Βλαντίμιρ Λένιν

Critical Lives

by Lars T. Lih, Γιώργος Μπαρουξής (Translator)

Ευσύνοπτη, περιεκτική και πλούσια σε πληροφορίες βιογραφία του Λένιν, γραμμένη από έναν από τους σημαντικότερους ιστορικούς του μαρξισμού. Ο συγγραφέας παρακολουθεί τον Λένιν από τα φοιτητικά του χρόνια και τις πρώτες συγκρούσεις του με το αυταρχικό τσαρικό καθεστώς μέχρι τις εμφύλιες διαμάχες που διαδέχτηκαν την Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση του 1917. Το ιστορικό πορτρέτο του επαναστάτη πολιτικού ολοκληρώνεται με αναφορές στην προσωπική και την κοινωνική του ζωή.

Η απλή γλώσσα και η ξεκάθαρη δομή του βιβλίου αλλά και η απουσία ιδεολογικά φορτισμένων κλισέ το καθιστούν προσιτό σε κάθε αναγνώστη. Η έκδοση συμπληρώνεται από εικονογραφικό υλικό.


ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΑ
Εισαγωγή
1 Ένας άλλος δρόμος
2 Η συγχώνευση του σοσιαλισμού με το εργατικό κίνημα
3 Η επανάσταση του λαού
4 Τρία ταξίδια με τρένο
5 Πέρα από το «εγχειρίδιο αλά Κάουτσκι»
Επίλογος
Βιβλιογραφικές παραπομπές
Επιλεγμένη βιβλιογραφία
Ευχαριστίες
Βασική εργογραφία Β.Ι. Λένιν

Genres: History, Biography, Politics, Nonfiction, Lenin, Russia, Soviet History

296 pages, Paperback

First published April 15, 2011

Reviews

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

To write an objective and neutral biography of Lenin is an impossible task, he was not a neutral figure. Neither his thinking, nor his life, are objectively analyzable, as he was always seeking out one end - the communist revolution - in everything he said and did. And to this degree, the idea that Lenin was an unprincipled pragmatist is demonstrable false, he had one principle to be sure.

Lars Lih is no Leninist, nor probably a socialist. As far as I know he comes from Duke University and used to work for a Democratic House Congressman in the US. So this isn't a book written for Marxists by a Marxist, but unlike all the recent Lenin and Bolshevik works (Ulam, Pipes, Service, etc), Lih does not paint Lenin as a rabid psychopath hellbent on death and destruction. Instead Lih believes Lenin is an almost hopeless (because he's so hopeful) romantic, convinced that the claims of Historical Materialism must come true, and his job is to help the proletariat achieve their historical goal; but it is not to force them to do so. Throughout the book Lih demonstrates that Lenin never doubted the Proletariat, he never wanted to force them or coerce them into anything, and he always thought that the vanguard should walk alongside them, never over and above them.

The only reason I can't give this book 5 stars is due to a few missing details I was looking forward too. One was more discussion of Lenin's break with Plekhanov, which is barely discussed. The other was Lenin's role and legitimacy in the October Revolution (was it a coup? wasn't it? what support did he have, etc)? Also more discussion of, does Leninism lead to Stalinism? Lih says it does not, and he offers a few bits of information as to why it doesn't, but the question doesn't feel consummated.

Overall this is a good bio, and although it's not neutral -because it can't be neutral- it's at least more sympathetic and understanding than anything Service ever wrote.

[C. Varn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lars Lih, Lenin: Criticals Lives (Reaktion Books 2011)

Lih’s Lenin Rediscovered: What Is To Be Done? in Context (Haymarket Books 2008) is known for contextualizing and detailing the meaning of What Is To Be Done? in long term context. Lin is also contextualizing Lenin here, in terms of his relationship to Kautsky, his development of a heroic theory of revolution, and the exact nature of the party. In such a brief book, this remains largely a intellectual biography that takes a thematic birds eye view into the meaning of Lenin’s ideas and the origins of his motivations.

While this is a polemical text, Lih seems to want to critical but largely supportive view of Lenin, particularly his relationship to Karl Kautsky, particularly prior to 1914, and the effects of the fall out in the context of the Russian civil war could have led to some political mistakes, but Leninism as such was not created by Lenin explicitly. Lih is aiming at a balance between a apologia and an contextualization, both cutting against right-wing historiography on Lenin and left currents use of Lenin as a cipher for centralization and destructive revolutionary impulses. Lih is critical of Lenin, particularly Lenin’s inability to completely deal with actual development of peasants, particularly after the civil war.

Lih does a good job of pointing out that Lenin was not a simple dictator or professional conspirator. Lih argues, convincingly, that Lenin actually formed the base of his ideology relatively early in his career, that the relationship of the proletariat to the narod (the People) was paramount in Lenin’s various “heroic class leadership scenarios.” He also points out that development for peasants and their relationship to the proletariat was key to him thought. Lih argues somewhat convincing that Lenin believed in basic democratization and relative freedom, only suspending in the civil wars that occurred later and he was frustrated with the inability to continue democratization after the primary civil wars were over.

Much of the book is devoted to sketching out Lenin’s relationship to the Kautsky, the revolution of 1905, and the first world war as crucial to the thoughts of Lenin’s early life. Lih also effectively demonstrates that most of Lenin’s heroic narrative was based in Marx or Engels or Kautsky’s expansion of the two. This undoes a lot of the interpretations by from Adam Ulam to Robert Service that Lenin’s “vanguardism” as totally a response to the failure of classical Marxism and was a totally cynical poly.

There are a few weaknesses in the book: Lenin’s break with Plekhanov is not covered in significant detail although it would be crucial to his development nor Lenin’s use of conspiratorial means to sure up party finances in caucuses (which helped propel Stalin to importance), and the exact failure of Lenin to figure out how to predict the role of the peasants after the revolution going from phase to phase. Furthermore, there is the mild implication that Lenin not fully regained his bearings after the break with Kautsky and trying to forge ahead with a different set of principles. This latter bit isn’t so much a problem, but does seem to be a interpretative heuristic that one should be aware.

Overall, this is excellent, if brief, corrective to a lot of the historiography and psychologization of Bolshevik development and of Lenin’s ideological commitments. Clearly organized, brief, and interesting, one interested in the Russian Revolution or the history of Marxism should deal with this book.

[Sylvia · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent, but brief biographical exploration of Lenin.

I think that this serves mainly as a gateway to Lih's other, more monumental works though. You are only getting the surface level of Lenin here, but it is still a worthwhile insight into his life and intellectual/political development.

What brings this biographical essay together is Lih's concept of Lenin's 'heroic scenario.' I think what I got from this is how this is about Lenin's desire of class leadership, actively listening to and engaging with the proletariat and peasantry and uplifting themselves into future revolutionaries and leadership. All of this is considered from the context of Russia in Lenin's lifetime.

Lih touches upon some of the personal elements of Lenin's life, which helps to humanise him more, but also allows his work to speak for itself. Lih complements this by adding the much needed context, including an approach of transliteration of certain words instead of translating them, to elaborate on how these writings would have impacted readership in that current moment.

Lenin was someone who was truly 'in love' with Marx and Engels, consistently arguing that what he was proposing was a continuation of their work. I was also not as aware of Lenin's political relationship with Kautsky and just how devastating his 'renegade' support for WW1 would have been to Lenin.

I think this book is excellent for people somewhat familiar with Lenin who want a brief exploration from Lih on Lenin's life that helps to contextualise his writings more and explore how this 'heroic scenario' developed.

[Ezgi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Önsözünde diğer biyografi ve incelemelerden farklı bir yol izlediğini vadetse de bunu başaramayan bir kitap. Bir giriş kitabı için fazla detay içeriyor. Fakat konuya hakim insanlar için de verimli bir içerik sunmuyor. Tatmin edici bir okuma olmadı.

[Thomas H. · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are going to read one book on Lenin in the English language, this is the one. Not only is it relatively concise in comparison to other biographies, it is also less concerned with moral judgements (e.g. Sebestyen, Service). It is as focused on Lenin's ideas as Tamás Krausz's intellectual biography, but Lih is easier to read.

Lih's narrative is original, his framing inventive, and most importantly, he helps the reader understand how and why Lenin thought the way he did and how his thoughts determined his actions. I hadn't expected to read a biography of Lenin as trope-free and original as Lev Danilkin's (very different but equally original) recent Russian language biography of Lenin. Yes, there are some spelling errors and unusual contemporary cultural references, and yes, Lih doesn't cover every topic, every dispute, not even the juicy gossip! It doesn't matter, because you can get that elsewhere.

In short, this is not only the best there is, but it's also the best place to start. A remarkable achievement.

[Reid tries to read · Rating 5 out of 5]

HIS NAME
When he was born in 1870 he was given the name ‘Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov’. After his death he was given the name ‘Vladimir Ilich Lenin’. During his life he went by many names, often using pseudonyms to hide his real identity from the Tsarist censors and secret police. He wrote his works in the 1890s under the pseudonym K. Tulin; he wrote “the Development of Capitalism in Russia” under the name ‘Vladimir Ilin’; until the 1917 revolution, legally published works by ‘Vl. Ilin’ continued to appear. Around 1901, the great revolutionary began signing his works for Iskra newspaper under ‘N. Lenin’. “Lenin” was taken from the name on a fake passport he was given, while “N.” possibly stood for many things: “Nothing”, “Nikolai” (the last Tsar before the Bolsheviks came to power), and even “Niccolo Machiavelli” were suggested. Whatever he went by, it was never ‘Vladimir Ilich Lenin’. Most letters were simply signed as ‘Lenin’.

Marxism and the historical mission of the working class
It seems that Lenin attempted to keep two separate and distinct personas, the personal (‘Ulyanov’) and the political (‘N. Lenin’), yet the feelings and emotions of Ulyanov cannot be understood without the political and theoretical insights of N. Lenin, and vice-versa; there was only one man no matter how you slice it. This man, Lenin, was first and foremost a lover of Marx and his methodology for examining the world. He wrote in 1917 “I am still completely “in love” with Marx and Engels, and I can’t stand to hear them abused.”. This love for Marx and Marxism extended to his love of what could be called ‘historical class leadership’. Lenin’s romantic view of ‘historic class leadership’ had two key themes:
1. It was the historical mission of the proletariat to lead the entirety of the Russian people (called ‘Narod’, Russian for ‘the people’). His wife, Krupskaya, elaborated on this during her eulogy at Lenin’s 1924 funeral: “Vladimir Ilich [had] an understanding of the grand idea of Marx: the idea that the working class is the advanced detachment of all the labourers and that all the labouring masses, all the oppressed, will follow it: this is its strength and the pledge of its victory. Only as vozhd [Russian for ‘leader’] of all the labourers will the working class achieve victory. . . And this thought, this idea illuminated all of his later activity, each and every step”.

2. Lenin’s romantic view also influenced how he saw leadership within the class: the party of the most advanced workers would lead the entirety of the oppressed by inspiring, guiding, and teaching them. Scholar Robert Tucker explained: “To understand Lenin’s political conception in its totality, it is important to realize that he saw in his mind’s eye not merely the militant organization of professional revolutionaries of which he spoke, but the party-led popular movement ‘of the entire people’. The ‘dream’ was by no means simply a party dream although it centred in the party as the vanguard of conscious revolutionaries acting as teachers and organizers of a much larger mass following in the movement”.

HIS OLDER BROTHER
Lenin’s older brother, Alexander, was hanged in May 1887 for his role in a plot to assassinate Tsar Alexander III. The difference between Alexander and Lenin’s political strategies is instructive. As a student, Alexander had been driven to hate the Tsar for his government’s suspicion of students and its unwillingness to fund proper education for them. He joined the terrorist group ‘The People’s Will’ (Narodnaya Volya) and drafted an explosive manifesto to express his group's goals and strategy. In his manifesto, Alexander explained: “Without freedom of speech, propaganda that is in any way effective is impossible, just as there is no real possibility of improving the economy of the people without the participation of the people’s representatives in the administration of the country. Thus for Russian socialists the struggle for free institutions is a necessary means for attaining their final aims”. A change in political laws needed to enable freedom of speech so socialists could effectively spread their revolutionary propaganda. Lenin would agree with this.

To Alexander and other terrorists, the current lack of political freedom meant a mass movement was impossible to build. Therefore, a “handful of daring people” (as Russian terrorists routinely described themselves) would have to use violent terror in order to force the Tsarist government to make the necessary political concessions conducive for growing a mass movement. Lenin disagreed with these methods. Instead, he drew on a different strand of socialism for his goals and methods: the European Social Democracy movement. The Social Democrats were inspired by the ideas of Marx, specifically the idea that the whole working-class had a historical goal of winning political power in order to create socialism. To do so, Marx was clear that the workers of the world must be “united by combination and led by knowledge”; they must be organized and guided by a viable revolutionary socialist strategy. In 1884, English scholar (and thoroughly non-socialist) John Rae described Marx’s approach like this: “The socialists ought to make use of all the abundant means of popular agitation and intercommunication which modern society allowed. No more secret societies in holes and corners, no more small risings and petty plots, but a great broad organization working in open day, and working restlessly by tongue and pen to stir the masses of all European countries to a common international revolution”. The German Social Democratic Party built an institutional body over Marx’s theoretical bones, and by doing so they became a source of inspiration for socialists around the world.

Alexander believed in the Social Democratic strategy, but he thought a “great, broad, and open” socialist movement would only be possible in Russia after the government conceded some measures of political freedom. Lenin, on the other hand, believed that the Social Democratic strategy should be adapted to the autocratic and repressive conditions already present in Russia. Lenin believed that a stripped down, bare bones version of German Social Democratic strategy could be implemented in Russia, even under the current repressive conditions, to educate and organize the workers.

CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA
Lenin believed that a capitalist transformation was occurring in Russia in the 1880s and 1890s. This transformation was taking the narod (mass of Russian peoples) and transforming them into distinct new classes. The first new class was the urban factory worker; in “Friends of the People” (1894) Lenin wrote that this class was “the sole and natural representative of Russia’s entire labouring and exploited population and [therefore] capable of raising the banner of worker emancipation”. What made Lenin believe so strongly in the abilities of this new class? First, their concentration in towns, cities, and factories made them easier to organize. Second, and more importantly, their conditions synced up with Marx’s writings and methods. Because Marx described how and why they were being exploited, they were more likely to subscribe to his solutions to that exploitation. Lenin contrasted this with rural peoples, whose “exploitation is still enmeshed in medieval forms, various political, legal and conventional trappings, tricks and devices, which hinder the working people and their ideologists from seeing the essence of the system which oppresses the working people from seeing where and how a way can be found out of this system”.

The second class created by the capitalist transformation taking place in Russia was the class of exploited rural workers scattered throughout the countryside. Lenin argued that capitalism had penetrated all of Russia, not just the urban centers but the rural farms and villages too. These rural workers could not lead the revolution, but they could be relied on to follow the revolutionary direction of the urban workers. These workers will be forced by market imperatives to “leave home” and “hire himself out now to a landlord, tomorrow to a railway contractor” and such. As this process is forced upon the rural workers, they will begin to understand that “wherever he goes he is most shamefully plundered; that other paupers like himself are plundered; that it is not necessarily the ‘lord’ who robs him, but also ‘his brother muzhik’ [fellow peasant], if the latter has the money to buy labour-power; that the government will always serve the bosses, restrict the rights of the workers and suppress every attempt to protect their most elementary rights”. This process of immiserating the rural worker gives him a stake in political revolution.

Lih writes: “Capitalist transformation was thus creating new mass fighters with a stake in a successful political revolution. Foremost among these were the workers in both town and country – even though the political revolution would strengthen bourgeois rule in the short run. Nevertheless, the exploited workers have a life-and-death interest, not only in the far-distant socialist revolution that will end capitalism, but also in the here-and-now democratic revolution for political freedom that will make capitalism less intolerable.”. Capitalism was therefore progressive insofar as it was creating new potentially revolutionary classes while also breaking up the ancient and more directly coercive forms of medieval exploitation in Russia.

The narodniki (populist) revolutionary tradition in Russia accused Lenin and the Russian Marxists of being anti-peasant. They claimed that during famines Lenin had supported the idea of allowing the peasants to starve, and thus forcing them into the cities and towards proletarianization. In fact, the opposite is true. In 1899 Lenin wrote that “Social Democrats cannot remain indifferent spectators of the starvation of the peasants and their destruction from death by starvation. Never could there be two opinions among Russian Social Democrats about the necessity of the broadest possible help to the starving peasants.”, and during the Samara famine of 1891 he worked in one of the canteens set up to feed the peasants. Russian Marxists did not seek to crush the peasantry, but rather hoped that capitalism would transform peasants into viable revolutionaries.

THE ERFURT PROGRAMME, EXILE IN SIBERIA, AND ‘WHAT IS TO BE DONE?’
In 1893 Lenin arrived in Petersburg and aimed to work with existing Social Democratic groups (usually consisting of university students) to implement the European Social Democratic tradition in Russia. Lenin drew heavy inspiration from Karl Kautsky and the Erfurt Programme, which was drafted by Kautsky, August Bebel, and Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1891 as the party programme for the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany). Kautsky defined Social Democracy as “the merger of socialism and the worker’s movement”; the worker’s movement must accept that only socialism can end their exploitation and suffering, while socialism can only be achieved by the workers’ collective action. Lenin explicitly endorsed Kautsky, writing in 1899: “Kautsky’s expression… reproduces the basic ideas of the Communist Manifesto.” It should come as no surprise that Lenin also translated the Erfurt Programme into Russian. More than just being an intellectual influence to Lenin, Kautsky and the SPD were the biggest contemporary influence for the Russian Social Democratic movement. Kautsky’s regurgitation of “the basic ideas of the manifesto” and the prestige of the SPD made the Erfurt Programme the textbook for Social Democracy across Europe. In Russia, as has been noted, the goal was to adapt the Social Democratic ‘merger formula’ and corresponding playbook to oppressive Tsarist conditions.

1895 marked the next big moment in Lenin’s life: he was arrested for the crime of “distributing Social Democratic propaganda among the workers of Petersburg” and, after spending a year in jail, was sentenced to 3 more years in a Siberian prison. Exile helped sharpen Lenin’s senses as a political animal. Two big events occurred while in Siberia: he wrote “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” and married his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya. With nothing to do but read and write, Lenin’s exile helped him formulate his plan to enact the ‘merger formula’ in Russia, and this plan would be written down in his 1902 work “What is To be Done?”. Lih is famous for his writings on “WITBD”, and for good reason. He has systematically dismantled the prevailing narrative around this work. He writes here: “According to the standard textbook interpretation, Lenin devised an innovative plan of party organization that consciously rejected the model of Western socialist parties such as the German SPD in favour of an updated version of the conspiratorial underground of earlier populist revolutionaries such as Narodnaya volya. Driving his new scheme was a compulsive ‘worry about workers’, that is, Lenin’s conviction that workers were inherently reformist and therefore would not, even could not spontaneously support a revolutionary party.”. In fact, the opposite is true.

Lenin sought to import SPD Social Democracy by solving the question “how can a secret organization have a growing mass influence?”. The strategy was to develop a party with a ‘konspiratsiia’ character (Russian for “the fine art for not getting arrested”) that could avoid the Tsarist jails and police while simultaneously making various inroads and connections with the masses. This strategy assumed that there existed within the workers a strand or milieu that would engage with and support the konspiratsiia party. Connecting the workers and underground party would be a national newspaper that would spread propaganda and physically link people together through its distribution networks. This newspaper, Iskra, was to be the skeleton of what would eventually be fully fleshed out into the Bolshevik party.

The underground strategy required foot soldiers who were ‘professional revolutionaries’. This is another term from “WITBD” that has been misinterpreted and misunderstood. Like any professional tradesman or craftsman who mentally and physically hones their craft to perfection, a ‘professional revolutionary’ needed to be self-disciplined and hone their craft of ‘konspiratsiia’ while having a ‘heroic’ mentality that did not allow fear of imprisonment or death to interfere with their revolutionary activity. The craft that the professional revolution had to perfect included: agitation, distribution of leaflets and other illegal literature, organizing worker study circles, security against government spies, setting up secret meetings, transmitting instructions, collecting funds, and so on. Lenin’s “underground professional revolutionary” was driven by the goal of making the SPD party model functional in Russian conditions. In Lenin’s hopes, these “revolutionaries by trade” (which is probably the closest translation to his term “revoliutsioner po professii”) would overwhelmingly be members of the working class.

ISKRA
Lenin came up with his basic ideas of party organization while in Siberian exile. When he wrote these ideas down five years later in “What Is to Be Done?” he was in political exile in Western Europe. In between these periods, the Social Democratic movement had developed in embryonic stages in many Russian towns across the empire. In 1900, after observing the developments from afar in Siberia, a now-freed Lenin got a passport (possibly the very ‘Lenin’ passport that he took the moniker from) and emigrated to Germany. There, Lenin, Martov, and Potrestov met with the older emigres from Russia Georgy Plekhanov, Vera Zasulich and Pavel Axelrod and launched the all-Russian political newspaper “Iskra” in December of that year. “Iskra” refused to ‘dumb down’ its content; instead, its articles were written with the most politically advanced workers in mind. The idea was that these workers would then spread the messages of “Iskra” to the rest of their fellow workers. The most important aspect of “Iskra” was that it was written outside of the country, thus allowing its authors to avoid Tsarist censors and police, but it had deep connections with people already in Russia. Unlike other emigre newspapers which came out sporadically and did not have good on-the-ground information, “Iskra” came out routinely as it was supplied with great reporting and information from local underground committees. Just like the SPD, Lenin believed that a well-oiled propaganda newspaper was essential for Social Democracy.

Lih notes why “Iskra” was essential for the Russian Social Democratic political project: “[the goal was to] begin with the creation of an all-Russian political newspaper, published abroad, since the difficulty and risks of publishing it in Russia were too great. At first this newspaper would admittedly be the product of a self-appointed and unauthorized group but it would have the undeniable virtue of actually existing, of actually coming out regularly, many times a year, with at least adequate technical quality. This newspaper would then make an appeal to the local committees in Russia to become integral partners in its creation (through providing factual material and reports) and distribution. Thus, for the first time, the committees would be working together on a national project. The organization needed to transport the newspapers would be the embryo of a national organization of professional revolutionaries that linked centre and localities. Furthermore, this newspaper would create programmatic unity by preaching a consistent line to which the various committees could adhere. The politically oriented agitation of the newspaper would also strengthen nationwide unity, since political issues tended more than economic grievances to be common, national ones.”

Yet by 1904 the “Iskra” editorial board had fallen apart, resulting in the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks that would define Russian Social Democracy over the next decade, and Lenin himself was forced out of the newspaper on bad terms.

[George-Icaros Babassakis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Πολύ περιεκτική βιογραφία του Λένιν.

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good! Much better than knowing Lenin from tankies. Very brief and engaging. A lot of his speeches, works and actions placed in context.

[Cody · Rating 1 out of 5]

The ridiculous insistence to frame literally every single page around this idea of a “heroic scenario” makes an otherwise enjoyable book insufferable. The liberal need to see Lenin’s analysis and strategy as “heroic” says much more about the author’s individualistic worldview than it says about the books subject. This is what happens when liberals write about Marxists

[Maja Solar · Rating 5 out of 5]

the biography seems somewhat abstract because it is based on what Lars T. Lih calls ''Lenin's heroic scenario'', so it's all somewhat subordinated to that scheme but still not a bad book

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very insightful, even if the book doesn't cover every major event in Lenin's life in the same detail. The focus on Lenin's so-called "heroic scenario" is both a benefit and a drawback for the book, giving it a central theme but making it more difficult to view Lenin as an individual and political force outside of this focus.

Very sympathetic to Lenin, and focuses on this idea of his optimism for the betterment of the world that only started to run out towards the end of his life. Ultimately, Lars writes in a way that eloquently explains the importance of such optimism in your beliefs.

[Feargal McGovern · Rating 5 out of 5]

No wonder this is such a well regarded political biography of Lenin and his political strategy.
My only critique is it tends to lean more towards biography than portraying the breadth of his political ideas.
Despite being much shorter, 'Decouvrir Lenine' by Marina Garris is a far better book in presenting Lenin's key ideas - on imperialism, the state, against beaucracy, against pacifism and militarism, workers hegemony, etc - although it is in french and yet to be translated into english!

[Johan Persson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Det finns många biografier över Lenin, av varierande omfattning. De tenderar att antingen vara hagiografier över marxismens store utvecklare eller anklagelseakter mot en psykiskt störd tyrann, allt efter författarens inställning till Lenin och ställning i klasskampen. Lars T. Lihs lilla bok om Lenin är ingen hyllningsskrift, men tillhör ändå de som har en positiv grundinställning till sitt ämne.

Lih tar i boken på sig uppgiften att motbevisa en vanlig uppfattning om Lenin, att han var en person som i grunden misstrodde arbetarklassen och i dess ställe såg ett parti av intellektuella yrkesrevolutionärer som det revolutionära subjektet. Lih försöker istället visa hur hela Lenins politiska gärning kretsade kring ett "heroiskt scenario" vilket kan sammanfattas sålunda:

The Russian proletariat carries out its world historical mission by becoming the vozhd of the narod, leading a revolution that overthrows the tsar and institutes political freedom, thus preparing the ground for an eventual proletarian vlast that will bring about socialism. What propels this drama forward is inspired and inspiring class leadership. The party activists inspire the proletariat who inspire the Russian narod who inspire the whole world with their revolutionary feats.

I Lihs text förekommer ofta ryska termer, här vozhd som betyder ledare, narod som betyder folk och vlast som betyder makt. Lihs tes är emellertid att dessa översättningar inte fångar alla de kulturella och intellektuella konnotationer som de ryska termerna har. Och det är just Lihs genuina filologiska kunskaper som är bokens styrka. Stycket om varför Lenins term revoliutsioner po professii inte ska översättas som yrkessrevolutionär utan som "professionell revolutionär" i betydelsen skicklig fann jag mycket givande. Detta ger mersmak och jag ser fram mot att läsa Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? In Context hans nyöversättning och närläsning av Vad bör göras.

Det enda jag saknar, vilket kan förlåtas en så kort skrift om ett så stort ämne, är en verklig diskussion om Lenins partiuppfattning. Det förblir för mig något oklart hur det kommunistiska partiet egentligen passar in i Lenins "heroiska scenario" och varför arbetarklassen överhuvudtaget behöver revolutionärer att inspireras av. Kring detta ämne har dock skrivits otaliga tjocka volymer.

[sube · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is centered around a central theme: Lenin's "lifelong scenario" of "heroic leadership", i.e. the rule of the narod (russian people) by the proletariat & the inspiration of the proletariat itself through the "exalted idea of what their own leadership could accomplish." This is what the entire book again and again and again returns to; he also on the side writes on the relationship to Kautsky regularly. I don't agree with either as central he thinks it is - which made it less interesting to me. However, nonetheless, it's an alright bio of Lenin's overall political struggle - short & sweet.

[Marc Livingstone · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am enjoying this book, but within the space of two pages the author compares the Russian social democratic party to a character in buffy the vampire slayer and then talks about a "knot of Damocles" (it's a Gordion knot or a sword of Damocles - you could maybe use a sword of Damocles to cut a Gordion knot I suppose...). This throws the whole book into question.

[AHW · Rating 3 out of 5]

One Leninologist’s image of Lenin. Skewed, short, clear, powerful. Lih delivers what he’s known for, Lenin as Kautskyist social democrat, by overlooking how this part fused with his Jacobin conspiracist element. The implications of Kautsky’s limits for Lenin’s project aren’t explored. This is a useful corrective to other images of Lenin, but in itself is an unconvincing analysis.

[Ethan · Rating 5 out of 5]

With one sentence from Lenin's 1894 work, Friends of the People, Lars Lih presents the entire political theory and practice of Lenin, his so called 'banner sentence'. This sentence lays out the stages of Lenin from Social Democrat to Bolshevik to Communist. In one sense, this is a brilliant and important understanding of Lenin's politics. Lih shows, through his titanic knowledge and study of Lenin's works, that one thread defined Lenin's politics from start to end. From the Petersburg circles of 1893-4, Lenin committed himself to what he saw as Marx's grand idea: only as leader of all the oppressed will the working class achieve a victorious world socialist revolution. Lih importantly refutes all the garbage written about Lenin in the 'textbook' interpretation.
This is Lih's most important contribution to understanding Lenin. But it also presents a problem with understanding the development of Lenin. Whilst Lih recognises the drastic change that 1914 had on Lenin, he takes the position that: "Lenin presented himself not as a bold innovator or a fearless rethinker but as someone faithful to the old verities - as the socialist leader who kept his head while all about him were losing theirs. This is how he had the amazing self assurance to defy the entire socialist establishment in the name of Marxist orthodoxy."
Lih ends up divorcing Lenin's project from that of Marx and Engels. He is presented as the 'Russian Erfurtian', an orthodox Kautskyist limited only by the material conditions of Russia. He gives no real room for Lenin's political development. It was because of his commitment and understanding of Marxism that Lenin could assess the successes and failures of German Social Democracy after its capitulation. It was not the banner of German Social Democracy that Lenin held high throughout his entire life but the banner of Revolutionary Marxism.
Still, this is one of the best biographies of Lenin second really only to Trotsky's.

[John Moore · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Lenin" by Lars T. Lih is a modern classic on the politics of the communist leader and intellectual, Lenin. Lih presents several new insights on Lenin's socialist vision. Controversy, the author argues that Lenin stayed true to the traditions and principles of revolutionary social democracy, and remained a devotee of Marxism a la Karl Kautsky. This was despite Lenin eventually viewing the 'pope of Marxism' Kautsky as a renegade who betrayed his own principles.

"Lenin" has two main weaknesses. First, Lih shows a lack of understanding of Lenin's concept of the state, and how Lenin's conception of the class nature of a post-Czarist state in Russia did undergo a transformation. Second, Lih ignores Lenin's interest in Hegelian logic. Lenin's study of Hegel's logic allowed him to traverse the collapse of the socialist Second International, to develop his position on the need for a workers government in post-Czarist Russia, and to reflect upon the failings and contradictions of the Bolshevik led state of the USSR.

Lih, along with Slavoj Zizek, is the leading scholar in developing a contemporary 21st Century understanding of Lenin.

[Alek · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sympathetic, communist biography of Lenin, from the author of Lenin Rediscovered, which is a popular essay among some marxists in DSA. This is very much worth reading for anyone interested in this history. While there are many academic books on Lenin available in English, this is the first I've encountered which is both sympathetic in outlook, from a communist who is actually capable of understanding the work and thought of Lenin, and the overall discourse of the Second International, in ways bourgeois and marxist historians both fail in their own ways to do. He also seems to grasp Russian as a language. Its openly apologetic, trying to explain why Lenin and his comrades felt compelled to act the way they did (regardless of your politics this is a virtue, Lih's not trying to trick you, and this is not an angle you've seen elsewhere). A communist book but also an academic text rather than a mere sectarian hagiography.

The epilogue (where he addresses what are the big looming questions about Lenin, namely in what ways Stalin represents his legacy) could be longer which I guess is a reason to give it 4 instead of 5 stars? But he does do a good job here imo just wish there was more of it!

[Cody · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short and to the point, goes over the key moments in Lenin's life and put them into context with the events in Russia and Lenin's own ideological framework at the time and shows how both during and after the revolution those events in relation to his own framework shifted his ideas, while at the same time maintaining his belief in the role of the Proletariat in revolution and leadership

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

fantastic, short intellectual history of Lenin. Highly recommended. I read this after Lih's much heftier Lenin Rediscovered, and it was great to consolidate the message of that tome with a broader, but much more digestible, perspective of Lenin's life.

[Steven R · Rating 4 out of 5]

A readable and through introduction to Lenin that puts him in his appropriate historical context. Makes absolutely clear the centrality of Lenin's "heroic scenario" for the proletariat to his theory and practice throughout his career.

[csillagkohó · Rating 5 out of 5]

super informatief, super entertainend, sympathiek maar kritisch, vol anekdotes maar niet sensatiegericht, vol context maar verpakt als een meeslepend verhaal, kort en vlot maar geschreven vanuit hopen expertise, metaforen om van te smullen… wat wil je nog meer

[Cliff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Entertaining page-turner, breaks down modern misconceptions of Lenin and provides a well of historical context from which to draw understanding.

[Maria D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

So well written, easy to follow, I really enjoyed reading it and learnt so much.

[Krisdeep Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great historical biography following the underlying narrative of Lenin's heroic scenario.

[Travis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too boring for me. Too much focus on the particulars of Lenin's philosophies and too little focus on real-world events.

[Morgan]

A masterful popularization/synthesis of Lih's overall project to 'rediscover' Lenin as a Second-Internationalist (and positively re-assess the Second International). The red thread in his narrative is the evolution of Lenin's 'heroic scenario' of revolution where the social-democratic/communist party inspires the proletariat which in turn inspires the Russian people which in turn inspires the rest of the world. It is emotional commitment to this scenario which, Lih argues, binds together the private individual Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov and the public persona N. Lenin ("What does the 'N' stand for? Nothing." (p. 8)). This book is about both of them, because (as should be obvious, really) they are inseparable.

The result is a reflection on the dialectic of individual and history where, more than anything, one is left with a grim understanding of the overwhelming unpredictability and force of concrete circumstances. Reading the latter parts is very depressing, as one can clearly see this genuine revolutionary and the project he worked for being crushed into the mold which was to spread around the world as state socialism. Most socialists today will lay the blame for the USSR's failure on individual agents in one form or another - 'authoritarians', 'Stalinists', 'revisionists'. But the fact of the matter is that the Bolsheviks navigated the Revolution with the best of intentions (including 'smashing the state' in Marx's sense, and of winning over the peasantry), yet still failed. Russia was not ripe for communist transformation, and once the uprisings in Germany and Hungary were suppressed there was practically no hope for the Russian project to become anything but what it did. This is a harsh but necessary lesson which all socialists must learn to accept.

Lih's decision to center the biography around the 'heroic scenario' makes sense, and leads to a brilliantly concise, well-structured and well-written (as always) account. At the same time, though, it leads to a downplaying of other important elements of Lenin's thought. What particularly struck me was the relative absence of imperialism and the 'national question', both of which were central throughout Lenin's life (but particularly during the First World War). Since it is not the book's aim to be about this aspect, I do not hold this against it, but anyone reading it should also research the topic right away. Kersplebedeb has (relatively) recently republished a short anthology which serves well as an introduction. The Discovering Imperialism collection provides extensive (and crucial) context. And, of course, Lenin's own summary of and elaboration on Second-Internationalist anti-imperialism is a classic.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of good information to dispel common myths and misconceptions about Lenin. One of the largest of these notions is the idea that Lenin was plagued by a pessimistic concern about workers; I've frequently heard people make claims such as "Lenin considered the workers too stupid" as an explanation of why he cared about a revolutionary vanguard. To his credit, Lih tears down this myth repeatedly, in lockstep with Lenin's actions year after year as they harshly contradict this simplistic assertion. In contrast, Lih describes what he calls Lenin's "heroic scenario" of class leadership... a scenario which is not too pessimistic, but too optimistic (Lih tells us) in the assumptions it makes about mobilizing the masses of humanity in struggle against capitalism. Both strands of anti-Leninism are wrong.

The biggest defect in this book is that Lenin is made into a religious-like figure who essentially wills events to happen despite the fundamental incorrectness of his ideas. Throughout the text, Lenin is compared to religious missionaries "spreading the good news" and near the end of the work, to Noah building his ark (with some cracks in the foundation, of course.) Despite this weakness, the book is still absolutely worth reading, as this flaw is from Lih's personal interpretation and there remains a wealth of historical information that is easily separable - and worth receiving.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant revisionist take on the guiding passions and abiding goals of Lenin's intellectual and political career. While its brevity precludes sustained engagement with other scholarship on Lenin, Lih gives enough of a sense of where he is making original or revisionist interventions that it provides an effective historiographical, as well as historical, argument.