LENIN´S MAJOR WORKS

The first theoretical work of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov was spread in the St. Petersburg revolutionary circles as duplicated leaflets. Ulyanov analysed the Narodnaya Volya means of action in the leaflet. To the Narodniks, the peasants represented a revolutionary force, but Ulyanov considered that the peasants were still reactionary. According to him, the Russian revolution could only be started by the workers and the petit bourgeoisie. However, their revolutionary awareness had to be awakened through agitation.

1899
The Development of Capitalism in Russia

This work was an empirical study of the state of Capitalism in Russia. In Lenin's opinion, social development in Russia had reached a stage where a democratic revolution could be possible. The bourgeoisie uplifted by Capitalist development could rise against the Tsar and autocracy, aided by the working class. A more progressive form of Capitalism could replace the old autocracy.

1902
What Is To Be Done?

In this pamphlet, Lenin presented his theory of party organisation. According to Lenin, revolutionary awareness of the working class could only be created with the help of a party. In a revolution a party will provide the proletariat with theory, awareness, organisation, leadership and strategy for struggle. The party was to be elastic: it had to be able to operate in Russia in secret, but it also had to be capable of public operation. The party had to consist of professionals dedicating themselves to the revolution on a full-time basis.

1905
The Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in a Democratic Revolution

Underlying this book were the internal development of the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party and the revolution that took place in Russia. According to Lenin agitation, propaganda, preparing the masses and growing the movement was to be continued like before, but preparations for an armed uprising had to be made simultaneously. The book is a parallel work to the later State and Revolution.

1908
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism

This work is related to the period of regression following the revolution of 1905. Among other things, the development of natural sciences at the turn of the century, and the discovery of atoms are behind this book. Some socialists were devising a new kind of thinking on the basis of "Machism". Empirio-Criticism, or Machism, got its name from the Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach (1836-1916). His theory was that human consciousness gives the physical world its shape, while according to Marxist materialism it is the physical world, in other words our surroundings, which shape and condition the human consciousness. Several Russian intellectuals were attracted to Machism. Among others, Lunacharsky urged people to throw away the "decayed cloak of grey materialism" and to combine the theory of socialism with "a new religion where mankind itself would be God".

In his work Lenin criticises these new interpretations. In his opinion Marxist materialism was a completely sufficient theory. There was no need to create new religions to rally new supporters.

1916
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

In Lenin's opinion Capitalism had developed into the final Imperialist stage. Germany, England, France and Italy virtually divided the world between them and subjected their colonies to exploitation and oppression. Imperialism meant the centralisation, concentration and internationalisation of capitalism.

Large-scale production lead to the birth of monopolies, which lead to capitalists' struggle among themselves. As the fittest won, the centralisation continued and the old free competition was no longer possible. In order to come up with more profit, new colonies providing new raw materials had to be conquered. Capitalism aiming at maximising profits did not guarantee steady and unproblematic development to all businesses, fields or states. The unevenness of economic and political development was law-like according to Lenin, and the internal logic of imperialism led inevitably to War (The First World War). In this situation, international solidarity of the working class was particularly important, in order to have turned the war into a civil war and revolution.

1917
State and Revolution

Lenin wrote here that socialist revolution could only be accomplished through the use of arms, and the resulting form of government would be a dictatorship of the proletariat. The transition to complete democracy would not take place until the era of Communism, when the state would stop acting as a subordinating apparatus. In Lenin's opinion, the dictatorship of the proletariat was a necessary political transition stage between Capitalism and Communism, as the proletariat would have to defend the revolution against counter-attacks. He believed that as socialism would be established, society would become a state of all people.

According to Lenin, democracy in a Capitalist society is always democracy of the minority, that is the propertied class. In the dictatorship of the proletariat the situation would reverse itself, as the exploited would become the rulers. The opposition of the former exploiters would have to be crushed by force, which meant dictatorship. Only when social classes based on the ownership of the means of production would have disappeared, could there be talk about freedom. According to Lenin, democracy would nevertheless expand from what it used to be during the transition stage due to the large numbers of the working population.

1920
Left Wing Communism - an Infantile Disorder

This work was a parallel to the booklet ‘What Is To Be Done?’ of 1902. Lenin considered world revolution a precondition for socialist revolution in Russia, but the development in Europe was not what he had expected. In his book Lenin criticised German, Austrian and British Communists for their political mistakes. According to him they concentrated too much on preparing for armed uprising, while there were no realistic chances of success. They were therefore, according to Lenin, guilty of excessive Leftism and extreme radicalism. In Lenin's opinion the Europeans should have made use of the opportunities provided by a democratic society, for instance, through participation in the parliament, instead of holding it in contempt.