European Communism 1848-1991 by Ronald Kowalski (review)

Abstract

reviews 575 Russia? It is the discussion of this last question that justifies placing the book in a series entitled 'Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society'. While the titlepage refers to a single debate, the table of contents reveals that there are actually two.The 'primary' debate pitsRoger Griffin ofOxford Brookes University, inventor of a controversial definition of fascism in terms of a 'palingenetic myth' (i.e.,myth of national rebirth), against his various critics. A 'secondary' debate, even more impassioned than the primary one, revolves around the specific though pertinent question of whether theRus sian political and ideological operator Aleksandr Dugin is a fascist or mere ly a harmless crackpot. Andreas Umland (currently at the National Taras Shevchenko University inKiev) argues the former view, A. James Gregor (University of California at Berkeley) the latter.The Appendix provides an article by Dugin himself, translated by Umland from theRussian, to help the reader make up his or her own mind. It is an extremely complex debate, but itmay help to distinguish three broad points of view. First, we have Griffin and those who on the whole support his approach. (Griffinhas modified his original position in impor tant respects.) Second, there are scholars like Gregor who reject not only Griffin's definition but the need forany generic social-science definition of fas cism, which they regard as a unique historical phenomenon that is extremely unlikely to re-emerge in recognizable form. Third, there are those who are highly critical of Griffin but who accept the need for some kind of gener ic definition. Some though far from all of these writers have an alternative definition to offer ? for example, Nolte's definition in terms of attitude to 'transcendence'. (For an alternative definition, which none of the contribu tors to thisvolume discuss, see chapter one ofmy Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements, Armonk, NY, and London, 2001, reviewed in SEER, 81, 2003, 2, pp. 372-74.) The political as well as intellectual importance of the questions under discussion should make this volume of interest to a wide circle of readers. Unfortunately, the level of abstraction is very high in some places and even thewell-educated general reader isunlikely to have the extensive background knowledge assumed by many contributors. This is really a book for specialists. The book could have been made more accessible ifthe editors had taken the trouble to provide an introductory survey of the debate to help the general reader findhis way through themorass. True, theywould have been better placed to do so if they had been 'neutral' figures rather than? like two of the three editors ? central protagonists in the debate. Providence, RI S. D. Shenfield Kowalski, Ronald. European Communism 1848-iggi. European History in Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2006. vii + 267 pp. Appendices. Notes. Select bibliography. Index. ?17.99 (paperback). Communism in the form inspired by the Soviet Union was, in thewords ofEric Hobsbawm quoted by the author of this study, 'neitherpossible, desirable, nor 576 SEER, 86, 3, JULY 2008 [...] necessary' (p. 1).Nevertheless, Ronald Kowalski is reluctant to dismiss it as 'an abject failure', pointing to successful modernization of a number of countries, albeit in some cases and in some periods at a horrifying human and ecological cost, and to indirect benefits inprompting the development of welfare states inWestern Europe. Given a questioning attitude towards the virtues of global capitalism, he sees Communism as worthy of serious study. The book runs throughMarx's thinking, the experience of Social Demo crats in pre-1914 Germany, the development of Russian Marxism, the First World War and its associated revolutionary upheavals, the Stalin period in the Soviet Union, developments under Khrushchev and his successors, Com munist parties in Western Europe, Communists in power inEastern Europe and the final collapse following Gorbachev's reforms. Some parts of this are covered well. Kowalski is good at encouraging students to 'be wary of received opinion' (p. 59) and at demolishing some simplistic views. Thus, he argues, Marx was at times sketchy and contradictory. Lenin clearly changed his positions and itcan be questioned whether he reallywas aMarxist. Stalin's brutal industrialization cannot be blamed on theory or ideology alone: the situation would have been very...