![\"\"](\"http:\/\/media.chinaworker.info\/2014\/02\/leninbk-1.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIn an attempt to answer the description of Lenin by capitalist historians as a brutal dictator, some on the left turn to Lars T Lih. He has tried to reinvent the leader of the Russian revolution as some kind of woolly liberal. In so doing, the understanding of how to build a movement capable of transforming society is in danger of being lost.<\/span><\/p>\nIn the recent \u2018revolution\u2019 in Ukraine \u2013 aimed against Vladimir Putin\u2019s attempts to blackmail the Ukrainian government to keep within Russia\u2019s sphere of influence \u2013 a crowd demolished the last remaining statue of Lenin in the capital, Kiev. Statues like this were erected in the past in the former \u2018Soviet Union\u2019 by the privileged Stalinist bureaucratic elites, who wished to screen themselves from the anger of the masses by basking in the political authority of Lenin. In reality, they were separated by a colossal gulf from Lenin\u2019s real ideas about socialism and workers\u2019 democracy.<\/span><\/p>\nIn the capitalist West there were few if any statues of Lenin to be toppled. So capitalist historians and academics, particularly after the collapse of Stalinism \u2013 and with this, unfortunately, the planned economies in Russia and Eastern Europe \u2013 did the next best thing. They vilified Lenin, and his co-leader of the Russian revolution, Leon Trotsky, in an attempt to systematically discredit the ideas of socialism and genuine Marxism.<\/span><\/p>\nIn a series of weighty tomes a small army of modern \u2018historians\u2019, like Richard Pipes, Orlando Figes, and not forgetting the inimitable Robert Service, undertook a colossal rewriting of history. Figes was publicly exposed as criticising other historians\u2019 works while secretly writing laudatory reviews of his own books! Service\u2019s \u2018biography\u2019 of Trotsky, which we answered as soon as it was published, has now been discredited even by non-Marxist historians as lacking any objectivity.<\/span><\/p>\nToday, however, a new, more \u2018subtle\u2019 approach is required given the protracted crisis of capitalism, which has seen a renewed interest in socialism and Marxism. There is already a revolt in academia against the previous concentration on pro-market, capitalist economic teaching. There are increasing demands by students and lecturers that they be familiarised with the ideas of Karl Marx, as well as the more \u2018radical\u2019 of the capitalist Keynesian economists. In this can be perceived an element of the reappearance of the 1960s within the hallowed institutions of learning. The enormous radicalisation of students and academics which developed then was a reflection and, to some extent, precursor to the mass movements of workers in the 1960s and 1970s.<\/span><\/p>\nThis book by Lars T Lih \u2013 first published in the \u2018Critical Lives\u2019 series in 2011 \u2013 is a response to this new situation. In it, and in his other writings, he is more sympathetic to Lenin than those historians mentioned above. But the claim on the jacket that the book \u201cpresents a striking new interpretation of Lenin\u2019s political outlook\u201d is overblown, to say the least. Lars himself admits: \u201cMy view of Lenin is not particularly original and chimes in closely with most observers of Lenin and his time\u201d. Unfortunately, \u2018most observers\u2019 are still not \u2018sympathetic\u2019 to Lenin\u2019s views. This is particularly the case when it comes to the character of the kind of party the working class will need for a successful struggle against capitalism and for socialism.<\/span><\/p>\nWorkers and peasants<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nTrotsky, who barely gets a mention in this book, gives a much richer account of the real history of Bolshevism in its initial phase in his unfinished biography of Stalin, albeit in a sketchy fashion. He also outlines clearly the views of Lenin on the crucial issues of the character of revolutionary party needed, and on the structures and practices of such a party, including democratic centralism and its origins.<\/span><\/p>\nLars on the other hand, writes in a misleading, cloudy and abstruse fashion: \u201cLenin had a romantic view of leadership within the class. He sought to inspire the rank-and-file activists\u2026 with an exalted idea of what their own leadership could accomplish\u201d. In the same vein the book is irritatingly peppered throughout with phrases like Lenin\u2019s \u201cheroic scenario\u201d. Then there are crude assertions on relations between the working class and the peasantry in Russia: \u201cHis insistence on the peasant as follower did not exclude an exalted, even romantic view of the peasants in the revolution. Heroic leaders required heroic followers\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\nOf course Lenin, like most Marxists, could be enthusiastic. In turn, they could be enthused by the spectacle of workers in struggle, especially when it reached a high point of revolution. Marxism is saturated with the spirit of optimism. At the same time, Lenin is deadly realistic about the prospects of the class struggle in general and all the issues involving the fate of the working class. His view of leadership, as with the need for the party, was not \u2018exalted\u2019 but practical and flowed from what was necessary.