Hey everyone, this video took a lot more time to research and edit than I was expecting. I really appreciate all the encouraging comments people have left on the previous videos and want to thank you all for your patience. I think the next video will be a less intensive and lighthearted one, so it should be finished a lot sooner. Also if anyone has any questions about this video's topic, feel free to ask in the comments and I will try my best to answer. If there's something that a lot of people are asking about I can also make a follow up video.
Jesus Christ saves He had mercy on me he can save all who all seek him today He made away through calvery repent of all sins today Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Holy Spirit can give you peace purpose and joy and his will today John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
What was your source on Lenin at first accusing the February Revolution of being an Allied Plot? That's not on his Wikipedia Page and it seems a really unlikely thing to assume that the allies would destabilize one of their Allies.
@@Kuudere-Kun To clarify, the accusation is not that the Allies wanted to destabilize Russia, it's that they were involved to re-stabilize it. Essentially, while Lenin recognized that revolutionary sentiment and a popular movement was a crucial factor, he argued that the Revolution which thus far transpired was in a large part organized or at least coopted by "Anglo-French Imperialists" to depose the weak tsar and install democrats who would continue the war (as the Provisional Government in fact did). The source is page 125 of Rolf H. W. Theen's biography of Lenin in the description, where he writes: "His initial reaction to the February Revolution was to dismiss it as a plot of the Allies designed to prevent the czar from making a separate peace with Imperial Germany." He is to my knowledge drawing from Lenin's Letters "Letters from Affair" written in March 1917, which includes the following: "...Anglo-French finance capital, Anglo-French imperialism, and Russian Octobrist-Cadet capital was a factor that hastened this crisis by the direct organisation of a plot against Nicholas Romanov ... The whole course of events in the February-March Revolution clearly shows that the British and French embassies, with their agents and 'connections', who had long been making the most desperate efforts to prevent 'separate' agreements and a separate peace between Nicholas II and Wilhelm II, directly organised a plot in conjunction with the Octobrists and Cadets, in conjunction with a section of the generals and army and St. Petersburg garrison officers, with the express object of deposing Nicholas Romanov."
Now, of course, as a Russian Marxist who is into that period of history, if I didn't already know all this information broadly, my friends would laugh at me. Even then I'm still happy that this video exists to not only share it with people who aren't hypernerds like me, but also because of the sheer amount of details in this video. I love this history based approach to analysing Lenin as opposed to just taking his books and ideas at face value without thinking about the context surrounding them.
Understanding the context helps a lot. I haven't read Kapital for this reason (among others), as I'm hesitant to jump into an old text from a time I'm unfamiliar with. I saw a version of the Koran once that had the original text on the left page and contextual explanations on the right - I quite liked that layout.
fun fact Alexander Lenins group that tried to kill the tsar also contained Josef Pilsudski the later head of state of interwar poland until his death and commander of the polish forces in the polish soviet war and generally a staunch anti soviet as well as his brother Bronislaw (who was essentially framed) who in the siberian exile took up researching the ethnic groups there and is to this day one of the biggest experts on the Ainu (who live in Sakhalin and Hokkaido). He also married an Ainu and his descendants still live in Japan.
Excellent video. Even though you're coming from a more critical position of Lenin than I am, I appreciate putting Lenin in context of his fellows and his time, showing how he evolved in response to the events of his life. I did not expect this kind of content from the guy who made the Austria-Hungary video, but I am impressed. I will say that Marx reconsidered his positions on the revolutions coming from the advanced countries over time. Marx began to see the national struggle in Ireland as a prerequisite over the proletarian revolution in England, as English workers benefitted from the oppression of the Irish, and would not give that up for communism: "The lever must be applied in Ireland".... this thinking was just applied more generally to colonial scenarios by later revolutionaries. This isn't the main subject of the video, of course.
That's different. The US (and the Americas) shedding off slavery was them moving into a full stage of capitalist development, the same way France did in the 1790s and many other European nations did in the 1848 revolutions. Marx supported those revolutions even though they meant the rise of capitalism and the bourgeoisie- he supported them because they meant the fall of the feudal nobility. They were "historically progressive", following the evolution of civilization towards communism. The same can be said for the US, except there it was the victory of the capitalists (and slaves) against the planter class and the slave mode of production. Marx didn't support it because he believed in an independent Black nation in the Americas, as ideas like nationhood and self-determination didn't arise until after Marx died. Moreover, what few white proletarians existed in the North during the antebellum era didn't benefit from slavery in the way that English proles benefitted from the colonization of Ireland, or how American workers benefit from the exploitation of Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, etc. proles nowadays.
Third worldism never convinced me even though I consider myself a Marxist, primarily because I stand to benefit from the exploitation of the global south
Not a prerequisite, but rather a strategic weakening of the UK state and thus the forming of an opportunity for the trans-national proletariat to seize power. Marx was not a nationalist and did not support bourgeois ideas of liberation (leading to the formation of new capitalist states).
I found this channel through the video about the Austro-Hungarian flag but was even more impressed with this one. My main criticisms honestly come from a mechanistic (although I wouldn't say dogmatic) view of Marx and Engels works. I personally think that there was too much emphasis on the manifesto itself and not Marx and Engels' later works after their theory was more mature.
Thank you for the support and feedback, I really appreciate it! You're right that I could have drawn more from the rest of Marx and Engels' bibliography. I had Marx's older works in mind while writing, but I was concerned the video was getting too long so I ended up cutting a good 5-10 minutes from the script. I ultimately cited the Manifesto a lot as I found it gives the most practical advice for revolutionary action, as well as having the most straightforward quotes, allowing easy comparisons. From my research, I also noticed that the Manifesto is what is most often cited by others to support the Vanguard Party concept, so I wanted to preempt that argument by bringing up the relevant quotes myself. But I think later works, such as The Civil War in France for example, support the overall point as well, and I might use this material for a future video. I'd argue that after the experience of the Paris Commune, Marx solidified his idea that revolutionaries should not merely repurpose or take the reigns of the existing state like Tkachev proposed, and he went so far as to revise the Manifesto with a new preface saying as much. In Civil War he adds: "It was a Revolution against the State itself ... It was not a revolution to transfer it from one faction of the ruling class to another, but a Revolution to break down this horrid machinery of class domination itself."
@@nojrants I don't mean to sound like a dick, but I would cite any manifesto with a pinch of salt. This is because most (if not all) manifestos (of any ideology) are aimed at the masses, or a select group of the masses, and as such are somewhat dishonest about the aims of the actual ideology. This is fully my opinion, but I think that Marx's prediction about Western European nations (including Germany) becoming the first to adopt Communism was influenced by his own Pan-Germanic and anti-Slavic views (Marx's notes on the First Schleswig War in 1853). These views would contradict the internationalist aims of Communism, and thus weren't written into the manifesto. Good video, nonetheless.
@@soulsidejourney2693 I generally agree regarding manifestos. The Communist Manifesto doesn't cover all the theory, since it was designed to be short and widely read, but it's still useful as it hits all the main points of the movement. While you may have to look elsewhere to read the philosophical and economic rationales in detail (Capital for example), all the main points are laid out well and it's the most straight forward presentation of what Marx advocated for (even if that hypothetically differs from what he personally believed). Of course the Manifesto still has to be contextualized along with the rest of what Marx wrote to get the bigger picture. Another important thing to keep in mind though is that many of the most famous texts by Marx weren't published until much later, some even after Marx and Lenin were both long dead. The German Ideology may have been written before the Manifesto, but it wasn't published until the 1930s for example. I should have mentioned that in the previous comment, that I also tried to keep in mind what would have actually been available to read at the time when comparing to Lenin. Regarding Marx's own national beliefs, that is something I'd like to look into more. From what I recall, while he initially was very dismissive (bordering on racist) toward Slavs, he changed his mind dramatically later in life when he learned of the socialist movement in Russia, and spent his last years learning Russian and looking east with appreciative fascination. This is reflected in how he revised some texts to give more credit to Russia, removing some lines from Capital if I remember correctly, and of course writing an excited preface regarding the Russian translation of the Manifesto. Whether Marx was influenced by pro-German sympathies would definitely be interesting to see, but it's worth noting that he did not regard Germany as the most advanced or only advanced country. In Capital for example he praises the United Kingdom and Netherlands most of all as adopting capitalism the quickest and most thoroughly, with countries like France close behind. To clarify what I said in the video, Germany being among the most advanced and susceptible to revolution wasn't just Marx, that was the widely accepted opinion, especially when Germany continued its industrial rise after Marx's death. It's certainly what Lenin and the Russian revolutionaries seemed to believe. If Marx was pro-German at some point, I think his major works don't outwardly reflect that (although that's not to say it's impossible). In Civil War he for example praises the French for creating the first dictatorship of the proletariat, along with denouncements of the Prussians.
I watched the entire video. Very impressive effort, Bravo. Honestly I could write novels dissecting every minute, but Noj, I merely have one recommendation for you to read an author I think you'll really love: Fr. Seraphim Rose. In particular start with his book "Nihilism". As a more lucid bridge to Orthodox thought and revolutionary Russian spirit, I'd also mention Bulgakov. Anyway, it I had one request as a sequel you should cover late Russian art (late Tsardom/early Soviet) and surprising parallels between them. Thanks again. And may we all learn to be more cohesive than Lenin apparently was.
The research you put into your videos is awesome, I really get the impression you know what you talking about more than some history youtubers. Plus you have the editing skills, this channel is gonna go far.
This is an absolutely incredible video and analysis, and you should be very proud! Please don't stop making these videos. It is so important we have people propagating these counter narratives to revisionist history in these troubling times.
Hey Man, I found your channel just today and had to subscribe. Your editing and music skills + presentation is just too good, probably the definition of a underated channel. Praying you make more vids and get more subscribers
This is my second viewing of your channel, and I'm most appreciative. Great work, and thank you! Ps. There is a pregnant pause around the twenty four minute mark, and at this junction it will probably not surprise you to know that I myself found myself also uttering a quizzical "hmmm..."
Only Jesus Christ blood can cleanse us of are sins come to Jesus Christ today Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void. The Holy Spirit can lead you guide and confort you through it all Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
Surprising to see most of these comments not arguing about Leninism but instead just commenting on how amazing this video is. It's really great to see :)
This is one of the best videos i saw about Lenin. Straightforward, deep, academic and well cited and also very careful in its analysis not to become politically motivated for either side, thank you! I hope you will continue the development of Soviet leaderships ideology through the ages, with ever increase viewership and subscriber count!
The video is great. Although I've still yet to have read any major and important works of historians, both Russian and non-Russian, about Russian revolution (so I can't really know about these events fully), your video does correspond to many discussions I've read over the years about the Russian revolution. And it clarified many things I haven't been too sure about. Thank you for your work. Now to state my opinion about considering Lenin, any Marxist in general, revisionist. From my understanding of Marxism, and, by the way, I myself come from Marxism and it still greatly influences my own theories on different social sciences and philosophy, the Marxism as a whole, is, first and foremost, a theory. And, like any other scientific theory, it should be constantly revised and analysed. So the tag "revisionist", applied to scientific theories, shouldn't be used in negative connotation or else it would be ideological, which, at least for modern-positivist scientific methodology is the death of science. Although I may disagree with such position, since, and this comes from Leo Strauss, if I remember correctly, science (especially political science and philosophy) cannot be completely separated from values, meaning ideology, this position is still prevalent in science. Anyway, the events that followed the Russian revolution, I agree here with Bataille, were necessary, since the times were desperate. From my point of view, the Russian revolution was not communist revolution to take down the almost-feodalism and capitalism at the same time, but something which I call "bourgeois revolution with Russian specifics". I would continue this rant, but now I'm tired of writing an essay, which isn't really needed. Again, great video. Signed, some Russian dude (some attentive reader could've realised this from the fact, that I use Russian punctuation while writing in English lol).
I think most Marxists would agree with the idea that Marxist theory is supposed to be revised and adapted. While revision is fine for Marxists, it becomes "Revisionism" if it is revised too far (lower case revisionist vs upper case Revisionist). For Marx and Engels, they approached their theories from a scientific angle. The term "scientific socialism" arose, in differentiation from the utopian socialists, because they argued Marxist theory was grounded in observable historical and social phenomena that was analyzed empirically. So I think they would agree as well the importance of adapting or editing the theory when presented with new information, in order to move toward a more accurate theory, just like any other scientific study. However, based on Marx and Engels' writings, I believe they would view the adaptations of some later socialists discussed in the video as not scientific at all. They frequently criticized Bakunin, Blanqui, and others for disregarding or trying to circumvent (what they considered were) scientific processes.
One thing revisionism entails is choosing not to or not being able to apply dialectical materialism, not analysing things through this lens and consequently coming to wrong or obsolete conclusions. It's like expounding miasma theory because you don't know how to use a microscope - or you are avoiding using it on purpose. Using the most scientific philosophical apparatus and making work of investigating the past and present critically is something that may not be revised if we are to call ourselves materialists. Interestingly enough, you yourself say you have investigated none or barely any of the material evidence, the political-economy and class structure of the Soviet Union, yet you feel called upon to make an "analysis" of its class character! Very Marxist of you!
On the possibility of a future video on Marx's thoughts and changing views on Russia, I do suggest the read "Marx's Associated Mode of Production" by the late Paresh Chattopadhyay (specifically chapter 10, "Marx on Dialectical Progression Towards Socialism")
Nice video! One thing that you are missing is the attitude towards peasantry of Lenin and Narodnicks. For Lenin the Russian peasantry was a “petit bourgeoisie” since by the very nature of their labor they owned the means of production (land and cattle). Thus, they were a class enemies for Lenin in the newly established society. Keeping this in mind helps to understand the Dekulakization and Collectivisation much better.
That's complete opposite of what Lenin actually thought. You are describing the position of Trotsky and one of the main points of contention between him and Lenin. Lenin actually saw that the capitalist relations already took hold in the countryside and peasantry was divided between poor peasantry, who lost their lands to kulaks and were forced to work for them, middle peasants, who still owned the land and worked it (most still in the debt to kulaks) and rich "peasants", basically agrarian capitalist, who owned most of the lands and hired landless peasants as labor. The firs ones were obviously proletariat and the last ones were capitalists. He wrote several works specifically on that topic.
@@nonono4160 kulaks were not capitalists. lenin did and said whatever needed to be said to get his way. He wrote that NEP might last decades because it would take time to develop and also to nationalize cooperatives/private companies.
@@vhdlx kulaks are peasants who own the land and employ other peasants to work on it. That is the defintiion of capitalist. At least read what Lenin actually said and stop lying.
From a non-Marxist, non-Russian perspective, this discussion seems to support criticisms I've read/developed on Lenin. He was ideologically two-faced, but consistent in his desire for revolutionary outcome. Maybe I've been unfair to him, like attributing to malice or dishonesty his seeming ability to say something which seems supportable, say "all power to the soviets," but then causing the opposite outcome, a party dictatorship over the soviets. I have been told to read State and Revolution, and when I hear people describe its contents to me, I tell them to read history because thats not what Lenin did during and after the Revolution. This would make sense if it was written in a self-reflective, more orthodox period of his thinking.
From what I've heard, Lenin was living in a random apartment when he died. Not a palace or something of that nature. I don't support a lot of what Lenin did, and I think love and hate towards the man is over blown. However, that fact alone makes me hold respect towards him, just a little bit. He absolutely could have became a new king, with a palace and whatnot, but he didn't. All political manoeuvring and social power aside, he lived as many others in his country would have lived. That doesn't necessarily mean that he believed in what he said, or that it absolves the downsides, but it says, to me at least, that despite how it may seem: Lenin's goal wasn't really power in and of itself. It says he has some other goal. Maybe he still wanted to be like his brother; maybe genuinely wanted an improvement for the Russian people, I can't say.
@@masako8980 I'm not sure where you heard that. Lenin died in his luxurious countryside Gorki estate which was originally owned by the Morozov family, one of the wealthiest families in Russia. It's now named Gorki Leninskiye after him.
