Vladimir Lenin’s “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder” was written in 1920 amidst the Russian Civil War and with the Bolsheviks in power. Lenin wrote the pamphlet in the lead up to the meeting of the second congress of the Third International, when delegates from all over the world would be coming to Moscow. Lenin’s pamphlet was a sustained argument with socialists outside of Russia about revolutionary strategy and tactics. Lenin was not only responding to criticisms from various leftist groups, he was correcting the record about the Bolshevik method. The pamphlet forcefully argues that a socialist strategy cannot simply regurgitate abstract doctrinaire slogans and methods, but must find ways that connect with the existing working class. . The text allows us to better understand the tendencies of the ultra left which led to the failure of the lessons of the 1917 Russian revolution taking hold across Europe, and the importance of tactical compromises, revolutionary realism, and meeting workers where they are at. These lessons are of vital significance for leftist revolutionaries in struggle both then and now.
“Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action”
In “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder”, Lenin aimed to encapsulate the lessons the Bolshevik Party had learned from its involvement in three revolutions over 12 years, appealing primarily to European communists at the time. Lenin calls on revolutionary socialists to take an ideologically firm but flexible and sophisticated approach to fighting the ruling class, while also building a mass base of workers. Overall, he rejects adherence to revolutionary purity and idealism that results in the dismissal of practical political engagement. Such tendencies of the so-called “left-wing” communists characterize what Lenin called an “infantile disorder”. What this means in practice is a lack of political pragmatism or disciplined organizing of the working class, often leading to sectarianism, isolation from the broader working-class, and ultimately weaker movements.
Despite its historical context and audience, the insights offered by the text are relevant to current and past leftist struggles, especially as we see appetite for a real left political alternative emerge in countries across Europe, South America and here in Canada.
Lenin’s struggle against ultra-leftism
For Lenin, ultra-leftism means actions and slogans which substitute the actions of a minority on the left for that of the majority of workers, rather than organizing with the wider working class. By doing this, communists were cutting themselves from the majority of the working class instead of linking with them. Lenin observed that for a vanguard party to perform its function properly, it must always be in touch with the majority of the working class. Revolutionary organizations must maintain a relationship between their organization and the wider working class movement. It is only through maintaining this relationship that organizations can hope to understand the next steps that need to be taken in the struggle and avoid wider division that ultimately harms their goals.
An example of this is the German Communist Party in March 1921, where international activists encouraged the party to ‘go on the offensive’ in order to force a revolution. Calling for a general strike and occupation of factories, the party ran headlines giving workers an ultimatum: you are either on our side or against us. The tactic failed, with only 200,000 to 500,000 strikers out of a working class numbering in the tens of millions. It had ended with the 50 or so party members who formed the core of the party in each workplace pitted against fellow workers who would, and often had, followed their lead in other circumstances. The division ultimately isolated the vanguard of the class and emboldened reactionaries.
The importance of tactical compromises and revolutionary realism
Lenin criticizes ultra-leftists for their revolutionary rhetoric divorced from the actual conditions and consciousness of the working class. Lenin warns revolutionary socialists of the fragility of the proletarian revolution against capitalist counter-revolution. He describes how vital it is for the leadership of the proletariat to be prepared to adapt to the weaknesses of their class enemy, who will be prepared, in turn, to do whatever it takes to destroy the proletariat. It is from this view that Lenin argues that compromises should be weighed-up on a case-by-case basis, for the benefit of the class struggle instead of rejecting them altogether on the basis of dogma.
He also criticizes the overzealous nature of ultra-leftists going on a full-frontal battle with the ruling class without an organized revolutionary class and the masses on its side to counter the enemy. To this end, Lenin states: “political leaders of the revolutionary class are absolutely useless if they are incapable of changing tack, or offering conciliation and compromise” to avoid disastrous defeat which ultimately would shatter the confidence of the working class.
For instance, Lenin sheds more light on the political and electoral alliances that the Bolsheviks forged with the bourgeois liberal Kadets, as well as later with the reformist Mensheviks and the peasant party, the Social Revolutionaries. He goes on to explain that while they followed the policy of tactical compromise, it never stopped their political struggle against the reformists as opportunists. The flexible and varied approach to forging working class unity and avoiding disastrous losses saw the Bolsheviks succeed in October 1917, as they positioned themselves open to many strategic allies, however surprising, while keeping the interests of the working class at the forefront. The principle applied just as much if not more so in the trade unions.
Meeting workers where they are
Lenin’s critique and perspective is guided by the conditions and circumstances that resulted in the Bolsheviks’ successful assumption of state power in Russia in 1917. To this end, Chapter 4 focuses on the importance of combining ‘legal and illegal, parliamentary and non-parliamentary forms of struggle’, and the importance of flexible tactics. Lenin rejects the stance taken by the anarchists and so called ‘left’ communists in their stubborn refusal to adapt their tactics to the concrete reality on the basis of their abstract ‘principles’ whether that is rejecting compromises or refusing to engage with parliament and elections.
Lenin provides the example of the Workers Socialist Federation in Great Britain, where the party opposed affiliation to the Labour Party and opposed any participation in parliamentarianism on the grounds of “keeping their doctrine pure” and “not compromising… not stopping or turning etc…”. Lenin makes the case that, despite the reformist nature of the Labour Party, they received significant support from the broader working class and the communists must work within the Labour Party to raise the class consciousness of the workers. This tactic not only exposes the bankruptcy of the reformist leaders to the working class in the party, but also brings them closer to the communists.
Beyond meeting where workers are likely to be, Lenin also argues that by being in a conditional coalition with all workers parties it sends a message of unity to all workers against the parties of the bourgeoisie and builds class-consciousness in an uneven terrain.
Lenin’s lessons at work today
Similar lessons could be drawn today as the new left electoral alliance, the New Popular Front, in France came first, with 183 MPs in the French elections in a race where the far-right National Rally saw a resurgence to the top. The victory of the New Popular Front through an anti-fascist agenda and a dynamic campaign demonstrated unity on the left, making much-needed compromises to defeat a dangerous fascist agenda.The electoral alliance includes sections led by working class leaders like Sebastien Delogu, a taxi-driver campaigning against uberization of the profession, and Alma Dafour, a local organizer against Amazon. The various stripes involved, ranging from working class local leaders to more center-left leaders from the Green Party, demonstrate that however fragile, alliances are able to draw in masses of workers and their families to a transformative program.
The challenge for the revolutionary left in this context will be to continue to advance the interests of the broader working class in united fronts while maintaining their own revolutionary socialist politics.
The victory of the left coalition in France is only a start. It is a launching pad to continue mobilizing and organizing all those activated leading up to the final vote. No government should have a carte blanche to do as they please, and the real test of the left revolutionaries in the coalition lies ahead. Of crucial importance is the question of what the new government will look like and how to defeat the emboldened right. While the future is still uncertain, the compromise has yielded results in favor of the working class and the real work, as Lenin warns, is ensuring that compromise is done on a conditional basis to reach the masses and in their collective interest. Lenin’s work seen in the context of the election gives us a glimpse into the importance of practical engagement with the political realities of the time, as well as the need to adapt strategies to changing conditions while maintaining a clear agenda.
Where do we go from here?
The Russian revolution and its subsequent Stalinist degeneration has dominated the narrative of the workers’ movements across the world and throughout most of the 20th century. Organizers leading workers’ movements in the 21st century carry this memory as a beacon and as a burden. While the legacy and relentless attacks from the ruling class has led to a lack of conviction in a socialist alternative, we also see the urgency to dismantle the capitalist state around the world. Workers are not only fighting to diminish the immediate effects of capitalism, but to provide a different political alternative. Deepening our understanding of socialists in the 20th century and the tendencies that pose a threat to our collective goals as revolutionaries increases our capacity to know and therefore act in the struggle for socialism in our lifetime.
Did you like this article? Help us produce more like it by donating $1, $2, or $5. Donate
