Essential Works of Lenin: "What Is to Be Done?" and Other Writings

by Vladimir Lenin

Among the most influential political and social forces of the twentieth century, modern communism rests firmly on philosophical, political, and economic underpinnings developed by Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, later known as Lenin. In this volume, comprising the four works generally considered his most important publications, Lenin presents the goals and tactics of Communism with remarkable directness and forcefulness.
His first major work was The Development of Capitalism in Russia, written in prison after Lenin had been arrested for anti-government activities in 1895. Represented here by key sections, the book developed a number of crucial concepts, including the significance of the industrial proletariat as a revolutionary base. What Is to Be Done? , long regarded as the key manual of Communist action, is presented complete, containing Lenin's famous dissection of the Western idea of the political party along with his own concept of a monolithic party organization devoted to achieving the goal of dictatorship of the proletariat. Also presented complete is Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, in which Lenin examines the final "parasitic" stage of capitalism. Finally, this volume includes the complete text of The State and Revolution, Lenin's most significant work, in which he totally rejects the institutions of Western democracy and presents his vision of the final perfection of Communism.
For anyone who seeks to understand the twentieth century, capitalism, the Russian revolution, and the role of Communism in the tumultuous political and social movements that have shaped the modern world, the essential works of Lenin offer unparalleled insight and understanding. Taken together, they represent a balanced cross-section of this revolutionary theories of history, politics, and economics; his tactics for securing and retaining power; and his vision of a new social and economic order.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Theory, Russia, Economics

386 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1964

About the author

Vladimir 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.

Reviews

[Billy Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading Lenin at a time when a reformist left is slowly rising is a frustrating experience, as he is both correct and misleading in equal measure. Whilst I completely agree that social democratic politics will never truly lead to Socialism and any gains will be quickly undermined, the truth is that there is no Communist movement at the moment. Lenin is absolutely essential reading for any left-leaning person, but all that we can do at this time is involve ourselves in reformist politics and try to steer the conversation leftwards. Not because we're compromising, but because it is literally the only avenue open to us.

That aside, the first few paragraphs of State and Revolution are incredibly important. We Marxists must maintain Marx's radical character: not only defend him against the libertarian and conservative philistines, but also defend him against his liberal supporters. We don't care that he's approved of as the founder of sociology or whatever is claimed of him (unless it's also of a Marxist character). Rather than Lenin's actual arguments, it is the unapologetic radicalism of Lenin that needs to be reignited. But, as I've stressed, this does not mean we reduce everything to 'we need a revolution', as that is actually one of the most complicated processes possible and must be taken deadly seriously.

[Spooky Socialist · Rating 5 out of 5]

First off: five stars for everything Lenin wrote. Everything he wrote was fantastic and the man did not miss. However, I would like to spend this review pissing on Dover Books and this shitty excuse of an anthology. If you want to read Lenin, just get the individual books or read them online at The Internet Marxists Archive.

My first gripe with Dover is the decision to exclude the fifth and final chapter of What Is To Be Done? Such a ridiculous decision! Now I have to get an entirely different copy of it just to get the fifth chapter!?! That misses the whole point of having an anthology!!!!!! It pisses me off that they justify this exclusion by saying something to the effect of "well, the fifth chapter is too specific to Russia and so we decided not to include it" BITCHES DID YOU READ THE FIRST CHAPTER!?! The first chapter is filled with constant references to specific struggles among the international communist movement at the time. If that's not specific to Russia's context than I don't know what is.

My second gripe is the decision to exclude quintessential parts of the text. Remember that incredibly cool and sexy part of The State and Revolution when Lenin finishes the book by cutting himself off and saying, "It is more pleasant and useful to go through the 'experience of revolution' than to write about it." NOT FUCKING INCLUDED! What a ridiculous fucking anthology. Read Lenin but please get any other edition, Dover is such a piece of shit.

[Chelsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Essential reading for any Marxist-Leninist, especially in an era when Lenin is, even by leftists, regarded as a power-hungry evil genius. Given the general consensus about Lenin, I was very surprised (and almost underwhelmed*) that what Lenin advocates in this writing isn't a coup, or terrorism (in fact, he very deftly critiques terrorism) but a centralized newspaper which activists can use to agitate and inform and the creation of a political party composed of particularly talented activists to help lead the struggle.
It's important to remember the era in which this work was written-- during extreme political repression. Nevertheless, What is to Be Done is a classic which stands the test of time.

