Skip to content

Poland May School In defence of Lenin Leninism lives

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The central thesis of this article is that Leninism is not a historical relic but a living, necessary weapon for the revolutionary movement in the current period of capitalist crisis. The argument is twofold: first, that the bourgeoisie and its ideological apparatus are intensifying their attacks on Lenin's legacy precisely because the spectre of October Revolution is returning as capitalism enters its terminal phase; and second, that only a Leninist party — organised around democratic centralism, workers' discipline, and theoretical clarity — can provide the working class with the instrument needed to transform the growing radicalisation into revolutionary victory. The article claims that the Polish section's May School demonstrates, through both its content and its practical organisation, that Leninism is being carried forward by a new generation of revolutionaries who understand that theory is inseparable from action.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on several foundational Leninist concepts, each presented as a weapon against contemporary opportunism rather than as museum pieces. The vanguard party is defended against the charge that it leads to dictatorship, with the article insisting that its defining feature is workers' discipline — "freedom of discussion and unity in action" — and the organisation of the most advanced elements of the class. The Leninist concept of national self-determination is presented through the lens of Lenin's polemic with Rosa Luxemburg, arguing that Lenin's position proved correct because it enabled oppressed nationalities to join the revolution. The theory of imperialism and the state, drawn from Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and State and Revolution, is deployed to argue that imperialist war and genocide are not malfunctions of capitalism but its "natural state" in senile decay. The article also invokes Lenin's philosophical defence of materialism against Machism — the early 20th-century idealist fashion — as a template for today's struggle against postmodernist attacks on the very possibility of objective knowledge.

The tradition invoked is that of orthodox Marxism as defended by Lenin against both reformism and sectarianism. The article positions itself within the broader Marxist tradition by insisting that Leninism is not a departure from Marxism but its application to the epoch of imperialism — a position associated with the Trotskyist tradition and, more specifically, the Revolutionary Communist International's insistence on the continuity between Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article situates itself in a specific conjuncture: the "terminal crisis of capitalism" which is radicalising millions and driving them to look toward the October Revolution for inspiration. This is not presented as abstract rhetoric — the article references concrete threats from the Polish state, specifically the "head of the rabidly reactionary Institute of National Remembrance" who threatened the organisers with imprisonment. This places the argument in the context of the Polish government's ongoing crackdown on left-wing activity, part of a broader European pattern of state repression against communists under the guise of "decommunisation" and "historical policy."

The article also connects Lenin's national self-determination theory to three contemporary flashpoints: Palestine, Ireland, and Ukraine. These are not elaborated in detail but are named as proving the continued relevance of the Leninist approach — suggesting that the article's audience is expected to understand these as cases where the principle of national self-determination must be defended against both imperialist manipulation and sectarian abstentionism. The reference to Ukraine is particularly significant given the intense debates within the international left over whether to support Ukrainian self-defence against Russian invasion or to adopt a position of revolutionary defeatism.

Where the Argument Continues

This article is a report on a school, not a theoretical elaboration, so many of its claims are signposts to fuller treatments elsewhere. The polemic against postmodernist attacks on materialism — framed as a continuation of Lenin's fight against Machism — points toward Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, a text the RCI regularly defends against both academic Marxism and post-structuralist currents. The discussion of national self-determination in Palestine, Ireland, and Ukraine is clearly a compressed version of arguments developed at greater length in other IDOM articles and Against the Stream episodes, where the RCI has elaborated its position on each case. The defence of the vanguard party against the charge of Stalinism points toward the broader RCI literature distinguishing Leninism from Stalinism, particularly the tradition's insistence that the Stalinist bureaucracy represented a counter-revolutionary layer that destroyed the workers' democracy of the early Soviet state. The article's emphasis on workers' financial self-sufficiency — the fundraising and auction — connects to the RCI's consistent argument that party independence from bourgeois funding sources is a matter of principle, not pragmatics.

Connections

The article should be read alongside Lenin's What Is To Be Done? for the vanguard party concept, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination for the national question, and State and Revolution for the theory of the state. Within the contemporary Marxist tradition, it connects to the RCI's ongoing campaign "In Defence of Lenin" marking the centenary of his death, which has produced a series of articles, pamphlets, and school materials. The reference to the polemic with Rosa Luxemburg on national self-determination connects to the broader Trotskyist tradition's engagement with Luxemburg's legacy — the RCI generally defends Lenin's position against Luxemburg's on this question while claiming her revolutionary legacy on others. The philosophical defence of materialism against postmodernism connects to the work of Alan Woods, particularly The Reason in Revolt (co-authored with Ted Grant), which develops a Marxist critique of idealist and relativist currents in modern philosophy.

Key Quotes

  1. "It was thanks to his profound understanding of Marxism that he was able to lead the first victorious revolution of the oppressed classes in the history of all mankind. Today, as the spectre of October again looms over the world, the bourgeoisie and their faithful lackeys... are throwing heaps of lies and slander over the head of this great revolutionary with redoubled force."

  2. "What characterises a Leninist party is workers' discipline – freedom of discussion and unity in action – and the organisation of the most advanced elements of the working class."

  3. "Capitalist domination of society, imperialist wars, genocides – these are not questions of capitalism being mismanaged or of the immorality of those in power. They are the natural state of capitalism, especially in its senile decay."

  4. "Just as Lenin fought against the latest fashionable cries among the intelligentsia a hundred years ago – in the form of Machism – so today we must fight against ideological attacks on the very foundations not only of Marxism, but of the whole materialist, scientific understanding of reality."

  5. "Lenin's ideas – Marxism – are alive precisely because they allow us to understand the world and to change it, as opposed to dry impotent academic theories."

  6. "The May Day School is a means for the future cadres of the revolutionary communist party."