Lenin affirmed that without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. His statement seems simple, but, in reality, it is anything but that since the revolutionary theory is more complex than it may seem to a formal reading of Lenin’s political texts. Leninist theory is, precisely, the outcome of a profound scientific analysis of social reality. And, at the same time, it is a class instrument for acting in a historically determined society’s economic structures and political superstructures. If we study the Leninist concept of the party, we immediately find ourselves faced with revolutionary theory as Marxist science. That is, we are faced with the issue of the scientific foundations of political action. In other words, it is not possible to understand the Leninist concept of the party unless one understands the entire scientific analysis of the economic structure that constitutes – in Marx and Lenin – its base. Removed from its scientific platform, the Leninist concept of the party would appear to be a monument – perhaps even a gigantic one – to political will. It would be a monument to the theory of power, to the theory of organization, but it would be a monument without a pedestal.
This explains why formal acceptance of some Leninist theses still dœs not represent the assimilation of the revolutionary theory. That is, it dœs not represent assimilation of the general scientific concept that is Leninism’s foundation. Consequently, the Leninist concept of the party is the result of a Marxist economic analysis and without applying this latter, we cannot reach – even on an organizational level – the former. Even Lenin’s life story as a Marxist illustrates this dialectical path. Hence, the problem to face the entire issue of how to assimilate the revolutionary theory.
Class Struggles and the Revolutionary Party is the result of an investigation into these problems.