* Not that I actually wanted Lenin to advocate a coup or terrorism, I just thought his conclusion would urge for something bigger and more significant than a newspaper. (It makes sense when you think about it, and perhaps my writing-off of newspapers is the result of my living during a time in which newspapers are going under.)

[Jan Hendricks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book contains Lenin's most essential works (except ''Left-Wing' Communism - An Infantile Disorder'). 'What is to be done?' while appearing to be a bit long, dated, and tailored to the specific political and material circumstances in Tsarist Russia at the time, nonetheless, still remains one of the most comprehensive outlines of revolutionary strategy in a repressive environment. There are also some nice 'zingers' against what we now understand as 'social democracy' and simple reliance on trade unionism. 'Imperialism - the Highest Stage of Capitalism', which is also contained in this volume, remains an absolutely remarkable achievement in the analysis of the dynamics of globalised monopoly capitalism and thereby highly relevant. Lastly, in 'The State and Revolution', Lenin conducts a ferocious attack on opportunism and the theorists that have completely misunderstood and misrepresented Marx's work regarding the process of revolution. Drawing on 'The Critique of the Gotha Programme', Lenin shows what Marx actually had in mind when talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat - aiming for the complete elimination of the capitalist state machinery, while portraying similarities and differences with anarchist thought. Overall, especially the final two works are incredibly readable, insightful, and at times even entertaining. (4/5)

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holy wow. Exciting to finally get to read Lenin. Obviously particularly powerful to read these 4 pieces knowing that he succeeded in his revolutionary ambitions.

[Kitap Yakıcı]

Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the 20th century and beyond. With the benefit of hindsight Lenin's works are textbook examples of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Below I've pasted a few of my favorite quotes from the essays in this collection, along with some snarky backchat (since I can do that now without getting a bullet in the back of the head).

From “What is To Be Done?”

[A]ll subservience to the spontaneity of the labor movement, all belittling of “the conscious element,” of the role of Social-Democracy, means, whether one likes it or not, the growth of influence of bourgeois ideology among the workers. All those who talk about “exaggerating the importance of ideology,” about exaggerating the role of the conscious elements, etc., imagine that the pure and simple labor movement can work out an independent ideology for itself, if only the workers “take their fate out of the hands of their leaders.” But this is a profound mistake. (p. 81)

Lenin’s authoritarian, ideologue nature shines through from the beginning.

From “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”

The “democratization” of the ownership of shares, from which the bourgeois sophists and opportunists “would-be” Social-Democrats expect (or declare that they expect) the “democratization” of capital, the strengthening of the role of small-scale production, etc., is in fact one of the ways of increasing the power of the financial oligarchy. For this reason, among others, in the more advanced, or in the older and more “experienced” capitalist countries, the law allows the issue of shares of very small denomination. (p. 205)

Here I think Lenin makes a good point, and I cannot help but thinking of 401(k) plans and of getting regular folks to buy small amounts of stock, not to ensure that they have solid retirement savings, but rather to ensure that tax-payers have an ongoing incentive to bail out financial capital.

From “The State and Revolution”

The exploiting classes need political rule in order to maintain exploitation, i.e., in the selfish interests of an insignificant minority and against the interests of the vast majority of the people. The exploited classes need political rule in order completely to abolish all exploitation, i.e., in the interests of the vast majority of the people, and against the interests of the insignificant minority consisting of the modern slave-owners—the landlords and the capitalists. (p. 287)

Yikes. Textbook definition of a double standard (a deadly one in this case), and an example of the sort of logic that is now endemic among the Tumblr crowd.

[Eduard] Bernstein simply cannot conceive the possibility of voluntary centralism, of the voluntary amalgamation of the communes into a nation, the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes in the process of destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine. Like all philistines, Bernstein can imagine centralism only as something from above, to be imposed and maintained solely by means of bureaucracy and militarism. (p. 319)

Looking back on the 20th century, I too cannot conceive of the possibility of "voluntary centralism," and based on the rest of the essay, Lenin didn’t really believe it either, unless he meant something utterly different by “voluntary” than I do. Something to do with being at the wrong end of a gun.

Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people—this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism…. Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism, suppression is still necessary; but it is the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploiting majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state,” is still necessary, but this is now a transitory state; it is no longer a state in the proper sense; for the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of the wage-slaves of yesterday is comparatively so easy, simple and natural a task that it will entail far less bloodshed than the suppression of the risings of slaves, serfs, or wage-laborers, and it will cost mankind far less. This is compatible with the diffusion of democracy among such an overwhelming majority of the population that the need for a special machine of suppression will begin to disappear. The exploiters are, naturally, unable to suppress the people without a very complex machine for performing this task; but the people can suppress the exploiters with a very simple “machine,” almost without a “machine,” without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed masses… (pp. 338, 339)

I'm still trying to reconcile “voluntary” and “suppression by force.”

Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat’s struggle for equality and the significance of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. As soon as equality is obtained for all members of society in relation to the ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labor and equality of wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of going beyond formal equality to real equality, i.e., to applying the rule, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” By what stages, by what practical measures humanity will proceed to this higher aim—we do not and cannot know. But it is important to realize how infinitely mendacious is the ordinary bourgeois conception of socialism as something lifeless, petrified, fixed once for all, whereas in reality only under socialism will a rapid, genuine, really mass movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, commence in all spheres of social and individual life. (pp. 346–7)

Talk about infinitely mendacious. I guess Lenin didn’t have the benefit of hindsight.

The question of control and accounting must not be confused with the question of the scientifically educated stuff of engineers, agronomists and so on. These gentlemen are working today and obey the capitalists; they will work even better tomorrow and obey the armed workers. (p. 348)

Or else.

[Completelybanned · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dear Comrades,

I have read Essential Works of Lenin. I am a true Communist now. My communism can never be doubted, now that I have submitted myself to the one true voice of communism: comrade Vladimir Ilyich Ulianov Lenin. It was a journey, no doubt about that (but we Marxists love a journey, and we love even more a journey to a place only vaguely comprehended, up rugged mountain paths, sans compass, map, nor food nor water). Allow me to summarize this anthology and its role for the autodidact Marxists and budding labor organizers in the world.

We began with "The Development of Capitalism in Russia," which was highly abridged and mostly conveyed comrade Lenin's conviction that Tsarist Russia at the dawn of the 20th century was more ripe for revolution than many European Marxists had up to that point believed. It is important to remember that many European Marxists at the time, perhaps with a certain degree of chauvinism, opined that the revolution could only occur in a country with highly developed industry, and therefore, a large proletariat. Agrarian nations like Russia were in the background, peasants and proletariat being strictly separated. In the present volume, this is a point that the reader must take comrade Lenin's word for, because only the professional historian of revolutionary Russia could hope to marshal the facts and figures necessary to refute the point. Nonetheless, it was an interesting chapter and set the stage for the later ones.

Next came "What is to be done?," a pamphlet which few know draws its title from the novel of the same name by Nikolay Chernyshevsky, a leader of the Russian revolutionary socialist movement who was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul fortress and later exiled to Siberia. Here comrade Lenin propounds his infamous theory of the "vanguard," as well as manifold details on strategy and tactics for, at the time, what was the Russian Social-Democrat movement. He writes with his characteristic flair, which can, like an over-exuberant painter, lead to quite a mess here and there. Of course, I would never attempt to defend the newspaper Rabocheye Dyelo, its opportunism, or opportunism in general. Far from it, dear reader! To hell with Bersteinism, Economism, and demagogues! ("a demagogue is the worst enemy of the working class"). But this weary socialist-- er, I mean, communist-- reads comrade Lenin's invective and attacks on those marsh-retreaters as a sorry portent of the things to come, the scornful and petty infighting that would come to cripple the left. For example, just the section on Martynov and Plekhanov is so dripping with sarcasm as to be almost unreadable (no fault of comrade Lenin of course, damn Martynov and his ballhorning!). What counts here is tactics and strategy, and that is refreshing for any leftist who may feel that we are today favoring theory to the detriment of practice.

With dismay one turns the page to "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism," which is less riveting than comrade Lenin's polemical work, but ultimately not less significant for theory. Indeed, this pamphlet is one fascinating example of comrade Lenin the successor of Marx, comrade Lenin the empiricist. In many respects, this pamphlet may stand out as the most relevant to the contemporary reader: the massive holdings of American, French, and German banks outlined here show the power of "finance capitalism," which has done anything but diminish; the then emergent gulfs between native born workers and immigrants speak to the difficulties of organizing across race and national origin today.

