What do you think?
Rate this book
Lenin #2
Lenin : Volume 2, All Power to the Soviets
Tony Cliff was a lifelong organizer within the international socialist movement. His groundbreaking work established the unique interpretation of the Soviet Union as a bureaucratic, state-centered version of capitalism, rather than a workers' state. His many works include State Capitalism in Russia and the volume that follows-up from this book, All Power to the Soviets, about Lenin's political leadership from 1914 to 1917.
432 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1976
15 people are currently reading
174 people want to read
About the author
Tony Cliff
70 books65 followersBorn in Palestine to Zionist parents in 1917, Ygael Gluckstein became a Trotskyist during the 1930s and played a leading role in the attempt to forge a movement uniting Arab and Jewish workers. At the end of of the Second World war, seeing that the victory of the Zionists was more and more inevitable, he moved to Britain and adopted the pseudonym Tony Cliff.
In the late 1940s he developed the theory that Russia wasn’t a workers’ state but a form of bureaucratic state capitalism, a theory which has characterised the tendency with which he was associated for the remaining five decades of his life. Although he broke from “orthodox Trotskyism” after being bureaucratically excluded from the Fourth International in 1950, he always considered himself to be a Trotskyist although he was also open to other influences within the Marxist tradition.
In the late 1940s he developed the theory that Russia wasn’t a workers’ state but a form of bureaucratic state capitalism, a theory which has characterised the tendency with which he was associated for the remaining five decades of his life. Although he broke from “orthodox Trotskyism” after being bureaucratically excluded from the Fourth International in 1950, he always considered himself to be a Trotskyist although he was also open to other influences within the Marxist tradition.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 20, 2025
Well done, Lenin
May 24, 2015
volume 2 of the lenin bio. this one is a bit more exciting as it covers the successful oct 1917 uprising.
January 5, 2023
Really good perspective on the political debates in the Bolshevik party during the lead up to the October revolution. This was a response in a way to Trotsky's history of the Russian revolution (which I've yet to read in it's entirety) and attributes more to Lenin's and the Bolshevik parties political influence compared to what trotsky argued (that it was mainly the working class). Because of this there were times when cliff gave too much credit to Lenin's ideas or arguments that even he later dropped. Still a very important read
June 18, 2016
Cliff's biography of Lenin from the start of the First World War until the October Revolution is a brilliantly written, thought provoking, and detailed account of the revolutionary process. Not only does it cover these four years in a chronological sense, it also diverts into discussions on moral, theoretical, and ideological points which are still of great relevance today, such as the nature of imperialism, the socialist perspective on nationalism, and the basis of reformism.
At points Cliff's presentation of the material can seem dry and mechanical (compared, for example, to Sandra Bloodworth's "When the Workers Took Power" and Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution" which seem a bit more lively), as he does focus mainly on discussions in parliament, between party members, and in the Soviets. However, I think this is mainly a result of conscious choice to focus on the role of the Bolshevik party. As he says in the introduction, Trotsky's "History" also made a choice to focus on Lenin and on rank and file party members to counter the then-dominant conception, pushed by the twisted Stalinist mythology, that the revolution was carried out by a uniform, monolithic, well-oiled machine of a party. Cliff shows that the party was in no way well-oiled or monolithic, but in its unique capacity to act as a two-way method of activity and communication between Lenin, Trotsky, and other revolutionary leaders on one hand, and the proletariat on the other, the Bolshevik party was indispensable in its role in bringing about a workers' revolution in Russia.
The final chapter, as Lenin fights to call up the insurrection against the bourgeois government, is thrilling. A must read.
At points Cliff's presentation of the material can seem dry and mechanical (compared, for example, to Sandra Bloodworth's "When the Workers Took Power" and Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution" which seem a bit more lively), as he does focus mainly on discussions in parliament, between party members, and in the Soviets. However, I think this is mainly a result of conscious choice to focus on the role of the Bolshevik party. As he says in the introduction, Trotsky's "History" also made a choice to focus on Lenin and on rank and file party members to counter the then-dominant conception, pushed by the twisted Stalinist mythology, that the revolution was carried out by a uniform, monolithic, well-oiled machine of a party. Cliff shows that the party was in no way well-oiled or monolithic, but in its unique capacity to act as a two-way method of activity and communication between Lenin, Trotsky, and other revolutionary leaders on one hand, and the proletariat on the other, the Bolshevik party was indispensable in its role in bringing about a workers' revolution in Russia.
The final chapter, as Lenin fights to call up the insurrection against the bourgeois government, is thrilling. A must read.
January 1, 2025
Alex Callinicos approvingly quotes Daniel Bensaïd as saying that "politics takes precedence over history in deciphering tendencies that do not possess the force of law." I think Cliff's book is a good example of historical writing which maps this interplay between the competing historical tendencies within Russia on the one hand, and the political choices of Lenin on the other. It is necessary for Cliff to write a somewhat chronological account of the years 1914-17. And yet he stops in the middle of his narrative to offer chapters on the soldiers, peasants, workers and oppressed nationalities in Russia, and on the cycle of their political development. Cliff also maps the development of the ruling class: he quotes extensively from correspondence between Tsarist officials, ambassadors, capitalists etc. He offers a fascinating account of Rasputin's being conjured into existence by the traumas and uncertainties of the Tsarist elite following the 1905 revolution and compounded by the rising revolutionary wave.
Cliff depicts Lenin as a subject of the political situation in Russia, but also as an active agent capable of shaping that situation. He goes so far as to conclude that the October Revolution would not have happened had Lenin not returned from exile after February, given the unique theoretical insight of the April Theses and the trust that the cadres of the Bolshevik party placed in him. Another moment of clear genius well depicted by the book was Lenin sensing the correct response to the Kornilov coup, in which the Bolshevik party seems to leap into motion like a well-oiled machine at Lenin's word. One aspect of Lenin's political writing which has always seemed to me to make him second to none is the agility with which he balances concepts, his clear vision as to their depth and limitations, and his willingness to approach them from different angles. All of this allows him to bend the stick where necessary, and then bend in the other direction. But Lenin is not the prophet which Stalinist legend would make of him: Cliff does a good job showing how he was buoyed by the energy of the masses in 1917 to speak, write and agitate like a madman, in contrast to his exhaustion and poor health in the previous years of exile. Lenin also is willing to defer to the wisdom of the peasants, adopting their demands into the Bolshevik motions and programmes, and other "generals" like Trotsky when it came to the details of the armed insurrection in St Petersburg. He wavers and almost backs an ultra-left demonstration in June 1917, and is blindsided by Kautsty's betrayal of proletarian internationalism.
I have read quite a few books in the IST tradition on revolutionary moments, but I think Cliff depicts the way in which the working class's confidence developed very well, and something is lost in his cruder mimics' work. Workers' control is a gradual yet rapid process. Some factory committees demanded that they gain access to balance sheets from the capitalists. Only later in 1917 did they realise that the capitalists had been faking balance sheets to justify being stingy etc. But at this point, workers could commission raw materials and machinery, as well as taking charge of sales, on their own. Lenin wrote that workers' power could begin with red guards monitoring the work of bureaucrats and clerks, then could move to distributing their tasks among the revolutionary proletariat.
One gets the impression that polemicising was a central feature of Lenin's character. Krupskaya reportedly joked that Lenin would be discovered in smuggling himself back to Russia by falling asleep, dreaming about Mensheviks, and yelling "scoundrels!" And he seems to admit that his pamphlet "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" was a reframing of Bukharin's much more comprehensive work to deal with the argument that war could be overcome within the confines of capitalist order. In this light, the description of Lenin in Volume 1 as always excited by the abilities of new recruits to the Bolshevik party (almost to the point of overlooking weaknesses) seems bizarre. I suppose that he was very moved by both the horrors of capitalism and the ideologies it produces, and by the power of the working class. While seeming to feel the betrayals of certain socialists and the potentialities of others very deeply, Lenin was also capable of putting past grudges aside when new situations arose. The intensity of feeling, I suspect, was connected to his "complete inability to look after himself," although if you are looking for a more detailed psychological portrait of Lenin this is probably not the book for it.
One problem with the book is that it historicises i.e. denies the voluntaristic agency of all actors except Lenin. Although it is difficult for me to fault the book on this front, as there is only so much justice it can do to everyone involved in the Russian Revolution.
Cliff depicts Lenin as a subject of the political situation in Russia, but also as an active agent capable of shaping that situation. He goes so far as to conclude that the October Revolution would not have happened had Lenin not returned from exile after February, given the unique theoretical insight of the April Theses and the trust that the cadres of the Bolshevik party placed in him. Another moment of clear genius well depicted by the book was Lenin sensing the correct response to the Kornilov coup, in which the Bolshevik party seems to leap into motion like a well-oiled machine at Lenin's word. One aspect of Lenin's political writing which has always seemed to me to make him second to none is the agility with which he balances concepts, his clear vision as to their depth and limitations, and his willingness to approach them from different angles. All of this allows him to bend the stick where necessary, and then bend in the other direction. But Lenin is not the prophet which Stalinist legend would make of him: Cliff does a good job showing how he was buoyed by the energy of the masses in 1917 to speak, write and agitate like a madman, in contrast to his exhaustion and poor health in the previous years of exile. Lenin also is willing to defer to the wisdom of the peasants, adopting their demands into the Bolshevik motions and programmes, and other "generals" like Trotsky when it came to the details of the armed insurrection in St Petersburg. He wavers and almost backs an ultra-left demonstration in June 1917, and is blindsided by Kautsty's betrayal of proletarian internationalism.
I have read quite a few books in the IST tradition on revolutionary moments, but I think Cliff depicts the way in which the working class's confidence developed very well, and something is lost in his cruder mimics' work. Workers' control is a gradual yet rapid process. Some factory committees demanded that they gain access to balance sheets from the capitalists. Only later in 1917 did they realise that the capitalists had been faking balance sheets to justify being stingy etc. But at this point, workers could commission raw materials and machinery, as well as taking charge of sales, on their own. Lenin wrote that workers' power could begin with red guards monitoring the work of bureaucrats and clerks, then could move to distributing their tasks among the revolutionary proletariat.
One gets the impression that polemicising was a central feature of Lenin's character. Krupskaya reportedly joked that Lenin would be discovered in smuggling himself back to Russia by falling asleep, dreaming about Mensheviks, and yelling "scoundrels!" And he seems to admit that his pamphlet "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" was a reframing of Bukharin's much more comprehensive work to deal with the argument that war could be overcome within the confines of capitalist order. In this light, the description of Lenin in Volume 1 as always excited by the abilities of new recruits to the Bolshevik party (almost to the point of overlooking weaknesses) seems bizarre. I suppose that he was very moved by both the horrors of capitalism and the ideologies it produces, and by the power of the working class. While seeming to feel the betrayals of certain socialists and the potentialities of others very deeply, Lenin was also capable of putting past grudges aside when new situations arose. The intensity of feeling, I suspect, was connected to his "complete inability to look after himself," although if you are looking for a more detailed psychological portrait of Lenin this is probably not the book for it.
One problem with the book is that it historicises i.e. denies the voluntaristic agency of all actors except Lenin. Although it is difficult for me to fault the book on this front, as there is only so much justice it can do to everyone involved in the Russian Revolution.
January 21, 2020
Although Tony Cliff is a Trotskyist, an ideology that is fundamentally similar to mine, but diverts in many other aspects, he maintains a relatively neutral stance, telling the story of Lenin and the Bolshevik uprising from an objective perspective. Cliff cites data tables with populations and percentages relating to a plethora of different census values, such as membership in the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, or SRs, the three major leftist parties of the time. Cliff tells a clear story of the sudden spark in the Bolshevik membership after the February revolution in 1917, and maintains relative chronological order even through the most lopsided and multi-perspective stories. One contention I have with Cliff's book is that it is inundated with quotes from Lenin, Trotsky, the CC, war generals, provisional government officials, etc... that make it seem as if Cliff is not an author, but simply a grandfather putting together a collage of stories. What minimizes this effect is that Cliff does fill the space in between the quotes with plenty of analysis and deep, Marxist thought.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews