zhelana's review
I don't know why this book was so difficult to read. I studied Soviet history as a graduate student. I should certainly be capable of reading a book aimed at undergrads on the topic. And yet, I couldn't figure out what the author was talking about at any time. None of the events seemed familiar until I got to the chapter on shock treatment, which was halfway through the book. I have no idea why this book seemed so complicated, but it was well beyond me.
zperrier's review
3.0
I feel "mixed feelings" might be the largest understatement for my opinions on this book.
First off, I strongly dislike the author, Stephen Kotkin, as a conservative historian who recently has been hellbent on describing Russians as helpless, authoritarian-seeking people. Through a podcast conducted by a conservative think tank called the Hoover Institution, Kotkin laid out one of the most hackneyed and eye-rolling arguments on a "new Cold War," and he uses phrases like "cancel culture" to describe treaties being canceled by Russia. Great. With this being said, my expectations for this book was essentially at zero.
Despite all this, the book is honestly not an entirely bad read, and I think Kotkin does a good job framing the Soviet collapse into a larger picture. Starting from the origins of collapse, he looks at stagnation and the dynamics between socialism and capitalism, framed in the context of the 1970s oil crises and beyond. He notes Gorbachev's failures to reform and how those failures are inherently connected to his admiration of Leninism. He discusses how the post-Soviet landscape inherited the Soviet legacy, a fact that both showed deep problems in the new Russia and showcased why many Soviet leaders simply shrugged off the Soviet downfall. Bureaucrats and leaders alike simply refilled in a void left by the Soviet Union and controlled the economy, leaving little to have to be changed. For an American audience, Kotkin does a good job framing the Soviet economy as a giant "Rust Belt." His writing really makes me wonder, as someone living in the American Rust Belt, if industrial collapse here was a good thing in the long run, at least for middle-class America. Overall, an interesting interpretation.
Where the book can lose me is the upholding of liberal capitalism from an entirely first (and to an extent second) world perspective. Sure, capitalism looked more enticing after the postwar boom, yet this was simply capitalism with a human face. This ties back to the "Rust Belt" analogy as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" predicatment. If you're the USSR, trying to keep jobs in industry through the planned economy only hurted you because of no diversification in an ailing economy. If you're the United States, the economy changes from an industrialized economy to a vast field of jobs where people answer emails and talk in meetings, pushing manufacturing out of the country and putting the industrial burden on the Third World. To me, Kotkin kind of understands this, particularly in Gorbachev's willingness to succumb to the West's offers like a baby enticed by keys jingling in their face. Yet, at the end of the day, classical liberalism is not a perspective to Kotkin, but a truth. This politicization is fine, but when capitalism being this great system is central to your argument, reading the book in a post-2008 recession and COVID recession context makes the book's praising of the market in America and elsewhere feel quaint. Granted, Kotkin upholds government intervention, but then implies in chapter seven the problems of Americans who challenge liberal institutions, as if the United States Constitution is some perfect document (it isn't) and the government's systems are too prefectly running to be criticized (they're not).
Long review, but I needed to type this to get out my conflicting feelings for a book that, for the most part, kept my attention (Language choice was a bit off to me. General audience? UNdergrad students? Who uses "willy-nilly" and "assiduously" in the same chapter?). In other words, I made it through the book just fine. Three stars for that.
First off, I strongly dislike the author, Stephen Kotkin, as a conservative historian who recently has been hellbent on describing Russians as helpless, authoritarian-seeking people. Through a podcast conducted by a conservative think tank called the Hoover Institution, Kotkin laid out one of the most hackneyed and eye-rolling arguments on a "new Cold War," and he uses phrases like "cancel culture" to describe treaties being canceled by Russia. Great. With this being said, my expectations for this book was essentially at zero.
Despite all this, the book is honestly not an entirely bad read, and I think Kotkin does a good job framing the Soviet collapse into a larger picture. Starting from the origins of collapse, he looks at stagnation and the dynamics between socialism and capitalism, framed in the context of the 1970s oil crises and beyond. He notes Gorbachev's failures to reform and how those failures are inherently connected to his admiration of Leninism. He discusses how the post-Soviet landscape inherited the Soviet legacy, a fact that both showed deep problems in the new Russia and showcased why many Soviet leaders simply shrugged off the Soviet downfall. Bureaucrats and leaders alike simply refilled in a void left by the Soviet Union and controlled the economy, leaving little to have to be changed. For an American audience, Kotkin does a good job framing the Soviet economy as a giant "Rust Belt." His writing really makes me wonder, as someone living in the American Rust Belt, if industrial collapse here was a good thing in the long run, at least for middle-class America. Overall, an interesting interpretation.
Where the book can lose me is the upholding of liberal capitalism from an entirely first (and to an extent second) world perspective. Sure, capitalism looked more enticing after the postwar boom, yet this was simply capitalism with a human face. This ties back to the "Rust Belt" analogy as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" predicatment. If you're the USSR, trying to keep jobs in industry through the planned economy only hurted you because of no diversification in an ailing economy. If you're the United States, the economy changes from an industrialized economy to a vast field of jobs where people answer emails and talk in meetings, pushing manufacturing out of the country and putting the industrial burden on the Third World. To me, Kotkin kind of understands this, particularly in Gorbachev's willingness to succumb to the West's offers like a baby enticed by keys jingling in their face. Yet, at the end of the day, classical liberalism is not a perspective to Kotkin, but a truth. This politicization is fine, but when capitalism being this great system is central to your argument, reading the book in a post-2008 recession and COVID recession context makes the book's praising of the market in America and elsewhere feel quaint. Granted, Kotkin upholds government intervention, but then implies in chapter seven the problems of Americans who challenge liberal institutions, as if the United States Constitution is some perfect document (it isn't) and the government's systems are too prefectly running to be criticized (they're not).
Long review, but I needed to type this to get out my conflicting feelings for a book that, for the most part, kept my attention (Language choice was a bit off to me. General audience? UNdergrad students? Who uses "willy-nilly" and "assiduously" in the same chapter?). In other words, I made it through the book just fine. Three stars for that.
cheryl6of8's review
3.0
I was concerned that this would either be very dry, very dated, or both, but it was neither. One of the more readable analyses of history that I have read, with a common sense approach to the causes and philosophies that drove the actors. Managed to explain so many of the underlying causes of the collapse of the USSR that are not appreciated when it is cast as Democracy vs. Communism. To some extent, the victory over Hitler led to the eventual fall of Communism, just because of the sheer numbers of the casualties -- well over 23 Million Russians died to achieve the victory -- more than all the other combatants lost in WWII!
This book also helps explain the Russia of today and the machinations and continued successes of Vladimir Putin. To a large extent, the Big Picture ideas mask the true structure of Russian power even from most Russians and lead to the continued entrenchment of megalomania and corruption.
This book also helps explain the Russia of today and the machinations and continued successes of Vladimir Putin. To a large extent, the Big Picture ideas mask the true structure of Russian power even from most Russians and lead to the continued entrenchment of megalomania and corruption.
cdbauer1's review
4.0
Many of the economic discussions went over my head but I found the personalities and politics - and the minimal role of the USA in actually bringing about the collapse of the USSR contrary to popular American mythology - positively fascinating.
cbitzinger1's review
4.0
An intriguing analysis of the Soviet collapse that essentially argues Gorbachev inherited an unsalvageable political model instead of directly condemning socialism or idealism.
More...