|
|
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Provocative analysis...., July 17, 2003
In Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, historian Stephen Kotkin demonstrates a profound knowledge of the political and economic structures and institutions that have shaped Soviet and post-Soviet history over the past several decades. This excellent little book makes two provocative arguments that contradict the conventional wisdom concerning the demise of the Soviet regime and its aftermath. Kotkin's first argument is that what has passed for "reform" since 1991 has been the ongoing structural and institutional decay of the old system. Obsolete, inefficient factories are no more productive now than they were during Soviet times; government officials, well-connected insiders, and factory managers continue to bilk the country of its treasure; and presidential perquisites rival those of former politiboro members. With no rule of law, no system of credit, a weak legal system, and a national bank that speculates on its own currency and hides funds in offshore accounts, the reforms of the post-Soviet era are a myth. Indeed, in a de facto sense, the old system is still in its death throes. The second part of Kotkin's argument concerns the end of Soviet rule in 1991. Kotkin believes that the Soviet regime could have muddled along for several years after 1991 without imploding. It still had a large and powerful military with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at its disposal. It wasn't the brilliance of American foreign policy or economic decline that caused the regime to fall when it did. Instead, in a paradoxical sense, it was Gorbachev's belief in the humanistic nature of socialism that did in the system. Socialism was supposed to be fair and just, ensuring a decent quality of life for the Soviet people, a dream that Gorbachev tried to deliver. His ideological convictions led him to try to reform a system that could not be reformed. His policy of "glasnost" or openness made even more apparent to the public the failings of the system. And, because he believed that socialism was based on humanistic principles, he refused to resort to violence on a large scale to hold the Union together. While this is a brilliant little book, some important issues could have been more extensively explored. A greater exploration of the influences underpinning Gorbachev's ideological convictions would have been helpful. What books did he read? Why did he see the good in the system when so many others did not? Other than believing in the inherent goodness of socialism, were there additional factors that fueled Gorbachev's decision to allow the Soviet Union to disintegrate relatively peacefully? For example, some may argue that Gorbachev, keenly aware of his place in history, knew that he would be viewed as a villain had he butchered his own people to save the regime. Indeed, Gorbachev just may have been too decent a human being to preside over a bloodbath, regardless of his ideological convictions. Moreover, from a geopolitical standpoint, it would have been dangerous for Gorbachev to use overwhelming force internally. The United States and the rest of the world were keeping a close watch on him. Gorbachev had no assurances that the West wouldn't support independence movements in the Republics had he moved decisively to suppress them.
In his concluding remarks, Kotkin indicates that Russia's best bet for the future might be to join the euro. While this might be a great idea in theory, one wonders when Russia will be able to meet the economic criteria required to do so.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
by David Goldfrank
by Eugenia Semenovna Ginzburg
