What do you think?
Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism: Manual
Fundamentals of Marxism–Leninism is a book by a group of Soviet authors headed by Otto Wille Kuusinen. The work is considered one of the fundamental works on dialectical materialism and on Marxism-Leninism. The book remains important in understanding the philosophy and politics of the Soviet Union; it consolidates the work of important contributions to Marxist theory.
638 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
About the author
Otto Wille Kuusinen
10 books6 followersOtto Wilhelm (Wille) Kuusinen (Russian: О́тто Вильге́льмович Ку́усинен, Otto Vilgelmovich Kuusinen) was a Finnish and, later, Soviet politician, literary historian, and poet who, after the defeat of the Reds in the Finnish Civil War, fled to the Soviet Union, where he worked until his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
May 5, 2020
Marxism is the theory of understanding and inetrpreting the past in order to change world. Marx said "all the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, the point is to change it" So Marx's doctrine is revolutionary and his understanding of history is dialectical, linear and historical. After The French Revolution French conservative thinker Tocqueville tried to understand the causality behind the revolution so as to prevent next revolutions and he did much research about it. However, Marx, too, tried to find out the driving force behind the historical change in order to cause new revolutions. Marx suggested that he discovered the laws of historical change and social development. Contrary to the methods of the French materialists who believed that change would actualize in the mind of humans through education. For Marx, driving force behind the civilization was class struggle. The principal agent of the historical change are social classes and as he said "“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
Therefore, he invented dialectical materialism in order to undertsand the history so as to make future revolutions.
As a starter for those who are trying to understand Marxism after Marx is a detailed work. However, the world and the ways of understanding it and insights into Marx, Marxism and as its reflection has changed too much since this book was written. However, it must be remembered that those who wrote this book were under the deep influence of soviet interests as a state and its perception about Marxism.
Therefore, he invented dialectical materialism in order to undertsand the history so as to make future revolutions.
As a starter for those who are trying to understand Marxism after Marx is a detailed work. However, the world and the ways of understanding it and insights into Marx, Marxism and as its reflection has changed too much since this book was written. However, it must be remembered that those who wrote this book were under the deep influence of soviet interests as a state and its perception about Marxism.
August 22, 2020
This is by far the most comprehensive analysis of Marxist-Leninist theory that I’ve read. I’m not going to write some Brobdingnagian review of everything in here, as since it is remarkably trenchant, it’s best to read yourself. What I will discuss is my main complaint. The last bit on communism was pure party dogma and contestably un-Marxist. Kuusinen states that communism involves “self-government,” “very high degree of planned organisation of the entire social economy,” and other revisionist nonsense. Ironically, he states that petty-bourgeois individualists and anarchists are those who disagree with this notion of communism, when, in fact, it is they who promote this idea of “statism without a state.” Communism is stateless, and, to be stateless, it has to involve the absence of economy. The absence of economy is the absence of work, ie organized labour, thus planning in communism is oxymoronic. As much as I adore the first sections of the book, the last made it feel just dogmatic and revisionist.
September 24, 2026
The theory of Marxism-Leninism, as the introduction to this very book tells us, is a massive subject dedicated to which “a number of volumes would be required” (Stalin, Problems of Leninism, p. 13, Foreign Languages Publishing House 1945). Accordingly, this book could only ever serve as a summary introduction to the most important aspects of Marxist-Leninist theory, and ultimately leading the reader through its footnotes to more important works in each given topic from Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. But already here there is a serious problem.
Written in the wake of the wake of the 20th and 21st Congresses of the CPSU when the break of the revisionist leadership of the CPSU with Marxism-Leninism and the contributions of Stalin was announced to the world, the only citation one finds in this lengthy volume of Stalin is to dishonestly attack him as an enemy of Marxism-Leninism and counterpose to the correct Bolshevik views of Stalin the revisionist views of Khrushchev and Co. Similarly, reference is made to the works of Khrushchev, the resolutions of the 20th and 21st CPSU Congresses, and resolutions of the 1957 and 1960 International Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties throughout, although with respect to this latter group of citations, they are often made in a more subdued way as to conceal the pacifist and reformist character of these revolutions.
But despite the obvious negative features of this book imparted on it by the Khrushchevite authors (and editor, O. W. Kuusinen), there do still remain certain positive aspects to this book which make a reading of it useful to Communists today.
Stalin most famously defined Leninism as “Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution” (Problems of Leninism, p. 14) and this definition is more or less repeated here, although the authors would never dare to give Stalin his due credit for defining the main features of Leninism and its historic origins. Parts III, IV, and V, dealing with the topics of political economy, theory and tactics, and socialism and communism, give particular expression to this classic definition of Leninism as the development of Marxism to the new conditions of our epoch.
In Part III, dedicated to questions of political economy, an elucidation of the fundamental Marxist teachings of economics is given, summarising the essentials of the labour theory of value, operation of capitalist production, critique of classical economics, etc. All this in only the first chapter of Part III. But in the subsequent two chapters the process of the development of capitalism from the early capitalist production seen in the time of Marx and Engels to its final, monopoly stage witnessed with the start of the twentieth century and with this the development of the Leninist analysis of monopoly capitalism.
Part III, dedicated to the exposition of political economy, suffers from practically no manifestations of revisionist ideology. Joined by a careful study of Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and his other works on the topic, it does an excellent job of describing this final stage of capitalist development and the political trends connected with it. The third chapter of this section (Ch. 10) is particularly important. Astonishingly, despite being written about the tendencies of imperialism after the second world war, tendencies that would lead the Khrushchevites to notions about “peaceful coexistence” and “war no longer being inevitable”, this chapter soberly debunks the common arguments used by the apologists of imperialism (e.g. “capitalist nationalisations”, “profit-sharing”, “the end of capitalist crisis”, etc.) and reveals the inexorable trend of monopoly capitalism toward reaction (fascistisation, militarisation, the elimination of democratic liberties, etc.).
From this scientific analysis of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, first laid out by Lenin, the principles of the Leninist Party, the strategy and tactics of the Communist Party, and the road to socialism discovered and reflected in the experience of the Soviet Union are all laid out.
In Part IV, the classic Marxist expression of the role of the working class as the most progressive and revolutionary class today, the only class capable of building socialism, is laid out. And, in connection with this, the strategy and tactics of the Communist Party are, as Lenin insisted, subordinated to the goal of socialism, the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat and then Communism, in accordance with Stalin’s classic insight that “the fundamental problem of Leninism… is… the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the conditions under which it can be achieved, of the conditions under which it can be consolidated” (Problems of Leninism, pp. 48-49).
While finally, in Part V, corresponding with the above-cited view of Stalin, the forms and essential problems of the socialist revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, and transition to socialism and then communism are laid out. Although, while Part IV also has certain revisionist problems, in Part V the revisionist distortions by the authors is placed on full display.
Nevertheless, the full definition of Leninism, or Marxism-Leninism and its main aspects are more or less correctly expounded.
Being written, as this book was, during the Khrushchev era when the Soviet revisionists still had to struggle against consistent Marxist-Leninists and defenders of the position of Stalin as a classic of Marxism like Maurice Thorez, Harry Pollitt, Paul de Groot, and the comrades of Rakosi in Hungary and Bierut in Poland, there remains a number of gratuitous attacks on Stalin that in many places (such as in Ch. 13) feel very forced.
In section 2 of Ch. 6, concerning the role of the masses in history as part of this book’s course on historical materialism, the authors include an “obligatory” tangent about the cult of the individual and the allegedly harmful role of Stalin to socialist society. The cult of personality is slanderously attributed to Stalin in clear contrast with historic fact, and it is wrongly claimed that Stalin took pleasure in the cult. Although the cult of the individual, as was time and again stressed by Stalin himself, is entirely alien to Leninism, it is obvious this section is inserted solely to help erase Stalin from the history of Marxism-Leninism and demolish his great theoretical contributions, for Stalin was to Lenin what Engels was to Marx.
