What do you think?
Rate this book
Another View of Stalin
French
327 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
43 people are currently reading
1762 people want to read
About the author
Ludo Martens
26 books43 followersLudo Martens was a Belgian historian noted for his work on francophone Africa and the Soviet Union. He was also the chairman of the Workers' Party of Belgium.
In 1968 he founded the Maoist group "Alle macht aan de arbeiders" (All Power to the Workers), which in 1979 became the Workers' Party of Belgium.
Martens wrote on the political history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where he has lived and traveled extensively.
In 1994, Martens published Another View of Stalin, a history of the Soviet Union under Stalin that challenges in particular the dominant view of collectivization in the USSR and the Great Purge. He explained his motivation for writing the book in the introduction: "Defending Stalin's work, essentially defending Marxism-Leninism, is an important, urgent task in preparing ourselves for class struggle under the New World Order."
Martens wrote primarily in French; however, his books, especially Another View of Stalin, have been translated into Dutch, English, and numerous other languages. He was a leading Marxist theorist within the anti-revisionist movement, and is therefore perceived as a "Stalin apologist".
Within the International Communist Movement, he is noted for having proposed the unification of the four main tendencies of the Marxist-Leninist movement. These are the pro-Soviet groups, the pro-Chinese, the pro-Albanian, and pro-Cuban. In addition there are "independents." Martens has put forward that while at a certain time these separations were important and based on principle, they can now be overcome and the movement can be united on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. In order to develop this unification process, the Workers Party of Belgium hosts the International Communist Seminar in Brussels, which is attended by 150 organizations around the world.
In 1968 he founded the Maoist group "Alle macht aan de arbeiders" (All Power to the Workers), which in 1979 became the Workers' Party of Belgium.
Martens wrote on the political history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where he has lived and traveled extensively.
In 1994, Martens published Another View of Stalin, a history of the Soviet Union under Stalin that challenges in particular the dominant view of collectivization in the USSR and the Great Purge. He explained his motivation for writing the book in the introduction: "Defending Stalin's work, essentially defending Marxism-Leninism, is an important, urgent task in preparing ourselves for class struggle under the New World Order."
Martens wrote primarily in French; however, his books, especially Another View of Stalin, have been translated into Dutch, English, and numerous other languages. He was a leading Marxist theorist within the anti-revisionist movement, and is therefore perceived as a "Stalin apologist".
Within the International Communist Movement, he is noted for having proposed the unification of the four main tendencies of the Marxist-Leninist movement. These are the pro-Soviet groups, the pro-Chinese, the pro-Albanian, and pro-Cuban. In addition there are "independents." Martens has put forward that while at a certain time these separations were important and based on principle, they can now be overcome and the movement can be united on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. In order to develop this unification process, the Workers Party of Belgium hosts the International Communist Seminar in Brussels, which is attended by 150 organizations around the world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews
August 23, 2015
The late Ludo Martens of the Worker's Party of Belgium presents a concise viewpoint defending Stalin on the basis of fact, and using his work to attack the enemies of Stalin. My criticisms of the book come from Martens' attack on Beria, however other ML historians seem to have refuted this well enough, remember Martens was writing in 1991, when information was harder to come by. For more concise histories by academic History professors I would recommend J. Arch Getty, Sheila Fitzpatrick and Robert Thurston. Martens' evidence against the detractors of Stalin, and analysis of the controversial elements of his regime which are attacked by bourgeois historians, from a scientific perspective, is what allows this book to shine. Stalin was an imperfect man, but he is certainly not the monster we are led to believe he was. To quote Alexander Zinoviev, a Soviet dissident from a 1990 interview, as Martens does with this book:
"I was already a confirmed anti-Stalinist at the age of seventeen .... The idea of killing Stalin filled my thoughts and feelings .... We studied the 'technical' possibilities of an attack .... We even practiced. If they had condemned me to death in 1939, their decision would have been just. I had made up a plan to kill Stalin; wasn't that a crime? When Stalin was still alive, I saw things differently, but as I look back over this century, I can state that Stalin was the greatest individual of this century, the greatest political genius. To adopt a scientific attitude about someone is quite different from one's personal attitude."
"I was already a confirmed anti-Stalinist at the age of seventeen .... The idea of killing Stalin filled my thoughts and feelings .... We studied the 'technical' possibilities of an attack .... We even practiced. If they had condemned me to death in 1939, their decision would have been just. I had made up a plan to kill Stalin; wasn't that a crime? When Stalin was still alive, I saw things differently, but as I look back over this century, I can state that Stalin was the greatest individual of this century, the greatest political genius. To adopt a scientific attitude about someone is quite different from one's personal attitude."
February 19, 2013
Interesting book by a Marxist-Leninist historian who presents a different view of the second Soviet leader than that commonly presented in Western Cold War informed biographies and histories or in the attacks by Trotsky and his intellectual descendants. It certainly gives food for thought and another side to weigh in one's evaluation of this period and its actors. Naysayers will complain that this book is hardly objective, but it is impossible to find an objective account of Stalin and this book is explicitly an answer to attacks repeated ad nauseum elsewhere and as such is one half of a conversation - the other half one can find in almost any book on Stalin or the Soviet Union in a Western book store.
April 21, 2013
This book was monumental in changing my view of Stalin. I used to be an avid supporter of this book, but later I came to view it as mere hagiography. There are some gems to be realized here, but it portrays Stalin as an angel and not a human being, with faults, capable of mistakes and who actually made some bone-headed errors. This is from a supporter of Stalin.
March 15, 2021
As someone who has read various bourgeois histories and papers on Joseph Stalin, Another View of Stalin is a breath of fresh air. Whereas even the modern "revisionist" historians embrace the bourgeois viewpoint of anti-Stalinism, Ludo Martens adopts a hardline, proletarian approach to Stalin history that shocked me, used to the sensibilities of bourgeois historians.
“We cannot accept any criticism of Stalin’s work without verifying all primary data pertaining to the question under debate and without considering all versions of facts and events, in particular the version given by the Bolshevik leadership.”
What Martens proposes here, is a radical proletarian view to Stalinist history. Embracing the progressive aspects of revisionist historians such as J. Arch Getty yet transcending their inherent anti-communism as bourgeois intellectuals is the key to understanding history as communists. It is a Marxist history, a history for the people that goes beyond boring conversation among historians to a history for the people. History becomes, or is rather finally understood as, a battleground.
“We cannot accept any criticism of Stalin’s work without verifying all primary data pertaining to the question under debate and without considering all versions of facts and events, in particular the version given by the Bolshevik leadership.”
What Martens proposes here, is a radical proletarian view to Stalinist history. Embracing the progressive aspects of revisionist historians such as J. Arch Getty yet transcending their inherent anti-communism as bourgeois intellectuals is the key to understanding history as communists. It is a Marxist history, a history for the people that goes beyond boring conversation among historians to a history for the people. History becomes, or is rather finally understood as, a battleground.
August 3, 2017
This book is heavy on dates and names. It's a rather dry read but Martens is quite a grouchy fellow and his sarcastic bitterness comes through when debunking "history" written by revisionists and conservatives alike. This book provided me with plenty of definitive proof that Stalin really wasn't the monster Westerners make out of him. I recommend reading this if you're interested in the early history of the USSR regardless of your views on Stalin himself.
July 9, 2015
hilarious and nonsensical Stalin apologia, cited by mindless tankies all over the internet.
July 11, 2015
He attacks other other authors rather than reviewing the evidence presented by the authors. He also examines evidence, but only his evidence. His twisted logic saying that William Randolph Hearst hired a Chicago reporter to prove the existence of the Holodomor using faulty evidence (namely one picture which was never seen in the text) to say that entire thing was a hoax, often ignoring what people who lived through the experience said. James Mace collected thousands of interviews, all of whom were remarkably consistent in their stories of events (cannabalism, hungry orphans, black boards) There are telegrams, office records, other pictures to support the existence of the Holodomor. The actual death count is substantially lower than what Conquest postulates, and I agree with Timothy Snyder 's reckoning of some 3-4 million. However this was an attack on nationality, and Rafael Lemkin acknowledges it as a genocide; the man who defined the term for the United Nations
I edited this post bdcause my previous one was quite shit. Full disclosure: my family fled from Ukraine and not all escaped. I am not nor will I ever be subjective, and neither will you. I sought out answers from inconsistencies my family was telling me, namely numbers, and you should too. If you want to read more I recommend Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder and The Gulag Archipelago by Anne Applebaum.
