What do you think?
Rate this book
Leninism
In this volume, Neil Harding presents the first comprehensive reinterpretation of Leninism to be produced in many years. Challenging much of the conventional wisdom regarding Leninism’s effectiveness as a mobilizing body of ideas, its substance, and its origins and evolution, Harding offers both a controversial exposition of this ideology and a critical engagement with its consequences for the politics of contemporary communism.
Rather than tracing the roots of Leninism to the details of Lenin’s biography, Harding shows how it emerged as a revolutionary Marxist response to the First World War and to the perceived treachery—the support of that war—by social democratic leaders. The economics, politics, and philosophy of Leninism, he argues, were rapidly theorized between 1914 and 1918 and deeply imprinted with the peculiarities of the wartime experience. Its complementary metaphysics of history and science was as intrinsic to its confidence and sureness of purpose as it was to its contempt for democratic practice and tolerance. But, as Harding also shows, although Leninism articulated a complex and coherent critique of capitalist civilization and held a powerful appeal to a variety of constituencies, it was itself caught in a timewarp that fatally limited its capacity to adapt. This book will engage not only Russian and Soviet specialists, but also readers concerned with the varieties of twentieth-century socialism.
Rather than tracing the roots of Leninism to the details of Lenin’s biography, Harding shows how it emerged as a revolutionary Marxist response to the First World War and to the perceived treachery—the support of that war—by social democratic leaders. The economics, politics, and philosophy of Leninism, he argues, were rapidly theorized between 1914 and 1918 and deeply imprinted with the peculiarities of the wartime experience. Its complementary metaphysics of history and science was as intrinsic to its confidence and sureness of purpose as it was to its contempt for democratic practice and tolerance. But, as Harding also shows, although Leninism articulated a complex and coherent critique of capitalist civilization and held a powerful appeal to a variety of constituencies, it was itself caught in a timewarp that fatally limited its capacity to adapt. This book will engage not only Russian and Soviet specialists, but also readers concerned with the varieties of twentieth-century socialism.
356 pages, Paperback
Published August 22, 1996
2 people are currently reading
144 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 12, 2017
This was a fitting place to end my tour through Lenin country. It's a short summary and extension of Neil Harding's other book Lenin's Political Thought. Lenin's Political Thought was overlong and put strange emphasis on a few things like the Worker's and Peasant's Inspectorate. This was a check Lenin tried to put in place on the growing bureaucracy at the end of his life. Oh no! Harding also placed special emphasis on State and Revolution and the soviet form as a wholly original contribution to Marxism. To me disenfranchising wealthy people begged too many questions. Not to say in 1917 every country had a broad electorate.
In Leninism, Neil Harding shifts focus to a different text: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. This book dealt with the rivalry of imperial powers due to the advent of state monopoly capitalism. The war this rivalry generates and the concentration of capital into large cartels is supposed to make easier the transition to socialism. In spinning this prophesy, Lenin makes clear that any socialists unwilling to take advantage of the contradictions inherent in this late stage of capitalism are traitors. Framing Leninism from this standpoint of an orthodox marxist reaction to The Great War and revisionism was a neat move in my mind. After all, it was the war that propelled Lenin to power. This is not to say Imperialism would be a fun read, I sincerely doubt it's more intriguing than State and Revolution. Harding's case to me seems to be that it is just more significant than State and Revolution for the formulation of Leninism.
The two chapters prior to the conclusion are probably his most original contributions to understanding Leninism. The former is on how the philosophy of Dialectical Materialism informed Lenin's politics. This is kind of darkly funny; Lenin's note taking on Hegel who I've heard is a little bit difficult to understand. The practical import was that it privileged the role of the intelligentsia in determining "nodal lines" (no I'm not joking) from which point revolutionary change would emerge. This idea of mastering a new science that would reveal the trajectory of the future allegedly contributed to Leninism's rigidity and refusal to accommodate itself to rival (or complementary) ideas.
The other chapter I thought was especially original was on the continuity of Leninism to Stalinism. Harding weighs in surprisingly aggressively in favor of there being great continuity. He maintains that Leninism's rejection of so much of previous Western political thought as misguided and irredeemably bourgeois helped create a society "with neither the vocabulary nor the forums through which a stand against the arbitrary power of persons could even be challenged."