Likewise, the authors, like Trotsky, Tito, and other enemies of Communism, make reference to the fraudulent “last will and testament of Lenin” with its attacks on Stalin’s character that fly in the face of practically everything else Lenin said regarding Stalin.
Of course, however, the authors falsify history here to make easier their discrediting of Stalin’s defence of Leninism later on.
Under the pretext of fighting against Stalin’s “errors” (alongside a very forced tirade against “overly-militaristic” analogies in Stalin’s description of strategy and tactics, and condemning Stalin for his correct hostility against Menshevism and the Social-Revolutionaries in 1917), the authors tell us that “to reduce the strategic leadership in politics to the question of utilising reserves, as was done in the above-mentioned works of Stalin, is to divert the attention from the task which, in the capitalist countries, is the most essential in preparing for decisive class battles” (p. 347), effectively making the merging of the Communist and workers’ movements with other movements the main task, opening the door to all manner of compromises, and even inviting these vacillating elements into the Communist Party itself, in contrast to what Lenin himself wrote: “We support the peasant movement to the extent that it is revolutionary-democratic. We are making ready (doing so now, at once) to fight it when, and to the extent that, it becomes reactionary and anti-proletarian” with Lenin further noting that “the essence of Marxism lies in that double task” (Collected Works, Vol. 9, pp. 235-236, Progress Publishers 1977). Clearly Lenin, like Stalin, understood the peasantry and other stratas allied with the proletariat in this way as revolutionary reserves with whom unity could never be unconditional due to their vacillating and sometimes anti-proletarian class interests. This caveat of Lenin becomes all the more important when we take into consideration temporary alliances with the national bourgeoisie against imperialism, for example, a fundamental part left out by our authors.
And passing into the section on the proletarian dictatorship and socialism, the authors, while fairly well describing the fundamentals of the Soviet and People’s Democratic forms of proletarian dictatorship, the authors once against take opportunity to attack the Leninist-Stalinist teaching that class struggle intensifies under the proletarian dictatorship during the construction of socialism, a principle already explained by Lenin in his “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder. By attributing this teaching exclusively to Stalin and attempting to discredit it, the authors leave out the necessity for vigilance against the class enemy under the proletarian dictatorship and, while paying lipservice to the fight against Bukharinism, effectively leave open the possibility of the peaceful passage of the exploiters over to socialism under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the same principle adopted by the Titoite fascists.
Similarly, while not harking on Stalin’s “fault” in the Tito affair as other Khrushchevite workers do, the authors continue to insist on the socialist albeit flawed character of Titoite Yugoslavia and its progressive role as a part of the socialist camp, helping to reinforce the cancerous romanticisation of Tito among self-described “communists”.
And then, in the field of socialist economics, numerous attacks are made on Stalin’s outstanding book Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., which had elaborated the fundamental laws of capitalist and socialist modes of production, and serves as a brilliant contribution to the process of transition to communism. For example, the authors praise the selling off of the Machine-Tractor Stations to the collective farms, allowing the collectives which exist outside of state control to own means of production and thus deepening the gulf between cooperative enterprises, and between the cooperatives and the state, a problem which Engels had criticised in the economic model of Eugene Duhring’s “socialism”, and, as Stalin predicted, leading to the regeneration of capitalism. Similarly, among numerous other problems, the authors in a veiled form, with their analysis of the accounting system, open the door to the restoration of the law of value as the main regulator of production which is impossible in the socialist mode of production.
The most outstanding feature of this book, apart from its elucidation of Marxist-Leninist philosophy (which was already better expressed and in a more detailed manner in the three-part series by Maurice Cornforth), is in its description of imperialism, particularly after the second world war, and the tactics of the Communists in relation to this, whereas the description of socialism leaves much to be desired.
