In terms of global politics, Leninism was the most important branch of socialism to emerge in the twentieth century. It altered the course of a war, defined the primary global conflict for half a century, and influenced many of the borders one finds on a world map today. As influential and important as it was, Leninism was also deeply flawed. It can be said that there were three types of problems with Leninism: practical, ideological, and technical. The practical difficulties of trying to skip capitalism as a stage of development put Leninism on life support early in its life. The ideological problem arose from the departure from democracy, no matter how temporary it was originally intended to be, which many see as a violation of a core component of socialism. The technical issues are more related not to the theory and ideology but what went wrong specifically in Russia, The Great Experiment. Over time there have been many varied reactions to Leninism from outright rejection and condemnation to acceptance. Right or wrong, Lenin and his beliefs, actions, and writings secure him a place as one of the most important historical figures.

One cannot begin to fully understand Leninism without first looking at the global and national climate in which it was born as well as the man whose name it takes. Russia was hardly the microcosm of world affairs and conditions that many claim Marx found in England. Russia was a highly agrarian society frequently referred to as a "backwards peasant county" which Marx never would have seen as land ripe for social progress. Europe was on its way to the First World War, which Lenin saw no point to since it would be worker killing fellow worker. This created difficulty for Lenin because as the war came, it brought national fervor with it, turning concepts of 'us and them' from worker and bourgeoisie to one of nationalities. However, he problems began much earlier on in his study.

Lenin began his study of Karl Marx's work in 1889 and was captivated by the concepts of class struggle and the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat. He did not simply remain within the works of Marx and Engels but came up with his own interpretations and tried to fill in any gaps with his own ideas. Leninism set itself apart from Marx is several important ways, with some disastrous consequences. Lenin did not have the same elevated view of the proletariat that Marx did, nor did Lenin see a spontaneous revolution lead by the uneducated working masses as feasible. Marx had a certain admiration of the proletariat that Lenin lacked. Lenin, unlike Marx, saw them as not only without political consciousness, but also unable to become knowledgeable of political matters and incapable of understanding the dynamics of a socialist revolution. He thought they were uneducated and thusly should not be responsible for significant policy decisions. Perhaps most importantly he saw them as incapable of organizing effectively either a revolution or a government. Despite claiming to be a Marxist, Lenin saw the world very differently than Marx and this led him to some disturbing assumptions.

The ideological problem of Leninism is deeply rooted in the key split between Lenin and Marx over the issue of democracy during and after the revolution. This split was in part due to Lenin's lack of faith in the proletariat. Lenin did not think a revolution lead by the proletariat was probable, and even if it did occur, would not be very successful in the long term. He blamed the lack of a revolution on imperialism, which by its cheap raw materials, cheap labor, and extended markets artificially propped up capitalism and delayed any revolution unnaturally. He felt the people needed to be organized externally by a vanguard party. This was a key component in Leninism and perhaps the largest contribution he made to Socialism, unfortunately a negative one. He felt that the people would need to be kept in line and protected from themselves. Vague support for this could be found in a misinterpretation of Marx's hopes to rescue people from "the idiocy of rural life". Since Russia was largely agrarian, it is somewhat understandable that Lenin could form such a low opinion of the masses from this excerpt. So the vanguard would maintain order and make the correct decisions the uneducated workers were incapable of. The vanguard would then be logically made up of well-educated men, Marxist-Leninists they could be called, but many say such a title is a contradiction. This party would, through central planning and control, ease the country during the transition into communism without going through the horrors of capitalism.

The practicality issue born of Lenin's impatience for and perhaps even fear of capitalism is what many discussions of his ideology often come down to. The vanguard party was largely a tool by which capitalism was to be avoided and as a result the suppression, however temporary in intent, of democracy was thus required in this view. Most Marxists would agree that with capitalism comes many evils and hardships, which Lenin wished to avoid for his people. He unfortunately departed from general Marxist theory, which also states those evils are necessary ones to achieve a minimal level of development before progressing further. It is reasonable that he did not wish to see his people go through such things, as conditions of the industrial revolution were horrendous for most. If any of the socialist thinkers and activists today were in his position they quite possibly would not be content to wait so long. Lenin had a strong belief in socialism but was faced with the very real possibility of it never occurring within his lifetime. As far as his own goals were concerned, this is somewhat forgivable, but the fact that he took an entire country already in such deplorable conditions along for the ride, was rather irresponsible.

In addition to these two very important theoretical issues that would no doubt crop up in any Leninist attempt, there were problems in Russia specifically during this experiment in distorted Marxism. Lenin was not completely blind to these difficulties and he expected support from foreign countries that would have gone through capitalism and would now be undergoing their own Leninist revolutions. He figured other countries would follow Russia's lead, but they did not. Despite his understanding of the strengths of imperialism he did not fully account for capitalism's ability to keep a firm grip on power. Also he did not understand the nationalism born out of the war which he was so set against. Europe was not ready for the kind of cooperation Russia badly needed. Even within the various alliances that lasted during the course of the war, there was serious infighting, distrust, and competition among even friendly nations. As is evident by such feelings, capitalism was there to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. There were countries sympathetic to Russia and the cause of socialism, even in such a mangled form. However these were not the powerful friends he would need such as France, which was then a strong source of support for the Russian economy, Britain, and Germany. His entire long-range plans depended upon this one prediction which was an extension of Marx's claim that socialist revolutions were inevitable. However, even if Marx had been right, then Lenin's timing was off and this ultimately doomed his theory to the world.

All of Leninism is not completely faulty. So far Lenin was correct that there would be no large-scale revolution lead by the proletariat of all nations. However he was wrong to think the working class would remain uneducated and lack political consciousness because in much of the world this is no longer the case. His major and most fatal departure from Marx was his goal to circumvent capitalism. Marx tried to base his reasoning on the scientific method while Lenin appeared to base his more on hope. Also in his quest to skip capitalism he more or less completely ignored Marx. His disdain for capitalism and hopes for his country clouded his judgement.

Lenin may have wanted the best for his country and honestly thought the things he was doing were correct, but that does not excuse the end result. He cannot be blamed for all that followed in his wake, such as the policies of Stalin, but he did make some fatal errors. At least in making these mistakes he showed the world some important things about socialism. He illustrated how turning one's back on democracy for too long, perhaps even at all, is wrought with difficulties and can lead to some horrendous conclusions. His failure reinforced Marx's view of capitalism as an essential tool of society's advancement and thus lent more strength to the dialectical view of social evolution. The Russian revolution did put socialism on the map, even if distorted in principle, and helped refine its ideals if only by showing people what not to do. The eventual collapse of the Great Russian Experiment did hurt socialism as it was seen as capitalism's triumph over the 'evil' ideology. However, as those feelings and the effects of the propaganda begin to fade from society's memory, perhaps the knowledge and experiences gained from this experiment will help lead to a newer, stronger movement in the future based on human need, not inhuman greed.