The Dilemmas of Lenin: Terrorism, War, Empire, Love, Revolution

by Tariq Ali

The secret life of the man who reshaped Russia

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, leader of the October 1917 uprising, is one of the most misunderstood leaders of the twentieth century. In his own time, there were many, even among his enemies, who acknowledged the full magnitude of his intellectual and political achievements. But his legacy has been lost in misinterpretation; he is worshipped but rarely read.

On the centenary of the Russian Revolution, Tariq Ali explores the two major influences on Lenin’s thought—the turbulent history of Tsarist Russia and the birth of the international labour movement—and explains how Lenin confronted dilemmas that still cast a shadow over the present. Is terrorism ever a viable strategy? Is support for imperial wars ever justified? Can politics be made without a party? Was the seizure of power in 1917 morally justified? Should he have parted company from his wife and lived with his lover?

In The Dilemmas of Lenin , Ali provides an insightful portrait of Lenin’s deepest preoccupations and underlines the clarity and vigour of his theoretical and political formulations. He concludes with an affecting account of Lenin’s last two years, when he realized that “we knew nothing” and insisted that the revolution had to be renewed lest it wither and die.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Russia, Politics, Russian Revolution, Lenin

350 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 2017

About the author

Tariq Ali (Punjabi, Urdu: طارق علی) is a British-Pakistani historian, novelist, filmmaker, political campaigner, and commentator. He is a member of the editorial committee of the New Left Review and Sin Permiso, and regularly contributes to The Guardian, CounterPunch, and the London Review of Books.

He is the author of several books, including Can Pakistan Survive? The Death of a State (1991) , Pirates Of The Caribbean: Axis Of Hope (2006), Conversations with Edward Said (2005), Bush in Babylon (2003), and Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity (2002), A Banker for All Seasons (2007) and the recently published The Duel (2008).

Reviews

[Paul Ataua · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book covers a much wider base than expected with Tariq Ali determined to detail the economic and political background far back into the previous century, both in Russia and the wider world, in order to make more sense of Lenin’s dilemmas and the revolution’s pre and post conditions. Not the focus I thought it was going to have, but still a fairly solid and informative history that provokes thought. I am fascinated by how major upheavals happen and what role the people in the middle of them deal with events. Not my go to book on Lenin, but a good read.

[Steffi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tariq Ali again, cashing in on the Russian Revolution centenary and people like me who buy like every f book VERSO publishes, I suppose.

So. 'The dilemmas of Lenin' (2017), ey? If you already read A LOT about Lenin and the history of the Russian Revolution more broadly, then there's very little new analysis or insight in the book. There's also very little engagement with Lenin's work itself and it's not really trying to be a biography either. The 'dilemmas' refer to the external circumstances, objective conditions, I suppose, e.g, the 'backward' nature of post-feudal Russia, the first world war and imperialist interests, failed revolutions in Western Europe etc.

It's the kind of book you wanna give the smug assholes who know shit all about lenin or socialism but love to say things like 'look at Russia! Look at how socialism worked for them!' Like, yeah, maybe socialism failed because it's kind of tricky to build a socialist society in a world dominated by imperialism and capitalism. And maybe socialism really isn't the problem.

What's different, maybe, is the book's focus on the role Russian women played since the mid-19th century, often more advanced than their counterparts in the rest of Europe. Also, probably unknown to many, Lenin's and the Boshevik's very progressive views and laws with respect to gender, sexuality and family/marriage, eg decriminalization of homosexuality in 1918 (like 40 years before Western Europe) and abortion. So, yeah, identity politics kids, think about that. (OK, the last sentence doesn't make any sense.)

Nerd stuff: The book kind of ends with a chapter on love and Lenin's affair with Armand (open affair, of course. hypocritical monogamy cheating is for the bourgeoisie, ya!) and then there's all this stuff I am so obsessed about like love between comrades and 'the cause' <3

[Adam McPhee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Agree with the general criticism that the book is very digressive, but don't consider that a bad thing. Manages to provide a lot of context for the life of Lenin, while also pontificating on Bismarck's dietary practices, Wilson Woodrow's dishonesty, free love in the English Revolution, what a piece of shit Reagan was, etc etc. Kept thinking of it as a centenary companion piece to Mieville's October.


Stray thoughts:
–Lenin's brother Sasha was an idiot. The cops arrested him but lost his manifesto and he re-wrote it for them. Dumb! The Tsar said, 'This is the writing not even of a madman, but a pure idiot.' He wasn't wrong!
– We should resurrect Soviet architectural ideals, especially constructivism, but work to improve it.
– The chapter on Lenin's love life proves he would've been a volcel left twitter poster a century later.
– The best part of the book is explaining the arguments around war communism, though it has little to do with Lenin. It's an argument between Trotsky (Marxism has nothing to do with war, use tsarist generals and fight a war of position – this is correct), Frunze (war can be marxist, use imaginary proletarian troops and fight a war of maneuver), and Tukhachevsky (a brilliant general but a full on Bonapartist, and after WW1 it's just not the time).

Highlights:

During the course of this conversation Lenin explained his views on anarchism and the decisive factor that helped him to solve the dilemma between anarchism and socialism.
It was the necessity of ‘a mass struggle’, he informed Kropotkin:

We do not need individual terroristic attempts and the anarchists should have understood long ago. Only with the masses, through the masses … All other methods, including those of the anarchists, have been relegated to the limbo of history – nobody needs them, they are no good, and they do not attract anybody – they only demoralise people who in one way or another have been drawn on to that old worn-out path.


the French right and centre singled out the Terror during the French Revolution as the biggest tragedy ever (the victims of the guillotine were in the 3,000 range). During the Commune, 30,000 died, of which 14,000 men and women were executed.

In his first major essay, Prisoners of the American Dream, Mike Davis suggests, with good reason, that a major difference between the United States and Europe was a campaign of sustained violence against the working class by successive US governments, vigilantes and privatised ‘security’ firms, such as Pinkertons. This violence was part of the system itself and its aim was not simply to crush strikes and provide the muscle for blacklegs to replace unionised or striking workers, but also to preempt the emergence of socialist groups and militant unions. True, Europe tried it too, but there success was limited. Hence fascism, the last resort of a petrified ruling class. In the United States there was no need for fascism. The existing system, via a combination of coercion and consent, succeeded in regularly pruning the system of all ‘undesirables’.

What made the Russian Revolution different: This was the context in which Lenin drafted the explosive April Theses that pushed the Bolshevik Party down the road to a socialist revolution. Unlike all previous revolutions in history, this was a fully conscious, carefully considered call to arms. It was not easy to convince his own party leaders, a fact that proves wrong all those who regarded the Bolshevik Party during this period as being what it later became after ten years in power. The April Theses marked a sharp break with orthodoxies that had previously united all factions of Russian Social Democracy, chiefly the dogma that the revolution had to be bourgeois-democratic, as Marx had said and as the English and French revolutions had demonstrated. Marx’s own views, however, were anything but dogmatic on these issues.

Ali thinks Marx would've called for Lenin to midwife the Revolution: he first acts of a revolutionary government would be to confiscate the estates, create a single state bank and bring social production and the distribution of products under the control of the soviets. This did not constitute socialism, Lenin argued, but it did lay the foundations for a commune-state to create the space in which a transition to socialism could take place, a commune-state as defended by Marx and Engels. And, Lenin continued, since Rosa Luxemburg herself had, on 4 August 1914, denounced the German SPD as a ‘stinking corpse’, he had to insist that a new International be created.
The denunciations were deafening. He had gone mad, was ‘depraved’ and out of touch with Russian realities, was a ‘criminal’ (this gem came from Axelrod, a longtime colleague on Iskra), had occupied the throne vacated by Bakunin and so on. Bolshevik leaders were more restrained, but equally angry in private. Orthodoxy had all of them in thrall and to such an extent that all they could repeat like parrots or intone like monks was a well-known paragraph from Marx:

No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.

Had medical science been more advanced in Marx’s time, he could just as well have added that in those exceptional cases where a normal delivery might severely damage both the organism and the maturing entity in the womb, a more forcefully induced birth via a midwife might become necessary. He could have even enjoyed playing with the word ‘caesarian’.

The debate on war communism: The different contributions to this debate all throw some light on the nature of the problems confronting the revolution after October, when war broke out on the vast plains and steppelands of Russia. There were three basic positions. Trotsky, commissar for war and architect of the Red Army, did not believe in the existence of a distinct Marxist strategy of war. He regarded military affairs as a technical branch of knowledge, with no closer relation to politics than engineering or architecture. Thus he wrote:
Historical materialism is by no means a universal method for all sciences … To attempt to apply it in the special domain of military affairs would be the greatest fallacy, no less a one than an attempt to move military science into the group of natural sciences … Even should one agree that ‘military science’ is a science, it is impossible to assume that this science could be built according to the method of Marxism.
Trotsky’s military policy was absolutely logical and consistent with this position. Early on, he made the fundamental decision to use former tsarist officers to train and lead the proletariat in arms. Regarded as the repositories of professional military knowledge, they were renamed ‘military specialists’ and given command of troops: throughout the civil war they dominated the officer corps of the Red Army above the rank of captain.
...
Frunze's starting point was the polar opposite of Trotsky’s. He argued for a ‘unified military doctrine’, by which he meant a refusal of the separation established by Trotsky between Marxism and the theory of war. Frunze was convinced that a new ‘proletarian science of war’ was necessary, which would express the social character of the working class as the new master of society. ‘The character of the military doctrine accepted by the army of any state is determined by the character of the general political line of the social class which stands at its head,’ he wrote.
...
Frunze insisted that, henceforward, a war of manoeuvre predominated over a war of position and analysed the civil war as a historical lesson: fast moves across huge distances would in the future decide the outcome of major military conflicts and as a class, the working class was supremely fitted, by temper and morale, to such mobile offensive actions. This was the fundamental reason for the Red victory in the civil war.
Tukhachevsky occupied a distinct third position in this debate. He agreed with Trotsky on the necessity for classical military discipline and centralisation in the Red Army, and with Trotsky he attacked the cult of anarchic partisan warfare, some of whose adepts later lost the Polish campaign by their insubordination and incompetence. On the other hand, he sided with Frunze and Gusev in their insistence on the new role of the offensive. ‘Manoeuvre is the sole means of securing victory,’ he wrote. Tukhachevsky’s conception of future battles reflected his experience of the fight against Kolchak and Denikin:
Strategic reserves, the utility of which was always doubtful, we need not at all in our war. Now there is one question: how to use numbers in order to gain the maximum force of the blow. There is one answer: release all troops in the attack, not holding in reserve a single bayonet.4
Trotsky and Stalin were later to accuse each other of Bonapartism, a danger that was universally feared in the Bolshevik Party. In fact, the only man who was consciously inspired by the example of Napoleon at this time was Tukhachevsky, who even modelled his addresses to his troops before battle on the style of the French general.

Social basis for the armed contest: What was the social basis of this armed contest? It is here that the root of the military debates within the Red Army must be sought. The Bolsheviks seized power with a minority of the country behind them: they had a ‘strategic majority’ (Lenin) because the Russian working class served as an overwhelming force in the main towns during October. The peasantry, ten times more numerous than the proletariat, were neutral or benevolent. But when the civil war got under way, the Soviet regime rapidly lost most of the goodwill it had enjoyed among the peasant masses because of the ravages of the war itself, the grip of the Entente blockade and the inexorable necessities of food procurement; compulsory grain deliveries were born, not with collectivisation, but with War Communism. Trotsky expressed the truth with brutal honesty when he later said: ‘We plundered all Russia to conquer the Whites.’ The result was expectable. Henceforward, the revolution fought for its existence in a countryside largely hostile to it. The Whites, of course, were even more feared and hated by the mass of the middle and poor peasants: enough to ensure final military victory, but not enough to alter the political consequences of such a victory for socialism. There was no organic bond in most areas between the Red Army and the civilian population. Spontaneous guerrilla actions in Siberia at the beginning of the conflict, Trotsky remarked, played a positive role in harassing the White rear. In the Ukraine later on, where the kulak element was much more important, the peasants disrupted both sides and acted as a ‘disintegrating force’ (Tukhachevsky) on the Red Army. For the Red Army itself, the ‘proletarian’ force which Frunze postulated for his theory was not working-class in composition. By the very end of the war, after strenuous efforts, proletarian soldiers made up only 15 to 18 percent. The rest were peasants, mostly conscripted, confronting enemy armies also composed (much more exclusively) of peasant conscripts.

Why Frunze was wrong and Trotsky right: Projected against this background, the essential flaw of Frunze’s theories is evident: they presupposed political forces which did not exist. A ‘proletarian’ military doctrine could not emerge in Russia in 1920 because there was no proletarian army to apply it. By contrast, Trotsky’s great historical merit was his unflinching awareness of the fragile social base of the war. Precisely because it was not in this sense a people’s war, it could and had to be officered by tsarist technicians and fought on staff school lines. A ‘proletarian’ strategy was utopian in the desperate circumstances of 1919. ... More fundamentally, Trotsky reminded the Bolsheviks, the Red Army was overwhelmingly a peasant force with a low level of political education which could not be used at will for dashes across Europe. The peasant soldiers who composed it would not fight with any enthusiasm outside their own frontiers.

Not sure what to think of this, on women: By 1900, there were more women in tsarist Russia who were teachers, doctors and lawyers than in Western Europe and North America: if Fourier’s definition of a society were to be strictly applied, tsarist Russia would need to be classified as much more progressive at the turn of the century than Germany, Britain, France or the United States, which was patently not the case.

The planned disintegration of the family (Lenin disagreed): For Nikolai Bukharin, the development of capitalism had sown all the seeds necessary for the disintegration of the family: the unit of production shifting to the factory, waged labour for women as well as men and, of course, the peripatetic nature of city life and work. Kollontai agreed that the family was on the edge of extinction. What was crucial for the Bolshevik government was to make the transition to new forms as painless as possible, with the state providing high-quality nurseries, schools, communal eating facilities and help with housework. Lenin strongly supported this point of view. His strictures on the family were characteristically acerbic. He denounced ‘the decay, putrescence, and filth of bourgeois marriage with its difficult dissolution, its license for the husband and bondage for the wife, and its disgustingly false sex morality and relations’.
The enemy was always the male partner, who avoided housework and childcare altogether. ‘Petty housework’, Lenin raged in 1919, ‘crushes, strangles, stultifies and degrades, chains her to the kitchen and the nursery, and she wastes her labour on barbarously unproductive, petty, nerve-racking, stultifying and crushing drudgery.’ His solutions were the same as those of other revolutionary leaders at the time: collective kitchens, laundries, repair shops, crèches, kindergartens and so forth. But for Lenin, the abolition of domestic slavery did not mean the disappearance of individual households or families.
These views were reflected in the architecture of the Constructivists. Moisei Ginzburg’s apartment buildings, both large and small, expressed the new epoch. The communal laundries and dining rooms were considered a huge success. The playground for children was visible from every apartment kitchen, and the size of the space could be modified by moving huge hardwood walls on wheels. I love the ideas behind that early Soviet architecture, but I'm probably too solitary in nature to enjoy living like that.

Unusually sweet anecdote: Now a return to work was compulsory. However much he mourned the loss of Armand in private (and this should never be underestimated), he was aware that she was but one casualty out of 3 million. He and Krupskaya adopted the Armand children, which brought him some solace. He set young André chess tests and made sure Varvara was doing well at university, creating a pandemonium by turning up unannounced to her classroom at the university one day and chatting to the students about literature. When he asked the students to name their favourite poet, they replied in unison: ‘MAYAKOVSKY’. As a classicist with conservative literary and artistic tastes, he was shocked. He could never appreciate Mayakovsky. They laughed when he said that Pushkin was the best and always would be. They calmly informed him that Mayakovsky was the poet of Bolshevism. Lenin snorted contemptuously. He had argued in the same fashion against Lunacharsky at the Commissariat of Enlightenment, and had been similarly overruled.

LOLs:
Kropotkin became close to the Populists, was imprisoned and went into exile, where he was greatly influenced by Bakunin’s ferocious debates with Marx, even though one such debate revolved around Bakunin’s agreement to translate Capital into Russian and subsequent failure to do so. It was ‘too boring’, he insisted, while refusing to return the advance he had received for the translation.

Terrorists are just libs with bombs: The aim of the terror was to rouse the people from their torpor and trigger a mass uprising based on previous models (Razin/Pugachev), but this time under new conditions and in order to completely destroy the autocracy and its institutions. It never worked out and, in a grumpy mood, Lenin once characterised terrorists as liberals with bombs, suggesting that both held the opinion that propaganda alone, of deed or word, would be sufficient for the task that lay ahead. For the most part terrorist acts scared people and legitimated government repression.

Bismarck's breakfast (honestly not sure what place this has in a book about Lenin): As a young man, Bismarck had travelled to Hull and York and caught a train for Manchester and neighbouring small towns to witness the industrial revolution first-hand. His English was excellent and he always had a healthy appetite. His favourite hotel meal was breakfast, so much better than the fish and ‘atrocious fruit tart’ that comprised lunch, leave alone the disgusting soups ‘so strongly seasoned with white and black pepper that few foreigners can eat them’. But English breakfasts were fine because ‘the most colossal pieces of every sort of meat are available and they put them before you to cut as much or as little as you choose without effect on the bill.’ Bismarck would soon learn that the same could not be done with the British Empire.
Despite all this, the tsarist secret police penetrated both groups fairly easily. There is a psychologically interesting report which suggests that when informers embedded in the two socialist factions were reporting back to the police generals who ran the outfit, each of them took on the colouring of the group to which they ‘belonged’ and became quite heated with each other, causing some merriment at headquarters but also indicating that the state apparatuses were not completely impervious to the debates in which they participated.

A young Vietnamese man who turned up at Versailles to demand self-determination for Indochina was brushed aside with contempt. This was Ho Chi Minh, who went on to attend the founding conference of the PCF and inflicted a memorable defeat on the United States fifty-eight years later.

Alpha commie move: Lenin, as head of government, instructed the commander-in-chief of the old army, General Dukhonin, to commence peace negotiations on every front. Dukhonin refused. Lenin sacked him by telephone. To the mortification of the old order, the Bolsheviks appointed Ensign Krylenko as the new commander-in-chief, with a stern Bolshevik and former imperial officer M. D. Bonch-Bruevich as the chief of staff.

LOL I don't think you could get away with this in North America "land of free speech" today: The first years of the revolution now appeared utopian to many of its critics, who began to yearn for its uncertainties and debates. The days when cartoonists could depict a heavily pregnant Virgin Mary queuing eagerly for a Soviet abortion were long gone.

[Eli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a bad biography, but Ali spreads himself too thin and he ends up only touching on a few topics in any real depth. The books is also hamstrung by a poor analysis of the post-Lenin USSR, but that's to be expected. If you already have a basic understanding of Lenin's life and intellectual development you won't get much out of this.

[Ali Alaa · Rating 5 out of 5]

الكتاب لا يتكلم عن سبرة لينين السياسي الثوري فقط بل يأخذنا في رحلة الي جوانب من شخصيته التي لا نعرفها.
نري لينين الضعيف والسياسي و المحبط والثوري والمحارب والعنيد والقارىء الجيد للادب والذي يخطط من اجل حماية الثورة حتي لو اتهم بالخيانة بسبب معاهدة برست ليتوفسك مع الالمان في اثناء الحرب العالمية الاولي
طرق علي استطاع باقتدار ان ينقل الينا لحظات لينين المختلفة والحزينة والمآزق التي تعرض لها الرجل فابتعد عن لحظة التقديس الذي حولته لقديس بيزنطي
ليس هذا فحسب بل يساعدنا طارق في اكتشاف واقع روسيا القيصرية والحركات الاناركية التي رأت ان الارهاب سيدفع الانتلجنسيا للمضي في ثورة ولكن لاحقا اكتشف ان الارهاب يزيد من قمع الحكومة لمواطنيها
كتاب جيد في سرد لعائلة لينين الذي ترعرع فيها ونشا وحزنه علي قتل اخيه باوامر القيصر الكسندر الثالث ،ونري كيف تصاعدت المعارضة ضد القيصر وتغيير اسلوبها بدلا من الارهاب فيجمع طارق في مفارقة بين أناركيو القرن التاسع عشر وارهابيو الحاضر
الكتا�� أيضا وسيلة لمعرفة مراحل الثورة الروسية ولاحوال اوروبا من كوميونة باريس للاممية الاولي مرورا بالاممية الثانية الالمانية حتي الثالثة
اما عن لينين فنحن امام شخصية ليست عادية بل شخصية أدركت دورها بنجاح في التاريخ وهذا مصير امثال نابليون ولم يكن يكتفي بما يحدث الان بل يري المستقبل فتوقع ان الحزب فقد الطبقة العاملة اثناء الحرب الاهلية وهذا ثمن ضخم ليس هذا فحسب بل توقع مضي الحزب في بيروقراطيته
الكتاب يكشف لنا حياة لينين الخاصة بكل تنوعاتها مع سرد للاتجاه النسوي الذي كان قويا في روسيا أنذاك وساهم في قوة الحركات الثورية
سيرة ذاتية بعيدة عن التقديس اما اكثر الفصول التي أعجبتني هو فصل تكوين الجيش الاحمر وعبقرية كلا من تروتسكي و توخاتشفسكي القائد العبقري الذي من مضحكات الأمور انه أعدم نتيجة المساعدة التي قدمها الالمان النازيين لستالين الذي كان بالمناسبة قائد عسكري فاشل والدليل حروبه في بولندا وحتي نجاحه في الحرب العالمية الثانية لم يكن نتيجه تفوقه العسكري بل لتوافر الظروف المثالية ونجاح الخطة الخمسية
اما عن الترجمة فامير زكي متفوق وهناك جيل من المترجمين الشباب في غاية الدقة والتفوق امثال : امير زكي ومارك جمال و محمد عبد النبي والكتاب في آخر صفحاته يشير الي أسماء لشخصيات كثيرة ودورهم في التاريخ الروسي
كان هدف لينين نشر ثورته في ارجاء العالم واداركه الجيد ان الطبقة العاملة ليست جاهزة لهضم افكار ماركس وان النظرية الماركسية بحد ذاتها تبقي نظرية وليست أسلوبا للحكم في الوقت الحالي للثورة الروسية وجاء لينين يطالب بالراسمالية الروسية حتي تستعيد روسيا مصانعها وقوة اقتصادها .رأي لينين ما لم يراه احد في تلك الفترة وحتي بعد إصابته بالجلطة ظل يفكر في أمور الحزب
اما عن الكتابات حول الثورة الروسية فهي قليلة جدا وهذا موضح في الهوامش والمراجع باستثناء ثلاثية تروسكي التي ترجمت والتي كتبها إسحق دويتشر هناك ثلاث شخصيات لابد ان نري كتب عنهم في الساحة المصرية وهؤلاء :
مارتوف(الصديق) الذي كان ضد لينين ومذكور علاقاتهم في اخر فصل تحت مسمي (أصدقاء وأعداء) وهو فصل مميز لي لانه تناول الخلافات بينهم والعلاقات الانسانية التي ربطت بين الاثنين وان قيام الثورات ليس معناه الوردية في الطرح السياسي فلابد ان يحدث شقاق ومنازعات بين مختلف الشخصيات حتي لو كانت قريبة منا
الثاني توخاتشفسكي : (القائد العسكري العبقري) والذي كان يستحق مكانه اكبر مما حصل عليها نظرا لعبقريته العسكرية الفذة وتشكيله للجيش الاحمر ومعه ليون تروتسكي الذي وان كان لم عسكريت ولكن براعته تجعلك تقف امامه بتقدير واعجاب
الثالث : ستالين فهذا الرجل لا يمكن اعتباره شخصية عادية ولكن هناك تساؤلات عديدة حوله ونحتاج لسيرة تكتب عنه بدقة لنفهم شخصيته وسياقه التاريخي

[Sammy Hassen · Rating 4 out of 5]

ترجمة كتاب "مآزق لينين" شكلت إضافة للكتابات العربية عن لينين من حيث أنها تضعه كفرد في سياقه التاريخي -سلسلة الأحداث الثورية التي شهدتها روسيا من القرن التاسع عشر + الأحزاب الاشتراكية الأوروبية + موت الأممية الأولى وخيانة الثانية ..إلخ-، كما أنها تعطى التفاصيل الأسرية والشخصية لحياة ثوري شكلت أعماله كقائد للبروليتاريا الروسية والعالمية انقلابا عالميا. ركز الكتاب على العوامل التي شكلت شخصيته وعلى علاقته بالأدب وعلى علاقاته الشخصية برفاقه المناضلين. فبرغم الكتابات المترجمة للعربية -سواء له أو عنه أو عن المناضلين الماركسين بوجه عام- إلا أننا نعاني من نقص في هذا النوع من الكتابات. فمثلا كتابات غوركي المترجمة عن لينين تعتمد على سرد مواقف شخصية مبعثرة مع بعض انطباعات غوركي نفسه عنه، وكتاب لوكاش الفذ "لينين أو آنية الثورة" يشكل فهما نظريا للثورة في النظرية/الممارسة التي قام بها لينين (اللينينية كاستكمال للماركسية)، فمن هنا تأتي أهمية الكتاب برغم بعض النواقص واختلافنا مع بعض الأحكام الواردة فيه.
ينصح قراءته بشدة.

[Owen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some fascinating discussions of both well-known and neglected aspects of revolutionary history, a particular highlight being the chapter on military policy. This is also the first account I've read of Lenin's intense, beautiful, and tragic relationship with Inessa Armand for a long time. It treats the relationship in the mature, sympathetic, and sensitive manner it deserves, while also locating their affair firmly in the sexual cultures, politics, and moralities of Bolshevism. The book doesn't serve any single purpose - it's neither a biography, nor a broad history of the Russian revolution, nor a discussion of Lenin's ideas, nor a specialised treatise - and so it might easily be marginalised in people's cluttered reading lists. But it deserves attention for its readability and the immense knowledge and generally fair mind Ali brings to the wide range of subjects he covers.

[David Selsby · Rating 3 out of 5]

I keep falling into the trap of reading reviews here of books before reading the books. As I made my way through the book I couldn’t, and now that I’ve finished “The Dilemmas of Lenin'' I can’t, help thinking of the criticisms reviewers leveled against Ali for “cashing in” on the centenary of the Russian Revolution. What is the substance of this critique of cashing in? Mainly that the text didn’t have a clearly delineated thesis and that throughout the book this lack of a clearly delineated and articulated thesis contributed to a narrative that was scattershot. I don’t know enough about Lenin to be able to be that disappointed with a scattershot and hodgepodge look at his life. I do, however, in principle agree with the aforementioned critique—to wit, we go from Lenin’s childhood and the political commitments and untimely death of his older brother to the vicissitudes and challenges of building a pan-European socialist movement; we end up at the sui generis nature of Lenin’s intellect and personality and their role in the actualization of the Bolshevik Revolution, and then back again to various infighting, divisions, and deteriorations of socialist organizations and parties across Europe. We get a little bit about Italy, and then the book wraps up with an interesting but not necessarily connected to anything else exploration of women, feminism, and other features of gender dynamics both circumscribed by various socialist movements and without.

The reason I picked up this book was I wanted to learn more about Lenin. I did. However, I didn’t learn as much as I wanted to and that was largely because of Ali’s grazing across multiple topics and because these topics didn’t cohere around a clearly articulated literary goal or coherent political vision. I wouldn’t pick up anything by Ali again, so that’s worth noting, this being because his writing qua writing is not very interesting. The sentences don’t sparkle; robust conclusions replete with astute observations are few and far between. Isn’t that the thing? Reading is enjoyable, sometimes, even when you (me, anyone) aren’t that interested in the topic or don’t come to the topic with much foreknowledge. What draws you in and what ends up captivating you as you turn the pages is the beauty of the sentences, the ways the thoughts on the topic are put together; in short, “the voice,” the author creates (although I’m talking here as much about word selection and sentence formation). I’ll give Ali credit for having a light touch with the material: he makes jokes, he’s irreverent; he periodically connects in a snarky but enjoyable (because accurate) way the depredations the ruling classes and autocrats of the past rained down on workers and peasants to the self-same exploitation today’s corporate overlords are responsible for.

If anyone reads this review, perhaps he or she could suggest a book about Lenin and/or the Russian Revolution worth reading (not that this wasn’t worth reading but it wasn’t enough of what I wanted).

[Ally McIntyre]

A very readable history that despite not teaching many new things still provided a few new angles for me, including a prolonged section on the revolutionary role of women in Russia before and during the revolutionary struggle. Best of all is that it is written in Ali's distinctively acerbic and partisan style. It definitely fired up my passion in this stuff again after a few years of despondency. The hopes and promise engendered by Lenin live on.

[Clare · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had a hard time reading more than a few pages at a time of Tariq Ali's The Dilemmas of Lenin: Terrorism, War, Empire, Love, Revolution, but that's not because it was bad. It is, rather, because it was quite good, containing a lot of important and valuable information, but I started reading it while I was sick, which is not generally the optimal time to try to be learning important things about history and politics and whatever. I should have just read some nice lighthearted fiction instead, but I wanted to finish this book before October was over, because I'm pretentious like that.

Anyway. I'm not really smart enough to write much of a review here; my background on the Russian Revolution is still very thin, even after reading October earlier in the year (although thank God I did or I might have been really lost). Dilemmas of Lenin deals with a wide range of subjects, frequently wandering away from Lenin's personal history and writings to explain or contextualize other stuff that was going on in Russia or in the socialist movement. This book is one of several coming out this year with the explicit intent of pushing back against the highly stereotyped images of the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks and particularly of Lenin, who I know had a personality cult in the USSR and obviously has been reviled as a ranting zealot in the US, although I don't actually know anything more detailed than that other than the same people who think Marx was personally a genocidal murderer instead of a dorky journalist who liked to read about economics don't like Lenin either. The picture of Lenin we get from Ali is one of a smart, complex, somewhat emotionally traumatized man with distinct tendencies toward snobbish seriosity, but not altogether lacking in other personality traits, including the occasional sense of humor.

Other, smarter people than myself have written extensive reviews of this book in all the big center-lefty publications, and I read like four different reviews before I figured I should just probably read the book itself, so if you want to know more about the book I'd point you toward the reviews at The Guardian and The New Republic.

Originally posted at In October, they'll all remember my name.

[Mostafa Shalash · Rating 2 out of 5]

مخيب للأمال، كنت محب لينين كنت تتبع أفكار لتكوين رؤية حول تروتسكي أو ستالين هو كتاب شديد الضعف، ولو أن مراهق جلس ليكتب عن تاريخ الثورة وعن لينين وعن أشخاصها أعتقد أنه بمقدوره أن ينتج شئ أفضل من هذا.
يمكن أن نتحدث حول سرديات تاريخية متضاربة على طول الكتاب ولن أحتاج لمجلدات لأسقط حجج وفرضيات قدمت بأنها تاريخ فقط الروايات نفسها والتبريرات داخل الكتاب تسقط بعضها البعض. وهذا بسبب التحيز الواضح ولكن لا مانع من التحيز لترف على حساب أخر ولكن قدم فكرتك بقدر كافي من العمق والمصادر. ولا يمكن إعتبار ان كل من مات لو عاش لصنع معجزة ولا يمكن أن أتحدث ضد تخليد أيقونات ثورية وأن اعتبر شخص ما كل ما يقوله يتم وصفه بأنه نبوءة صادقة بعيدًا أن هذا كذب بين وفج. إلا انه كان أمر مضحك. أن أقول أنا ضد تقديس الرموز ولكن فلان لديه نبوءات وان نبوءته هنا وهنا وهنا ومن هذا الذي يكتب تاريخه بيده وأخذه منه مصدر صدق. لو سمح لشخصي أنا أن أكتب عن نفسي وأنا في معركة مع أخرين، فأكيد سأكتب كل التاريخ لصالحي :D

النجمت��ن للترجمة، كانت منضبطة بقدر كبير.

[Rjurik Davidson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An unusual defence of Lenin, filled with many digressions and side notes - typical of Ali’s style. And for those familiar with Lenin, it’s more in these digressions that the interest lies. Much of the political content has been argued by figures like Deutcher, Liebman or Le Blanc (and there’s a decided trend not to engage in any of the recent discussions initiated by people like Lih). So, a good is somewhat rambling introduction to Lenin. A little of something for everyone, but not of the same significance of Deutcher’s trilogy on Trotsky (then again, pretty much nothing is).

[Hosam Diab · Rating 3 out of 5]

هذا هو الكتاب السادس الذي أنهيه هذا العام. قرأت الكتاب بروح متشبعة بالفضول للشخصية والمرحلة، وأقر أن طارق علي استطاع أن يروي هذا الفضول. لكن القسم الرابع "مسألة النساء" كان قطعة من الجحيم التي ابتلعتها بصعوبة، كما أن استعراض الكاتب لمسارات الحرب الأهلية كان خفيفا وضحلا، بعد مئة عام على هذه الحرب، لا يهمني خلاف القادة حول التكتيكات العسكرية، بقدر ما أردت معرفة محطات هذه الحرب وموقف لينين بصددها.

[Maja Solar · Rating 5 out of 5]

such a wonderful book, on multiple levels! the most important :: Tariq Ali did not miss the 'gender aspect' of the whole story, and here it's not a mere addition or decoration, but a constitutive part of the Russian Revolution.

[Zare · Rating 5 out of 5]

When you are to read about one of the controversial (to say the least) historical figures in a book written by author that is heavily biased towards that very person one needs to have a clear head. And so, I started this book wanting to see what will I find in it and truly hoping this is not going to be a propaganda-pamphlet-book. I am happy to say this was not the case.

Tariq Ali writes in a wonderful way. This book could have been a very poor and dry read but he manages to make it come to life. Author obviously knows a lot about the period and provides not only references to other works but his own additional comments on the subject and this truly adds to the book.

We follow Lenin from his early days, his early childhood, shocking loss of his brother [executed by Tsarist regime] and finally his rise through the Socialist movements and revolutions of 1905 and 1917, bloody Civil War and his very interesting views on the aftermath (and future of the) revolution at the very end of his life.

Lenin is a very intriguing figure, always living in the shadows and very unwilling to share details about his life. If you ever wanted to read about the ultimate spy then I think one needs not look any further. Although he is ever present in the Socialist circles he is constantly being sent to exile by Tsarist regime and living in Western Europe (especially Germany, Switzerland). After the revolution of 1905 he decides to use more radical measures and organizes his party (soon to be known as Bolsheviks) along the lines of what today would be called guerilla movement (think more in line of "Arlington Road" than "Michael Collins") that was highly illegal in Tsarist Russia and gaining popularity in rest of Europe, especially Germany. Lenin was always experimenting with all sorts of political organization but in the end sensing coming WW1 he made a very radical decision that will mark the coming period in history a lot. Decision was simple - single-handedly take the power of Russia using the WW1 horrors Tsarist regime brought on its people (on top of the already existing horrible conditions when it comes to living conditions of majority of population) as an opportunity to galvanize the popular support. This approach, total antagonization of other political parties (sometimes not just through Lenin's actions but his actions surely did not help) will create the atmosphere that will help Stalin and his followers to completely undermine the results of the revolution and create totalitarian state. As we follow the changes revolution brought into Russian society post-1917 we can also see the outlines of the coming disaster.

Although lots of positive changes were done (armistice, social changes, women rights), great losses from WW1 and then bloody Civil War and finally total loss of momentum [when revolution did not take place in Western Europe] and disappointment with the US government actions slowly caused reformists rule to get replaced by ever more bureaucratic machine based on "scientific and democratic approach" (which sounds very very very disturbing these days). Of course this scientific just means that entire population is to be treated as a mass (not mass of individuals but mass) and thus was looked through prism of what you might call condition engine (if...then...) that would mark someone as anti revolutionary based not on concrete actions but on predictions of the actions (thought police? again brrrrr). Is it surprising that snitching became national sport?
Due to horrendous losses in the war the very people that were supposed to be The Population to carry on the revolution were decimated very close to a man and woman by 1920. Influx of uneducated and rural cadre caused by this further ruined the movement because it brought in people that were strong believers in the Tsarist methods but presented it as a reform revolutionary activity (again, this is not something that can be taken against the rural (majority of) Russian population due to their very history, it was not until 1917 that they gained freedom from feudal rulers of Tsarist regime and of course they knew nothing better than the way they were treated).

Author presents Lenin as a intellectual that argued with his opponents but they just forced his hand in the end and caused him to organize complete power takeover during 1917. John Reed's account gives us a more direct view of the man who knew what he was doing and was not forced by anything or anyone - Lening laid a corner stone for a dictatorship that will then become for all means and purposes cult of personality and finally taken over by Stalin.

Would the rule under Lenin be more benevolent if he did not die prematurely? I think it would. He had a very strong stand on how he sees revolution evolving - his final views were premonitions of things to come and his warning on the newly formed apparatus and people heading it were spot on. But these came too little too late in time when he was potentially sidelined by the new majority.

He was a great thinker and he definitely wanted best for his nation but he was a fanatic and unable to plan in the long run (as is always case with zaelots and fanatics). He wanted to transport his nation from medieval period to modern society in a span of little more that a decade by completely obliterating the past knowledge, history and experiences. Unfortunately this cannot be done (as his last remarks clearly show). Society needs to grow and evolve and unfortunately every step in social evolution that is skipped will bring ruin later. Revolution took place too early, without the population that could actually make all the promises a reality. As a result it ended up in form of secular church (which is something it shares with all dictatorships because they all have need to replace religion and place themselves as body/soul keepers/saviors). If this was done in steps/phases, without exclusivity and with better cooperation with the other Socialist parties who knows what could happen. If there ever was a proof for saying haste-makes-waste this was it.

I especially liked the comments on the foreign elements - fail of revolution in Germany (something Lenin could never get over) that caused raise of another radical dictatorship, resistance of West Europe and launch of counter revolution movements (complete disillusion with the worker movements in West Europe and US - again due to very simple fact that these societies were on a completely different level from Russia to begin with so views on the future and politics just could not match) and finally role played by West Europe and US in invading the Russia and assisting Whites. Bibliography is very detailed and I am already on a lookout for other books covering this same period.

In the end greatest beneficiary of the Russian revolution was not Russia but other nations. Victory of the Bolsheviks gave worker movements strength and they soon got their liberties and rights. Strengthening of worker class in Europe helped a lot in resisting Nazism and Fascism but unfortunately caused ever deepening rift between Russian work class and workers of the rest of the Europe. And all thanks to exclusivity of the Soviet regime and unwillingness to communicate and compromise.

Excellent book that should be a warning to both reformers and those following them - immediate jump is not possible. If you want society to progress immediately we need to ask ourselves why - is it because of the population we want to help or for personal goals. Unfortunately road to hell is paved with good intentions and nobody wants to live in hell (right?).

Recommended.

[Elan Garfias · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tariq Ali is one of the few genuine Bolsheviks right now and I found this book so refreshing. It's very easy to neglect the role of the individual in Marxist historiography and the author did an admirable job balancing person with context, particularly the subject's childhood. Of particular value with this book is the chapter covering the Red Army's theoretical discussions on the nature of Marxist military theory and the Civil War, which is always notoriously difficult to find any info on!

[Nathan Fisher]

Didn't care for this. Bizarre book — tries to cover an awkwardly wide and at times arbitrary swath, and is often very hastily telescoped. Also, a remarkable amount of this book is not about Lenin, and the parts that are are only rarely about his 'dilemmas.' In fact, many of the most politically substantive of these are elided entirely. Intermittently engaging, but I find myself confused as to its overall utility.

[Eli]

As a huge newbie to the history of the russian revolution, and european history in general, this book was really useful to me. It provided intellectual, social, and political context for the revolution. It's not really about Lenin, though he is a central figure. It is digressive in the extreme, almost distracted in its structure. Despite this, it makes for very engaging reading. I would recommend to anyone looking to learn more about the intellectual and political currents that shaped lenin and the revolution.

[Nick Parkinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was quite excited to read this book and found the first two sections quite riveting, but by the end of the book felt lukewarm about it.

The premise of the book is to place in historical context. It reads as part-biography, part-analysis of Lenin’s philosophy, and part historiography of Tsarist/pre-revolutionary Russia, social democratic, socialist and labour movements in the West in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions, the Civil War and War Communism, but does each of those things somewhat cursorily and unsatisfactorily.

The book lives up to its premise but I thought that Ali’s reach somewhat exceeded his grasp. If you’re sympathetic to Lenin, the USSR and Marxism with a good working knowledge of Russian and socialist history, you’ll enjoy this book. If you’re looking for a biography of Lenin or a history of Tsarist Russia, the early Soviet Union and the international socialist movement, I’d probably choose another book.

[Fran Henderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought it was stunning in parts but not entirely

[Dorothy Himberc · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd give this book 4.5 stars if I could.

It is about Lenin, his ideas, his engagement on behalf of women's rights and other causes outside of proletarian vs. bourgeois/capitalist dualities, other major revolutionaries (women and men), etc., set amid the historical context of Russia before and during his time. It recaptures, a bit, a bygone era, and there is a dark, reverse nostalgia I think even about the Tsarist episodes and the wild antics of the early anarchists.

Lenin died thinking that his revolutionary generation's reorganization of social and political structures was still a work in progress. Ali's disgust with the impending dictatorship of Stalin, when the Russian government in general seemed to have turned from purposeful introspection, and when many people died because of Stalin's idiosyncrasies, is clear.

In the end, a lesson of the book is I suppose that failings and missteps are no excuse not to keep trying to better the socio-political order, as long as this is done with conviction and sincerity and a sense of the general welfare. (Which Stalin, in general, doesn't seem to have had?)

In practice, I cannot help thinking of the ethics of the saying 'You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.' If one is going to make the proverbial omelette, perhaps one needs to consider that the worth of making a metaphorical omelette is determined by how many eggs one needs to break to get there. (Although it seems that Lenin himself did not break many eggs as the omelette of Soviet Russia was being made; he was too busy writing recipes.) What Tariq Ali points out is that governing systems that demonized the early Soviet Union were often not tender and principled themselves. And while his pointing doesn't liberate the jailed, raise the dead, or balance the scales of universal justice, it's admittedly a valid reason for the capitalist, 'millennial' reader like me to re-examine ideas of the Soviet Union imbibed from popular culture.

It is also refreshing that, despite all the benefit of the doubt that Lenin gets in this book, there is at least nothing cult-like about it. I also think there is relatively little jargon. - Although there are a few passages that Lenin wrote or quoted, reproduced in this book, that seem to me like a lot of portentous-sounding, vague gobbledygook; one needs to project a _lot_ of meaning into it to see it as a new, incisive observation or as practical directions for leading a revolution.

Lastly: there _are_ mistakes in this book, as other reviewers have said. For example, Woodrow Wilson apparently resurrected himself and gave a speech in 2013... Which, considering that he is one of the villains of the book, at least gives us a single reason to admire, or stand in awe of, him.

[Redpoet · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am not really sure how many stars to give this book, but there enough parts which deserve five stars that I am going to do that for the whole thing. No one need tell me that the author is an old Trotsky supporter. Though I do not consider myself in any way, shape, or form a Trotskyite, the hurling around of that epitaph means little to me. Those who think accusing someone of that ends an argument are just displaying their own lack of political depth. Trotsky was not alway wrong and neither are those who link themselves to him. I know I haven't said anything about why I liked the book, mostly because it would likely just lead to some meaningless arguments that I have already had too often in my life. You can read it and decide what to take from it for yourself.

Keep in mind that just as I don't "worship" Trotsky, neither do I worship Lenin (in this regards the last page of the book is insightful). I call myself, after a 50 year political journey, a democratic confederalist these days (think Abdullah Ocalan and what is happening in Rojava and northern Syria right now). My orientation differs radically from Lenin's. That said the contribution Lenin has made is enormous...warts and all. Had he lived, I think much would have been very different. Had he reached my age, I don't think we can say we know what his final political orientation would have been.

[Elliott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tariq Ali is excellent at taking out the lessons from the Russian Revolution and Lenin without discarding the history or getting too distracted by trivial details.
This then is the kind of book Lenin would appreciate- critical with trenchant analysis.
Without a doubt he proves that there is most definitely a break that exists between the USSR at Lenin's death and Stalinism but that this reaction was a result of the Civil War's destruction not just of the Soviet productive forces but the decimation and exhaustion of the Soviet population.
There were a couple factual errors however. On page 95 the picture of Ernest Jones depicts Ernest Jones the psychoanalyst not Ernest Jones the Chartist. On page 103 he refers to the IWW as standing for the International Workers of the World when this obvious redundancy should actually read the INDUSTRIAL Workers of the World.
Overall though an appreciated analysis of Lenin's thought and actions in a world that could use them.

[tanisha · Rating 3 out of 5]

it took me so long to read this book because yes, it is digressive, and yes, ali is a trotskyist but lenin ! lenin is so charming. i finished it while traveling in zurich where lenin lived in exile and wrote “imperialism as he highest stage of capitalism.” a joy a joy a joy & has me honestly, really excited to go back home and keep organizing.

my fave bit was when lenin gives a speech in zurich like, we probably won’t see the revolution in our lifetime, and then a month later - february 1917 happens.

also — this was really maybe the first book ever i’ve read on the russian revolution (other than texts by lenin) and found it pretty helpful in understanding the conditions of the time and filling huge holes in my knowledge of the revolution.

[Mack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ali’s writing here is excellent, even if this is in no way an exhaustive biography of Lenin. It’s very wide angle—there are times at which the titular subject doesn’t even feel like he’s the focal point of the book. Still, other than a slight feeling of mismatch between title and content, that wound up being a strength more than a weakness. You do get plenty of deeper insight into Lenin along the way, but you also get to go behind the scenes of late-Tsarist/early-Soviet Russia from a bunch of different angles too. This was my first book by Tariq Ali and I’m excited to read him on other people and subjects; he’s one of the clearest political and historical writers I’ve come across in a while.

[Elizabeth Judd Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

A biography of a time as well as a person, this is a well written book about a leader who has often been given an unfairly bad reputation in modern times. What would have happened if Lenin hadn’t died so young and Stalin hadn’t grabbed power? I for one would have loved to see. This book also is a good example of how many of the dilemmas of our present political climate were the exact same ones faced in the early years of the 20th century.

[Soph Nova · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was more of an ensemble book of history than I expected - it was a little difficult to discern the throughline at some points. However, very readable/accessible narrative, which was useful as someone that knows very little about this historical period.

[Steve Llano · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are a couple of ways to approach this book. One is to assume it is a biography of Lenin, and to believe that life events will be portrayed in order and the narrative of Lenin's life will serve as the grounding for the flow of the book. The other is to assume the more adventurous approach, that the author has chosen several "dilemmas" Lenin faced in his life, and the book will be organized around these issues, their context, and how Lenin approached and dealt with them, thereby revealing something of his character.

This book never quite decides which it is going to be. Although arranged into five sections that appear to be various dilemmas, the book still keeps a flow arranged around Lenin's life, in order. I think it would have been better to strip that away, and provide the details needed to be able to praise or question the decision. There's still too much fidelity to a "life story" narrative here, and it doesn't work that great unless you go all in on one or the other.

The book also assumes you know something about Lenin, the other principles, the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, and Russian history. If you don't know a lot of the major elements of the Russian revolution, you might need another book to help glean the insights that Ali provides. He's obviously a keen historian of this period, but he assumes you've been in class as well, and that your notes are as fresh as his. Not a fault; something for the reader to prepare for.

The book is very well written, engaging, and I feel I have a much better sense of Lenin's context and why and what motivated his decisions in important moments. I also have a better appreciation for the history of Russian revolutionaries and resistors - really well worked into the story by Ali. The only way this book could have been better would be to have gone all in on arranging it around five key dilemmas, and then stick to that. I think the key elements of Lenin's life - his real, lived life as a person - come out nicely in these sections when the dilemma is being evaluated.

Another great touch is Ali's connection of the issues here to modern questions of leftist politics as well as contemporary Russian issues and politics. Really wonderful to have an anchor to the here and now from time to time, however it's often at the end of a chapter and not a framing device for the start of an encounter with an issue.

[Rick Halpern · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an extremely valuable book, one that significantly impacted the way I think about Leninism and Lenin’s roll in the Bolshevik revolution and the tumultuous period leading up to it. The author has a very clear political project -- nothing less than rescuing bolshevism for the left. By this I mean stripping away many of the liberal views about the straight line between Lenin’s view of the vanguard installing list authoritarianism, and instead careful contextualization Lenin’s earlier radicalization and the quite specific choices and dilemmas he faced in 1917 and afterwards. Each chapter ranges widely providing historical context for the dilemmas faced by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, rendering explicable decisions that heretofore have largely been seen as pat and forgone. This is not a biography, nor is it a contribution to political theory. It is a beautifully written consideration of key historical conjunctures surrounding the revolution and early Bolshevism. The introduction alone, “On Lenin,” is well worth excepting. This book is a pleasure to read, hard to put down, and impactful. I read this as I was revising syllabus for a course to be taught next year, but I would recommend it did anyone -- student and non student -- with an interest in left radicalism.

[Murray Katkin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun little book. I would not recommend it IF you are trying to read a coherent biography about Lenin, but Ali doesn’t really make that his agenda in the first place. The style is familiar for readers of “The Clash of Fundamentalisms,” a much superior work in my opinion. Ali’s prose is entertaining and expressive, a nice contrast from other writers on Lenin. The lack of a polemical bent in the majority of the book is pleasant as well. Ali’s classic mixture of the personal and the political in his footnotes is a joy for someone like me and it makes me realize want to speak with the man about his experiences—equidistant from Benazir Bhutto and Bertrand Russell. It’s a fun read for people already familiar with the subject and adds a lot of interesting information that unfortunately is not pursued in any meaningful way. The chapter on the world revolution filled in a gap regarding my knowledge of the Austrian revolution in 1918, but he references no work so I do not know how to find out more! Still a fun read.