Lenin (Critical Lives)

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.

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 exactly 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 head 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 an 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.

Excellent distillation of Lenin’s actual concrete political thought. My only complaints: the critique of Stalin’s collectivization at the end is rushed and misleading, and the whole book could have used more direct quotes and pictures.

a must read for the even-handed look at lenin's life and his animating convictions. be careful not to put too much stress on the binding tho, as it is somewhat shoddy.

Not a apologist nor a critical view of Lenin, simply a historical one. About time. With any luck Lih will continue to research this fascinating subject.

great book

Excellent book

Superb. Thoughtful, balanced, first rate.

There is a whole Lenin bashing industry which has more to do with the authors' sympathy for capitalism than with an honest effort to understand the Bolshevik project. This book is an invaluable critical appreciation of one of the 20th century's most significant thinkers.

For anyone who has real curiosity about what Lenin was about this is the book for you. Lih shows conclusively that Lenin deeply believed in the Russian peasantry and that the peasantry needed to be won over to the superiority of socialist methods not forced to adopt them. Lih answers the fundamental question about what needed to happen for Russia to become as a successful socialist country.

This is an excellent, well written and easily read biography of Lenin that succeeds in accurately portraying his life, political programme and also tackles and clarifies aspects of his legacy which are sometimes controversial and are frequently distorted.Lih takes as his starting point the execution of Lenin's older brother Alexander for plotting the assassination of the Tsar and Lenin's determination to find `another way' to transform Russia. This leads Lih to build the framework for his biography which Lih sees as Lenin's constructed `heroic scenario': the construction of a social democratic party that becomes leader of the working class, the working class leads the narod (people) in the overthrow of Tsarism and, finally, the party and the working class lead the way to socialism. According to Lih, Lenin constructs this scenario in the early 1890's and sticks to it throughout his life.Lih then constructs his biography based around Lenin's `heroic scenario'. This device, simple yet accurate, is used to explain Lenin's thoughts and actions over the next 3 decades.Lih tackles issues such as controversy over the interpretation of Lenin's view of the spontanaiety of the working class in `What Is To Be Done?', although I would have liked more detail here, the Bolshevik attitude to the peasantry - seeing their revolutionary as opposed to counter-revolutionary potential. War Communism and grain requisition is also tackled and Lih shows how this was unlike Stalin's collectivisation programme - a charge of inspiration that is usually levelled at Lenin - and the paradox of the revolutionary democrat inhibiting democracy in the circumstances of the early 1920's. Lih is also very good at showing how Lenin was a follower of Karl Kautsky and a mainstream European social democrat and that it was social democracy, rather than Lenin, which changed in 1914.Lih's view of the 'April Theses' as not being something of a break with previous Bolshevik thought is controversial and I would have liked to see his argument fleshed out a bit more. I would have liked to see more discussion on some of Lenin's works such as `State and Revolution' and `Imperialism', both are glossed over somewhat and there is no discussion of `Left-Wing Communism. An Infantile Disorder'. Some figures to compare Red and White Terrors would have been useful, although Lih tackles the issue of the Red Terror well by exploring the context and reality of what actually occured surrounding a now notorious telegram of Lenin's that urges mass executions, Lenin's Testament is also skimmed over and Kronstadt doesn't warrant a mention at all. Irritatingly, the book lacks an index.Still, these gripes aside, this is an excellent counter to dominant and distorted narratives of Lenin.

For all the stuff I’ve read about this book being unbiased this is a surprisingly biased book. It claims that the Russian socialists got scared of capitalism by reading the descriptions of the evil of capitalism by Marx, if they didn’t see the evil of capitalism before that then why were they socialist, particularly socialist revolutionaries? It also claims “the socialists” didn’t like political freedoms like freedom of speech, not only do the writings of the specifically mentioned socialist disagree with this but anarchists are also counted as socialists (of course Lih doesn’t bother to mention these are anarchists nor why these would oppose freedom of speech, what institution were they supposed to use to suppress free speech?). The original works of these people are for the most part available for free online on dedicated archives so these are pretty unconvincing lies for people interested in the subject but not everyone has read, or is ever going to read, Plekhanov, Bakunin etc. The book also claims that hard work is as a value exclusive to the bourgeoisie, can’t factory workers value hard work?

good product