Lenin what is to be done online

Historians, borrowing from Lenin's contemporary critics, have continued the trend, presenting this work not as a particular polemic for a particular time, but as a timeless work that stands as the founding text of "Leninism. In the process, they have distorted it beyond recognition. Various passages are used to "prove" that Lenin had, at this point, lost faith in the working class' revolutionary potential, and paradoxically, also feared the spontaneous struggle of workers--and on that basis, now advanced the idea that only a hyper-centralized party of bourgeois intellectuals could lead the revolution to victory.

One only has to read What Is to Be Done? Lenin's work is infused with confidence in the "spontaneous" strivings of the working class toward socialist consciousness in Russia.

But he is also aware that these strivings will mean nothing unless a unified socialist party is built that can provide political leadership in the struggle--that is, can organize the working class to play not merely a role as a stage army used by liberals, but to lead in the fight to topple the autocracy. It is with this in mind that Lenin emphases the importance of centralization the movement had been completely decentralized , without which the autocracy could not be defeated; of the need for an all-Russian newspaper, without which a national party could not be built; and of creating an organization of professional revolutionaries that is, people who devote themselves full time to party work.

The latter was at the time necessary because of the "amateurish" character of the local work, which made it very easy for police to arrest and break up local committees. These were largely proscriptions for what to do next in very specific circumstances, not a blueprint for all times.

That doesn't mean there are not questionable formulations in What Is to Be Done? Lenin argues that socialist consciousness, at least initially, can only be brought to workers "from without. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lenin wanted socialist workers to become leaders in the party. Lenin wanted the working class to lead the struggle against autocracy.

That's his modus operandi in its entirety. On the other hand, Lenin chastises the economists for arguing that the workers "aren't ready" for politics and need to be spoon-fed propaganda. His point is that while the working class may spontaneously gravitate toward socialism, bourgeois ideology also imposes itself on the working class to an even greater degree--hence, the crucial role of the party, not of intellectuals but of the most advanced workers, to winning the rest of the class to socialism.

As Lenin summarized in what is almost an exact paraphrase by Lenin of an article by an economist , the economists argued that the desirable struggle was that "which is possible, and the struggle which is possible is that which is going on at the given moment. Whereas the economists wanted to drag along at the tail of the movement, Lenin wanted the party to lead the movement.

The economists blamed the working class for not being revolutionary enough; Lenin blames the socialists for "lagging behind the mass movement. Lenin himself later explained What Is to Be Done? Precisely a 'summary,' no more and no less. Does that mean that What Is to Be Done?

Not at all. It teaches us that revolutionaries do not oppose the fight for reforms, but always "subordinate the struggle for reforms Lenin makes clear that workers cannot lead the fight for socialism if they are encouraged to fight only around economic issues at the workplace.

Their own experience of struggle, combined with the propaganda and agitation of socialists, must instill in them an instinctive hatred of all forms of oppression, "no matter what stratum of people" are affected. Lenin is also clear that to become the vanguard in the struggle, "the advanced contingent," it "is not enough to call ourselves the 'vanguard.

The Marxist critique of the state is again in disfavor in parts of the left, but going back to what Marx wrote clarifies the discussion. A Russian revolutionary explains how a day of international solidarity with working women became the first day of the revolution. A comrade of more than half a century pays tribute to Colin Barker and his contributions to the tradition of international socialism.

Colin was one of a kind — a brilliant and original academic who also remained an active revolutionary for almost all of his adult life. From, V. Lenin: "What is to Be Done? Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.

Modern History Sourcebook: Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: What is to be Done, In this text, Lenin makes his argument for a coherent, strictly controlled party of dedicated revolutionaries as a basic necessity for a revolution.

I recall a conversation I once had with a fairly consistent Economist, with whom I had not been previously acquainted. We were beginning to think that we were in complete agreement with each other-but as the conversation proceeded, it became clear that we were talking of different things. My interlocutor accused the author of the brochure just mentioned of ignoring strike funds, mutual aid societies, etc.

After that became clear, I hardly remember a single question of importance upon which I was in agreement with that Economist! What was the source of our disagreement?

The fact that on questions of organisation and politics the Economists are forever lapsing from Social Democracy into trade unionism. The political struggle carried on by the Social Democrats is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle the workers carry on against the employers and the government. A workers' organisation must in the first place be a trade organisation; secondly, it must be as wide as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow here, and further on, of course, I have only autocratic Russia in mind.

On the other hand, the organisations of revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people whose profession is that of a revolutionary that is why I speak of organisations of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social Democrats.

In view of this common feature of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, and certainly distinctions of trade and profession, must be obliterated.

Such an organisation must of necessity be not too extensive and as secret as possible. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.