Leninism Under Lenin has 47 ratings and 8 reviews. Paul said: Narrates the terrain of Leninist politics in a refreshingly undogmatic fashion. Liebman is. Marcel Liebman was a historian of socialism and of communism. Reviews “ From Leninism Under Lenin there emerges a living and eminently. Leninism Under Lenin [1] is a serious and useful work. By dismantling these myths Liebman renders a service to the cause of historical truth, and, Marcel Liebman, Leninisme sous Lenine, 2 vols., Paris, Seuil,

Author: Kagor Kazralmaran
Country: Nicaragua
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 16 February 2004
Pages: 224
PDF File Size: 9.97 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.59 Mb
ISBN: 743-3-77108-236-4
Downloads: 92959
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zunris

One can argue whether or not this was correct. The other answer, put forward in by the leaders of the Communist International, with Lenin and Trotsky at their head, and improved upon subsequently by Trotsky and the Fourth International, distinguishes between the epoch opened by the First World War, marked by the beginning of the historical decline of the capitalist mode of production, which makes the international socialist revolution objectively possible and necessary, and the revolutionary situations which liiebman not permanently present as such in every continent or every country afterbut do occur periodically in one country or another.

It is true that the Bolshevik Party forbade factions at the Tenth Party Congress in Marcha time of mortal danger. The fusion of the Party apparatus with the State apparatus — that is, the transformation of the Party into an liehman of the special interests of the bureaucracy instead of an expression of the interests of the proletariat generally — together with the disappearance of the stratum of advanced workers, undoubtedly provide the basic social explanation. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.

Could the Russian proletariat have kept hold of the direct exercise of power even if the revolution did not mxrcel prove victorious in the West? Moreover, these spontaneous movements arise, almost inevitably, in fragmented form, determined by the special features of a particular workplace, branch of industry, town or district. It’s true that the bourgeoisie supported the constituent assembly due to the fact that socialist revolutionaries won the elections, but by dismissing it the Bolsheviks gave democracy a fatal blow given that those elections were the first democratic elections in Russia’s history.


Cbsd library rated it it was amazing Dec 28, What, at bottom, was the mistake made by the Bolshevik leaders in ? Tad Tietze rated it it was amazing Mar 31, This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers.

Mar 31, Paul rated it it was amazing. This work liebmwn a biased monologue for those who might feel concerned; I’ve come to understand a lot of the grievances anarchists hold in relation to the Bolsheviks and Lenin himself from reading this book and leminism definitely be exploring further into the events of Kronstadt in as a result.

This thesis may look attractive, udner it will not stand up to critical examination. Grant Vincent rated it it was amazing Nov 07, The concept of a vanguard organisation corresponds, moreover, to a materialist analysis of the structure of the working class and the course followed by its snuggles. On the one hand, by deepening his study of imperialism, Lenin came to the conclusion that, in the setting of a world market which had reached the stage of monopoly capitalism, Russian capitalism was doomed to remain under the domination of international finance-capital, and therefore could not but continue to be cramped, maimed and underdeveloped, with a state power that was reactionary and barbarous.

Leninism Under Lenin

Liebman correctly states that the strategy upheld by Lenin in Two Tactics of Social-Democracyin opposition both to the Mensheviks and to Trotsky, consisted in bringing about in Russia a bourgeois-democratic revolution, against the bourgeoisie, through a revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry, leading to bourgeois democracy, that is, a bourgeois state, and to the development of a capitalist economy.

I doubt whether he would choose any of the first three. Elliott rated it it was amazing Jun 16, This could have been done at the expense of the Nepmen and the kulaks; that is, without reducing the standard of living of the workers and poor peasants but, on the contrary, raising it.

Indeed, Lenin refers explicitly to this historical precedent.

Liebman and Leninism

See, especially, Liebman, op. First, that the rural petty-bourgeoisie was capable of forming an independent political force which could ally itself as such with the party of the proletariat.


Kudos to my wife for putting up with me wanting to do nothing else but sit and absorb this in little over a week. Even though he projected these proposals into the future, without ever showing readiness to condemn explicitly liegman measures which he himself had helped to introduce inthis shade of difference in the way he expressed his idea became so slight towards the end of his life that the conclusion becomes unavoidable, at any rate so far as the ban on factions is concerned.

Thanks for telling us lebinism the problem. It should logically be concluded from this that the Leninist type of organisation is at bottom more democratic and better immunised against bureaucratisation or demagogy than the Social-Democratic or Anarchist type of organisation — which does not mean, of course, that it is wholly immune.

Does his refusal to choose the fourth serve as justification for a refusal to commit himself? This Lenin, more complex and contradictory than the maleficent devil of some and the flawless hero of others, is closer to reality and also, it must be added, markedly more human and attractive than the legendary figures who are so often presented to us as substitutes.


From tohe was editor of the weekly journal La Gauche The Left and in founded the journal Mai May which existed until The greatness of the Bolshevik Party was shown — and this says much for the remarkable school of Marxism that it constituted — in the fact that most of its leaders did eventually become aware of what had gone wrong, though too late and separately.

Clearly, only the second line of development would ensure an internal market large enough for capitalist industry to expand organically. Dialectics here as employed by Liebman is simplified into something akin to a political ethic or rationality.

Want to Read saving…. Kristofer Dubbels rated it it was amazing Jul 24,