I edited this post bdcause my previous one was quite shit. Full disclosure: my family fled from Ukraine and not all escaped. I am not nor will I ever be subjective, and neither will you. I sought out answers from inconsistencies my family was telling me, namely numbers, and you should too. If you want to read more I recommend Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder and The Gulag Archipelago by Anne Applebaum.
February 28, 2013
A most excellent historical analysis of Joseph Stalin and his role in history. The amount of lies, slander and falsifications spread to diminish the accomplishments of this great man is tragic. Recommended for anyone with the slightest interest in Soviet history.
June 8, 2019
Wow! A true believer in Saint Stalin. Martens knows Nikita Khrushchev was sent by the Devil to tempt the feeble Socialists and turn away from the Halal path. Hence these are some sort of the 40 years in the Desert as prescribed.
December 19, 2022
As good as Grover Furr’s works and maybe even better (and way before him).
Ludo makes an excellent analysis and critique of all the myths and lies that have been said about comrade Stalin.
Ludo makes an excellent analysis and critique of all the myths and lies that have been said about comrade Stalin.
October 27, 2023
Banger from start to finish
January 30, 2025
Full of really important information, but Martens is not a very good writer and he overly relies upon quotes from singular texts
November 2, 2017
Ludo Martens was basically the founder of the stalinst party, PVDA (the Belgian PVDA, not the Dutch PVDA). In this book Stalin can do absolutely nothing wrong, he also never makes a mistake.
The publishing house of the PVDA, would never publish this book again, it's way too positive about Stalin. They still worship Stalin, but they can't do it openly anymore. The party presents itself as a 'normal' party, but behund closed doors they discuss how they can abolish parliament and all other political parties in typical communist fashion.
I recommend this book as a window into the mind of modern day stalinists, such as the PVDA.
Also read this for some more background info:
https://projectauthenticity.org/2017/...
The publishing house of the PVDA, would never publish this book again, it's way too positive about Stalin. They still worship Stalin, but they can't do it openly anymore. The party presents itself as a 'normal' party, but behund closed doors they discuss how they can abolish parliament and all other political parties in typical communist fashion.
I recommend this book as a window into the mind of modern day stalinists, such as the PVDA.
Also read this for some more background info:
https://projectauthenticity.org/2017/...
Read
May 6, 2013seems like a cool guy to me
July 23, 2023
To sum it up in one sentence: “it’s good for reference.”
By that, I mean the information in it is great, things seem sourced well, and much of it checks out with other Stalin books and articles I’ve read in the past. However, it’s a bit of a tough read in the sense that it selects all of the big issues and breaks them down in a Grover Furr type manner. This isn’t too much of a complaint; the book makes it’s intent clear from the start, not being biographical, and despite some of the overly praising language, I can forgive this due to how much is written on Stalin in such poor faith. I also love the constant references to other authors, such as Getty, and the constant numbers and historical causes and effects. Well done on that front!
My actual issues stem from two things. For one, this needed an editor badly. I’m sure some of it comes down to translation from the Belgian author, but it’s not a very good look when there are consistent typos and poor formatting of some sentence structure. That very structure itself could have used work to make readability a little better. Secondly, the entire last 20 or so pages were unnecessary. For one, the attacks on Tito (while some fair) did not get analyzed in proper historical context that would have been needed, which is a shame considering this whole book served to do just that for Stalin. I also think it could have replaced much of this section for a better look at the Korean War and expanded on the lightly touched doctors plot.
Firm Marxist-Leninists should give this a read, but for those less interested in the Stalin period specifically, maybe just use this as a reference if you manage to get ahold of a copy.
By that, I mean the information in it is great, things seem sourced well, and much of it checks out with other Stalin books and articles I’ve read in the past. However, it’s a bit of a tough read in the sense that it selects all of the big issues and breaks them down in a Grover Furr type manner. This isn’t too much of a complaint; the book makes it’s intent clear from the start, not being biographical, and despite some of the overly praising language, I can forgive this due to how much is written on Stalin in such poor faith. I also love the constant references to other authors, such as Getty, and the constant numbers and historical causes and effects. Well done on that front!
My actual issues stem from two things. For one, this needed an editor badly. I’m sure some of it comes down to translation from the Belgian author, but it’s not a very good look when there are consistent typos and poor formatting of some sentence structure. That very structure itself could have used work to make readability a little better. Secondly, the entire last 20 or so pages were unnecessary. For one, the attacks on Tito (while some fair) did not get analyzed in proper historical context that would have been needed, which is a shame considering this whole book served to do just that for Stalin. I also think it could have replaced much of this section for a better look at the Korean War and expanded on the lightly touched doctors plot.
Firm Marxist-Leninists should give this a read, but for those less interested in the Stalin period specifically, maybe just use this as a reference if you manage to get ahold of a copy.
December 6, 2022
El libro da lo que promete: otra mirada sobre Stalin, que no es desde luego la más habitual hoy en día. Solo destacaría una crítica y un elogio.
La crítica: el libro está compuesto en gran medida como respuesta a acusaciones sobre las que ha habido mucha propaganda (la colectivización, el holodomor, la gran purga, la preparación de la IIGM, etc), pero no se toma la molestia de desplegar estos argumentos al completo. Aunque el fondo se intuye, uno se queda con la sensación de que tiene que leer a Robert Conquest para saber de qué habla Martens exactamente.
El elogio: la crítica más común que veo al libro es que se trata de una hagiografía de Stalin, que pareciera que no hizo nada mal en su vida. Después de leer el libro, creo que esto es injusto. El libro no trata tanto de defender a Stalin como de *explicar* a Stalin. Expone otra mirada sobre el contexto en el que tuvo que tomar sus decisiones (muchas de ellas cuestionables, sin duda) y explica que todas ellas se dieron por buenas razones, teniendo en cuenta la magnitud de los problemas a los que se enfrentaba.
Dicho esto, recomiendo la lectura, aunque creo que el libro puede resultar “chocante” para quien no haya puesto nunca bajo duda las afirmaciones que se hacen de Stalin en los principales medios de comunicación. Solo por ese “choque”, ya merece la pena.
La crítica: el libro está compuesto en gran medida como respuesta a acusaciones sobre las que ha habido mucha propaganda (la colectivización, el holodomor, la gran purga, la preparación de la IIGM, etc), pero no se toma la molestia de desplegar estos argumentos al completo. Aunque el fondo se intuye, uno se queda con la sensación de que tiene que leer a Robert Conquest para saber de qué habla Martens exactamente.
El elogio: la crítica más común que veo al libro es que se trata de una hagiografía de Stalin, que pareciera que no hizo nada mal en su vida. Después de leer el libro, creo que esto es injusto. El libro no trata tanto de defender a Stalin como de *explicar* a Stalin. Expone otra mirada sobre el contexto en el que tuvo que tomar sus decisiones (muchas de ellas cuestionables, sin duda) y explica que todas ellas se dieron por buenas razones, teniendo en cuenta la magnitud de los problemas a los que se enfrentaba.
Dicho esto, recomiendo la lectura, aunque creo que el libro puede resultar “chocante” para quien no haya puesto nunca bajo duda las afirmaciones que se hacen de Stalin en los principales medios de comunicación. Solo por ese “choque”, ya merece la pena.
July 22, 2016
La claridad y las fuentes con las cuales se basa el autor son casi irrefutables para tirar abajo uno de los mitos menos fundados de la historia. Lectura recomendad a aquellos que quieren aprender mas sobre Rusia Sovietica.
July 29, 2017
A stirring defense of the great revolutionary leader against all sorts of black propaganda.
January 7, 2017
Worthwhile reading for anybody interested in getting a full picture of the administration of the Soviet Union, especially if you are unsatisfied with or skeptical of bourgeois sources.
April 13, 2017
The best book on Stalin I've read... Considering all the arguments of the opposition, ludo marten disproves them all by logic and facts.
May 15, 2020
Excellent and thorough recitification of the mountains of antiStalin propaganda created and published by Western sources with a view to stifle interest in anti-capitalist revolutions.
March 31, 2022
This book is completely detached from reality.
May 30, 2025
I really liked large chunks of this, which is a bummer since there were also stretches that didn't resonate with me. Martens is at his best when he's bringing factual evidence to the table. Those sections are strong, but too many times he devolved into the rumor mill or the telephone game as history and that's not too interesting. I also wish it was formatted a little better, Martens' stream of consciousness style is hard to follow at times.
October 2, 2025
Δεν είναι ένα καθαρά επιστημονικό ιστορικό πόνημα (με την αυστηρή έννοια του όρου), αλλά μπορεί να συνεισφέρει στο διάλογο των ιστορικών, και μη, ως ένα καθαρά μαρξιστικό-λενινιστικό έργο που υποστηρίζει τις θέσεις του Στάλιν και τα επιχειρήματα των υποστηρικτών του.
December 29, 2023
mandatory reading, one of the best books ever written.
February 27, 2023
Martens' hagiographic text on Stalin and the maneuvering of the Stalinist bloc in the early USSR is an important work, and one that highlights the necessities of action taken by the party, as well as criticizes undue vitriol that's been lumped on Stalin and the USSR by actors within and without its ruling apparatus. I will echo another reviewer of this text that pointed out that Martens is not the best writer, and that he is overly reliant on quotes from other material. One thing worth pointing out is that much of his material are primary sources, which is great and helpful, but ultimately his writing style, of 'statement + quote + celebration of correctness or incredulity at opponents' stupidity', is simply not how history is written, and may be off-putting to those who attempt to read the book.
The chapters 'Introduction'-'The Young Stalin Forges His Arms' is a relatively inoffensive introduction to Stalin the man. Unlike many of the later characterizations of him, Stalin was sharp, capable, well-read, and also a bank robber, which is objectively cool and good.
'Building Socialism in One Country'-'Collectivization' is where Martens starts his real crusade against Stalin's critics, however. These chapters read like an effective, if single-minded, party defense of state action. Here we begin the "if you believe X, then that leads us to understand Y" that became pervasive and ultimately problematic by the end of the text. I will return to the "X...Y" issue below, but first I want to touch base on topics covered:
Collectivization: An incredibly difficult task, Stalin's party line was often a braking force on the popular desire to increase liquidation of Kulaks. The Kulak class cooperated with international actors to exaggerate their poor treatment; basically, the first socialist state in the world acted socialist-ly, and bourgeois classes around the world realized what Marx's "we will not apologize for the terror" meant in practice. Kulaks blocked the collectivization drive in such a way that the only reasonable course of action involved removing them and their property rights from potential interference whatsoever. Further, two key points Martens stands by are that "liquidation" isn't the scary word for "murder"; it's the same type of "removal from effectiveness" that we think of when we see NYT op-eds calling for "minimization" or "disempowerment" of obstructionist Republicans in order to effect policy. Sending them to prison was usually done specifically when they'd done terrorist shit to block implementation. Secondly, the numbers of Kulaks interned are heavily exaggerated.
----
Holodomor: This chapter treads some familiar territory in that sources are criticized, alternative facts are laid out by on-the-ground researchers in the 30s and observers at the time disagree mightily with those who think the Holodomor was Holocaust-lite.
----
Bureaucracy: Throughout the book, Martens treats us to primary documents and strategy outlays from Stalin showing that bureaucracy - that big, inefficient state that neoliberals targeted back in the 70s - was a constant threat the Communist Party fought against.
