated the establishment of dictatorship of proletariat after the
seizure of power by the proletarians.
Instead of advocating for dictatorship of proletariat, Lenin ultimately supported

the dictatorship of party which Marx and Engels never wanted. His advocacy for
the mastery of party over all the a airs of state clearly curtails the power and
rule of the Soviets. Dictatorship of party undoubtedly makes Marxism a mockery.
His criticism of his opponents’ view reveals that he was intolerant and very often
used indecent phrases.
Marcel Liebman has said:
“One could go on inde nitely accumulating examples of the invectives indulged

in by Lenin in his pursuit of what he himself called an “implacable campaign”.
Once he described Trotsky a Judas Trotsky. Though Lenin himself had su cient
sense of decency. Martov was also subjected to his thunderbolts. Lenin even
went so far as to insinuate that Martov was in the service of Tsar”. Such
insinuations are unworthy for Lenin.
5. Theory of State:
A very important contribution of Lenin lies in his interpretation and elaboration

of the concept of state of which Marx had said very little. The best treatment is
found in Engels’s The Origin of Family, Private Property and-State.
Lenin, borrowing the central idea from Marx and Engels, has expounded the
Marxian doctrine in his The State and The State and Revolution. The latter was
published in August 1917 and the former in 1919. The State and Revolution is
regarded by many scholars as a very important writing of Lenin. What Engels did
not say but wanted to say, Lenin has explained in The State and Revolution.
Following Marx and Engels Lenin says that in the primitive society there was no
existence of state because there were no classes. When the society came to the
divided into opposing classes as a result of the emergence of private property the
necessities of state became inevitable. History shows that the state is a special
apparatus for coercing people.
One class uses this apparatus to coerce another class. The state is by no means a
power forced on society from without. It is the product of society at a certain
stage of development. This society has become entangled in an insoluble
contradiction with itself.
It is now clear that according to Lenin also Marx and Engels the state is a human
product not bestowed upon man by any invisible power: A product of
irreconcilability of class antagonism.
Marx, Engels and also Lenin have viewed history from the standpoint of
materialist conception. They have said that the study of history reveals that in
di erent periods of time di erent classes arose and their interests were
diametrically opposite; and because of this the in interests could not be
reconciled.
In the slave society there were slave-owners and slaves, in the feudal period
there were landlords and serfs. Finally, in industrial society, there arose
capitalists and working class or proletarians.
In all these epochs these classes stood against each other. One class wanted to
dominate another. But ultimately it was found that the economically dominant
class got an upper hand and established its mastery over the weaker class which
was in numerical majority.
The powerful class with the help of police, army, bureaucracy and other coerce-
enforcing machinery succeeded in controlling the weaker class. These forces are
state forces and controlled and maintained by state. It may also be put in a
di erent way.
The economically stronger class created machinery which could help it in

exploitation. It is now obvious that if the interests of the opposing classes could
be reconciled such an apparatus could not have arisen.
Let us sum up the matter in the words of Lenin:
The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class

antagonisms. The state arises, where when and in so far as class antagonisms
objectively cannot be reconciled. The existence of the state proves that the class
antagonisms are irreconcilable.
The state is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. It has been maintained by
Lenin that although the state represents the powerful class, it sometimes plays
the role of arbitrator in cases of disputes and this state does to show its
neutrality. But ultimately the state fails to settle the disputes simply because
these cannot be reconciled.
When the settlement fails the real character of state is exposed, it takes the side
of the dominant class state. The state is the rule of a de nite class.
Immediately after October Revolution (November Revolution, New Style) Lenin