After dealing with what imperialism is and what methods it has taken to after WWII, the struggle for national independence, against cosmopolitanism, and for the defence of democratic liberties against the monopolies all become extremely important. Already in their time, Marx and Engels observed “the genuine patriotism of the bourgeoisie… has faded into a mere sham consequent upon the cosmopolitan character imprinted upon their financial, commercial, and industrial enterprise” (Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 501-502, Progress Publishers 1986). The bourgeoisie, history has shown, is prepared to sell their country to any foreigner in order to protect its class profits, passing the torch of genuine patriotism and the interests of the nation to the proletariat, the most numerous and advanced class today. Thus, when various institutions like the European Union, British Commonwealth, etc. are trying to abolish the independent identities of different nations in favour of a common invented one like a “European” or “western” identity, it comes with the aim of establishing, as Lenin warned, a community of the bourgeoisie for new campaigns of plunder and intensified reaction against the socialist and anti-imperialist movements, making the patriotic struggle for national sovereignty and against these cosmopolitan schemes all the more important for the Communist Parties.
On this topic, this book does an extremely good job, although a lot of what is said is very similar to the 1952 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Today a great many people, especially in Europe, underestimate the importance of this struggle and confuse it with Browderism (and its modern adherents in the so-called “ACP” in the US) or reactionary nationalism. But the plans that immediately preceded the EU, such as the ECC, are directly exposed here and the tasks of the Communist Parties in fighting against such federalisation and talk about a shared “European identity” are put very well.
Similarly, in the next chapter, Ch. 18, the inherently reactionary character of imperialism is stressed and its trend toward increased reactionisation is revealed in clear terms. The importance of the revolutionary struggle in defence of democracy, without which “the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 48, International Publishers 1942), is also explained, most of all making the case for the Popular Front in various forms and showing what kinds of victories are possible in the democratic struggle by such fronts. Although this should be conditional, no sacrifice of principle for unity at all costs as the revisionists in their attacks on Stalin would like us to believe. Nevertheless, these two chapters are a striking blow against the typical Trotskyites, certain Hoxhaites and Maoists, etc. who would insist a Popular Front, participation in parliaments, or struggle for democracy and national independence of any kind is inherently reactionary.
This outstanding character sadly diminishes in Ch. 19 where the usual social-pacifist myths about war no longer being inevitable, the world peace movement being able to abolish war forever and always, etc. is stressed under the pretext of explaining the tactics of the anti-war movement (although the expression of the actual tactics of the Communist-led anti-war movement is not bad on its own).
With the obviously negative qualities of this book noted above, the stated aim of this book, of serving as a manual of the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, is definitely not fulfilled. With how many extremely wrong positions are put forward in this book, not to mention the blatant falsification of history with respect to the legacy of Stalin, it would be a mistake to recommend this book to any new student of Marxism as it would lead to incorrect notions regarding the attitude of the Communist Party toward non-proletarian elements, unity of action, the construction of socialism, not to mention the history of Marxism-Leninism. But, hidden amongst the various obviously anti-Leninist parts of this book, there are valuable lessons still summarising the historic experience of the Communist movement and Marxist-Leninist teaching with respect to the struggle in defence of national independence and democracy, the forms of proletarian dictatorship, and certain essential features of party organisation. The first two parts on dialectical and historical materialism, also, with the exception of the tirade against Stalin in chapter six. are an acceptable summary of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, although very much outshined by Cornforth or Mitin’s work or even the Soviet textbook of Marxist philosophy from the 1930s.
Because of the referenced problems and relatively limited scope of what is useful from this book (Chs. 1-18 in particular), and the presence of anti-Leninist positions in even some of these chapters, this book is better used by experienced Marxist-Leninists, able to identify these errors, as a summary of the experience of the Communist movement and certain tasks and tactics of the Communist Parties after WWII.
Written in the wake of the wake of the 20th and 21st Congresses of the CPSU when the break of the revisionist leadership of the CPSU with Marxism-Leninism and the contributions of Stalin was announced to the world, the only citation one finds in this lengthy volume of Stalin is to dishonestly attack him as an enemy of Marxism-Leninism and counterpose to the correct Bolshevik views of Stalin the revisionist views of Khrushchev and Co. Similarly, reference is made to the works of Khrushchev, the resolutions of the 20th and 21st CPSU Congresses, and resolutions of the 1957 and 1960 International Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties throughout, although with respect to this latter group of citations, they are often made in a more subdued way as to conceal the pacifist and reformist character of these revolutions.
But despite the obvious negative features of this book imparted on it by the Khrushchevite authors (and editor, O. W. Kuusinen), there do still remain certain positive aspects to this book which make a reading of it useful to Communists today.
Stalin most famously defined Leninism as “Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution” (Problems of Leninism, p. 14) and this definition is more or less repeated here, although the authors would never dare to give Stalin his due credit for defining the main features of Leninism and its historic origins. Parts III, IV, and V, dealing with the topics of political economy, theory and tactics, and socialism and communism, give particular expression to this classic definition of Leninism as the development of Marxism to the new conditions of our epoch.
In Part III, dedicated to questions of political economy, an elucidation of the fundamental Marxist teachings of economics is given, summarising the essentials of the labour theory of value, operation of capitalist production, critique of classical economics, etc. All this in only the first chapter of Part III. But in the subsequent two chapters the process of the development of capitalism from the early capitalist production seen in the time of Marx and Engels to its final, monopoly stage witnessed with the start of the twentieth century and with this the development of the Leninist analysis of monopoly capitalism.
Part III, dedicated to the exposition of political economy, suffers from practically no manifestations of revisionist ideology. Joined by a careful study of Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and his other works on the topic, it does an excellent job of describing this final stage of capitalist development and the political trends connected with it. The third chapter of this section (Ch. 10) is particularly important. Astonishingly, despite being written about the tendencies of imperialism after the second world war, tendencies that would lead the Khrushchevites to notions about “peaceful coexistence” and “war no longer being inevitable”, this chapter soberly debunks the common arguments used by the apologists of imperialism (e.g. “capitalist nationalisations”, “profit-sharing”, “the end of capitalist crisis”, etc.) and reveals the inexorable trend of monopoly capitalism toward reaction (fascistisation, militarisation, the elimination of democratic liberties, etc.).
From this scientific analysis of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, first laid out by Lenin, the principles of the Leninist Party, the strategy and tactics of the Communist Party, and the road to socialism discovered and reflected in the experience of the Soviet Union are all laid out.
In Part IV, the classic Marxist expression of the role of the working class as the most progressive and revolutionary class today, the only class capable of building socialism, is laid out. And, in connection with this, the strategy and tactics of the Communist Party are, as Lenin insisted, subordinated to the goal of socialism, the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat and then Communism, in accordance with Stalin’s classic insight that “the fundamental problem of Leninism… is… the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the conditions under which it can be achieved, of the conditions under which it can be consolidated” (Problems of Leninism, pp. 48-49).
While finally, in Part V, corresponding with the above-cited view of Stalin, the forms and essential problems of the socialist revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, and transition to socialism and then communism are laid out. Although, while Part IV also has certain revisionist problems, in Part V the revisionist distortions by the authors is placed on full display.
Nevertheless, the full definition of Leninism, or Marxism-Leninism and its main aspects are more or less correctly expounded.
Being written, as this book was, during the Khrushchev era when the Soviet revisionists still had to struggle against consistent Marxist-Leninists and defenders of the position of Stalin as a classic of Marxism like Maurice Thorez, Harry Pollitt, Paul de Groot, and the comrades of Rakosi in Hungary and Bierut in Poland, there remains a number of gratuitous attacks on Stalin that in many places (such as in Ch. 13) feel very forced.