@@masako8980 While what the other commenter said is technically correct, that Lenin was living at a country dacha at the time of his death, there is truth to what you said as well. For the first year back in Russia (April 1917 to March 1918), Lenin lived in a barely furnished room in the Smolny Institute (a former girls' boarding school) and slept on a camp bed. After moving to Moscow, he lived in a modest apartment in the Kremlin and ate in the cafeteria. He only began staying at the dacha during the recovery from his assassination attempt, and permanently only in the last year of his life, as he became infirm from a series of strokes. Therefore you're mostly correct that he eschewed riches and mansions. All this was derived from Lenin's emulation of the character Rakhmetev from What is to Be Done, and the belief that the revolutionary needed to harden oneself and deny the pleasures of life, in order to become solely dedicated to the revolution. No one is perfect, but the writings of people around him seem to indicate that Lenin legitimately tried to eschew most earthly pleasures throughout his life. Now on one hand that is modest and stoic of him, but on the other hand it was also in the name of a burning ambition for power, kind of like a guitarist who practices 12 hours a day to become the best musician possible. And of course, many ordinary Bolsheviks (specially those who joined up later) lacked this strong sense of discipline and abused the situation for riches.
@@nojrants It's glad to hear this information. I was fairly confused, so I assumed one of us (me or the commenter) must just have been mistaken. I agree that lust for power, his influence from earlier works and whatnot is likely as the cause. When I said I don't think power in and of itself was the cause, I didn't mean that power wasn't important to him or anything, but that power ALONE wasn't the motivation, but I can see how that was confusing. It's all too often you see revolutions which degrade into the leader becoming a wealthy person with a huge palace and servants while their countrymen live in shacks. That's why Lenin living how he did as at least somewhat admirable to me. I don't think it's due to some inherent morality or anything, but to me it still shows he at least somewhat believed in what he talked about and tried to live accordingly, which I can definitely call admirable, especially compared to later leaders and rulers. It's a pretty common trait in fiction, but that kind of belief and dedication in rulers is pretty rare in reality regardless of belief (excluding rulers who believe they inherently deserve power or wealth or so on anyway).
Oh my days, thank you so much! I have been looking for a good explanation of the narodniks for a history project, through a video bc I learn better that way, and got even more than I wanted, this is a fascinating topic and it is covered so well and thoroughly :)
Thank you! Although there's some things I'd lay out differently if I remade this video today, I'm glad to hear people are finding the explanation here concise.
Very interesting video, helpfully informative. A few points: 1) Interesting that Engels was aware of Tkachev and criticized his views. Not hard to imagine him doing the same regarding Lenin, if he had managed to live a few more years. Luxemburg is an example that opposition to revisionism and opportunism didn't necessarily lead to agreement with Lenin. 2) (Edit:) References to Plekhanov (as at 30:37 and 32:27) leave it unclear as to exactly what were the grounds of disagreement between him and Lenin and the Bolsheviks. My understanding was that Plekhanov continued to believe that Russia needed more capitalist development before it could become socialist. But hadn't that also been Lenin's view until the events of 1917? Whereas Plekhanov had been opposed to the Bolsheviks for years prior to that, right? 3) The question remains -- Does success in seizing power = successful socialist revolution? Has the success of revolutionary socialists in taking power in countries outside the capitalist core amounted to a vindication of Marx (albeit with some revisions) or more so one of Blanqui? That is, were they really revolutions made by the workers, through organizations which they had built?; And had they been engendered by the heightening of contradictions within capitalism? Or were they instead the triumph of conspiratorial vanguards doing quite a bit more than guiding the workers and countering false consciousness and opportunism, as they successfully beat repressive ruling-class authorities at their own game, while taking power amid crises other than those where Marx and Engels argued capitalism was leading?
For an exploration of russian movements (like the pan slavists, traditionalists or cosmists) influencing soviet thinking and policy in general I recommend the works of Boris groys
The fact that this video is being both criticized and praised from all sides picking out whatever they want proves to me how much effort went into making this a balanced historical video, which is why I think it's great. For myself I would want to ask you the following question: Do you think that you might have relied too much on Menshevik sources like Lydia Dan and Nikolai Valentinov for parts of this video, specifically the restructuring of the Iskra editorial board being described as a Menshevik purge and the effects of that being the split between the both groups? I understand doing it with Lenin's family to dispel the revolutionary kid idea, but obviously these sources are much more politically opinionated. Mainly asking this because I've only been exposed to Trostky(ist) recounts of that split, which were much more sympathetic to Lenin of course and claimed it was accompanied by practical and democratic considerations as well iirc. It would be great if you could point me towards some broader history reading on the split as well, as it's obviously possible I've been misinformed. (I'm aware that Trotsky held an oppositional stance towards Lenin during this period, but I have yet to read the primary texts from him during this time.)
Actually, if you read E.H Carr’s history of soviet Russia, he discusses this exact point. The split with the Bundists and Economists in the RSDWP are frequently leveraged by Menshevik sources as sly political maneuvers by Lenin when Carr completely dispels the notion. Same with the iskra board.
Hey Ladifour, thank you for checking out the video and for your insightful comment. In some sense I agree this video mostly focuses on the hostile perspective, and it's definitely a valid concern that we have to be cognizant of these people's own biases. They feature heavily here because the video is starting from the assumption that it's already a known fact Lenin is a Marxist, and then seeks to present the counternarrative to explain why these people claim otherwise. So to arrive at the thesis of why they believe that, it's going to primarily focus on their side of the story. That's not to say we should take an antagonistic retelling of events as objective fact necessarily; rather the writings of Dan or Valentinov act as primary sources as to what certain people felt at a certain time and place. I should also note that when I was creating this video, I wasn't specifically seeking out these Menshevik writings, rather I read overviews (such as the Lenin biography by Rolf H. W. Theen) which present both sides of the debate to get an idea of what was going on. I wouldn't call the Iskra editorial board decision the cause of the split, rather the groups were splitting already so Lenin sought to remove his rivals from the board. As far as I can tell, I don't think that much is controvertible; Lenin wanted to control the direction of Iskra, so naturally he would not be supportive of editors with a contrary direction in mind, leading to some political maneuvering going on. We have Lenin's own writings at around the time which give perspective into this fight, as well as Plekhanov and others (with Plekhanov initially conspiring with Lenin then against Lenin). I probably wouldn't call that a "purge", since that seems like loaded language to me, but effectively it was all part of the internal fighting over leadership/direction of the party. Obviously all these people were performing political maneuvers for their respective positions. Valentinov is interesting, because although he later became a Menshevik and wrote a retelling of the events after the fact, we also have some writings from the time in which he was a Bolshevik (he was a Lenin supporter in this crucial 1903-1905 period). Therefore it's interesting to see his perspective before and after, and how he slowly began to grow uncomfortable with Lenin. If I remember correctly, the quote at around 31:00 was written in 1904, at a time when he was still in Lenin's camp and defended him against Martov. Trotsky is also interesting because he had the opposite transformation, with his initial statements being really critical (like the Jacobin comment), before he strongly swung around to Lenin's side. If you want to do more reading about the event, there's some sources in the description. I highly recommend Orlando Figes' book A People's Tragedy, which has a really good section on that time period and also talks a bit about the Tkachev connection (Chapter four, section two, "Marx Comes to Russia"). Theen's biography on Lenin, while a bit old at this point, is also a pretty short read and talks about that era of Lenin's life pretty thoroughly. If you're really curious you can also just read the minutes of the Second Congress, specifically the "Ninth Session". Reading through that is how I found the interesting quotes from Lenin defending "What is To Be Done", and the back-and-forth about party leadership, including an argument between Lenin and Trotsky if I remember correctly. The other commenter has put forth Carr, who isn't terrible, but he has a pretty obvious slant and was writing far before the opening of the Soviet archives and the discovery of some of our current primary sources, so that's going to have limited information. From what I recall, Carr usually has the opposite problem, of taking into account only Lenin's writings and not consulting the other names at all. Although checking my copy of Carr, even that gives the impression there was slyness and infighting going on, so to say that has simply been "dispelled" would be an interesting interpretation.
@@nojrants Wow, thank you so much for the detailed response. I will be definitely checking out those texts (and subscribing to you with a bell for your other videos (I already shared this one)). You're right I was a bit sloppy by saying the Iskra board was the cause of the split, it was more of a crystallization of it happening around the same time. Whether we call it a purge by word or not is imo irrelevant, my point was rather that in the context you are presenting it in the video at 30:00, with Lenin having this populist Jacobin background and you repeating the Menshevik's accusations of him being a dictator, together with the graphic of all the Mensheviks except Martov being removed, the implication arises that this is an event where Lenin is indeed just doing a power grab and thereby prefiguring the 1917 revolution and the Mensheviks eventual persecution. And maybe this reading is partly correct from a certain historical point of view, I do find the Mensheviks fascinating and wonder what might have went differently with them beating out the Bolsheviks, but we have to remember that this is before both the 1905 and the 1917 revolutions, so the matter of the split for the contemporaries then was about how to proceed and organize the party under the conditions it was in around 1902-03, with its newspapers and organizations being banned and surveiled by the tsarist state, with the two factions differing over the definition of membership but also being united against the Bundists and the Economists and not completely breaking with each other for the following few years until 1912. So I felt like you glossed over and compressed too much here and someone unfamiliar with the topic could get the wrong idea. I've noticed rewatching that in the script you actually do say at 30:40 that "it was breaking down not only over political differences, but primarily personal and petty squabbles". This statement kinda clashes with the visual graph you presented, which is why I assume you zoomed in, but considering the larger context it was embedded in and the quickness of it, it seemed like a throwaway comment to me. This would have been the perfect time to expand on that by at least a sentence or two, but in the visual you just have Martov repeating the (political) accusation of acting dictatorial and then transition to Valentinov characterizing the atmosphere then as a worship of Lenin, so the viewer is not really walking away with any more information than that Martov was right here. I would also want to make some comments on Plekhanov. How tight was he actually with Lenin at this time, considering he broke with Lenin a few years later like you actually have written besides the visual there? Yes, yes, I don't want to make the same mistake I'm criticizing about hindsight in the previous paragraph, but I'm genuinely asking, I don't know. But from what I've read about him up to this point, him, Zasulich and Axelrod were from a different group (Emancipation of Labour) than Lenin, Martov and Potressov (St. Petersburg League of Struggle) and the clashes in the initial period of Iskra were between these groups over matters like where to publish from. Trotsky for example writes about this period in his twelth chapter of his autobiography (p. 152 of the 2007 Dover edition if that matters), that Lenin was trying to get as much independence from Plekhanov as possible, getting into struggles with him over the party program and trying to get Trotsky onto the board to have a stable majority and this being prevented by Plekhanov. According to p. 163 he is even supposed to already have said to Axelrod at the second congress about Lenin "that of such stuff Robespierres are made" (Not a great quote by itself for me I realize, but my larger point is that this three head editorial board Martov walked out on seems to have been more balanced than the bloc presentation in the visual suggests, so for lack of knowing more details it seems wrong to present it only as a power move, even if that aspect is not denied by Trotsky who initially opposed it, for him it seems to have been a politically necessary move about replacing the old generation though in retrospect). Also honestly, if it was your intent to merely provide a counter-narrative to the marxist origins of Lenin's backstory without claiming objective fact, I certainly missed it by this point in the video, because it was so full of interesting and true facts about Russian history, some of which I knew and some of which I didn't. And you certainly seem to have suggested otherwise at the beginning like 1:33 or in other parts of the video, when you said stuff like "however, as we will see, the reality of the situation is more complicated and in many respects it was these other non-marxist elements that had the strongest effects on Lenin's theories".
