Question on "Red October."

[Catbus]

So, recently I picked up the book "Red October" by Robert V. Daniels from a used book shop so I could learn more about the Russian revolution, Lenin, the Bolsheviks, etc. Anyway, the first chapter seemed pretty legit, it explained the February revolution, the Provisional Government, and the political happenings after the revolution. However, where I'm at in the second chapter is starting to seem a little biased. Here's the specific paragraph,


It is impossible to escape the very strong suspicion that Lenin's deepest motive was the drive for personal power, however he might have rationalized it. Like practically every politician Lenin had a philosophy about the welfare of the people -in his case it was the entire world proletariat- but the philosophy also said or implied power for him and him alone was the only way this goal could be achieved. Lenin had an inordinate dislike of any sort of political cooperation or compromise, not because it might fail, but because it might succeed, and leave him with less than the whole loaf of power. He never worked honestly under or alongside anyone else, but only as the sole unquestioned leader of his own forces, even if the had to be whittled down to meet his conditions...

Is this true? I don't know very much about Lenin, so I can't decipher whether there's truth in that or not.

[Tatarin]

It sounds more like an opinion, but as always, it does depend on what view you have yourself. Remember that Lenin had to deal with many things during his time, there was a civil war going on, and he attempted something that had never been attempted before. You can only read works by him and decide if he had a secret goal of complete control, or if he genuinely thought that he was doing the right thing.

The real answer can unfortunately never be known, as Lenin died way back there. Personally I think Lenin did more good than bad, however, I am still uncertain he would have pulled it off even if he had lived for 50 more years. This is not to deny him his work, but that much of the revolution hanged on an industrialized nation to succeed, like Germany seemed to be about to. The plan was that it would be like a house of cards - one card falls and collapses the rest of the structure (that is, after Germany perhaps France would follow, Spain and so on).

[FSL]

Lenin wasn't even the unquestioned leader in the party so it seems a tiny bit out of place to claim he wanted to become the unquestioned leader of the world.

And being against compromises with bourgeoisie that might succeed is a good thing, no?

[NecroCommie]

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. After all, there is nothing to back this up.

[ComradeOm]

Is this true? I don't know very much about Lenin, so I can't decipher whether there's truth in that or not.Always be wary of historians who claim to be able to read peoples' minds or divine their 'true motives'

I'm not sure where Daniels stands on the totalitarian/revisionist debate that continues to plague the historiography of the Revolution but that passage provided is terrible. I've already mentioned the 'mind-reading' but this characterisation of Lenin does not fit at all

For a start it seems odd that someone who supposedly had such a personal desire for absolute power never actually wielded it. Either before or after October 1917 Lenin was never a dictator and never had extra-constitutional power concentrated in his hands. In both the Bolshevik Central Committee and the Sovnarkom he had to consistently argue with his peers and was often outvoted on both mundane and important policies. The idea that he was at any point the "sole unquestioned leader of his own forces" is simply bullshit

[Catbus]

Could you guys recommend any books or articles that provide a good, unbiased history of the Russian revolution and the Bolsheviks?

[Tatarin]

Perhaps not unbiased, but it is always a start:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/index.htm

[ComradeOm]

Could you guys recommend any books or articles that provide a good, unbiased history of the Russian revolution and the Bolsheviks?I've just put up a bibliography of the Revolution here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bibliography-t120423/index.html?p=1576061#post1576061)