This is the book for anyone interested in a major ideology of the 20th century or Lenin.
In Leninism, Neil Harding shifts focus to a different text: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. This book dealt with the rivalry of imperial powers due to the advent of state monopoly capitalism. The war this rivalry generates and the concentration of capital into large cartels is supposed to make easier the transition to socialism. In spinning this prophesy, Lenin makes clear that any socialists unwilling to take advantage of the contradictions inherent in this late stage of capitalism are traitors. Framing Leninism from this standpoint of an orthodox marxist reaction to The Great War and revisionism was a neat move in my mind. After all, it was the war that propelled Lenin to power. This is not to say Imperialism would be a fun read, I sincerely doubt it's more intriguing than State and Revolution. Harding's case to me seems to be that it is just more significant than State and Revolution for the formulation of Leninism.
The two chapters prior to the conclusion are probably his most original contributions to understanding Leninism. The former is on how the philosophy of Dialectical Materialism informed Lenin's politics. This is kind of darkly funny; Lenin's note taking on Hegel who I've heard is a little bit difficult to understand. The practical import was that it privileged the role of the intelligentsia in determining "nodal lines" (no I'm not joking) from which point revolutionary change would emerge. This idea of mastering a new science that would reveal the trajectory of the future allegedly contributed to Leninism's rigidity and refusal to accommodate itself to rival (or complementary) ideas.
The other chapter I thought was especially original was on the continuity of Leninism to Stalinism. Harding weighs in surprisingly aggressively in favor of there being great continuity. He maintains that Leninism's rejection of so much of previous Western political thought as misguided and irredeemably bourgeois helped create a society "with neither the vocabulary nor the forums through which a stand against the arbitrary power of persons could even be challenged."
This is the book for anyone interested in a major ideology of the 20th century or Lenin.
December 17, 2025
Harding seem to pursue what seems to be a "revisionist position" in Leninist interpretation, seeking to prove that Leninism acted more in accordance with Marxist principles. As such, this book serves as a more accessible ideological analysis and assessment that flows from his two-part political biography on Lenin. The thesis of "Lenin as faithful Marxist" runs contrary to other scholars who have claimed that Leninism was a Jacobin aberration, or was never fundamentally or genuinely Marxist. In some cases, revisionist works can suffer for simply being revisionist/contrarian and trying to stand out from mainstream narratives. However, I think Harding has made a largely compelling and comprehensive case for his argument here, along with providing a superb commentary on Lenin's ideas and how they played out in the formation of the Soviet state.
There are some strengths that I find most noteworthy. First, the book is presented as a chronology in the development of Leninism as a distinct ideology. This is beneficial when we reach the final two chapters of the book - "Leninism and Stalinism" and "Conclusion" - where Harding goes full circle and indicates the practical consequences of Lenin's ideas. This includes the struggles with party opposition, the struggle with succession, and the bureaucratization of the Bolshevik Party.
Lenin's distaste for party opposition, along with his repudiation of liberal democratic principles, in Harding's view, made fertile grounds for the Stalinist destruction of party opposition outright. The idea of the vanguard, along with the belief of possessing objective knowledge on how to advance to socialism, gave the Party leadership justification for any policy, no matter how draconian or cruel. The chapters on Imperialism and Leninism and Stalinism were among the most interesting for me for different reasons. The chapter on Imperialism was an amazing presentation of Lenin's ideas in a nuanced manner. Harding successfully avoids going to pedantic detail, which can steer the average reader away from books like this.
Meanwhile, the chapter on Leninism and Stalinism attacks an area of debate that has ensued for decades. It offers an invaluable contribution for the debate because it offers unique arguments focusing solely on Lenin's (and Trotsky's) own words and actions. The institutional relativism - caring more about the "progression" of the dictatorship of the proletariat, over the form of the rule in place to achieve this aim - rationalized the rise of Stalin as an autocrat as long as the class struggle was progressing in the right path (how this was defined has been arbitrary and ambiguous in practice). Additionally, Lenin's redefinition of the progression to socialism in a "productivist" sense also gave rationale for Stalin's crash program in his first Five-Year Plan; Trotsky was also a supporter of a similar economic model to the one implemented by Stalin when he was a part of the opposition in the succession struggle. Harding does a good job presenting both sides of the argument, although I would have liked for him to have updated the secondary literature he mentioned in the footnotes. Nonetheless, this chapter was especially unique and worthwhile.
As for weaknesses, I found very few but these two are worth mentioning. First, Harding posits that Leninism as a distinct ideology developed fully during the mid-1910s. This is an interesting claim that obscures Lenin's earlier political career. Hence, I didn't find this position persuasive. The second weakness arises from Harding's insistence on Lenin's goal of the "commune-state," which is a controversial position that I didn't find fully convincing (there is a review written by George Brinkley on this book in JSTOR that, in my opinion, effectively argues against Harding's position).
Those minor limitations aside, this is one of my favorite works on Lenin; and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Lenin and his thought. 5 stars.
There are some strengths that I find most noteworthy. First, the book is presented as a chronology in the development of Leninism as a distinct ideology. This is beneficial when we reach the final two chapters of the book - "Leninism and Stalinism" and "Conclusion" - where Harding goes full circle and indicates the practical consequences of Lenin's ideas. This includes the struggles with party opposition, the struggle with succession, and the bureaucratization of the Bolshevik Party.
Lenin's distaste for party opposition, along with his repudiation of liberal democratic principles, in Harding's view, made fertile grounds for the Stalinist destruction of party opposition outright. The idea of the vanguard, along with the belief of possessing objective knowledge on how to advance to socialism, gave the Party leadership justification for any policy, no matter how draconian or cruel. The chapters on Imperialism and Leninism and Stalinism were among the most interesting for me for different reasons. The chapter on Imperialism was an amazing presentation of Lenin's ideas in a nuanced manner. Harding successfully avoids going to pedantic detail, which can steer the average reader away from books like this.
Meanwhile, the chapter on Leninism and Stalinism attacks an area of debate that has ensued for decades. It offers an invaluable contribution for the debate because it offers unique arguments focusing solely on Lenin's (and Trotsky's) own words and actions. The institutional relativism - caring more about the "progression" of the dictatorship of the proletariat, over the form of the rule in place to achieve this aim - rationalized the rise of Stalin as an autocrat as long as the class struggle was progressing in the right path (how this was defined has been arbitrary and ambiguous in practice). Additionally, Lenin's redefinition of the progression to socialism in a "productivist" sense also gave rationale for Stalin's crash program in his first Five-Year Plan; Trotsky was also a supporter of a similar economic model to the one implemented by Stalin when he was a part of the opposition in the succession struggle. Harding does a good job presenting both sides of the argument, although I would have liked for him to have updated the secondary literature he mentioned in the footnotes. Nonetheless, this chapter was especially unique and worthwhile.
As for weaknesses, I found very few but these two are worth mentioning. First, Harding posits that Leninism as a distinct ideology developed fully during the mid-1910s. This is an interesting claim that obscures Lenin's earlier political career. Hence, I didn't find this position persuasive. The second weakness arises from Harding's insistence on Lenin's goal of the "commune-state," which is a controversial position that I didn't find fully convincing (there is a review written by George Brinkley on this book in JSTOR that, in my opinion, effectively argues against Harding's position).
Those minor limitations aside, this is one of my favorite works on Lenin; and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Lenin and his thought. 5 stars.
August 15, 2023
I thought this was particularly strong in the first half when it sets out the most plausible variation on the creation of a proper 'Leninism.' When it settles into attack mode, it is largely to be credited for never pulling its punches — although I do believe that its insinuations about Marxism are more unfair and occasionally evasive — and tolerate or admit less ambiguity — than his criticisms of Leninism, which can be more adequately grounded in all the obvious places. (Particularly, it draws too neat an analogue between Marx's alleged conception of the party and Lenin's, which I think is difficult to sustain). It is clear where Harding lands (the project is almost wholly degenerate by 1921), but his knowledge of the Lenin material is clear and it never resorts to demonology.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews