WHAT IS TO BE DONE? – Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik movement emerged victorious after the October Revolution in 1917 Russia.  After the czar was deposed in February 1917, a more moderate republican government proved ineffectual. The Bolsheviks gained sole power in Russia. They fought off the White Russian forces during the civil war that followed.  They formed the Soviet Union shortly after, instituting a single-party socialist state.  But in 1901 when Lenin wrote What is to Be Done?, none of this seems preordained.  The future Soviet leader worried the socialist movement would take a different path.  He criticized “economism” – a moderate tendency among the socialist / social democratic left.  “Economist” supporters narrowly focused on issues like wages and employment conditions.  They believed the movement should build trade union power to push for better outcomes, but not work toward revolution.  Lenin believed this was a potential disaster, diluting socialism of all its meaning.  What is To Be Done? illustrates Lenin’s belief in a vanguard party led by committed, educated, professional revolutionaries.  It would be their job to educate and organize the mass of workers in Marxist theory. The party vanguard would train them in the methods and tactics they would eventually need to make revolution possible.

Early on in the work, Lenin discusses calls to allow “freedom of criticism” in the Marxist movement.  This was something proposed by many social democrats.  These proponents of “freedom of criticism” are appealing to liberal values that we should be able to think what we want.  They appeal to the idea that we should be able to contest and revise even the core theories of something like Marxism.  These ideologies people espouse should be subject to scrutiny.  They should be capable of change based on experience and the situation in which we live.  There’s merit to that, I think, as well as danger. Ideas can be twisted beyond their original meaning or objective.  Marxism, in many ways, was pacified by people who espoused ideas like this.  It’s how we get movements like the Social Democratic Party in Germany, or the SPD.  That party was founded with Marx and supported his ideas in progressively more moderate forms until about 30 or 40 years ago.  They went from a party with genuine revolutionary leanings to the idea of reformism.  Soon enough, they barely reformed at all. They seemed content to keep a kinder, gentler capitalism going in Germany instead of building socialism.  Lenin, in “What is to be Done?” is attempting to prevent this kind of tendency from taking hold in Russia’s socialist movement.

Lenin saw that a trend of revisionist Marxism was beginning in many social democratic parties in Europe during this time.  It was exemplified by leaders such as Eduard Bernstein and Millerand.   The revolution part is de-emphasized in this new version of socialism.  Instead, there is the idea that socialists can achieve a kind of “socialism-lite.” They would pass piecemeal reforms in parliaments and legislatures.  Lenin also accuses socialist leaders along these lines of “class collaboration”.  He suggests they are more interested in charming capitalist politicians than in leading the way toward a revolution. Lenin calls this a new kind of opportunism.  As a result, that “freedom of criticism” that is being asked for is really the freedom to become opportunists and lose sight of the real aims of Marxism.

I can see his point with this. If you’re trying to build a revolutionary party, it’s all still relevant. Where Lenin starts to lose me as a reader, if not in terms of ideology, is when he picks fights with particular publications.  A lot of What is to Be Done? involves Lenin refuting the arguments advanced in a long-defunct publication called Rabocheye Dyelo. This was the paper of a faction of Russian Social Democrats.  Lenin argues this publication put forward “mistaken theories” and “mistaken tactics”.  He isn’t saying that socialists should never ally with non-socialist democrats.  In fact, if you have a common enemy like the monarchy (or, in Russia, the czardom), it makes sense to join forces at times.  Lenin, I’m sure, would say the same about opposing out-and-out fascism if he had lived to the time of the Second World War.  Still worker’s interests were “diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie.” In other words, he didn’t want their revolutionary outlook and ideas to be watered down. He’d ensure the working class knew who was looking out for them and what they had to do to liberate themselves.

Lenin writes that “without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.”  To him, the opportunists only undertook “the narrowest forms of practical activity.”   Russian revolutionaries needed to learn from the example of other movements.  Even so, he knew that the Russian revolutionary challenge was unique. Russia was far less industrialized than other nations with socialist movements. Far more of its citizens were peasants.

Lenin’s revolution would only succeed if it gained the support of the masses of Russian workers and peasants.  He figured he’d only get that if the leaders of his movement had enough “consciousness and initiative”.  What did he mean by this?  He wanted leaders of the party that had strong understanding of Marxist theory. Specifically, he meant theory as understood by Lenin and his comrades).  The fact that students and workers were engaging in strikes and demonstrations all over Russia was a good thing, of course.  In fact, they were doing it without necessarily being part of the budding socialist movement.  But being conscious enough to strike for better pay and conditions, while good, wasn’t enough.  The system of capitalist private property ownership had to go.  Until it did, strikes and demonstrations would always extract minor concessions from those in charge.  When the movement proved weak, even those concessions would be rolled back or denied in the first place, and often violently so.  Lenin’s “vanguard” understood their goal was to destroy the entire capitalist system and the state that supported it.  They had to be willing and able to impart that understanding to new followers.  Finally, they had to be able to take all steps necessary to build this movement and take it to its end.  Newspapers and pamphlets were good, but not enough. Same goes for demonstrations and strikes.  Lenin’s wanted to build a movement broad, powerful, and disciplined enough to fight. When the moment came, it would overthrow the existing regime by all necessary means, including force.  Its leaders would defend against bad theory and bad tactics. These, Lenin feared, could mellow out the party into one asking for modest reforms instead of demanding radical change. 

That was why Lenin theorized that a “vanguard” party had to impart knowledge of Marxist theory to workers.  They wouldn’t learn on their own that their struggles were symptoms of larger problems. They needed to know what made capitalism inherently unjust and exploitative. They needed to know it was doomed to failure.  In the end, labor unions and reforms wouldn’t fix it. He figured academics would often take on this role of educating workers. In doing so, they would become an integral part of the movement. 

After all, Marx and Engels were certainly more academics than members of the working class.  Their work in understanding capitalism and what must be done about it, while foundational, was unfinished.  Others would be needed to further develop it. Then, they’d convey it to those who understood the capitalist system was treating them unjustly, but could not see the larger picture on their own. I suspect his central point is still quite useful, with some modern reconsideration about the role of academics or peasants.  The average worker and peasant often have more opportunities today to gain class consciousness. Not all of them need direct relationships to the “intelligentsia” of a party. 

If you’re able to move past the sniping Lenin engages in against his long-forgotten opponents, this is a worthwhile read. But there’s a LOT of sniping and editorial criticism here to look past, and a lot of context to digest or ignore.  I’m not a student of Russian history advanced enough to know for sure if I’m giving some of them short thrift.  Maybe once I read more on the subject, it will merit another look.  This wasn’t my favorite of Lenin’s works, and it is very much a product of his time. Apparently Lenin himself said as much after evolving somewhat in his views.  Nearer to the end of his life, Lenin apparently said people should stop reading the entirety of What is To Be Done?  Much of it was the substance of obsolete feuds, perhaps better left buried.  If you’re not steely enough to sift through it all, I recommend looking for a good summary. Then, maybe read one of Lenin’s stronger works like The State and Revolution or Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.