Vladimir Ilyich Lenin wrote What is to be done? (WITBD) near the end of 1901 and the beginning of 1902 as a political pamphlet. The title is borrowed from Nikolai Chernyshevsky's novel by the same name [source]. Chernyshevsky had good influence on the ideologies and works of Lenin, among other renown figures such as Emma Goldman and Serbian political writer and socialist Svetozar Marković.
What is to be done calls for the creation of a revolutionary vanguardist party who's sole agenda would be to guide and direct the works and demands of the working class (the proletariat). Lenin's assumption was that if left to their own choices, the working class would remain content with a trade unionism activity. In order to move the working class forward, there is no alternative but to form a revolutionary party that would direct a scientific socialist revolution. "The history of all coun- tries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.14 The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals" (p. 17-18).
However, it seems from the works of some scholars that the translated version of Lenin's WITBD may not have expressed what Lenin actually wrote in the Russian language. In his book Lenin Rediscovered: What is to be done? in context author Lars T. Lih argues thatWITBD has been misinterpreted gravely, with the primary reason being mistranslation of major terms used by Lenin. Lih says that some of these mistranslations happened because the meanings of the Russian words did not have close translations. But, many of the mistranslations were done on purpose to lead readers to viewpoints that perhaps completely contrasts with what Lenin wanted to convey.
Pages and pages of Lih's book therefore are devoted to explaining why and how the word stikhiinyi, when translated as spontaneity, distorts his views; how konspiratsiia does not mean ‘conspiracy’; tred-iunionizm does not mean ‘trade unionism’ and revoliutsioner po professii should not be translated as ‘professional revolutionary’ [source]. The thoughts that crossed my mind after reading this: Would this not be considered by critical scholars as modes of co-opting the others into the dominant structure? Is language not playing a hegemonistic role here? Can a language rally be translated? Ever?
What is to be done calls for the creation of a revolutionary vanguardist party who's sole agenda would be to guide and direct the works and demands of the working class (the proletariat). Lenin's assumption was that if left to their own choices, the working class would remain content with a trade unionism activity. In order to move the working class forward, there is no alternative but to form a revolutionary party that would direct a scientific socialist revolution. "The history of all coun- tries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.14 The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals" (p. 17-18).
However, it seems from the works of some scholars that the translated version of Lenin's WITBD may not have expressed what Lenin actually wrote in the Russian language. In his book Lenin Rediscovered: What is to be done? in context author Lars T. Lih argues thatWITBD has been misinterpreted gravely, with the primary reason being mistranslation of major terms used by Lenin. Lih says that some of these mistranslations happened because the meanings of the Russian words did not have close translations. But, many of the mistranslations were done on purpose to lead readers to viewpoints that perhaps completely contrasts with what Lenin wanted to convey.
Pages and pages of Lih's book therefore are devoted to explaining why and how the word stikhiinyi, when translated as spontaneity, distorts his views; how konspiratsiia does not mean ‘conspiracy’; tred-iunionizm does not mean ‘trade unionism’ and revoliutsioner po professii should not be translated as ‘professional revolutionary’ [source]. The thoughts that crossed my mind after reading this: Would this not be considered by critical scholars as modes of co-opting the others into the dominant structure? Is language not playing a hegemonistic role here? Can a language rally be translated? Ever?
Comments