FROM
FROM
Vladimir Ulyanov, who took the name of Lenin, was bom in 1870, the son of a Russian schoolmaster. The execution of his brother for terrorism influenced him to devote himself to political agitation and writing. In 1895 he was imprisoned and exiled. After forming the Bolshevik group he returned to Russia in 1905 to take part in the Moscow uprising, but left for Switzerland when it was suppressed. In 1917, after the overthrow of the Tsar, the Germans facilitated his return in order to neutralize the Russian war effort. In October he seized power from the Kerensky government and established the dictatorship of the proletariat. After leading the Communist state through the Civil War and Allied intervention, he suffered a severe stroke in 1922 and died two years later.
War and Socialism {1915) and Left-Wing'Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Morality {1919) show the influence of Clausewitz, as well as Marx and Engels.
from War and Socialism
Socialists have always condemned wars as barbarous and brutal. Our attitude towards war, however, is fundamentally different from that of bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the anarchists. We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and class struggles within a country; we understand that wars cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and socialism is
The Twentieth Century
created; we also differ in that we regard civil wars i.e. wars waged by an oppressed class against the oppressing class, by a slave against slaveholders, by serf against landowners, and by wage-earners against the bourgeoisie as fully legitimate, progressive and necessary.
We Marxists differ from both pacifists and anarchists in that we deem it necessary to study each war historically (from the standpoint of Marx's dialectical materialism) and separately. There have been in the past numerous wars which, despite all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive i.e. benefited the development of making by helping to destroy most harmful and reactionary institutions (e.g. an autocracy or serfdom) and the most barbarous despotisms in Europe (the Turkish and Russian).
How, then, can we disclose and define the "substance of a war"? War is the continuation of a policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the war. If it was an imperialist policy . . . then the war stemming from that policy is imperialist. If it was a national liberation policy . . . then that war stemming from that policy is a war of national liberation.
from Left-Wing Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Morality
When we were the representatives of an oppressed class, we did not adopt a frivolous attitude towards defence of the fatherland in an imperialist war. We opposed such defence on principle. Now that we have become the representatives of the ruling class, which has begun to organise socialism, we demand that everybody adopt a serious attitude towards defence of the country. And adopting a serious attitude towards defence of the fatherland in an imperialist war means thoroughly preparing for it and strictly calculating the balance of forces.
If one's forces are obviously small, the best means of defence is retreat into the interior of the country. (Anyone who regards this as an artificial formula, made up to suit the needs of the moment, should read old Clausewitz, one of the greatest authorities on military matters, concerning the lessons of history to be learned in this connection.)