Lenin by Hélène Carrère s> d'Encausse George Holoch (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 563 Carrere d'Encausse, H1elne. Lenin.Translated by George Holoch. Holmes and Meier, New York and London, 2001. Xi+ 371 PP. Select Bibliography .Chronology. Glossary.Notes. Index. ?35.00. INthe ten yearssince the fallof the Soviet Union a numberof new biographies of Lenin have appeared, taking advantage of the changed political climate, the revelationsof the glasnostyearsunder Gorbachev, and new materialfrom the Russian archives. ProfessorHelene Carrered'Encausseis the doyenne of French historians of Russia and an authority on Soviet nationality policies. Her new biography of Lenin was published in France in I998 and has now been translated.She admitsat the beginning of the selected bibliographythat this is a work of reinterpretationand rethinking,not of archival scholarship. The new material incorporated into her account is taken largely from the biography of Lenin by Dmitry Volkogonov (New York, I994) and the documents in ne Unknown Lenin,editedby RichardPipes(New Haven, I996). Professor Carrere d'Encausse is very much a political historian and her interpretation of Lenin is very similar to that given by both Pipes and Volkogonov. Indeed, although new material is incorporated, it is not very differentfromher own earlierworkon Lenin (Paris,I979). It is of a pragmatic and ruthlesspolitician, with utopian dreamsfor the futureof mankindbut no pity or interestfor the individualmen and women whose fate he saw it was to create this brave new world. Lenin's characterwas 'brutal',(pp. 64, 79), and markedby 'voluntarismand lackof scruple'(p. 57) as befittedone influenced by Tkachev. In a minority in both Russian and European Social Democratic circles before I914 the outbreak of war gave him his opportunity, and his policy of defeatismwas calculatedto enable him to use the resultingrevolution to his advantage.In common with much of the new documentationsherightly stressesLenin'sencouragement of terrorat every opportunityafter I9I7. He was also a pragmatist.Lenin is portrayed as constantly subordinating principles to political expediency, from Brest Litovskto his treatment of the peasantry.His rejection of spontaneityin I902 with the writingof WJ7at Is To BeDone?changed in I91 7 when he associated himself and his party with the spontaneity of the popular movement, only to abandon it again after I9I8. Although the change to disciplineand partycontrolstartedvery earlyin I9I8, when the model of the self-governing 'commune state' gave way to an emphasis on dicatorship of the proletariat led by the party, the year 1920 emerges forthe authoras the pivotal moment in earlyBolshevikRussia. The second Comintern Conference and the disaster of the war against Poland led to an emphasis in Lenin's writingsand policies on statismonce it became clear that the revolution was not going to spread across Europe. At the same time the earlieremphasis,very much the policy of Lenin himself,on self-determinationfor the national minorities also gave way to an increased centralizationand a new version of the sixteenth centurypolicy of 'gathering in the Russian lands'. This was to be achieved, as far as possible, by what could be portrayedas a voluntaryagreementwith new socialistrepublicsbut, as in Georgia, by force when that was not possible and when Lenin was convinced that the outsideworldwould not openly oppose. By thisperiod the authorsees Lenin as more a head of statein his instinctsthan an international 564 SEER, 8o, 3, 2002 revolutionary.She accepts, however, that he remained a genuine internationalist , seeing the revolution as spreadingnotjust across Europe but acrossthe world.As is to be expected given the author'sexpertisethebook isparticularly strongon thenationalminoritiesandtheforeignpolicyofthenewgovernment. There is little on social or culturalpolicy and even War Communism is paid relativelylittle attention and seen as a policy of the left ratherthan of Lenin himself. Powerwas thus all importantto Lenin and, althoughthe dreamsof a future utopia remained, the role he played in the last five years of his effective life was in creating and ruling a state. In that sense the policy of socialismin one countrytrulystartedwith Lenin, althoughlater Soviet or Russiannationalism did not. He was sincere in his attackson Great Russian chauvinism, and the author portrays him as, above all, a Westernizer, seeing German-type modernization as his goal. Indeed she arguesthat he would have preferredto starthis revolutionin WesternEurope if given the chance. It isjust one of the many contradictionsshe highlightsthat he succeeded only in isolatinghis new statefromthe Westerndevelopment he in many ways admired. School ofEuropean...