Alette HorjusHistory B Block

Lenin

“We need the real, nation-wide terror which reinvigorates the country and

through which the Great French Revolution achieved glory”

http://spanish.larouchepac.com/files/media/brutishempire/reduced/F1_lenin_poster_sweeping_bankers.jpg

Some quotes worth noting:

“A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every

revolutionary situation leads to revolution.”

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation

and inflation.”

“We need the real, nation-wide terror which reinvigorates the country and through

which the Great French Revolution achieved glory”

Lenin himself:

Vladimir Ilich Lenin born with the original name of Ulyanov was born in Simbirsk

(Ulyanovsk), Russia on May 4 1870. (Morris)

He was the son of a school inspector and his childhood was lived to noble standards.

(Grolier)

Although Lenin’s family seemed well fit together and peaceful, his brother

(Aleksandr) was executed in 1887 for the attempt of assassinating Czar Alexander III.

Aleksandr was part of the people’s will, which was an organization with populist

revolutionary morals. (Grolier)

Lenin was an incredibly intelligent student, who in the same year of his brother’s

execution, was awarded a ‘best students’ medal in recognition of his academic

achievement at the graduation of his secondary school (Simbirsk). (Morris)

The Director of this school happened to be Fyodor Kerensky, the father of Aleksandr

Kerensky whose government Lenin’s Bolshevik regime as to overthrow during the

standing of the provisional government, the director vouched for Lenin’s reliability

when he applied (successfully) to Kazan University in 1887. (Grolier)

December 1887, Lenin was expelled from Kazan University after having participated

in a student demonstration, which marked the start of his revolutionary activity.

(Grolier)

Early political career:

Lenin was extremely interested in politics and especially Karl Marx and attended St.

Petersburg University at which he passed law examinations without even having taken

part in any classes. (Morris)

He set up his own court, but he was more interested in the Marxist circle, which he

joined in 1893, this network was a training associate in Marxism beliefs, Lenin kicked

off his revolutionary career by ‘agitating’ these associates into revolutionary activity.

(Grolier)

When Lenin left Russia to Switzerland for medical treatment in 1895, he met the

‘father of Russian Marxism’ Georgi V. Plekhanov who was one of the only people

who Lenin praised for his wisdom about the Marxism beliefs. He stated that this man

had ‘inexhaustible energy, combined with precision and understanding, suggested

qualities of leadership’ (historylearningsite)

When Lenin returned to Russia in 1895 he started working for the social democratic

party in close collaboration with Julius Martov who would be the future leader of the

Menshevik side of the party, (which would form a rivalrous relation with the

Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin) (Grolier)

Because Lenin and Martov were active in participating in demonstrations, they were

both arrested and exiled to Siberia where they stayed for a year. In Siberia Lenin met

his future wife and comrade; Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya whom he married

in 1898, she worked with him throughout the revolution, which did not leave any time

for them to start a family. (FILM??? Director???)

When Lenin was in exile he was already an active author of revolutionary works such

as The Development of Capitalism in Russia, published in 1899 as Vladimir Ilin as in

the piece he examined material that was sensitive to the regime such as Marxist life

and the ‘next important step to “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” ‘ (Grolier)

In 1900 Lenin was released from his life in exile and published a newspaper called

Iskar (The spark) together with his comrade in exile; Martov. The goal of the

newspaper was to encourage the Social Democratic Party to unite and overthrow the

Tsarist Regime; they wanted the SDP to have political influence and representation of

the peoples. (They wished to improve working conditions in factories) (Grolier)

When Lenin in 1902 published a brochure with the name of What is to be done? Lenin

made the decision that the revolution they knew was going to happen must be lead by

professionals and experts, they did not want to focus on short term reformist

compromises, but they wanted to make a lasting change in Russia. At this time Lenin

used his second last name ‘Lenin’ more often as this seemed to be a name with a

lasting memory. (Grolier)

The Emerge of the Bolshevik Party

When the Social Democrats held their second congress in London and Brussels

starting on July 30, 1903, Lenin got involved in conflicts with other Marxist leaders on

the problems of the party, the structure and the tactics that they were using to attract

‘followers’. (Wood)

Lenin was not thought of to be a friendly person to others and was soon referred to as

‘dogmatic’ and he was soon repelled by the other delegates present at the conference

and decided that a split Social Democratic party would be most desirable and

functional for all involved. (Morris)

The parties split and the two parties; the Bolsheviks (Larger) under Lenin and the

Mensheviks (Smaller) under Martov and other leaders. (dictionary.com)

When the partition of the parties occurred the Bolsheviks found themselves without a

publication (as the Iskra was given to the Mensheviks during the partition of the

RSDP) and without a governing committee, as Lenin was the only person currently in

the place of ‘party leader’. (Morris)

The Mensheviks had an advantage when they entered the revolution of 1905, as they

were able to have more influence on workers, with a larger party and a more

sophisticated structure than the one-man lead Bolshevik party led by Lenin.

Lenin made his goals clear of the Bolsheviks; such that the revolution should not end

how many (Mensheviks) would have wanted to see it end. Lenin wanted the result to

be a “revolutionary democratic dictatorship of proletariat and peasantry” where the

peasants would lead a bourgeois role rather than an insignificant peasant role.

(Grolier)

The unification congress that the Bolsheviks attended in 1906 in Stockholm where the

Menshevik party was declared as the ‘larger and more influential’ party Lenin

maintained to keep up his ‘factional machinery’ and reached the point where the

Bolsheviks were permitted to vote delegates. (Encyclopedia Americana)

When Lenin lived abroad, from 1907 to 1917 the RSDP was even further divided and

conflicts concerning the Duma started to arise. The RSDP was debating whether the

Duma should be boycotted and whether their use of their bank funds for party use

would be considered as legal. As Lenin has notable influence, the opinions of the party

members caused many divided branches to the RSDP. (Grolier)

Lenin was not an appreciative person who respected a difference in opinion from his

party members. When the members showed a differentiation in opinion could expect

an elaborative reaction from the revolutionary. (Grolier)

o This reaction happened to Aleksandr A. Bogdanov when he departed from

pure Bolshevik Beliefs. As a reaction Lenin wrote: Materialism and

Empiriocriticism in 1909.

“In the book he set forth so categorically his belief in the interrelation between

philosophy and political practice that professional philosophers were horrified.”

(Encyclopedia Americana)

When Lenin attended a conference in Prague in 1912, he declared the independence of

the Bolshevik party and also declared that six members of the party would take seat in

the fourth (and last) Duma ‘To form their own fraction’ (Wood)

Lenin later employed Stalin into the central committee of the party to act as one of the

main organs. (Lee)

The February Revolution of 1917

In February 1917 “The autocracy collapsed in the face if popular demonstrations and

the withdrawal of elite support for the regime.” (Fitzpatrick, 40)

When the revolutionary spirit was present upon many people in Russia, the solution to

the problems with the government would seem to be obvious, rather than dual power

(which applied to the coexistence of the Provisional government and the Soviet) a

cooperative government between the urban working class and the soldiers and sailors,

it seemed like these two groups would represent the people of Russia in the most

positive manner possible. (Fitzpatrick, 40)

The idea for the February revolution, which at first seemed like one that would

function under the social lifestyle that Russians were leading, and that it was meant to

make a difference in their lives soon changed into a ‘radical power vacuum’

(Fitzpatrick, 40)

When the Bolsheviks, lead by Lenin lead a successful coup members of the public

quickly grew accustomed to the slogan: “All power to the Soviets” also known as a

famous slogan for his April Thesis. (Fitzpatrick)

Lenin managed to ‘topple’ the provisional government and automatically provided

that Kerensky would have to step down, as obviously, there was no more government

for him to preside over. (Lee 24)

One major question that was arising from the revolution was which government form

would gives Russia’s future a base? The Soviet or Provisional Government? (Lee, 25)

When the February revolution happened, most Bolsheviks were in emigration, abroad

or in exile of the Russian Empire. (Fitzpatrick)

Lenin was at this time still residing in Switzerland and wanted to return to Russia upon

hearing that there was a revolution in Russia, much of the work that Lenin was to do

in Russia, was already being done for him, such as the rebuild of the Bolshevik

organization, the publishing of newspapers and other progressive Bolshevik

developments. (Fitzpatrick)

On April 3 Lenin was in a train to Russia when he stopped at Finland Station in

Petrograd, but upon arrival showed no signs of enjoyment for his return, he hasted to a

‘private celebration’. (Fitzpatrick)

The April Thesis was a call for war, slogans such as “peace, bread and land” called for

this especially and “all power to the Soviets” called for even more patriotism of the

Bolshevik followers and party members. (Fitzpatrick)

Some Bolsheviks, despite the thesis being inspirational for many, were shocked by the

content of the document and they thought that ‘Lenin had lost touch with his life when

he was in emigration’ (Fitzpatrick)

“The February revolution had given birth to a formidable array of workers’

organizations in all Russia’s industrial centers, but especially in Petrograd and

Moscow” (Fitzpatrick)

July Days

Lenin did not encourage violent action against the provisional government, but this

was ignored by the Bolsheviks and the city fell to drinking, looting, demonstration and

finally ‘dispersed’ (Fitzpatrick)

Bolsheviks started to lose trust in Lenin and even stories came out such that Lenin

would be a German Spy and Lenin had reason to fear for his life, he went into hiding

and disguised fled into Finland in August 1917. (Fitzpatrick)

The October Revolution

In September of 1917, Lenin wrote from his hiding place that Russia was ready for a

revolution, and that the Bolsheviks would better prepare for an ‘armed insurrection’,

during this time, Lenin was thought to be moody and the Bolsheviks thought that this

mood may pass. (Fitzpatrick)

He was contradicting himself saying that he wanted the Bolshevik insurrection to

occur, yet he did not make any efforts to move back into Russia, the Bolsheviks in

Russia, were on their own leading the revolution. (Fitzpatrick)

There were two people who strongly objected the revolution from occurring, and these

people were Zinoviev and Kamenev as they thought the plan of the Bolsheviks to be

irresponsible and unrealistic since they thought it was very unlikely that they would be

able to hold the power alone. (Fitzpatrick)

When Lenin came out of hiding and joined his comrades in former girls school;

Smolny institute he resumed his old course of works, although in an anxious manner,

he still had the power to overrule ANY member of the party. (Fitzpatrick)

The Civil War

Lenin believed in dictatorship, a one man rule which explained the suspicion of the

other parties that Lenin would not want to have any of them ‘ co ruling’ Russia, he

expressed clearly in writings such as the April Thesis what his plans were for the

development of Russia. (Morris)

In the summer of 1918 several attempts of the CHEKA (secret police) assassinated

many important delegates visiting Russia, and victims of their actions included

Uritsky, and the German ambassador. Lenin himself was seriously wounded, and the

revolt had begun. (Morris)

The Bolsheviks proved themselves to be victorious during the civil war but according

to Fischer this who was a white, Lenin’s rule as “inaccurate only insofar as it

undervalues the dynamic role played by Trotsky, who made his main contribution to

the revolution by his brilliant direction of war on most of the Major fronts.” (Morris)

One force was however, still undefeated and managed to force the Bolsheviks into

signing the treaty of Riga in 1921, which granted the independence of Estonia, Latvia

and Lithuania. (Morris)

From this point on, Russia started to make rapid economic developments and the

effectiveness of the production of coal, electricity, steel and grain clearly increased

after seeing years of a worsening production. (1926) (Morris)

The death of Lenin

Lenin was coping with strokes that continued to hit him from May 1922 until they

killed him on 21 January 1924; millions of people attended the display of his

embalmed body on Moscow’s Red Square.

Lenin was thought to be the creator of so many communist elements that were to

dominate the 1930’s of Russia, even though he showed a dictatorial rule, he was much

appreciated by especially the Bolsheviks.

http://mossavi.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/

l enin_in_tomb.jpg

http://gatsbysmonologue.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/

lenin1.jpg

http://www.bolshevik.org/graphic/lenin.jpg

April Thesis

The April Thesis was published upon the return of Lenin at Finland Station, Petrograd.

The April thesis (April 17,1917) was a piece by Lenin which was a declaration of the

overthrow of the bourgeois provisional government and to transform the imperialist

wars into an international civil war, which was simply a different way to refer to a

socialist revolution.

Published: April 7, 1917 in Pravda No. 26.   Signed: N. Lenin. Published according to

the newspaper text.

Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1964, Moscow, Volume 24,

pp. 19-26.

Translated: Isaacs Bernard

[Introduction]

I did not arrive in Petrograd until the night of April 3, and therefore at the meeting on April 4, I could, of course, deliver the report on the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat only on my own behalf, and with reservations as to insufficient preparation.

The only thing I could do to make things easier for myself—and for honest opponents—was to prepare the theses in writing. I read them out, and gave the text to Comrade Tsereteli. I read them twice very slowly: first at a meeting of Bolsheviks and then at a meeting of both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

I publish these personal theses of mine with only the briefest explanatory notes, which were developed in far greater detail in the report.

THESES

1) In our attitude towards the war, which under the new [provisional] government of

Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war

owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to

“revolutionary defencism” is permissible.

The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests.

In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.

The most widespread campaign for this view must be organized in the army at the front.

Fraternization.

2) The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the

first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and

organization of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to its second

stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the

peasants.

This transition is characterized, on the one hand, by a maximum of legally recognized rights (Russia is now the freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other, by the absence of violence towards the masses, and, finally, by their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism.

This peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves to the special conditions of Party work among unprecedentedly large masses of proletarians who have just awakened to political life.

3) No support for the Provisional Government; the utter falsity of all its promises should be

made clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of annexations. Exposure in place

of the impermissible, illusion-breeding “demand” that this government, a government of

capitalists, should cease to be an imperialist government.

4) Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in a

minority, so far a small minority, as against a bloc of all the petty-bourgeois opportunist

elements, from the Popular Socialists and the Socialist-Revolutionaries down to the

Organizing Committee (Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), Steklov, etc., etc., who have yielded to the

influence of the bourgeoisie and spread that influence among the proletariat.

The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, 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.

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.

5) Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of

Workers’ Deputies would be a retrograde step—but a republic of Soviets of Workers’,

Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom.

Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy.[1]

The salaries of all officials, all of who are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.

6) The weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to be shifted to the Soviets of

Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.

Confiscation of all landed estates.

Nationalization of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The organization of separate Soviets of Deputies of Poor Peasants. The setting up of a model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies) under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies and for the public account.

7) The immediate union of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the

institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.

8) It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and

the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.

9) Party tasks:

(a) Immediate convocation of a Party congress;

(b) Alteration of the Party Programme, mainly:

(1) On the question of imperialism and the imperialist war,

(2) On our attitude towards the state and our demand for a

“commune state”[2];

(3) Amendment of our out-of-date minimum programme;

(c) Change of the Party’s name.[3]

10. A new International.

We must take the initiative in creating a revolutionary International, an International against the social-chauvinists and against the “Centre”.[4]

In order that the reader may understand why I had especially to emphasize as a rare exception the “case” of honest opponents, I invite him to compare the above theses with the following objection by Mr. Goldenberg: Lenin, he said, “has planted the banner of civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy” (quoted in No. 5 of Mr. Plekhanov’s Yedinstvo).

Isn’t it a gem?

I write, announce and elaborately explain: “In view of the undoubted honesty of

those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism ... in view of

the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with

particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them....”

Yet the bourgeois gentlemen who call themselves Social-Democrats, who do not belong either to the broad sections or to the mass believers in defencism, with serene brow present my views thus: “The banner [!] Of civil

war” (of which there is not a word in the theses and not a word in my speech!) has been planted (!) “In the midst [!!] Of revolutionary democracy...”

What does this mean? In what way does this differ from riot-inciting agitation, from Krupskaya Volya?

I write, announce and elaborately explain: “The Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are

the only possible form of revolutionary government, and therefore our task is 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.”

Yet opponents of a certain brand present my views as a call to “civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy”!

I attacked the Provisional Government for not having appointed an early date or any date at all, for the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, and for confining itself to promises. I argued that without the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies the convocation of the Constituent Assembly is not guaranteed and its success is impossible.

And the view is attributed to me that I am opposed to the speedy convocation of the Constituent Assembly!

I would call this “raving”, had not decades of political struggle taught me to regard honesty in opponents as a rare exception.

Mr. Plekhanov in his paper called my speech “raving”. Very good, Mr. Plekhanov! But look how awkward, uncouth and slow-witted you are in your polemics. If I delivered a raving speech for two hours, how is it that an audience of hundreds tolerated this “raving”? Further, why does your paper devote a whole column to an account of the “raving”? Inconsistent, highly inconsistent!

It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain, to recall what Marx and Engels said in 1871, 1872 and 1875 about the experience of the Paris Commune and about the kind of state the proletariat needs. [See: The Civil War in France and Critique of the Gotha Programme]

Ex-Marxist Mr. Plekhanov evidently does not care to recall Marxism.

I quoted the words of Rosa Luxemburg, who on August 4, 1914, called German Social Democracy a “stinking corpse”. And the Plekhanovs, Goldenberg’s and Co. feel “offended”. On whose behalf? On behalf of the German chauvinists, because they were called chauvinists!

They have got themselves in a mess, these poor Russian social-chauvinists—socialists in word and chauvinists in deed.