Library:The foundations of Leninism - Revision history

Forte: Added Library work template

2024-04-30T12:28:57Z

Added Library work template

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:28, 30 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~changetitle~~\|''The foundations of Leninism~~'', by~~ Stalin}}		{{Library work\|title=The foundations of Leninism\|author=Joseph Stalin\|spoken on=Between April and May 1924\|published_date=1924\|type=Book}}
	== Introduction ==		== Introduction ==
	:''Dedicated to the Lenin Enrollment''<ref>[[Stalin\|J. V. Stalin]]’s lectures, The Foundations of Leninism, were published in ''Pravda'' in April and May 1924. In May 1924, J. V. Stalin’s pamphlet ''On Lenin and Leninism'' appeared, containing the reminiscences on Lenin and the lectures ''The foundations of Leninism''. J. V. Stalin’s work ''The foundations of Leninism'' is included in all the editions of his book Problems of Leninism.</ref>		:''Dedicated to the Lenin Enrollment''<ref>[[Stalin\|J. V. Stalin]]’s lectures, The Foundations of Leninism, were published in ''Pravda'' in April and May 1924. In May 1924, J. V. Stalin’s pamphlet ''On Lenin and Leninism'' appeared, containing the reminiscences on Lenin and the lectures ''The foundations of Leninism''. J. V. Stalin’s work ''The foundations of Leninism'' is included in all the editions of his book Problems of Leninism.</ref>

CriticalResist at 00:34, 7 July 2023

2023-07-07T00:34:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:34, 7 July 2023
Line 798:		Line 798:
	<references />		<references />
	[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]		[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]
			[[Category:Basic Marxism–Leninism study plan by r/communism]]

Jucheguevara at 02:33, 13 October 2021

2021-10-13T02:33:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 13 October 2021
Line 797:		Line 797:
	==References==		==References==
	<references />		<references />
			[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]

Forte: /* The party */

2020-12-10T00:26:29Z

The party

Show changes

Forte: /* The peasant question */

2020-12-10T00:07:20Z

The peasant question

Show changes

Forte: /* The theory of the proletarian revolution */ Still missing taking a look at The Peasant Question chapters and forwards

2020-12-09T21:19:29Z

The theory of the proletarian revolution: Still missing taking a look at The Peasant Question chapters and forwards

Show changes

Forte: /* The importance of theory */

2020-12-09T20:22:11Z

The importance of theory

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 9 December 2020
Line 178:		Line 178:
	It scarcely needs proof that now, when Lenin's prediction about the role of our Party has come true, this thesis of Lenin's acquires special force and special importance.		It scarcely needs proof that now, when Lenin's prediction about the role of our Party has come true, this thesis of Lenin's acquires special force and special importance.

	Perhaps the most striking expression of the great importance which Lenin attached to theory is the fact that none other than Lenin undertook the very serious task of generalising, on the basis of materialist philosophy, the most important achievements of science from the time of Engels down to his time, as well as of subjecting to comprehensive criticism the anti-materialistic trends among Marxists. Engels said that "materialism must assume a new aspect with every new great discovery."<ref>[[Friedrich Engels]]: [[Library:Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy\|''Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy'']]</ref> It is well known that none other than Lenin accomplished this task for his own time in his remarkable work ~~Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.<ref>See [[Vladimir Lenin]]:~~ [[Library:Materialism and empiriocriticism\|''Materialism and empiriocriticism'']]~~</ref>~~ It is well known that Plekhanov, who loved to chaff Lenin about his "unconcern" for philosophy, did not even dare to make a serious attempt to undertake such a task.		Perhaps the most striking expression of the great importance which Lenin attached to theory is the fact that none other than Lenin undertook the very serious task of generalising, on the basis of materialist philosophy, the most important achievements of science from the time of Engels down to his time, as well as of subjecting to comprehensive criticism the anti-materialistic trends among Marxists. Engels said that "materialism must assume a new aspect with every new great discovery."<ref>[[Friedrich Engels]]: [[Library:Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy\|''Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy'']]</ref> It is well known that none other than Lenin accomplished this task for his own time in his remarkable work [[Library:Materialism and empiriocriticism\|''Materialism and empiriocriticism'']]. It is well known that Plekhanov, who loved to chaff Lenin about his "unconcern" for philosophy, did not even dare to make a serious attempt to undertake such a task.

	=== Criticism of the "theory" of spontaneity, or the role of the vanguard in the movement ===		=== Criticism of the "theory" of spontaneity, or the role of the vanguard in the movement ===

Forte: /* Criticism of the "theory" of spontaneity, or the role of the vanguard in the movement */

2020-12-09T20:18:29Z

Criticism of the "theory" of spontaneity, or the role of the vanguard in the movement

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 9 December 2020
Line 185:		Line 185:
	The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to the revolutionary character of the working class movement; it is opposed to the movement taking the line of struggle against the foundations of capitalism; it is in favour of the movement proceeding exclusively along the line of "realisable demands, of demands "acceptable" to capitalism; it is wholly in favour of the "line of least resistance." The theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism.		The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to the revolutionary character of the working class movement; it is opposed to the movement taking the line of struggle against the foundations of capitalism; it is in favour of the movement proceeding exclusively along the line of "realisable demands, of demands "acceptable" to capitalism; it is wholly in favour of the "line of least resistance." The theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism.

	The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to giving the spontaneous movement a politically conscious, planned character. It is opposed to the Party marching at the head of the working class, to the Party raising the masses to the level of political consciousness, to the Party leading the movement; it is in favour of the politically conscious elements of the movement not hindering the movement from taking its own course; it is in favour of the Party only heeding the spontaneous movement and dragging at the tail of it. The theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling the role of the conscious element in the movement, the ideology of "khvostism," the logical basis of all opportunism.		The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to giving the spontaneous movement a politically conscious, planned character. It is opposed to the Party marching at the head of the working class, to the Party raising the masses to the level of political consciousness, to the Party leading the movement; it is in favour of the politically conscious elements of the movement not hindering the movement from taking its own course; it is in favour of the Party only heeding the spontaneous movement and dragging at the tail of it. The theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling the role of the conscious element in the movement, the ideology of "khvostism," the logical basis of ''all'' opportunism.

	In practice this theory, which appeared on the scene even before the first revolution in Russia, led its adherents, the so-called "Economists," to deny the need for an independent workers' party in Russia, to oppose the revolutionary struggle of the working class for the overthrow of tsarism, to preach a purely trade-unionist policy in the movement, and, in general, to surrender the labour movement to the hegemony of the liberal bourgeoisie.		In practice this theory, which appeared on the scene even before the first revolution in Russia, led its adherents, the so-called "Economists," to deny the need for an independent workers' party in Russia, to oppose the revolutionary struggle of the working class for the overthrow of tsarism, to preach a purely trade-unionist policy in the movement, and, in general, to surrender the labour movement to the hegemony of the liberal bourgeoisie.

	The fight of the old Iskra and the brilliant criticism of the theory of "khvostism" in Lenin's pamphlet What ~~Is To Be Done~~? not only smashed so-called "Economism," but also created the theoretical foundations for a truly revolutionary movement of the Russian working class.		The fight of the old Iskra and the brilliant criticism of the theory of "khvostism" in Lenin's pamphlet [[Library:What is to be done?\|''What is to be done?'']] not only smashed so-called "Economism," but also created the theoretical foundations for a truly revolutionary movement of the Russian working class.

	Without this fight it would have been quite useless even to think of creating an independent workers' party in Russia and of its playing a leading part in the revolution.		Without this fight it would have been quite useless even to think of creating an independent workers' party in Russia and of its playing a leading part in the revolution.

Forte: /* Method */

2020-12-09T20:15:52Z

Method

Forte at 20:02, 9 December 2020

2020-12-09T20:02:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 9 December 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{changetitle\|''~~Foundations~~ of Leninism'', by Stalin}}		{{changetitle\|''The foundations of Leninism'', by Stalin}}
	== Introduction ==		== Introduction ==
	:''Dedicated to the Lenin Enrollment''<ref>[[Stalin\|J. V. Stalin]]’s lectures, The Foundations of Leninism, were published in ''Pravda'' in April and May 1924. In May 1924, J. V. Stalin’s pamphlet ''On Lenin and Leninism'' appeared, containing the reminiscences on Lenin and the lectures ''The foundations of Leninism''. J. V. Stalin’s work ''The foundations of Leninism'' is included in all the editions of his book Problems of Leninism.</ref>		:''Dedicated to the Lenin Enrollment''<ref>[[Stalin\|J. V. Stalin]]’s lectures, The Foundations of Leninism, were published in ''Pravda'' in April and May 1924. In May 1924, J. V. Stalin’s pamphlet ''On Lenin and Leninism'' appeared, containing the reminiscences on Lenin and the lectures ''The foundations of Leninism''. J. V. Stalin’s work ''The foundations of Leninism'' is included in all the editions of his book Problems of Leninism.</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:15, 9 December 2020
Line 114:		Line 114:
	What are the requirements of this method?		What are the requirements of this method?

	Firstly, the testing of the theoretical dogmas of the Second International in the crucible of the revolutionary struggle of the masses, in the crucible of living practice-that is to say, the restoration of the broken unity between theory and practice, the healing of the rift between them; for only in this way can a truly proletarian party armed with revolutionary theory be created.		Firstly, the ''testing'' of the theoretical dogmas of the Second International in the crucible of the revolutionary struggle of the masses, in the crucible of living practice-that is to say, the restoration of the broken unity between theory and practice, the healing of the rift between them; for only in this way can a truly proletarian party armed with revolutionary theory be created.

	Secondly, the testing of the policy of the parties of the Second International, not by their slogans and resolutions (which cannot be trusted), but by their deeds, by their actions; for only in this way can the confidence of the proletarian masses be won and deserved.		Secondly, the ''testing'' of the policy of the parties of the Second International, not by their slogans and resolutions (which cannot be trusted), but by their deeds, by their actions; for only in this way can the confidence of the proletarian masses be won and deserved.

	Thirdly, the ~~reorganisation~~ of all Party work on new revolutionary lines, with a view to training and preparing the masses for the revolutionary struggle; for only in this way can the masses be prepared for the proletarian revolution.		Thirdly, the ''reorganization'' of all Party work on new revolutionary lines, with a view to training and preparing the masses for the revolutionary struggle; for only in this way can the masses be prepared for the proletarian revolution.

	Fourthly, self-criticism within the proletarian parties, their education and training on the basis of their own mistakes; for only in this way can genuine cadres and genuine leaders of the Party be trained.		Fourthly, ''self-criticism'' within the proletarian parties, their education and training on the basis of their own mistakes; for only in this way can genuine cadres and genuine leaders of the Party be trained.

	Such is the basis and substance of the method of Leninism.		Such is the basis and substance of the method of Leninism.
Line 132:		Line 132:
	Second dogma: the proletariat cannot retain power if it lacks an adequate number of trained cultural and administrative cadres capable of organising the administration of the country; these cadres must first be trained under capitalist conditions, and only then can power be taken. Let us assume that this is so, replies Lenin; but why not turn it this way: first take power, create favourable conditions for the development of the proletariat, and then proceed with seven-league strides to raise the cultural level of the labouring masses and train numerous cadres of leaders and administrators from among the workers? Has not Russian experience shown that the cadres of leaders recruited from the ranks of the workers develop a hundred times more rapidly and effectually under the rule of the proletariat than under the rule of capital? Is it not clear that the practical experience of the revolutionary struggle of the masses ruthlessly smashes this theoretical dogma of the opportunists too?		Second dogma: the proletariat cannot retain power if it lacks an adequate number of trained cultural and administrative cadres capable of organising the administration of the country; these cadres must first be trained under capitalist conditions, and only then can power be taken. Let us assume that this is so, replies Lenin; but why not turn it this way: first take power, create favourable conditions for the development of the proletariat, and then proceed with seven-league strides to raise the cultural level of the labouring masses and train numerous cadres of leaders and administrators from among the workers? Has not Russian experience shown that the cadres of leaders recruited from the ranks of the workers develop a hundred times more rapidly and effectually under the rule of the proletariat than under the rule of capital? Is it not clear that the practical experience of the revolutionary struggle of the masses ruthlessly smashes this theoretical dogma of the opportunists too?

	Third dogma: the proletariat cannot accept the method of the political general strike because it is unsound in theory (see Engels's criticism) and dangerous in practice (it may disturb the normal course of economic life in the country, it may deplete the coffers of the trade unions), and cannot serve as a substitute for parliamentary forms of struggle, which are the principal form of the class struggle of the proletariat. Very well, reply the Leninists; but, firstly, Engels did not criticise every kind of general strike. He only criticised a certain kind of general strike, namely, the economic general strike advocated by the Anarchists in place of the political struggle of the proletariat.<ref>This refers to Engels's article ''The Bakuninists at work''</ref> What has this to do with the method of the political general strike? Secondly, where and by whom has it ever been proved that the parliamentary form of struggle is the principle form of struggle of the proletariat? Does not the history of the revolutionary movement show that the parliamentary struggle is only a school for, and an auxiliary in, organising the extra-parliamentary struggle of the proletariat, that under capitalism the fundamental problems of the working-class movement are solved by force, by the direct struggle of the proletarian masses, their general strike, their uprising? Thirdly, who suggested that the method of the political general strike be substituted for the parliamentary struggle? Where and when have the supporters of the political general strike sought to substitute extra-parliamentary forms of struggle for parliamentary forms? Fourthly, has not the revolution in Russia shown that the political general strike is a highly important school for the proletarian revolution and an indispensable means of mobilising and organising the vast masses of the proletariat on the eve of storming the citadels of capitalism? Why then the philistine lamentations over the disturbance of the normal course of economic life and over the coffers of the trade unions? Is it not clear that the practical experience of the revolutionary struggle smashes this dogma of the opportunists too?		Third dogma: the proletariat cannot accept the method of the ''political'' general strike because it is unsound in theory (see Engels's criticism) and dangerous in practice (it may disturb the normal course of economic life in the country, it may deplete the coffers of the trade unions), and cannot serve as a substitute for parliamentary forms of struggle, which are the principal form of the class struggle of the proletariat. Very well, reply the Leninists; but, firstly, Engels did not criticise every kind of general strike. He only criticised a certain kind of general strike, namely, the ''economic'' general strike advocated by the Anarchists ''in place of'' the political struggle of the proletariat.<ref>This refers to Engels's article ''The Bakuninists at work''</ref> What has this to do with the method of the ''political'' general strike? Secondly, where and by whom has it ever been proved that the parliamentary form of struggle is the principle form of struggle of the proletariat? Does not the history of the revolutionary movement show that the parliamentary struggle is only a school for, and an auxiliary in, organising the extra-parliamentary struggle of the proletariat, that under capitalism the fundamental problems of the working-class movement are solved by force, by the direct struggle of the proletarian masses, their general strike, their uprising? Thirdly, who suggested that the method of the political general strike be substituted for the parliamentary struggle? Where and when have the supporters of the political general strike sought to substitute extra-parliamentary forms of struggle for parliamentary forms? Fourthly, has not the revolution in Russia shown that the ''political'' general strike is a highly important school for the proletarian revolution and an indispensable means of mobilising and organising the vast masses of the proletariat on the eve of storming the citadels of capitalism? Why then the philistine lamentations over the disturbance of the normal course of economic life and over the coffers of the trade unions? Is it not clear that the practical experience of the revolutionary struggle smashes this dogma of the opportunists too?

	And so on and so forth.		And so on and so forth.
Line 140:		Line 140:
	As to the political slogans and the political resolutions of the parties of the Second International, it is sufficient to recall the history of the slogan "war against war" to realise how utterly false and utterly rotten are the political practices of these parties, which use pompous revolutionary slogans and resolutions to cloak their anti-revolutionary deeds. We all remember the pompous demonstrations of the Second International at the Basle Congress,<ref>The Basle Congress of the Second International was held on November 24-25, 1912. It was convened in connection with the Balkan War and the impending threat of a world war. Only one question was discussed: the international situation and joint action against war. The congress adopted a manifesto calling upon the workers to utilise their proletarian organization and might to wage a revolutionary struggle against the danger of war, to declare "war against war."</ref> at which it threatened the imperialist with all the horrors of insurrection if they should dare to start a war, and with the menacing slogan "war against war." But who does not remember that some time after, on the very eve of the war, the Basle resolution was pigeonholed and the workers were given a new slogan-to exterminate each other for the glory of their capitalist fatherlands? Is it not clear that revolutionary slogans and resolutions are not worth a farthing unless backed by deeds? One need only contrast the Leninist policy of transforming the imperialist war into civil war with the treacherous policy of the Second International during the war to understand the utter baseness of the opportunist politicians and the full grandeur of the method of Leninism.		As to the political slogans and the political resolutions of the parties of the Second International, it is sufficient to recall the history of the slogan "war against war" to realise how utterly false and utterly rotten are the political practices of these parties, which use pompous revolutionary slogans and resolutions to cloak their anti-revolutionary deeds. We all remember the pompous demonstrations of the Second International at the Basle Congress,<ref>The Basle Congress of the Second International was held on November 24-25, 1912. It was convened in connection with the Balkan War and the impending threat of a world war. Only one question was discussed: the international situation and joint action against war. The congress adopted a manifesto calling upon the workers to utilise their proletarian organization and might to wage a revolutionary struggle against the danger of war, to declare "war against war."</ref> at which it threatened the imperialist with all the horrors of insurrection if they should dare to start a war, and with the menacing slogan "war against war." But who does not remember that some time after, on the very eve of the war, the Basle resolution was pigeonholed and the workers were given a new slogan-to exterminate each other for the glory of their capitalist fatherlands? Is it not clear that revolutionary slogans and resolutions are not worth a farthing unless backed by deeds? One need only contrast the Leninist policy of transforming the imperialist war into civil war with the treacherous policy of the Second International during the war to understand the utter baseness of the opportunist politicians and the full grandeur of the method of Leninism.

