A Brief Introduction to the History and Ideologies of Communism (Part Four)
The Formation of the Initial Foundations and Principles of Communism
In the previous note, some of Lenin’s theories were discussed; in this note, other aspects of his theories will be addressed. Marx did not speak much about political parties because, in his time, they did not play as significant a role as they did in the 20th century. However, Lenin believed that since political consciousness concerning the concept of exploitation among the working class in Russia developed slowly, he needed to devise his own theory about the “vanguard” party. In his book What Is to Be Done? (1902), Lenin argued that some people are politically much more aware than others and must take on the responsibility of guiding society toward socialism. This elitist approach to a political party has been compared to Plato’s argument for rule by philosopher-kings. Furthermore, the party in question had to be very secretive.
Some have defended Lenin’s stance, arguing that the existence of such a secretive and closed party, which Lenin supported, was necessary in the repressive conditions of the Tsarist regime in the early 20th century. However, the reality is that the Bolshevik Party—which later became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—did not change many of its core features even after taking power. In fact, Lenin, long after the fall of the monarchy, called for even stricter discipline within the party in 1921. Lenin’s belief that a communist party should be elitist and secretive became one of his most significant legacies.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism is significant here because it ultimately justified significant changes in Marx’s approach. This theory was subsequently used by revolutionaries in many parts of the world in situations where Marx might have considered it entirely incorrect, to justify seizing power.
In a lengthy analysis of the causes of World War I published in 1917, Lenin stated that imperialism is “the highest stage of capitalism.” According to Lenin, the major empires had essentially divided the world among themselves, and the only way for each empire to continue searching for new markets and cheap labor was through the conquest of colonies from other imperial powers.
Lenin saw this continual drive for territorial expansion and profit as the root cause of conflict among the major European powers during World War I. The connection to the development of communism is that Lenin used his theory to justify the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power in Russia, despite knowing that according to classical Marxist analysis, Russia was not yet ready for a socialist revolution. He believed that Russia—having started industrializing in the late 19th century but still remaining mostly agricultural—was the weakest link in the chain of capitalist countries. If this chain broke at its weakest point, the entire capitalist structure would collapse. Russia would then be drawn into the new international socialist order by countries that had developed sufficiently to transition from capitalism to socialism, such as Britain, France, and Germany.
By the early 1920s, it became clear that capitalism was not collapsing, but the Bolsheviks were unwilling to surrender the power they had gained in October 1917. Thus, Lenin made a fundamental change in classical Marxist theory. The last point regarding Lenin’s contribution to communist theory is that he made a clear distinction between socialism and communism, something Marx had often used interchangeably. While Marx sometimes regarded socialism as a precursor to communism, Lenin explicitly stated that the distribution of wealth in socialism must be based on different principles than in communism. The guiding principle of communism, which was supposed to be “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” would change in socialism to “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”
This distinction was used to justify significant differences in income in communist countries. Lenin also placed more emphasis on the necessity of a strong state immediately following a socialist revolution, a state that would later be controlled by the communist rulers.
Stalinism
It is common to name ideas and ideologies after specific individuals. Notable examples include Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Darwinism, Marxism, Bonapartism, and Keynesianism. Joseph Stalin, too, has his own “ism.” Stalinism has often turned into a mental construct in many discussions, typically carrying a negative connotation. However, when people are asked to define Stalinism, they each provide their own interpretation, which slightly differs from others. Therefore, we have the term “Stalinism,” yet there is no clear and precise definition.
Lenin died in January 1924, and the prominent feature of communist systems—their inability or unwillingness to establish a system for leadership succession—immediately became apparent. In the late 1920s, Stalin, who was of Georgian descent, won the leadership succession struggle against rivals such as Lenin and Trotsky. Until that time, Stalin’s image was of a compromiser and moderate, in stark contrast to Trotsky, who was a brilliant but often stubborn and ruthless intellectual. The irony is that after consolidating his power, Stalin emerged as one of the most ruthless dictators in history. Although Stalin did not possess original intellect, he contributed to communist theory and occasionally justified his actions with pseudo-theoretical concepts.
Stalin’s most important contribution to communist theory was his defense of the concept of “socialism in one country” in 1925-1926. This was not a groundbreaking idea; rather, it provided a theoretical justification for developments that were happening in what would later be called the Soviet Union in 1992. Stalin was not the originator of this idea. Although he made vague references to it in late 1924, it was actually another of his rivals, Nikolai Bukharin, who, as a candidate for leadership, developed the idea, which Stalin later formally adopted as policy.
This policy essentially justified the attempt to establish socialism not only in one country but in a nation that Lenin had acknowledged was not ready to accept a socialist system on its own. Thus, this policy contradicted two fundamental principles of classical Marxism. On the other hand, this political thinking appealed more to Soviet citizens than Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution. Most citizens were tired of war and revolution and desired stability. The notion of socialism in one country also served to justify other key features of Stalin’s approach, which became prominent aspects of communist systems. These included industrialization through a planned economy and the collectivization of agriculture. While the debate continues over whether two other features of Stalinism—high levels of state terror and the cult of personality—were part of communist theory, they became important characteristics of practical communism in many other countries.