<\/span><\/p>\nThen again, what are we to make of Lars\u2019s conclusions at the end of the book when he writes: \u201cOld Bolshevism was defined by its wager on the revolutionary qualities of the peasantry. Yet less than a decade after his death, the regime founded by Lenin was waging war on the peasants and imposing a revolution from above during the collectivisation campaign, contributing to a devastating famine\u201d. (p202)<\/span><\/p>\nFirstly, Bolshevism never put a \u2018wager\u2019 on the peasantry, but recognised that it could never play an independent role. Therefore, the issue was who would lead them in the revolution \u2013 who would satisfy their demand for the land \u2013 the working class or the bourgeoisie? History attested to the fact that the working class satisfied the peasantry in action, after the bourgeois and its parties had demonstrated that they would never give the land, as well as peace and bread, to the masses, including the peasant masses. Secondly, it is ludicrous to identify \u201cthe regime founded by Lenin\u201d, as Lars does, with that presided over by Stalin, already, ten years after Lenin\u2019s death, one dominated by a privileged bureaucratic elite. Indeed, Lenin\u2019s widow, Nadezhda Krupskaya, famously stated in 1926 that if Lenin had lived, he would have been imprisoned under the Stalinist regime.<\/span><\/p>\nThe revolutionary party<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nThere are many misleading, and consequently erroneous, statements like this in the book and it cannot therefore be fully embraced as a correct account of Lenin\u2019s role in history. But it has been taken up by some on the left, even in certain quasi-Marxist circles. This is because Lars\u2019s presentation, particularly in relation to democratic centralism, chimes with a layer who rejects this idea, the \u2018hard\u2019 Lenin, in favour of an allegedly \u2018more open\u2019 one. It is not the first time we have confronted this phenomenon. In the 1960s and 1970s, journals like New Left Review would \u2018discover\u2019 woolly \u2018ground-breaking new theoreticians\u2019 who would then invariably disappear almost as quickly as they had appeared.<\/span><\/p>\nLars\u2019s ideas have become the current fashion for those who are fleeing from genuine Marxism and the real traditions of Lenin and Trotsky. Vital in this respect is the need for a revolutionary party based upon the traditions of democratic centralism. This in no way contradicts the broader task of organising a mass workers\u2019 party at this stage. Of necessity, this will be required to organise on a much looser basis, involving a form of federation and in Britain, of course, rooted in the trade unions. The maintenance of a clear Marxist core within such broader formations is absolutely necessary. Without this, there will be no long-lasting gains for the working class.<\/span><\/p>\nHistory, including recent history, reinforces this point. For instance, the main forces behind the formation of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) in 1998 came from our party. The leadership of Militant supported the formation of such a broad party; in fact, we were the first to advance this idea. But the leaders of Scottish Militant Labour (SML) proposed and carried out, at the same time as forming the SSP, the effective winding up of SML into this party. This, in turn, led to their separation from the Committee for a Workers\u2019 International (CWI) in Scotland and internationally. They were not expelled but voluntarily departed from our ranks.<\/span><\/p>\nWe warned at the time that not only would this mean the tragic weakening of a distinct revolutionary organisation and tradition in Scotland but, at a certain stage, the complete disintegration of the SSP as well. Unfortunately, this was borne out. A similar process happened in Italy, where different Marxist organisations joined Rifondazione Comunista (RC) when it was formed in 1991, but were incapable over time of winning the ranks of this party to a clear Marxist position. The RC has now effectively disintegrated.<\/span><\/p>\nCompare this to the achievements of Militant, both when it was in the Labour Party \u2013 in 1964, we had no more than 40 supporters \u2013 and during our expulsion in the late 1980s. The conclusion to draw from this is that in the case of both Scotland and Italy there was not a sufficiently organised and politically trained Marxist core capable of either winning a majority in the party or at least gaining more significant numbers, which could then form the basis of a new organisation or party.<\/span><\/p>\nThe class, party and leadership<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nThese mistakes flow from an incorrect understanding on the part of some Marxist forces of the relationship between the class, a party and its leadership. \u2018Democratic centralism\u2019 \u2013 the term itself \u2013 was not an invention of Lenin, but was first used in the Russian workers\u2019 movement by the Mensheviks within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). However, the conception of a party, its methods of organisation, and how discussion and internal debates should be conducted, have a long pedigree, beginning with Marx and Engels themselves.<\/span><\/p>\nThis is shown, for instance, in the rules of the Communist League of 1847, of which Marx and Engels were members. Even before the term \u2018democratic centralism\u2019 was used, the concept was adopted within this, the first distinct international party of the working class.<\/span><\/p>\nIn its statutes the Communist League states the conditions of membership: \u201cSubordination to the decisions of the League\u2026 The circle [comprising a number of \u2018branches\u2019 as we would understand it today] authority is the executive organ for all the communities of the circle\u2026 The various circles of a country or province are subordinated to a leading circle\u2026 The Central Authority is the executive organ of the whole of the League and as such is responsible to the Congress\u2026 The Congress is the legislative authority of the whole League. All proposals for changes in the rules are sent to the Central Authority through the leading circles and submitted by them to the Congress\u2026 Whoever violates the conditions of membership\u2026 is according to the circumstances removed from the League and expelled\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\nLenin took these and other examples from the historical experience of the workers\u2019 movement, including the German social democracy, and attempted to apply them to the specific conditions of Russia. Lenin\u2019s famous book, What is to be Done?, written in 1901, was devoted to the need for a centralised party in Russia. Lars deals, not very adequately, with some parts of the history. He touches on the disagreements over the formulas of Lenin in answer to the \u2018Economist school\u2019, who believed in concentrating on the purely day-to-day struggles. Lenin \u201cbent the stick\u201d too far, in his own words, in his description of how socialist consciousness arises in the working-class movement.<\/span><\/p>\nLenin\u2019s assertion that socialist consciousness could only be brought to the working class from the outside by the revolutionary intelligentsia was wrong. He borrowed this also from the German social democratic leader and Marxist at the time, Karl Kautsky. Although Lenin corrected this later, it has been used to justify the haughty approach of self-appointed \u2018leaders\u2019, usually by tiny organisations, proclaiming to be \u2018the\u2019 leadership of the working class.<\/span><\/p>\nTrotsky paid tribute to Lenin\u2019s stubborn and painstaking work in laying the basis through the struggle of the Bolsheviks for the mass party approach. Nevertheless, he emphasised that it was the \u2018steam\u2019, the working class, which is the driving force in the revolution. The party, if it acts correctly, plays the same role as a \u2018piston box\u2019 in harnessing this to a revolution.<\/span><\/p>\nLenin emphasised the same point in opposition to the \u2018committeemen\u2019 who took shape in the underground. They were suspicious of the initiatives of workers. Trotsky had warned of the dangers of the emergence of such figures in his 1904 pamphlet, Political Problems. He pointed out that these types of committeemen have \u201cforgone the need to rely upon the workers as they had found support in the principles of \u2018centralism\u2019.\u201d Lenin recognised the dangers of a one-sided interpretation of what he was trying to build when he wrote: \u201cI could not contain myself when I heard it said that there were no working men fit for the committee membership\u201d. Trotsky remarks: \u201cLenin understood better than anyone else the need for a centralised organisation; but he saw in it, above all, a lever for enhancing the activity of the advanced working man. The idea of making a fetish of the political machine was not only alien but repugnant to his nature\u201d. (Stalin, p103, Panther edition)<\/span><\/p>\nDemocratic centralism<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nLars T makes sweeping, incorrect comments about democratic centralism. He writes that there was no \u201cexposition of the meaning of the term \u2013 Lenin used it in passing to make particular points\u201d. He also states: \u201cLenin\u2019s points would have been: \u2018Democratic centralism is not possible in underground conditions. Genuine interparty democracy is mandatory when possible and dispensable when not\u2019.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nBut he is completely wrong in asserting, with no basis in the actual practice of Bolshevism, that democratic centralism was practised at one stage and then withdrawn in a completely arbitrary fashion at another. The Bolsheviks, as with all genuinely revolutionary organisations, based themselves at all times on the general principles of democratic centralism: maximum discussion until a decision is arrived at and then a united effort by the whole party, group or organisation to implement the decision. Even then, it is totally false to imply that all discussion and debate ended after the decision was taken. The history of the genuine workers\u2019 movement showed that vital discussion on unresolved issues continued in the form of internal bulletins, debates, etc, outside of the framework of the national congress of the party.<\/span><\/p>\nThe different sides of this question might be difficult for isolated intellectuals to grasp but it is an idea that the working class readily understands, particularly its more advanced, guiding layers. It flows from the very position of the working class under capitalism.<\/span><\/p>\nNever in history has capitalism been more centralised than today. Never have the means of coercion \u2013 witness the revelations of Wikileaks, the massive surveillance by capitalist governments of their own populations, as well as other governments \u2013 been so concentrated in the hands of the capitalist state. It is inconceivable therefore that a loose network would be capable of mobilising to defeat this colossal power. Without a centralised mass party capable of unifying working people and then acting in a decisive fashion when the time requires it, it is impossible to carry through the socialist transformation of society, the greatest change in human history.<\/span><\/p>\nThe working class instinctively understands the need for a centralised party and the discipline that goes with it. This is shown in every serious struggle, particularly strikes, involving the working class. When shop stewards, for instance, are called to discuss and debate an issue, and sometimes heatedly, they will usually strive to adopt one voice when putting the issue to a mass meeting. There will, of course, be occasions when a minority of stewards and workers will disagree with a recommendation, and in that situation Marxists would argue for a full debate to take place.<\/span><\/p>\nThese methods, which involve elements of democratic centralism, are instinctively understood by working people. This is demonstrated by the recent statement of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa). When they announced a break from the ANC and supported the idea of a new mass workers\u2019 party, they declared: \u201cNumsa is a revolutionary union and as such plays a leading role in the defeat of capitalism and the exploitation that is associated with it. We are democratic centralist \u2013 we believe in robust, vigorous and democratic debate leading to a united decision and action\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\nDiscussion and decision<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nWhat is then posed is the balance between democracy, full debates and discussions and upholding the rights of all members to participate in the formulation of policy, and centralism, the need to act in a unified fashion, at each stage. This cannot be decided a priori \u2013 through general principles applicable at all times irrespective of the concrete circumstances. Organisation, even in the mass revolutionary party, is not an independent factor for a Marxist. It is an inference from policy. It is politics, perspectives and programme, as well as the concrete circumstances, which determine what forms of organisation should be applied at each stage. But it is not true, as Lars T suggests, that democratic centralism is applied only in some circumstances, and not in others. For Marxists, democratic centralism means a \u2018mobile balance\u2019 between democracy and centralism, with emphasis being given to democracy or centralism depending upon the concrete circumstances.<\/span><\/p>\nIn underground conditions, centralist methods tend to dominate over the full expression of democratic discussion, rights and principles. But this does not in any way mean complete centralism with little democracy. On the contrary, while struggling against the brutal tsarist regime and its police, the Russian revolutionaries, including the Bolsheviks, debated and fought with each other over programme and policy. This was a necessary means of sharpening the political and theoretical weapons in preparation for the revolution. There were even regular congresses, both in the underground and during the civil war.<\/span><\/p>\nThere was full freedom of discussion and debate. But this did not mean for the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Trotsky, that the revolutionary party should become a debating club. To those who characterise this method as inherently \u2018unhealthy\u2019, Trotsky had a word of advice. Faced with the disarray in the ranks of his followers in France in the 1930s, he commented: \u201cAn organisation smaller but unanimous can have enormous success with a clear policy, while an organisation which is torn by internal strife is condemned to rot\u201d. There are some organisations in Britain and internationally today to whom Trotsky\u2019s words are very apt.<\/span><\/p>\nLars T tries to present a softer Lenin, more \u2018open\u2019 and \u2018democratic\u2019 than the \u2018centralist\u2019, if not authoritarian, figure that is usually invoked by bourgeois and most \u2018Marxist\u2019 historians alike. This \u2018new\u2019 Lenin is almost a \u2018liberal\u2019 in his alleged acceptance of open, public, unrestricted discussion in a revolutionary party.<\/span><\/p>\nThis new approach towards Lenin distorts his real views. There were times when Lenin and Trotsky advocated the most open kind of discussion, even in public forums and at difficult times, which to some extent took place outside of the party. Nikolai Bukharin and the so-called \u2018Left Communists\u2019, who supported him in his advocacy of a \u2018revolutionary war\u2019 at the time of the Brest-Litovsk controversy of 1918, had a daily newspaper which argued against the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky.<\/span><\/p>\nThe mass communist parties in France and Italy argued in their daily papers against the idea of the united front. But after two years they were compelled to implement the decision of the Communist International.<\/span><\/p>\nThere are many other such examples, including Trotsky\u2019s initial support for the minority within the American SWP in the 1930s for a public discussion on the class character of the Soviet Union. However, he withdrew his proposal when his American co-thinkers pointed out that this minority was appealing in the main to the petty bourgeois milieu outside the party who had moved from support of the Soviet Union under the pressure of \u2018democratic\u2019 public opinion. This did not prevent a vigorous discussion within the ranks of the SWP on this issue.<\/span><\/p>\nAnti-party mood<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nPart of the capitalists\u2019 campaign in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism was to feed the popular mood, particularly among the new generation, against \u2018parties\u2019 and the model of Lenin\u2019s supposedly closed, authoritarian type of party. We argued against this but also recognised that anything that appeared to be tainted with the mark of Stalinism would repel the new generation looking for a political alternative.<\/span><\/p>\nThis \u2018anti-politics\u2019 and \u2018anti-party\u2019 mood represented, in reality, a deep hostility towards all \u2018official\u2019, \u2018traditional\u2019 parties; in other words, the capitalist parties, including the social democrats and even the Communist Party who were identified with the old order.<\/span><\/p>\nMoreover, this mood lasted for a considerable period of time and is still an important factor in the political situation in many countries today. We have had the phenomenon of the \u2018indignados\u2019 in Spain, with similar trends in other countries. In Spain, it reflected the entirely justified hatred of the so-called \u2018Socialist Party\u2019, PSOE. This was a factor in the formation of the indignatos in the first place. But this hostility was also often directed against Marxist groups, although the most active promoters of this within the indignato movement were themselves members of small political organisations. They were, in effect, \u2018anti-group groups\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\nBut what was the net result of this abstention from politics? In Spain, the disastrous election of the present right-wing PP government, which has presided over a devastating crisis, with youth unemployment levels well over 50%. Therefore, there has been a reassessment by this new generation who are once more returning to the idea of building a political alternative.<\/span><\/p>\nA similar mood was present in the Occupy movement, which developed on a world scale following initiatives in the US. Subsequent experience demonstrated that an amorphous movement, albeit fuelled by youthful energy and idealism but which lacked clear direction and organisation, represented little danger to the highly centralised and organised forces of capitalism. A new road was sought and a significant layer of workers and youth found this road in the spectacular election campaigns in Seattle and Minneapolis.<\/span><\/p>\nThe election of a socialist to the Seattle council for the first time in 100 years represents a real leap forward in the possibility for political struggles not just in the US, but worldwide. Socialist Alternative took the initiative in this case, but similar radical political movements were expressed elsewhere: in New York with the election of Bill de Blasio, and his invocation of a \u2018tale of two cities\u2019, with 73% of the vote, and the election of 24 independent Labor candidates in Lorain County, Ohio.<\/span><\/p>\nA similar process has unfolded in Argentina, where a Trotskyist electoral front received 1.2 million votes in the recent elections. This arose from the completely changed situation compared, for instance, to 2001. Then, despite a catastrophic economic situation, parties were discredited; Marxist parties, in particular, made little headway.<\/span><\/p>\nThese elections indicate that the situation has completely changed with the more conscious workers now aware of the need for organisation and parties. A layer has consequently transferred their hopes to this \u2018left front\u2019, which is in a particularly favourable situation to grow if it employs the correct tactics and openness to the new layers of the working class who will be looking for a mass party of their own in the battles to come. This is likely to involve the maintenance of a revolutionary core \u2013 in a distinct and separate organisation \u2013 seeking a wider base in a larger mass formation. There have been other opportunities in the past which have been lost because this open approach has not been adopted.<\/span><\/p>\nLook at Lenin in the round<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nMillions of workers are looking for a new way forward. This can be provided for them by the building of new mass parties of the working class. Because of the period that we have passed through, these are unlikely in most countries to immediately adopt a clear revolutionary, Marxist programme. But a Marxist organisation, working in an honest and open fashion, will be welcomed into the ranks by the best workers looking for a way forward.<\/span><\/p>\nUnfortunately, books like this of Lars T \u2013 and particularly those who uncritically praise his ideas \u2013 will not be able to prepare working people for the stormy but exciting period ahead. It does not present the ideas of Lenin clearly. It scandalously ignores the contribution made by Trotsky, in particular.<\/span><\/p>\nOur criticisms are not restricted just to the organisational plane. The author does not adequately explain Lenin\u2019s ideas in relation to the perspectives for the Russian revolution. The central idea of Lenin of the \u2018democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry\u2019 was different to the ideas of the Mensheviks, who saw Russia developing in a capitalist direction with socialism relegated to the mists of the future. Lenin completely rejected the idea that the weak Russian capitalists could carry through the tasks of the democratic capitalist revolution: of land reform, solution of the national question, the introduction of democracy, etc. Only an alliance of the workers and peasants, the overwhelming majority of the population of Russia, was capable of carrying through these tasks.<\/span><\/p>\nThe weak point in Lenin\u2019s scenario, that Lars T in no way fully explores, is who would be the dominant force in the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. The whole of history attests to the fact that the peasantry has never played an independent political role because of its heterogeneity. Its upper layers tend to merge with the capitalists, its lower layers tend to sink into the ranks of the working class.<\/span><\/p>\nThis is where Trotsky\u2019s famous theory of the permanent revolution comes in, which correctly anticipated how the Russian revolution would develop. Although a minority, the working class, because of its social position in society and its special features, dynamic and organised in big industry, would be able to lead the mass of the peasantry in revolution to overthrow the autocracy. Having come to power, it would then pass over to the tasks of the socialist revolution in Russia and the world. In Lenin\u2019s Letters From Afar, as well as his April Theses, he completely concurs with these ideas of Trotsky. This is not even mentioned in this book.<\/span><\/p>\nLars T Lih\u2019s book undoubtedly presents an advance over the malicious distortions of Lenin and Trotsky\u2019s ideas. But at the same time, unless filled out and corrected, it will introduce further confusion as to what Lenin and Trotsky really stood for.<\/span><\/p>\nLenin<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/p>\nBy Lars T Lih<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/p>\nPublished by Reaktion Books, 2011, \u00a310.95<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u2018Lenin\u2019 by Lars T Lih Peter Taaffe, from\u00a0Socialism Today\u00a0(No.175, February 2014) In an attempt to answer the description of Lenin by capitalist historians as a brutal dictator, some on the left turn to Lars T Lih. He has tried to reinvent the leader of the Russian revolution as some kind of woolly liberal. In so […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":6073,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[408],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-6072","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"yoast_head":"\n
Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy - China Worker<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy - China Worker\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"\u2018Lenin\u2019 by Lars T Lih Peter Taaffe, from\u00a0Socialism Today\u00a0(No.175, February 2014) In an attempt to answer the description of Lenin by capitalist historians as a brutal dictator, some on the left turn to Lars T Lih. He has tried to reinvent the leader of the Russian revolution as some kind of woolly liberal. In so […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"China Worker\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SocialistAction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-02-24T15:52:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/media1.chinaworker.info\/2014\/02\/leninbk-1.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"450\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"-\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"-\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"-\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/09dd35f72246605a26e2911a83350b91\"},\"headline\":\"Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-02-24T15:52:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4429,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/media1.chinaworker.info\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/leninbk-1.jpeg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Reviews\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/\",\"name\":\"Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy - China Worker\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/media1.chinaworker.info\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/leninbk-1.jpeg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-02-24T15:52:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/media1.chinaworker.info\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/leninbk-1.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/media1.chinaworker.info\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/leninbk-1.jpeg\",\"width\":300,\"height\":450},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/24\\\/6072\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\u9996\u9801\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"\u793e\u6703\u4e3b\u7fa9\u884c\u52d5\",\"description\":\"Solidarity, Struggle, Socialism\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Chinaworker.info\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/media1.chinaworker.info\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/logo-sa.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/media1.chinaworker.info\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/logo-sa.png\",\"width\":120,\"height\":126,\"caption\":\"Chinaworker.info\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/SocialistAction\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/socialistactionhk\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/09dd35f72246605a26e2911a83350b91\",\"name\":\"-\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/81691d48a634df8ad2d395a2e450edf8a6c1e24b304bd2f1536e98806c0a7ce9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/81691d48a634df8ad2d395a2e450edf8a6c1e24b304bd2f1536e98806c0a7ce9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/81691d48a634df8ad2d395a2e450edf8a6c1e24b304bd2f1536e98806c0a7ce9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"-\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/chinaworker.info\\\/en\\\/author\\\/norman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy - China Worker","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy - China Worker","og_description":"\u2018Lenin\u2019 by Lars T Lih Peter Taaffe, from\u00a0Socialism Today\u00a0(No.175, February 2014) In an attempt to answer the description of Lenin by capitalist historians as a brutal dictator, some on the left turn to Lars T Lih. He has tried to reinvent the leader of the Russian revolution as some kind of woolly liberal. In so […]","og_url":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/","og_site_name":"China Worker","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SocialistAction","article_published_time":"2014-02-24T15:52:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":450,"url":"https:\/\/media1.chinaworker.info\/2014\/02\/leninbk-1.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"-","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"-","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/"},"author":{"name":"-","@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/09dd35f72246605a26e2911a83350b91"},"headline":"Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy","datePublished":"2014-02-24T15:52:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/"},"wordCount":4429,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/media1.chinaworker.info\/2014\/02\/leninbk-1.jpeg","articleSection":["Reviews"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/","url":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/","name":"Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy - China Worker","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/media1.chinaworker.info\/2014\/02\/leninbk-1.jpeg","datePublished":"2014-02-24T15:52:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/media1.chinaworker.info\/2014\/02\/leninbk-1.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/media1.chinaworker.info\/2014\/02\/leninbk-1.jpeg","width":300,"height":450},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/2014\/02\/24\/6072\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\u9996\u9801","item":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Review: Lenin\u2019s revolutionary legacy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/","name":"\u793e\u6703\u4e3b\u7fa9\u884c\u52d5","description":"Solidarity, Struggle, Socialism","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/#organization","name":"Chinaworker.info","url":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/media1.chinaworker.info\/2021\/04\/logo-sa.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/media1.chinaworker.info\/2021\/04\/logo-sa.png","width":120,"height":126,"caption":"Chinaworker.info"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SocialistAction","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/socialistactionhk\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/09dd35f72246605a26e2911a83350b91","name":"-","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/81691d48a634df8ad2d395a2e450edf8a6c1e24b304bd2f1536e98806c0a7ce9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/81691d48a634df8ad2d395a2e450edf8a6c1e24b304bd2f1536e98806c0a7ce9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/81691d48a634df8ad2d395a2e450edf8a6c1e24b304bd2f1536e98806c0a7ce9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"-"},"url":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/author\/norman\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6072","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6072"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6072\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6073"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6072"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinaworker.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}