Most exciting is the final chapter in this volume, the (not so) complete text of "State and Revolution,"
missing only the unfinished, one-sentence-long chapter VII on the experience of 1905 and 1917 and the postscript that so many Leninists no doubt recall with fondness as they prepare to clack away at a keyboard for the benefit of the global communist revolution: "It is more pleasant and useful to go through the 'experience of revolution' than to write about it." But I get ahead of myself. There are many good reasons for calling this comrade Lenin's magnum opus. In this pamphlet, he basically outlines the two troubling (malign? contemptuous? evil?!) tendencies in Russian Social-Democracy, anarchism and opportunism. These tendencies relate to the one all-important question for Marxists at the time, what will happen to the State after the revolution? It is a question that still bears on leftist strategy today, as we ask ourselves whether leftists should push for electoral reform (ew), unionization, mass protest, direct action, mutual aid, or mass riots (delicious). On one hand, the anarchists of comrade Lenin's time called for the State to be abolished, posthaste, which would consequently abolish class and oppression and all the other terrible things. Comrade Lenin argues that this is not good enough. Abolishing the State cannot happen in one fell swoop, and anyway we need a plan for assuming the functions of the state. On the other hand, for opportunists parliamentary democracy (boo, hiss) is "the unsurpassable limit" and anything more radical than that would be utter chaos. Comrade Lenin's argument is that the State must be seized by the revolution, so that it may be put to the needs of the revolution (got to post letters and run trains some way), and immediately wither away as State power is devolved to workers' councils (i.e. Soviets) and other local, democratic forms. It is a startling pamphlet, not least because of Comrade Lenin's appeals to violence, to shattering "bourgeois democracy" and other things the bourgeoisie (not me) holds dear. To be fair, perhaps there is a clear through line here between the worst abuses of Stalinism and the bureaucracy comrade Lenin envisions here? Never mind, I don't mean it, that's the kind of thing "so-called" "Marxist" "revolutionaries" say. Comrade Lenin did no wrong. Well, I'd love to say more on this book but I think I see a nice young Chekist who wants to have tea with me. So long, comrades.

In solidarity,
CompletelyBanned

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This translation (Dover) is cheap and functional (it's got all the major writings in it -- What is to be Done, State and Revolution, Imperialism, and excerpts from the early analysis of capitalism in Russia) but not very accurate. Lots of articles in the wrong places, awkward phrasing, etc. I'd only recommend it to those pressed for cash and surrounded by inferior used bookstores.

Thankfully Lenin's prose remains scathing throughout.

Read Lenin for a very clear expression of "anti-establishment" politics dating back prior to the many intricate layers of cant heaped upon it in decades since.

[Kaye · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book in 2005 during a class on Russian history and thoroughly enjoyed the translation. Lenin had some remarkable things to say about current class systems and distribution of wealth, and this book was very useful for understanding the specific conditions leading up to 1917.

[Nando Pereira Barboza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lenin was far ahead of his time, and his critiques about movements which he disagreed with are always sharp and his predictions for the future trend of social-democracy and opportunism were so correct that it seemed like he had a magical glass bowl. And concerning this critique of others, I don’t recall a single time were he failed to convince me of the correctness of his own arguments and convictions. His interpretation and explanation of marxist texts are very straightforward and logical. Although I do often find his own ideas and inputs, such as vanguardism, to be too shortsighted and not thoroughly explained. But the importance of these texts, for a correct grasp of the ideology and political atmosphere in which the Bolsheviks came to be and rose to power, can hardly be overstated.

Although I sometimes find myself to be in disagreement with Lenin, since I don’t consider myself a Marxist-Leninist, one thing is undoubtedly certain; Lenin’s position in socialist history, and world history for that matter, is magnificent, solid and unshakable. And future socialist will live in his spirit and shadow.


“In Lenin I honor a man, who in total sacrifice of his own person has committed his entire energy to realizing social justice. I do not find his methods advisable. One thing is certain, however: men like him are the guardians and renewers of mankind's conscience.”

A quote from Albert Einstein

[Adam Butt]

All the hits for sure.

[Gabriel Soriano]

Aside from his theoretical proficiency and brilliance, the passion and vigor with which Lenin writes make for such entertaining reading. His energy is just dripping off the pages, somehow still capable of instilling righteous hope in the face of what has occurred since his passing.

[A · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Development of Capitalism in Russia: 4/5

This was only portions of the full text, with the conclusions from Chapters 1 and 2 and Excerpts from Chapters 4, 6, and 7. These parts alone were very informative and I think reading the whole thing is worth it if you're interested in Russian history.

What is to be Done?: 4/5

Not sure if it was the translation but some portions felt awkward to read, the editor did include context for the first few chapters which was nice (although i'm not sure why they cut out the last chapter). Aside from the historic parts there are lots of good bits of knowledge in this (also humorous, which was unexpected).

Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism: 4.5/5

Really good and I can't really say much about it without just quoting praise for it. Interesting to see how this is applicable even today w/r/t Globalization and other issues. May have to re-read this later as I probably skimmed a lot of the economic stuff.

The State and Revolution: 5/5

Reading this was me reading and thinking "yup, this makes sense and i agree" in my head, didn't find much I had doubts or critiques about. One of my favorite quotes from it is

"In capitalist society, providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that "they cannot be bothered with democracy", "cannot be bothered with politics"; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life."


The Introduction was good, along with all the pretexts to all the essays. The font choice felt a bit too bold at times but that's really not important lol

[Camila · Rating 4 out of 5]

Esta edición calzó perfecto con lo que buscaba de Lenin, en conjunto todos estos textos muestran una visión amplia sobre historia, lucha de clases, conflictos internos, economía, cómo se han formado las jerarquías mundiales, comunismo, metas, etc.
Me parece muy útil analizar toda esta info con la perspectiva bien puesta en el hoy. Estamos en medio de la historia y tenemos grandes preguntas y frustraciones. No es necesario que tratemos de encontrar respuestas desde cero (como si eso fuera posible) ya que hay mucha gente que se ha preguntado lo mismo, ha desarrollado acercamientos al problema y ha dejado su experiencia escrita. Es un trabajo en progreso.
Ponerle palabras a la experiencia social / material histórica de la humanidad es tremendamente valorable, hay que tomar lo que sirve y dejar el resto.

Se agradece la breve introducción y contextualización del editor a cada texto.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was fine I guess. Certainly some good stuff in here. I found S&R to be the most readable of the bunch, but WITBD? is probably the most interesting (specially given his attack on identity politics in it. who knew?) where he made a reasonable argument for "vanguard" (though i'm still not convinced). Mostly though, I was struck how much of an asshole Lenin was. Geesh... poor Kautsky and the other so-called opportunists and social-chauvinists!! whatever dude, you and your "majority" got your power and look what happened...

[Sidney Machin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Must read for anybody interested in Lenin or Marxism. I would advise reading The Communist Manifesto before hand for an introduction. Lenins political thought shaped the world on a level unseen before in history, and this book is the works which made up his thought. This book will likely change your life at least a little, due to his arguments, especially on imperialism seeming all too relevant today.

[Steve Mitchell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book shows that the Soviet Union during the Cold War was not Lenin’s intention of how communism would work; Lenin had grand plans as laid out in this book. (Look to George Orwell’s masterpiece ‘Animal Farm’ to see that Lenin’s plan still would not actually work!)

[Jagordo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worthwhile first-level source. Kind of hilarious to see people gassing up this writing where ¼ of it is Lenin engaging in backbiting other collectivists with another ½ being disingenuous commentary on what was likely even then unverifiable economic data.

[Brian Napoletano]

I've actually read everything in this anthology except "What is to be done."

[Jeff Cliff · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars

Lenin actually seemed to be a pretty creative, thoroughly well thought through mind with a world on the precipice of disaster to work with(that he would live mostly through). Though I could see him utilizing propaganda ( and openly calls for as much ), he also seems like he would learn from the reality he had access to. I was expecting dogma, but it really does seem like the work of a true believer fed with confirmation of evidence until the pen lifted and the pen dried.

He's not god (but he correctly sees the question of religion as easily distorted through the lens of freedom of religion - he sees full well that to the party (or vanguard, or whatever) it matters if a substantial portion of your citizenry is part of a totalitarian, anti-proletariat death cult or whathaveyou). But he does (imho correctly) identify some aspects of things like imperialism that are worth noting and...conspicuously absent in ECON 101/ micro/macroecon courses (which really should be political economy...but are also conspicuously not). And more than that - he grapples with what could be argued to be the best ideas of his time, and predicts what would be their consequences. Perhaps it's a pity that many of the consequences of the revolution turned out so far from what he predicted - the secret police/state apparatus in his idyllic "dictatorship" weren't confined to just one or a few extreme case of a men who go to far (can't find the page of State and Revolution, but it's in there where he discusses this and suggests it's as much) ...but a systematic property just as much as Imperialism and world-partitioning is a systematic property of 'free-market' capitalism. It would be useful for some student to go down and make a list of all the claimed aspects of a communist revolution, and to see what actually happened point by point.

I can see how Stalin would take Lenin's goodwill and turn it into a 1984-esque nightmare, much more clearly. But at the same time to give up trying to think our way out of Late Capitalist (and, let's be clear, the capitalism he wrote about is more or less the same nature today down to his choice of examples of contentious issues - housing, the pay of government officials, the lack of the poor to defend themselves from state brutality, the lack of our ability to be politically engaged beyond a few outliers like say me), because things were more complex than Lenin imagined, and could possibly imagine...is a cop out.

The warning of the Second International and its reason for failure is especially prescient and I'm pretty sure is exactly what Assange was getting at during the This Day Tomorrow: Occupy episode. We shouldn't aver our eyes, and pretend like the issue isn't going to plague us of how we would deal with the One True Ring if/when it's ours. We should hit the issue head on. What would taking this book seriously look like? Burning CSIS's facilities to the ground (after making *all* their data public, similar to what happened after the downfall of the east german stasi and Ceaușescu's equivalent ) and stringing everyone involved up on public lamp-posts. Smashing the bureaucracy in *all* of its forms and not negotiating with the likes of the TPP. Smashing parliament as a useless relic. Stuff like that. But, and here is where the book shines in at least *trying* to solve the important part - what does a post-revolution look like, and why? Because once it's possible to imagine a world without CSIS...

[Ömer Hanifi · Rating 3 out of 5]

While the selection of texts is not so bad, the comments by the editor hardly have even the slightest grasp on the texts they are commenting on (the editor has a view of Leninism as incompatible with "Western democracy" and against "all Western political forms and institutions"* and gives a total misreading of the State and Revolution, not to mention the entire communist project because of the incommensurability of his paradigm with that of Lenin's (or because he seemingly bothers not at all to engage in good faith)). Though parts of the translation seem more coherent than the translations found in various other sources (for example, in the expression of the conquest of state power by Kautsky that Lenin criticises, the verb that is used is "erobern"—this same verb in reference to the same quote by Kautsky, is translated differently throughout the Marxist Archive translation, sometimes as seize, sometimes as conquer, obfuscating Lenin's point, while this book translates it consistently as "conquer").

*Of course, one could well argue from Lenin's perspective that Lenin's project is actually against "all Western political forms and institutions" because the "West" is simply an expression signifying the unity of the earliest developed imperial core, and Leninism is against class society and imperialism. But obviously the author means it as a racial-conspiratorial boogeyman that will destroy civilisation.

[Sami Eerola · Rating 3 out of 5]

So boring. You have to know the historical context to understand the texts and i do not know enough to get engaged. Fortunately each book has a introduction that explains the core ideas inside of it.

This collection has more of a historical value to know what kind of theoretical conversations Social Democrats, Communists and Anarchist had about revolution and the end capitalism. With the hindsight Lenin´s approach was a total failure.

These text do not contain the totalitarian elements that the Soviet Union would have, but Lenin writes that a revolution will have mass violence and repression of counter-revolutionaries. The details of what kind of violence are not explained.

But the main outline of a revolutionary vanguard and a "temporary" dictatorship are outlined. But Lenin does not explain in details how the "withering away of the state" will happen. He only states the principles that would create this proses, but he does not present more concrete details. But judging by the opponents that Lenin is arguing against, his ideas are more detailed and concrete that theirs.

[Christian Gurdin · Rating 4 out of 5]

About time I read some of Lenin’s writings. Exciting to read just because of the often polemical style, but I feel I am missing the real complexity and nuance of some of it as I am not always clear about the problem-space he is operating within. Nonetheless, I can see why Marxist(-Leninists) have studied these writings with unending focus. There is a wealth of political lessons related to organisation that are to be gleaned. But, in the spirit of Lenin, let us not do this in a rigid, extractive way. We must interpret these lessons with the particularity of our own context in mind.

[Hein Htet · Rating 3 out of 5]

It lays a foundation of Leninism. A classic to read.

[João Pedro Lopes · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5 Because of this Dover edition. 5/5 for the works.

https://medium.com/@jphpwii/jp-essent...

[Mick Cate · Rating 4 out of 5]

He’s really dramatic but I’m a communist now so I guess that’s something

[Samuel Anderson]

—ONLY STATE AND REVOLUTION—

[Jacob Swim · Rating 4 out of 5]

a 4 star because Lenin was a good writer and very convincing. I don't agree with his cure though.

[Tanner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Took me an embarrassingly long time to get through it all, but excellent theory and philosophy from one of the great revolutionaries. Actually amazing how much of it is still relevant today.

[Riya Cutchin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Banger