	I cannot refrain from quoting at this point a passage from Lenin's book The ~~Proletarian Revolution~~ and the ~~Renegade~~ Kautsky, in which Lenin severely castigates an opportunist attempt by the leader of the Second International, K. Kautsky, to judge parties not by their deeds, but by their paper slogans and documents:		I cannot refrain from quoting at this point a passage from Lenin's book [[Library:The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky\|''The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky'']], in which Lenin severely castigates an opportunist attempt by the leader of the Second International, K. Kautsky, to judge parties not by their deeds, but by their paper slogans and documents:

	:"Kautsky is pursuing a typically petty-bourgeois, philistine policy by pretending ... that putting forward a slogan alters the position. The entire history of bourgeois democracy refutes this illusion; the bourgeois democrats have always advanced and still advance all sorts of "slogans' in order to deceive the people. The point is to test their sincerity, to compare their words with their deeds, not to be satisfied with idealistic or charlatan phrases, but to get down to class reality" (see Vol. XXIII, p. 377).		:"Kautsky is pursuing a typically petty-bourgeois, philistine policy by pretending ... that putting forward a slogan alters the position. The entire history of bourgeois democracy refutes this illusion; the bourgeois democrats have always advanced and still advance all sorts of "slogans' in order to deceive the people. The point is to test their sincerity, to compare their words with their deeds, not to be satisfied with idealistic or charlatan phrases, but to get down to class reality" (see Vol. XXIII, p. 377).

	There is no need to mention the fear the parties of the Second International have of self-criticism, their habit of concealing their mistakes, of glossing over vexed questions, of covering up their shortcomings by a deceptive show of well-being which blunts living thought and prevents the Party from deriving revolutionary training from its own mistakes-a habit which was ridiculed and pilloried by Lenin. Here is what Lenin wrote about self-criticism in proletarian parties in his pamphlet "Left-~~Wing~~" ~~Communism~~:		There is no need to mention the fear the parties of the Second International have of self-criticism, their habit of concealing their mistakes, of glossing over vexed questions, of covering up their shortcomings by a deceptive show of well-being which blunts living thought and prevents the Party from deriving revolutionary training from its own mistakes-a habit which was ridiculed and pilloried by Lenin. Here is what Lenin wrote about self-criticism in proletarian parties in his pamphlet [[Library:"Left-wing" communism: an infantile disorder\|''“Left-wing” communism'']]:

	:"The attitude of a political party towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it in practice fulfils its obligation towards its class and the toiling masses. Frankly admitting a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the circumstances which gave rise to it, and thoroughly discussing the means of correcting it-that is the earmark of a serious party; that is the way it should perform its duties, that is the way it should educate and train the class, and then the masses" (see Vol. XXV, p. 200).		:"The attitude of a political party towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it in practice fulfils its obligation towards its class and the toiling masses. Frankly admitting a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the circumstances which gave rise to it, and thoroughly discussing the means of correcting it-that is the earmark of a serious party; that is the way it should perform its duties, that is the way it should educate and train the class, and then the masses" (see Vol. XXV, p. 200).

	Some say that the exposure of its own mistakes and self-criticism are dangerous for the Party because they may be used by the enemy against the party of the proletariat. Lenin regarded such objections as trivial and entirely wrong. Here is what he wrote on this subject as far back as 1904, in his pamphlet One ~~Step Forward~~, when our Party was still weak and small:		Some say that the exposure of its own mistakes and self-criticism are dangerous for the Party because they may be used by the enemy against the party of the proletariat. Lenin regarded such objections as trivial and entirely wrong. Here is what he wrote on this subject as far back as 1904, in his pamphlet ''One step forward'', when our Party was still weak and small:

	:"They (i.e., the opponents of the Marxists-J. St.) gloat and grimace over our controversies; and, of course, they will try to pick isolated passages from my pamphlet, which deals with the defects and shortcomings of our Party, and to use them for their own ends. The Russian Social-Democrats are already steeled enough in battle not to be perturbed by these pinpricks and to continue, in spite of them, their work of self-criticism and ruthless exposure of their own shortcomings, which will unquestionably and inevitably be overcome as the working-class movement grows" (see Vol. VI, p. 161).		:"They (i.e., the opponents of the Marxists-J. St.) gloat and grimace over our controversies; and, of course, they will try to pick isolated passages from my pamphlet, which deals with the defects and shortcomings of our Party, and to use them for their own ends. The Russian Social-Democrats are already steeled enough in battle not to be perturbed by these pinpricks and to continue, in spite of them, their work of self-criticism and ruthless exposure of their own shortcomings, which will unquestionably and inevitably be overcome as the working-class movement grows" (see Vol. VI, p. 161).