Lenin: The Revolutionary Strategist Beyond the Philosopher-God Myth

Lenin’s history has always sparked heated discussions, as his image stood at the intersection of idolatry and revolutionary activism. On one hand, his name became a symbol—an inspiring and almost sacred icon—when slogans resembling religious formulas were proclaimed with special fervor. Thus, his figure came to embody the revolutionary spirit, almost serving as a divine symbol in the eyes of his followers, merging the idea of the Party with Lenin’s persona into a unified whole.

However, a deeper look reveals that it was his strategic mind and pragmatic approach to combating religious dogmas that made him not a philosopher-god but rather an organizer and political leader for whom philosophy served as a practical tool in the party struggle. Lenin consciously rejected the traditional understanding of faith, transforming abstract ideas into a powerful instrument of revolutionary practice. His bold and decisive stance was reflected in his rigid attitude toward any deviation from the party line, emphasizing concrete actions over theoretical speculation.

In summary, the cult of Lenin did not arise from profound philosophical reflection but became a consequence of specific historical and ideological conditions. His persona turned into a battleground where divine symbolism intertwined with real political choices, yet Lenin’s true legacy lies in his revolutionary pragmatism, not in an attempt to recreate the image of a philosopher-god.

Is it possible to regard Lenin as the last “philosopher-god,” and what arguments can be put forward in support of or against this view?

Lenin can be seen as a figure around whom an almost religious cult developed, which gives grounds to discuss him in terms of a “philosopher-god.” However, the arguments for and against this perspective differ significantly.

On one hand, the text from file 1085_5424.txt points out that the attitude toward Lenin had a distinctly religious quality—his name was used in an almost sacred formula: “Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live.” In this text, it is noted that “when we say Lenin—we imply the Party; when we say the Party—we imply Lenin,” drawing a parallel with the Christian formula of the relationship between Christ and the Church, thereby creating the image of Lenin as a symbol of revolutionary spirit. This can be interpreted as an indication of an almost divine status attributed to him by his followers.
Supporting citation:
“First of all, he changed the object of his search and the form of his expression. That which was once considered sacred ceased to be so. But immediately other ‘numina’ appeared, other small sanctuaries, rituals, and myths… Mayakovsky’s formula ‘Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live’ is already marked by undeniable religious enthusiasm. His assertion that ‘when we say Lenin—we imply the Party; when we say the Party—we imply Lenin’ quite accurately reproduces the Christian formula of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Moreover, in the poem ‘Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’ the distinction between Ulyanov and Lenin is made quite clearly. Lenin is the ‘spirit of the Revolution’; Ulyanov is the temporary embodiment of that spirit.” (source: 1085_5424.txt)

On the other hand, several counterarguments highlight significant points. The text from file 1277_6384.txt emphasizes that the cult of Lenin represents a form of idolatry, where the emphasis on a distinct “Leninism” is nothing more than a product of an ideological construction that displaces both religious beliefs and deep philosophical thought. Lenin gained his fame by extracting meager ideas from Marx’s teachings, which were then applied in boundless ways, turning into a form of idol worship.
Supporting citation:
“This idol is multifaceted, composite; he is worshipped in all particulars as well as in the aggregate, with the whole being deceptively called Marxism-Leninism. There is no separate Leninism. Lenin merely extracted a thin ‘ism’ from the bulky Marx, but provided it—with precisely this scarcity—a boundless application, as a result of which he became the object of idolatry that replaced religion and philosophy…” (source: 1277_6384.txt)

Furthermore, the text from file 1250_6246.txt clearly states that Lenin was a convinced atheist who rejected traditional religious ideas, replacing them with the creation of false idols and deities. His stance toward religion was strict and pragmatic—philosophy, for him, was a tool of revolutionary struggle rather than a domain for philosophical meditations on the divine.
Supporting citation:
“Lenin was a passionate and convinced atheist and a hater of religion. I say ‘atheist,’ although I do not believe in the existence of pure ‘atheists.’ Man is a religious animal, and when he denies the true, one God, he creates false gods, idols, and deities and worships them. Lenin greatly coarsened Marx’s idea of religion, just as Leninists coarsened Lenin’s own ideas. Lenin was almost a genius of coarseness—that was his style.” (source: 1250_6246.txt)

It is also important to note that Lenin’s views on philosophy were closely linked to practical struggle, as mentioned in the text from file 1281_6401.txt—philosophy had to serve the interests of the Party rather than abstract ideas, further underscoring his pragmatic character.
Supporting citation:
“But under Lenin, the Party, which was initially merely a means, became an end in itself. Recall how much labor, sweat, and enmity he invested in creating the Communist Party, how he did not shy away from the Brussels-London split that divided Russian Social Democracy into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and how aggressively he fought not only against external opponents but also against any deviations within the Party. For Lenin, philosophy had to be party-oriented, or else it would degenerate into the cult of pure thought, or, in his words, fall into ‘false objectivism.’” (source: 1281_6401.txt)

Finally, Lenin’s philosophical views—such as his understanding of realism and his criterion of truth based on practice, as discussed in the text from file 724_3617.txt—demonstrate his focus on transforming reality through practical action, rather than on developing metaphysical systems expected from a ‘philosopher-god.’
Supporting citation:
“Similarly, Lenin categorically defends epistemological realism because all the pathos of the ‘leap’ is associated with the hope of ‘changing being’ according to Marx’s legacy; therefore, Lenin (following Plekhanov) unhesitatingly accepts the reality of ‘things in themselves’ with the addition that ‘things in themselves’ become ‘things for us.’ This is the essence of Lenin’s criterion of truth (following Marx and Engels): the criterion of truth is ‘practice,’ which transforms ‘things in themselves’ into ‘things for us.’” (source: 724_3617.txt)

Thus, although elements resembling divine veneration can be observed in the cult-like attitude toward his persona, his own philosophical views and emphasis on party struggle indicate that Lenin was primarily a political figure and revolutionary. His ideology, largely borrowed and adapted from Marxist theories, turned into idol worship only due to specific historical and ideological conditions—not as a result of deep philosophical reflection worthy of the title ‘philosopher-god.’