alicebodnar's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.5
Good info but also obvious capitalist propaganda.
embchess's review against another edition
2.0
A long Wikipedia entry. A missed opportunity to share some of the major facts and major themes.
mimmyjau's review against another edition
2.0
Short book that covers the history of communism in 6-ish parts: 1) Marx and Communism's origination, 2) Lenin, 3) Stalin, 4) Reception of Communism by the West, 5) Communism in other countries (e.g. China, Cuba, Cambodia, among others), and 6) Problems with Communism.
The final chapter was perhaps the most interesting. In it, the author shares his view that Communism failed not because of flawed execution but flawed theory. He rejects the notion that there was ever a period in human history where private property was absent. He also believes that Communism is inherently contradictory because it creates a privileged government class because "to enforce the equality of possessions it is necessary to institutionalize inequality of rights". Lastly, as the government grows and assumes greater responsibilities, it becomes increasingly appealing to careerists for whom power and self-preservation become more important that the party's original goals (as evidenced by the fact that most party loyalists the in former USSR were more eager to benefit from privatization of state-owned assets than they were in saving the party).
While certainly critical of Communism and utopian ideals, it would be a stretch to say (like other reviewers have), that this book was critical of leftist politics broadly. Early in the book, the author was critical of Communists parties for having turning against Labour parties in the early 20th century.
The final chapter was perhaps the most interesting. In it, the author shares his view that Communism failed not because of flawed execution but flawed theory. He rejects the notion that there was ever a period in human history where private property was absent. He also believes that Communism is inherently contradictory because it creates a privileged government class because "to enforce the equality of possessions it is necessary to institutionalize inequality of rights". Lastly, as the government grows and assumes greater responsibilities, it becomes increasingly appealing to careerists for whom power and self-preservation become more important that the party's original goals (as evidenced by the fact that most party loyalists the in former USSR were more eager to benefit from privatization of state-owned assets than they were in saving the party).
While certainly critical of Communism and utopian ideals, it would be a stretch to say (like other reviewers have), that this book was critical of leftist politics broadly. Early in the book, the author was critical of Communists parties for having turning against Labour parties in the early 20th century.
mdentinho's review against another edition
2.0
The author is so biased that from the middle of the book until the end I’ve started to question if any of the things that I didn’t have previous knowledge about were true. From blaming the communist party of the soviet union for the rise of Hitler to power, because it didn’t joined forces with the socialist party, to justifying Pinochet’s bloody dictatorship while complaining about the soviet union totalitarianism. If you’re actually looking for a book about the history of communism, this is not it. This is a collection of cherry-picked facts, 80% of them focused on Stalin. Got 2 stars instead of 1 because some of these facts were interesting (although I may still doubt that all of them are true).
lotusmeristem555's review against another edition
This book was so biased, I couldn't finish reading it and stopped a 3rd of the way into it.
The fact that this was published in 2001 and written by a guy who served the Reagen administration goes to show how biased and irrelevant this book is. The world changed from the 80s, changed a lot.
The condecending dripping sarcasm and childish descriptions of people and events is not professional. Pipes is so rabid to demonize communism and anything remotely non-capitalistic that he insists on ignoring the fact that Lenin and Stalin were Asian warlord dictators, ones of many, and were completely disconnected from the ideology of communism, as Marx saw it.
He's so rabid to demonize the USSR that he claims the reason WW2 occured is because of the USSR and the Germans were just a bit miffed, then got egged on by Stalin.
Ugh.
The fact that this was published in 2001 and written by a guy who served the Reagen administration goes to show how biased and irrelevant this book is. The world changed from the 80s, changed a lot.
The condecending dripping sarcasm and childish descriptions of people and events is not professional. Pipes is so rabid to demonize communism and anything remotely non-capitalistic that he insists on ignoring the fact that Lenin and Stalin were Asian warlord dictators, ones of many, and were completely disconnected from the ideology of communism, as Marx saw it.
He's so rabid to demonize the USSR that he claims the reason WW2 occured is because of the USSR and the Germans were just a bit miffed, then got egged on by Stalin.
Ugh.
alyssawood's review against another edition
2.0
The interpretation and presentation of Marxism was fundamentally inaccurate and it made it hard to appreciate the good within the book.
francomega's review
3.0
An informative overview/review of one of the driving forces of the 20th Century that I realized I did not know about in nearly enough detail. Pipes lays out the rise and fall of the Big C, from idealism to oppression, and examines why it is a flawed concept at its core.
Here's a part I found particularly fitting for our current political climate: "Most...sympathizers were not oblivious to the odious aspects of Communist rule, but they rationalized them in various ways: by blaming extraneous causes, such as the legacy of tsarism and the hostility of the 'capitalist' West." (97)
And then there's this: popular estimates of the global number of Communism's victims is placed between 85 and 100 million. Staggering. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot--all madmen.
Here's a part I found particularly fitting for our current political climate: "Most...sympathizers were not oblivious to the odious aspects of Communist rule, but they rationalized them in various ways: by blaming extraneous causes, such as the legacy of tsarism and the hostility of the 'capitalist' West." (97)
And then there's this: popular estimates of the global number of Communism's victims is placed between 85 and 100 million. Staggering. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot--all madmen.
More...