Lectures Delivered at the Sverdlov University
Dedicated to the Lenin enrolment J. STALIN
The foundations of Leninism is a big subject. To exhaust it a whole
volume would be required. Indeed, a number of volumes would be required.
Naturally, therefore, my lectures cannot be an exhaustive exposition of
Leninism; at best they can only offer a concise synopsis of the
foundations of Leninism. Nevertheless, I consider it useful to give this
synopsis, in order to lay down some basic points of departure necessary
for the successful study of Leninism.
Expounding the foundations of Leninism still does not mean expounding
the basis of Lenin's world outlook. Lenin's world outlook and the
foundations of Leninism are not identical in scope. Lenin was a Marxist,
and Marxism is, of course, the basis of his world outlook. But from this
it does not at all follow that an exposition of Leninism ought to begin
with an exposition of the foundations of Marxism. To expound Leninism
means to expound the distinctive and new in the works of Lenin that
Lenin contributed to the general treasury of Marx ism and that is
naturally connected with his name. Only in this sense will I speak in my
lectures of the foundations of Leninism.
And so, what is Leninism?
Some say that Leninism is the application of Marxism to the conditions
that are peculiar to the situation in Russia. This definition contains a
particle of truth, but not the whole truth by any means. Lenin, indeed,
applied Marxism to Russian conditions, and applied it in a masterly way.
But if Leninism were only the application of Marxism to the conditions
that are peculiar to Russia it would be a purely national and only a
national, a purely Russian and only a Russian, phenomenon. We know,
however, that Leninism is not merely a Russian, but an international
phenomenon rooted in the whole of international development. That is why
I think this definition suffers from one-sidedness.
Others say that Leninism is the revival of the revolutionary elements of
Marxism of the forties of the nineteenth century, as distinct from the
Marxism of subsequent years, when, it is alleged, it became moderate,
non-revolutionary. If we disregard this foolish and vulgar division of
the teachings of Marx into two parts, revolutionary and moderate, we
must admit that even this totally inadequate and unsatisfactory
definition contains a particle of truth. This particle of truth is that
Lenin did indeed restore the revolutionary content of Marxism, which had
been suppressed by the opportunists of the Second International. Still,
that is but a particle of the truth. The whole truth about Leninism is
that Leninism not only restored Marxism, but also took a step forward,
further under the new conditions of capitalism and of the class struggle
of the proletariat.
What, then, in the last analysis, is Leninism?
Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian
revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the
proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the
dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. Marx and Engels pursued
their activities in the pre-revolutionary period (we have the
proletarian revolution in mind), when developed imperialism did not yet
exist, in the period of the proletarians' preparation for revolution, in
the period when the proletarian revolution was not yet an immediate
practical inevitability. But Lenin, the disciple of Marx and Engels,
pursued his activities in the period of developed imperialism, in the
period of the unfolding proletarian revolution, when the proletarian
revolution had already triumphed in one country, had smashed bourgeois
democracy and had ushered in the era of proletarian democracy, the era
of the Soviets.
That is why Leninism is the further development of Marxism.
It is usual to point to the exceptionally militant and exceptionally
revolutionary character of Leninism. This is quite correct. But this
specific feature of Leninism is due to two causes: firstly, to the fact
that Leninism emerged from the proletarian revolution, the imprint of
which it cannot but bear; secondly, to the fact that it grew and became
strong in clashes with the opportunism of the Second International, the
fight against which was and remains an essential preliminary condition
for a successful fight against capitalism. It must not be forgotten that
between Marx and Engels, on the one hand, and Lenin, on the other, there
lies a whole period of undivided domination of the opportunism of the
Second International, and the ruthless struggle against this opportunism
could not but constitute one of the most important tasks of Leninism.