In section 2 of Ch. 6, concerning the role of the masses in history as part of this book’s course on historical materialism, the authors include an “obligatory” tangent about the cult of the individual and the allegedly harmful role of Stalin to socialist society. The cult of personality is slanderously attributed to Stalin in clear contrast with historic fact, and it is wrongly claimed that Stalin took pleasure in the cult. Although the cult of the individual, as was time and again stressed by Stalin himself, is entirely alien to Leninism, it is obvious this section is inserted solely to help erase Stalin from the history of Marxism-Leninism and demolish his great theoretical contributions, for Stalin was to Lenin what Engels was to Marx.
Likewise, the authors, like Trotsky, Tito, and other enemies of Communism, make reference to the fraudulent “last will and testament of Lenin” with its attacks on Stalin’s character that fly in the face of practically everything else Lenin said regarding Stalin.
Of course, however, the authors falsify history here to make easier their discrediting of Stalin’s defence of Leninism later on.
Under the pretext of fighting against Stalin’s “errors” (alongside a very forced tirade against “overly-militaristic” analogies in Stalin’s description of strategy and tactics, and condemning Stalin for his correct hostility against Menshevism and the Social-Revolutionaries in 1917), the authors tell us that “to reduce the strategic leadership in politics to the question of utilising reserves, as was done in the above-mentioned works of Stalin, is to divert the attention from the task which, in the capitalist countries, is the most essential in preparing for decisive class battles” (p. 347), effectively making the merging of the Communist and workers’ movements with other movements the main task, opening the door to all manner of compromises, and even inviting these vacillating elements into the Communist Party itself, in contrast to what Lenin himself wrote: “We support the peasant movement to the extent that it is revolutionary-democratic. We are making ready (doing so now, at once) to fight it when, and to the extent that, it becomes reactionary and anti-proletarian” with Lenin further noting that “the essence of Marxism lies in that double task” (Collected Works, Vol. 9, pp. 235-236, Progress Publishers 1977). Clearly Lenin, like Stalin, understood the peasantry and other stratas allied with the proletariat in this way as revolutionary reserves with whom unity could never be unconditional due to their vacillating and sometimes anti-proletarian class interests. This caveat of Lenin becomes all the more important when we take into consideration temporary alliances with the national bourgeoisie against imperialism, for example, a fundamental part left out by our authors.
And passing into the section on the proletarian dictatorship and socialism, the authors, while fairly well describing the fundamentals of the Soviet and People’s Democratic forms of proletarian dictatorship, the authors once against take opportunity to attack the Leninist-Stalinist teaching that class struggle intensifies under the proletarian dictatorship during the construction of socialism, a principle already explained by Lenin in his “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder. By attributing this teaching exclusively to Stalin and attempting to discredit it, the authors leave out the necessity for vigilance against the class enemy under the proletarian dictatorship and, while paying lipservice to the fight against Bukharinism, effectively leave open the possibility of the peaceful passage of the exploiters over to socialism under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the same principle adopted by the Titoite fascists.
Similarly, while not harking on Stalin’s “fault” in the Tito affair as other Khrushchevite workers do, the authors continue to insist on the socialist albeit flawed character of Titoite Yugoslavia and its progressive role as a part of the socialist camp, helping to reinforce the cancerous romanticisation of Tito among self-described “communists”.
And then, in the field of socialist economics, numerous attacks are made on Stalin’s outstanding book Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., which had elaborated the fundamental laws of capitalist and socialist modes of production, and serves as a brilliant contribution to the process of transition to communism. For example, the authors praise the selling off of the Machine-Tractor Stations to the collective farms, allowing the collectives which exist outside of state control to own means of production and thus deepening the gulf between cooperative enterprises, and between the cooperatives and the state, a problem which Engels had criticised in the economic model of Eugene Duhring’s “socialism”, and, as Stalin predicted, leading to the regeneration of capitalism. Similarly, among numerous other problems, the authors in a veiled form, with their analysis of the accounting system, open the door to the restoration of the law of value as the main regulator of production which is impossible in the socialist mode of production.
The most outstanding feature of this book, apart from its elucidation of Marxist-Leninist philosophy (which was already better expressed and in a more detailed manner in the three-part series by Maurice Cornforth), is in its description of imperialism, particularly after the second world war, and the tactics of the Communists in relation to this, whereas the description of socialism leaves much to be desired.
After dealing with what imperialism is and what methods it has taken to after WWII, the struggle for national independence, against cosmopolitanism, and for the defence of democratic liberties against the monopolies all become extremely important. Already in their time, Marx and Engels observed “the genuine patriotism of the bourgeoisie… has faded into a mere sham consequent upon the cosmopolitan character imprinted upon their financial, commercial, and industrial enterprise” (Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 501-502, Progress Publishers 1986). The bourgeoisie, history has shown, is prepared to sell their country to any foreigner in order to protect its class profits, passing the torch of genuine patriotism and the interests of the nation to the proletariat, the most numerous and advanced class today. Thus, when various institutions like the European Union, British Commonwealth, etc. are trying to abolish the independent identities of different nations in favour of a common invented one like a “European” or “western” identity, it comes with the aim of establishing, as Lenin warned, a community of the bourgeoisie for new campaigns of plunder and intensified reaction against the socialist and anti-imperialist movements, making the patriotic struggle for national sovereignty and against these cosmopolitan schemes all the more important for the Communist Parties.
On this topic, this book does an extremely good job, although a lot of what is said is very similar to the 1952 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Today a great many people, especially in Europe, underestimate the importance of this struggle and confuse it with Browderism (and its modern adherents in the so-called “ACP” in the US) or reactionary nationalism. But the plans that immediately preceded the EU, such as the ECC, are directly exposed here and the tasks of the Communist Parties in fighting against such federalisation and talk about a shared “European identity” are put very well.
Similarly, in the next chapter, Ch. 18, the inherently reactionary character of imperialism is stressed and its trend toward increased reactionisation is revealed in clear terms. The importance of the revolutionary struggle in defence of democracy, without which “the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 48, International Publishers 1942), is also explained, most of all making the case for the Popular Front in various forms and showing what kinds of victories are possible in the democratic struggle by such fronts. Although this should be conditional, no sacrifice of principle for unity at all costs as the revisionists in their attacks on Stalin would like us to believe. Nevertheless, these two chapters are a striking blow against the typical Trotskyites, certain Hoxhaites and Maoists, etc. who would insist a Popular Front, participation in parliaments, or struggle for democracy and national independence of any kind is inherently reactionary.
This outstanding character sadly diminishes in Ch. 19 where the usual social-pacifist myths about war no longer being inevitable, the world peace movement being able to abolish war forever and always, etc. is stressed under the pretext of explaining the tactics of the anti-war movement (although the expression of the actual tactics of the Communist-led anti-war movement is not bad on its own).
With the obviously negative qualities of this book noted above, the stated aim of this book, of serving as a manual of the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, is definitely not fulfilled. With how many extremely wrong positions are put forward in this book, not to mention the blatant falsification of history with respect to the legacy of Stalin, it would be a mistake to recommend this book to any new student of Marxism as it would lead to incorrect notions regarding the attitude of the Communist Party toward non-proletarian elements, unity of action, the construction of socialism, not to mention the history of Marxism-Leninism. But, hidden amongst the various obviously anti-Leninist parts of this book, there are valuable lessons still summarising the historic experience of the Communist movement and Marxist-Leninist teaching with respect to the struggle in defence of national independence and democracy, the forms of proletarian dictatorship, and certain essential features of party organisation. The first two parts on dialectical and historical materialism, also, with the exception of the tirade against Stalin in chapter six. are an acceptable summary of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, although very much outshined by Cornforth or Mitin’s work or even the Soviet textbook of Marxist philosophy from the 1930s.
Because of the referenced problems and relatively limited scope of what is useful from this book (Chs. 1-18 in particular), and the presence of anti-Leninist positions in even some of these chapters, this book is better used by experienced Marxist-Leninists, able to identify these errors, as a summary of the experience of the Communist movement and certain tasks and tactics of the Communist Parties after WWII.
