From Lenin to Malenkov: The History of World Communism

by Late Professor of Russian History School of Slavonic and East European Studies Hugh Seton-Watson

This is a new release of the original 1954 edition.

Genres: History, Politics

394 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1953

Reviews

[Pelaf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite a heavy read, despite its deceptively low number of pages; but the content herein is really eye-opening. One can easily draw parallels between the historical content covered in this book and much of the social outcry that we see today. The author is somewhat opinionated, but it is difficult to refute the point that he did his research on the subjects covered. Overall, I'd say this is a solid, if somewhat dated- study into the ideology as a whole.

[Bubba · Rating 3 out of 5]

The eminent British historian and political scientist Hugh Seton-Watson authored many of the mid-20th century's standard works on Russian and Eastern European history. His comparative analysis of various communist movements across the globe, delves into the social and political situations of countries where communists attempted to seize/successfully seized power. He follows the trajectory of communist revolution from the Marxist-Leninist seizure of power in Russia during the First World War and its consolidation under Lenin; the rise and horrors of Stalinism in the late 20s, 30s and 40s; the birth of the Comintern and popular front in the inter-war period; the communist inspired/directed resistance movements of the war years; the Stalinisation of Eastern Europe in the wake of the Second World War; the rise and triumph of Mao in China; communist triumphs in Korea and Southeast Asia; and the role of Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist thought in the nationalist/anti-colonialist movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America in the early-mid-20th century.

Seton-Watson devotes considerable space to explaining the birth/early struggles of the Soviet Union and its importance to the communist movements that followed. It also focuses on the work of the largest communist parties (at the time of writing in the late 50s)-Russian, Chinese, French and German.

Some of his most insightful analysis explores the differences between the success of communism in Western and Eastern Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries. He notes that Western Europe offered greater political, economic and cultural freedom than was found in the east, and that the Reformation-a quest for individual interpretation of religion-had made westerners more attuned to the role that individualism could play in these fields of endeavor.That is, this individualism inspired greater developments in education which drove political, economic and social development. While workers were sometimes as bad off in the west as in the east, the western intelligentsia had more outlets for their abilities which often made them less revolutionary that their eastern counterparts. Of course, the proletariat also had greater freedom to organize themselves into unions/participate in labor movements in the west. In addition, the states of Eastern Europe tended to be more ethnically and religiously heterogeneous than those in the west, and hence, more prone to ethnic conflict. Incidentally, the conflict between internationalism and nationalism bedeviled various communist movements, particularly in states where the communist party represented the dominant ethnicity more than their minority brethren (Russians vs Jews, Tatars, etc.)

The author also makes some interesting points re "backward" and "advanced" societies. Backward societies tend to have a dearth of urban masses--often the most likely supporters of revolution--and thus require greater peasant support to bring about revolution, though peasants are often of more traditional outlook and ill-disposed to revolutionary movements. He argues that as long as the state machinery is strong in such societies, revolutionary chances for success are poor. In advanced societies, the workers have generally prospered to such a degree that they have lost their revolutionary sentiment. In this case workers only support communism for ideological reasons, i.e. communists support the working-man like trade unions support the working-man. But this doesn't mean the working-man wants to overthrow his government. Oftentimes, communist parties have only supported the "proletariat" which fit their peculiar, narrow, self-concocted definition- bourgeois turned professional revolutionaries like Marx and Lenin could have cared less what the actual workers thought as long as they achieved their political goals.

Writing in the early days of the Cold War, Seton-Watson makes some interesting remarks about events whose future consequences were unknown to him. He feels that the Khruschev's "Virgin Lands Campaign" may have some merit, yet he also foretells some of the disasters of the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" which had only just begun. Seton-Watson, though an academic, also served in British military intelligence during the war, and preaches the liberation of of people oppressed by totalitarian Stalinism. Though he rejected preventative war, he called for patience, armed strength, skillful diplomacy, alleviation of the poverty of the masses and the frustration of the intelligentsia. Sounds like a good formula. In fact, it worked. That and a lot of good capitalist spending...