SOVIET TRAGEDY : A History of Socialism in Russia

Rating:
Summary: Malia's determinist argument leaves out social history
Review: Ideology takes center stage in Martin Malia's comprehensive history of the Soviet period entitled The Soviet Tragedy. Malia's book exhaustively analyzes the Soviet "experiment" from its Marxist roots to its final implosion. Looking down at the "rubble" of socialism, Malia extends his argument of ideology combined with the central role of the Communist Party in crafting a top-down historical approach to Soviet history. Seen as an "ideocratic Partocracy" in the words of the author, indicate the dependence on ideology coupled with the dictatorship of the Party form the vehicle through which socialism operated. Published in 1994, Malia crafts a significant historical exploration into the exact nature of the Soviet Union.
Malia places much emphasis on the single-track delivery of integral socialism from which the Communist idea is derived into nationalization, collectivization, and planning (514). Lenin's vision encompassing socialism in maximalist terms also fills the Soviet state into the totalitarian mold. Communist Russia turned totalitarian because of its socialism, argues Malia. The author's argument fits the familiar mode of casting Stalin as the builder of socialism in centralizing all the power of the Party into his own hands, representing the peak of socialist power. Malia focuses on the continuity of the Soviet leadership from Lenin to Gorbachev. He renders the Stalin question obsolete because socialism's utopian essence, distinctly non-capitalist, was present before Stalin and continued through and after him. Thus to argue in favor of Bukharin, leads only to futility because building socialism excludes any hope of a market or NEP activity.
Malia focuses his argument on the choice of integral socialism and its determinate "genetic code," thus leaving a single trajectory of socialism headlined with War Communism and Lenin's NEP (16). The author asserts that the whole of Soviet history alternated between hard and soft communism exemplified in these two primary events. Again the role of ideology is central to his analysis. Because the regime was born into War Communism followed by the retreat of NEP, the utopian dream of universal equality could only lead to self-destruction. The Marxist-Leninist worldview progressed historically as the paradoxical pursuit of human equality through the "primitive military means of the partocracy." Malia sees the idea of Soviet socialism in Lenin the Founder as "ideological illusion and raw coercion," (494). Central to his argument, then is the military means to build communism. Malia writes, "From this 'original sin' flowed all of the succeeding acts of coercion, starting with the revolution from above of 1929-1933, continuing with the purges, and culminating with the postwar restoration of the system," (495).
In writing the The Soviet Tragedy, Malia attacks traditional Sovietology that views the regime through a nearly opaque lens of capitalist political ideology and social science methodology. Malia answers traditional Sovietology with this impressive scholarship written solely from the point of view of politics inextricably paired with ideology. The complete lack of social or economic research could be seen as a deficiency by some. However, Malia should take the credit he deserves in penning the history of socialism in Russia as a comprehensive "experiment." Because the experiment failed for its ideology lends credibility to Malia's analytical approach. In "reconceptualizing" Soviet history, Malia critiques Western historiagraphy. Consequently, many of Malia's sources come from abroad. The author interpretation of the whole Soviet history may set a benchmark for an objective understanding of the fallen regime's political history. Social historians and economists may probe deeper into aspects of societal oppression and economic depression. In doing so, Malia's "objective" analysis may serve as an important catalyst for future historical scholarship. Indeed, the enigmatic qualities of Russia must be transcended for any unbiased scholarly exploration.

Rating:
Summary: Malia's determinist argument leaves out social history
Review: Ideology takes center stage in Martin Malia's comprehensive history of the Soviet period entitled The Soviet Tragedy. Malia's book exhaustively analyzes the Soviet "experiment" from its Marxist roots to its final implosion. Looking down at the "rubble" of socialism, Malia extends his argument of ideology combined with the central role of the Communist Party in crafting a top-down historical approach to Soviet history. Seen as an "ideocratic Partocracy" in the words of the author, indicate the dependence on ideology coupled with the dictatorship of the Party form the vehicle through which socialism operated. Published in 1994, Malia crafts a significant historical exploration into the exact nature of the Soviet Union.
Malia places much emphasis on the single-track delivery of integral socialism from which the Communist idea is derived into nationalization, collectivization, and planning (514). Lenin's vision encompassing socialism in maximalist terms also fills the Soviet state into the totalitarian mold. Communist Russia turned totalitarian because of its socialism, argues Malia. The author's argument fits the familiar mode of casting Stalin as the builder of socialism in centralizing all the power of the Party into his own hands, representing the peak of socialist power. Malia focuses on the continuity of the Soviet leadership from Lenin to Gorbachev. He renders the Stalin question obsolete because socialism's utopian essence, distinctly non-capitalist, was present before Stalin and continued through and after him. Thus to argue in favor of Bukharin, leads only to futility because building socialism excludes any hope of a market or NEP activity.
Malia focuses his argument on the choice of integral socialism and its determinate "genetic code," thus leaving a single trajectory of socialism headlined with War Communism and Lenin's NEP (16). The author asserts that the whole of Soviet history alternated between hard and soft communism exemplified in these two primary events. Again the role of ideology is central to his analysis. Because the regime was born into War Communism followed by the retreat of NEP, the utopian dream of universal equality could only lead to self-destruction. The Marxist-Leninist worldview progressed historically as the paradoxical pursuit of human equality through the "primitive military means of the partocracy." Malia sees the idea of Soviet socialism in Lenin the Founder as "ideological illusion and raw coercion," (494). Central to his argument, then is the military means to build communism. Malia writes, "From this `original sin' flowed all of the succeeding acts of coercion, starting with the revolution from above of 1929-1933, continuing with the purges, and culminating with the postwar restoration of the system," (495).
In writing the The Soviet Tragedy, Malia attacks traditional Sovietology that views the regime through a nearly opaque lens of capitalist political ideology and social science methodology. Malia answers traditional Sovietology with this impressive scholarship written solely from the point of view of politics inextricably paired with ideology. The complete lack of social or economic research could be seen as a deficiency by some. However, Malia should take the credit he deserves in penning the history of socialism in Russia as a comprehensive "experiment." Because the experiment failed for its ideology lends credibility to Malia's analytical approach. In "reconceptualizing" Soviet history, Malia critiques Western historiagraphy. Consequently, many of Malia's sources come from abroad. The author interpretation of the whole Soviet history may set a benchmark for an objective understanding of the fallen regime's political history. Social historians and economists may probe deeper into aspects of societal oppression and economic depression. In doing so, Malia's "objective" analysis may serve as an important catalyst for future historical scholarship. Indeed, the enigmatic qualities of Russia must be transcended for any unbiased scholarly exploration.

Rating:
Summary: Important issue
Review: Marxist critics of Malia try to argue that Marxism is really a fine theory, it's just that the communist revolution needed to come about in a more industrialized country like Germany, as Marx had hoped, or Britian or the US. This is such a howler. First of all, socialism failed just as badly in East Germany. The difference in average material welfare in East vs West Germany was as stark a comaprison as one could ask for. Indeed, it took the huge Berlin Wall to keep the victims in their hellish prison. Besides, didn't anybody ever think to ask Marx, if your economic system is going to be even more productive than capitalism, why is it that you need capitalism first to build up the economic base? If socialism is so great, why can't industrialization take place under it from the get go? The truth is that socialism needed capitalism to accumulate all the capital equipment so that the socialists could then live off of it for a while, all the while eating it up and leaving little or nothing for the future to live on. Capitalism produces and accumulates, socialism consumes and destroys.

Rating:
Summary: The Anti-Socialism Anti-Revisionism of Martin Malia
Review: Two theories--totalitarianism and revisionism--have emerged in Sovietology, attempting to define what comprises the correct application of socialism, and the particular aspects of Soviet socialism. Martin Malia, in his text The Soviet Tragedy-A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991, contends that the Soviet regime was logically totalitarian because totalitarianism is the natural outcome of any attempt to realize textbook Marxism. Stalinism thus represented the peak of the Soviet experiment. Malia argues that later regimes were merely watered-down versions of either Stalin's "hard" war communism or "soft" NEP-style market reforms of the 1920's. He focuses the argument on socialism's inherent flaws. Malia therefore opposes various revisionist claims that Russia, her leaders, and their faulty interpretations of Marxism led to the demise of Soviet socialism. These revisionist arguments imply that under different circumstances full integral socialism could have worked. Malia organizes his book around the major trends of the Soviet experience, while consistently attacking each revisionist claim. He clarifies points, separates utopianism from sober reality, and examines the political and economic costs of socialist policies. Because revisionism views the Marxist ideal sympathetically, Malia's anti-socialism arguments are essentially anti-revisionist.