Honestly, I don't see how the respective quotes of Lenin and Martov at 30:22 illustrate such a stark difference of views on the question of party membership. '...personal participation in one of the party organizations' vs. 'assistance under the leadership of a party organization' -- how would the latter not also qualify as 'personal participation in the party'? How is assistance not participation, and how could it be provided if not personally? Any help?
While seemingly minor, it spoke to their different philosophies about party organization on a fundamental level. Essentially what Lenin envisioned by that line is that only professional revolutionaries, i.e. people who devoted themselves to running the party and working as revolutionaries full-time, should be recognized as full members, whereas Martov envisioned anyone who was interested and willing to take direction from the leadership as being eligible for membership. "Personal participation" meant being a sort of "employee" in one of the bureaus of the party, whereas "assistance" could mean something more akin to a volunteer.
I've long considered Lenin to be a non-marxist, and quite frankly non-socialist, blanquist. Good to see a video breaking down his ideological influences. Keep up the good work!
Lenin wrote against Blanquism on many occasions and showed how the Bolsheviks' methods were in contrast to them. I've never once seen anyone substantiate this claim.
@@SocialismForAll *uses blanquist methods and constantly betrays the working class for the party elites* *gets called a blanquist by numerous of his contemporaries for being an elitist piece of shit* *writes that he is not a blanquist actually because he totally has popular support and isn't an elitist, trust me bro* You're a fucking joke. You're the reason we're chained to these sinking dead men and their authoritarian bastardization of marx.
Ive always loved that kropotkin literally renounced his prince statues and wealth to live with peasants. He to me at least, never comes across as patronizing and conscending compared to leninists. I hate the bolshleviks for feeling they were elite intelligentsia who knew what was good for the people cause they were too dumb.
Ok so like yes, in a literal interpretation of Marx, yes, he is a tad revisionist. But like, the material conditions kept on having revolutions happen not in the industrial core, but rather in societies which where still early in capitalism. On some level Marx did make an error and the fact that revolutionaries around the globe continued to turn towards the ideas of Lenin says something about the organic nature of what he was saying. It also says a lot that people who held to the Orthodox Marxist line continually fail to actually materialize a successful revolution.
@@Ossian-dr1vr A socialist society is a society without private ownership of the means of production. The USSR was the only socialist country in human history. How can you say that he “failed” to build socialism if he was the only one in history who created it. State capitalism is not a full-fledged scientific term. It has a whole range of meanings and it’s not clear what you mean. If for you the limit of monopolization in the state is state capitalism, then this will be socialism. Then planetary communism for you will be authoritarian state capitalism. It's just an awkward play with concepts. (after all, the essence of capitalism according to Marx is the process of monopolization and the formation will change when it reaches its limit).
@@Ossian-dr1vr period of state capitalism only lasted for 7 years under name of new economic policy. Soviet Union was the world first socialist nation and a succesful one whether you like it or not.
For what i experience and know of history Lenin underestanding show coompreension of reality. But also ignore other factors. For exmaple 1-most revolutioners lider are middle and middle high class. Why? Because they need education, health and charisma. Ernesto "che" guevara is a prime example, son of a high class farmer, graduate as doctor. 2-The fight must be to DESTROY the state, overtake it means it will just adapt to be a new state that ultimatly becomes corrupt and a replica. The revolutione war in the colonies show this. Organize until the empire is kick off. Then follow by an internal squable. Now points he miss: 3- he didnt expect the pesants to revolt. And tha may be becaue he forgot the intelectuals where educating the masses. Their effoet took YEARS and was so slow Lenin didnt took it into account anymore until it happened. 4-The revolutione is always from the weakest group exploited to the highest. In this case because the "advance" civilizations have BIG empires, even its lowest local citicen is middle class. The best example is America and the south American revolution. As America expand its power after ww2, even its WEAKEST citicen was wealthy. This are the Boomers. Thus, thy WONT revolt. Who revolt where those really exploited in south america, africa and asia. I call it the "Rome factor" "All road go to rome", meaning all reaources centralize in rome, thus the closest to rome the easier the living.
Also... I wonder if you've ever thought about eventually doing a video on the topic of why, precisely, socialist revolutions happened so often in less-developed, agrarian societies? I mean, I have my own thoughts/theory as to 'why', but it'd be cool to hear your theory, especially with all of the research you do. I've tried, almost in vain, to "find a scholarly study (or 2)" on the matter- from a top journal or wherever- but... maybe I'm just searching wrong? Surely there's at least one in-depth study and/or book that develops a comprehensive theory as to why it happened that way?🤔
That's more of a political science/philosophical question, but I would be open to tackling that topic potentially. At the very least, there is an interesting historiography in pursuit of that question which I could overview, i.e. explaining the different theories people have put forth. Put briefly, there are a number of Marxist or Marxist-derived theories explaining this (such as Lenin's idea of imperialism), but within modern revolution theory the Marxist approach is only one of many. For many historians/sociologists, there is nothing contradictory about a proported socialist revolution in an agrarian society, because their framework for understanding revolution isn't coupled to the same factors as Marx's.
Which group in particular? In terms of the Marxists, they inherited a lot of their terminology from the German tradition; they became known as the "Social-Democrats" (SDs) because they were modeling themselves after the German Social-Democratic Party. "Bolshevik" means literally "someone in the majority", from "bol'she" meaning "bigger", and it was the opposite for "Menshevik". For the Narodniks, their movement as we saw was all about "Going to the People" and this idea of "The People" as the heart of the nation. Therefore they became known by that term, from the word "narod" ("the people") plus "-niki", which is like the equivalent of "-ers" or "-ists" in English, leading also to the translation of "Populists". For the groups at 18:49: The "Decembrists" are called that because they launched a revolt in December 1825. The "Petrashevsky Group" was named after its leader, Mikhail Petrashevsky. "Shestidesiatniki" means "60ers" or "People of the 60s", basically saying they were the generation of the 1860s (although this term is nowadays more associated with the 1960s in Russia).
@@nojrants Also if I may ask how do they do plurals of group names? Like we say Narodniks but do they also say Narodniks with the S at the end, or is that an English thing and they have a different suffix?
@@nojrants Also, do you know if for Ukrainian I am supposed to use y instead of i? I keep seeing that around, like with the Kyiv/Kiev thing. My story involves Ukrainian Cossacks so I need to know more about Ukrainian as a language
More than likely if there was not an assassination of Alexander II some sort of constitution would have been created about forty years earlier. This would have invariably put Russia on a much different path and likely would have completely changed Lenin's development and later tactics, although it's also probable that Russia would still be susceptible to a revolution, as many of the fundamental issues plaguing the country were not addressed.
@@nitothefunkybunch6938 The guy claims to be a marxist and tries to bring down Lenin from a marxist perspective, but doesn’t even understand basic dialectical and historical materialism. Imagine someone made math videos and fucked up 9th grade maths.
Too fast. Your slides are even faster. I dont get to read all the quotes. Maybe bit chill next time. But overall thanks, and such a good non-dogmatic take on Lenin.
What a lot of people don’t actually seem to realise is that history is complex and messy, not a mere linear path to some foretold destiny. The stoic, idealised image of ‘Lenin’ is very much apart from the real person of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, just like everything. It’s a possibility that say the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries had won the Civil War, Lenin and the Bolsheviks may not have even been seen as Communist at all. In fact, they may have been accused of being fascist or ‘reactionaries’ later on, with a very non-revolutionary legacy.
Except scientific socialism isn’t about idealist notions of “well if the true Marxists had won out then x” because that didn’t happen. The “Marxists” decided to run with defense of the fatherland to the detriment of the working people of all European nations. It would have been nice, sure, but reality wins out.
This comment hurt to read. The lack of historical understanding is palpable. There’s no historical materialism to be found here, evidently. Nevermind the fact that we live in the universe where the Mensheviks were perfectly fine with a parliamentary republic with an intact bourgeoisie as long as the Bolsheviks never got near the levers. What gross revisionism. Their opportunism is reclassified as Marxist orthodoxy, don’t make me laugh.
@Saddam_al-Husseini, it is absolutely true that the idealized image of Lenin is apart from the person, especially when we consider the work that was put into crafting Lenin's image for decades after his death. It's also an interesting argument that had Lenin been defeated, what we consider the "correct" intepretation of Marxism would have likely been shifted in a different direction, for better or worse. Early on, there wasn't exactly an "orthodoxy" in Marxism, and as the early debates in the Social Democratic movement illustrate, different groups claimed to better understand Marxism and sought to be recognized as "correct". It was really only with the stabilization of the Soviet Union that we saw something close to an orthodoxy emerge that others are measured against (albeit still contentious). I could certainly imagine a hypothetical where Lenin was defeated/discredited, and he is remembered more like a Blanqui or Tkachev, i.e. written off as a radical deviation. This concept reminds me of an analogy to early Christianity (this is not to say that Marxism is a religion or anything like that, it's just an interesting parallel). Although we frequently think of "Christianity" as having a single start with a linear path to the present day, with "heresies" being little branches that broke off along the way, historians now consider it much more accurate to describe the religion as a series of bursts in different areas with different ideas. These ideas competed and negotiated, with some winning out and others losing, leading to the dominant interpretation(s) eventually crafting an "orthodoxy" (or perhaps multiple orthodoxies), and labeling dissimilar ideas as heretical.
Democratic centralism came from the Lassalle fanction of the german social Democratic party which competed with Marx's faction. Just thought it was worth noting. Great vid though
Minor correction Marx did see Russian communes as a possibility to achieve socialism without the stageist notion of semi feudal to capitalist to socialist, in his letter to Vera Zasulich
Yes I am aware of the Vera Zasulich letter, and I plan to talk about it in more detail in a video coming soon. But as will be explained there, the Zasulich letter doesn't actually contradict the above notion in the way that people think it does. More importantly, the letter was unknown in the period we are actually talking about in this video, not being fully published with drafts until 1924, so it of course could not impact the thinking of the early Russian Marxists.
I write this because I respect your work: Watch Zoe Bakers latest video on how to do citations correctly by supplying the pages, not just the book of a source.
I have since transitioned into doing full citations. Every video made after this one has footnotes at the bottom of the screen. This video was made when I was still relatively new to the process, and I wasn't sure if footnotes were expected or not, but I probably should have just included them. Probably more than any other, this video in particular is one I almost want to redo, since it would benefit from more clear sourcing, could be better worded in places, and because I have since found even more relevant sources. But in either case, not to worry, I am already doing proper citations in the videos. Also I watch Zoe Baker as well and am a fan of her channel!
What I like about this video, is that by following the historical context in which Lenin's thought developed in contradiction to the essential betrayals made by comrades he initially held close to him ranging from Plekhanov (early on by petty squabbles prior to the 2nd Congress, which he wrote in "How the Spark was Nearly Extinguished"), to Martov (during the struggles of the 2nd Congress), to Bogdanov (who's idealism pushed Lenin to spend most of a year writing a criticism of the relatively fringe philosophy of Empirio-Criticism), to Kautsky (with his mistreatment of the Menshevik/Bolshevik struggle at first, to later the big betrayal during WW1), to even Kamenev (Who with Zinoviev were the only CC members voting against the October insurrection), all informed his focus in study and outlook. I believe that what Orthodox Marxists tend to forget is that by Marx's own insistence, his philosophy is entirely purposed to analyze society to paint as clear a picture as possible from which political strategy can be developed and applied for the ultimate liberation of the human race. Lenin reiterated this time and time again when he described Marxism and his application of it as "a concrete analysis of concrete conditions". His political approach during 1917 was a masterclass of Marxist analysis of application, where he changed positions sometimes weekly depending on the circumstances of the time, while generally maintaining one program so long as the bolsheviks evidently only had this or that much popular support (which is why he insisted on peaceful and legal agitation in the early phases, only later switching to preparing for insurrection after the July Days, and only demanding the launch of that insurrection after the majority was observed in the local elections in the largest local Soviets). What Lenin may have deviated from Marx in mechanical doctrines, he embodied him in essence with the practice proven by the October Revolution. For all the weaknesses of the Soviets, there is no refutation that it was the Bolsheviks ALONE who succeeded in securing and consolidating power for the working class where all other European parties failed. Mistakes we can always learn from, but successes raise the bar for all of us.
To clarify anyone who wants to argue that the Bolsheviks only did so to establish a dictatorship of the party, please understand, that's not what I'm talking about here. We can debate about the 1936 Constitution or trade union affairs someplace else, at the end of the day, in spite of being threatened by nearly 2 dozen belligerents, with the leadership having almost no experience in statecraft and often being killed off by assassinations or disease, and being cut off from the international economy, the Reds won the war. There's reasons for this, and popular support couldn't be denied either in the same way how popular support for the Chinese Communists couldn't be denied as a key player to the CCP's victory, in spite of even more severe conditions.
@@petercevallos258 I find your comments very odd. Throughout the initial one, you praise Lenin (rightly) for his skillful use of the knowledge he gained partially through reading Marx in how to analyse material conditions. We also have evidence from Noj's other videos and this one that Lenin was very skilled at political maneuvering and was not dogmatic in his beliefs to the extent that they could not be altered by new developments. However, you then state that he has almost no experience in statecraft?? Statecraft is not exclusive to states. Through his thorough understanding of political theory and decades of implementation within his own party, we can see Lenin is probably the most experienced statesman in Russia during the Civil War period, and being the leader of an oft-suppressed party for a long period of time is very much like fighting a civil war. As someone with anarchist leanings, I very much disagree with the aim of his methods (to me, it's like a pharmaceutical chemist using their knowledge to concoct poisons), but I believe that to say he was inexperienced in statecraft is wrong. Unfortunately for the curious, we don't have much evidence of his vision and political life post-Civil War, where I do think he lacks the experience needed.
@@ThePrinceofParthia Running an underground political party is a very different kind of work compared to running a state. Was he an expert on Marxist analysis and political philosophy/theory? Absolutely. Did he have any experience in running a state? No, closest he had was when he worked as a lawyer in the small Siberian village of Shusenskoye during his exile there. His other skills were definitely transferable to an extent, but only to an extent, and there were lots of growing pains for him AND all the other Bolsheviks who for the most part had just a couple years ago were either in exile or on the factory floor.
@@justarandompersonininterne6583 No, Marxism-Leninism refers to the adaptation of Marxist and Leninist theories to all material conditions. Leninism is Marxism adapted to Russia. Marxism-Leninism is meant to be Lenin's ideas applied to places that aren't Russia as developed by Joseph Stalin.
Seems that both Hegel and Marx had a great deal of truth to their perspectives. We must analyze the conditions society's are birthed from while also understanding that Great Men arise from these environment and tend to push history forward via organized efforts and influence.
I am not by a long shot a fan of Lenin. I do appreciate the even handed tone of this presentation which in my opinion does cast a shadow on Lenin's project. Your taking in to account the non-Marxist Russian Revolutionary tradition and how that influenced Lenin is quite germane. I would add that that the long Russian tradition of Autocracy and top down change, along with the powerful notion of the society being subject to the state also played a role in Lenin's thinking. After the October Revolution, which was not initialy at least supposed to be the Bolsheviks seizing power but the Soviets, (Worker, Peasant Councils), seizing power from the Provisional Government it is remarkable how quickly the Russian traditions of Autocracy reasserted themselves.
Wow thank you! I believe this is my first ever "super thanks", I didn't even know there were set up until now haha. Thank you for the support, I really appreciate it!
