Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.97 AVERAGE
3.97 AVERAGE
Having Robert Service write the introduction to this book is like having your elementary school enemy write your obituary.
According to Service every inch of Lenin; every blink was that of a tyrant- he apparently woke up everyday purely to do the most evil thing he could think of and apparently it all traces back to What Is to Be Done?
Service is of course just another of the Cold War historians pointing with the missiles towards Moscow.
Since 1991, none dare utter “Vanguard Party” with any seriousness. Any social change therefore was down to three methods. Parliamentary procedure; which in our Western incarnation has historically been the surest guaranteer of the economic elite; the spontaneous peaceful protest- so debased and inoffensive that it can be ignored with no political recourse; or the anarchist method of abstention from the political process entirely.
Since 1991 then it shouldn’t be surprising that little has improved for the bottom of society in the Western world despite even the considerable protest movements that have transpired; Seattle, the Iraq War protests, and Occupy.
In such a climate then I think it’s clear that Service’s et al’s condemnations of Lenin’s What Is to Be Done? have been proven incorrect and Lenin has been vindicated.
What Lenin said in this book is that the working class will not spontaneously know and employ what is needed to better society. This is very true. In addition Lenin realized that simple “knowing” and acting on that “knowing” is useless unless it is big, and coordinated. This is where he differentiates from the anarchist anti-czarist organization that aimed for big systemic change but only accomplished the occasional change in personalities via political assassinations because they tended to operate in small groups.
Lenin, even though he made mistakes (exporting revolution in Poland), did succeed in overthrowing the authoritarian czarist regime which compared with the paltry results of recent years is a formidable accomplishment and the blueprint for that success lies in part in this book.
According to Service every inch of Lenin; every blink was that of a tyrant- he apparently woke up everyday purely to do the most evil thing he could think of and apparently it all traces back to What Is to Be Done?
Service is of course just another of the Cold War historians pointing with the missiles towards Moscow.
Since 1991, none dare utter “Vanguard Party” with any seriousness. Any social change therefore was down to three methods. Parliamentary procedure; which in our Western incarnation has historically been the surest guaranteer of the economic elite; the spontaneous peaceful protest- so debased and inoffensive that it can be ignored with no political recourse; or the anarchist method of abstention from the political process entirely.
Since 1991 then it shouldn’t be surprising that little has improved for the bottom of society in the Western world despite even the considerable protest movements that have transpired; Seattle, the Iraq War protests, and Occupy.
In such a climate then I think it’s clear that Service’s et al’s condemnations of Lenin’s What Is to Be Done? have been proven incorrect and Lenin has been vindicated.
What Lenin said in this book is that the working class will not spontaneously know and employ what is needed to better society. This is very true. In addition Lenin realized that simple “knowing” and acting on that “knowing” is useless unless it is big, and coordinated. This is where he differentiates from the anarchist anti-czarist organization that aimed for big systemic change but only accomplished the occasional change in personalities via political assassinations because they tended to operate in small groups.
Lenin, even though he made mistakes (exporting revolution in Poland), did succeed in overthrowing the authoritarian czarist regime which compared with the paltry results of recent years is a formidable accomplishment and the blueprint for that success lies in part in this book.
Some commandist tendencies and some of it isn't applicable in the imperial core. But! Many applicable lessons to the organising scene i'm in.
Incredible seeing the same things being struggled against appear 100 years later. Different form, same essence
Incredible seeing the same things being struggled against appear 100 years later. Different form, same essence
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
As far as advancing my understanding of marxist and socialist theory, this was a good start. It focuses really heavily on the politics of the socialist organizations of 1901 Europe, but a lot of it can be directly applied to the modern day socialist political movement. In particular, one of the best lessons I got was the importance of a consistent revolutionary attitude and the detraction from a trade-unionist/reformist approach. Lenin disagrees firmly with the idea that there is a middle stage between capitalism and socialist revolution, where small victories must be the sole focus of attention and those victories can only be fought and won by individual and separated trade unions.
I worry a lot about becoming a "Theory Bro" who knows a lot about lenin and marx and nothing about actual struggle. I'm glad to see in Lenin an agreement that theory is necessary, but not nearly as important as active struggle, demonstration, and organization. Something something, working class, something something, theory and praxis.
I worry a lot about becoming a "Theory Bro" who knows a lot about lenin and marx and nothing about actual struggle. I'm glad to see in Lenin an agreement that theory is necessary, but not nearly as important as active struggle, demonstration, and organization. Something something, working class, something something, theory and praxis.
This seems to be written, as a polemic I guess, against social democrats who would overvalue their place in bureaucracy & criticize movements attempting to organize in such a way as to make their positions less important. Any organization or apparatus must be in service of the people &, when necessary, must help lay the groundwork for every day tasks, not to rule over but, to take an analogy Lenin himself used, to function as a scaffolding to help the overall structure. Waiting on spontaneous uprisings & discontent without footwork to connect workers so they are ready to keep it going when this happens is not the way. The decisions & actions should be calculated, not unintelligible & spontaneous or really on their from bureaucrats.
While it is clearly a product of its time & events shows as much through the text as it directed at contemporaries, the overall message is clear: Constant agitation & work is necessary for a bottom up movement in order to possibly have bottom up rule.
While it is clearly a product of its time & events shows as much through the text as it directed at contemporaries, the overall message is clear: Constant agitation & work is necessary for a bottom up movement in order to possibly have bottom up rule.
At times brilliant and deservedly a classic, but much of the time centered on polemics against now long-forgotten rival groups, which is often difficult to keep track of.