castigated the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. They argued that the
state could reconcile the classes. Lenin called this petty bourgeois theory. He also
called it petty bourgeois and Philistine reconciliation theory.
He concluded that the state is an organ of class rule and product of class
antagonisms. This speci c role of the state helps its alienation from the rest of
the society. It keeps itself above the society and rule from above. Hence the
emancipation of the working class shall be preceded by destruction of ruling
class and seizure of state power.
An Instrument for Exploitation:
The chief role of state according to Marx, Engels and Lenin is it is an instrument
of exploitation. The dominant class controlling the sources of production uses
the state for its own bene ts. So if there were no classes there could not arise the
necessity of state.
In the State Lenin makes the following observation:
The state is a machine for maintaining the rule of one class over another. How
the state plays the role of exploitation? It has a vast army of bureaucracy which
from time to time makes laws ful lling the interests of the ruling class and again
when these laws prove redundancy they are abolished or amended and in this
way the process continues. In case of violation of state laws, army or police are
pressed into service.
The state is a machine for the oppression of one class by another, a machine for
holding the obedience to one class other subordinate classes. There are various
forms of this machine. The slave owning state could be a monarchy, an
aristocratic, republic or even a democratic republic.
In fact, the forms of government varied, but their essence was always the same.
The slaves could not enjoy any rights. The condition of serfs in feudal state was
better in comparison with slaves, but they were oppressed and exploited. The
industrial workers in the same way were also oppressed and exploited.
In a democratic republic wealth exercises its power indirectly, but all the more
surely, rst, by means of the direct corruption of o cials as in America and
secondly by means of an alliance with government and Stock Exchange as in
France and other capitalists countries. In all the capitalist countries, Lenin
observes, banks and other nancial institutions have developed exceptionally
and these are controlling the nancial world.
Moreover, these nancial institutions are in the full control of the wealthiest
section of the community. These capitalist countries are called democracies or
republics, but these terms are misnomers.
People hardly enjoy any rights or privileges. The interests of Stock Exchange and
nancial institutions are fully protected by the various machinery of state.
Political, economic and other interests of the working class and peasants
received no importance at the hand of persons manning the state machinery.
Some petty-bourgeois democrats, socialist revolutionaries and Mensheviks

liberally eulogies the so-called democratic methods of bourgeois state. These are
universal su rage and party system.
Lenin is of opinion that these petty-bourgeois democrats have dismally failed to

understand the real character of the exploitative role of the capitalist state.
These are subterfuges employed by the state.
Withering Away of State:
Engels, in his pamphlet Socialism: Utopian and Scienti c, says “interference in

social relation becomes, in one domain after another, super uous and then
dies out of itself. The state is not abolished, it dies out.” This is, in nutshell, the
famous doctrine of withering away of state.
This doctrine has been variously interpreted and the bourgeois theoreticians and
sociologist have distorted the concept to suit their motives. Lenin in The State
and Revolution has o ered us a clear exposition of the theory.
Lenin’s clari cation of withering away of state is:
First, Engels said in seizing state power the proletarial thereby abolishes “The
state as state”. This phrase of Engels is the source of a lot of confusion.
Detractors of Marxism say that Engels advocated for an abolition of state and in
that case he was at par with anarchists, because the anarchists also wanted to
destroy the state.
Lenin’s clari cation is that after the proletarian revolution, the bourgeois state
will be abolished. But such a state will not immediately wither away. Why? When
the proletarian seizes state power, for its own convenience and bene t it will
keep certain elements of the bourgeois state.
Only the repressive aspects of bourgeois state will be abolished, not the whole
structure of such a state. After the socialist revolution there will be no classes.
The proletarian state will be a symbol of perfect democracy.
The phrase withering away means the remnants of the proletarian state will die
or wither away. Lenin emphasizes that there is di erence between the abolition
of state as state and withering away of state. Bourgeois thinkers, because of their
shallow knowledge, have failed to realize this di erence.
Second, about the withering away of state Lenin says that the central idea of
what Engels wanted to say had not been fully understood by the bourgeois
thinkers. In speaking of the state as dying down of itself Engels refers clearly and
de nitely to the period after the state has taken possession of the means of
production in the name of the whole society, that is, after the socialist
revolution.
A socialist revolution will abolish state as state. But when there will be a perfect
democracy there will be no need of any state apparatus. The remnants of the
bourgeois state will then wither away. In other words, the withering away of
state is in full consonance of perfect democracy.
Third, Lenin says that the proposition the state withers away is mainly directed
against opportunists and anarchists, particularly the latter. This is due to the
feet that the anarchists raised a slogan that state should be destroyed to ensure
maximum freedom of people. Engels threw a challenge to it. So long there would
be necessity of state it could not be destroyed.
In Manifesto Marx and Engels have said:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital
from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands
the proletariat organized as the ruling class.
Commenting upon this observation of Marx and Engels Lenin says that this is
the most remarkable and important formulation of Marx about state. Here they
have also given a brief de nition of state proletariat organized as ruling class.
In order to suppress the counter-revolutionary forces and reactionary elements

