Academic literature on the topic 'Vladimir Ilʹich Lenin (1870-1924)'

Le communisme etant mort et le marxisme combattu partout, peut-on encore parler d'une theorie marxiste de l'etat ? ce travail essaie d'aborder ce probleme en etudiant les concepts de l'etat et de la dictature du proletariat ; depuis les reflexions de marx et d'engels a ce propos, jusqu'a la mise en oeuvre de ces reflexions par lenine dans le cadre de la revolution bolchevique. Il poursuit l'evolution de cette revolution afin de voir a quel point a-t-elle integre les principes du marxisme, et dans quel sens a-t-elle ete conforme aux elaborations theoriques de lenine, notemment dans son oeuvre l'etat et la revolution. Un grand interet y est porte sur les analyses et les critiques faites par des intellectuels occidentaux sur la theorie marxiste de l'etat et notemment sur leurs innovations dans ce domaine
Do the communism have died and the marxism fighted ever where can one again speak of a marxist theory of the state ? this work tries to land this problem in studying the concepts of the state and of the dictatorship of proletariat ; since the reflection of marx and of engels to this subject, until the stak in work of these reflection by lenine in the setting of the bolchevik revolution he pursues the evolution of this revolution in order to see to wich point has she embedded the principles of marxism, and wich sense has she complant summer to theoretical elaborations of lenine, particulary in its work the state and the revolution. A big interest there is carried on the analyses and the done critiques by some occidental intellectuals on the marxist theory of the state, and particulary on their innovations in this domain

Lénine est le premier à s’efforcer de définir de façon aussi précise les modalités pratique d’un plan de transition révolutionnaire socialiste, en termes d’institutions et de politiques économiques déterminé. La révolution devenant concrètement d’actualité il est alors selon lui impératif de faire que le projet socialiste ne soit plus une perspective « générale et abstraite » mais une politique de transition « concrète et immédiatement pratique ». Le développement capitaliste, avec l’impérialisme et la guerre, crée selon Lénine des institutions permettant un contrôle centralisé d’une économie toujours plus socialisée. La transition socialiste s’ouvrirait par une prise révolutionnaire de ces institutions qui permettrait de résoudre la contradiction entre le mode privé de répartition et une production socialisée. Pour lui le mode hiérarchique de direction du travail, n'est pas un fondement concret des rapports de classe mais une nécessité technique, il pense donc possible et nécessaire d’utiliser, en achevant de les étatiser, les structures économiques et le mode de direction capitaliste de la production pour préparer les conditions du socialisme. C’est selon nous le défaut essentiel de son projet de transition, qui n’intègre donc pas une critique de l’économie politique montrant la nécessité d’opposer au capital une association des travailleurs qui mette en œuvre un mode démocratique de direction du travail. De ce fait la pratique politique léninienne aboutit à transformer le pouvoir du capital en l’étatisant plutôt que de réaliser sa destruction. En effet devant diriger un mode de production qui reste antagoniste, le pouvoir bolchévik ne peut que se séparer du prolétariat et se réaliser comme appareil politique spécialisé. La politique de transition par un capitalisme d’Etat conduit à une dictature, qui, plutôt que de réaliser l’émancipation du prolétariat, impose les impératifs d’une industrialisation qui reproduit la séparation entre les producteurs et les moyens de production ainsi que la recherche de l’accumulation. Nous voulons montrer dans une telle perspective comment les résultats des conceptions de Lénine éclairent les limites de l’action politique et la nécessité de l’accompagner d’une transformation sociale qui soit orientée vers l’abolition des fondements dans les rapports de production de tous rapports de classes et notamment des rapports hiérarchiques par lesquels s’exercent concrètement comme rapport social la domination du capital et se réalise sa personnification en une classe dirigeante. Nous en concluons qu’une transition communiste doit substituer à un mode de coopération dont l’impulsion vient du capital et est réalisé sous sa direction, une coopération entre les travailleurs qui soit le résultat conscient de leur propre activité révolutionnaire. Elle doit se fonder sur le développement de pratiques d’association se réalisant hors de la médiation du capital et de l’Etat et qui s’orientent vers leur remplacement. Elle doit être portée par une révolution sociale réalisant l’hégémonie de la démocratie créative et agissante des producteurs, imposant contre le capital l’épanouissement de rapports d’une qualité nouvelle que les hommes établiraient entre eux et avec la nature et qui favoriserait un enrichissement qui serait celui des facultés humaines
Lenin was the first to go as far as he did in the definition of what could be the practical means and conditions of a revolutionary transition toward socialism, defining it precisely in terms of practices, institutions and economic policy. Lenin affirms that, revolution becoming a question of actuality, it is necessary for socialism to go from a general and abstract perspective to a practical problem. He tried to show that capitalist development, with imperialism and war, created institutions that permitted a centralised control of an economy that was becoming more and more socialised. Socialist transition would start with a revolutionary takeover of these institutions that would permit to resolve the contradiction between private property and social production. For Lenin, hierarchical management was not a practical base for class relations but a technical necessity, so he thought it possible and necessary to use capitalist structure, once it is state controlled, for preparing the conditions of socialism. We think the main weakness of Lenin’s project was that it did not integrate a critique of political economy showing the necessity to oppose to capital a free association of producers that realises a democratic mode of direction. That’s why leninist political practice gave way to a statist transformation of capital and not to its destruction. Charged to direct a mode of production that remained antagonistic the bolshevik power soon became independent from the workers and realised by a specialised political apparatus. The politics of transition to socialism through state capitalism leads to a dictatorship that can’t realise workers emancipation but imposes the necessity of an industrialisation that reproduces separation between the producers and the means of production and also the orientation of production towards accumulation. We try to show how the results of Lenin’s conceptions relates to the limits of political action when it is not going hand in hand with the abolition of the class relations bases in production and especially of a hierarchical direction that realises capital impersonation in a ruling class. We conclude that a communist transition must replace a mode of cooperation directed by capital by one directed workers associating together, and resulting from their revolutionary self-activity. It must be based on practices of association developed without the mediation of capital or of the state and directed towards their replacement. It must be carried by a social revolution realising the hegemony of an acting and creative democracy of producers, imposing against capital, relations of a new and higher quality that men and women would implement between themselves and with nature, giving rise to an enrichment that would be the enrichment of human faculties

