Lenin: the Sublime Exception?

Thoughts on Hegel, Napoleon and the Relevancy of the Russian Revolution in the 21st Century

Pour lire cet article en français, cliquez ici.

I saw the Emperor — this soul of the world — go out from the city to survey his reign; it is a truly wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrating on one point while seated on a horse, stretches over the world and dominates it.

—Hegel on Napoleon

Today marks the 101st anniversary of Vladimir Lenin’s death. The man who has been both vilified as the instigator of the red terror and the architect of the Stalinist regime, as well as praised as a hero of the working class and the man who led the first socialist government on Earth into power. In many ways, Lenin seems to embody the antiquated idea of the so-called “great man” who, by sheer force of will alone, can bend the course of history to his desire. There’s no ignoring the single-minded will that brought the Bolsheviks into power, and it’s hard to imagine the party being carried that far by anyone else (a fact seemingly made more poignant with the fate of the Soviet Union following his death) but to do so would betray a proper Marxist explanation for the rise of Lenin and the subsequent degeneration of the Soviet Union under Stalin (to borrow Trotskyist phraseology). It would be more useful for us to see this phenomenon in a more materialistic light, but even if we do, we still cannot ignore the immense magnitude of his will, and the power it held in shaping the future of Russia, as well as the rest of the world, forever.

“Lenin is no more, but Leninism endures”, writes Trotsky in an obituary. But what does it even mean to be a Leninist, especially a whole century-plus-one-year after the man’s death, and over three decades since the collapse of the government he created? To what degree is the word Leninism even useful to us anymore? Trotskyists, and likewise the followers of the Italian tradition of left communism, who assert themselves to be resolutely Leninist in the face of Stalinist deviancy, have themselves shown demonstrable deviations from Lenin’s original doctrine. Both have justified their deviations by citing necessary adjustments to different conditions, and are both right in many regards, but it remains that their dedication to an “authentic” vision of Leninism was already flawed. The reason for this should be obvious: there is no such thing as “authentic” Leninism.

Is there even any use in returning to Lenin anymore? I believe so, and I would hope any serious Marxist would to, even if they are critical of him and his actions. There remains the fact that the Bolsheviks, under his guidance, achieved the construction of the first workers' government in history; that fact alone elevates him to a certain pedigree. We can't, however, succumb to naïve notions of him being some sublime, Napoleon-like exception to the rules of history. Groups like the International Communist Party (ICP) and the Internationalist Communist Tendency (ICT) are a good example of organizations that have kept Lenin’s ideas alive without relying so much on Lenin himself. Despite the silly idea of styling themselves as “more Leninist than Lenin”, the ICP has established itself as a leading voice in the world of left communism, and offers a particularly appealing alternative to both Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. The Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), on the other hand, shows what happens when tired old Marxist clichés are repeated ad nauseam.

Their obsession with Lenin reminds me of Hegel’s admiration of Napoleon. It’s easy to see the parallels between the two, especially in the eyes of naïve idealists. Lenin, like Napoleon, appears to have stood on the precipice of history and dictated its whims, but that would ignore the revolutionary conditions that allowed both him and Napoleon to assume power. Napoleon and Lenin were both great leaders, in the sense that they could mobilize the efforts of millions, seemingly with their conviction alone, but this also shows that without those millions willing to follow then even the most impassioned of wills can’t achieve anything. The main lesson we should take from all this it’s that, by ascribing quasi-divine agency to a single individual, we ignore the millions who have actually made that agency into being. Nothing can be achieved without the support of the masses, and shouting revolutionary slogans from a century ago isn’t going to bring us that. With Trump threatening to enact a number of fascistic policies through executive orders, and the Conservatives here at home deploying a similar populist rhetoric, the necessity of a mass movement is now more dire than ever.

To conclude, it's important that we keep Lenin's legacy alive in the 21st century, but sometimes we must let our idols rest. Like his mangled, desecrated corpse kept on display as a crude memento to the shattered dream of socialism, Leninism has become a morbid fixation with an idea long past its natural lifespan. I'm not suggesting we retire the idea altogether, quite the contrary (and as the styling of this newsletter should make clear), but to attach ourselves so completely to an idea that was meant to serve a particular purpose at a particular place and time in history would be politically useless and actively harmful in our current conditions. This has always been my problem with the RCP; hearing them talk of Lenin as though the events of the past century have not happened, stubbornly repeating the phrases and slogans of the old Bolsheviks like slamming your head against a cement wall over and over again to try to get over a headache, I can't help but constantly be reminded of their reluctance to confront and move past their history. Derrida warned us about the spectres of Marx, spectres made visible by organizations like the RCP. If we hope to rescue Lenin from the Leninists, then it's essential we finally lay those spectres to rest.

—M.

Source

Leon Trotsky, Lenin Dead. Marxists Internet Archive, uploaded 2009, retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/01/lenin.htm