What do you think?
Rate this book
Stalin #1
Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928
A magnificent new biography that revolutionizes our understanding of Stalin and his world
It has the quality of myth: A poor cobbler’s son, a seminarian from an oppressed outer province of the Russian empire, reinvents himself as a revolutionary and finds a leadership role within a small group of marginal zealots. When the old world is unexpectedly brought down in a total war, the band seizes control of the country, and the new regime it founds as the vanguard of a new world order is ruthlessly dominated from within by the former seminarian until he stands as the absolute ruler of a vast and terrible state apparatus, with dominion over Eurasia. But the largest country in the world is also a poor and backward one, far behind the great capitalist countries in industrial and military power, encircled on all sides. Shortly after seizing total power, Stalin conceives of the largest program of social reengineering ever attempted: the root-and-branch uprooting and collectivization of agriculture and industry across the entire Soviet Union. To stand up to the capitalists he will force into being an industrialized, militarized, collectivized great power is an act of will. Millions will die, and many more will suffer, but Stalin will push through to the end against all resistance and doubts. Where did such power come from? We think we know the story well. Remarkably, Stephen Kotkin’s epic new biography shows us how much we still have to learn.
The product of a decade of scrupulous and intrepid research, Stalin contains a host of astonishing revelations. Kotkin gives an intimate first-ever view of the Bolshevik regime’s inner geography, bringing to the fore materials from Soviet military intelligence and the secret police. He details Stalin’s invention of a fabricated trial and mass executions as early as 1918, the technique he would later impose across the whole country. The book places Stalin’s momentous decision for collectivization more deeply than ever in the tragic history of imperial Russia. Above all, Kotkin offers a convincing portrait and explanation of Stalin’s monstrous power and of Russian power in the world. Stalin restores a sense of surprise to the way we think about the former Soviet Union, revolution, dictatorship, the twentieth century, and indeed the art of history itself.
It has the quality of myth: A poor cobbler’s son, a seminarian from an oppressed outer province of the Russian empire, reinvents himself as a revolutionary and finds a leadership role within a small group of marginal zealots. When the old world is unexpectedly brought down in a total war, the band seizes control of the country, and the new regime it founds as the vanguard of a new world order is ruthlessly dominated from within by the former seminarian until he stands as the absolute ruler of a vast and terrible state apparatus, with dominion over Eurasia. But the largest country in the world is also a poor and backward one, far behind the great capitalist countries in industrial and military power, encircled on all sides. Shortly after seizing total power, Stalin conceives of the largest program of social reengineering ever attempted: the root-and-branch uprooting and collectivization of agriculture and industry across the entire Soviet Union. To stand up to the capitalists he will force into being an industrialized, militarized, collectivized great power is an act of will. Millions will die, and many more will suffer, but Stalin will push through to the end against all resistance and doubts. Where did such power come from? We think we know the story well. Remarkably, Stephen Kotkin’s epic new biography shows us how much we still have to learn.
The product of a decade of scrupulous and intrepid research, Stalin contains a host of astonishing revelations. Kotkin gives an intimate first-ever view of the Bolshevik regime’s inner geography, bringing to the fore materials from Soviet military intelligence and the secret police. He details Stalin’s invention of a fabricated trial and mass executions as early as 1918, the technique he would later impose across the whole country. The book places Stalin’s momentous decision for collectivization more deeply than ever in the tragic history of imperial Russia. Above all, Kotkin offers a convincing portrait and explanation of Stalin’s monstrous power and of Russian power in the world. Stalin restores a sense of surprise to the way we think about the former Soviet Union, revolution, dictatorship, the twentieth century, and indeed the art of history itself.
976 pages, Hardcover
Published November 6, 2014
About the author
Stephen Kotkin
39 books621 followersStephen Mark Kotkin is an American historian, academic, and author. He is the Kleinheinz Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. For 33 years, Kotkin taught at Princeton University, where he attained the title of John P. Birkelund '52 Professor in History and International Affairs, and he took emeritus status from Princeton University in 2022. He was the director of the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies and the co-director of the certificate program in History and the Practice of Diplomacy. He has won a number of awards and fellowships, including the Guggenheim Fellowship, the American Council of Learned Societies and the National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship. He is the husband of curator and art historian Soyoung Lee.
Kotkin's most prominent book project is his three-volume biography of Joseph Stalin, of which the first two volumes have been published as Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (2014) and Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941 (2017), while the third volume remains to be published.
Kotkin's most prominent book project is his three-volume biography of Joseph Stalin, of which the first two volumes have been published as Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (2014) and Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941 (2017), while the third volume remains to be published.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 290 reviews
April 28, 2019
Closed and gregarious, vindictive and solicitous, Stalin shatters any attempt to contain him within binaries. He was by inclination a despot who, when he wanted to be, was utterly charming. He was an ideologue who was flexibly pragmatic. He fastened obsessively on slights yet he was a precocious geostrategic thinker…who was, however, prone to egregious strategic blunders. Stalin was as a ruler both astute and blinkered, diligent and self-defeating, cynical and true believing. The cold calculation and the flights of absurd delusion were products of a single mind.
- Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power
Whew! Finishing this felt like an accomplishment.
Russia is big, in every way. In her landmass, her characters, her tragedies, and her books. Stephen Kotkin’s Stalin has the ambition to match such a land of excess and extremes. At 739 pages of text (and 120 pages of triple-columned notes in itty-bitty font), this isn’t the longest book I’ve tackled. It is far shorter, indeed, than War and Peace. But this one felt long. It is information dense. And since it is only the first in a proposed three-volume life of Iosif Jughashvili, a.k.a. Stalin, it is detailed.
Russian history is fascinating to me, but I’m a rank amateur. I’ve read a book on Peter the Great, a book on Catherine the Great, and maybe a half-dozen or so titles about the Romanovs in general, and Nicholas II in particular. Frankly, I’ve never read a thing about Russian history following the Russian Revolution in 1917. In a way, grabbing Stalin is a bit like heading for Everest (29,092 feet, the apex of the world) after taking a single practice hike up Hawkeye Point (1,670 feet, the apex of Iowa). But go big or go home, right?
It is a testament to Kotkin’s abilities as a writer that I not only didn't give up, but finished with a twinge of expectation for Volume II.
Kotkin begins his opus with Stalin’s childhood in Georgia, a backwater of the Russian Empire. He was a poor cobbler’s son, who attended a seminary in Tiflis, and even worked for a time as a meteorologist. He also became a devotee of Marx and Engels, and was drawn into the revolutionary orbit. He held secret meetings, arranged strikes, and was arrested and given a free trip to Siberia.
One of the interesting things about the early going is how seldom Stalin is actually in it. For long sections, Kotkin spends far more time on the larger events going on around Stalin, than in following his step-by-step journey. Though he doesn’t come straight out and say it, I wonder if this isn’t a result of their being a dearth of dependable primary sources about this portion of Stalin’s life.
To fill in these gaps, Kotkin spins the larger story of Russia's plunge into World War I, the last days of the Tsar, and the Russian Revolution. (No matter how much I read about the fall of the Romanovs, it never gets old). He does this very well. Tolstoy digressed at length in War and Peace about the role of individuals in history. Kotkin has picked up on this tension, and ably balances the large, uncontrollable forces at play, with the importance of individual action and agency within this environment. In short, Lenin and Stalin did not create the conditions of revolution, but once revolution came, they certainly shaped it to their ends, and in doing so, shaped the arc of history.
Once the Russian Revolution ended in Civil War, and once the Bolsheviks seized absolute power for themselves, there were times when I got a bit lost. Kotkin does not skimp on details, and though he is an accessible writer, he is not a hand-holder. There were more than a few times I found myself out of my league, especially when Kotkin is describing the endless infighting among Bolsheviks. There are a lot of characters passing in and out, and they all speak in the slogan-ridden lexicon of Communism that is hard for outsiders to interpret.
I never despaired, though, because the characters here are so titanic. Lenin, Trotsky, and of course, the General Secretary himself, Stalin. Kotkin is meticulous in describing Stalin’s assent to the heights of power, and what he did to protect and expand his burgeoning personal dictatorship.
Kotkin rigidly rejects any attempts to romanticize or mythologize Stalin. He also disagrees with the notion that Stalin was some kind of power-hungry chameleon, willing to take any position simply to advance. To the contrary, the Stalin here is a committed Leninist, and like Lenin, willing to reach that goal through pragmatism, if not ideological purity.
Like I said, this is my first dive into the realm of Soviet biographies. In gathering other titles to read, on Trotsky and Lenin and the like, I have definitely noted the passion that still exists about these men and their cause. There are still a lot of Communist apologists for whom a certain historical interpretation is required to sustain their beliefs. I can’t really comment on that. Well, I could, but I would be talking completely out of my…my ignorance. Whether or not Kotkin’s is a consensus or revisionary portrait is beyond my current knowledge.
However, I can say with conviction that Kotkin made Stalin real for me. He is an intimidating figure, a mass murderer who lacks the simplistic, annihilationist instinct of Adolf Hitler. Perhaps that’s why I’ve avoided reading about him for so long.
Early on, Kotkin caught my attention by delivering this doozy of a sentence: “The young Stalin had a penis, and he used it.” In context or out, this is a great line.
Contextually, Kotkin was criticizing the cocksman’s image of Stalin as swashbuckling bandit and lover. In a larger sense, though, it stands for this point: that Stalin, for all his inhumanity, was human. He had a penis, among other appendages. He was monstrous but not, unfortunately, a monster.
- Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power
Whew! Finishing this felt like an accomplishment.
Russia is big, in every way. In her landmass, her characters, her tragedies, and her books. Stephen Kotkin’s Stalin has the ambition to match such a land of excess and extremes. At 739 pages of text (and 120 pages of triple-columned notes in itty-bitty font), this isn’t the longest book I’ve tackled. It is far shorter, indeed, than War and Peace. But this one felt long. It is information dense. And since it is only the first in a proposed three-volume life of Iosif Jughashvili, a.k.a. Stalin, it is detailed.
Russian history is fascinating to me, but I’m a rank amateur. I’ve read a book on Peter the Great, a book on Catherine the Great, and maybe a half-dozen or so titles about the Romanovs in general, and Nicholas II in particular. Frankly, I’ve never read a thing about Russian history following the Russian Revolution in 1917. In a way, grabbing Stalin is a bit like heading for Everest (29,092 feet, the apex of the world) after taking a single practice hike up Hawkeye Point (1,670 feet, the apex of Iowa). But go big or go home, right?
It is a testament to Kotkin’s abilities as a writer that I not only didn't give up, but finished with a twinge of expectation for Volume II.
Kotkin begins his opus with Stalin’s childhood in Georgia, a backwater of the Russian Empire. He was a poor cobbler’s son, who attended a seminary in Tiflis, and even worked for a time as a meteorologist. He also became a devotee of Marx and Engels, and was drawn into the revolutionary orbit. He held secret meetings, arranged strikes, and was arrested and given a free trip to Siberia.
One of the interesting things about the early going is how seldom Stalin is actually in it. For long sections, Kotkin spends far more time on the larger events going on around Stalin, than in following his step-by-step journey. Though he doesn’t come straight out and say it, I wonder if this isn’t a result of their being a dearth of dependable primary sources about this portion of Stalin’s life.
To fill in these gaps, Kotkin spins the larger story of Russia's plunge into World War I, the last days of the Tsar, and the Russian Revolution. (No matter how much I read about the fall of the Romanovs, it never gets old). He does this very well. Tolstoy digressed at length in War and Peace about the role of individuals in history. Kotkin has picked up on this tension, and ably balances the large, uncontrollable forces at play, with the importance of individual action and agency within this environment. In short, Lenin and Stalin did not create the conditions of revolution, but once revolution came, they certainly shaped it to their ends, and in doing so, shaped the arc of history.
Once the Russian Revolution ended in Civil War, and once the Bolsheviks seized absolute power for themselves, there were times when I got a bit lost. Kotkin does not skimp on details, and though he is an accessible writer, he is not a hand-holder. There were more than a few times I found myself out of my league, especially when Kotkin is describing the endless infighting among Bolsheviks. There are a lot of characters passing in and out, and they all speak in the slogan-ridden lexicon of Communism that is hard for outsiders to interpret.
I never despaired, though, because the characters here are so titanic. Lenin, Trotsky, and of course, the General Secretary himself, Stalin. Kotkin is meticulous in describing Stalin’s assent to the heights of power, and what he did to protect and expand his burgeoning personal dictatorship.
Kotkin rigidly rejects any attempts to romanticize or mythologize Stalin. He also disagrees with the notion that Stalin was some kind of power-hungry chameleon, willing to take any position simply to advance. To the contrary, the Stalin here is a committed Leninist, and like Lenin, willing to reach that goal through pragmatism, if not ideological purity.
Utterly, eternally wrong, Stalin made history, rearranging the entire socioeconomic landscape of one sixth of the earth. Right through mass rebellion, mass starvation, cannibalism, the destruction of the country’s livestock, and unprecedented political destabilization, Stalin did not flinch. Feints in the form of tactical retreats notwithstanding, he would keep going even when told to his face by officials in the inner regime that a catastrophe was unfolding – full speed ahead to socialism. This required extraordinary maneuvering, browbeating, and violence on his part. It also required deep conviction that it had to be done. Stalin was uncommonly skillful in building an awesome personal dictatorship, but also a bungler, getting fascism wrong, stumbling in foreign policy. But he had will.
Like I said, this is my first dive into the realm of Soviet biographies. In gathering other titles to read, on Trotsky and Lenin and the like, I have definitely noted the passion that still exists about these men and their cause. There are still a lot of Communist apologists for whom a certain historical interpretation is required to sustain their beliefs. I can’t really comment on that. Well, I could, but I would be talking completely out of my…my ignorance. Whether or not Kotkin’s is a consensus or revisionary portrait is beyond my current knowledge.
However, I can say with conviction that Kotkin made Stalin real for me. He is an intimidating figure, a mass murderer who lacks the simplistic, annihilationist instinct of Adolf Hitler. Perhaps that’s why I’ve avoided reading about him for so long.
Early on, Kotkin caught my attention by delivering this doozy of a sentence: “The young Stalin had a penis, and he used it.” In context or out, this is a great line.
Contextually, Kotkin was criticizing the cocksman’s image of Stalin as swashbuckling bandit and lover. In a larger sense, though, it stands for this point: that Stalin, for all his inhumanity, was human. He had a penis, among other appendages. He was monstrous but not, unfortunately, a monster.
May 10, 2020
This book is long.
Endlessly long man.
It’s LONG!!!
Oh fuck is it long.
It’s like, WAY more than I needed to know about Stalin.
And it’s a two volume tome.
And volume II is LONGER than volume I.
And volume I leaves off right when he starts killing people.
So you definitely have to keep going.
And it’s FUCKING good.
Really fucking good.
But damn!
I’m going to have a virtual masters degree in Stalinology after I complete his read.
And I don’t want one.
I honestly have no Idea what to do with all this Stalin.
But I’m in.
So bring on the next one I guess.
😐
Endlessly long man.
It’s LONG!!!
Oh fuck is it long.
It’s like, WAY more than I needed to know about Stalin.
And it’s a two volume tome.
And volume II is LONGER than volume I.
And volume I leaves off right when he starts killing people.
So you definitely have to keep going.
And it’s FUCKING good.
Really fucking good.
But damn!
I’m going to have a virtual masters degree in Stalinology after I complete his read.
And I don’t want one.
I honestly have no Idea what to do with all this Stalin.
But I’m in.
So bring on the next one I guess.
😐
November 3, 2019
UPDATE
YouTube strikes again! I found a talk by Stephen Kotkin about Stalin and it was pretty good. Then I found another, where he was launching this very book at a store in Washington. So there he is standing amongst the bookshelves and a small group hanging around, and this informal talk is BRILLIANT and if you're interested in Stalin it's a must watch. He extemporises for an hour. He explains so many of the Big Issues about Uncle Joe. I love the guy's style and his sense of humour when he's TALKING, I admit to not loving his writing style half as much, and he doesn't allow himself any jokes in the book.
So this is a five star talk on Stalin and for my money a lot more informative than the first 300 pages of the book, I'm sure he'd hate me for saying that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFcb5...
**************
A REVIEW OF THE FIRST 300 PAGES
This is a brontosaurus – no, a brachiosaurus of a book. I have another 450 pages to go. Time to pause and make a few notes.
SPARE A THOUGHT FOR THE FEEBLER READER
The paperback of this 949 page book (of which 210 pages are notes and index) is quite heavy. Because of its size the printers have thoughtfully made the spine superstrong with a double layer of excellent glue so that it does not fall apart. Unfortunately this means you have to grip the book firmly with both hands to stop it snapping shut all the time. You would have to be King Kong to bend it open to the point where it would stay open. So this poses a challenge. I have tried balancing heavy weights on each page to keep it open in order to free my hands for other tasks but the book is too strong, one or another of the weighty objects was always catapulted into mid air, causing domestic chaos wherever it fell. So I must report that feebler readers will have to find a different, kinder Stalin biographer. This one will be too much for you.
SPARE A THOUGHT FOR THE READER WHO HAS NO MAGNIFYING GLASS
Second, because of its vast size, the printers have been forced to shrink the print to a particularly teensy size. If it was printed normally God alone knows how many pages long it would be. You would need a wheelbarrow to move it. And should you be a real Stalin freak and you wish to consult the 200 pages of notes at the back, you will need a microscope, they are printed in the type they use to get all the Bible onto the back of a postage stamp.
SURPRISE! IT’S NOT ABOUT STALIN
This surprised me, too. I was constantly checking the cover, which says STALIN on it and has a photo of the dashingly handsome not-yet-dictator. But the details of Stalin’s life are really rather murky until he suddenly steps forth from the shadows into the full glare of history after 1918. So the first 300 pages of this book get by very well with only brief mentions of Stalin. Maybe he did this here, maybe he went there, could be he got married and had a kid, not too sure. That kind of thing.
Instead of stuff about Stalin we get a fantastically detailed history of the Russian revolution. For the last 100 pages this book really could have been called LENIN with more justification. It’s actually a little too geekily detailed for me, but I realise it is excellent stuff.
IT’S ALWAYS THE STRANGE LITTLE DETAILS YOU REMEMBER
Stephen Kotkin allows himself to throw in a few barbed comments and humorous asides every now and then, and these are very welcome, there should have been more. But he lets some rather crazy stuff pass by without comment, like this bit here. He is describing the non-judicial execution of the family of the ex-czar Nicholas. Included in those up against the wall were Nicholas’s four daughters.
Some of the daughters, whose bodies held concealed jewels that repelled the bullets, were bayoneted to pieces.
I find that a very bizarre statement which calls for more explanation. How big does a jewel have to be before it can literally repel bullets? And where do you conceal these jewels? Seems that if they were well placed to repel bullets (front and centre maybe, or right across your forehead) they wouldn’t really be concealed. So even in such a huge book as this (which only takes Stalin up to the year 1928) there are a few things that don’t get explained.
YouTube strikes again! I found a talk by Stephen Kotkin about Stalin and it was pretty good. Then I found another, where he was launching this very book at a store in Washington. So there he is standing amongst the bookshelves and a small group hanging around, and this informal talk is BRILLIANT and if you're interested in Stalin it's a must watch. He extemporises for an hour. He explains so many of the Big Issues about Uncle Joe. I love the guy's style and his sense of humour when he's TALKING, I admit to not loving his writing style half as much, and he doesn't allow himself any jokes in the book.
So this is a five star talk on Stalin and for my money a lot more informative than the first 300 pages of the book, I'm sure he'd hate me for saying that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFcb5...
**************
A REVIEW OF THE FIRST 300 PAGES
This is a brontosaurus – no, a brachiosaurus of a book. I have another 450 pages to go. Time to pause and make a few notes.
SPARE A THOUGHT FOR THE FEEBLER READER
The paperback of this 949 page book (of which 210 pages are notes and index) is quite heavy. Because of its size the printers have thoughtfully made the spine superstrong with a double layer of excellent glue so that it does not fall apart. Unfortunately this means you have to grip the book firmly with both hands to stop it snapping shut all the time. You would have to be King Kong to bend it open to the point where it would stay open. So this poses a challenge. I have tried balancing heavy weights on each page to keep it open in order to free my hands for other tasks but the book is too strong, one or another of the weighty objects was always catapulted into mid air, causing domestic chaos wherever it fell. So I must report that feebler readers will have to find a different, kinder Stalin biographer. This one will be too much for you.
SPARE A THOUGHT FOR THE READER WHO HAS NO MAGNIFYING GLASS
Second, because of its vast size, the printers have been forced to shrink the print to a particularly teensy size. If it was printed normally God alone knows how many pages long it would be. You would need a wheelbarrow to move it. And should you be a real Stalin freak and you wish to consult the 200 pages of notes at the back, you will need a microscope, they are printed in the type they use to get all the Bible onto the back of a postage stamp.
SURPRISE! IT’S NOT ABOUT STALIN
This surprised me, too. I was constantly checking the cover, which says STALIN on it and has a photo of the dashingly handsome not-yet-dictator. But the details of Stalin’s life are really rather murky until he suddenly steps forth from the shadows into the full glare of history after 1918. So the first 300 pages of this book get by very well with only brief mentions of Stalin. Maybe he did this here, maybe he went there, could be he got married and had a kid, not too sure. That kind of thing.
Instead of stuff about Stalin we get a fantastically detailed history of the Russian revolution. For the last 100 pages this book really could have been called LENIN with more justification. It’s actually a little too geekily detailed for me, but I realise it is excellent stuff.
IT’S ALWAYS THE STRANGE LITTLE DETAILS YOU REMEMBER
Stephen Kotkin allows himself to throw in a few barbed comments and humorous asides every now and then, and these are very welcome, there should have been more. But he lets some rather crazy stuff pass by without comment, like this bit here. He is describing the non-judicial execution of the family of the ex-czar Nicholas. Included in those up against the wall were Nicholas’s four daughters.
Some of the daughters, whose bodies held concealed jewels that repelled the bullets, were bayoneted to pieces.
I find that a very bizarre statement which calls for more explanation. How big does a jewel have to be before it can literally repel bullets? And where do you conceal these jewels? Seems that if they were well placed to repel bullets (front and centre maybe, or right across your forehead) they wouldn’t really be concealed. So even in such a huge book as this (which only takes Stalin up to the year 1928) there are a few things that don’t get explained.
April 27, 2015
I do not follow debates among academic/"professional" historians. Nonetheless I suspect that the first volume of Kotkin's biography of Stalin must be generating a torrent of comment among specialists who care about such topics.
It seems to me that in volume one Kotkin has already managed to demolish Robert Tucker's biography altogether - as well as the biographical narratives of scores of others, whom I designate "name-callers," liberals and right-wingers only too eager to abandon historical analysis in order to furnish the materials of Cold War propaganda. I have long thought that the world doesn't need another biographer of Stalin who believes that he has exhausted the subject through seemingly endless (and ultimately boring) iterations of such words as monster, monstrous, fiend, fiendish, ghoul, sociopath, psychopath, etc., etc. None of this sanctimonious outrage illuminates Stalin's project nor his historical significance. None of this foaming-at-the-mouth answers the So-What question.
My impression is that Kotkin seeks to establish a new framework for the biographical/historical analysis of Stalin and his life's work, now that the Cold War has receded sufficiently into the past - maybe - to allow "revision" to proceed. Kotkin's framework includes three categories: Stalin as state-builder, Stalin as modernizer, Stalin as strategist/leader, who seeks to preserve the Revolution (above all), the USSR and to enhance Soviet power in an altogether hostile geopolitical environment.
It is also notable, and indicative of his intentions, that Kotkin's volume is immense. It contains 739 pages of text (printed in rather small font) and 175 pages of scholarly apparatus (in even smaller font). He is, in fact, starting all over again by giving us a "square one" biography - a point of departure for all related biographical projects in the future.
I find this approach appealing and indispensable. One result is that we have several hundred pages of historical narrative in which Stalin appears not at all or appears as a negligible actor at the fringes of everything. And then ever so gradually Kotkin shows us Stalin's relentless accumulation of power and prominence - through agencies and offices that others, especially Lenin, created specifically for Stalin. Stalin did not seize power. He used the means handed to him/thrust upon him very effectively. His assent to personal dictatorship was a result of twenty years' unremitting drudgery, and Kotkin tells us about every event and milestone in Stalin's promotion from non-entity to Leader. And he assesses these events and milestone by applying one element or another of his analytical framework - and in this way he gives us an account that merits serious consideration as the product of rigorous and systematic thought.
Unfortunately - when, to my mind, it mattered most, Kotkin abandons his framework and thereby betrays his project.
The last two chapters of volume one deal with Stalin's very first effort to "build socialism" in the USSR - the decision to collectivize agriculture - once he had sufficient (and nearly undisputed) power within the party apparatus and Soviet government to decide and to implement his decisions. But rather than to interpret these pivotal events of central importance in 20th century history from the perspective of his analytical framework, in a chapter entitled "If Stalin Had Died" Kotkins gives us such stuff as: "The Soviet Union, like imperial Russia, faced an imperative to modernize in order to survive in the brutally unsentimental international order, but market systems have been shown to be fully compatible with fast-paced industrialization, including peasant countries. Forced wholesale collectivization only seemed necessary within the straitjacket of Communist ideology and its repudiation of capitalism." (p. 725) And on and on.
So much to notice, but I will make two points.
Counter-factual speculations do not constitute historical analysis worth reading. Stalin died in 1953 - if I remember correctly. He did not die in 1928, so I see no point in retailing that shop-worn and tiresome nonsense in answer to a question that has no answer: Was Stalin Necessary? The last resort of the name-callers.
Notice how Kotkin's language changes in the passage I quoted: "market systems have been shown ..." The passive voice - a dead giveaway, as if "market systems" animate themselves, are independent actors, which they most decidedly are not.
"The straitjacket of Communist ideology." Straightjacket? There we are: Stalin as obsessive sociopath, psychopath. But the fact is that Bolsheviks/Lenin led the Russian Revolution of (November) 1917. Lenin did not find bourgeois liberalism persuasive. Nor did he admire the achievements of capitalism and the societies that expressed relations of capitalist production and markets. For real. Stalin was a disciple of Lenin. Therefore he did not/could not act from any other perspective. One may as well regret that the transmigration of souls did not enable Woodrow Wilson to take possession of Stalin in 1928.
I am extremely disappointed. But there's still volume 2 and 3, one hopes. And in vol. 2 I would love to read a sensible analysis of Stalin's decisions of 1928 that includes a discussion of Stalin's understanding of the state of geopolitical conditions at the time the Decider decided. Stalin seems to have feared that world war loomed, given the war scare of 1827-1928, and that the Red Army was not ready in any way to defend the USSR in war on any scale, that the continuing existence of the USSR, and more importantly, of the Revolution, was at stake in the results of his decision-making. I suspect that he understood that national survival and the survival of the Revolution (considered in a global geopolitical context) absolutely demanded that debate end, that the complete transformation of Soviet society and the Soviet economy proceed at whatever pace - and cost - this transformation required.
One final comment - Kotkin's framework is perilously similar to the categories that Soviet historians have applied and, for all I know, that Russian historians apply now in considering Stalin's regime. And even if their approach is correct - or at least defensible - I wonder if Kotkin has the will and the stamina to endure all the name-calling that most certainly will ensue once Western academics - and the folks a Fox News - smell blood.
Does Kotkin possess even a twinge of Stalin's strength of conviction?
It seems to me that in volume one Kotkin has already managed to demolish Robert Tucker's biography altogether - as well as the biographical narratives of scores of others, whom I designate "name-callers," liberals and right-wingers only too eager to abandon historical analysis in order to furnish the materials of Cold War propaganda. I have long thought that the world doesn't need another biographer of Stalin who believes that he has exhausted the subject through seemingly endless (and ultimately boring) iterations of such words as monster, monstrous, fiend, fiendish, ghoul, sociopath, psychopath, etc., etc. None of this sanctimonious outrage illuminates Stalin's project nor his historical significance. None of this foaming-at-the-mouth answers the So-What question.
My impression is that Kotkin seeks to establish a new framework for the biographical/historical analysis of Stalin and his life's work, now that the Cold War has receded sufficiently into the past - maybe - to allow "revision" to proceed. Kotkin's framework includes three categories: Stalin as state-builder, Stalin as modernizer, Stalin as strategist/leader, who seeks to preserve the Revolution (above all), the USSR and to enhance Soviet power in an altogether hostile geopolitical environment.
It is also notable, and indicative of his intentions, that Kotkin's volume is immense. It contains 739 pages of text (printed in rather small font) and 175 pages of scholarly apparatus (in even smaller font). He is, in fact, starting all over again by giving us a "square one" biography - a point of departure for all related biographical projects in the future.
I find this approach appealing and indispensable. One result is that we have several hundred pages of historical narrative in which Stalin appears not at all or appears as a negligible actor at the fringes of everything. And then ever so gradually Kotkin shows us Stalin's relentless accumulation of power and prominence - through agencies and offices that others, especially Lenin, created specifically for Stalin. Stalin did not seize power. He used the means handed to him/thrust upon him very effectively. His assent to personal dictatorship was a result of twenty years' unremitting drudgery, and Kotkin tells us about every event and milestone in Stalin's promotion from non-entity to Leader. And he assesses these events and milestone by applying one element or another of his analytical framework - and in this way he gives us an account that merits serious consideration as the product of rigorous and systematic thought.
Unfortunately - when, to my mind, it mattered most, Kotkin abandons his framework and thereby betrays his project.
The last two chapters of volume one deal with Stalin's very first effort to "build socialism" in the USSR - the decision to collectivize agriculture - once he had sufficient (and nearly undisputed) power within the party apparatus and Soviet government to decide and to implement his decisions. But rather than to interpret these pivotal events of central importance in 20th century history from the perspective of his analytical framework, in a chapter entitled "If Stalin Had Died" Kotkins gives us such stuff as: "The Soviet Union, like imperial Russia, faced an imperative to modernize in order to survive in the brutally unsentimental international order, but market systems have been shown to be fully compatible with fast-paced industrialization, including peasant countries. Forced wholesale collectivization only seemed necessary within the straitjacket of Communist ideology and its repudiation of capitalism." (p. 725) And on and on.
So much to notice, but I will make two points.
Counter-factual speculations do not constitute historical analysis worth reading. Stalin died in 1953 - if I remember correctly. He did not die in 1928, so I see no point in retailing that shop-worn and tiresome nonsense in answer to a question that has no answer: Was Stalin Necessary? The last resort of the name-callers.
Notice how Kotkin's language changes in the passage I quoted: "market systems have been shown ..." The passive voice - a dead giveaway, as if "market systems" animate themselves, are independent actors, which they most decidedly are not.
"The straitjacket of Communist ideology." Straightjacket? There we are: Stalin as obsessive sociopath, psychopath. But the fact is that Bolsheviks/Lenin led the Russian Revolution of (November) 1917. Lenin did not find bourgeois liberalism persuasive. Nor did he admire the achievements of capitalism and the societies that expressed relations of capitalist production and markets. For real. Stalin was a disciple of Lenin. Therefore he did not/could not act from any other perspective. One may as well regret that the transmigration of souls did not enable Woodrow Wilson to take possession of Stalin in 1928.
I am extremely disappointed. But there's still volume 2 and 3, one hopes. And in vol. 2 I would love to read a sensible analysis of Stalin's decisions of 1928 that includes a discussion of Stalin's understanding of the state of geopolitical conditions at the time the Decider decided. Stalin seems to have feared that world war loomed, given the war scare of 1827-1928, and that the Red Army was not ready in any way to defend the USSR in war on any scale, that the continuing existence of the USSR, and more importantly, of the Revolution, was at stake in the results of his decision-making. I suspect that he understood that national survival and the survival of the Revolution (considered in a global geopolitical context) absolutely demanded that debate end, that the complete transformation of Soviet society and the Soviet economy proceed at whatever pace - and cost - this transformation required.
One final comment - Kotkin's framework is perilously similar to the categories that Soviet historians have applied and, for all I know, that Russian historians apply now in considering Stalin's regime. And even if their approach is correct - or at least defensible - I wonder if Kotkin has the will and the stamina to endure all the name-calling that most certainly will ensue once Western academics - and the folks a Fox News - smell blood.
Does Kotkin possess even a twinge of Stalin's strength of conviction?
April 14, 2023
Paradoxes of a Monster.
This book is long, it is heavy, but it is also brilliant. Stephen Kotkin’s Paradoxes of Power is the first volume of a three part biography of Joseph Stalin (aka Ioseb dze Jughashvili). The second being Waiting for Hitler and the third, not yet released.
Kotkin’s thesis is that Stalin was not an insane bloodthirsty monster, who was the product of his upbringing (beaten by his father, difficult relationship with his mother etc), but was one of those individuals in history who come along only so rarely. He also argues that in order to understand Stalin, you have to understand the world he was born into and grew up in. That’s why the book starts with Prince Otto von Bismarck’s unification of Germany and is broader than just following the exploits of Stalin. After reading this book I have to agree with Kotkin and completely understand the need for this. This the the ultimately biography and I feel you wouldn’t need another.
Stalin’s rise and accumulation of power reaches a truly transcendent level. He is one of few people in history who have actually influenced history (for better or worse depending on your political leaning), who had pure natural talent to sustain life at the top of the greasy pole. He enjoyed reading party pamphlets, meeting minutes and political dictations, he had a fervour for creating what Kotkin calls a ‘dictatorship within a dictatorship’. How he did this is truly amazing, pulling off the wings of political opponents, removing internal and external rivals, the ability to prosecute innocent people to strengthen his position and creating an atmosphere and distrust. Stalin held loyalists around him and then had others who hated them, what them and report back to him. As Kotkin states, this truly was a work of art.
In spite of this, this is by no means praise of one humanity’s most evil products. The study is balanced and shows how he had no personal friends, was a terrible husband and father and had a complete disregard for human life. However, as Kotkin shows he truly believed in Marxism and Communism and would stop at nothing to see it through. This is why against all the evidence he pushed through collectivisation and the persecution of the Kulaks and when people began to die in their millions he stuck at it. He wrongly assumed there was no other way to drive forward Russia (by then the USSR) to catch up with the West. No one could have done this but Stalin. A man who was a vindictive despot who could be charming when he wanted to be, was the ultimate ideologue who forced Trotsky out on his left-opposition and then adopted it, was a great strategic thinker who made a huge amount of mistakes. He had great ability but was uneducated, had poor military prowess and needed some luck.
It is strange to read a book about someone so horrific, where the annals of history can condemn then for all eternity. However, I truly enjoyed it. Like reading Sir Ian Kershaw’s Hitler, I have found this topic (if not this exact book) essential reading for the historian and non-historian alike. The true nature of the indefensible is there and anyone trying to defend or apologise for these two do not know the facts. The book is heavy and part of a three part series (this being 739 pages alone!) so it may not be for everyone. As for me, Volume II is ordered.
This book is long, it is heavy, but it is also brilliant. Stephen Kotkin’s Paradoxes of Power is the first volume of a three part biography of Joseph Stalin (aka Ioseb dze Jughashvili). The second being Waiting for Hitler and the third, not yet released.
Kotkin’s thesis is that Stalin was not an insane bloodthirsty monster, who was the product of his upbringing (beaten by his father, difficult relationship with his mother etc), but was one of those individuals in history who come along only so rarely. He also argues that in order to understand Stalin, you have to understand the world he was born into and grew up in. That’s why the book starts with Prince Otto von Bismarck’s unification of Germany and is broader than just following the exploits of Stalin. After reading this book I have to agree with Kotkin and completely understand the need for this. This the the ultimately biography and I feel you wouldn’t need another.
Stalin’s rise and accumulation of power reaches a truly transcendent level. He is one of few people in history who have actually influenced history (for better or worse depending on your political leaning), who had pure natural talent to sustain life at the top of the greasy pole. He enjoyed reading party pamphlets, meeting minutes and political dictations, he had a fervour for creating what Kotkin calls a ‘dictatorship within a dictatorship’. How he did this is truly amazing, pulling off the wings of political opponents, removing internal and external rivals, the ability to prosecute innocent people to strengthen his position and creating an atmosphere and distrust. Stalin held loyalists around him and then had others who hated them, what them and report back to him. As Kotkin states, this truly was a work of art.
In spite of this, this is by no means praise of one humanity’s most evil products. The study is balanced and shows how he had no personal friends, was a terrible husband and father and had a complete disregard for human life. However, as Kotkin shows he truly believed in Marxism and Communism and would stop at nothing to see it through. This is why against all the evidence he pushed through collectivisation and the persecution of the Kulaks and when people began to die in their millions he stuck at it. He wrongly assumed there was no other way to drive forward Russia (by then the USSR) to catch up with the West. No one could have done this but Stalin. A man who was a vindictive despot who could be charming when he wanted to be, was the ultimate ideologue who forced Trotsky out on his left-opposition and then adopted it, was a great strategic thinker who made a huge amount of mistakes. He had great ability but was uneducated, had poor military prowess and needed some luck.
It is strange to read a book about someone so horrific, where the annals of history can condemn then for all eternity. However, I truly enjoyed it. Like reading Sir Ian Kershaw’s Hitler, I have found this topic (if not this exact book) essential reading for the historian and non-historian alike. The true nature of the indefensible is there and anyone trying to defend or apologise for these two do not know the facts. The book is heavy and part of a three part series (this being 739 pages alone!) so it may not be for everyone. As for me, Volume II is ordered.
Want to read
July 21, 2021I learned about this book from Anne Applebaum's excellent article in The Atlantic - it's the first volume of a planned trilogy, which has all the potential to become the definite work on Stalin. You can read Applebaum's article here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...
February 4, 2024
Even though he had inherited the possibility of a personal dictatorship from Lenin, Stalin went through significant psychological ordeals in the struggle to be acclaimed as Lenin’s successor.
I loved the incredible erudition on display. The chauvinism in Kotkin’s speculation was a distraction but certainly not a disservice to the analysis. The lens dissolves away from Koba routinely to situate events in proper perspective and context. I certainly welcomed such. I can also imagine criticism for such efforts as well.
Stalin may remain inscrutable. His efforts were implacable if often monstrous. He emerges here as being personally nebulous. The relationships he had with Lenin and Trotsky are explored and thankfully shorn of Freudian posturing. Most historians, maybe the popular ones, paint something teleological, how this happened because this occurred and this was the result. The author here remains humble and nuanced. Uncertainty is the prevailing milieu. The author does appear to enjoy skewering prevalent theories about Stalin, the Civil War, and the NEP. More to follow.
I loved the incredible erudition on display. The chauvinism in Kotkin’s speculation was a distraction but certainly not a disservice to the analysis. The lens dissolves away from Koba routinely to situate events in proper perspective and context. I certainly welcomed such. I can also imagine criticism for such efforts as well.
Stalin may remain inscrutable. His efforts were implacable if often monstrous. He emerges here as being personally nebulous. The relationships he had with Lenin and Trotsky are explored and thankfully shorn of Freudian posturing. Most historians, maybe the popular ones, paint something teleological, how this happened because this occurred and this was the result. The author here remains humble and nuanced. Uncertainty is the prevailing milieu. The author does appear to enjoy skewering prevalent theories about Stalin, the Civil War, and the NEP. More to follow.
January 27, 2015
Leon Trotsky, after being expelled from the Communist Party in 1928, and finding himself in an increasingly desperate exile, shaped the perception of his old rival through his prolific writing. Trotsky established the image of Stalin as a sinister mediocrity, who nonetheless outmaneuvered Trotsky through his utter lack of scruples. In truth, as Kotkin shows, Stalin was an autodidact, “a people person” with “surpassing organizational abilities; a mammoth appetite for work, [and] a strategic mind," combined with "an unscrupulousness that recalled his master teacher, Lenin." The reality is simply that Trotsky was outclassed at every turn by an exceptionally canny and highly intelligent rival. Kotkin explodes many other myths in this superlative volume, but none more enduring that the one that Trotsky created.
February 25, 2017
This is killing my reading groove this year so I'm throwing in the towel at 80%. I've been spoiled by historical writers like Erik Larson and Ron Chernow who turn facts into stories that come alive. This reads more like an undergraduate term paper. Solid facts; boring as hell.
I wish the writing was as fascinating as the material. Stalin was an interesting dude. Anyone who travels with nothing but clothes, books, and a typewriter - I can dig it. Of course, the murder and pedophilia were somewhat less admirable qualities. But then the mummification of Lenin was weird and worth reading about.
So yeah, mixed feelings on my end and I'd like to read more of this stuff as long as it's written by someone else.
As for now, I have horror novels and comic books waiting so this shit needs to be flushed.
I wish the writing was as fascinating as the material. Stalin was an interesting dude. Anyone who travels with nothing but clothes, books, and a typewriter - I can dig it. Of course, the murder and pedophilia were somewhat less admirable qualities. But then the mummification of Lenin was weird and worth reading about.
So yeah, mixed feelings on my end and I'd like to read more of this stuff as long as it's written by someone else.
As for now, I have horror novels and comic books waiting so this shit needs to be flushed.
April 28, 2021
A super read. Whilst presented as a bio of Stalin it also provides a huge amount of background to illuminate Stalins origins and the atmosphere in which a dictator was born.
Stalin was a man of contrasts, charming and clubbable, loyal and treacherous, spiteful and vindictive - and a workaholic who was appreciated for being effective and efficient. He also exploited a niche as one of the few Bolsheviks from the Tsarist periphery, enlarging a role as a minorities expert into a place at the side of Lenin.
One aspect I did not fully appreciate was that Stalins hold on power was precarious, certainly at the outset, and this amplified his natural tendency for intrigue.
Stalin was a man of contrasts, charming and clubbable, loyal and treacherous, spiteful and vindictive - and a workaholic who was appreciated for being effective and efficient. He also exploited a niche as one of the few Bolsheviks from the Tsarist periphery, enlarging a role as a minorities expert into a place at the side of Lenin.
One aspect I did not fully appreciate was that Stalins hold on power was precarious, certainly at the outset, and this amplified his natural tendency for intrigue.
March 10, 2019
Unfortunately I have not been able to really concentrate or delve too deeply into this book because I have a huge editing job that has occupied a lot of my time. But I am so delighted because I have been looking for a definitive biography of Joseph Stalin for several years. The author is obviously steeped in Russian history. He gives a detailed background on the peoples and politics of Russia which is really helpful in providing a real perspective of Stalin's thinking and motives for a lot of his behavior. This is really such a fascinating story. I was so engrossed I actually spilled an entire cup of coffee onto page twenty-three. I missed my mouth. Pages twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two and twenty-three are completely ruined. The text it totally illegible. So I must pay the lovely Library for the book. I just hope I get to keep the book forever.
I did finally finish this incredibly wonderful book. I don’t know a lot about Stephen Kotkin but the depth of his understanding and the research on this book was absolutely fantastic. This is a thorough, insightful and definitive book about Joseph Stalin and the world during his time. It was totally satisfying. Highly recommended to anyone interested in history and the people who influenced geopolitics.
I did finally finish this incredibly wonderful book. I don’t know a lot about Stephen Kotkin but the depth of his understanding and the research on this book was absolutely fantastic. This is a thorough, insightful and definitive book about Joseph Stalin and the world during his time. It was totally satisfying. Highly recommended to anyone interested in history and the people who influenced geopolitics.
September 21, 2015
This is a ponderous tome (950 pages with notes and it is only volume 1). The first part with biographical information about Stalin's early life is quite good and thorough. Stalin's early life and education are explained in the historical setting of tunr-of-the century Russia. The context of Russia's geopolitical situation gives context to young Stalin's life. Once 1917 comes, however, the last two-thirds of the book turn into a sterile analysis of internal Communist party politics with no connection to the wider society at all. To some extent Mr. Kotkin's thesis is that Communist party politics had little to do with the country at large. Still, somehow large crowds just magically appear at the right moment with no explanation of the appeal to the people or the preparation work that went into generating those crowds. Instead Mr. Kotkin focuses on who wrote what memo, when, who read that memo and what order did people read the memo. The remainder of the book post-1917 becomes a chore of detail with no real lessons or insights. In addition, at times I could not tell why massive amounts of material was relegated to the notes or first stated in the notes and then repeated in the main text. Sometimes I had trouble determining how a note related to the text to which it was appended. I view the final 2/3 of this book as a chronicle rather than a history. Mr. Kotkin allows detail to substitute for analysis.
January 24, 2020
This is interesting as a book about Stalin, but much more interesting as a formal experiment in biography, because there's not that much about Stalin here. Kotkin's canvas is much broader, and a better title might have been "Russia in the Age of Stalin" or, since that's probably the next volume, maybe "Russia During the Lifetime of Stalin." This is pretty impressive stuff, and it's an interesting way to write biography: just don't focus on the man, focus on the events, and then see where the man fits into them. Kotkin has some... biases, which aren't particularly helpful, but he's also a solid writer and pretty good at organizing his material. It can't be easy spending years with such a loathsome creature as Stalin, and I hope Kotkin's okay when he's finish. And I hope he gets rid of his biases then, too. I look forward to volume two, once my wrists have recovered from holding this monster.
November 23, 2018
'Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928' is the first volume in a three volume series of tomes on the life of the Soviet dictator Iosef 'Soso' Jugashvili a.k.a Joseph Stalin by the eminent Princeton Professor of history and international affairs, Stephen Kotkin. It is a prodigious work of epic proportions - in terms of its expansive narrative spanning nearly half a century, and its probing of the geopolitical upheavals disrupting the socioeconomic fabric of nations far beyond Eurasia.
Whilst perusing this volume, it is evident from the outset that Kotkin would not engage his readers in conjectures; rather, he would painstakingly go to great lengths to corroborate his version of Stalin with archival materials, meticulously researched and dispassionately analyzed by himself. Deciphering the conundrum of Stalin's psyche will prove to be an onerous task, and Kotkin would not be carried away by binary deductions of Koba as a ruffian-turned-ghoulish despot, out on a murderous spree of orgasmic heaven.
Far from it, Jugashvili was anything but. Kotkins chronicles the upstart's ascendancy to power with great diligence, and in doing so, demonstrates quite convincingly, that Koba was an autodidact of the highest order. He was a bibliophile and a voracious reader, a conniving strategist with a hallmark of conspiratorial maneuverings which would stalemate his arch-rival, the erudite Trotsky.
In his formative years, he might have been looked upon as riffraff, but he soon created his nuisance value by excelling in banditry, agitation, and later punditry, so much so, that Lenin is said to have asked about the whereabouts of a certain 'Koba'. Above all, he was a pragmatist, who prided himself on being from the proletariat - being the son of a cobbler, his meteoric rise to power is nothing short of a myth. But more importantly, he was a theoretician, and deeply embedded in his psyche was Marxism.
Stalin was a proponent of Marxism, and Leninism (even after the alleged 'testament' by Lenin which explicitly demanded for the removal of Stalin from the general secretary role of the Central Committee - a document shrouded in mystery that would continue to hound him, and would leave an indelible imprint on his psyche). 'Leninism', more specifically, was a tool that he effectively wielded to great effects - vandalizing the opposition as being anti-Leninist, and substantiating his policies of the police state for combing the insurgency from within - and of course, such shenanigans were always instigated by the bourgeois of the capitalist states.
It is a ponderous tome and it can be a slog at times, but if you persevere, it is a rewarding experience - it does not help that the text reads through like a history textbook on USSR; but I highly doubt it, if anyone would be able to produce a more exhaustive account of the despot; I will be on to the second volume, 'Waiting for Hitler' once I get my sanity back. Thank you!
March 30, 2020
Comrades in the United States produced a nice podcast episode about Kotkin's Stalin series that could be listened here:
https://www.prolespod.com/episodes/20...
Kotkin does not deviate from the general line of the American academia: Stalin was evil. But he thinks Stalin was a genuine communist who uncompromisingly fought for the cause. Ooo, be careful Mr. Kotkin, you are walking a thightrope.
As Grover Furr says, if you want to flourish and be recognized in the US academia as a Soviet scholar, there are some certain anti-Stalin rituals you have to perform. For sure Kotkin spills some Stalin blood on the altar of anti-Sovietism but in his own way:
i. Never attribute a positive intention to him. If Stalin said "maybe I should resign" for example, it could be anything but a sincere intention to resign.
ii. If you want to show Soviet leadership suspicious about some counter-revolutionary plots (i.e. "kulak agitation"), immediately ward off any doubts about a real kulak threat: "that is discussions among peasants." Because oppressive Bolsheviks were the real problem.
iii. Discredit socialism, communism, collectivization, "class war" (always within those ironic, oh-so-blindly-doctrinaire-to-see-the-reality-that-i-see quotes) and seasoned bolshevik leadership (parrots of Stalin, cowards, apparatchiks) wherever you can.
"All non-Leninist socialists eventually discovered that if they wanted genuine democracy, they had to abandon Marx's summons to negate and transcend capitalism and markets." (That is, all reasonable socialists discovered that they should stop being socialists.)
Make no mistake, this book was published not in 1980s but in 2014, when the majority of the West's enlightened scholars have already raised serious doubts about the coexistence of capitalism, markets and *genuine* democracy. Peh.
https://www.prolespod.com/episodes/20...
Kotkin does not deviate from the general line of the American academia: Stalin was evil. But he thinks Stalin was a genuine communist who uncompromisingly fought for the cause. Ooo, be careful Mr. Kotkin, you are walking a thightrope.
As Grover Furr says, if you want to flourish and be recognized in the US academia as a Soviet scholar, there are some certain anti-Stalin rituals you have to perform. For sure Kotkin spills some Stalin blood on the altar of anti-Sovietism but in his own way:
i. Never attribute a positive intention to him. If Stalin said "maybe I should resign" for example, it could be anything but a sincere intention to resign.
ii. If you want to show Soviet leadership suspicious about some counter-revolutionary plots (i.e. "kulak agitation"), immediately ward off any doubts about a real kulak threat: "that is discussions among peasants." Because oppressive Bolsheviks were the real problem.
iii. Discredit socialism, communism, collectivization, "class war" (always within those ironic, oh-so-blindly-doctrinaire-to-see-the-reality-that-i-see quotes) and seasoned bolshevik leadership (parrots of Stalin, cowards, apparatchiks) wherever you can.
"All non-Leninist socialists eventually discovered that if they wanted genuine democracy, they had to abandon Marx's summons to negate and transcend capitalism and markets." (That is, all reasonable socialists discovered that they should stop being socialists.)
Make no mistake, this book was published not in 1980s but in 2014, when the majority of the West's enlightened scholars have already raised serious doubts about the coexistence of capitalism, markets and *genuine* democracy. Peh.
December 22, 2021
I’m puzzled by the general rating of this bio on Goodreads. 3.71 makes no sense to me when this is easily one of the better biography/history books I’ve read. A deserved five-star rating. Stephen Kotkin knows his subject and he masters the art of history with his contextualization of events which coalesce around Joseph Stalin. Undeniable scholarship coupled with sharp writing.
July 22, 2020
Professor Kotkin’s work is an exhaustive, meticulous, academic biography of the man born December 1878 first named Ioseb Jugashvili, Soso to his family, then later known as Iosif, Koba to intimates, and, most notably, Stalin, the ‘man of steel.’ The author may have set the bar for conducting academic research; the bibliography alone is 50 pages, in triple columns, in what appears to be 5 point font, and by my rough estimate contains some 3,000 references. This diligence comes at a cost in readability - what a difference between Robert Caro’s works and this one. Professor Kotkin admits he’s up to more than the person; he’s written a Russian period history, doubling as biography.
Interestingly, I didn’t feel much blood oozing from these pages, maybe because of the author’s detailed thoroughness, or maybe because Stalin had yet to realize his true nasty potential by 1928. Nor did I find much evidence for a sociopathic or psychopathic (is there a difference?) personality, or whatever psychological craziness he suffered from, in this volume. I’m surprised Trotsky and his crowd got away with as much as they did – Stalin seemed to treat them rather politely, at least until 1927. In those days, you could actually criticize Stalin in open forum … and live.
I believe Stalin the most significant national leader of the 20th century, owing to the combination of (1) his length of rule, (2) the number of persons directly or indirectly harmed or killed during his tenure, and (3) the international political consequences to his policies, which is saying quite a bit since his principal rivals for that award are Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler. And just how do you get to that exalted position? We can see in this work how the forces of randomness are forever at play. When Stalin’s pachinko ball dropped upon his birth in Gori, Georgia, his odds of hitting a jackpot were the slimmest of any then alive; yet, he won, in a way. Yes, Gregori, you too can grow up to be the most infamous and powerful dictator in modern history, despite your most humble beginnings; anything is possible.
Professor Kotkin describes Stalin’s behavior from a strict adherence to Leninist principles, ultimately without equivocation. Now this raises the question of whether Lenin himself would have equivocated. Certainly the New Economic Policy of 1921 provides evidence that Lenin was a pragmatist. Stalin seems to be done with pragmatism by 1928. Professor Kotkin also answers the question of whether Stalin was shaped by events or did the shaping, noting that Stalin’s dogmatic pursuit of his Leninist perceptions explains much of this history. To the notion that “circumstances make the man,” Professor Kotkin responds, “Utterly, eternally wrong. Stalin made history, rearranging the entire socioeconomic landscape of one sixth of the earth. Right through mass rebellion, mass starvation, cannibalism, Stalin did not flinch.” I think Stalin is a most understudied and underappreciated historical figure in America, perhaps because we prefer to warm our minds to a Western European hearth and the villains produced from within, Adolf Hitler first and foremost.
Interestingly, I didn’t feel much blood oozing from these pages, maybe because of the author’s detailed thoroughness, or maybe because Stalin had yet to realize his true nasty potential by 1928. Nor did I find much evidence for a sociopathic or psychopathic (is there a difference?) personality, or whatever psychological craziness he suffered from, in this volume. I’m surprised Trotsky and his crowd got away with as much as they did – Stalin seemed to treat them rather politely, at least until 1927. In those days, you could actually criticize Stalin in open forum … and live.
I believe Stalin the most significant national leader of the 20th century, owing to the combination of (1) his length of rule, (2) the number of persons directly or indirectly harmed or killed during his tenure, and (3) the international political consequences to his policies, which is saying quite a bit since his principal rivals for that award are Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler. And just how do you get to that exalted position? We can see in this work how the forces of randomness are forever at play. When Stalin’s pachinko ball dropped upon his birth in Gori, Georgia, his odds of hitting a jackpot were the slimmest of any then alive; yet, he won, in a way. Yes, Gregori, you too can grow up to be the most infamous and powerful dictator in modern history, despite your most humble beginnings; anything is possible.
Professor Kotkin describes Stalin’s behavior from a strict adherence to Leninist principles, ultimately without equivocation. Now this raises the question of whether Lenin himself would have equivocated. Certainly the New Economic Policy of 1921 provides evidence that Lenin was a pragmatist. Stalin seems to be done with pragmatism by 1928. Professor Kotkin also answers the question of whether Stalin was shaped by events or did the shaping, noting that Stalin’s dogmatic pursuit of his Leninist perceptions explains much of this history. To the notion that “circumstances make the man,” Professor Kotkin responds, “Utterly, eternally wrong. Stalin made history, rearranging the entire socioeconomic landscape of one sixth of the earth. Right through mass rebellion, mass starvation, cannibalism, Stalin did not flinch.” I think Stalin is a most understudied and underappreciated historical figure in America, perhaps because we prefer to warm our minds to a Western European hearth and the villains produced from within, Adolf Hitler first and foremost.
December 16, 2017
An accomplished poet, a pious divinity student, a highly cultured autodidact with broad intellectual interests and an expert knowledge of classical music; a bank robber, an extortionist, a meteorologist, a union organiser, factory worker, an agitator, and an oil rig operator.
It was said that his voice, in the church choir, could bring hardened men to tears.
A political theorist; a prolific, if unoriginal, polemicist; an escaped convict (more times than I could count), a father of innumerable illegitimate children (each with a different woman), an effective military leader, a loyal follower; a flexible strategist who felt no compunction about taking up the position of a rival he had assassinated, on idealogical grounds, the day before.
A doting and loving husband (first marriage), a chauvinistic and despotic husband (second marriage), a negligent and hard hearted father; an irresistible charmer and, most of all, a ruthless political manipulator who outclassed his counterparts, both inside and outside his movement, in every encounter but one. Oh, and let's not forget: a convincing candidate for the title of the world's worst mass murderer.
Stalin was only one of his nicknames. But he preferred it over both 'Pockmarked Pavel' and 'Oddball Osip'. Ironically, his slide into paranoia and his pretensions to infallibility only manifested after his leadership position had already become unquestioned.
It was said that his voice, in the church choir, could bring hardened men to tears.
A political theorist; a prolific, if unoriginal, polemicist; an escaped convict (more times than I could count), a father of innumerable illegitimate children (each with a different woman), an effective military leader, a loyal follower; a flexible strategist who felt no compunction about taking up the position of a rival he had assassinated, on idealogical grounds, the day before.
A doting and loving husband (first marriage), a chauvinistic and despotic husband (second marriage), a negligent and hard hearted father; an irresistible charmer and, most of all, a ruthless political manipulator who outclassed his counterparts, both inside and outside his movement, in every encounter but one. Oh, and let's not forget: a convincing candidate for the title of the world's worst mass murderer.
Stalin was only one of his nicknames. But he preferred it over both 'Pockmarked Pavel' and 'Oddball Osip'. Ironically, his slide into paranoia and his pretensions to infallibility only manifested after his leadership position had already become unquestioned.
March 21, 2022
This is a long and laboriously-researched book. If looking for a book that describes Stalin’s upbringing and background, this is the book for you.
If looking for a book focuses on Stalin’s impact on geopolitics, I’d recommend passing on volume I and plunging directly into volume II.
If looking for a book focuses on Stalin’s impact on geopolitics, I’d recommend passing on volume I and plunging directly into volume II.
January 30, 2016
Разбулването на един диктатор
Цялото ревю тук: http://knijenpetar.blogspot.bg/2016/0...
„Когато човек гледа малката му приведена глава, има чувството, че ако я прободе с карфица, целият „Капитал“ на Карл Маркс ще излезе оттам със съскане като газ от бутилка. Неговата естествена среда беше марксизмът, там той беше непобедим. Нямаше сила в света, която да го накара да се отрече от веднъж заявена позиция и за всяко нещо беше в състояние да намери подходящата марксистка формула.“
Политически затворник, пребивавал заедно със Сталин в затвора в Баку, 1908 година
Само фактът, че една биография на Сталин може да заема цели три тома, оставя доста въпросителни: откъде е черпена информацията и дали книгите включват и спекулативни твърдения, нанасящи вреда както на историческите факти, така и на сериозните читатели. Беше ми изключително приятно да науча, че Стивън Коткин (професор по история и международни отношения в Принстънския университет) не се е заиграл с общоизвестните факти, попълвайки празнините с неясни и недоказуеми твърдения, а с цялата мощ на анализаторските си способности е подредил един гигантски пъзел от архивни материали, част от които в определени периоди са били засекретявани. Добрата новина тук е, че дълги години авторът се е специализирал именно в руската и съветска история, и дори вече има опит по темата със „Сталинизмът като цивилизация“. Самата книга е написана изключително увлекателно, смесвайки биографичните материали с анализи и вмъкнати факти, разкриващи по-лична информация. Към последното е подходено прецизно, като всички места с подобна информация са номерирани и водят до специална секция от бележки в края на книгата. А те са хиляди и хиляди, показващи нагледно откъде са почерпени фактите. Преди да започна с четенето, доста обстойно разгледах как е структурирано всичко, за да мога да извличам веднага полезната информация и да не изпадам в неведение относно цитатите и всичко останало. Все пак това е сериозен труд и няма да е добре, ако самият аз не подхождам сериозно. „Сталин – Том 1: Пътят към властта (1878-1928)“ („Millenium“, 2015, с превод на Мирела Иванова) се доказа наистина като мащабен труд, но без да се натрапва със сухота и излишни конспирации. (Продължава в блога: )
Цялото ревю тук: http://knijenpetar.blogspot.bg/2016/0...
„Когато човек гледа малката му приведена глава, има чувството, че ако я прободе с карфица, целият „Капитал“ на Карл Маркс ще излезе оттам със съскане като газ от бутилка. Неговата естествена среда беше марксизмът, там той беше непобедим. Нямаше сила в света, която да го накара да се отрече от веднъж заявена позиция и за всяко нещо беше в състояние да намери подходящата марксистка формула.“
Политически затворник, пребивавал заедно със Сталин в затвора в Баку, 1908 година
Само фактът, че една биография на Сталин може да заема цели три тома, оставя доста въпросителни: откъде е черпена информацията и дали книгите включват и спекулативни твърдения, нанасящи вреда както на историческите факти, така и на сериозните читатели. Беше ми изключително приятно да науча, че Стивън Коткин (професор по история и международни отношения в Принстънския университет) не се е заиграл с общоизвестните факти, попълвайки празнините с неясни и недоказуеми твърдения, а с цялата мощ на анализаторските си способности е подредил един гигантски пъзел от архивни материали, част от които в определени периоди са били засекретявани. Добрата новина тук е, че дълги години авторът се е специализирал именно в руската и съветска история, и дори вече има опит по темата със „Сталинизмът като цивилизация“. Самата книга е написана изключително увлекателно, смесвайки биографичните материали с анализи и вмъкнати факти, разкриващи по-лична информация. Към последното е подходено прецизно, като всички места с подобна информация са номерирани и водят до специална секция от бележки в края на книгата. А те са хиляди и хиляди, показващи нагледно откъде са почерпени фактите. Преди да започна с четенето, доста обстойно разгледах как е структурирано всичко, за да мога да извличам веднага полезната информация и да не изпадам в неведение относно цитатите и всичко останало. Все пак това е сериозен труд и няма да е добре, ако самият аз не подхождам сериозно. „Сталин – Том 1: Пътят към властта (1878-1928)“ („Millenium“, 2015, с превод на Мирела Иванова) се доказа наистина като мащабен труд, но без да се натрапва със сухота и излишни конспирации. (Продължава в блога: )
August 23, 2018
I want to keep this short—there are a lot of good, substantive review out there. I'd just like to mention a couple of takeaways I had from the book
One—Kotkin does a good job of illuminating Stalin the man. He may not be the most pleasant example of a human being, but he is recognizable as one. I know worse examples.
Two—the amount of leaves in this book makes it hard to see the trees, let alone the forest. I'm sure it wasn't Kotkin's intention, but all this focus on detail seems to sanitize the period. He does not spend time highlighting the horrible events of this period (of which I'm thankful), but I do think there needs to be a method of giving us the detail and also imparting how absolutely awful the results were.
Three—Kotkin is convincing when he implies that Trotsky would have made no better leader than Stalin—actually, his thrust is that Trotsky would never have made it to that spot. He was a thinker, and Stalin was an organizer, and there was really never any contest.
Four—Teamster-style tactics brought Stalin to power.
The book is comprehensive, but dry. There are sections that rise to the level of narrative sweep, but there are a lot of details to drag it back down. But I don't know how you paint the comprehensive picture of Stalin without them—otherwise he turns into a caricature. That is probably the greatest strength of the book—that Stalin was not a caricature. Believing that he was lets our own selves off the hook—we'd never have to search our own character for the tendencies that made Stalin Stalin.
One—Kotkin does a good job of illuminating Stalin the man. He may not be the most pleasant example of a human being, but he is recognizable as one. I know worse examples.
Two—the amount of leaves in this book makes it hard to see the trees, let alone the forest. I'm sure it wasn't Kotkin's intention, but all this focus on detail seems to sanitize the period. He does not spend time highlighting the horrible events of this period (of which I'm thankful), but I do think there needs to be a method of giving us the detail and also imparting how absolutely awful the results were.
Three—Kotkin is convincing when he implies that Trotsky would have made no better leader than Stalin—actually, his thrust is that Trotsky would never have made it to that spot. He was a thinker, and Stalin was an organizer, and there was really never any contest.
Four—Teamster-style tactics brought Stalin to power.
The book is comprehensive, but dry. There are sections that rise to the level of narrative sweep, but there are a lot of details to drag it back down. But I don't know how you paint the comprehensive picture of Stalin without them—otherwise he turns into a caricature. That is probably the greatest strength of the book—that Stalin was not a caricature. Believing that he was lets our own selves off the hook—we'd never have to search our own character for the tendencies that made Stalin Stalin.
January 26, 2015
Superb first volume of a projected three volume series.
Most people who have read anything at all about modern political and military history know about Stalin. It is also likely that what they know about him is not very good. Indeed, he well known as one of the most terrible tyrants of all time, the essential totalitarian dictator, and the man behind the deaths of millions. At the same time, he led his nation through WW2 and kept the Nazis from winning while the US prepared its entry and the UK recovered from its early defeats. Stalin was also the master architect (on the Russian side) of the Cold War and helped to structure superpower relations long after his death until the end of the Soviet Union.
It always struck me as strange that this enormously influential person has been largely characterized in cartoonish stereotypes of evil and more than a little pseudo psychologizing. That seems too easy a way to come to grips with who this person really was.
Stephen Kotkin has written the first volume of a biography that seriously tries to sort out the hype, stereotypes, conflicting stories, propaganda, and the like to serious consider Stalin's life and how he developed into the larger than life figure he became for so many. This is a very involved story and Kotkin attempts to tell the story thoroughly and with the necessary detachment so that readers can sort through the conflicting accounts and varied interpretations.
I think he succeeds fairly well. The book is well written and flows well. It was honestly difficult to put down (hard to say for a 1000 page book). Kotkin is also generous in providing context to the story. He brings the reader up to date on Russian history, the course of WW1, the Great Depression, or whatever else is happening to influence his prime story. He also confronts areas of conflict squarely and lets you know his assessment on whose arguments were strong or weaker. He even includes a marvelous epilog to assessment Stalin's importance by working through the thought experiment of what would happen if Stalin died in the 1920s. There are lots of characters and subplots to keep track of and Russian names are sometimes a chore. Overall, I really enjoyed the book and cannot wait for the other volumes.
Most people who have read anything at all about modern political and military history know about Stalin. It is also likely that what they know about him is not very good. Indeed, he well known as one of the most terrible tyrants of all time, the essential totalitarian dictator, and the man behind the deaths of millions. At the same time, he led his nation through WW2 and kept the Nazis from winning while the US prepared its entry and the UK recovered from its early defeats. Stalin was also the master architect (on the Russian side) of the Cold War and helped to structure superpower relations long after his death until the end of the Soviet Union.
It always struck me as strange that this enormously influential person has been largely characterized in cartoonish stereotypes of evil and more than a little pseudo psychologizing. That seems too easy a way to come to grips with who this person really was.
Stephen Kotkin has written the first volume of a biography that seriously tries to sort out the hype, stereotypes, conflicting stories, propaganda, and the like to serious consider Stalin's life and how he developed into the larger than life figure he became for so many. This is a very involved story and Kotkin attempts to tell the story thoroughly and with the necessary detachment so that readers can sort through the conflicting accounts and varied interpretations.
I think he succeeds fairly well. The book is well written and flows well. It was honestly difficult to put down (hard to say for a 1000 page book). Kotkin is also generous in providing context to the story. He brings the reader up to date on Russian history, the course of WW1, the Great Depression, or whatever else is happening to influence his prime story. He also confronts areas of conflict squarely and lets you know his assessment on whose arguments were strong or weaker. He even includes a marvelous epilog to assessment Stalin's importance by working through the thought experiment of what would happen if Stalin died in the 1920s. There are lots of characters and subplots to keep track of and Russian names are sometimes a chore. Overall, I really enjoyed the book and cannot wait for the other volumes.
December 14, 2019
Kotkin is a leading Russian historian and author of a well-received book about everyday life under Stalin, so his biography of the man himself can be expected to be deeply researched, comprehensive, and groundbreaking. And all of those expectations are well-met.
More than a biography of Stalin, this is a book about the fall of the Tsars and the rise of Communism, a sprawling journey across two continents and decades. A biography of a figure like Stalin is innately challenging; how do you balance the man, the leader, and the mass murderer? Kotkin avoids a straightjacket theoretical paradigm, showing Stalin as a canny tactician and theorist, who turned the chaos of the Russian revolution into a personal dictatorship, using the Communist Party as an instrument to extend his power down to the lowest levels.
Vol. 1 of the three volume series covers Stalin's childhood, rise to power, and the decision to 'de-Kulakize' farming in 1928, forced collectivization which sent millions into the nightmare of the gulag system, and killed millions more through famine. Kotkin argues that the collectivization was a distinctly Stalinist move, based on his understanding of the nature of class warfare, and the availability of secret police power against 'internal enemies'. A second major innovation in scholarship is Kotkin's evaluation of Lenin's Testament. This short document, produced at the end of 1922 when Lenin was crippled by strokes, provided negative evaluation of top communists, including Stalin. Kotkin argues the document was written by personal secretaries around Lenin, not the man itself, but it was treated as credible by the Communist Party, and hung like a sword of Damocles over Stalin's power.
So this book is deeply researched, and as good as scholarship gets. It's also a slog, 740 pages of text and another 200 or so of footnotes. And while individual anecdotes sparkle, there's a layer of distance from the times and the man himself.
I guess I'm up for the next two books, but I'm not exactly looking forward to it.
More than a biography of Stalin, this is a book about the fall of the Tsars and the rise of Communism, a sprawling journey across two continents and decades. A biography of a figure like Stalin is innately challenging; how do you balance the man, the leader, and the mass murderer? Kotkin avoids a straightjacket theoretical paradigm, showing Stalin as a canny tactician and theorist, who turned the chaos of the Russian revolution into a personal dictatorship, using the Communist Party as an instrument to extend his power down to the lowest levels.
Vol. 1 of the three volume series covers Stalin's childhood, rise to power, and the decision to 'de-Kulakize' farming in 1928, forced collectivization which sent millions into the nightmare of the gulag system, and killed millions more through famine. Kotkin argues that the collectivization was a distinctly Stalinist move, based on his understanding of the nature of class warfare, and the availability of secret police power against 'internal enemies'. A second major innovation in scholarship is Kotkin's evaluation of Lenin's Testament. This short document, produced at the end of 1922 when Lenin was crippled by strokes, provided negative evaluation of top communists, including Stalin. Kotkin argues the document was written by personal secretaries around Lenin, not the man itself, but it was treated as credible by the Communist Party, and hung like a sword of Damocles over Stalin's power.
So this book is deeply researched, and as good as scholarship gets. It's also a slog, 740 pages of text and another 200 or so of footnotes. And while individual anecdotes sparkle, there's a layer of distance from the times and the man himself.
I guess I'm up for the next two books, but I'm not exactly looking forward to it.
September 28, 2018
Ambitious in scale, this is the first of a 3 volume long Stalin biography.
I came across the book because I watched lectures from professor Kotkin on Russia and instantly got hooked on the subject of this book.
Not being that familiar with Russian history, I appreciated Kotkin's approach which is to tell Stalin's life as it was through the developments of relevant world events of his time (in parts of the book, he is often completely omitted and the focus is usually about geopolitics or communism). The author often gives his thoughts on other Stalin scholars and questions some popular and accepted truth about his early years such as the so called Lenin's testament.
I definitely recommend that book if you are interested in Soviet Russia.
I came across the book because I watched lectures from professor Kotkin on Russia and instantly got hooked on the subject of this book.
Not being that familiar with Russian history, I appreciated Kotkin's approach which is to tell Stalin's life as it was through the developments of relevant world events of his time (in parts of the book, he is often completely omitted and the focus is usually about geopolitics or communism). The author often gives his thoughts on other Stalin scholars and questions some popular and accepted truth about his early years such as the so called Lenin's testament.
I definitely recommend that book if you are interested in Soviet Russia.
October 22, 2017
a great and pretty balanced bio of stalin's early life and rise to power mitigated only a little bit by a weird afterword where the author makes some weird judgements on communist ideology as a whole that seem to badly miss the point (talking about collective farms never being as efficient as large privately run farms seems odd as "efficiency" isnt the sole, or even the main, motivation behind the collectivisation drive)
February 10, 2015
40%斯大林，60%晚期俄国早期苏联史以及世界地缘，期间政治人物群像，互相交织，合纵连横，较少西书之普遍脸谱化倾向，诸多政治思潮意识形态叙述，似曾相识。
September 25, 2023
This is the first volume of three massive volumes on the life and times of Stalin and, 'the life and times' is exactly what makes this biography unique, special, important and possibly a definitive life. His research is magisterial and access to archives and printed matter, including secondary sources are awe inspiring. I love foot notes and bibliographies not simply so as to trace an author's statements to source but as a repository for fascinating titbits that don't fit into the main text. Kotkin's references and notes are exemplary.
I have no intention of digressing and describing Stalin's life or thought - that is what this biography is for - Stalin has always been there as a monster but he is essential to understanding the history of the Soviet Union during his lifetime and his myth or how his myth is used is central to Putin's Russia. I would suggest that if you are going to read anything about Stalin this is the biography to read - certainly I would not waste time with any biography written before the fall of the Soviet Union - to much new information is available. They may not be wrong, but they were only tight through guesswork.
It is a long book, but a marvellous, thrilling and utterly readable and fascinating one. I await the next volume with impatience.
One final important point - the hardback copy I read, a library one and I was the first reader, was possibly the worst made book I have ever seen. I had barely begun reading, and I am not a reader careless in my treatment of books, and the pages were becoming unglued. The more I read the more repair work I had to do with sellotape - all fruitless - I was mortified returning the book. I think subsequent editions are better made - but watch out.
I have no intention of digressing and describing Stalin's life or thought - that is what this biography is for - Stalin has always been there as a monster but he is essential to understanding the history of the Soviet Union during his lifetime and his myth or how his myth is used is central to Putin's Russia. I would suggest that if you are going to read anything about Stalin this is the biography to read - certainly I would not waste time with any biography written before the fall of the Soviet Union - to much new information is available. They may not be wrong, but they were only tight through guesswork.
It is a long book, but a marvellous, thrilling and utterly readable and fascinating one. I await the next volume with impatience.
One final important point - the hardback copy I read, a library one and I was the first reader, was possibly the worst made book I have ever seen. I had barely begun reading, and I am not a reader careless in my treatment of books, and the pages were becoming unglued. The more I read the more repair work I had to do with sellotape - all fruitless - I was mortified returning the book. I think subsequent editions are better made - but watch out.
March 5, 2016
What an amazing book.. Not just a life of Stalin but even more so, a history of Russia in that era. He summarizes whatever was going on in Russia at that time in every chapter, and it's a great review of Russian (and related world) history.
Kotkin is intelligent, opinionated and VERY well informed; and willing to challenge assumptions with evidence and rational argument . I think he pretty much nails the fact that above all else, Stalin was a true Leninist. His excesses and paranoia were his own, but his project (to which he dedicated his life and his considerable talent and drive) was Leninism taken to its logical conclusions..
This book ends in 1928, so the worst is yet to come. But while the crimes grew to stratospheric heights in the years after 1928, there were enough signs already (from 1917 to 1928) that to make the new man, an awful lot of old men (and women and children) would have to shuffle off this mortal coil. Not a job for the faint of heart and comrade Stalin lived up to his name. And was admired and appreciated for that by many in the party and state (a party and state that probably would not have survived without succumbing to capitalism if it was not for him).
The book is already VERY long, but i wish he had put in a little more about the everyday life of the great general secretary as he went about the titanic job of making the Leninist revolution work. And unlike "Red Flag" (another fantastic book, necessarily less detailed because it is a history of communism as a whole), Kotkin does not try to pick a few cultural snapshots to illustrate each new twist and turn in the history of the movement. Some more of those would have been nice. But as a political biography, this is an awesome achievement.
A must read book...
Kotkin is intelligent, opinionated and VERY well informed; and willing to challenge assumptions with evidence and rational argument . I think he pretty much nails the fact that above all else, Stalin was a true Leninist. His excesses and paranoia were his own, but his project (to which he dedicated his life and his considerable talent and drive) was Leninism taken to its logical conclusions..
This book ends in 1928, so the worst is yet to come. But while the crimes grew to stratospheric heights in the years after 1928, there were enough signs already (from 1917 to 1928) that to make the new man, an awful lot of old men (and women and children) would have to shuffle off this mortal coil. Not a job for the faint of heart and comrade Stalin lived up to his name. And was admired and appreciated for that by many in the party and state (a party and state that probably would not have survived without succumbing to capitalism if it was not for him).
The book is already VERY long, but i wish he had put in a little more about the everyday life of the great general secretary as he went about the titanic job of making the Leninist revolution work. And unlike "Red Flag" (another fantastic book, necessarily less detailed because it is a history of communism as a whole), Kotkin does not try to pick a few cultural snapshots to illustrate each new twist and turn in the history of the movement. Some more of those would have been nice. But as a political biography, this is an awesome achievement.
A must read book...
May 22, 2022
What a behemoth - I can't believe it's just the first of three parts! This book is obsessively detailed, and weaves together a relatively clear narrative from what is probably the most tumultuous fifty years in any nation's/federation's history. Kotkin has accomplished a great deal by giving us such a comprehensive picture of Russia and its neighbors as they transform into the early USSR.
However... I wouldn't really call it a book about Stalin. This should just be called "Russian History, 1878-1928." I understand that some context is necessary, but fully 1/4 of this book is just about Imperial Russia. Kotkin does justify his lack of Stalin information by saying that he refuses to speculate and will only discuss what can be proved, but that makes writing a book about Stalin impossible. The man was a complete mystery and thrived on secrecy; any book about him NEEDS to address rumors and speculation. After reading Volkogonov's biography of Stalin, I felt like I had a decent understanding of the man; I do not feel the same way after part 1 of Kotkin's biography. None of this is helped by Kotkin's rambling sentences, which become hard to follow as he adds clause after clause.
I am giving it three stars instead of two because Kotkin manages to condense perhaps the most intricate, politically convoluted half-century in modern history into something readable. He also has a nice sense of humor when discussing the complete ineptitude of most of the Bolshevik bureaucrats.
As a book about Russian history, this gets a 4/5; as a book about Stalin, it gets a 2/5. My rating is the average of those two.
However... I wouldn't really call it a book about Stalin. This should just be called "Russian History, 1878-1928." I understand that some context is necessary, but fully 1/4 of this book is just about Imperial Russia. Kotkin does justify his lack of Stalin information by saying that he refuses to speculate and will only discuss what can be proved, but that makes writing a book about Stalin impossible. The man was a complete mystery and thrived on secrecy; any book about him NEEDS to address rumors and speculation. After reading Volkogonov's biography of Stalin, I felt like I had a decent understanding of the man; I do not feel the same way after part 1 of Kotkin's biography. None of this is helped by Kotkin's rambling sentences, which become hard to follow as he adds clause after clause.
I am giving it three stars instead of two because Kotkin manages to condense perhaps the most intricate, politically convoluted half-century in modern history into something readable. He also has a nice sense of humor when discussing the complete ineptitude of most of the Bolshevik bureaucrats.
As a book about Russian history, this gets a 4/5; as a book about Stalin, it gets a 2/5. My rating is the average of those two.
August 7, 2022
easily up there with Rabinowitch in terms of the best histories of the Russian Revolution and its leadership. it is let down its juvenile tendency to dunk on the likes of Lenin, Trotsky or Bukharin on ideological grounds, because he refuses to take Marxism as a system of thought or beliefs about the nature of society seriously. This would be fine, not every historian could or should be a dialectical materialist, but it inhibits his understanding of differences among the leadership. relatedly, Stalin comes out very well here because he wasn't a theorist in the sense that the above were. Kotkin therefore doesn't feel the need to make fun of him for holding 'messianic' or 'millenarian' views of social change and can just admire his more disinterested ruthless factionalising.
Unfortunately these are all quibbles, it's a very good, fervently anti-communist biography of the man that marshalls quite a lot of information, particularly about the USSR's peripheries, into a very readable format
Unfortunately these are all quibbles, it's a very good, fervently anti-communist biography of the man that marshalls quite a lot of information, particularly about the USSR's peripheries, into a very readable format
Displaying 1 - 30 of 290 reviews