Advertisement
looks quite interesting, there's a lengthy review on Salon. . .here is an excerpt. The book maintains that a lot of what was believed in the west about the communist regimes was wrong.
www.salon.com/books/revie...m/index.html
"Academics pumped out scholarly treatises on the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism by the yard, and debated the Soviet system's merits and flaws feverishly. Now all those copies of "The Lenin Anthology" and Leszek Kolakowski's "Main Currents in Marxism" are moldering in the garages of former grad students, and our collective memory of the great 20th-century struggle between capitalism and Communism is a series of clichés and blurry newsreel images: Stalin and FDR guffawing as they carve up the postwar world, Kennedy and Khrushchev daring each other to push the button, Soviet tanks rumbling through the streets of Prague, Reagan instructing Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall!"
Archie Brown's whopping study, "The Rise and Fall of Communism," which is modest in tone but comprehensive in scholarship, marks an important effort to dig past those iconic stereotypes and painful memories and figure out what the hell was going on in that 75-year-long failed experiment called Communism. This is still an exceptionally difficult subject for Americans to confront with any clarity, I think. Our political life remains haunted in peculiar ways by the specter of Communism, which has become (to mix metaphors) an all-purpose ideological cudgel to use against one's enemies."
www.salon.com/books/revie...m/index.html
"Academics pumped out scholarly treatises on the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism by the yard, and debated the Soviet system's merits and flaws feverishly. Now all those copies of "The Lenin Anthology" and Leszek Kolakowski's "Main Currents in Marxism" are moldering in the garages of former grad students, and our collective memory of the great 20th-century struggle between capitalism and Communism is a series of clichés and blurry newsreel images: Stalin and FDR guffawing as they carve up the postwar world, Kennedy and Khrushchev daring each other to push the button, Soviet tanks rumbling through the streets of Prague, Reagan instructing Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall!"
Archie Brown's whopping study, "The Rise and Fall of Communism," which is modest in tone but comprehensive in scholarship, marks an important effort to dig past those iconic stereotypes and painful memories and figure out what the hell was going on in that 75-year-long failed experiment called Communism. This is still an exceptionally difficult subject for Americans to confront with any clarity, I think. Our political life remains haunted in peculiar ways by the specter of Communism, which has become (to mix metaphors) an all-purpose ideological cudgel to use against one's enemies."
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: New book on communism during the Soviet era. .
Thu, July 2, 2009 - 8:42 PMThis part of the review is rather interesting. . .indicating that socialism may have taken a wrong turn after the Russian revolution.
"In much of the world, the term "socialism" has been poisoned by its association with Soviet-style Communism; in the United States, it is virtually a term of hate speech. But as Brown (who is certainly no socialist) makes clear, it was socialists who saw the dangers of Communism first and most clearly. In 1918, at the dawn of the Soviet era, Karl Kautsky, who had personally known Marx and Engels in his youth, wrote a diatribe against Lenin's use of the vague Marxist term "dictatorship of the proletariat."
Kautsky insisted it had been meant metaphorically, and that genuine class struggle presupposed genuine democracy. The so-called dictatorship of the proletariat "always leads to the dictatorship of a single man, or of a small knot of leaders" and to a situation where ordinary people "only become instruments for carrying out orders."
Although Lenin was trying to defend the Soviet Union against very real enemies within and without, he took time out to bang out an angry broadside against "the despicable renegade Kautsky," which suggests how much the criticism stung. (With characteristic directness, he described his newborn state as "a machine for the suppression of the bourgeoisie.") Lenin was too intelligent not to understand that there were real dangers in conflating the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of those who claimed to know what was best for the proletariat, but he had long since convinced himself that the imaginary ends justified the brutal means. Seventy years later, the last leader of Lenin's party and Lenin's state would decide that Kautsky had been right all along. " -
-
Re: New book on communism during the Soviet era. .
Thu, July 2, 2009 - 10:05 PMI wonder if Steven will find the time to read it?
-
Re: New book on communism during the Soviet era. .
Fri, July 3, 2009 - 2:24 PM>socialism may have taken a wrong turn after the Russian revolution.
You mean like, possibly the part where 99% of The People became 'Enemies of The People' by secretly practicing market capitalism?
Surely, socialism can work perfectly... as soon as the faintest trace of self-interest can be decisively bred out or medically removed from the entire human species.
Good luck with that.
Maybe if the USSR just had better TV, everyone could have been persuaded to start using credit cards issued by banks backed by the central government, and they could all have wound up working at least 60 hours a week, instead of the 40 to which the Soviet system limited them.
Everyone except me seems to have a perfect solution.
Why is that? -
-
Re: New book on communism during the Soviet era. .
Fri, July 3, 2009 - 4:25 PMThere were varieties of socialism competing for the public attention in the 19th century and the many voices were drowned out by the Marxist Leninist Stalinist juggernaut. . .Kautsky is an interesting case because he was a Marxist but not a Leninist. . .a sharp critic of the bad turn taken by the Bolshevik revolution, he was a leading advocate of social democracy. .
however, there are other forms of socialism, that are hybrid forms blending a market economy with socialist instruments for guiding the economy as well as of course the social security networks. Examples are Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Japan, etc. in varying degrees. -
-
Re: New book on communism during the Soviet era. .
Fri, July 3, 2009 - 5:16 PMI'm fine with socialistic programs within a diligently regulated predominantly market economy.
When I was in Canada for 3 years, I felt anything but oppressed by their health care system.
Where socialists lose me, though, is where they start talking about:
A) socialistic policy being more important than governance authorized by a a process of informed voting
and/or
B) socialistic policy being the 'only possible outcome' of 'truly informed voting' (thus ostensibly de-legitimizing any other election result) -
-
Re: New book on communism during the Soviet era. .
Fri, July 3, 2009 - 5:26 PMright and that is where socialism went wrong in the 19th century. marx was overwhelming a product of the industrial/scientific era in its robust infancy. so he created "scientific socialism" that was conceptualized along a top down industrial model. the factories he saw were incredible mechanisms of production, and they were led by a "director" . . . he reasoned that the director, which he called dictator ( the words used to mean pretty much the same thing ) should be a committee of workers.
other socialists said no. . .that socialism should evolve from separate directions and take a variety of forms.
in the modern era we don't understand the basic meanings of the terms "socialism" and "economy" because of historical and cultural circumstances. . .if you were a citizen of China, Denmark or anywhere you would have a different understanding of these terms.
"socialism" at the base means a system that is more or less run for the good of the people, where the people are the owners. . .of course, in reality, states take different forms. . .
"economy" at the base means the means of providing for the needs of the people. . .of course, different cultures do this differently. . .but the base meaning is vitally important because over time vested interests will control the society or the economy for their own ends.
the form of socialism that i advocate is a mixed system something like the northern european countries have, sort of like japan, but uniquely american. and socialism doesn't have to come from the top, but from the bottom. .
-
-
-
-