Ce travail trace la constitution de la théorie de la connaissance marxiste à travers l'œuvre de Marx, Engels et Lénine. Un de ses thèmes principaux est la comparaison entre la théorie de la connaissance matérialiste et la gnoséologie traditionnelle (Kant, Hegel, les empiristes). Le premier chapitre ("les premiers repères : idéalisme et matérialisme") analyse les œuvres de jeunesse de Marx - sa critique de l'idéalisme objectif de Hegel et du matérialisme subjectif de Feuerbach. Dans le deuxième chapitre nous expliquons la spécificité de la méthode dialectique matérialiste de Marx par rapport à celle de Hegel (texte de l'introduction de 1857 à la contribution), la dialectique des formes dans le capital qui représente son apport à la gnoséologie, et la dialectique d’Engels. L'ensemble de ces idées éclaircit les différences fondamentales et insurmontables entre le marxisme et la pensée empiriste qui domine la philosophie de science depuis le 18e siècle, donc le titre du chapitre : "matérialisme et empirisme". Nous concluons ce travail avec une analyse de travail philosophique de Lénine ("gnoséologie du reflet") dans son contexte scientifico-politique. Par le moyen de son travail sur la théorie de la connaissance Lénine crée un étayement théorique pour le marxisme, ainsi qu'une nouvelle manière de philosopher. Cela dit, dans ce dernier chapitre nous assistons à la constitution d'une théorie de la connaissance à la fois matérialiste et marxiste. Ce travail; connu sous le nom de la théorie du reflet, nous permet de penser ensemble le matérialisme historique et le matérialisme dialectique, mais aussi de critiquer tous les concepts d'un point de vue matérialiste, et donc il permet une assimilation par le marxisme des éléments matérialistes venant de tous les domaines. Pour assumer sa fonction critique le marxisme nécessite une théorie de la connaissance
This work traces the formation of a Marxist theory of knowledge through the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. One of its principal themes is the comparison between the materialist theory of knowledge and the traditional epistemology (Kant, Hegel, the empiriciss). The first chapter ("first signs: idealism and materialism") analyses the work of young Marx - his critique of Hegel’s objective idealism and Feuerbach’s subjective materialism. In the second chapter we explain the specificity of the materialist dialectical method of Marx through its differences with that of Hegel (the text of the introduction of 1857 to the contribution), the dialectics of form in the capital which represents its contribution to epistemology, and the dialectic of Engels. Together these ideas clarify the fundamental and unsurmountable differences between Marxism and empiricism. A theory that has dominated the philosophy of science since the 18th century. Hence the title of the chapter: "materialism and empiricism". We conclude this work with an analysis of Lenin’s philosophical works ("gnoseology of reflection"). In its scientific and political context. By means of his work on the theory of knowledge Lenin creates a theoretical support for Marxism as well as a new way of philosophizing. In that last chapter, then, we witness a constitution of a theory of knowledge that is Marxist and materialist. Known under the name of the theory of reflection it allows us to understand historical materialism and dialectical materialism as a whole, and also to criticize all concepts from a materialist point of view, hence it permits Marxism to assimilate all materialist elements originating in any domain of knowledge. In order to accomplish its critical function Marxism necessitates a theory of knowledge

Orientador : Marcio Bilharinho Naves
Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas
Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-02T06:52:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Lazagna_Angela_M.pdf: 8084348 bytes, checksum: 94247354752ae11264b01df9f0ff4cf0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2002
Resumo: Esta dissertação é um estudo sobre o lugar privilegiado que o primado do desenvolvimento das forças produtivas ocupa no pensamento de Lenin. A partir daí, podemos entender qual é o conceito leniniano de socialismo, para compreendermos porque o taylorismo - um modo de organização do trabalho criado no início do século XX com o objetivo de intensificar o processo de extração da maisvalia relativa através da expropriação do saber-fazer operário, expropriação esta decorrente do aprofundamento da separação entre trabalho manual e intelectual, de concepção e de execução - teve lugar privilegiado no pensamento leniniano como um fator de desenvolvimento das forças produtivas para a superação do capitalismo e transição ao comunismo. Também demonstraremos como se deu o debate na década de 1920 na U.R.S.S. acerca da possibilidade da criação de um "taylorismo soviético"
Abstract: This dissertation is a study about the privileged place that the primacy of the productive forces development takes in Lenin's thought. Starting from that, we can apprehend thé true nature of leninian concept of socialism, to understand why the taylorism - a method of labor organization created in the beginning of XX century aiming at the intensification of the extraction of the relative surplus through the expropriation of the know-how from the workers, this same expropriation being bom from the deepenning of the splitting between manual and intelectual labour, of conception and execution - had its unique spot in Lenin's ideas as a development's agent of productive forces for the surpassment of capitalism and subsequent transition to communism. Also how unfolded the 1920's U.S.S.R. debate toward the possibility of creation of a "sovietic taylorism"
Mestrado
Mestre em Sociologia

Orientador: Marcio Bilharinho Naves
Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas
Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-08T03:15:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Cardoso_FelipeGuilhermeGava_M.pdf: 1095773 bytes, checksum: 58f762a98eb6d76ff699f9c9b75c0b1e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007
Resumo: A pesquisa aborda a questão do partido em Lenin ao longo de toda sua produção teórica (1895-1923) e tem como proposta discorrer detidamente sobre a organização interna, levandoem consideração a relação entre base e direção e partido e classe trabalhadora. Para tanto, analisa-se o conjunto da obra teórica de Lenin, as principais polêmicas a respeito do tema (como as discussões com Rosa Luxemburg e Trotski) e o acervo crítico oferecido por autores como MareeI Liebman, Neil Harding, Toni Cliff, Rudi Dutschke, Robert Michels, entre outros. O ponto central de discussão diz respeito ao predomínio, em Lenin, do princípio de especialização e do perfil militarizado das relações intra-partidárias, cujo fundamento remete à cisão entre direção política (Comitê Central) e execução de tarefas (base de militantes). Esse fator é especialmente problemático no período de transição ao comunismo, quando esse modelo organizativo se toma um empecilho para o desmantelamento das relações de produção de tipo capitalista já que repõe estratificações sociais de tipo c1assista
Abstract: The research discuss the party issue in Lenin along his complete theoretical production (1895-1923), speciaIIyabout the internal organizationquestion, considering the relationship between militants and directive organs as weIl as party and working class. In order to investigate this subject, we use as a source the complete works of Lenin, the main discussions with Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotski and the theoretical contributions of Marcel Liebman, Neil Harding, Toni Cliff, Rudi Dutschke, Robert Michels and others. The main discussion is about the dominance of the principIe of division of labour and the militaryway of internal rganization in Lenin's thougbt, which is founded on the separation between polítical direction (Central Committee) and accomplishment of tasks (by the rest of militants). This is particularly critical during the communist transition, because this organizationalpattern is an obstac1eto the overcomingof the capitalist social relations
Mestrado
Mestre em Sociologia

Dans cette thèse on s’est proposé d’identifier les références et les interprétations auxquelles le personnage historique Vladimir Ilitch Oulianov (dit Lénine) est soumis par les auteurs des partis communistes de France et de Roumanie, entre 1920 (l’an de la création du PCF) et 1989 (l’an de la dissolution du PCR). Le but de cette recherche a été l’observation de la manière générale dont ces références déterminent l’essence ou l’évolution des deux partis et du cadre politique que les interprétations créent. Deux dimensions distinctes de la recherche ont été prises en compte : d’un côté l’analyse théorique, du document écrit, qui a déterminé l’impact produit par la personnalité et la pensée de Lénine sur les programmes politiques élaborés par les deux partis ; d’autre côté, le passage en revue de l’évolution des deux partis, des structures politiques et des systèmes sociaux qu’ils déterminent, pour voir, finalement, comment le discours est mis en pratique.La thèse a été divisée en cinq grands chapitres. Le premier chapitre, Théorie et pratique : le léninisme des deux partis, qui comporte aussi la dimension introductive, analyse l’évolution des deux partis et de leur attachement au léninisme comme guide dans l’action. Le IIe chapitre, Le modèle soviétique et sa mise en pratique montre la manière dont les deux partis ont calqué tout l’échafaudage mis en œuvre en Union Soviétique. Le IIIe et le IVe chapitre s’occupent des Représentations politiques en Roumanie et en France. Il y a deux types de discours qui évoquent Lénine: le discours institutionnel (présent dans les Congres des partis ou dans les sessions plénières du Comité central) et le discours idéologique (diffusé par les discours des dirigeants des partis, par les publications de propagande, par la presse partisane, par les articles théoriques). Le Ve chapitre discute Des interprétations particulières, qui sont publiés plutôt au titre individuel, scientifique
This thesis intends to identify the references and the interpretation that the authors form the French and Communist parties have given to the historical character Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov (Lenin) between 1920 (the year of creation of the FCP) and 1989 (the year of dissolution of the RCP). The goal of this research was to observe the general manner in which these references determine the essence or the evolution of the two parties and the political frame created by the interpretations. Two distinct dimensions of the research were considered: the theoretical analysis of written document, which determines the impact made by the personality and the thinking of Lenin to the political program of the two parties; the analysis of the evolution of the two parties, of their political structures and the social systems they determine to finally see how the discourse is put into practice.The thesis is divided into five great chapters. The first one, Theory and practice: Leninism of the two parties, which has also a role of introduction, analyses the evolution of the two parties and their attachment to Leninism as a guide in their action. The second chapter, Soviet model and its application shows the manner in which the two parties have copied the construction applied in the Soviet Union. The third and the fourth chapter deal with the Political representations in Romania and France. There are two types of discourse that mention Lenin: the institutional discourse (present in the Party Congress or the plenary sessions of the Central Committee) and the ideological discourse (propagated through the speeches of the party leaders, the propaganda publications, the party press or the theoretical articles). The fifth chapter discusses Specific interpretations, published rather as individuals, in a scientific manner

Orientador: Marcio Bilharinho Naves
Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas
Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-08T04:43:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Silva_RafaelAfonsoda_M.pdf: 804324 bytes, checksum: 11865378ae1d651ceffb133f797845d6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007
Resumo: Esta pesquisa tem como propósito a análise e a reconstrução da reflexão de Lenin sobre a transição socialista em sua obra de 1917-1923, expondo criticamente seus dilemas e limitações. A reflexão leniniana é examinada por períodos, procurando apreender o seu discurso, na efetividade de sua entificação peculiar, em sua relação significativa com as necessidades práticas com que Lenin se defronta na dialética real da tentativa de iniciar um processo de transformação socialista das relações sociais na Rússia. Este estudo pretende, em primeiro lugar, contribuir para a compreensão da obra de Lenin. Em segundo lugar, tem por objetivo contribuir para o debate do tema da transição ao comunismo em uma perspectiva marxista. Espera-se que este trabalho possa servir para reforçar a relevância de tratar o tema da transição ao comunismo, fazendo um balanço das experiências e tentativas históricas de transição do século XX
Abstract: This research has as purpose to analyze and reconstruct Lenin¿s reflexion about the socialist revolution in his work from 1917-1923, explaining critically his dilemmas and limitations. Lenin¿s reflexion is divided into periods, in order to grasp his discourse in the effectiveness of its peculiar ontology and in its significant relation with the practical necessities, with which Lenin is confronted in the real dialectic of the attempt at beginning a process of socialist transformation of Russian social relations. This study intends firstly to contribute to the understanding of Lenin¿s work. Secondly it aims at discussing the subject of transition to communism from a marxist perspective. We hope this work serves to reinforce the relevance of dealing with the subject of transition to communism, taking a stock of the historical experiences and essays of transition in the 20th century
Mestrado
Mestre em Sociologia

Orientador: Renê José Trentin Silveira
Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Faculdade de Educação
Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-19T14:11:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodrigues_JeffersonVasques_M.pdf: 1000150 bytes, checksum: 7304092c9acdec8d1221ac284e53fd94 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011
Resumo: Partindo da compreensão de que, por determinações materiais e históricas, a direção partidária se apresenta como pólo teórico no papel de educador-dirigente, e a base partidária, como pólo prático no papel de educando-dirigido, busco analisar as características dessa relação dentro da estrutura organizativa do partido revolucionário (proposto originalmente por Lênin) e, conseqüentemente, a importância da práxis educativa nessa relação-eixo (dirigente-dirigido) para o processo revolucionário como um todo. Interessa avaliar as possibilidades de uma práxis educativa emancipadora entre esses dois sujeitos, em que se desenvolva a autonomia dos educandos (base/classe) e se garanta a educação do próprio educador (direção/partido). Para tanto, realizo uma pesquisa bibliográfica através do instrumental conceitual de Antonio Gramsci, abordando, no primeiro capítulo, a presença da práxis educativa no processo revolucionário como um todo; no segundo capítulo, o partido revolucionário como educador coletivo; e, no terceiro capítulo, o objeto desta pesquisa, a práxis educativa entre direção e base em seu interior. Por fim, avalio, de forma preliminar, o partido revolucionário e sua práxis educativa no Brasil atual. Ao final deste estudo, concluo pela vigência e validade dos princípios organizativos e educativos do partido revolucionário, apesar da conjuntura de crise que assola as organizações da classe. Também reafirmo a importância fundamental da práxis educativa entre direção e base, que pode potencializar, através da unidade dinâmica entre teoria e prática, o processo revolucionário, ou pô-lo em risco, se apresenta deformações que separam de forma estanque dirigentes (polo teórico) e dirigidos (pólo prático).
Abstract: Based on the understanding that, for historical and material determinations, the party leadership is presented as a theoretical pole in the role of educator-leader, and the party base, as a practical pole in the role of learner-followers, I analyze the characteristics of this relationship within the framework organization of the revolutionary party (originally proposed by Lenin) and, consequently, the importance of educational praxis that this relationship-axis (leader-follower) to the revolutionary process as a whole. I want to evaluate the possibilities of an emancipator educational practice between these two subjects able to develop the autonomy of learners (base/class) and ensuring the education of the educator himself (leadership/party). For this purpose, I make a bibliographic survey through the conceptual instruments of Antonio Gramsci, covering in the first chapter, the presence of educational practice in the revolutionary process as a whole; the revolutionary party as a collective educator in the second chapter and, the object of this research, the educational praxis between leadership and base in the third chapter. Finally, I evaluate, on a preliminary basis, the revolutionary party and its educational praxis in Brazil nowadays. At the end of the study, I conclude the actuality and validity of educational and organizational principles of the revolutionary party, despite the context of crisis affecting class organizations. I also reaffirm the fundamental importance of the educational praxis between leadership and base, which can enhance, through the dynamic unity of theory and practice, the revolutionary process, or put it at risk if deformations separate and isolate leaders (theoretical pole) and followers (practical pole).
Mestrado
Filosofia e História da Educação
Mestre em Educação

Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades
Tesis autorizada con embargo, disponible en texto competo en 2013
Tesis para optar al grado de Magíster en Filosofía mención Axiología y Filosofía Política
El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo general demostrar la falta de comprensión por parte de Lenin del fenómeno moderno de la separación (enajenación) de lo político (Estado político) con respecto a lo social, que tendría como consecuencias teóricas concretas la imposibilidad, de comprender el proceso de burocratización del “Estado Soviético”, y de plantear teóricamente la temática de la extinción del Estado. Para realizar lo anterior se justifica la importancia atribuida a los textos de Marx escritos en los años 1843 y 1844 (“Crítica de la Filosofía del Derecho de Hegel” en adelante “La Crítica”, “La cuestión judía”, “Para una crítica de la Filosofía del Derecho de Hegel. Introducción” y “Glosas críticas al artículo „El rey de Prusia y la reforma social. Por un prusiano”). No serán analizados ni los llamados “Manuscritos económico-filosóficos”, ni tampoco, los escritos de Marx posteriores a 1844. Solamente nos referiremos a estos últimos para mostrar: (1) la permanencia de conceptos como, por ejemplo, el de alienación/enajenación en los escritos llamados de madurez; y, (2) en qué medida las experiencias reales del movimiento obrero influyeron en el devenir intelectual del revolucionario alemán. Luego, se expone la teoría leninista del Estado que podemos encontrar en su texto “El Estado y la Revolución”. Se concluye que: (1) existen diferencias importantes en las diversas interpretaciones de los escritos llamados de juventud; tanto desde un punto de vista “epistemológico”, como de un punto de vista “político”; (2) Leninconfundióel fenómeno del Estado moderno con el hecho de que el pueblo se encontrase separado e imposibilitado de participar de las funciones estatales, pudiendo ser así oprimido por la clase dominante mediante el poder del Estado; (3) con respecto al problema de las formas políticas que permitirían la extinción de todo Estado, Lenin no encontraría una solución satisfactoria. Finalmente se deja abierta la siguiente pregunta: ¿no cabría preguntarse acaso, si la posibilidad de una crítica de “la filosofía política”, y por lo tanto de la posibilidad de una teoría del Estado, debería partir de la crítica de “la economía política”?

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:23:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-09-08Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T18:09:55Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 padilha_tma_me_mar.pdf: 1717459 bytes, checksum: 39519ad5455a0c1bffa0d8c310e35254 (MD5)
O objetivo geral deste trabalho é acompanhar a reflexão desse autor sobre a questão agráriocamponesa, através da análise dos escritos mais importantes de Lenin sobre o tema, entre os anos de 1893 e 1923. Esse recorte se justifica por encampar todo o período de escritos do autor. Enquanto os marxistas do Ocidente atuavam no seio do movimento operário, Lenin operava no quadro particular da hegemonia ideológica do eslavismo narodinik – populismo russo. Para os populistas o capitalismo era um processo artificial na Rússia e o povo russo encontraria sua redenção através da comuna agrária, considerada pelos narodiniks a essência desse povo. Lenin está claramente posto no campo marxista ao entender a necessidade de desenvolvimento das forças produtivas e, no que diz respeito à revolução, a única classe radicalmente revolucionária seria o operariado. No entanto, sua teoria teve influências dos narodiniks, que acreditavam ser o camponês a única classe revolucionária. É nesse contexto que buscamos entender os meandros em que se forjou a produção teórico-política de Lenin, contemplando sua análise do capitalismo na Rússia e seus desdobramentos; da formação econômico-social específica da Rússia; da revolução burguesa, com a participação dos trabalhadores do campo; do papel do campesinato russo nas transformações sociais; do campesinato no contexto de uma revolução socialista internacional; do campesinato como base social essencial do novo Estado que se originou da Revolução de 1917; e, finalmente, o significado da aliança operário-camponesa.
The general purpose of this work is to follow the discussion about the agrarian-peasant question, by analyzing the most important writings of Lenin on the subject, between the years 1893 and 1923. This cut is justified due to encamp the whole period of the author's writings. While the Western Marxists working within the movement, Lenin worked in specific context of ideological hegemony of the Slav narodinik - Russian populism. The populists believed that capitalism was an artificial process in Russia, therefore, Russian people find their redemption through the agrarian community, deemed by narodiniks the essence of people. Lenin is clearly inserted in the Marxist view of the need for development of productive forces and, regarding the revolution, the only revolutionary class would be radically workforces. However, his theory had narodiniks influences, who believed the peasantry was the only revolutionary class. In this context we seek to understand the intricacies that were forged Lenin’s political-theory production, including his analysis of capitalism in Russia and its developments, the economic and social specific training in Russia, the bourgeois revolution, with the participation of employees in field, the role of the Russian peasantry in the social transformations, the peasantry in the context of an international socialist revolution, the peasantry as a social basis essential that the new state led the Revolution of 1917, and finally, the meaning of the worker-peasant alliance.

Though they were bitter political foes for 14 years, Lenin and Trotsky came together in the summer of 1917 and oversaw the Bolshevik takeover of power in October. Though Lenin was the clear leader of the revolutionary government, he appointed Trotsky to key positions, notably fighting the civil war. Lenin also protected Trotsky, who had accumulated many enemies. Following Lenin’s death, in 1924, Trotsky was pushed out of power and into exile.