Reviewed by: Communism and Hunger: The Ukrainian, Chinese, Kazakh, and Soviet Famines in Comparative Perspective ed. by Andrea Graziosi and Frank E. Sysyn Klejd Këlliçi (bio) Andrea Graziosi and Frank E. Sysyn (Eds.), Communism and Hunger: The Ukrainian, Chinese, Kazakh, and Soviet Famines in Comparative Perspective ( Edmonton and Toronto: CIUS Press, 2016). 158 pp. ISBN: 978-1-894865-47-0. This book offers a comparative analysis of the 1931–1933 famine in the Soviet Union and the 1950 famine in China. It also focuses on different regions and local economic systems struck by famine, such as Ukraine and Kazakhstan. According to the authors, the famines in the USSR and PRC were produced primarily by socioeconomic policies and hence were man-made. Both regimes aspired to "transform and socialize, not just modernize their economic and social structures" (P.2), and both sought to industrialize fast at the expense of agriculture. To catch up with and even surpass capitalist countries' industrial potential, the communist regimes strove to put under the control of central planning authorities the extraction and redistribution of foodstuffs on an industrial scale – to feed the workforce in cities or export abroad. Coupled with despotic and often erratic methods of implementation, these policies produced famines. Besides horrendous human loses, the famines proved the inability of the two regimes to respond to the crises efficiently and contributed to the formation of "dual societies" (Lucien Bianco, P. 64), with the peasantries isolated at the bottom of the social system. While the Chinese famine is analyzed in the book in general terms, the Soviet famine is studied through the distinctive regional cases of Ukraine, the Volga region, Kazakhstan, and Outer Mongolia. Likewise, no attention is paid to the ethnic dimension of the Chinese situation, but the Soviet famine is viewed through the prism of the national question (as an instrument of suppression of national aspirations). This structural asymmetry somewhat undercuts the declared goal of the book to compare the great famines in the USSR and PCR. More balanced are interregional (and international) comparisons of the Soviet famine's variations, or Niccolò Pianciola's chapter on the links between Soviet-controlled Mongolia with precommunist China. The book is thus divided into two parts: (1) the analysis of single cases, namely the Soviet, Chinese, and the Kazakh famines, and (2) a comparison of these cases. In his chapter on the USSR, Nicolas Werth offers an overview of famines in the early 1930s in Ukraine, Kuban, and Kazakhstan. He traces the roots of the famine not only to the politics of forced collectivization but also to the long-term effects of postrevolutionary turmoil [End Page 283] on the agrarian economy (Pp. 11–12). These general structural preconditions were also affected by specific national circumstances. According to Werth, Stalin's goal in Ukraine was to subdue not only the peasantry but also Ukrainians as a nation. Viewing Ukrainian famine as intentional, Werth believes the famine in Kazakhstan was primarily the result of administrative incompetence and mismanagement. The predominantly cattle-breeding Kazakh economy collapsed from excessive quotas, which led to the loss of more than 34 percent of the population. In all the regions, the famine highlighted and further enhanced the Soviet type of hierarchical stratification of society: production-oriented and based on differentiation between valuable and disposable elements. The next chapter, by Sarah Cameron, focuses entirely on the Kazakh famine, presenting a basic historical account of the events and discussing the main approaches to their interpretation. Cameron criticizes the popular historiographic trend that juxtaposes the Kazakh famine to the Holodomor in Ukraine as an "unintended" disaster, a side effect of hastily implemented collectivization and sedentarization of Kazakhs. Turning to the Chinese case, Zhou Xun offers a comprehensive overview of the Chinese famine. Discussing the effect of the Great Leap Forward (GLF) on rural China, she raises a pertinent question: if the GLF followed the Soviet model of centralization and collectivization of agriculture, why did the Chinese authorities fail to anticipate the famine that had accompanied the Soviet precedent twenty years earlier? Xun suggests viewing the GLF in both the domestic and international political contexts. Following in Stalin's footsteps, Mao was preoccupied with consolidating his...
Read full abstract