I44 SEER, 83, I, 2005 engineeringchangesto the economy which haveled to risesin unemployment, alcoholism, diseases, suicides and murders together with declines in the standardof living and in life expectancy. Policiesin Chechnya have alsoled to deaths in war. Just as under Stalin, the size of the population has declined and, if the number of deaths due to state executions is now far lower, the state's involvement in policy choices and the (class) inequalities of deaths remain similar.It is a strongargument. Not only is Haynes and Husan's argument strong, it is also well supported and, therefore, persuasive. Crucially Haynes and Husan succeed in making statistics come alive. Nevertheless, there is room for some criticism. For balance, while persuaded of the crucial differences between Soviet Russia under Lenin and Stalin, the statisticson the deaths at the hands of the Cheka in the Civil War should be acknowledged and debated more fully. Also, differences between theories and concepts of class are given only passing reference and, as a consequence, there is a failure to draw out the changing relationshipsbetween economic power (asownershipor control)and political power. Powerlessness,too, needs to be carefullyhandledaspolitical,economic and social in orderto bringout changes over time. This book is a must for anyone wanting to learn more not simplyabout the reality of conditions in Russia in the twentieth century but also why excess deathsin suchlargenumbersand so unequallyhave occurredand continue to occur in Russia. School ofPolitics(SPIRE) R. H. T. O'KANE University ofKeele Andrews,James T. Sciencefor theMasses.7heBolshevik State,PublicScience, andthe PopularImagination in SovietRussia, ' 917-1934. Number Twenty-Two: East European Studies. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, TX, 2003. xii + 234 pp. Map. Illustrations. Notes. Glossary. Bibliography .Index. C34.50? THE central place of science within the Bolshevikrevolutionaryproject can hardlybe disputed.Not only was Marxismreputedto be 'scientific'socialism, but the revolutionpromisedto builda new worldbased upon scientificreason, mass enlightenment, and modern technology. Furthermore, the Bolsheviks proved both willing and able to employ the expertknowledge of scientificand medical specialists, many of whom had been increasingly frustratedby the limits of their influence during the last years of tsarism.In this monograph, James T. Andrews seeks to assess the relationship between science and the Soviet state by focusing on 'public science'. The topic is well chosen. The popularization of science involved several distinct actors the Soviet state, the scientificcommunity, educators, and the Soviet public - each of whom articulated particular concerns, interests, and goals. Andrews thus traces a trajectory from the late imperial period, when public science became established, into the early Soviet era, when visionary notions of science and enlightenment intersected in both state policies and the public imagination. During the StalinistGreat Break,however, pragmatismdisplacedvision, and REVIEWS 145 public science was largely reduced to the technical needs of industrial production. Like Richard Stites, therefore, Andrews paints the I920S as a period of relativetoleranceand utopianpossibilitystampedoutby the Stalinist transformationsafter I928. In his view, a limited civil society persistedin this period, which was characterized by uneasy negotiation between science popularizersand the state. The volume is divided into three parts with a total of nine chapters. Part one summarizes the history of public science in the tsaristperiod from the emergence of scientific societies and journals in the eighteenth century through the tremendous expansion of the early twentieth century.With their broad temporal range, these two brief chapters outline the major developments and the range of institutionsbut do not reallyilluminatetheirimpact or significance. Part two then turns to the first decade of Soviet power. An introductorychapter examines the new administrativeand fiscal landscape, when the ScientificDepartment (Glavnauka)of the Commissariatof Enlightenment gainedjurisdiction over scientificsocieties. According to Andrews, a symbiotic relationship evolved: as Glavnaukabecame the key patron of the once voluntary societies, these, in turn, learned to articulate their activities and goals in the particularlanguage of the Bolsheviks.However, this process of bureaucratizationalso masked a growing conflict between the hegemonic aspirationsof the stateand the pre-revolutionaryculturalelites, a conflictthat would be exploited after I928. Chapter four turns to the world of print and outlines the range of popular scientific journals, books and pamphlets publishedduringthe I920s. Though acknowledgingthedifficultiesof assessing the readers' interests, Andrews does attempt to evaluate popular taste and finds that Soviet citizens thirsted for both practical...
Read full abstract