Lenin

by Robert Conquest

-

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Biography Memoir

142 pages, Paperback

First published October 24, 1972

About the author

George Robert Ackworth Conquest was a British historian who became a well known writer and researcher on the Soviet Union with the publication, in 1968, of his account of Stalin's purges of the 1930s, The Great Terror.

Reviews

[Richard Clay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thirty-six years back, one of my history lecturers at Swansea described this one as 'hostile' to its subject. I think that perhaps overstates it but there's no doubt Conquest's sympathies lie more with what he describes as 'Classical' - that is to say, pre-Leninist Marxism, which he perceives as a very different thing from V.I.'s agenda. I understand that, during the 90s, when the Kremlin archives were more accessible than they've been before or since, much of Lenin's correspondence was brought to light, showing him to be a far more bloodthirsty animal than Conquest allows: pretty much the same kind of tyrant as Stalin, only not as good at it. This remains an accessible introduction to the man and his works but, take note, the questions persistent Leninists have to answer may be harder than those asked here.

[Jean Hardee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Picked up in a charity shop, this guy really doesn't like Lenin which made the biography a bit difficult to read. But good account of his history / thinking if you can peer beneath the sneering

[Jack Glynne-Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, later known as Lenin, is one of the few important figures from the early twentieth century whose reputation in the West has been, to use the words of Clive James on Philip Larkin, 'obliged to die by inches, with fist-fights raging in the graveyard'. A general consensus has been achieved regarding the likes of Hitler, Stalin, or the Tsar, and for those upon whom the consensus is yet to settle, such as Chamberlain or Eden, their graves can hardly be said to be shadowed by 'fist-fights'.

What better person, then, to read a mini-biography and analysis about. In this book, Robert Conquest considers the conflicts and the agreements that constitute the divide between the Leninists and the non-Leninists, in their many forms. That even the self-proclaimed Leninists can come in some many forms is telling, though more because of ideological and political expediency on their part, as opposed to any real complexity in the man himself.

To say that he was a fanatic is an understatement, and though Axelrod was exaggerating when he said that Lenin was a man who 'for twenty-four hours a day is taken up with the revolution, who has no other thoughts but thoughts of the revolution, and who, even in his sleep, dreams of nothing but revolution', his inaccuracy is a matter of a few degrees only. This fanaticism, obsessiveness and devotion, is the spring from which the issues begin to flow.

Lenin does not come across well in this book, yet I could sense a certain Marxist flavour to the prose here and there, combined with what was a clear understanding of Marxist theory, and I began to feel puzzled as to how a communist could fully acknowledge such flaws. Turns out the author was an ex-communist at the time of writing, a background which gives the book a sophistication and generousness that is often lacking in conservative, right-wing critiques.

Despite this, or perhaps because of it, I was nonetheless left with the same feeling that Bertrand Russell experienced after meeting Lenin: 'his guffaw at the thought of those massacred made my blood run cold'. This reported guffaw is akin to so much else that Lenin did and said, and it is amazing to me that so many who spend their time decrying figures such as Churchill for things they said, can at the same time revere Lenin.

Thus, this book reminds us to beware of those who give up on the hope of, or desire for, evolution, a flaw which, unfortunately for Russia, was the key characteristic shared by both Lenin and the Tsar. Whilst in one of these individuals it was replaced with a commitment to inertia, and in the other a commitment to revolution, in both cases it was the extent and solidity of their 'commitment' that led to millions dead, and even more living in misery.

[Phillipa Fleur · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, this book paints a picture of Lenin as a man single-mindedly concerned with the political, and possessing exceptional conviction and will-power. Yet these almost to an inhuman degree, making him at heart a ‘monster’ as the conclusion of this (anti-Soviet, if not fully anti-Marxist, liberal) book fields.

He appears deeply impressive, his unshakeable faith in the correctness of his own views and strategy ultimately borne out in the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. This unshakeability is the essential kernel of Lenin’s approach to politics for Conquest, being characterised by the ‘doctrinal element of irreconcilability’ and conflict. This means the break in the Marxist tradition does not happen along the axis of Marxism-Leninism, with the break happening at Stalin, rather Marxism sees a break with the inauguration of Leninism-Stalinism. That is to say, that it is no surprise that the political theory and institutions set up by Lenin found their successor in Stalin.

The ‘terror’ (repression of dissidents, executions, etc) also appears as already thoroughly underway during Lenin’s time.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find biographies of Communist heroes so tricky to follow because they are so full of language that is so foreign to my reality, and they are so full of either disinformation(if written by a fan) or contradictory opinions because Communism and Marxism are both a big mess. Conquest tries his best and partly manages to give Lenin fair treatment, meaning, we are shown a Lenin close to what he was(hint: a communist monster). No, it is not too anti, but the reality kind of gives it all away.

The discussion of all the side characters is also difficult to follow because what they meant and who they were and so on, is for me of little interest. Also, the difference between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks is not that apparent to the reader who sees the same communism in both.

The last two chapters are maybe the most interesting as they describe the aftermath, and as the book was written about 50 years after while Soviet was still a thing, it gives it the aspect of things not being over.

[midsizedchillybin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Biography part is a bit dull, but the scathing critique of Lenin in the final analysis is pretty compelling. Probably too harsh and definitely coloured by Cold War bias - he definitely underplays the level of inequality under tsarism and pretty much says that Russia would’ve been better off with no revolution at all. But even if I don’t agree with it, it’s still compelling!

[Elijah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lenin is a fascinating figure. This book is quick and succinct. It successfully accomplishes its task, while still leaving plenty of room for further study. Great intro.

[Michael David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not the nicest of men. I have a mild misanthropy that only manifests in the most stressful of circumstances. I sincerely believe that whatever I may contribute in the future will be theoretical in nature, because it takes a special kind of asshole like Lenin in order to be able to transform and transmogrify the world.

From time immemorial, the great sociopolitical leaders were headstrong assholes. They just differ in the intensity of their opprobrium. Lucius Cornelius Sulla had a similar personality to Lenin, and died similarly, too: they weren't prideful men in the sense that they were inflexible in the face of danger, but they wholeheartedly believed in a single idea that they charged toward it like a raging bull. Sulla, having seen the people granted too much power, decided that he would restore power to the more educated Senate. After taking the dictatorship for himself, and instituting reforms in the Roman constitution that limited the power of the tribune, he retired to a quiet life in his farm, where he died after a stroke.

Lenin was placed in a different time, but he had the two characteristics that mark a transcendent leader: he possessed both obstinacy to his principles of Communistic rule, but also possessed the mutability to use whatsoever in his grasp in order to further his causes. He even advised against refusal to use people because of principle. His written works, such as State and Revolution possess little worth as literature, but are masterpieces of agitprop and dissimulation. He faced countless failures within his Party and without, but remain to be one of the most prominent figures of 20th-century history. No one remembers Martov; Trotsky is remembered only for his bad headache, and Stalin is ill-respected.

Why did Lenin become such a memorable figure? It's because no one among his peers had both the stubbornness and dynamic insight that allowed the Bolsheviks to dominate the 1917 revolution fueled by dissatisfied people put to war against Germany and the Central Powers. Stalin possessed the stubbornness but not the humanity or insight, but it was undeniable that without Lenin, Bolshevism would have faded into obscurity. Lenin dealt with attacks from all sides, including a Civil War, but escaped toward establishing the Soviet Russia we know and fear. He possessed 'an enormous overgrowth of dogmatic certainty and concentrated will power.'

What made him better than Stalin? For one, I believe he was smarter and had more of a heart. He was unrelentingly loyal to only his cause but people respected him because he respected even those people he hated (Martov and he had a falling out, but Lenin didn't send anyone to kill him). Was he a good person?

Definitely not. That's why I can't be a political leader: you have to wade through so much shit that eventually, you'll enjoy being a pig even if you weren't one at first.

[David Inglesfield · Rating 2 out of 5]

Looking for a bio of Lenin, this was all I could find in my local library. I guess he's in limited demand in Sussex. Anyway, this is more a history of his political thinking than of how he came to power. Bit too dry for me, but it does make you wonder how such obscure tosh inspired so many for so long.