----
Great Purge: I think this was actually the most transformative section for my understanding of the Soviet decisions re: party purges. Discusses the struggles for power within the party from an ML perspective. Initial purges in the 20s and early 30s, according to Martens, were part of a rectification campaign targeted at undisciplined party members, those who contributed to bureaucratic growth, and who didn't have a strong understanding of the theory behind the movement. This was initially a problem because of the enormous growth of the party during the collectivization campaign, and thus the opportunity for saboteurs and problematic elements to infiltrate party leadership was ripe.
Later, during the "Great Purge," Martens outlines Trotsky's call for armed rebellion against Soviet leadership, intrigues of sabotage by Pyatakov and the Trots, the Bukharinist social-democratic deviation, and then the Tukhachevsky/Military opposition that Stalin faced - much of which was aligned with rightists in Nazi Germany and the Western Powers. Court records were mixed with personal statements from collaborators in these various deviationist groups to build a coherent, "USSR did good" line.
----
By about page 250, I was excited. Martens' book had given me an incredible insight into the maneuvering of political figures within the USSR, I understood the necessity of Stalin's positions and actions throughout early Soviet history, and I was ready to go on a warpath defending all that happened. I took a step back at that point and (rhetorically) posed some testing questions to the text. What I found, unfortunately, was pretty disorienting:
As I began thinking about how one would defend Stalin from overzealous purging and punishment meted out by the NKVD under Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria etc., or why Khrushchev would lie about Stalin's legacy, or even why the USSR was so often anti-revolutionary in its dealings with Communist Parties around the world, I realized that my recently-bolstered arguments were all contingent on a deep and particularly Marxist-Leninist understanding of the early Soviet Union's theoretical and practical lines. The blame-shifting to NKVD heads that Martens presents - which some authors of Soviet History (like Montefiore in Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar) label a purely opportunistic effort to shield Stalin from bad policy - relies on an understanding and internalization of Yezhov as a climber who worked with literal terrorist and coup elements in the Soviet state. Stalin opposed these elements for years. It seems cut and dry, but the interpretation Martens settles on requires us to adopt Stalin's line.
When I think of Bukharin, the claims of left, center, and right alike focus on "Stalin murdering his political opponents." Bukharin - like many leftists (especially in the West) - wanted to focus on consumer goods, light industry, and multi-party bourgeois democracy. He coordinated, in this effort to provide a "humanist communism," with the far-right, Trotskyist wreckers, and ultimately Western anti-communists. Stalin's purging and trials for the Bukharinist group were necessary for continued Marxism-Leninism.
Why'd the Soviets purge the party of tens of thousands of communists during and after the collectivization campaign? Because they - and now, we - had/have access to documents showing that disorganization and lack of discipline necessarily ran rampant in a party that grew from 15,000 to 150,000 in the matter of 18 months. Of course everyone wouldn't have a solid understanding of ML socialism (just look at Twitter if you want incorrect socialist takes in the 21st century). From the position of Stalin's Marxist-Leninist party, this was the only principled way forward.
----
And so it goes for the entirety of Stalin's tenure: if you approach the problems that faced the USSR from a principled Marxist-Leninist position, there was never any real alternative to the actions the Soviets took. But this requires a very specific interpretation (laid out spectacularly in Martens' book) that completely precludes any debate from alternative viewpoints. For someone who has a background in history, this doesn't work. If we read Another View of Stalin and then enter every topical discussion on the topics at hand with one and only one correct interpretation, we will not make friends, or allies, or comrades out of our interlocuters.
Unfortunately, the type of history that Martens produces here is not the type of history that "we" do, as historians. And so Martens cannot get 5 stars here. That said, a trained historian who is able to contextualize his work has a lot of ammunition to work with.
4/5.
The chapters 'Introduction'-'The Young Stalin Forges His Arms' is a relatively inoffensive introduction to Stalin the man. Unlike many of the later characterizations of him, Stalin was sharp, capable, well-read, and also a bank robber, which is objectively cool and good.
'Building Socialism in One Country'-'Collectivization' is where Martens starts his real crusade against Stalin's critics, however. These chapters read like an effective, if single-minded, party defense of state action. Here we begin the "if you believe X, then that leads us to understand Y" that became pervasive and ultimately problematic by the end of the text. I will return to the "X...Y" issue below, but first I want to touch base on topics covered:
Collectivization: An incredibly difficult task, Stalin's party line was often a braking force on the popular desire to increase liquidation of Kulaks. The Kulak class cooperated with international actors to exaggerate their poor treatment; basically, the first socialist state in the world acted socialist-ly, and bourgeois classes around the world realized what Marx's "we will not apologize for the terror" meant in practice. Kulaks blocked the collectivization drive in such a way that the only reasonable course of action involved removing them and their property rights from potential interference whatsoever. Further, two key points Martens stands by are that "liquidation" isn't the scary word for "murder"; it's the same type of "removal from effectiveness" that we think of when we see NYT op-eds calling for "minimization" or "disempowerment" of obstructionist Republicans in order to effect policy. Sending them to prison was usually done specifically when they'd done terrorist shit to block implementation. Secondly, the numbers of Kulaks interned are heavily exaggerated.
----
Holodomor: This chapter treads some familiar territory in that sources are criticized, alternative facts are laid out by on-the-ground researchers in the 30s and observers at the time disagree mightily with those who think the Holodomor was Holocaust-lite.
----
Bureaucracy: Throughout the book, Martens treats us to primary documents and strategy outlays from Stalin showing that bureaucracy - that big, inefficient state that neoliberals targeted back in the 70s - was a constant threat the Communist Party fought against.
----
Great Purge: I think this was actually the most transformative section for my understanding of the Soviet decisions re: party purges. Discusses the struggles for power within the party from an ML perspective. Initial purges in the 20s and early 30s, according to Martens, were part of a rectification campaign targeted at undisciplined party members, those who contributed to bureaucratic growth, and who didn't have a strong understanding of the theory behind the movement. This was initially a problem because of the enormous growth of the party during the collectivization campaign, and thus the opportunity for saboteurs and problematic elements to infiltrate party leadership was ripe.
Later, during the "Great Purge," Martens outlines Trotsky's call for armed rebellion against Soviet leadership, intrigues of sabotage by Pyatakov and the Trots, the Bukharinist social-democratic deviation, and then the Tukhachevsky/Military opposition that Stalin faced - much of which was aligned with rightists in Nazi Germany and the Western Powers. Court records were mixed with personal statements from collaborators in these various deviationist groups to build a coherent, "USSR did good" line.
----
By about page 250, I was excited. Martens' book had given me an incredible insight into the maneuvering of political figures within the USSR, I understood the necessity of Stalin's positions and actions throughout early Soviet history, and I was ready to go on a warpath defending all that happened. I took a step back at that point and (rhetorically) posed some testing questions to the text. What I found, unfortunately, was pretty disorienting:
As I began thinking about how one would defend Stalin from overzealous purging and punishment meted out by the NKVD under Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria etc., or why Khrushchev would lie about Stalin's legacy, or even why the USSR was so often anti-revolutionary in its dealings with Communist Parties around the world, I realized that my recently-bolstered arguments were all contingent on a deep and particularly Marxist-Leninist understanding of the early Soviet Union's theoretical and practical lines. The blame-shifting to NKVD heads that Martens presents - which some authors of Soviet History (like Montefiore in Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar) label a purely opportunistic effort to shield Stalin from bad policy - relies on an understanding and internalization of Yezhov as a climber who worked with literal terrorist and coup elements in the Soviet state. Stalin opposed these elements for years. It seems cut and dry, but the interpretation Martens settles on requires us to adopt Stalin's line.
When I think of Bukharin, the claims of left, center, and right alike focus on "Stalin murdering his political opponents." Bukharin - like many leftists (especially in the West) - wanted to focus on consumer goods, light industry, and multi-party bourgeois democracy. He coordinated, in this effort to provide a "humanist communism," with the far-right, Trotskyist wreckers, and ultimately Western anti-communists. Stalin's purging and trials for the Bukharinist group were necessary for continued Marxism-Leninism.
Why'd the Soviets purge the party of tens of thousands of communists during and after the collectivization campaign? Because they - and now, we - had/have access to documents showing that disorganization and lack of discipline necessarily ran rampant in a party that grew from 15,000 to 150,000 in the matter of 18 months. Of course everyone wouldn't have a solid understanding of ML socialism (just look at Twitter if you want incorrect socialist takes in the 21st century). From the position of Stalin's Marxist-Leninist party, this was the only principled way forward.
----
And so it goes for the entirety of Stalin's tenure: if you approach the problems that faced the USSR from a principled Marxist-Leninist position, there was never any real alternative to the actions the Soviets took. But this requires a very specific interpretation (laid out spectacularly in Martens' book) that completely precludes any debate from alternative viewpoints. For someone who has a background in history, this doesn't work. If we read Another View of Stalin and then enter every topical discussion on the topics at hand with one and only one correct interpretation, we will not make friends, or allies, or comrades out of our interlocuters.
Unfortunately, the type of history that Martens produces here is not the type of history that "we" do, as historians. And so Martens cannot get 5 stars here. That said, a trained historian who is able to contextualize his work has a lot of ammunition to work with.
4/5.
February 6, 2020
This book provided an interesting look into the life of Stalin and the creation of the USSR. Studying revolution and political science in college led me to the belief that the easiest part of revolution is winning the civil war/conflict. What happens next is even more difficult. Revolution, nation building, and political and cultural changes are challenging and marked by many flaws, mistakes, and excesses.
This book laid out what happened and why these decisions were made. Especially in the lead up to World War 2. I am in awe of the challenges facing the soviet people in this time. What the Nazis and their collaborators did to the Soviet people, especially Soviet Jewish people, is enough to make any person sick to their soul.
I highly recommend this book. It is an informative read on Stalin, Marxism-Leninism, and revolution. This book is well sourced and researched. I encourage anyone, regardless of political stance, to read this book and engage with it in a critical manner.
This book laid out what happened and why these decisions were made. Especially in the lead up to World War 2. I am in awe of the challenges facing the soviet people in this time. What the Nazis and their collaborators did to the Soviet people, especially Soviet Jewish people, is enough to make any person sick to their soul.
I highly recommend this book. It is an informative read on Stalin, Marxism-Leninism, and revolution. This book is well sourced and researched. I encourage anyone, regardless of political stance, to read this book and engage with it in a critical manner.
July 27, 2020
Not *that* bad as it's written in contradistinction to the Western Propaganda, but it becomes a hagiography, recycled nonsense from the Stalin-era re-education. Still an interesting read as it presents another perspective of the "truth". To his own merit, Stalin did manage to stabilize and build a version of a socialist society but at the cost of enormous blunders, deformed and adapted to a barbaric culture retreating into a different version of empire conservation, organizationally stiff, populist and dogmatic. Not serious history but nevertheless interesting as it is a valid counter balance to the vulgar anticommunist hysteria of the imperial core. Recommend as an interesting piece of intelligent propaganda that needs to be taken with a grain of salt and further studies engaged.
September 25, 2023
EXTRAORDINARILY good book, one of my favorites- it completely smashes most myths about stalin era USSR. it serves as a perfect beginning text to read about stalin era USSR, martens is also quite the funny author and blends dry humor perfectly into his analysis and debunking of cold-warrior myths.
my only complaint is that i wish martens participated in more communist criticism of stalin era USSR at the end of the book, and i wish he covered some other topics related to stalin era USSR like the ethnic deportations/national policy in general. martens being a revisionist really limits his analysis as he doesn't realize the necessity for the universal application of the great proletarian cultural revolution (GPCR).
if you wanna learn the truth about stalin READ THIS BOOK, and if you like statistics and dry humor you'll love it.
my only complaint is that i wish martens participated in more communist criticism of stalin era USSR at the end of the book, and i wish he covered some other topics related to stalin era USSR like the ethnic deportations/national policy in general. martens being a revisionist really limits his analysis as he doesn't realize the necessity for the universal application of the great proletarian cultural revolution (GPCR).
if you wanna learn the truth about stalin READ THIS BOOK, and if you like statistics and dry humor you'll love it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews