The author covers how 4 different Marxists tried to resolve difficulties they saw in Marx’s reasons. This post is a summary of his chapters on Lenin and Mussolini. 

Chapter 5- The Heterodox Marxism of V. I. Lenin 
Karl Kautsky preserved orthodox Marxism’s insistence that events were determined and inevitable. But if that was true, then socialism would arise naturally and without any need for pushing it. So what was the importance was the Socialist party? Kautsky reasoned that while socialism was inevitable, revolutionary consciousness was not automatic. Revolutionary consciousness would need to be implemented by declassed bourgeois intellectuals. Apparently, determined eventualities would still need a push, and this could be argued as determined as well.  

Lenin unwaveringly claimed classical Marxism held the answers. Anything else was revisionist. Yet at the same time he claims, despite Marx’s declared inevitability of Socialism, a party elite with pure doctrine was necessary for socialism. He also declared that without the foundation of German philosophy, particularly Hegel, the inevitability of socialism would also have been compromised. 

According to Lenin, Marx was fully adequate, and only remained to be studied, not fleshed out. There could only be one Marxism, and it was what the revolutionary party said it was. The party held the truth. 

Lenin starts from the position that Marx is absolutely true and must be guarded against any revisions. From that truth, the point of the elite rulership is to ruthlessly protect orthodoxy. Attempts to revise pure truth would be seen as the enemy of the truth and the well-being of the people.  

Immediately, other Marxists recognized the ominous potential of Lenin’s rigid system. It was argued that Lenin’s centralized absolutist party was reflective of Russia’s backwardness. The Russian proletariat was nowhere near the consciousness needed, or as organized as Germany, France, or Italy. Engel’s himself had pointed out that it was fruitless to try and foment revolution until the conditions were right. Lenin was ready to force revolution, against Marxist dogma, despite declaring himself the true orthodox Marxist. The author holds that Lenin’s Marxism, like Woltmann and Sorel, was also heterodox.  

With regard to ethics, Lenin continued to toe the classical line that morality arose from class distinctions. But Marx and Engels both wrote of man as organized into groups that existed far before classes. Therefore, morals clearly existed before classes. It is clear then that Lenin’s ascription of moral behavior as exclusively determined by economic class is unconvincing. 

Chapter 6- The Heterodox Marxism of Benito Mussolini 
Mussolini started out as an orthodox Marxist. But he became interested in Sorel’s revolutionary syndicalism and saw ethics and morality, much more than science, as central to achieving justice. Mussolini also spoke of groups of people- associated by blood, locale, or intellectual interests, as well as economic concerns. This extension would transform his Marxism. 

If socialism were to be brought about, and justice achieved for the workers, and all people…. then people would need to be moved to revolution. Focusing on economic class distinctions was divisive. The motivating factor to change was national identity, not racial or economic class identities.   

There is much more to be said about Mussolini’s transformation from classical Marxist to the ideology that would become known as Fascism. But those will be covered in the summaries of the next chapters.