A concise overview of the History and Ideologies of Communism (Part Three)
Formation of the Initial Foundations and Principles of Communism
Marx’s materialistic view of the world is closely linked to his historicism. The combination of these two perspectives explains why his approach is often described as historical materialism. For Marx, class relations are the driving force of history. He defines class based on an individual’s relationship to the means of production, which ruthlessly means that the class position of most people is essentially determined by whether they own property—particularly property that can generate wealth—or not.
Thus, in the feudal system that existed before the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism, the fundamental class division was between those who owned land and those who had to work for the landowners. With the advent of the spinning machine, the steam engine, and other inventions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the division shifted to those who owned factories and those who had to work for them. This division became the most significant class distinction. Marx called the former capitalists or the bourgeoisie and the latter the proletariat, which literally means “without property.” However, his class analysis was more advanced and complex than the simplified outline presented here. From Marx’s perspective, the most fundamental class divisions in any given period revolve around personal property, leading to fundamental or revolutionary change.
This argument is summarized in the opening chapter of The Communist Manifesto, the most famous and widely read book on communism:
“The history of all societies that have existed so far is the history of class struggles.” (1)
According to this theory, tensions between classes increase over time and ultimately lead to revolutionary change. However, until the emergence of capitalism, the tensions between the main exploited classes and what Marx saw as the primary exploiter did not result in revolutionary transformations. Instead, scientific, technical, and economic changes often led to the emergence of a new elite class seeking to seize power from the existing ruling class.
From Marx’s perspective, the French Revolution can largely be understood in these terms. However, he believed that the era in which he lived was fundamentally different from all previous periods in two key ways. First, the class structure of capitalism was simpler than in previous eras, with society more clearly controlled by two primary classes. Second, in this era, class struggle was fundamentally between the bourgeoisie and the increasingly alienated proletariat—not between the existing ruling bourgeoisie and a new class of potential elites. Throughout his life, Marx believed that tensions between these two main classes would eventually escalate to the point of a socialist revolution. This time, unlike all previous class revolutions, the political system would be dominated by the majority of the people rather than by a small minority or a small group of elites, as had happened in the past.
However, Marx’s views on what would follow a socialist revolution were vague. He claimed that in the long run, a new type of society—communism—would emerge, where there would be no ruling class and no alienation. In fact, in this final society, politics in its traditional sense would no longer exist, and the state would become obsolete as there would be no need for it. The governance of people would be replaced by the administration of affairs.
But immediately after the socialist revolution and before reaching this final stage, there would be a temporary or transitional state known as the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Marx’s exact meaning of this phrase is unclear. He used it only twice in his writings and never provided much detail about it. However, he was influenced by the short-lived experience of the 1871 “Paris Commune” in France and saw many features of this experiment, including how ordinary workers exercised power and became the new ruling class.
This experience may indicate what the dictatorship of the proletariat would look like. One important point to emphasize about Marx is that he was primarily a theorist and a debater. Although he was politically active at certain points in his life, he was not a national leader. The unstable nature of his life explains why many of his writings and analyses are abstract and lack practical details.
As previously mentioned, Marx’s descriptions of the state after a socialist revolution are vague. However, before turning to Lenin, three key points should be noted:
1.Marx explicitly stated that only advanced industrial societies could have socialist revolutions. Agricultural societies, which are primarily rural, would not be ready for such changes, and history must follow its own logic.
2.Marx was always an internationalist. He believed that no single country could achieve a successful socialist revolution on its own.
3.Most importantly, a common misconception is that Marx’s reference to communism pertains only to the ultimate goal. In fact, Marx clearly stated in The German Ideology, completed in 1846, that for him, communism was not just an ultimate goal but also a political movement aimed at undermining and overthrowing the existing political system:
“Communism is not for us a state of affairs that is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement that abolishes the present state of things.” (2)
Leninism:
Lenin was born in the late 19th century into a Russian family living in a small town along the Volga River. Both of his parents were teachers with a strong sense of civic responsibility.
However, when Lenin was just a teenager, his older brother (who was also still a teenager) was arrested and subsequently executed for plotting to assassinate Tsar Alexander III. Some commentators believe that this traumatic experience hardened Lenin’s spirit. Additionally, it helps explain his intense hatred of Russia’s tsarist autocracy. The combination of social responsibility and resentment toward the system in which he lived shaped Lenin’s approach to politics, history, and the Russian Empire.
Shortly after his brother’s death, Lenin began studying revolutionary ideas, particularly the thoughts of Marx and Russian radicals like Nikolai Chernyshevsky. By the late 19th century, he had clashed with Russian authorities and was exiled. However, his influence on Russian radicals was profound, and by the end of 1917—following the October Revolution, which was the third revolution in Russia in the 20th century (with revolutions also occurring in 1905 and February 1917)—he and his party, the Bolsheviks, took power. From then on, Russia would be ruled by communists for more than seven decades.
Unlike Marx, Lenin was deeply involved in national politics. Although he sometimes provided more abstract analyses of his long-term vision for socialism and communism—particularly in his 1917 book State and Revolution—most of his contributions to communist theory stemmed from his experiences, reactions to world events, and debates with other Marxists.
Lenin’s most significant theoretical contributions were in three areas: the role of the revolutionary party, his analysis of imperialism, and the distinctions he made between socialism and communism.
Continues …
References:
(1). Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, p. 27.
(2). Leslie Holmes, Communism: A Very Short Introduction, p. 10.