the proletariat will need a State.
Let us put it in the words of Lenin:
“The working people need the state only to suppress the resistance of the
exploiters, and only the proletariat can direct this suppression, can carry it out.”
When the dictatorship of proletariat will be established there will no longer be

any classes in society, that is, it will be a classless society. Lenin says that the
chief role of the bourgeois state is to exploit the proletariat, and when the
proletariat will seize power the role of the state as an instrument of exploitation
will be redundant. By interpreting Marxian theory of state in his way Lenin was
successful in removing all sorts of confusion and propaganda let loose by the
bourgeois theoreticians.
6. Liberalism:
Lenin’s attitude to liberalism and speci cally to liberal philosophy of the

bourgeoisie has been a controversial one. Critics say that he did not hold any
de nite view. He expressed di erent opinions at di erent times.
In 1903, when the Russian Social Democracy was split into two broad groups
Mensheviks and Bolsheviks the issue of cooperating with the liberals or
accepting their assistance in overthrowing autocratic rulers of Russia was rst
raised and debated.
It was thought at that time that if the social democrats refused to take any help
of the liberal elements of the bourgeoisie, they will be ultimately isolated in their
protracted struggle against Tsardom, and in order to avoid this it would be
prudent to make an alliance with the liberals. Lenin shared this view.
The struggle against the reactionary and autocratic sections of Russia must be
broad-based and, in order to isolate them from the majority, of the masses, the
progressive section must be brought into con dence.
This opinion Lenin expressed as early as 1897. But subsequently he added “This
support does not presuppose, nor does it call for, any compromise with non-
socialist-democratic programmes and principles”. The naive implication is
alliance might be sought but not at the cost of democratic principles of the
Bolshevik party.
In What is to be Done? Lenin said that the bourgeois democrats are the natural
and desirable allies of Social Democracy, but the essential condition of such an
alliance must be the full opportunity for the socialists to reveal to the working
class that its interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the
bourgeoisie. From the above comments it is quite obvious that so far as the
alliances with the progressive section of the bourgeoisie are concerned Lenin did
not adhere to any orthodox stand.
The only point he harped upon was that principles and ideology of Social
Democracy could not be jettisoned; they must be strictly followed at any cost. It
further means that Lenin had always indulged in distrust about bourgeois
liberalism.
Any alliance with it was absolutely for advancing class struggle and isolating the
bourgeoisie. But the Russo-Japanese war of 1905 brought about a radical change
in the political scene of Russia.
Russia’s defeat exposed her bankruptcy in all spheres, and the working class and
peasants, utilizing the opportunity, intensi ed agitation throughout the country
and under such circumstances. Lenin was not in favour of any alliance with the
liberals.
On the contrary the Mensheviks decided to support the liberals and Zemostovs.
Zemstovs were the local assemblies. Mensheviks believed that the liberals were
part of the struggle against autocracy. Lenin discarded this contention and said
that they were more counter-revolutionaries.
Lenin’s di erence with the Mensheviks began to multiply after 1904 and
assumed enormous shapes between 1905 and 1914. He di ered from the
Mensheviks on two issues organisation of party and alliance with the liberals.
His struggles against Menshevism was largely a ght against liberalism He could
not accommodate himself with the Constitutional Democratic Party because in
his view it was the symbol of reactionism and the bourgeoisie.
Again, the Mensheviks were in favour of participating in the Duma (Russian

