The Russian Revolution Today?

This is a review of Chapter 1 of Lenin's "Left Wing" Communism An Infantile Disorder.

In 1920 Lenin expressed his views on the international significance of the Russian Revolution [Chapter 1 of "Left Wing" Communism an Infantile Disorder]. A lot of water has gone under the bridge in the last 92 years, are any of Lenin's views on this issue relevant today?

 

Well, there is a big problem with this chapter. Lenin is still waiting for a revolution in the advanced countries to come to the aid of the Russian Revolution. Despite the backwardness of Russia Lenin thinks that, after three years of revolution, there are some fundamental features of the revolution that are not local, national, or Russian and therefore will be of interest to revolutionaries in the advanced countries.

 

He says that "certain fundamental features" of the Russian Revolution have significance for "the international validity or the historical inevitability of a repetition, on an international scale, of what has taken place" in Russia. What can he be talking about? 

 

First, he is going to try and be realistic and admits the we should not have an exaggerated view of the significance of Russian features since once the Revolution spreads to the advanced countries Russia will most likely "cease to be the model and will once again become a backward country." Second, taking the long view, since not only did no advanced country have a revolution, but the Russian model as such became defunct some seventy one years later (perhaps ultimately as a consequence) what were the features that Lenin thought had international application? Note he doesn't mention all of these features in this chapter-- he saves them for later in the work-- but we can survey his basic rationale for holding some of the Russian features to be of universal interest.

 

It is difficult today to accept the primary thesis of this chapter: which is "it is the Russian model that reveals to ALL countries something-- and something highly significant-- of their near and inevitable future."  This sentence needs revision. The "near" has to be removed and the "inevitable" is too deterministic and has to go as well-- replaced perhaps by "possible." The "ALL" is too sweeping so it will be replaced by "some." We don't need the parenthetical statement either. So we come up with "it is the Russian model that reveals to some countries something of their possible future." 

 

While it was perfectly natural for Lenin in 1920 to be all hopped up and enthusiastic about the Revolution, it is this revised thesis which I think is actually correct and that can be defended even today and will prove to be the key to a contemporary understanding of Lenin's "Left- Wing Communism" and the enduring significance of the Russian Revolution.

 

There is a second thesis Lenin puts forth in this chapter which has to be abandoned all together: which is that the international working class has an advanced segment that, by means of a "revolutionary class instinct" (not by a conscious reasoning process) understands his first (unrevised) thesis. The most we could grant to this idea today is that there are advanced segments in the international working class but their ideas are not instinctual, they are the result of both their life-conditions (practice) and education and study of working class history and the nature of the world economy (theory). It is also the case that "advanced" workers are not all of one mind. Workers may understand intuitively (instinctualy) that they are being screwed by the boss-- but that is not a sufficent basis on which to build a revolutionary movement.

 

What evidence did Lenin have on hand for these theses? First the achievements of the revolution itself made him unduly optimistic at the time of the writing of this work. Second, he was impressed by rereading an old article in Iskra (from 1902) by his one time nemesis the Renegade Kautsky. The article, "The Slavs and Revolution", penned by Kautsky in his pre-renegade days, made several points that impressed Lenin as being highly relevant.

 

Here are three sentences from Kautsky's article which must have struck Lenin as prescient. "At the present time it would seem that not only have the Slavs entered the ranks of the revolutionary nations, but that the center of revolutionary thought and revolutionary action is shifting more and more to the Slavs." What a difference a century makes! No one today would think of the Slavs as a center of revolutionary thought or action. They may have made an heroic effort in the last century but that effort ultimately failed. "The new century has begun with events which suggest the idea that we are approaching a further shift of the revolutionary centre, namely to Russia." That turned out to be correct but was unsustainable. Finally, after noting that in the revolutionary actions of 1848 "the Slavs were a killing frost which blighted the flowers of the people's spring" [the role played today by the Americans], Kautsky concludes, "Perhaps they are now destined to be the storm that will break the ice of reaction and irresistibly bring with it a new and happy spring for the nations." Well, they tried--  but who  today plays that role-- perhaps only the Cubans come close, still inspiring Third World peoples and movements, but it is a great burden to place on the shoulders of a small nation.

 

So what can we conclude about the Russian Revolution today? In this chapter Lenin thought the main feature of the revolution that would apply to other countries in the future was that it would be a model for revolutionaries to look to until  more advanced economically developed capitalist countries had their own revolutions which would push the Russians into the background. He also thought that other countries would see their futures mirrored in the Russian Revolution. Let us hope he is wrong since what we see is that the Russians [and the Soviet people] fought and struggled for seventy years to build socialism and ended up with Putin.

 

Nevertheless, the ideals of a communist future and a world free of human exploitation and war still motivate millions of people around the globe to struggle for a better world and in that sense Lenin and his revolution will continue to inspire working people  and their allies  until the final conflict (assuming that it has not already taken place).

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.

Comments

  • The multi-voluminous documentation of efforts of communists, throughout the multi-national world of working class proponents, peoples, and workers and communist parties, the facts of which would be at issue, and these movements and parties would clearly take issue with this, I dare say extremely presumptuous "analysis" of the miracle of the Russian Revolution of 1917.
    Lenin, founder of the Communist Party in Russia and high school valedictorian may not agree that the workers of Russia left a legacy of "ideals".
    Revolutionaries from Mao Tse Tung to Moses Kotane to Nelson Mandela, Krupskaya, Rosa Luxembourg, to Amilcar Cabral, to Fidel Castro Ruz, to Hugo Chavez, to Kwame Nkrumah, would no doubt take serious issue with"...the ideals of a communist future" that the Russian Revolution has left us.
    The Russian Revolution has left us with ideas of a communist future rather than "ideals".
    The profound contributions to theory and practice, in art, science (including physics), literature, social science in general(not to mention the vast contributions of Lenin, the master of Chernyshevsky, to the mastery of Marx/Engels dialectical Political Economy, the early Kautsky (mentioned above), Plekanov, and many, many Russians and others, associated with and members of the Bolsheviks.
    On the birthday of W.E.B. Du Bois, February 23, 1917, in Czarist Russia,100,000 women marched for revolution, shouting "Bread","Stop the War", (WWI)and "Down with the Autocracy"-it was International Women's Day.
    The next day, 150,000 men(including police and military men) and women marched for revolution.
    These are a samples of the "ideals" of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and what they afforded a hungry, enslaved, oppressed Czarist Russia, that the leader Lenin courageously gave the miracle of Marx/Engels Historical Materialism, to the workers and the oppressed of Russia, for a freedom that prompted Reed and Du Bois of Harvard to throw every sinew of bodies in with it.
    Should we be surprised, that with the emphasis on "ideals" here in this article, alongside the main problem of imperialist cartels, wars, a modern nuclear encirclement, and an extremist anti-communism and national chauvinism, there is yet abject hunger and poverty in Russia-and in the United States-even in the vaunted New England, the home of Harvard?

    Posted by E. E. W. Clay, 07/30/2012 11:03pm (5 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments