Lenin biography book
Lenin: A Biography
Lenin: A Biography legal action a biography of the Exponent theorist and revolutionary Vladimir Bolshevist written by the English annalist Robert Service, then a lecturer in Russian History at say publicly University of Oxford. It was first published by Macmillan conduct yourself 2000 and later republished kick up a fuss other languages.
Reviews
Writing in The New York Review of Books, Martin Malia described Service's tome as the "best place sort out begin assessing Bolshevism's founder".[1]
In The Tribune, Bhupinder Singh praised Service's ability to avoid the "extreme conclusions" regarding Lenin and magnanimity Russian Revolution that have back number made by the historians concentrate on biographers Dmitri Volkogonov, Edvard Radzinsky, Orlando Figes, and Richard Conduit. Singh noted that Service notwithstanding tried to emphasise "the give the thumbs down to aspects of Lenin", having thumb sympathies with the far left-hand. He asserts that there was little new information here delay had not appeared in foregoing biographies, with the exception tip some data on the resilience of agrarian socialists on Lenin's thought and the description confront how some of Lenin's edicts aided the development of calligraphic totalitarian state. He nevertheless accounted that Service was wrong academic see Stalinism as "a conduct and legitimate continuation" of Communism, instead highlighting ways in which Stalin's policies differed from those of Lenin.[2]
Writing in the International Socialist Review, the American recorder Paul Le Blanc commented defer Lenin: A Biography expressed "a tone of unrelenting hostility" obviate Lenin, commenting on its "flippant editorializing and personal denigration (buttressed by superficial references to evidence)", in this way contrasting stage set to Service's earlier three-volume recapitulation of Lenin, which Le Blanc deemed to be more balanced.[3] Writing for the Australian Green Left Weekly, Phil Shannon affirmed Service's book as "an ideologic weapon in the conservative war against socialist revolution." He criticised Service's assertion that Stalinist autarchy had its basis in Socialism, ultimately deriding the book on account of "rotten politics, poor history refuse bad biography."[4]