Good books on Lenin, the October Revolution, and the Russian Civil War

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Hi guys,

As of late, I've been a bit too selective in what I'm studying about revolutionary history. I've been jumping from Catalonia to Allende to Titoist Yugoslavia. I think I need to start afresh. One thing I'd really like to read is a medium-length, somewhat sympathetic history of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks:)

[Le Socialiste]

There's plenty of material to choose from. Are you looking for articles, books, or both? I can recommend the following off the top of my head:

Books:
Lenin and the Revolutionary Party (http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Revolutionary-Party-Paul-Blanc/dp/157392427X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388909584&sr=1-1&keywords=lenin+and+the+revolutionary+party), by Paul Le Blanc
The Bolsheviks Come to Power (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Bolsheviks-Come-to-Power), by Alexander Rabinowitch
Lenin Rediscovered: What Is To Be Done? In Context (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Lenin-Rediscovered-What-Is-to-Be-Done-In-Context), by Lars T. Lih
Lenin's Political Thought: Theory and Practice in the Democratic and Socialist Revolutions (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Lenins-Political-Thought), by Neil Harding

Articles:
Democratic Centralism: Fortunes of a Formula (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/957/democratic-centralism-fortunes-of-a-formula)
Lenin: 'democratic, socialist and revolutionary' (http://links.org.au/node/2762)
Leninism and Organization Today (http://socialistworker.org/2013/03/14/leninism-and-organization-today)
The Party and the Revolution (http://socialistworker.org/2013/07/26/the-party-and-the-revolution)

Edit - Just realized you were only looking for books, my bad. The articles are helpful as well.

[Queen Mab]

The Russian Revolution by Sheila Fitzpatrick
Prelude to Revolution, The Bolsheviks Come to Power and The Bolsheviks in Power by Alexander Rabinowitch
History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky

I think Rabinowitch's trilogy is what you're looking for. It's an excellent history of the Bolshevik party's rise to power in Petrograd. Rabinowitch is a liberal (his father was a Kadet), but he's still generally sympathetic to the Bolsheviks. Or at least presents October as what it was, a mass popular revolution and not a coup by evil proto-Stalinists.

[The Idler]

The Russian Revolution in Retreat by Simon Pirani
The Bolsheviks and Workers Control by Maurice Brinton

[boiler]

Ten Days That Shook the World by John Reed

http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/

[motion denied]

E. H. Carr is your man.

Oh, also http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/index.htm

[bluemangroup]

E. H. Carr is your man.

Oh, also http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/index.htm

Definitely read E.H. Carr's books, especially his fourteen-volume history of the USSR which goes from 1917 to 1930. Fortunately, I currently have access to the entire series at my local library.

One nitpick: He refers to the October Revolution as a Bolshevik coup, which proved not to be the case IMHO after future historians such as Alexander Rabinowitch and Rex A. Wade wrote their exhaustively-researched revisionist histories on the rise to power of the Bolsheviks.

That aside, its an excellent analysis which covers everything just about, running the gamut from War Communism to the collectivization drive under Stalin in the late 1920's to Soviet foreign policy towards Germany, Iran, Turkey, China, Japan, Britain, etc.

Highly recommended if you can find the series. :)

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I'm loving you guys' suggestions! Right now, I just finished reading up on democratic centralism, which I have been interested in for a while now. I was surprised to learn how fluid the structure of the Bolshevik party was over the decades--for a couple years after the 1905 Revolution, when political censorship was relaxed, it was highly democratic, with party leaders elected by members and able to be recalled at any time. During the early 20s, however, under the strain of the Civil War, a much more centralized party was needed, in which partisan bickering was minimized, even of this meant taking on a strict, authoritarian, and militaristic structure.

I'm explaining this more to myself than to you guys; I'm assuming you already know this. They say that if you can't sum a concept up for others, you don't understand it yourself.:laugh:

The practical nature of Leninism is one thing about the tendency that I find very appealing. Let my studies continue! (And my One Year Plan to become a Committed User by 2015):lol:

[Geiseric]

The best book I've read was trotskys history of the RR.

[Le Socialiste]

Yes, Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/History-Russian-Revolution-Leon-Trotsky/dp/0873488296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389077920&sr=8-1&keywords=trotsky+russian+revolution) is a must read. It's a beast of a book though (nearly 1,300 pages), so be prepared to strap yourself in for the long haul if you ever get down to reading it.

[Brotto Rühle]

The Renegade Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin (http://libcom.org/files/Gilles%20Dauv%C3%A9-%20The%20Renegade%20Kautsky%20and%20his%20Disciple %20Lenin.pdf) by Dauve

[Red Intellectual]

I strongly recommend "Revolution At The Gates" by Slavoj Žižek.

[reb]

Maurice Brinton [/URL][URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/"]The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control - The State and Counter-Revolution (http://The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control - The State and Counter-Revolution)

"The Bolsheviks and Workers Control is a remarkable pamphlet exposing the struggle that took place over the running of workplaces in the immediate aftermath of the Russian Revolution. In doing so not only does it demolish the romantic Leninist "history" of the relationship between the working class and their party during these years (1917-21) but it also provides a backbone to understanding why the Russian revolution failed in the way it did. From this understanding flows alternative possibilities of revolutionary organization and some 40 years after the original was written this is perhaps its greatest contribution today. For this reason alone this text deserves the greatest possible circulation and we encourage you to link to it."

[Le Socialiste]

Since the OP has been asking for sympathetic studies of the Russian revolution, I would also include:

The October Revolution in Prospect and Retrospect (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/October-Revolution-in-Prospect-and-Retrospect), by John Marot
Revolution and Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Revolution-and-Counterrevolution-Class-Struggle-in-a-Moscow-Metal-Factory), by Kevin Murphy
The Comintern (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/The-Comintern), by Duncan Hallas

[reb]

Who cares if the works are sympathetic or not? Since when did Marxism place sympathy ahead of objective facts for historical figures and situations? Oh that's right, in order to preserve leninism you have to preserve the myth of Lenin and the russian revolution.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

A "sympathetic" history of the October revolution would be any work that is not produced by a rabid anti-communist imo.

[The Idler]

Rabid anti-communist is an ad hominem (and a broad one at that), if you have a proper criticism, you'll have to be more specific.

On a general note, the equation of Lenin and defending (if not supporting Lenin) with communism is a constant source of irritation to me and many others. Why is the whole history of socialism pre-Lenin written out of history and never mentioned?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I would categorize anyone who is not a communist as anti-communist by default, if they then have the motivation to write a book about communism, I would classify them as rabid.

I would say the stuff by Brinton and dauve is sympathetic, because the writers are sympathetic to the goal of the October revolution while being very critical of its path and outcome. Since the revolution failed to bring about communism, any work that is "sympathetic" in the sense that it doesn't say anything mean about the revolution or Lenin or the rest of the Bolsheviks may as be soviet propaganda for all its worth, why bother.

[Le Socialiste]

Who cares if the works are sympathetic or not? Since when did Marxism place sympathy ahead of objective facts for historical figures and situations? Oh that's right, in order to preserve leninism you have to preserve the myth of Lenin and the russian revolution.

I'm not terribly interested in derailing this thread any further than it has been, so I'll respond to your query and let it rest at that. However, should you or anyone else be interested in continuing this conversation, I will happily split these posts off into a new thread - should any of this warrant further discussion.

Let's begin by setting something straight: I believe the OP explicitly requested works or analyses that were 'somewhat sympathetic' to Leninism, the Bolsheviks, and the Russian revolution. Hence my response. Now, sympathetic studies of any of the above needn't necessarily abandon objectivity or an appreciation (read: understanding) for the historical circumstances in which certain events or ideas materialized. Multiple efforts to assess Leninism within the context of events prior to and following the events of 1917 have been made via the utilization of tools offered through Marxism; indeed, many of the books and articles that've been linked to so far happen to follow this model, and keep to it rather well.

Your admirable appeals to objectivity would garner more weight were they supported by your own approaches to Leninism, however. In a previous thread you repeatedly referred to Leninism as a 'dogma' (seen here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-bourgeois-t186020/index.html?p=2701230)), while presenting an argument that likened this strain of political analysis to bourgeois ideology. More than one user on this site sought to refute this claim, including myself. When you were corrected as to the reasoning and context surrounding Lenin's notorious "trade union consciousness" statement, you simply ignored it (still waiting on a reply from you in that thread, btw). The examples don't stop there, as your jibe at the supposed 'myths' around Lenin and the Russian revolution shows. (To be fair, Stalinism - including a number of rightwing/leftwing critics over the years - have distorted Leninism and the legacies of the revolution into something barely recognizable to us today.)


On a general note, the equation of Lenin and defending (if not supporting Lenin) with communism is a constant source of irritation to me and many others. Why is the whole history of socialism pre-Lenin written out of history and never mentioned?

I wasn't aware that it had been. On a more general note, the distortion of Leninism (which is, in actuality, a continuation of Marxism) remains a constant source of irritation to me and many others as well. I do not intend to let claims that are demonstrably false remain unchallenged, whether they come from Leninism's detractors or proponents. There are criticisms to be had, surely - but all too often these critiques fall short, usually as a result of those who commonly misinterpret or misrepresent certain arguments made by Lenin and others within this timeframe. It would make little sense to write out or ignore the preexisting history of socialism prior to Lenin, as one undoubtedly contributed to the development of the other. It'd be silly to ignore either component.

[Le Socialiste]

I realize I've already saddled you with enough reading material as is, but I just stumbled across this list of articles by Lars T. Lih that explores the different theoretical and historical components of Bolshevism and Lenin's own political thought. Interesting, informative reads for the most part. Take a look if you're interested.

http://johnriddell.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/more-lars-lih-online-six-further-studies-of-bolshevism/

[Red Commissar]

Ten Days That Shook the World by John Reed

http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/

I think if you're looking for a concise detail of events this won't be enough. Reed's classic is good as companion reading to help provide some first hand accounts from someone who was there, but I wouldn't read it on its own.