Lars Lih - Lenin

On the shelves of my study, in serried ranks of blue, stand the 55 volumes of the fifth edition of the works of V. I. Lenin. In their way, these volumes equipped with a fantastically elaborate scholarly apparatus detailing every name, book and even every proverb mentioned by their author are the building blocks of an intellectual mausoleum comparable to the corporeal mausoleum that still stands in Moscow. Just as impressive an accomplishment of what might be called embalming scholarship is the multivolume Vladimir Ilich Lenin: Biograficheskaia Khronika, consisting of over 8,000 pages detailing exactly what Lenin did on every day for which we have information (usually he was writing an article, issuing an intra-party protest, making a speech).

And yet the very title of this biokhronika points to a biographical puzzle, since the name Vladimir Ilich Lenin is a posthumous creation. The living man went by many names, but Vladimir Ilich Lenin was not among them. Posteritys need to refer to this man with a name he did not use during his lifetime gives us a sense of the difficulty of capturing the essence of this passionately impersonal figure without mummifying him, either as saint or as bogeyman.

What should we call him? He was christened, shortly after his birth in 1870, as Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov. Ilich is a patronymic, meaning son of Ilya. And yet, for many during his lifetime and after, Ilich conveyed a greater sense of the individuality of the man than Vladimir. As soon as he started on his revolutionary career in the early 1890s the exigencies of the underground led our hero to distance himself from his given name. The surviving copy of his first major written production Who are these Friends of the People and How Do They Fight against the Social Democrats? (1893) has no authorial name on the title-page. In works legally published in the 1890s our hero adopted more than one new name: K. Tulin or (for his magnum opus of 1899, The Development of Capitalism in Russia) Vladimir Ilin, a pseudonym that hardly hides his real name. Right up to the 1917 revolution, legally published works by Vl. Ilin continued to appear.

Even in a legally published newspaper an underground revolutionary had to exercise care so that his identity would not serve as an excuse to fine it or shut it down. One such paper was the Bolshevik Pravda, published in Petersburg from 1912 to 1914. A close colleague of Lenin, Lev Kamenev, later recalled that in order not to compromise this newspaper Ilich changed the signature to his articles almost every day. In Pravda his articles were signed with the most diversified combinations of letters, having nothing in common with his usual literary signature, such as P.P., F.L.-ko., V.F., R.S., etc., etc. This necessity of constantly changing his signature was still another obstacle between the words of Ilich and his readers the working masses.1

Our hero acquired his usual literary signature around 1901, while serving as one of the editors of the underground newspaper Iskra, when he began to sign his published work as N. Lenin. Why Lenin? We have already seen a certain fondness for pseudonyms ending in -in. But Lenin seems to have been the name of an actual person whose passport helped our man leave Russia in 1900. This passport was made available to Lenin, at second or third hand, as a family favour; in the end, he did not have to use it.2

N. Lenin, not V. I. Lenin. His published works, right to the end, have N. Lenin on the title-page. What does the N stand for? Nothing. Revolutionary pseudonyms very often included meaningless initials. But when N. Lenin became world famous, the idea got about that N stood for Nikolai an evocative name indeed, combining Nikolai the Last (the tsar replaced by Lenin), Niccol Machiavelli and Old Nick. In 1919 one of the first more-or-less accurate biographical sketches in English proclaimed its subject to be Nikolai Lenin. President Ronald Reagan was still talking about Nikolai Lenin in the 1980s and perhaps this name is just as legitimate historically as V. I. Lenin.

In any event, Lenin never used Vladimir Ilich Lenin as a signature. Most of his letters are simply signed Yours, Lenin or the like. Certainly Lenin did not bother to hide his real name. In a 1908 letter to Maxim Gorky signed Yours, N. Lenin, he gives his Geneva address: Mr. Wl. Oulianoff. 17. Rue des deux Ponts. 17 (chez Kpfer).3 Only in letters to his family and to Inessa Armand does he usually forego his usual literary signature and sign off as V. U. or V. I.

After 1917, when signing official documents in his capacity of Chair of the Council of Peoples Commissars, Lenin evidently felt that his family name was necessary, and so his official signature on government decrees was Vl. Ulianov (Lenin). Other revolutionaries whose underground klichki (pseudonyms) became famous did not retain their family name in this manner certainly not J. V. Stalin (born Dzhugashvili).

It seems that our subject, for reasons both personal and official, fought to maintain a distinction between Vladimir Ilich the person and Lenin the political institution. Posteritys insistence on yoking together Vladimir Ilich and Lenin bespeaks not only convenience but also the difficulties of comprehending the shifting demands of personal and political identity in the politics of the Russian revolution.

When we look at the overall evolution of English-language studies of Lenin since the Second World War, we observe a pendulum shift from Lenin to Ulyanov that is, a shift away from seeking the essence of this historical personage in his formal doctrines and towards seeking his essence in his personality. In the first decades after the War scholars elucidated the doctrine of Leninism, consisting of a series of propositions about the role of the revolutionary party, imperialism, the state and even such topics as philosophical materialism. To this end they concentrated on texts that might be called Lenins homework assignments. Works such as Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1908), Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), and State and Revolution (1917) all reflect the diligent note-taking of a writer who feels compelled to make a case concerning a subject with which he is relatively unfamiliar. In fact, several volumes of Lenins complete works are devoted exclusively to the notes he made in preparation for these books.

Even in the case of Lenins seminal work of 1902, What Is to Be Done?, scholars were much more interested in drawing out what they saw as the doctrinal implications of some of his passing polemical remarks than in the real heart of the book, namely, Lenins attempt to inspire underground activists with a heroic vision of leadership. In this way scholars used Lenins homework assignments to construct an elaborate doctrine entitled Leninism and then proceeded to contrast their creation with Marxism, concluding that Lenin was an innovative, indeed revisionist, Marxist theoretician.4