What do you think?
Rate this book
The Red Flag: A History of Communism
Communism was one of the most powerful political and intellectual movements the world has ever seen. At the height of their influence, Communists controlled more than a third of the Earth's surface. But perhaps more astonishing than its rapid rise and extraordinary reach was Communism's sudden, devastating collapse in November of 1989.
In The Red Flag, Oxford professor David Priestland tells the epic story of a movement that has taken root in dozens of countries across 200 years, from its birth after the French Revolution to its ideological maturity in 19th-century Germany to its rise to dominance (and subsequent fall) in the 20th century.
In The Red Flag, Oxford professor David Priestland tells the epic story of a movement that has taken root in dozens of countries across 200 years, from its birth after the French Revolution to its ideological maturity in 19th-century Germany to its rise to dominance (and subsequent fall) in the 20th century.
868 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
203 people are currently reading
1744 people want to read
About the author
David Priestland
7 books24 followersDavid Priestland is a British historian. He teaches modern history at the University of Oxford and is Fellow of St Edmund Hall.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews
May 2, 2013
This large and expensive book is an interesting example of “history” as commodity. It takes an “important” subject- in this case, the history of communism- provides a great deal of data in an accessible form, and keeps its author's analysis slight. Indeed, the analysis manages to almost disguise itself as such so that most readers will not notice that it is intended to assure the targeted market- moderately educated, middle-class Westerners- that everything they've always believed or been told about the geo-political world around them is true- in other words, communism was a bad, utopian idea, that fortunately collapsed due to a combination of its own inner contradictions and the courageous stand of western defenders of freedom. The targeted reader learns facts, but more importantly, (s)he leans that (s)he is smart and rite.
The biggest problem with Priestland's approach is that he attempts to write a history of communism as if it existed in a vacuum. The USSR, Priestland would have us believe, took the shape it did not in response to any threat from imperialism, or, for that matter, from any cultural forces and contradictions inherent to Russia, but simply because of the way different Soviet leaders concocted it. Any serious attempt to understand the communist project, or, for that matter, the capitalist project, in the twentieth century has to begin with an analysis of the ways in which the two systems acted upon one another, transforming and reforming each other in a myriad of different ways depending on the conditions and the culture that the two systems operated under. Priestland doesn't want to accept that the appeal of communism for hundreds of millions of people was not based on having read books and having become infatuated with utopian concepts but from their struggles under capitalism to survive and have dignified lives as workers. For Priestland, it was simply a dreamy ideology forced on the masses by a series of leader-thinkers.
Priestland traces the roots of communism to the French Revolution and the Jacobins, because, he claims the Jacobins were the first to envisage that only an organized band of revolutionaries devoid of hierarchy could create a just and lasting society. This strikes me as an overly broad and arbitrary place to begin. Plato's Republic proposed that the ideal society would be one in which all goods were distributed equally and over-seen by a vanguard of philosophers. If we're going to trace communism so broadly as to attribute it to the capitalist Jacobins, why not go back to Plato? Some form of egalitarian social thought has been at work almost throughout human history.
I think Priestland wants to connect communism and the Jacobins for two reasons. The first being that it gives him a historical “beginning” recent enough to make the length of his book manageable. Secondly, by associating Jacobism and communism, he gets to sully the name of both. The “democratic” west still wants to demonize the Jacobins because it wants its subjects to forget that for all of the horrific violence and contradictions of the French Revolution, it was the event that marked the beginning of the end of feudalism and the consolidation of capitalism in Europe. The “democratic” west, Priestland being one of its exponents, its agents, wants us to forget that capitalism ever had a “beginning” and that this beginning was revolutionary. Instead, capitalism is treated not as a force, but simply as the “natural” order, invaded by an “unnatural” competitor. Rather than being an organization fighting for the empowerment of the middle class over the aristocracy, the Jacobins are vilified as being the harbingers of one-party “totalitarianism,” and this is why Priestland links them to communism. Of course, the Bolsheviks did, in fact, model themselves to some degree after the Jacobins, but this was because they understood the Jacobins as an organization that had successfully led the revolutionary triumph of an oppressed over an oppressor class in a different historical epoch.
Throughout the book, Priestland leaves unargued some debatable historical points. He describes the Bolsheviks' seizure of power as absolute, not addressing claims by respected historians of the Russian Revolution, such as Isaac Deutscher, that the Bolsheviks attempted to form a power-sharing government with the Mensheviks throughout Lenin's life. If Priestland can disprove these claims then he should feel free to do so, but to not acknowledge them seems inappropriate. Also, when Priestland is forced to acknowledge dubious practices by the Western powers he tries to white-wash the atrocities. For instance, he writes of the Chilean coup against democratically elected Marxist Salvador Allende that, “The Unites States' precise role is unclear...” when it has been blatantly proven that the coup was orchestrated by Henry Kissinger and the CIA.
None of this is to say that the book does not contain interesting information, some of which flies against popular, western ideas about communism. Priestland demonstrates that it was not Stalin's desire to have communist states in Eastern Europe after World War II. Rather, he wanted the communist parties to enter into popular fronts so as not to enrage the West. It was the communists of the different Eastern European countries who did not want to share power, and pressured Stalin into helping them achieve it. It was not, then, a case of Russia building an empire for itself, but of local communists using the post-war milieu to empower themselves.
Also, no one who reads the book can continue to think of communism as having been “monolithic” Priestland shows that the nature of communism varied greatly, not just between its European, Asian, African, and American manifestations, but from country to country within the “Iron Curtain,” with Marxism-Leninism being mixed with different national and regional cultures and traditions. Still, Priestland narrativizes these variations as if they all resulted from the personalities of different local leaders. The book predominantly treats the history of communism as the collective biography of the movement's “great men,” as if these cultures were simply the result of their leaders whimsies.
However, Priestland does make occasional forays into what could be termed “people's history” and these sections were, I thought, some of the strongest and most interesting parts of the book. Sharing letters, reminiscences of workers, and opinion polls, Priestland is awkwardly forced to acknowledge that throughout most of their histories, the vast majority of those living under communism in Europe were fairly happy. They may have been cynical about their governments, and frustrated with the inefficient delivery of what were ultimately luxury items. But the basic necessities of life were assured, work was easy, and there was more time to read, educated oneself, and spend time with friends and family than there were in the luxurious but stressful advanced capitalist countries. The majority, Priestland concludes, truly believed their system, with all of its acknowledged short-comings, to be preferable to capitalism. The number and influence of anti-communist militants was small, according to Priestland, which made the harsh treatment of dissidents by the authorities not only inhumane but also deeply unnecessary.
Some of the most interesting, and seemingly confused, portions of the book addressed the Gorbachev era and Perestroika. At first, I was impressed by Priestland's presentation of the changes coming not from the demands of dissidents but from a young, privileged clique within the Communist Party who declared that the system “wasn't working” because it could not provide the luxuries of the west, something Eastern European communist leaders had been haplessly promising their subjects since the Brezhnev era. (Although, of course, this “personification” of Perestroika as the work of Gorbachev fits nicely with Priestland's understanding of history as the work of “Great Men”- be they “good” or “bad”. Priestland characterizes Gorbachev as a narcissistic and impractical man, but still celebrates him as being ultimately on the “right side of history.”)
Reading about the ways in which the Communist Party, whose leaders were now being wined and dined by the leaders of the West, now bent over backwards to describe and denounce the abuses of the Stalinist era to a population that was already aware of them, the ways in which Party leaders were encouraged to describe shame-facedly the lower standard of living of developing nations versus the imperialist countries (as if this was somehow a denunciation of the communist system itself rather than a natural product of uneven development) seemed to me a perfect historical example of Althusser's Ideological State Apparatuses. If the system tells people that the system is failing because it cannot efficiently provide luxury items, a formerly content population will now judge the system by its inability to provide luxury items and “rebel.”
Intentionally or not, Priestland deflates the ludicrous myth, embraced by some “Trotskyist” historians such as Chris Harmon, that the fall of communism was some kind of “revolution from below”. Rather, Priestland fully acknowledges that the end of communism was brought about by privileged bureaucrats that, through the restoration of capitalism, transformed themselves into wealthy robber-barons. But then, bizarrely, he describes Gorbachev as a man who led a “revolution”. This, of course, is the only kind of “revolution” that can occur for Priestland- one of “democracy” over “totalitarianism”- the “right side” of history vs. the “wrong side.”
Priestland's own account of post-Soviet Russia illuminates what is meant in the West by “democracy.” Since the fall of communism, there has been one election in Russia generally regarded as legit, in which Yeltsin narrowly won re-election over his Communist Party competitor after trailing the CP in the polls for most of the campaign. It is generally acknowledged that Yeltsin came out on top at the end only because American corporations bought up all the commercial time on Russian TV and would only run campaign commercials for Yeltsin. Since then, of course, there has been Putin...
The two “characters” from the book that most mirrored each other for me were Gorbachev and Pol Pot, two men who simply believed every word coming out of their own mouths, even when the consequences of their ideas and actions had no correlation what so ever to their stated, desired effect. Each ended up leading what one could argue were the two greatest disasters for the communist world- the ghoulish embarrassment of Pol's “Democratic Kampuchea” and the over-throw of the USSR, the anchor of the communist world. (The horrors of Stalin's reign cannot, from the standpoint of communism, be considered disasters. These injustices helped establish the state that was, for decades after Stalin's death, one of the world's most powerful and upwardly mobile.)
In his conclusion, Priestland asks if any system that engendered “monsters” such as Stalin and Pol Pot can be forgiven by history. He, of course, concludes that it can not be. But this is a conclusion reached by treating communism as if it existed in a void, as if it did not face constant threat from its ideological enemies, enemies that had developed nuclear weapons and seen fit to use them on civilian populations in Japan. This is the conclusion of an ahistorical history of communism that wants to forget that every social system at first articulates itself as sheer force and thus that every social system has its necessary, perhaps even foundational, horrors. American capitalism, for instance, was founded through the near extermination of Native Americans, some have claimed it the largest scale genocide in human history, and the kidnapping, enslavement, rape, torture, and murder of tens of millions of Africans and African-Americans.
The biggest problem with Priestland's approach is that he attempts to write a history of communism as if it existed in a vacuum. The USSR, Priestland would have us believe, took the shape it did not in response to any threat from imperialism, or, for that matter, from any cultural forces and contradictions inherent to Russia, but simply because of the way different Soviet leaders concocted it. Any serious attempt to understand the communist project, or, for that matter, the capitalist project, in the twentieth century has to begin with an analysis of the ways in which the two systems acted upon one another, transforming and reforming each other in a myriad of different ways depending on the conditions and the culture that the two systems operated under. Priestland doesn't want to accept that the appeal of communism for hundreds of millions of people was not based on having read books and having become infatuated with utopian concepts but from their struggles under capitalism to survive and have dignified lives as workers. For Priestland, it was simply a dreamy ideology forced on the masses by a series of leader-thinkers.
Priestland traces the roots of communism to the French Revolution and the Jacobins, because, he claims the Jacobins were the first to envisage that only an organized band of revolutionaries devoid of hierarchy could create a just and lasting society. This strikes me as an overly broad and arbitrary place to begin. Plato's Republic proposed that the ideal society would be one in which all goods were distributed equally and over-seen by a vanguard of philosophers. If we're going to trace communism so broadly as to attribute it to the capitalist Jacobins, why not go back to Plato? Some form of egalitarian social thought has been at work almost throughout human history.
I think Priestland wants to connect communism and the Jacobins for two reasons. The first being that it gives him a historical “beginning” recent enough to make the length of his book manageable. Secondly, by associating Jacobism and communism, he gets to sully the name of both. The “democratic” west still wants to demonize the Jacobins because it wants its subjects to forget that for all of the horrific violence and contradictions of the French Revolution, it was the event that marked the beginning of the end of feudalism and the consolidation of capitalism in Europe. The “democratic” west, Priestland being one of its exponents, its agents, wants us to forget that capitalism ever had a “beginning” and that this beginning was revolutionary. Instead, capitalism is treated not as a force, but simply as the “natural” order, invaded by an “unnatural” competitor. Rather than being an organization fighting for the empowerment of the middle class over the aristocracy, the Jacobins are vilified as being the harbingers of one-party “totalitarianism,” and this is why Priestland links them to communism. Of course, the Bolsheviks did, in fact, model themselves to some degree after the Jacobins, but this was because they understood the Jacobins as an organization that had successfully led the revolutionary triumph of an oppressed over an oppressor class in a different historical epoch.