March 21, 2024
Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organized through democratic centralism, would seize power on behalf of the proletariat and establish a one-party socialist state, called the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The book remains important in understanding the philosophy and politics of the Soviet Union; it consolidates the work of important contributions to Marxist theory.
the book is an excellent introduction for those looking to learn the science of revolution, the history, methods and outlook of scientific socialism. It breaks down complex questions of philosophy, organizing and others into easily understandable terms, making it good for beginners and an excellent primer for those who already have a grasp on Marxism-Leninism and are looking to sharpen their understanding. For those seeking to do away with capitalism and its system of corporate exploitation, class oppression and national oppression, this is the book for you.
The book begins with an explanation, not only of the purpose of its publication, but of a brief history of Marxism-Leninism. Ottow makes clear that Marxism didn’t just fall out of the sky one day, it arose out of the three component parts: socialism, political economy, and philosophy, and was (and continues to be) refined over the course of the practical experience and application of it in the struggles of working and oppressed people the whole world over.
In addition to dealing with the basics of Marxism, the book addresses problematic bourgeois ideological currents like post-modernism, otto take on settler colonialism, and pragmatism, which are harmful to the efforts to construct a revolutionary movement in this country.
This book comes at a period of major importance today. As Mick Kelly, political secretary of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, states in the forward, “Not since the rise of the new communist movement in late 1960s and early 70s have we seen such large numbers of people arriving at the conclusion that monopoly capitalism is a failed system, and that revolution and socialism are necessities. Many new revolutionaries are making the leap and helping to build revolutionary organization.”
The book remains important in understanding the philosophy and politics of the Soviet Union; it consolidates the work of important contributions to Marxist theory.
the book is an excellent introduction for those looking to learn the science of revolution, the history, methods and outlook of scientific socialism. It breaks down complex questions of philosophy, organizing and others into easily understandable terms, making it good for beginners and an excellent primer for those who already have a grasp on Marxism-Leninism and are looking to sharpen their understanding. For those seeking to do away with capitalism and its system of corporate exploitation, class oppression and national oppression, this is the book for you.
The book begins with an explanation, not only of the purpose of its publication, but of a brief history of Marxism-Leninism. Ottow makes clear that Marxism didn’t just fall out of the sky one day, it arose out of the three component parts: socialism, political economy, and philosophy, and was (and continues to be) refined over the course of the practical experience and application of it in the struggles of working and oppressed people the whole world over.
In addition to dealing with the basics of Marxism, the book addresses problematic bourgeois ideological currents like post-modernism, otto take on settler colonialism, and pragmatism, which are harmful to the efforts to construct a revolutionary movement in this country.
This book comes at a period of major importance today. As Mick Kelly, political secretary of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, states in the forward, “Not since the rise of the new communist movement in late 1960s and early 70s have we seen such large numbers of people arriving at the conclusion that monopoly capitalism is a failed system, and that revolution and socialism are necessities. Many new revolutionaries are making the leap and helping to build revolutionary organization.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 2, 2024
This is the best single volume work for understanding marxism. It is clearly written and easy to read, however the second half is unecessary to understanding marxism because it just is describing the economy of the soviet union. The first half explains the materialist philosophy of marxism, the modes of production and the capitalist economy.
May 6, 2022
Easy to read. Condensed ideology into one reader's digest style text. This book is so hopeful and inspiring. Highly recommend to anyone interested in communism.
February 22, 2026
Excellent Soviet-endorsed textbook on the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, from its philosophical origins to the practical implications of economics and foreign policy.
June 13, 2023
It's fine. Part One on the philosophical underpinnings is good and helped me understand some things better. It becomes less abstract and more concrete as it progresses, while also becoming less grounded and more fanciful. Kind of neat as a historical document, but not very helpful in a prescriptive sense.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews