Book Review: Lenin: A New Biography

Source: Amazon.co

My first book review for the new blog.

Lenin: A New Biography, by Dmitri Volkogonov

Lenin: A New Biography, by Dmitri Volkogonov is a book that I've been wanting to read for some time, but had not been able to acquire a decent copy of (i.e.: an audiobook version). I finally managed to get one, and the wait was worth it.

The subject matter is heavy - there is no denying that. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov was a fascinating and complex man, to be sure. The author goes through both the life details of the man who would be known worldwide by his adopted pseudonym "Lenin," as well as details from the history of the Soviet Union that only relate to Lenin's life in an ancillary way. For instance, Volkogonov spends a great deal of the last chapter of the book discussing the lives of the men who would follow Lenin as leader of the Soviet Union.  There are some fascinating insights into Leonid Brezhnev that, for me, were worth the price of admission alone, but that is getting away from the subject here.

Volkogonov appears to be a substantial source for information on the subject of Soviet history. He describes in the text his position as head of the Institute of Military History at the Soviet Ministry of Defense, which post he held between the years 1988 and 1991. He was dismissed from the position, he claims, due to his beginning disillusionment with the Soviet system, and in particular his questioning of the rosy picture that Soviet texts painted of the Soviet state founder, V.I. Lenin.

According to Volkogonov, Lenin was portrayed by Soviet literature, much of it dogmatically written and just as dogmatically received, in such a way that no shadow could be cast upon his name. Lenin was very much an icon of the Soviet Union, and he was "canonized" to the point that he almost achieved the state of a god on Earth. This was in part due to Stalin's manipulations, but also fit well into the Russian/Soviet common psyche that sought for men who were "larger than life" to be their leaders. Coming from a population that had been under the thumb of an ultimate autocrat such as the Tsar, Russian peasants and neo-peasants - the proletariat - were almost hard-wired to accept Lenin in a deified state.

In fact, Lenin was not particular toward such a deified role, as Volkogonov proves through the use of the leader's own writings. Lenin was, at his core, a dedicated austerity advocate (to the point of being quite Spartan, even for a Russian of the late 19^th and early 20^th century), and a servant of the political theory which he adopted from the writings of Marx/Engels and then altered into something almost completely unrecognizable to those two political/economic philosophers. Bolshevism was Lenin, and Lenin was Bolshevism.

Who were the Bolsheviks? In Russian, the Bolsheviks were the "majority party" of the Social Democratic movement that wanted to reform Russian Tsarist imperial rule and bring about a revolution that would lead the way to universal Socialism in Russia. The misnomer is a good one, and is at the crux of Lenin's lifetime pursuits. The opposing faction were known as the Mensheviks, or "minority party," though they were actually in the majority when the name was coined during the Second Party Congress held by the Social Democratic Party to discuss their ambitions and political platform. The difference is significant, and Lenin spent his entire lifetime trying to eliminate this opposition. The Mensheviks advocated change, but they proposed using the current system to accomplish this. They were more the "non-violent" side of the revolution, though they clearly wanted the Tsar to be removed from power.

The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, said force and violence were the best methods for change. The split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was not reconcilable, and hard-core Bolsheviks such as Lenin would never compromise with the opposition. In fact, Lenin was the first to institute internal Terror within the newly formed Soviet state in an effort to drive the dissenting philosophical and political parties out of the country. He was not a gentle man.

Stalin has long been associated with raw bloodshed and destruction, having been responsible for the murders of approximately 50 to 100 million Russians during his time, but he was not the father of this domestic repression. It was Lenin who got the ball rolling. One of the most tangibly cold quotes from the book is contained, in part, below:

1) Hang (and I mean hang so the people can see) not less than 100 kulaks,* rich men, bloodsuckers. 2) Publish their names. 3) Take all their grain away from them. 4) Identify hostages as we described in our telegram yesterday. Do this so that for hundreds of miles around the people can see, tremble, know and cry; they are killing and will go on killing the bloodsucking kulaks. Cable that you have received this and carried out [your instructions].

Yours, Lenin.

P.S. Find tougher people.

* a Kulak is a term for a farmer who practices what we in the West would call basic share-cropping for economic self-improvement. Or, in other words, a farmer who was doing his best to raise crop and livestock and then sell them on the open market and make a profit. Since they were making money, Lenin considered them scum, and he spent his life trying to eliminate them and keep anymore from popping up.

There is no benevolence in this great leader. In fact, based on what Volkogonov describes of Lenin's life and background, he is the more evil of the two (between Stalin and Lenin) in my personal opinion. Stalin grew up in what is today known as Tbilisi, in the republic of Georgia, which is a tough region. Lenin, on the other hand, was a product of the lower gentry. His family was well off when compared to 95% of the Russian population, and he spent a great deal of his lifetime being a professional revolutionary. He did not work in any common manner. He was, for all intents and purposes, unemployed.

But naming what Lenin did with his time as being an indolent bum would certainly not be a correct assessment. The man was self-taught in at least five languages, and wrote over forty books within the space of just two years’ time. He was a voracious firebrand of the revolution. It is a shame that his talents did not extend themselves to pity or a sense of morality any higher than expediency. He was brilliant, but utterly ruthless.

And yet, Volkogonov points out that Lenin was quite civil in person. He was cultured and did not raise his voice as a general rule. He was quite particular about manners, as he saw them, however. During meetings of what would become the Politburo, Lenin insisted that members be on time, and that they not interrupt anyone through spurious chatter. He was known to scribble scathing notes to those who fell afoul of these ideals.

It was interesting to me that Lenin was able to be so ruthless, and yet he was not particularly violent toward those he knew personally, as Stalin would later be.  And he was devoted to his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya, though there is some evidence that he had liaisons with at least two women, one of which seems to have been something of the “love of his life.”  This evidence is not fully corroborated, however, so it can only be conjectured by his correspondence that he had illicit affairs with the women that are described in the book. 

Further, Lenin’s devotion to Krupskaya (whom the book describes as being a less than attractive woman, but quite intelligent and as dedicated a revolutionary as Lenin was) is manifest in numerous ways.  One particular way this was shown, and one that ultimately may have changed the course of history, was Lenin’s rebuke of Joseph Stalin near the end of his life.  The incident came about when Stalin telephoned Lenin, but was told by Krupskaya that her husband was too ill to come to the phone (Lenin had suffered at least one major stroke by this time).  Stalin proceeded to verbally lash out at the hapless woman, who took the insults and - to her discredit, but for understandable reasons - held them to herself.  But after several days, when Lenin was looking a bit healthier, Krupskaya confided to him the altercation.  Lenin was furious.  He called Stalin and told him in no uncertain terms that what he had done was outrageous.  Stalin answered petulantly, and claimed he had not raised his voice.  Lenin soon afterward wrote an addendum to his so-called “last testament,” stating that Stalin was “rude,” and did not have the moral character to become leader of the nascent Soviet Union.

Had circumstances gone differently, Stalin would have been finished.  However, an aid failed to follow directions in the delivery of the testament and the addendum (I forget the specifics, but it was accidental) and Stalin managed to obtain them first.  He sabotaged the document, keeping the addendum to himself and managed to ride out the subsequent years of internal struggle that came after Lenin’s death.  The rest is history.

I really liked the book.  That is not to say that I thought it was perfect, however.  At times, it did seem to drag on some (if you’ve survived thus far into my description, you may wonder how it could get worse), and occasionally got bogged down in complicated details of the Soviet governmental system.  Though these details are useful, they don’t make for the easiest reading.  The book is definitely slanted as well, as Volkogonov is a disillusioned former Communist, and therefore his point of view is a double edged thing.  But he does have credibility from his background.  Who better to argue against Soviet Communism than someone who lived through a part of it, especially in a position of some authority?

Lastly, the story is a sad one.  There is not much here of joyful stories to tell.  The life Lenin lived was not what I’d consider to be a happy one, personally.  Significant, yes, but not happy or pleasant, per-se.  And it isn’t easy reading, even though it is quite well written by the author and his editors.  The introduction stated that the book was abridged from the original Russian as there was material in the original that was deemed too well-known for Western audiences.  At first this annoyed me, but I came to see it as a blessing later.  The book was heavy enough, both in scope and in content.

I could go on for quite some time describing what Volkogonov has provided via this book, but suffice it to say that the work is better than I could do justice to. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the founding of the Soviet Union, and especially for those who are interested in any way about the man who would be the first and defining leader of that nation. However, the book is daunting in its scope and its content, and is not a "lite" read by any means. But for me, it was well worth it.

 Learn more about Lenin: A New Biography by Dmitir Volkogonov at Amazon.com

My parting comment:

Source: TravelFunny.com

 I don't read Russian, but if the picture is advertising for the shelf contents...  well, they say Russians start their kids young on the Vodka.  Hmmm...