Throughout the book, Priestland leaves unargued some debatable historical points. He describes the Bolsheviks' seizure of power as absolute, not addressing claims by respected historians of the Russian Revolution, such as Isaac Deutscher, that the Bolsheviks attempted to form a power-sharing government with the Mensheviks throughout Lenin's life. If Priestland can disprove these claims then he should feel free to do so, but to not acknowledge them seems inappropriate. Also, when Priestland is forced to acknowledge dubious practices by the Western powers he tries to white-wash the atrocities. For instance, he writes of the Chilean coup against democratically elected Marxist Salvador Allende that, “The Unites States' precise role is unclear...” when it has been blatantly proven that the coup was orchestrated by Henry Kissinger and the CIA.
None of this is to say that the book does not contain interesting information, some of which flies against popular, western ideas about communism. Priestland demonstrates that it was not Stalin's desire to have communist states in Eastern Europe after World War II. Rather, he wanted the communist parties to enter into popular fronts so as not to enrage the West. It was the communists of the different Eastern European countries who did not want to share power, and pressured Stalin into helping them achieve it. It was not, then, a case of Russia building an empire for itself, but of local communists using the post-war milieu to empower themselves.
Also, no one who reads the book can continue to think of communism as having been “monolithic” Priestland shows that the nature of communism varied greatly, not just between its European, Asian, African, and American manifestations, but from country to country within the “Iron Curtain,” with Marxism-Leninism being mixed with different national and regional cultures and traditions. Still, Priestland narrativizes these variations as if they all resulted from the personalities of different local leaders. The book predominantly treats the history of communism as the collective biography of the movement's “great men,” as if these cultures were simply the result of their leaders whimsies.
However, Priestland does make occasional forays into what could be termed “people's history” and these sections were, I thought, some of the strongest and most interesting parts of the book. Sharing letters, reminiscences of workers, and opinion polls, Priestland is awkwardly forced to acknowledge that throughout most of their histories, the vast majority of those living under communism in Europe were fairly happy. They may have been cynical about their governments, and frustrated with the inefficient delivery of what were ultimately luxury items. But the basic necessities of life were assured, work was easy, and there was more time to read, educated oneself, and spend time with friends and family than there were in the luxurious but stressful advanced capitalist countries. The majority, Priestland concludes, truly believed their system, with all of its acknowledged short-comings, to be preferable to capitalism. The number and influence of anti-communist militants was small, according to Priestland, which made the harsh treatment of dissidents by the authorities not only inhumane but also deeply unnecessary.
Some of the most interesting, and seemingly confused, portions of the book addressed the Gorbachev era and Perestroika. At first, I was impressed by Priestland's presentation of the changes coming not from the demands of dissidents but from a young, privileged clique within the Communist Party who declared that the system “wasn't working” because it could not provide the luxuries of the west, something Eastern European communist leaders had been haplessly promising their subjects since the Brezhnev era. (Although, of course, this “personification” of Perestroika as the work of Gorbachev fits nicely with Priestland's understanding of history as the work of “Great Men”- be they “good” or “bad”. Priestland characterizes Gorbachev as a narcissistic and impractical man, but still celebrates him as being ultimately on the “right side of history.”)
Reading about the ways in which the Communist Party, whose leaders were now being wined and dined by the leaders of the West, now bent over backwards to describe and denounce the abuses of the Stalinist era to a population that was already aware of them, the ways in which Party leaders were encouraged to describe shame-facedly the lower standard of living of developing nations versus the imperialist countries (as if this was somehow a denunciation of the communist system itself rather than a natural product of uneven development) seemed to me a perfect historical example of Althusser's Ideological State Apparatuses. If the system tells people that the system is failing because it cannot efficiently provide luxury items, a formerly content population will now judge the system by its inability to provide luxury items and “rebel.”
Intentionally or not, Priestland deflates the ludicrous myth, embraced by some “Trotskyist” historians such as Chris Harmon, that the fall of communism was some kind of “revolution from below”. Rather, Priestland fully acknowledges that the end of communism was brought about by privileged bureaucrats that, through the restoration of capitalism, transformed themselves into wealthy robber-barons. But then, bizarrely, he describes Gorbachev as a man who led a “revolution”. This, of course, is the only kind of “revolution” that can occur for Priestland- one of “democracy” over “totalitarianism”- the “right side” of history vs. the “wrong side.”
Priestland's own account of post-Soviet Russia illuminates what is meant in the West by “democracy.” Since the fall of communism, there has been one election in Russia generally regarded as legit, in which Yeltsin narrowly won re-election over his Communist Party competitor after trailing the CP in the polls for most of the campaign. It is generally acknowledged that Yeltsin came out on top at the end only because American corporations bought up all the commercial time on Russian TV and would only run campaign commercials for Yeltsin. Since then, of course, there has been Putin...
The two “characters” from the book that most mirrored each other for me were Gorbachev and Pol Pot, two men who simply believed every word coming out of their own mouths, even when the consequences of their ideas and actions had no correlation what so ever to their stated, desired effect. Each ended up leading what one could argue were the two greatest disasters for the communist world- the ghoulish embarrassment of Pol's “Democratic Kampuchea” and the over-throw of the USSR, the anchor of the communist world. (The horrors of Stalin's reign cannot, from the standpoint of communism, be considered disasters. These injustices helped establish the state that was, for decades after Stalin's death, one of the world's most powerful and upwardly mobile.)
In his conclusion, Priestland asks if any system that engendered “monsters” such as Stalin and Pol Pot can be forgiven by history. He, of course, concludes that it can not be. But this is a conclusion reached by treating communism as if it existed in a void, as if it did not face constant threat from its ideological enemies, enemies that had developed nuclear weapons and seen fit to use them on civilian populations in Japan. This is the conclusion of an ahistorical history of communism that wants to forget that every social system at first articulates itself as sheer force and thus that every social system has its necessary, perhaps even foundational, horrors. American capitalism, for instance, was founded through the near extermination of Native Americans, some have claimed it the largest scale genocide in human history, and the kidnapping, enslavement, rape, torture, and murder of tens of millions of Africans and African-Americans.
November 23, 2014
I guess the biggest problem with this book is that the author was trying to cram in a lot of history into a single volume. He starts the book with Rousseau and the Jacobin French revolution and ends with the fall of the Soviet Union and records the progress and the vacillations of the leaders and the parties. He mostly focuses on the Soviet Union and its satellite states with some attention given to China too. The Global South is mostly given a brief summary or simply skimmed over. This also mainly focuses on the “great men” or the top leaders and their individual aspirations.
