I hope that ‘Reconstructing Lenin’ by Tamas Krausz becomes
established as a major reference in writing and discussion about Lenin and the
Bolsheviks: not simply in academic circles, but (more importantly) among
modern-day revolutionary activists. It deserves to become an integral part of
the study of Lenin, Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution – a growing and
sizeable field of study since the end of the Cold War - due to the author’s
excellent political judgement, the wealth of relevant contextual material and
the way if illuminates the coherence and continuity in Lenin’s political
thought over time (and its relationship to Lenin and his comrades’ political
actions).
It is a very substantial book, a work of exceptional
scholarship accurately subtitled ‘an intellectual biography’ because the focus
is largely on Lenin’s ideas and their development. To call it ‘exhaustively
researched’ is an understatement: its ‘Notes’ contain well over 1000
references, drawing on an extraordinarily wide range of sources. Originally written in Hungarian, the English translation will hopefully influence discussion about its subject in the English-speaking world. This translation, by Balint Bethlenfalvy with Mario Fenyo, is published by US-based left-wing publishers Monthly Review Press.
The author, Tamas Krausz, is a professor of Russian
history in Budapest. He is long established as a leading Marxist intellectual
in Hungary. The earliest reference to his own writing on Lenin that I spotted
in the bibliography was from 1980, so this book has had a long gestation (it is
described as ‘four decades in the making’ on the back cover).
The author’s
location in a former Eastern Bloc state means he is acutely conscious of the
massive and violent distortion done to Lenin’s ideas, reputation and legacy by
Stalinism. He is determined to uncover the real Lenin, via close attention to
Lenin’s own writings and a sensitive project of re-discovering the
intellectual, political and social world that shaped him.
This is not, it should be noted, an introduction to
Lenin, the Bolsheviks, or the times in which they lived. A certain amount of
familiarity with the field is generally assumed, while much of the language is
reasonably specialised. It is nonetheless accessible and readable, and I highly
recommend it for anyone wanting to explore the field in some depth.
Although the focus is primarily on Lenin’s intellectual
and political development, the opening (and long) chapter is biographical, from
Lenin’s family background through his entire life. I thought this was excellent
– genuinely insightful even for those of us familiar with Lenin and his life
story, rooting the man in his time and place. It includes some fascinating,
less well-known, details while recapitulating the essentials, giving a vivid sense
of Lenin’s compelling personality as well as tracing the events of his life and
how they intersected with wider political and social contexts.
It’s also worth noting here that two extensive appendices
complement the main text perfectly. One of them is an extremely thorough series
of brief biographical details of scores of socialists, political figures and so
on relevant to a biography of Lenin. The other is a detailed time line of
events between the revolutionary year of 1917 and Lenin’s death in 1924.Both of
these are useful resources. An innovative and coherent thinker
The book has three particular themes which should be
flagged up. Firstly, Krausz is keen to root Lenin firmly in the Marxist
tradition while grasping the intellectual contributions that made him
innovative. He demonstrates, unanswerably, that Lenin made important
contributions to the Marxist tradition – a necessary antidote to those who
treat him as a purely pragmatic figure. But these contributions are nonetheless
rooted in Marxism – Krausz explicitly rejects any suggestion that Lenin
originated a new ism that is separate from Marxism, or one that constitutes a
variation on Marxism.
Different chapters examine different important
contributions – roughly chronologically, though there is inevitably much
overlap. These include Lenin’s work on Russian capitalist development,
imperialism, the national question, the state and revolution, and the
relationship between struggles for democracy and struggles for socialism. Lenin
made original contributions that form a vital part of the inheritance of
classical Marxism and help us understand history and both understand and change
the world we live in.
Secondly, Krausz makes a powerful case for Lenin’s
intellectual and political coherence. This is not to underestimate his tactical
or organisational flexibility – these are well documented. But his flexibility
in practice was deeply rooted in a coherent and consistent worldview and set of
ideas.
This is a vital antidote to the idea that Lenin was an
opportunistic politician, twisting and turning to suit immediate practical
interests with no intellectual compass. Even after 1917, when he repeatedly
faced incredibly difficult obstacles as leader of a besieged and fledgling
workers’ state, there was a coherent political worldview shaping his responses
(whatever political expediency was, admittedly, required).
This, again, does not mean ignoring how Lenin’s ideas
developed and evolved. There is no suggestion that he arrived fully formed, so
to speak. Quite the opposite: the development of his ideas is traced in close
relationship to the history of the society in which he lived. He is rooted
historically by Krausz.
There is also a strong sense of interplay between Lenin’s
thinking and that of other Marxists: he was ‘first among equals’, the leading
figure in a talented and intellectually vibrant generation of radical
socialists. There’s a lively sense of the many debates between Lenin and
others, and the significance of these debates. It’s also clear that political
experiences – above all the 1905 revolution – influenced the direction of
Lenin’s thinking.
So Lenin made important political and theoretical
contributions to Marxism which analysed a changing world: a world in which
capitalism was spreading globally, while its European and north American core
was evolving into a constellation of competing imperialist states, with the
nation state increasingly intertwined with the capitalist economy. Capitalist
development was uneven, with Russia characterised by a complex mix of new
industrial methods and traditional (but evolving) agriculture. Classes were
being re-shaped: the industrial working class was growing in many countries,
but the peasantry was changing too.
Consequently, the prospects for revolution were changing
too – new thinking was needed on the potential role of different classes in the
revolutionary process, and on the nature and scope of revolution. Lenin’s
analysis evolved over time and through debate with other Marxists, but nonetheless
formed a coherent worldview that was consistent with the Marxist tradition. Ideas into action
The third central theme in Krausz’s account concerns the
relationship between ideas and action. Lenin was a revolutionary political
leader. He didn’t simply develop analysis of the world; that analysis was,
profoundly and throughout his adult life, geared towards changing the world. Krausz
notes that Marx’s famous thesis – ‘the philosophers have interpreted the world;
the point, however, is to change it’ – has never been more acutely relevant
than in the case of Lenin. A single-minded commitment to building an
organisation capable of playing a decisive role in historical change dominated
Lenin’s life up to 1917.
Krausz carefully traces the relationship between theory
and practice, between Lenin’s ideas and the project of social transformation.
He provides the big picture here, but also a multitude of specific tactical
debates and decisions. He makes an interesting comment, for example, about how
all the various factional disputes in the Russian revolutionary movement (over
many years) had a strategic or tactical dimension. They were often influenced
by theoretical issues, but there was only ever really a serious dispute if
there were tactical implications (there were no splits over purely
philosophical debates).
Krausz is attentive to the different aspects of debates
and to what was going on at key turning points, e.g. the 1905 revolution, the
‘April Theses’ in April 1917, on the eve of insurrection in October 1917, etc. He
expresses the theoretical underpinnings without reducing everything to them;
concrete tactical disagreements can only be understood with attention to the
concrete situation.
Lenin’s practical achievements – incomparable in the
history of Marxism – were threefold: he had the leading role in building a
revolutionary party in Russia before 1917, he was the principal leader in the
‘second revolution’ of 1917, i.e. that which led to the overthrow of the entire
political and social order in October, and he was subsequently the head of
government in a fledgling Russian workers’ state for several years (this last
one remains a unique role in the history of revolutionary socialism). He was
therefore, in turn, party builder, revolutionary leader and statesman.
Krausz is good at illustrating the continuity in Lenin’s
personality, political qualities and ideas through all these periods, while
also focusing on the distinctiveness of each context. The period of building
revolutionary organisation, at varying stages from the 1890s until 1917, was
the bulk of Lenin’s political life, and it proves especially fascinating in
terms of potential implications for activists today.
In addition to these central themes, ‘Reconstructing
Lenin’ is a goldmine of details – biographical, political and historical.
Although Lenin is at the centre throughout, it brings various other political
figures of the time (Plekhanov, Kautsky, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bogdanov
and many more) into focus, showing how they influenced Lenin or how he debated
with them. It in some senses serves as a collective biography of the Bolsheviks,
a compelling study of a revolutionary organisation that evolved enormously in
changing circumstances. I have just three very small criticisms. Firstly, although Krausz is brutally honest about the enormous problems faced after October 1917 - and indeed the mistakes he believes were made by Lenin and his government during this period - he refers very little to the actual positive achievements of revolutionary Russia (which were considerable). This makes his sketching of the context of Russia in the several years following the October Revolution a little unbalanced.
Secondly, I think he underestimates the possibilities for successful revolution in a number of European countries, especially Germany, during the same period, appearing to be rather mechanical and deterministic about the apparently near-inevitable failure of the European movements. Thirdly, I think he is guilty of somewhat understating Trotsky's achievements and stature as a political leader and thinker - not drastically so, but this is a minor problem of emphasis for me.
Note: I recommend Chris Nineham's Counterfire review of the book.
Share
No comments:
Post a Comment