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

Author: Faet Arashijin
Country: Congo
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 2 August 2016
Pages: 51
PDF File Size: 2.27 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.7 Mb
ISBN: 536-2-54499-409-4
Downloads: 69503
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shakagar

Secondly, that the agrarian revolution would lead to the rise of modern capitalism in country and town alike: Sometimes they become politically narrow, at other times they show themselves politically clear-sighted.

That a revolutionary working-class party cannot attain a high level of effectiveness in a period when the revolution is on the ebb and the masses are passive is almost self-evident. Translated by Brian Pearce.

It follows from this that the activity of the proletariat, and especially its political activity, will also be cyclical in character. It resulted from the interaction between these conditions and the role played by the subjective factorthat is, by the Bolshevik leadership and the Party.

Even though he projected these proposals into the future, without ever showing readiness to condemn explicitly the measures which he himself had helped to introduce inthis shade of difference in the way he expressed his idea became so slight towards the end of his life that the conclusion becomes unavoidable, at any rate so far as the ban on factions is concerned. Provocatively uses the phrase “de-Bolshevize” to describe the process by which Lenin’s party was transformed under the influence of the great mass movement of To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Liebman asks this question: This could have been done at the expense of the Nepmen and the kulaks; that is, without reducing the standard of living of the workers and poor peasants but, on the contrary, raising it. Liebman does a good job of explicating the distinction between the Bolsheviks as they existed prior to and the tremendous transformation of the party during the revolutionary period up until the seizure of state power in October. Books by Marcel Liebman.


Leninism under Lenin – Marcel Liebman – Google Books

But, in that case, we ask ourselves how it was that the Spanish proletariat, ablaze with spontaneity, failed to take power in July-Augustat a time when both the real Leninists and those who disguised themselves as such magcel Communists possessed quite negligible influence among them.

Trivia About Leninism Under Lenin. As soon as analysis has modified these two intermediate links, the conclusion follows easily. Feb 21, rated it really liked it. In Decemberthe foundation was converted into the Marcel Liebman Institute. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Marcel Liebman, Leninisme sous Lenine2 vols.

The whole argument is thus stood on its head the gradual weakening of the proletariat leads to its increased political passivity, which in turn leads to the wielding of power by the bureaucracy.

I find it strange that Liebman can manage to avoid coming down in favour of any one of these four possible answers.

Want to Read saving…. Kudos to my wife for putting up with me wanting to do nothing else but sit and absorb this in little over a week. Does his refusal to choose the fourth serve as justification for umder refusal to commit himself? It was not inevitable that the decline of the proletariat in numbers and economic importance should continue.

Liebman and Leninism

But a subjective factor of capital importance needs to be added. It should logically be concluded from this that the Leninist type of organisation is at bottom more democratic and better immunised against bureaucratisation or demagogy than the Social-Democratic or Anarchist type of organisation — which does not mean, of course, that it is wholly immune.

The danger to which he pointed, and which Trotsky appreciated similarly, was not an imaginary one. It must posses in equal measure both exceptional vigor and exceptional power of adaption. He tries to explainas well, and in so doing he comes up against the entanglement of history with theory, as is inevitable for anyone who aims to deal with Lenin and Leninism from the Marxist standpoint.


In reality, today as ina Marxist like Liebman is still faced with a limited number of possibilities. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

What, at bottom, was the mistake made by the Bolshevik leaders in ?

An historian of socialism and of communism, he published a number of well known books, notably on the Russian Revolution, Leninism and the history of the labour movement in Belgium. The fusion of the Party apparatus with the State apparatus — that is, the transformation of the Party into an expression of the special interests of the bureaucracy instead of an expression of the interests of the proletariat generally — together with the disappearance of the stratum of advanced workers, undoubtedly provide the basic social explanation.

Could the Russian proletariat have kept hold of the direct exercise of power even if the revolution did not quickly prove victorious in the West?


Such an economic policy could quite well have been combined with concrete political measures tending to revive the self-activity of the proletariat and impart a real content to Soviet democracy. It’s a must read for anyone.

His theory of organisation was proved correct once again, though now in a negative way: Did it, in the end, weaken or strengthen the political armament of the international proletariat?

He begins by analysing the state, then proceeds to the party, and ends with an analysis of society in the USSR, before he goes on to examine Soviet foreign policy and the Communist International.

Clearly separates Lenin from Stalin, without romanticizing Lenin’s role.