Parliament). Even they planned to forge an electoral alliance with the
Constitutional Democrats. But Lenin rejected such a proposal outright.
He believed that within the four walls of Duma, the Social Democrats would
hardly get any scope to ght the Tsar rulers. Moreover, with their limited
membership and practically no power they would not be able to force the
autocratic government to concede to their demands.
It is not easy to assess the steps taken by Lenin and the attitude he adopted.
Whatever he said depended upon the prevailing situation. But Lenin always held
the view that the liberals could not be wholly relied upon and in no case could
they be allowed to capture the leadership of proletarian struggle. He by saying
this made clear his position, although to his leaders it was not always clear.
7. Parliamentarism:
In order to understand Lenin’s views on the Russian Parliament (Duma) it is

necessary to know what Mensheviks and other leaders held about it.
One of the main planks of dissension between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks is the
participation in the activities of the Duma, 1906 and years following it saw the
intensi cations of con ict between the two parties. Mensheviks and other
leaders such as Plekhanov, Axelrod etc. held the view that the powers of the
Duma were highly limited and in some cases ctitious.
But in spite of this the socialists under the banner of Menshevism could easily
participate in the activities of Duma and whenever any opposition to Tsarism
would arise the socialists must not hesitate to utilize it for mass struggle and to
expose the misdeeds of the Tsar. A section of Menshevik Party desired to convert
the oor of Duma for socialist movement.
In this way Mensheviks proceeded to reformism and parliamentarism which was

strongly presented by Bolsheviks. The Menshevik leaders thought that in most
of the European countries the socialist movement was graced by
parliamentarism and naturally they cannot go against the tide.
This tendency of the Mensheviks was vehemently opposed by Lenin and he

warned his comrades against the Menshevik trap. He advised them to go to the
workers of factory and villagers and peasants of countryside and to propagate
among them that without class struggle and revolution it was impossible to
seize power.
He told them of the “Impossibility of achieving political freedom by

parliamentary means as long as real power remains in the hands of Tsarist
government and to show the people the utter uselessness of the Duma as a
means of achieving the demands of the proletarian and the revolutionary petty
bourgeoisie especially the peasantry”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
India is in Big Trouble - Find Out

What This Means
A Heads Up: You Won't Like What You Read in This Secret Report
bfastfoodtogo.com
Though Lenin called the Mensheviks’ decision to join Duma as opportunism, he

was faced with a dilemma. A section of the Bolshevik Party was in favour of
participating in the Duma and it was not possible for him to disregard it.
Softening his rigid stand he said that the socialists must see that the
participation in parliamentary activities was to further the socialist movement
and the goals of the party.
In other words, the objective of participation in parliament would be “debunking

of parliamentarism”. Socialists must remember that the Duma was the spawn of
counter-revolution and that no real good could be expected from it.
The socialists or Social-Democratic members may join the Duma on the

condition that they will carry out the task of criticism, propaganda agitation and
organisation. They will use the general elections as broad and e ective platform
of propaganda.
It would never be the purpose of the socialist members of the Duma to sincerely
participate in the legislative functions of the Duma.
Lenin stressed another point about the participation in the Duma. He said that
the socialist members must be preserved from contamination of bourgeois
parliamentary members. How could it be achieved? Lenin said that cooperation
between socialist and bourgeois members must be forbidden.
The Social-Democrats must strictly adhere to the principles of revolution and

militancy, any deviation of socialist ideology resulting from the participation in
the Duma would be a suicidal policy.
Lenin also said that the Constitutional Democrats would adopt all possible steps
to purchase or motivate the Social-Democrats.
It would be the duty of the Bolshevik Party to keep a close watch over that.
Because the manoeuvring capacity of the Constitutional Democrats is superb and
they would not hesitate to adopt any measure to disrupt the socialist
programme. This proposal of Lenin emanated from the Menshevik move for a
joint meeting between the Social-Democrats and Constitutional Democrats.
Lenin was also not in very much favour of electoral alliance with the Constitu-
tional Democrats in all cases. He said that only under exceptional circumstances
such electoral alliance might be forged. On this issue he di ered from
Mensheviks. He was of opinion that in order to ght the right wing and
reactionary candidate’s alliance might be made. Lenin thus adopted a mid and
moderate path so far as participation in parliament was concerned.
Home ›› Politics ›› History ›› Political Thinker ›› Lenin ›› Essay
Related Articles:
1. Essay on Leon Trotsky: Bio, Life and Political Ideas
Upload and Share Your Article:

Title *
Title
Description *
description
Your Name *
Your Name
Your Email ID *
Your Email ID
Upload Your File
Drop les here or

Select files
Type bellow words
UPLOAD AND SHARE
LATEST
Directive Principles of State Policy | Essay | India | Political Science

NOVEMBER 14, 2017
Essay on Justice | India | Political Science

NOVEMBER 14, 2017
Essay on Fundamentals Rights | Citizens | India | Political Science

NOVEMBER 14, 2017
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy | Political Science

NOVEMBER 14, 2017
List of Political Institutions in India

NOVEMBER 14, 2017
Upload Your Knowledge on Political science: Upload Now
© 2017 PoliticalScienceNotes - All rights reserved Terms of Service Privacy Policy Contact Us

Essay On Lenin - Bio, Life and Political Ideas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Essay On Lenin - Bio, Life and Political Ideas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/9/2018 Essay on Lenin: Bio, Life and Political Ideas

Essay on Lenin: Bio, Life and Political Ideas

Short Life History of Lenin:

Before Lenin Plekhanov was a great Marxist and he published a number of

His attachment with revolutionary philosophy in general and Marxian

Background of Lenin’s Thought:

In the fties of the nineteenth century Belinsky and Harzen launched, at a

Political Ideas of Lenin:

How to organize a movement?

What would be the objectives of revolution any movement?

Lenin once said:

This fundamental principle of revolution formulated by Lenin is not imaginary.

2. The Revolution of 1905:

On the question of leadership of revolution and the tactics to be followed in it

3. The Revolution of 1917:

His analysis contains the followings points:

(a) No cooperation with the so-called Russian liberals,

(b) Only a revolutionary struggle of the masses can lead to victory,

(e) Constitutional tactics adopted by the Tsar government should be discarded,

The success of the revolution of 1917 demonstrates that the fundamental

distorting Marxism. But a proper assessment reveals that he possessed unbound

Political parties of Western bourgeois democracies always follow a tactics of

independent ideology can develop in the process of labour movement.

It is the most important task of a revolutionary party to convince the workers of

At the beginning of twentieth century, in Russia, there were a number of

The latter o er them lucrative employment and other comfortable opportunities

All organisations of the party, according to Lenin, are subordinated to the

In this year he said:

Dictatorship of the Soviets, dictatorship of the party and dictatorship of the

Stalin in his Problems of Leninism has o ered a slightly di erent explanation.

important political or organizational question is decided by our Soviet without

Instead of advocating for dictatorship of proletariat, Lenin ultimately supported

Marcel Liebman has said:

“One could go on inde nitely accumulating examples of the invectives indulged

A very important contribution of Lenin lies in his interpretation and elaboration

The economically stronger class created machinery which could help it in

Let us sum up the matter in the words of Lenin:

The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class

Immediately after October Revolution (November Revolution, New Style) Lenin

An Instrument for Exploitation:

In the State Lenin makes the following observation:

Some petty-bourgeois democrats, socialist revolutionaries and Mensheviks

Lenin is of opinion that these petty-bourgeois democrats have dismally failed to

Withering Away of State:

Engels, in his pamphlet Socialism: Utopian and Scienti c, says “interference in

Lenin’s clari cation of withering away of state is:

In Manifesto Marx and Engels have said:

In order to suppress the counter-revolutionary forces and reactionary elements

Let us put it in the words of Lenin:

When the dictatorship of proletariat will be established there will no longer be

Lenin’s attitude to liberalism and speci cally to liberal philosophy of the

Again, the Mensheviks were in favour of participating in the Duma (Russian

In order to understand Lenin’s views on the Russian Parliament (Duma) it is

In this way Mensheviks proceeded to reformism and parliamentarism which was

This tendency of the Mensheviks was vehemently opposed by Lenin and he

He told them of the “Impossibility of achieving political freedom by

India is in Big Trouble - Find Out

Though Lenin called the Mensheviks’ decision to join Duma as opportunism, he

In other words, the objective of participation in parliament would be “debunking

The socialists or Social-Democratic members may join the Duma on the

The Social-Democrats must strictly adhere to the principles of revolution and

Home ›› Politics ›› History ›› Political Thinker ›› Lenin ›› Essay

Upload and Share Your Article: