What to read about Lenin

Alexander Shubin about the evolution of the biographies of the leader of the Russian Revolution

By the centenary of the Great October Revolution, Leo Danilkin wrote the biography “Lenin: Pantocur of Solar Politniks”; April 22 marks the 147th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ulyanov. Gorky begins a series of materials about the leader of the Bolsheviks, today - an article by historian Alexander Shubin about how the ideas about Lenin in memories and scientific research have changed about how the 20th and 21st centuries.

Lenin is one of the largest figures not only of domestic, but also in world history. It is not surprising that thousands of pages of only scientific texts are written about him. However, after the death of Lenin, his scientific biography was in no hurry to be born: contemporaries either hated him and printed journalistic pamphlets, or whistled. Even M. Gorky, who was a political opponent of Lenin, but at the same time collaborated with the Bolsheviks on the field of cultural projects, published the apology “Vladimir Lenin” in 1924.

The Bolsheviks started with memories. Trotsky wrote about Lenin. Materials for biography. " He recalled a man with whom he often diverged, but whom he revered as his leader since 1917. The volume of the memoirs of Lenin continued to come out the entire Soviet era and retain their significance so far - both as a source for historians, and as an interesting reading for everyone who is interested in Lenin. These memories are often captivated by sincere intonations. But, reading them, be careful. Indeed, in the USSR they published only those who were under the strong effect of his charm: his associates, those who were among the winners, in the Lenin Guard or near it.

Lenin is one of the heroes written in the heat of the heat of the semi -humile book of N. Sukhanov “Notes of the Revolution” (M., 1991). It retains the value of the source, but its research component is already outdated. Lenin Sukhanov observes from a large distance, he was not close to the leader of the Bolsheviks. But he is somewhat less apologet than the Bolsheviks.

Then the biographies followed: Lenin’s life was specified in details - only positive, of course. Marxist-Leninist science did not stand still. The canonical biography of Lenin, prepared by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, increased from 600 to 770 pages in the 1960–70s. A multi -volume biochronika came out. The 55-volume “full” collected works of the leader was published. In 1999, one volume of documents that were not published earlier due to the discrepancy with the canonical image was added to this multi-gun: “V.I. Lenin. Unknown documents. 1891–1922 ". But the Leninovs found a lot of compromising evidence in the form of sharp letters about terror, comrades and hesitating. So documentary publications on this time did not reveal a sensational incriminating evidence.

The USSR did not publish the memories of such a friend of Lenin as N. Valentinov (Volsky) (“Meetings with V.I. Lenin”, “Stepnow Lenin”). Having met Lenin in 1904, he quickly disappointed in him and moved away from Bolshevism. But he continued to treat Lenin without hostility - rather as a researcher than as an enemy. In the 1920s, Valentinov continued to closely monitor the progress of the political struggle in Moscow until he could cross abroad. He became the first non -communist biographer of Lenin, which is interesting to read now. Valentinov began with an early biography, expressing a number of curious assumptions. However, many of them did not have passed the test of time, and Valentinov’s personal observations about Lenin’s life in emigration are most interesting.

The two -volume biography of Lenin was written by a former supporter of the communist movement L. Fisher. This classical Sovietological work was amazing for the imagination of Soviet readers brought up on Lenin's apology, if they managed to get it in Tamizdat. Fisher shows the pros and cons of Leninism, based on open sources. As a former ideological communist, he pays great attention to Lenin’s ideas, which is very important for understanding the leader’s motives. The analysis of the ideology of Lenin is designed to show that he cheated on his principles, and this is not very fair: tactical maneuvering in itself does not mean rejection of goals, and adjustment of goals does not mean rejection of fundamental principles. Although today this work has already been in many ways, it was a good help for those who were freed from the aura of Lenin towards a balanced understanding, and not by the principle of "from love to hatred - one step." Alas, this path was characteristic of most domestic authors of the 1990s. A classic case of a jump from apology to a collection of compromising evidence (not always proven) is the work of N. Volkogonov.

With the opening of archives in the 1990s, it became possible to investigate Lenin's activity on the basis of a much wider circle of sources. Both domestic and foreign authors participate in the development of this material. An attempt to write a biography of Lenin, illustrating it with new archival materials, was undertaken by R. Service. It turned out, in my opinion, quite superficially, the book has a lot of inaccuracies and little novelty. Serious historians understand the responsibility and difficulty of writing a complete scientific biography of Lenin. The work is carried out fragmented, gradually. Entire books are devoted to the individual stages of Lenin’s life, historical periods, where his role is great, primarily in 1917.

The pendulum "Love-Vanavity" shaken and stopped in the middle. Today, a serious reader will no longer accept either apology or collection of incriminating evidence. He knows how to draw conclusions himself, reading even books by authors, with whom he does not agree ideologically. Arguments, links to sources are important. If there are no such links, the book falls in price for a attentive reader who does not want to be deceived. The largest friendly biographer of Lenin is V. Loginov, author of the detailed early biography “Vladimir Lenin. The choice of the path. Biography ”(M., 2005). In this scrupulous study, even Lenin’s opponents are difficult to find fault with something (I was able to do this not without difficulty in a pair of cases). Loginov’s study analyzes what was written on this topic earlier, and gives a completely balanced picture. Unfortunately, it ends in 1900 - one might say, the most interesting place.

Unfortunately, the Lenin period in 1905-1916 has not yet been systematically investigated. Since Soviet times, the preparation and course of the II Congress of the RSDLP, which led to the formation of Bolshevism, have been studied in very detail. But further ups and downs need more careful study. The largest study of the period of 1908-1912 remains the book of the Soviet author R. Kaganova “Lenin in France” (M., 1977). Soviet science has done a lot here, but still its apologetic angle of view left an important important in the shade. And here literature is no longer about Lenin, but about its opponents (for example, Tyutyukin S.V., Shelokhaev V.V. Marxists and the Russian Revolution. M., 1996; Tyutyukin S.V. Menshevism: Pages of History. M., 2002).

Another monograph by V. Loginov “Unknown Lenin” is devoted to the key to the political biography of the leader in 1917. Here, Loginov’s sympathies are more noticeable and acquire an ideological hue. The actions of Lenin in 1917 are vulnerable to criticism, which the author often does not refute - ignores. However, this is not a communist pamphlet, but a serious analysis, replete with interesting details that are important to the reader regardless of his ideological orientation. For example, Loginov shows that Lenin returned to Petrograd without the knowledge of the Central Committee on September 29. To restore the course of the events of the fall of 1917, this is an important nuance.

To understand Lenin, it is necessary to read literature on the development of the socialist movement and revolution, about the formation of Soviet power. First of all, it is possible to recommend the books of A. Rabinovich, who details the development of the revolution in 1917 (the Bolsheviks come to power. M., 1989; Blood days. M., 1992; Bolsheviks in power. M., 2007). The activities of Lenin are represented here against the backdrop of the struggle of parties, a clash of social forces. In 2017, the book of my student A. Sakhnin “Experience of October 1917 was published. How the revolution is made ”, dedicated to the struggle of factions in the Bolshevik party in 1917. Lenin is among the main characters of this book.

I had a contribution to the study of Lenin's ideas and practice in a wider context. The development of Lenin's views at the beginning of the twentieth century was considered in my book “Socialism. “Golden Age” of theory ”(M., 2007). Lenin is one of the main actors of my books about the Russian revolution and the Civil War (the Great Russian Revolution: from February to October 1917, M., 2014; Start of the Country of Soviets. Revolution. October 1917 - March 1918, St. Petersburg, 2017; Makhno and its time. On the Great Revolution and the Civil War of 1917-1922 in Russia and in Ukraine, in Russia and Ukraine, in Russia and Ukraine, in Russia and Ukraine, in Russia and in Ukraine, in Russia and in Ukraine. M., 2013). When forming the image of Lenin, attention should be paid to the development of his ideas for which he acted. It is for the sake of ideas, and not for the sake of enrichment and glory, like many modern politicians. Low motifs are systematically attributed to Lenin, in my opinion, completely unfair. Like, since Lenin took money from the German General Staff, what you want from the current rulers of the owners of yachts and estates. But Lenin is interesting in that he was an unrestrained, who was able to captivate huge masses, turn the life of the country. This became the result of his personal qualities, will and intelligence - not the thinnest and deeper in that era, but a very suitable situation. Therefore, in order to understand Lenin and the consequences of his intervention in history (in my opinion, rather tragic), it is necessary to examine in detail his ideas and the environment in which he carried out them.

The biography of Lenin will always be insufficiently detailed, because at the same time it is necessary to write the biography of his supporters, enemies and opponents. You cannot understand Lenin’s victory without understanding the reasons for the defeat of the latter. And at the same time, a solid historical book is impossible without nuances, at first glance of unimportant details. Working on the book about the beginning of the Soviet regime, I found that at the first meetings of the Council of People's Commissars, Lenin was sitting with his back to the audience, turning from time to time to time. This household detail seemed insignificant and very vital, I was looking for her a place in my narrative to draw some thoughtful conclusions. In the end, I realized that from such a detail the conclusions could be made a variety of different, but it is interesting in itself. As a picture of real life - not front and not compromising. It was just like that. And to us, historians, the most interesting thing is how it was.