What do you think?
Rate this book
Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder: A Popular Essay in Marxian Strategy and Tactics
Originally published in 1940, "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder is a popular essay in Marxian strategy and tactics. About the Author Vladimir Ilich Lenin (1870-1924) was the founder of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), inspirer and leader of Bolshevik Revolution (1917), and the architect, builder, and first head (1917-24) of the Soviet State. He was the founder of the organization known as Comintern (Communist International) and the posthumous source of "Leninism," the doctrine codified and conjoined with Marx's works by Lenin's successors to form Marxism-Leninism, which became the Communist worldview. If the Bolshevik Revolution is - as some people have called it - the most significant political event of the 20th century, then Lenin must for good or ill be regarded as the century's most significant political leader. Not only in the scholarly circles of the former Soviet Union but even among many non-Communist scholars, he has been regarded as the greatest revolutionary leader and revolutionary statesman in history, as well as the greatest revolutionary thinker since Marx.
108 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1920
About the author
Vladimir Lenin
2,776 books1,961 followersVladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin, was a Russian revolutionary, leader of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), statesman and political theorist. After the October Revolution he served as the first and founding head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 until his death in 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1924.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 281 reviews
Read
April 10, 2017Einstein once said that by the standards of epistemology, any scientist worth his salt will appear to be an unprincipled opportunist. Lenin here says more or less the same thing about revolutionaries. The ruthless struggle for power knows nothing of the purity of means.
Of course it's also true that Lenin only got to the point of seizing power by taking an extremely principled stance against the First World War and thus breaking with the Second International. He was willing to endure years of being small and isolated as a result, but, you see, that was never the point.
An interesting text. Whatever one thinks of Lenin today, we all should be able to agree that the man just ain't ever coming back. No sense, then, for comrades to get nostalgic or eschatological.
While it's true that socialism has been on the rise, obviously at the moment there's nothing like a revolutionary left capable of seizing power. 2017 is quite unlikely to repeat 1917 in this respect. If we want to find an analogy to Lenin in our current conjuncture, I think we should look not to his moment of triumph but the catastrophe that preceded it.
WW1 was total collapse, civilizational suicide, without any right or wrong side. For all the comparisons of Trump to Hitler, it seems to me far more likely that we are on the brink of this sort of morally meaningless catastrophe. The fact that many liberals are willing to side with Trump precisely when he starts bombing another country suggests we may be so deep in layers of mystification that it's no longer possible to take rational action to avert disaster.
As always, the choice is between socialism and barbarism, but unfortunately there's no reason at all to expect the first of these to arrive magically on its own.
Of course it's also true that Lenin only got to the point of seizing power by taking an extremely principled stance against the First World War and thus breaking with the Second International. He was willing to endure years of being small and isolated as a result, but, you see, that was never the point.
An interesting text. Whatever one thinks of Lenin today, we all should be able to agree that the man just ain't ever coming back. No sense, then, for comrades to get nostalgic or eschatological.
While it's true that socialism has been on the rise, obviously at the moment there's nothing like a revolutionary left capable of seizing power. 2017 is quite unlikely to repeat 1917 in this respect. If we want to find an analogy to Lenin in our current conjuncture, I think we should look not to his moment of triumph but the catastrophe that preceded it.
WW1 was total collapse, civilizational suicide, without any right or wrong side. For all the comparisons of Trump to Hitler, it seems to me far more likely that we are on the brink of this sort of morally meaningless catastrophe. The fact that many liberals are willing to side with Trump precisely when he starts bombing another country suggests we may be so deep in layers of mystification that it's no longer possible to take rational action to avert disaster.
As always, the choice is between socialism and barbarism, but unfortunately there's no reason at all to expect the first of these to arrive magically on its own.
February 12, 2017
Most of the content of the book is dated and isn't relevant to today's situation but the principles that led to left deviations in the communist movement still persist among the left today. It is because of the same undialectical thinking that ultra-leftists today support the imperialist backed salafist rebels in the Syrian conflict against the national bourgeois government of Syria. Because for them, nationalism has one and only one character and can only serve a reactionary purpose. The fact that nationalism while situated in a different context can serve a progressive role is beyond their comprehension. And the fact that the bourgeoisie can play a progressive role in a specific condition is a thought they would never agree with because bourgeoisie = bad. This is the kind of excellent analysis these people dazzle us with.
In a way, many of the things Lenin criticizes in this book still persist today except only in different forms. The anarchists are still opposed to parliamentary actions and party organizations. To them, these represent bourgeois forms of organizations that must be avoided at all cost at all times. They forget that remnants of old society builds the foundation of the future society. That it is is with the advancements made by capitalism that communists want to build communism. That we don't abandon everything capitalism has touched because it has become bourgeois but we take the ones that are useful and discard the reactionary elements. The Bolsheviks in Russia didn't abandon parliamentarianism in favor of purely insurrectionary work but combined them both. To abandon parliamentarianism or any form of party organization is a left deviation from Marxism because it wants to substitute for the present a future already imagined in the heads of the "revolutionaries." It skips over the real work that must be done under this bourgeois society and under socialist construction and goes straight to what society will be like under communism.
It is this left deviation that is also responsible for the left anti communism that exists among the western left, with people like Chomsky being at the forefront of this. Ultra-leftists are in no short of supply who would criticize the Soviet Union for not abolishing the state or the wage system! These people have given up all understanding of Marxism or began with no understanding of it at all that they think it is possible to abolish the state or the wage system simply by will. That the Party could've abolished the state if it wanted to but they perpetuated it because it benefitted them. They've read one book on communism and learned that it is a stateless, classless, moneyless society and now they'll criticize all states that were constructing socialism because they weren't fully communist or because there was a party or hierarchy. They have built up a perfect communist society in their heads and ignore the real, existing material conditions of the present to base their criticisms and practices on their imaginations.
A socialist revolution can improve the lives of millions of people, feed millions of people, provide housing, education, and health care to millions, aid in national liberation of other countries, fight against imperialism and yet it would not be enough for these people because "the workers didn't control the means of production" somehow in the Proudhonian, mutualist, petty-bourgeois sense of ownership. As Parenti said, these "pure socialists" will support every socialist revolution except the ones that succeed. They were a useless section of the left back then when Lenin wrote the book and they are a useless section of the left right now.
In a way, many of the things Lenin criticizes in this book still persist today except only in different forms. The anarchists are still opposed to parliamentary actions and party organizations. To them, these represent bourgeois forms of organizations that must be avoided at all cost at all times. They forget that remnants of old society builds the foundation of the future society. That it is is with the advancements made by capitalism that communists want to build communism. That we don't abandon everything capitalism has touched because it has become bourgeois but we take the ones that are useful and discard the reactionary elements. The Bolsheviks in Russia didn't abandon parliamentarianism in favor of purely insurrectionary work but combined them both. To abandon parliamentarianism or any form of party organization is a left deviation from Marxism because it wants to substitute for the present a future already imagined in the heads of the "revolutionaries." It skips over the real work that must be done under this bourgeois society and under socialist construction and goes straight to what society will be like under communism.
It is this left deviation that is also responsible for the left anti communism that exists among the western left, with people like Chomsky being at the forefront of this. Ultra-leftists are in no short of supply who would criticize the Soviet Union for not abolishing the state or the wage system! These people have given up all understanding of Marxism or began with no understanding of it at all that they think it is possible to abolish the state or the wage system simply by will. That the Party could've abolished the state if it wanted to but they perpetuated it because it benefitted them. They've read one book on communism and learned that it is a stateless, classless, moneyless society and now they'll criticize all states that were constructing socialism because they weren't fully communist or because there was a party or hierarchy. They have built up a perfect communist society in their heads and ignore the real, existing material conditions of the present to base their criticisms and practices on their imaginations.
A socialist revolution can improve the lives of millions of people, feed millions of people, provide housing, education, and health care to millions, aid in national liberation of other countries, fight against imperialism and yet it would not be enough for these people because "the workers didn't control the means of production" somehow in the Proudhonian, mutualist, petty-bourgeois sense of ownership. As Parenti said, these "pure socialists" will support every socialist revolution except the ones that succeed. They were a useless section of the left back then when Lenin wrote the book and they are a useless section of the left right now.
April 23, 2025
Another Lenin classic that should be read by anyone with an interest in politics.
At first glance, it's somewhat confusing that he seems to be taking the opposite line to that taken in The State and Revolution. There he argues against right opportunism (in particular, the rejection of the idea of a workers' state and the fetishisation/universalisation of capitalist democracy); here he argues against left adventurism (in particular, the rejection of non-revolutionary means of struggle and the fetishisation of Soviet power as the only path forwards).
The common denominator is the call for sober, dialectical analysis of the concrete situation and its historical trajectory. Both rightism and ultra-leftism turn out to be varieties of dogmatism: the inability to adapt one's understanding and tactics in the light of new information and developments.
At first glance, it's somewhat confusing that he seems to be taking the opposite line to that taken in The State and Revolution. There he argues against right opportunism (in particular, the rejection of the idea of a workers' state and the fetishisation/universalisation of capitalist democracy); here he argues against left adventurism (in particular, the rejection of non-revolutionary means of struggle and the fetishisation of Soviet power as the only path forwards).
The common denominator is the call for sober, dialectical analysis of the concrete situation and its historical trajectory. Both rightism and ultra-leftism turn out to be varieties of dogmatism: the inability to adapt one's understanding and tactics in the light of new information and developments.
December 14, 2025
If you've ever wondered why the left is in such disarray, one need go any further than honestly studying Lenin. This is a must-read for the left.
This is one of those books that Lenin reveals himself as all tactic and no democratic. By all means read everything you can about Lenin and understand how he prepped us for Stalin. All the important characteristics later called Stalinist (repression, labour camps, the suppression of dissent, the destruction of unions and the peasantry, and an official dogma enforced by the state were created from 1917 onwards (when Lenin and Trotsky held power).
Perhaps the most important thing to remember about Lenin is that he was all for a highly centralized party and rejected the 'absurdity' of a 'primitive' conception of democracy as participatory (Lenin's own words).
If you believe in participatory democracy, be sure to read Lenin and KNOW THY ENEMY.
*When you're done reading the book, also be sure to read Herman Gorter, Open Letter to Comrade Lenin (free online) where he proceeds to demolish Lenin's hypocrisy.
This is one of those books that Lenin reveals himself as all tactic and no democratic. By all means read everything you can about Lenin and understand how he prepped us for Stalin. All the important characteristics later called Stalinist (repression, labour camps, the suppression of dissent, the destruction of unions and the peasantry, and an official dogma enforced by the state were created from 1917 onwards (when Lenin and Trotsky held power).
Perhaps the most important thing to remember about Lenin is that he was all for a highly centralized party and rejected the 'absurdity' of a 'primitive' conception of democracy as participatory (Lenin's own words).
If you believe in participatory democracy, be sure to read Lenin and KNOW THY ENEMY.
*When you're done reading the book, also be sure to read Herman Gorter, Open Letter to Comrade Lenin (free online) where he proceeds to demolish Lenin's hypocrisy.
March 6, 2008
I just recently reread this book and was blown away by the power and applicability today of Lenin's critique of anarchism and ultra-leftism. Tactics are not to be raised to the level of principle--we assess a particular situation at a given time and relate to it in the manner most likely to advance workers' struggle. This means aiming to build actions and movements that can have a mass character, wherever possible. Where mass organization is impossible, as under Tsarist Russia, different tactics are called for, but the impracticability of some particular tactic does not become a pass for abstentionism.
Lenin is helpful also in making the argument that anarchism is an expression of the class aspirations of the petty-bourgeoisie, and as such, represents a hostile class force with respect to workers.
Lenin also argues against the undialectical nature of the politics expressed in slogans we hear today, such as "be the change you wish to see," which are used to argue that a movement to change the world must itself be organized along exactly those lines as the whole world would be, once changed:
"To attempt in practice today to anticipate this future result of a fully developed, fully stabilised and formed, fully expanded and mature Communism would be like trying to teach higher mathematics to a four year old child.
"We can (and must) begin to build Socialism not with imaginary human material, not with human material invented by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism. That is very 'difficult,' it goes without saying, but no other approach to this task is serious enough to warrant discussion."
Lenin is helpful also in making the argument that anarchism is an expression of the class aspirations of the petty-bourgeoisie, and as such, represents a hostile class force with respect to workers.
Lenin also argues against the undialectical nature of the politics expressed in slogans we hear today, such as "be the change you wish to see," which are used to argue that a movement to change the world must itself be organized along exactly those lines as the whole world would be, once changed:
"To attempt in practice today to anticipate this future result of a fully developed, fully stabilised and formed, fully expanded and mature Communism would be like trying to teach higher mathematics to a four year old child.
"We can (and must) begin to build Socialism not with imaginary human material, not with human material invented by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism. That is very 'difficult,' it goes without saying, but no other approach to this task is serious enough to warrant discussion."
August 8, 2023
this just put me in check i fear… reading lenin always does
December 23, 2017
Definitely Lenin's worst book, and basically his only major misstep. Some really good insights into the role of the vanguard, anti-dogmatism, the necessity of legal as well as illegal work, etc. but I'm not really convinced at all by most of the concrete recommendations, including participation in parliamentary democracy and (to a lesser extent) entry into reactionary trade unions. Despite "anti-dogmatism" being a recurring them here, I find that there's kind of a naive transplanting of Russian conditions where they are simply not applicable. Lenin seems to forget that the struggle for popular democracy did not arise out of class struggle, as it did in Russia, in the big imperialist countries he addresses throughout the book. In these contexts, parliament as an institution thus simply does not play the progressive role Lenin says it does, nor can it constitute the "hands-on political experience" Lenin rightly says is necessary in building towards revolution. Lenin's suggestion towards Britain - "support the Labour Party so people realise it's bad and become communists" has been proven wrong a million times by history. Not that it's Lenin's fault that people misread him so badly, but it's particular concerning that this recommendation has been turned by so many ""Marxists"" into a dogma invoked to uncritically support liberals and social democrats. I came out of this more convinced that parliament sucks than I did going in. I still feel like this book could be very very useful in oppressed nations, but since it is addressed mostly to Germany, Britain, Holland, the US, and France, it just doesn't work.
October 21, 2017
Most of the negative criticism of this book I've seen move along two lines:
1) Lenin was a dictator, Stalin, purges, 100000000 zillion people killed by communists alone in my village, whatever.
2) Lenin is a total dick that only insults his opponents, never giving arguments to support his viewpoint.
First criticism is total bullshit and we shall just ignore it. Regarding the second, it is true that, at first, one might have that opinion... for a brief time. Those who maintain it either haven't read the book, or they haven't understood a single word. LWCAID gives an accurate description of what "left-wing communism" is, while thoroughly studying its presence among the european countries (mostly UK, France, Germany and Italy), and explaining why he considers this trend childish, unsuccesful and harmful to the Communist movement. He explains the problem Communist struggle must faces in the material conditions of every country he speaks about, and he gives some suggestions regarding how the parties shall carry their activity. He leaves no "insult" or calification without an argument and explanation behind. He acknowledges mistakes he and other Bolshevik comrades had made in the past, and he even comes to the point of publishing a letter from the Communist Party of Holland that refutes some criticism Lenin made to them in the initial draft of this book.
It is more than obvious than the text, despite being a pamphlet, is far from being an irreflexive attack on other Communist, and more of a warning against some harmful tactics and discourses. Lenin is pretty autocritical and has no problem admitting mistakes and constantly repeating why he thinks others are wrong, instead of just pointing out that they are so. It is, no doubt, a necessary reading for every marxist, and probably more so now in 2017, to analyze present conditions in the light of this text.
1) Lenin was a dictator, Stalin, purges, 100000000 zillion people killed by communists alone in my village, whatever.
2) Lenin is a total dick that only insults his opponents, never giving arguments to support his viewpoint.
First criticism is total bullshit and we shall just ignore it. Regarding the second, it is true that, at first, one might have that opinion... for a brief time. Those who maintain it either haven't read the book, or they haven't understood a single word. LWCAID gives an accurate description of what "left-wing communism" is, while thoroughly studying its presence among the european countries (mostly UK, France, Germany and Italy), and explaining why he considers this trend childish, unsuccesful and harmful to the Communist movement. He explains the problem Communist struggle must faces in the material conditions of every country he speaks about, and he gives some suggestions regarding how the parties shall carry their activity. He leaves no "insult" or calification without an argument and explanation behind. He acknowledges mistakes he and other Bolshevik comrades had made in the past, and he even comes to the point of publishing a letter from the Communist Party of Holland that refutes some criticism Lenin made to them in the initial draft of this book.
It is more than obvious than the text, despite being a pamphlet, is far from being an irreflexive attack on other Communist, and more of a warning against some harmful tactics and discourses. Lenin is pretty autocritical and has no problem admitting mistakes and constantly repeating why he thinks others are wrong, instead of just pointing out that they are so. It is, no doubt, a necessary reading for every marxist, and probably more so now in 2017, to analyze present conditions in the light of this text.
August 19, 2012
As a text on its own merits it reads with some degree of consistency. But when you actually bother to compare it to the 'ultra-leftists' hes challenging it does not hold all that much water. The methods and the party form he advocates has been tried numerous times and invariably leads to the worse form of substution of the class by the party you can imagine. The arguements within Marxism were there from the start, only for people to be hoodwinked by events in Russia.
I would recommend people actually look at people like Sylvia Pankhurst, Anton Pannekoek and Otto Rhule.
I would recommend people actually look at people like Sylvia Pankhurst, Anton Pannekoek and Otto Rhule.
August 14, 2020
Relevant in 1920 — relevant in 2020.
November 19, 2014
yeah yeah ultraleftists are dicks. I guess they're the leftwing analog of teabaggers/fascists/objectivists to the extent that they may not want to compromise with the center-left at all in the name of doctrinal perfection.
whatever?
whatever?
December 26, 2012
For the sake of clarification, Lenin is not talking about ALL left-wing variants of communism (for instance, he refers to Rosa Luxemburg as a very keen and skilled communist), but the "Left" in Germany that more resembled anarchists. These are the left wing communists that refuse on principle to ever interact or participate in parliament, to deal with trade unions because they aren't international enough, to enter into a momentary negotiation with the state apparatus, etc. While I also happen to find this branch of left revolutionary counterproductive, Lenin does not present the best arguments against them. In short every refutation goes exactly like this:
The left has decided a priori that they refuse to do X (e.g., deal with trade unions).
The left praises the Bolshevik's success in Russian.
The Bolshevik's did X.
Therefore the left must do X.
Since the left is not doing X, they are childish/stupid/wretched.
Even when I agree with Lenin tactically, his presentation is invective at best. Still he's not completely devoid of principles. Lenin does say the one guiding principle at all times is that revolutionaries must be committed to the emancipation of the working class, peasant class, and basically homeless. But if your party comes to power be careful who joins your ranks, because many people are career oriented politicians not actually concerned with that one principle. And if you find these people in your ranks, they ought to be shot (not even exiled?). Also, the vanguard strategy is not for all countries, he makes the case that national, cultural, developmental and political differences require different tactics and strategies for liberation, but all must be committed to the one principle of class liberation. There are other interesting bits and pieces like how to maintain a strong revolutionary party, and what role and institutions of certain bourgeois can and cannot stay post festum.
The book deserves 3 stars as a historical document, because it does provide interesting historical details of what went on between 1905-1919, and Lenin does attempt to justify some of his behavior that has been criticized (e.g., the brest litovsk treaty). Still, while I think a book like this needs to be written - one that details why many a priori principles are counterproductive to a revolution - this is not the book.
The left has decided a priori that they refuse to do X (e.g., deal with trade unions).
The left praises the Bolshevik's success in Russian.
The Bolshevik's did X.
Therefore the left must do X.
Since the left is not doing X, they are childish/stupid/wretched.
Even when I agree with Lenin tactically, his presentation is invective at best. Still he's not completely devoid of principles. Lenin does say the one guiding principle at all times is that revolutionaries must be committed to the emancipation of the working class, peasant class, and basically homeless. But if your party comes to power be careful who joins your ranks, because many people are career oriented politicians not actually concerned with that one principle. And if you find these people in your ranks, they ought to be shot (not even exiled?). Also, the vanguard strategy is not for all countries, he makes the case that national, cultural, developmental and political differences require different tactics and strategies for liberation, but all must be committed to the one principle of class liberation. There are other interesting bits and pieces like how to maintain a strong revolutionary party, and what role and institutions of certain bourgeois can and cannot stay post festum.
The book deserves 3 stars as a historical document, because it does provide interesting historical details of what went on between 1905-1919, and Lenin does attempt to justify some of his behavior that has been criticized (e.g., the brest litovsk treaty). Still, while I think a book like this needs to be written - one that details why many a priori principles are counterproductive to a revolution - this is not the book.
Read
October 24, 2025quién sabe cuánto me durará en la cabeza lo que he leído. como siempre, barras.
July 16, 2024
V.I. Lenin drops "worst pamphlet ever" asked to leave this mortal coil.
April 1, 2024
À lire, et à relire, et à relire encore. L’essentiel à comprendre de ce livre est la souplesse des tactiques bolchéviques, souplesse qui est rendue possible par la résolution la plus complète à accomplir réellement la révolution.
En retenir seulement quelques phrases hors contexte, et tenter de les utiliser pour justifier dogmatiquement telle ou telle tactique en tout temps, ce serait faire exactement ce que le livre essaie de nous avertir de ne pas faire. Nous devons être prêts à user de toutes les tactiques pour la révolution, de manière à ce que tous les chemins possible vers elle nous soient connus et ouverts.
En retenir seulement quelques phrases hors contexte, et tenter de les utiliser pour justifier dogmatiquement telle ou telle tactique en tout temps, ce serait faire exactement ce que le livre essaie de nous avertir de ne pas faire. Nous devons être prêts à user de toutes les tactiques pour la révolution, de manière à ce que tous les chemins possible vers elle nous soient connus et ouverts.
November 24, 2010
كتاب مهم جداً ، يوضح كثيراً من النقاط المتعلقة بطبيعة العمل الثوري وخطته وتكتيكاته ! والمتوقع حتى مواجهتها مع -حسني النيّة - أو - ضعاف العزيمة - أحياناً من مشاكل فكرية ومنهجية ، تتسم بالحرفية الشديدة والتحويل للنظريات إلى نصوص ذات طبيعة عقائدية تكسبها لوناً باهتاً يفقدها سمتها الأساسية أي التطور الدائم والنضوج المستمر !
كتاب مهم بالفعل ، كالعادة يسحرني أسلوب لينين =)
كتاب مهم بالفعل ، كالعادة يسحرني أسلوب لينين =)
April 9, 2024
No idea why I hadn’t read this before. Just done it in one sitting and took a few pages of notes. Obviously a must-read if you’re a commie or just interested in politics tbh. Everything I read reconfirmed my Leninist convictions.
January 5, 2021
Bajando el pie a tierra con esos personajes que conocemos todas pero que no tenemos ni idea. Y tal.
Necesario ir a los orígenes.
Arqueología.
Necesario ir a los orígenes.
Arqueología.
December 31, 2022
L'arte della guerra di Lenin
Mei cojoni
Mei cojoni
March 30, 2026
Lots of good insights and when lemon speaks abt young socialists and common mistakes in their understanding of the struggle he kinda nailed me icl. Very helpful to understand more fully that as organizers we need to be prepared to use every tool at our disposal to advance the interests of th working class.
Also not to be shady but this is one of those books u read and realize a lot of the ppl u know who claim to be Marxists or lennists or whatever either haven’t read their works or seem to have misunderstood some key elements of them.
Also not to be shady but this is one of those books u read and realize a lot of the ppl u know who claim to be Marxists or lennists or whatever either haven’t read their works or seem to have misunderstood some key elements of them.
May 13, 2021
"Left Wing Communism" is in many ways the brother to it's sister, Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform Or Revolution". In a time when working class revolutionary strategy was finally being put to the test, the question of strategy was being developed as quickly and as aggressively as words could be put to page. While in Rosa's book (as well as in Lenin's), the question of reform over revolution was being interrogated, this pamphlet takes aim at the opposite.
"Left Wing Communism" is portrayed as a movement within contemporary revolutionary organizations that demands abstention from parliamentary politics, total avoidance of "reactionary" labour unions, and no concessions or compromises whatsoever. Lenin's general response to these is, drawing from his experience leading the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution, is that if you're not going where the masses already are, and you're not working within and around the structures those masses operate in, you're not creating a mass party.
While interesting in the context of the early 20's, it is more interesting to apply the analysis in retrospect. Lenin draws a line from Anarchist thought to Left-Coms, and I think this is a fair comparison. Much like Anarchists, Left Communist thinkers (including some directly attacked in this pamphlet) have written some of the best "how things would work after the revolution" theory. In addition, both achieve great success in targeted direct actions. But in the creation of durable, long-term, revolutionary mass politics most of Lenin's critiques have been vindicated by the nature of subsequent revolutions.
An interesting and easy read that, even without extra contemporary and subsequent context, should provide some strong takeaways to apply to your own organizing. And if nothing else, Lenin's sassiest book title.
"Left Wing Communism" is portrayed as a movement within contemporary revolutionary organizations that demands abstention from parliamentary politics, total avoidance of "reactionary" labour unions, and no concessions or compromises whatsoever. Lenin's general response to these is, drawing from his experience leading the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution, is that if you're not going where the masses already are, and you're not working within and around the structures those masses operate in, you're not creating a mass party.
While interesting in the context of the early 20's, it is more interesting to apply the analysis in retrospect. Lenin draws a line from Anarchist thought to Left-Coms, and I think this is a fair comparison. Much like Anarchists, Left Communist thinkers (including some directly attacked in this pamphlet) have written some of the best "how things would work after the revolution" theory. In addition, both achieve great success in targeted direct actions. But in the creation of durable, long-term, revolutionary mass politics most of Lenin's critiques have been vindicated by the nature of subsequent revolutions.
An interesting and easy read that, even without extra contemporary and subsequent context, should provide some strong takeaways to apply to your own organizing. And if nothing else, Lenin's sassiest book title.
August 21, 2022
El libro cuenta con la siempre apasionada escritura del autor, pero en este caso el contenido supera la narración; lo digo porque la mayor parte del libro repite argumentos que ya fueron expuestos con anterioridad y la mayor parte del tiempo te preguntas si en esta ocasión aportará algo nuevo.
De eso en más aborda la relación que tiene la clase política proletaria junto con el proletariado en general y cómo el primero debe de ser participe en el parlamento burgués no para conseguir sus objetivos como tal, pero para poder demostrar sus metas y evidenciar las contradicciones de clase entre la burguesía y el proletariado para, después de que el proletariado obtiene consciencia de clase, se pueda implementar un soviet, que se diferencia del congreso o parlamento por su enfoque en el apartado laboral.
Asimismo se deben conseguir acuerdos con otros partidos políticos durante la presencia en los parlamentos además de evitar caer en el dogmatismo que separa a los políticos del proletariado, buscando así lo mencionado en el párrafo anterior.
Estaba pensando en ponerle 4 estrellas, pero considerando la belleza de sus otros textos no me puedo permitir hacer eso.
De eso en más aborda la relación que tiene la clase política proletaria junto con el proletariado en general y cómo el primero debe de ser participe en el parlamento burgués no para conseguir sus objetivos como tal, pero para poder demostrar sus metas y evidenciar las contradicciones de clase entre la burguesía y el proletariado para, después de que el proletariado obtiene consciencia de clase, se pueda implementar un soviet, que se diferencia del congreso o parlamento por su enfoque en el apartado laboral.
Asimismo se deben conseguir acuerdos con otros partidos políticos durante la presencia en los parlamentos además de evitar caer en el dogmatismo que separa a los políticos del proletariado, buscando así lo mencionado en el párrafo anterior.
Estaba pensando en ponerle 4 estrellas, pero considerando la belleza de sus otros textos no me puedo permitir hacer eso.
January 15, 2023
Un ensayo muy interesante y que debería leerlo toda aquella persona que se considere comunista. Un partido comunista debe luchar en todos los frentes y hacer alianzas incómodas, eso sí sin perder el discurso de clase, siendo siempre crítico con el capitalismo y mantenimiento la independencia y la libertad para expresar sus ideas políticas. Lenin era un político de pies a cabeza y no era uno de los muchos charlatanes que tenemos actualmente en Occidente.
March 2, 2008
Lenin at his most craven -- the perfect preface to his NEP and Stalin's purges.
September 8, 2014
I'm more Marxist than you rants from Lenin.
December 22, 2025
Als je één of twee van Lenins boeken hebt gelezen weet je al wat te verwachten van de rest. Toch zijn ze het lezen waard omdat ze zo'n blijvende invloed hebben gehad op de communistische beweging. Het is om die reden dat ik De Linkse Stroming eens moest oppikken, want weinig andere marxistische pamfletten worden vaker dan dit gebruikt om tegenstanders retorisch mee om de oren te slaan – weliswaar door mensen die het zelf niet persé gelezen hebben.
Zoals steeds hamert Lenin hier tot vervelens toe op één punt (zij het, dat moet ook gezegd, met hier en daar een politieke metafoor die zo geniaal is dat je ze zelf had willen bedenken). De Linkse Stroming is helaas extra repetitief doordat Lenin achtereenvolgens de Nederlanders, Engelsen en Duitsers op de korrel neemt met telkens dezelfde argumenten.
Nu zijn veel van die argumenten op zich goed. Het helpt dat degenen tegen wie dit pamflet fulmineert, ook echt een bijzonder goofy positie innemen, namelijk dat revolutionairen niet in "bourgeois" parlementen, vakbonden of media mogen werken. Tegen de weerlegging daarvan valt weinig in te brengen. Lenin biedt hier een klassieke verwoording van het idee dat strategie en principes niet ver geraken zonder een aangepaste tactiek.
Maar de manier waarop dat idee hier wordt gepresenteerd, is ook verantwoordelijk voor de generaties-lange gewoonte van communisten om de krachtterm "gauchisme" als een etiket op alles te kleven wat hen niet aanstaat. Gauchisme, zoals het in dit pamflet naar voren komt, is het afwijzen van elk compromis en elke concessie, omdat die de theoretische puurheid zouden schaden. De goede marxist verwerpt de ontoelaatbare, maar omarmt de toelaatbare concessies. Akkoord, maar wie bepaalt waar die grens ligt?
Lenin erkent dat dat in de praktijk moeilijk te bepalen kan zijn. Maar dat weerhoudt hem er niet van om iedereen die nét de grens van de toelaatbaarheid overschrijdt, als een verrader te verketteren. Die aanpak zet de deur open voor een handig retorisch gebruik van het woord "gauchisme". Je kan de eigen concessies verdedigen, want die staan in dienst van De Zaak, maar vrij gelijkaardige concessies in andere partijen als verraad bestempelen.
Ik kan niet meer bijhouden hoe vaak ik Belgisch radicaallinks (terecht) de gênante bochten heb zien bekritiseren waarin de Nederlandse SP zich wringt, maar zonder ooit stil te staan bij de mogelijkheid van gelijksoortige misstappen in de eigen kring. Want hoe zou het ons kunnen overkomen? Trust the plan: wij houden de blik strak gericht op de gidsende ster van de klasseloze maatschappij, en dat maakt dat wij, anders dan die ruggengraatloze en haring-vretende verraders uit het noorden, geen foute afslagen kunnen nemen in de woestijn.
Ik weet dat Lenin weinig kan doen aan wat mensen een eeuw na zijn dood met zijn woorden aanvangen. Maar het is moeilijk te ontkennen dat die attitude van het eigen grote gelijk in beginsel al aanwezig is in de manier waarop hij en de andere aartsvaders van het marxisme zijn omgesprongen met concurrerende visies (in woorden en daden). Dit pamflet is daar geen uitzondering op.
Zoals steeds hamert Lenin hier tot vervelens toe op één punt (zij het, dat moet ook gezegd, met hier en daar een politieke metafoor die zo geniaal is dat je ze zelf had willen bedenken). De Linkse Stroming is helaas extra repetitief doordat Lenin achtereenvolgens de Nederlanders, Engelsen en Duitsers op de korrel neemt met telkens dezelfde argumenten.
Nu zijn veel van die argumenten op zich goed. Het helpt dat degenen tegen wie dit pamflet fulmineert, ook echt een bijzonder goofy positie innemen, namelijk dat revolutionairen niet in "bourgeois" parlementen, vakbonden of media mogen werken. Tegen de weerlegging daarvan valt weinig in te brengen. Lenin biedt hier een klassieke verwoording van het idee dat strategie en principes niet ver geraken zonder een aangepaste tactiek.
Maar de manier waarop dat idee hier wordt gepresenteerd, is ook verantwoordelijk voor de generaties-lange gewoonte van communisten om de krachtterm "gauchisme" als een etiket op alles te kleven wat hen niet aanstaat. Gauchisme, zoals het in dit pamflet naar voren komt, is het afwijzen van elk compromis en elke concessie, omdat die de theoretische puurheid zouden schaden. De goede marxist verwerpt de ontoelaatbare, maar omarmt de toelaatbare concessies. Akkoord, maar wie bepaalt waar die grens ligt?
Lenin erkent dat dat in de praktijk moeilijk te bepalen kan zijn. Maar dat weerhoudt hem er niet van om iedereen die nét de grens van de toelaatbaarheid overschrijdt, als een verrader te verketteren. Die aanpak zet de deur open voor een handig retorisch gebruik van het woord "gauchisme". Je kan de eigen concessies verdedigen, want die staan in dienst van De Zaak, maar vrij gelijkaardige concessies in andere partijen als verraad bestempelen.
Ik kan niet meer bijhouden hoe vaak ik Belgisch radicaallinks (terecht) de gênante bochten heb zien bekritiseren waarin de Nederlandse SP zich wringt, maar zonder ooit stil te staan bij de mogelijkheid van gelijksoortige misstappen in de eigen kring. Want hoe zou het ons kunnen overkomen? Trust the plan: wij houden de blik strak gericht op de gidsende ster van de klasseloze maatschappij, en dat maakt dat wij, anders dan die ruggengraatloze en haring-vretende verraders uit het noorden, geen foute afslagen kunnen nemen in de woestijn.
Ik weet dat Lenin weinig kan doen aan wat mensen een eeuw na zijn dood met zijn woorden aanvangen. Maar het is moeilijk te ontkennen dat die attitude van het eigen grote gelijk in beginsel al aanwezig is in de manier waarop hij en de andere aartsvaders van het marxisme zijn omgesprongen met concurrerende visies (in woorden en daden). Dit pamflet is daar geen uitzondering op.
January 1, 2026
Último libro del año, el otro de Lenin que me he zampado. Espero en un rato no leerle más.
Un libro muy necesario, porque una vez dentro de la lucha socialista cuando uno desarrolla ideas más radicales es muy fácil caer en errores que aunque parezcan que defienden tus principios y te hacen ser consistente, acaban siendo prácticas sectarias que en vez de acercarnos a nuestros objetivo nos alejan. Acciones como no querer participar en el parlamento, no votar porque "para que va a servir si no estoy de acuerdo con la izquierda actual" (sin pensar que si no se vota puede derivar en la perdida de muchos derechos sociales y políticos), no entrar en diálogo o negociaciones con gente o partidos que no comparten nuestra ideología... Cerrarse a todo ello es completamente contraproducente e imposibilita cualquier avance que se quiera conseguir porque con los cuatro matados que piensan exactamente como tú no vas a conseguir nada.
Y por tanto, la conclusión es la de construir un frente único. Que la izquierda (siempre fragmentada en nuestro pais) nos dediquemos a luchar por un objetivo común en vez de pelearnos entre nosotros. Lenin se refiere a esta unión no como un ente utópico completamente homogéneo, sino como una conjunto heterogéneo con una diversidad de ideas muy amplia, pero que rema en una misma dirección contra un enemigo común Eso sí, teniendo siempre en mente que no se puede comprometer nuestras ideas ni ceder en principios fundamentales, cosa que ocurre con frecuencia en los actuales partidos de izquierdas que por mantenerse en el poder han vendido hasta el alma.
Un libro muy necesario, porque una vez dentro de la lucha socialista cuando uno desarrolla ideas más radicales es muy fácil caer en errores que aunque parezcan que defienden tus principios y te hacen ser consistente, acaban siendo prácticas sectarias que en vez de acercarnos a nuestros objetivo nos alejan. Acciones como no querer participar en el parlamento, no votar porque "para que va a servir si no estoy de acuerdo con la izquierda actual" (sin pensar que si no se vota puede derivar en la perdida de muchos derechos sociales y políticos), no entrar en diálogo o negociaciones con gente o partidos que no comparten nuestra ideología... Cerrarse a todo ello es completamente contraproducente e imposibilita cualquier avance que se quiera conseguir porque con los cuatro matados que piensan exactamente como tú no vas a conseguir nada.
Y por tanto, la conclusión es la de construir un frente único. Que la izquierda (siempre fragmentada en nuestro pais) nos dediquemos a luchar por un objetivo común en vez de pelearnos entre nosotros. Lenin se refiere a esta unión no como un ente utópico completamente homogéneo, sino como una conjunto heterogéneo con una diversidad de ideas muy amplia, pero que rema en una misma dirección contra un enemigo común Eso sí, teniendo siempre en mente que no se puede comprometer nuestras ideas ni ceder en principios fundamentales, cosa que ocurre con frecuencia en los actuales partidos de izquierdas que por mantenerse en el poder han vendido hasta el alma.
Read
August 31, 2025el último capítulo del libro... cine🚬🚬🚬
"El comunismo "brota", literalmente, en todos los aspectos de la vida social, se manifiesta decididamente por doquier, el "contagio" ha penetrado profundamente en todos los poros del organismo y lo ha impregnado por completo. Si se "obtura" con celo particular una de las salidas, el "contagio" encontrará otra, a veces completamente inesperada; la vida triunfa ante todo"
"El comunismo "brota", literalmente, en todos los aspectos de la vida social, se manifiesta decididamente por doquier, el "contagio" ha penetrado profundamente en todos los poros del organismo y lo ha impregnado por completo. Si se "obtura" con celo particular una de las salidas, el "contagio" encontrará otra, a veces completamente inesperada; la vida triunfa ante todo"
February 1, 2022
“كل مهمة اليساريين هي أن يكونوا قادرين على إقناع الفئات المتأخرة. قادرين على العمل بينها لا أن يضعوا بينهم وبينها سياجا من الشعارات الصبيانية اليسارية المخترعة”
يتطرق لينين في كتابه إلى المراحل التي مرت بها الثورة الروسية، والتكتيكات المختلفة التي اتبعتها للوصول الى أهدافها، وينتقد بشدة المواقف المتطرفة لـ (اليساريين الشيوعيين) الذين كانوا يسعون للقفز فوق المراحل، ويرفضون بشكل مطلق الحلول الوسطى أو المواقف الوسيطة، التي يعتبرونها (خيانة) للثورة!!
ويرى أن أصحاب الاتجاهات اليسارية المتطرفة بين الثوار لا يقلون خطرا على الثورة من ممثلي القوى اليمينية وأصحاب الاتجاهات الانهزامية.
“أليس من المضحك للغاية أن يشن المرء حرباً من أجل إسقاط البرجوازية العالمية، حرباً هي أصعب وأطول وأكثر تعقيداً بمئة مرة من أشد الحروب العادية التي تنشب بين الدول، ثم يمتنع سلفاً عن المناورات وعن الاستفادة من تناقض المصالح (ولو مؤقتاً) بين الأعداء، وعن التوفيق والمساومات مع الحلفاء المحتملين حتى ولو كانوا مؤقتين، متذبذبين، متأرجحين، فرضيين”؟
يتطرق لينين في كتابه إلى المراحل التي مرت بها الثورة الروسية، والتكتيكات المختلفة التي اتبعتها للوصول الى أهدافها، وينتقد بشدة المواقف المتطرفة لـ (اليساريين الشيوعيين) الذين كانوا يسعون للقفز فوق المراحل، ويرفضون بشكل مطلق الحلول الوسطى أو المواقف الوسيطة، التي يعتبرونها (خيانة) للثورة!!
ويرى أن أصحاب الاتجاهات اليسارية المتطرفة بين الثوار لا يقلون خطرا على الثورة من ممثلي القوى اليمينية وأصحاب الاتجاهات الانهزامية.
“أليس من المضحك للغاية أن يشن المرء حرباً من أجل إسقاط البرجوازية العالمية، حرباً هي أصعب وأطول وأكثر تعقيداً بمئة مرة من أشد الحروب العادية التي تنشب بين الدول، ثم يمتنع سلفاً عن المناورات وعن الاستفادة من تناقض المصالح (ولو مؤقتاً) بين الأعداء، وعن التوفيق والمساومات مع الحلفاء المحتملين حتى ولو كانوا مؤقتين، متذبذبين، متأرجحين، فرضيين”؟
May 19, 2024
Lenin would be fucking exhausting to hang out with.
Basically a 1920 Twitter slapfight, with all the rigour that implies. He is cooking in appendix IV though.
Basically a 1920 Twitter slapfight, with all the rigour that implies. He is cooking in appendix IV though.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 281 reviews