He draws from a lot of diverse sources and frequently quotes from novels, films, worker’s diaries and personal letters. These for me were the most interesting part of the book as they provide an insight into the people’s views regarding both the hope and optimism that pervaded, and the fear and violence that accompanied it, both during and after the revolution.
He shows that the collapse of the Soviet Union happenned because of a clique in the party and not from any discontentment of the people. He points put that the biggest strength of the party in USSR was that they claimed a moral superiority despite the lower standards of living than the west. So when Gorbachev claimed that the past 60 years since the ascendance of Stalin were a failure, it led to massive disenchantment among the people as they still believed that they were creating a more equal and just society.
He also shows the various forms in which Marxism has manifested itself through the history all over the world, greatly influenced by the local culures. He also categorizes the communist ideology into three main strands of Romantic, Radical and Modernist.
This book does havve many interesting parts but is in no way a complete history of communism. It is also a narrative of some fascinating inside stories but not any kind of an analysis.
He draws from a lot of diverse sources and frequently quotes from novels, films, worker’s diaries and personal letters. These for me were the most interesting part of the book as they provide an insight into the people’s views regarding both the hope and optimism that pervaded, and the fear and violence that accompanied it, both during and after the revolution.
He shows that the collapse of the Soviet Union happenned because of a clique in the party and not from any discontentment of the people. He points put that the biggest strength of the party in USSR was that they claimed a moral superiority despite the lower standards of living than the west. So when Gorbachev claimed that the past 60 years since the ascendance of Stalin were a failure, it led to massive disenchantment among the people as they still believed that they were creating a more equal and just society.
He also shows the various forms in which Marxism has manifested itself through the history all over the world, greatly influenced by the local culures. He also categorizes the communist ideology into three main strands of Romantic, Radical and Modernist.
This book does havve many interesting parts but is in no way a complete history of communism. It is also a narrative of some fascinating inside stories but not any kind of an analysis.
May 1, 2011
This isn't bad as a basic history of the movement. It does a decent job of discussing ideological development, and its coverage of Communism's changing course in its heartlands of pre-World War Germany, Russia, and China is solid. Its coverage of other, less central Communist societies, such as North Korea and Yugoslavia, is a little sketchy. It also does a poor job of placing Marxism within its ideological context relative to other leftist and socialist movements. At times, the account gets mired in the frequent (and often bloody) ideological pissing matches; other times it makes great leaps (forward?) over broad swathes of information.
I think the basic problem is that the author is trying to cover too much in one volume and keep it at a somewhat readable length. It might have been better to focus on the Communist heartland or do a thematic contrast between that heartland and the places where the movement spread as anti-colonial, often nationalist, movements. The author does seem to be headed in this direction at times but then veers off to cover some other ideological point.
Still, it's fairly good. Priestland does a decent job of sympathetically detailing the aspirations of individual Communists without allowing the movement's ideals to blind us to, or partially excuse, the atrocities committed by some of those same revolutionaries. One gains an understanding of how Communism could both seem the mankind's greatest hope and a homicidal nightmare.
I think the basic problem is that the author is trying to cover too much in one volume and keep it at a somewhat readable length. It might have been better to focus on the Communist heartland or do a thematic contrast between that heartland and the places where the movement spread as anti-colonial, often nationalist, movements. The author does seem to be headed in this direction at times but then veers off to cover some other ideological point.
Still, it's fairly good. Priestland does a decent job of sympathetically detailing the aspirations of individual Communists without allowing the movement's ideals to blind us to, or partially excuse, the atrocities committed by some of those same revolutionaries. One gains an understanding of how Communism could both seem the mankind's greatest hope and a homicidal nightmare.
July 23, 2015
Superb history of Communism. I don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities (for I fear a trigger warning in my honor), but a simple study of the history of Socialism, National Socialism (i.e., Nazi Party), and the brands of Communism does teach that they should be avoided. Each of these are characterized by the malleable led by loser-zealots creating misery because of failure to consider second and third order effects. Einstein would highlight that it shows insanity on the part of Communists. ..."Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ― Albert Einstein
Read
September 24, 2015One of the dominant modern ideologies, communism has often been treated in just its Soviet guise. This book, however, creates a theoretical framework for understanding its different manifestations (dividing it into three large currents - romantic, radical and modernist) and pays close attention to Chinese, Cuban and other communisms, rather than concentrating on Moscow alone.
January 6, 2024
This is a 35 hour audible book which was developed in 2009 and could easily be five separate books! It obviously covers a lot of territory with the obvious stars being China and the late USSR.
I found the period post World War II to the present, the most interesting reading/listening. It is interesting, that we rarely think of communism/socialism as a philosophy that is geared to achieving a utopian society. In the United States communism is, of course the arch enemy, so any connection to efforts to achieve and egalitarian or fair society would be inappropriate. In spite of the fact that there is a good deal of conversation today in the US about the vast difference between the rich and the poor, actual political solutions to change that dynamic are few and far between, and certainly do not include anything that people would want to call communism or socialism.
There is a lot to learn in this book but the main problem with it is that it is just way too long. Like I said to start, it could’ve been five separate books. I thought the main missing information in the book that I would’ve liked to have seen was more about the history of communism/socialism in the US itself.
I should note that I consider myself a socialist, but feel that I was just born at the wrong time for that to matter. So I thought I would be more interested in this book about the history, but I was somewhat disappointed that it didn’t grab me a little bit more . When I was younger, I used to occasionally have the opportunity to say that I had been able to vote for the communist party candidate for president Gus Hall. I might be stretching the point a little but today nobody even knows who he was, so I have lost that little bit of startle affect in my storytelling.
I found the period post World War II to the present, the most interesting reading/listening. It is interesting, that we rarely think of communism/socialism as a philosophy that is geared to achieving a utopian society. In the United States communism is, of course the arch enemy, so any connection to efforts to achieve and egalitarian or fair society would be inappropriate. In spite of the fact that there is a good deal of conversation today in the US about the vast difference between the rich and the poor, actual political solutions to change that dynamic are few and far between, and certainly do not include anything that people would want to call communism or socialism.
There is a lot to learn in this book but the main problem with it is that it is just way too long. Like I said to start, it could’ve been five separate books. I thought the main missing information in the book that I would’ve liked to have seen was more about the history of communism/socialism in the US itself.
I should note that I consider myself a socialist, but feel that I was just born at the wrong time for that to matter. So I thought I would be more interested in this book about the history, but I was somewhat disappointed that it didn’t grab me a little bit more . When I was younger, I used to occasionally have the opportunity to say that I had been able to vote for the communist party candidate for president Gus Hall. I might be stretching the point a little but today nobody even knows who he was, so I have lost that little bit of startle affect in my storytelling.
August 2, 2013
An easy-to-read, yet analytical overview of world communism. Predictably, the global south receives comparably little attention here (or in any other global history, for that matter), but the aim to understand and explain the rise and fall of communism is a welcome antidote to Cold Warriors like Robert Service.
October 13, 2014
This book should has the title of the critics of the red flag .
The author only focus in the bad things that the leaders of the communism applied to the theories of Marx , Lenin engel and not in the real Origen of communism , and he no mention the millions of people that we're kill or missing in the name of democracy
The author only focus in the bad things that the leaders of the communism applied to the theories of Marx , Lenin engel and not in the real Origen of communism , and he no mention the millions of people that we're kill or missing in the name of democracy
February 23, 2025
Oh dear. From the occasional just outright incorrect statements to some very opinionated arguments. This book ranges from interesting well written history to overtly biased. But I think the toughest bit is that it's simply a project that can't be distilled into one book and still effectively engage with the histories (because it doesn't and can't)
A more in-depth review can be found by William West, I share a lot of the same feelings that are contained in his rather expansive critique. Definitely give that a look.
A more in-depth review can be found by William West, I share a lot of the same feelings that are contained in his rather expansive critique. Definitely give that a look.
January 25, 2014
This is a book I was very excited about based on the subject matter at hand, which, is a personal favorite. Overall, however, I have to say, that while I liked his writing style, and, give him credit for a great attempt of adding to the historiography at hand, I was dissatisfied with Priestland's attempt to compartmentalize such a vast subject into a single volume. Indeed, as one read's the book, it seems that Preistland either originally intended it to be a three volume set, or simply carries more passion for the early years of communist historiography. The most disappointing part of the book (which carried so much promise) was how packed in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block was. It also felt forced (reminiscent of an 11th grade course cramming in WWII-the present era in the final two weeks of the year). The reality is that, an undertaking such as this, covering, for all intensive purposes 1841-1991, simply needed more research and depth to it. This could have been a great volume 1 (covering the years until, say, the solidification of Stalin) but instead ended up being an okay review of the subject.
November 18, 2025
Best history of communism written by a liberal that you are going to find
April 1, 2015
If you want a history of the development of socialism and Communism before the Russian Revolution, this book probably isn't for you. The greater part of the book looks at Communism in action, post-1917. In that it is quite good. Any book like this one can only get so deep into individual countries, but this is a good overview and a good place to put events in Eastern Europe and China into context.
December 22, 2012
If you are interested in the intellectual roots and development of communism, this book is an excellent synthesis of that history. If you are looking more for the nuts and bolts of communist administration, you should see "The Rise and Fall of Communism" by Archie Brown.
January 20, 2025
David Priestland does a decent broad level overview of the major events in the history of communism.
The biggest problem is just that there is so much history it's impossible to capture everything. Major events are often only afforded a few paragraphs, and other events are barely mentioned. Of course, I can't blame him for this, it's just something to note.
The biggest problem is just that there is so much history it's impossible to capture everything. Major events are often only afforded a few paragraphs, and other events are barely mentioned. Of course, I can't blame him for this, it's just something to note.
February 24, 2010
Communism. It's one of those things which sounds fantastic on the label but turns out to be a bit rubbish. Priestland outlines the history, intellectual currents, pressures, absurdities and atrocities of the 20th century's most profound blind alleys. Removing the Soviet Union as the centrepiece of communist history it gives equal weight to China and the influence of Maoism. Identifying two distinct strands within the communist movement one modernist - technocratic, industrial, mostly pragmatic and one romantic - freedom fighters, high ideals - he looks at their competing influences and how they often battled within the minds of the same individual.
Giving ample room to Latin American communist movements as well as the largely disastrous Afro-Communism of the likes of the genocidal Mengistu who managed to deeply embarass his Soviet patrons.
What strikes you most is that the death of communism as a state ideology across the world seemed by no means inevitable. During the late 70s and early 80s the Western world was convinced the red half of the globe was winnning the upper hand leading to the beligerent response of neo-conservatives who influenced people like Reagan. An interesting section details how many of the neo-conservatives themselves had roots in the romantic tradition of Marxism, and whose politics owed to much to the manner of thinking found within such circles. The effects of this were seen throughout the triumphalist nineties and noughties, particularly under the Bush administration and its sponsorship of supposedly democratic movements in the former Soviet Union, leading ultimately to the disaster of the 2008 Georgian war.
The economic crisis rocked neo-liberalism and probably signalled the death knell for the utopian vision outlined by Fukuyama in his End Of History work at the end of the Cold War. Leaving the extremes of state-planning versus market free for all behind Priestland ends by hoping that a new era of pragmatism allied to social responsibility will replace the extremes of both.
Giving ample room to Latin American communist movements as well as the largely disastrous Afro-Communism of the likes of the genocidal Mengistu who managed to deeply embarass his Soviet patrons.
What strikes you most is that the death of communism as a state ideology across the world seemed by no means inevitable. During the late 70s and early 80s the Western world was convinced the red half of the globe was winnning the upper hand leading to the beligerent response of neo-conservatives who influenced people like Reagan. An interesting section details how many of the neo-conservatives themselves had roots in the romantic tradition of Marxism, and whose politics owed to much to the manner of thinking found within such circles. The effects of this were seen throughout the triumphalist nineties and noughties, particularly under the Bush administration and its sponsorship of supposedly democratic movements in the former Soviet Union, leading ultimately to the disaster of the 2008 Georgian war.
The economic crisis rocked neo-liberalism and probably signalled the death knell for the utopian vision outlined by Fukuyama in his End Of History work at the end of the Cold War. Leaving the extremes of state-planning versus market free for all behind Priestland ends by hoping that a new era of pragmatism allied to social responsibility will replace the extremes of both.
September 11, 2020
Communism has been a history-making force for the last two centuries, so it is shocking that, compared with our knowledge of democracy and capitalism, we in the West know so little of its detailed past. If for no other reason this is an important book for people to read.
One thing the book makes clear is that communism has never been, and most likely never will be, a unified theory with a unified philosophy or approach. There have always been romanticized-heroic versions, modernist-scientific versions, and radical versions, as well as highly repressive and brutal versions in practice. So, when people say that communism has failed now forever, to some extent at least, you need to ask yourself which communism is being talked about.
However, it is also clear that, in practice, highly centralized Party predictions concerning the fate of capitalism and the bourgeoisie, and of what workers were capable of, and would put up with, were so consistently wrong that communist governments were repeatedly forced to backtrack, twisting and deforming their ideals and strategies in trying to reach their ultimate goals. Different groups became entrenched in power with each reform, unwilling to change direction and to give up their perquisites.
The Party could also never make its mind up whether social democrats were comrades or deadly enemies. Were they pro- or con- the church, were they nationalist or internationalist? About-faces on these topics were the regular order of things.
I believe this book does a good job of presenting an overview of communism but, obviously, even at 600+ pages, any single volume must trade breadth for depth, and no single volume will ever please everyone with the treatment of their particular interests.
One thing the book makes clear is that communism has never been, and most likely never will be, a unified theory with a unified philosophy or approach. There have always been romanticized-heroic versions, modernist-scientific versions, and radical versions, as well as highly repressive and brutal versions in practice. So, when people say that communism has failed now forever, to some extent at least, you need to ask yourself which communism is being talked about.
However, it is also clear that, in practice, highly centralized Party predictions concerning the fate of capitalism and the bourgeoisie, and of what workers were capable of, and would put up with, were so consistently wrong that communist governments were repeatedly forced to backtrack, twisting and deforming their ideals and strategies in trying to reach their ultimate goals. Different groups became entrenched in power with each reform, unwilling to change direction and to give up their perquisites.
The Party could also never make its mind up whether social democrats were comrades or deadly enemies. Were they pro- or con- the church, were they nationalist or internationalist? About-faces on these topics were the regular order of things.
I believe this book does a good job of presenting an overview of communism but, obviously, even at 600+ pages, any single volume must trade breadth for depth, and no single volume will ever please everyone with the treatment of their particular interests.
Read
September 5, 2018I think the most important feature of this book is its range. It starts out with the utopian socialism of St. Simon and Fourier, and goes through a lot! I almost cant think of any subject I would put into this book that does not already have a chapter.
The second thing is that it analyzes every movement spesifically. So one of the most important part of that (I think) is its use of the term "stalinism" that I havent seen used this way before (might be my ignorance) so that different periods of Stalins Sovjet gets different terms, so "stalinism" isnt one thing only. It uses "high stalinism" often, so that one can follow what form of stalinism has been inspiring for what movements. So thats cool. You'll have to consult the book for the concrete analysis, I think. I didnt take notes.
Allso Marx is parted up in different periods.
Since there are a lot of analysis, I dont think I dare to say how smart or wise it is. It is both right and wrong, probably. Anyway I think it was inspiring and obviously could be used to discuss the different movements.
So yeah.. I think that is a recomondation.
The second thing is that it analyzes every movement spesifically. So one of the most important part of that (I think) is its use of the term "stalinism" that I havent seen used this way before (might be my ignorance) so that different periods of Stalins Sovjet gets different terms, so "stalinism" isnt one thing only. It uses "high stalinism" often, so that one can follow what form of stalinism has been inspiring for what movements. So thats cool. You'll have to consult the book for the concrete analysis, I think. I didnt take notes.
Allso Marx is parted up in different periods.
Since there are a lot of analysis, I dont think I dare to say how smart or wise it is. It is both right and wrong, probably. Anyway I think it was inspiring and obviously could be used to discuss the different movements.
So yeah.. I think that is a recomondation.
February 27, 2013
Τα κατάφερα! Μου πήρε ενάμιση μήνα, βέβαια, και αρκετούς πονοκέφαλους -- το διάβασα μέσα σ' αεροπλάνο, στη χέστρα, στα διαλείμματα για τσιγάρο στη δουλειά, σε λεωφορεία, ακόμη και όρθιος στον δρόμο. Λοιπόν, μετά από όλα τούτα, έχω να πω πως:
Α. Αξίζει. Είναι γραμμένο σοβαρότατα, αποφεύγει να χρωματίσει τον λόγο του με ιδεολογία, και η έρευνα που έχει κάνει είναι τερατώδης.
Β. Συμφωνώ και με τα δύο του συμπεράσματα, που είναι:
Β1. "Η δογματική ουτοπική σκέψη μπορεί -και τις περισσότερες φορές καταλήγει- να γίνει καταστροφική".
Β2. "Οι κοινωνικές και οικονομικές ανισότητες και η αδικία, υπαρκτή ή φανταστική, οδηγεί σε ευκολότερη αποδοχή ουτοπικών πολιτικών".
Γ. Αν αποφασίσεις να το ξεκινήσεις, έχε πολύ καφέ πρόχειρο.
Αυτά, δεν έχω ούτε το κατάλληλο background ούτε και το πιο δυνατό μυαλό για να το αναλύσω πολύ καλύτερα, παρ' όλο που μέσα από αυτή τη πολυήμερη και ζόρικη διαδικασία διαβάσματός του αισθάνομαι πως έγινα λίγο πιο σοφός.
Α. Αξίζει. Είναι γραμμένο σοβαρότατα, αποφεύγει να χρωματίσει τον λόγο του με ιδεολογία, και η έρευνα που έχει κάνει είναι τερατώδης.
Β. Συμφωνώ και με τα δύο του συμπεράσματα, που είναι:
Β1. "Η δογματική ουτοπική σκέψη μπορεί -και τις περισσότερες φορές καταλήγει- να γίνει καταστροφική".
Β2. "Οι κοινωνικές και οικονομικές ανισότητες και η αδικία, υπαρκτή ή φανταστική, οδηγεί σε ευκολότερη αποδοχή ουτοπικών πολιτικών".
Γ. Αν αποφασίσεις να το ξεκινήσεις, έχε πολύ καφέ πρόχειρο.
Αυτά, δεν έχω ούτε το κατάλληλο background ούτε και το πιο δυνατό μυαλό για να το αναλύσω πολύ καλύτερα, παρ' όλο που μέσα από αυτή τη πολυήμερη και ζόρικη διαδικασία διαβάσματός του αισθάνομαι πως έγινα λίγο πιο σοφός.
October 26, 2019
The book made me more sympathetic towards communism. Man’s search for a more purposeful life and its unforeseen consequences. Purely from organisation point of view, a two or three volume work would have enabled the author to do more justice to some events he had to rush through- African communism for instance. I also expected a bit more theorising. For instance an evolutionary analysis of communism from ussr to china to cuba would have been very relevant. There are enough comments, but a dedicated section would have been nice. In the end, one wonders whether we finally have the answer to communism’s fundamental problem: balancing human decentralisation with economic development. Technology anyone? Unfortunately while the state might go, arch enemy markets would still remain. It would be nice to see what the post 2008 order produces. All in all monumental effort and deserves a lot of credit.
February 10, 2014
Steagul roșu este o lucrare vastă, cât de vast poate fi un volum de 700 de pagini, dedicat istoriei comunismului și a explicării acestui curent politic care s-a ciocnit violent pe la începuturile sale cu nazismul și mai apoi cu capitalismul, dușmanul său ideologic declarat.
David Priestland consideră drept începutul acestei ideologii Revoluția Franceză, punct de plecare fiind, pentru cercetător, Sărbătoarea Unității și Indivizibilității Republicii din anul 1793, an care marchează începutul celei mai radicale perioade ale marii revoluții. Iacobinii, Babeuf și alții au pus bazele acestei ideologii, ajutându-l pe ‘”Prometeul german” Marx, să-și construiască o viziune de stânga despre umanitate și viitorul acesteia.
Restul recenziei: http://razvanvanfirescu.wordpress.com...
David Priestland consideră drept începutul acestei ideologii Revoluția Franceză, punct de plecare fiind, pentru cercetător, Sărbătoarea Unității și Indivizibilității Republicii din anul 1793, an care marchează începutul celei mai radicale perioade ale marii revoluții. Iacobinii, Babeuf și alții au pus bazele acestei ideologii, ajutându-l pe ‘”Prometeul german” Marx, să-și construiască o viziune de stânga despre umanitate și viitorul acesteia.
Restul recenziei: http://razvanvanfirescu.wordpress.com...
March 1, 2023
This was a very extensive history of Communism.
I really loved how he presented it. I couldn't really identify much bias, but it did seem that he favored Chinese Communism. He seemed generally praising of aspects of it in sometimes and idealistic way.
There were a few moments where he talked about American Civil Rights history, and a few moments where he missed to center Black Americans in that discussion.
Towards the end, some of the sentence structure was a little weird and awkward to me.
Overall, I loved this book. I think it would be good to go into it with a basic understanding of the ideologies involved. He does cover the ideological development of Communism and the Soviet system, but it would be good to have a basic understanding of Marxism and Socialism going into the book.
Love this and love David Priestland!
I really loved how he presented it. I couldn't really identify much bias, but it did seem that he favored Chinese Communism. He seemed generally praising of aspects of it in sometimes and idealistic way.
There were a few moments where he talked about American Civil Rights history, and a few moments where he missed to center Black Americans in that discussion.
Towards the end, some of the sentence structure was a little weird and awkward to me.
Overall, I loved this book. I think it would be good to go into it with a basic understanding of the ideologies involved. He does cover the ideological development of Communism and the Soviet system, but it would be good to have a basic understanding of Marxism and Socialism going into the book.
Love this and love David Priestland!
July 2, 2018
As there is not an option for 3.5/5, I had to go with 4, as 3 seems too little. The book is a very good read for general audience, however, it is way too ambitious in its task to cover such a diverse phenomenon as communism in all the countries in the world. For a historian, it therefore offers very little new stuff. Some areas are not sufficiently tackled (Eastern Europe for example) and there are also some minor factual errors (Husak was never imprisoned by Stalin, as Priestland claims, etc.). But yeah, this is not a bad book.
August 3, 2013
A comprehensive overview of the rise and fall of communism (and sometimes socialism) in the major countries it conquered. The author uses art, including novels, movies and sculpture, as a lens with which to view the different messages and aspirations of the communist movement in different times and places. Its kind of text-booky, but its invaluable as a kind of alternate history of the twentieth century.
October 15, 2019
This book was an excellent introduction to the history of Communism. My goal before reading the book was to learn more about one of the most prominent ideologies of the 20th century. This book didn’t disappoint. As you read you’ll learn that the story of Communism is full of factions, sects, infighting, and change. I found it fascinating.
March 23, 2011
This book is chalk full of information about the Communism movement throughout the world. Starting in France and ending in China. The facts are spot on and can even visualize the time that it took place as well.
October 30, 2017
A very lively and readable history of communism. Sympathetic, balanced and detailed. And he illustrates every major twist and turn in communist history with excerpts and tidbits from novels, films and plays that bring the time and its attitudes alive for the reader. Absolutely outstanding.
June 6, 2013
It's massive, and very hard going at times, but it was very comprehensive and therefore exactly what I needed. It took me ages to get through but it was worth it.
January 14, 2013
Li a versão em português.
Senti dificuldades em acompanhar o livros nos momentos em que o autor pula por várias regiões, épocas e sistemas.
Senti dificuldades em acompanhar o livros nos momentos em que o autor pula por várias regiões, épocas e sistemas.
October 10, 2024
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Книга, конечно, огромная. Я читал её, читал, но в итоге последнюю четверть так и не дочитал. Причиной стало то, что в какой-то момент я понял, что книга ничего нового мне не сообщила. Да, автор действительно написал всеобщую книгу по коммунизму, проблема только в том, что она оказалась слишком поверхностной. В эпоху YouTube вся эта информация может быть подана в намного более интересных и коротких видеороликах или документальных фильмах.
Так как автор этой книги решил осветить все страны, в которых был коммунизм, то ничего другого как быстрый исторический обзор этих самых стран у него, априори, получиться и не могло. В итоге не понятно для кого предназначается эта книга, т.е. кто был той целевой аудиторией, для которой автор писал книгу. Мне вот это не понятно. Для простого обывателя книга слишком скучна и огромна, для человека интересующегося историей, книга поверхностна, ну а специалистам она просто не нужна. Мне кажется, автору стоило написать серию томов на тему история коммунизма в разных странах, а не ограничиваться одной толстой книгой. Такая книга и отпугивает и ставит автора в определённые рамки. Вот и получилось, что книга оказалась ни для кого (конкретного).
Какой раздел книги ни возьми, а всюду чувствуется спешка. К примеру, автор пишет о разных вариантах марксизма, но настолько плохо, что уже через два дня читатель забудет (если вообще поймёт) чем они различались они друг от друга. Про анализ исторических событий и про собственную точку зрения автора, тут также не приходится говорить. Всё что пишет автор, это совершенно типичное представление Западных стран о происходивших событиях данное в хронологическом порядке. Такие книги по истории, конечно, имеют право на существование, но главный недостаток в них тот, что они мало чем отличаются от своих аналогов. И как итог: человеку, который хочет узнать больше о периоде коммунизма в какой-то конкретной стране, стоит читать о каждой стране в отдельности.
The book is huge. I read it, read it, read it, but in the end, I didn't finish the last quarter. The reason was that, at some point, I realized that the book didn't tell me anything new. Yes, the author did write a universal book on communism, but the problem is that it was too superficial. In the age of YouTube, all this information can be presented in much more interesting and shorter videos or documentaries.
Since the author of this book decided to cover all the countries that had communism, he could not have done anything else but a quick historical overview of these countries. As a result, it is not clear for whom this book is intended, i.e., who was the target audience for whom the author wrote the book. This is not clear to me. For the common man, the book is too boring and huge, but for a person interested in history, the book is superficial, and specialists simply do not need it. It seems to me that the author should have written a series of volumes on the history of communism in different countries, rather than limiting himself to one thick book. Such a book both discourages and puts the author in a certain framework. So, the book turned out to be for no one (in particular).
Whichever section of the book you take, you can feel the rush everywhere. For example, the author writes about different versions of Marxism, but so badly that in two days the reader will forget (if at all understand) how they differed from each other. About the analysis of historical events and the author's own point of view, there is also no need to talk about it. All that the author writes is a typical representation of Western countries about the events that took place, given in chronological order. Such history books, of course, have a right to exist, but the main drawback is that they differ little from their counterparts. As a result, a person who wants to learn more about the period of communism in a particular country should read about each country separately.
Книга, конечно, огромная. Я читал её, читал, но в итоге последнюю четверть так и не дочитал. Причиной стало то, что в какой-то момент я понял, что книга ничего нового мне не сообщила. Да, автор действительно написал всеобщую книгу по коммунизму, проблема только в том, что она оказалась слишком поверхностной. В эпоху YouTube вся эта информация может быть подана в намного более интересных и коротких видеороликах или документальных фильмах.
Так как автор этой книги решил осветить все страны, в которых был коммунизм, то ничего другого как быстрый исторический обзор этих самых стран у него, априори, получиться и не могло. В итоге не понятно для кого предназначается эта книга, т.е. кто был той целевой аудиторией, для которой автор писал книгу. Мне вот это не понятно. Для простого обывателя книга слишком скучна и огромна, для человека интересующегося историей, книга поверхностна, ну а специалистам она просто не нужна. Мне кажется, автору стоило написать серию томов на тему история коммунизма в разных странах, а не ограничиваться одной толстой книгой. Такая книга и отпугивает и ставит автора в определённые рамки. Вот и получилось, что книга оказалась ни для кого (конкретного).
Какой раздел книги ни возьми, а всюду чувствуется спешка. К примеру, автор пишет о разных вариантах марксизма, но настолько плохо, что уже через два дня читатель забудет (если вообще поймёт) чем они различались они друг от друга. Про анализ исторических событий и про собственную точку зрения автора, тут также не приходится говорить. Всё что пишет автор, это совершенно типичное представление Западных стран о происходивших событиях данное в хронологическом порядке. Такие книги по истории, конечно, имеют право на существование, но главный недостаток в них тот, что они мало чем отличаются от своих аналогов. И как итог: человеку, который хочет узнать больше о периоде коммунизма в какой-то конкретной стране, стоит читать о каждой стране в отдельности.
The book is huge. I read it, read it, read it, but in the end, I didn't finish the last quarter. The reason was that, at some point, I realized that the book didn't tell me anything new. Yes, the author did write a universal book on communism, but the problem is that it was too superficial. In the age of YouTube, all this information can be presented in much more interesting and shorter videos or documentaries.
Since the author of this book decided to cover all the countries that had communism, he could not have done anything else but a quick historical overview of these countries. As a result, it is not clear for whom this book is intended, i.e., who was the target audience for whom the author wrote the book. This is not clear to me. For the common man, the book is too boring and huge, but for a person interested in history, the book is superficial, and specialists simply do not need it. It seems to me that the author should have written a series of volumes on the history of communism in different countries, rather than limiting himself to one thick book. Such a book both discourages and puts the author in a certain framework. So, the book turned out to be for no one (in particular).
Whichever section of the book you take, you can feel the rush everywhere. For example, the author writes about different versions of Marxism, but so badly that in two days the reader will forget (if at all understand) how they differed from each other. About the analysis of historical events and the author's own point of view, there is also no need to talk about it. All that the author writes is a typical representation of Western countries about the events that took place, given in chronological order. Such history books, of course, have a right to exist, but the main drawback is that they differ little from their counterparts. As a result, a person who wants to learn more about the period of communism in a particular country should read about each country separately.
April 30, 2025
The Red Flag is supposedly a history of Communism but really it only covers ‘modern’ communist ideas. There is little reference to Plato and no reference to Thomas Mores’s Utopia. Instead, the auditor starts with the French communes and constantly compares them to the Prometheus legend. Whilst it gives a broad history of communist societies and organisations since then there is no attempt to look at how it developed and little discussion on what it replaced such as the harsh Tsarist regime in Russia.
The book also jumps back and forward in time, sometimes by decades, often making the times things occurred obscure. However the main issue I have with the book is that there is little description of the bad parts of capitalism, there are lots of description of how the poor were worse off under communism but of course no mention of homelessness, drug addiction, depression etc caused by capitalism so the reader is left with the impression that everyone living under capitalist societies were and are better off under capitalist government no matter how autocratic that is. The recent Trump and Musk activities have shown just how bad a government run by rich capitalists can be.
The book does provide some context on other communist countries and organisations although an almost passing reference to Cuba, Castro, and Guevara really does not provide enough detail.
Still the biggest issue for me is the historians’ folly of one-sided story telling. Communism is bad and capitalism is great, the historians’ job is to document history, not provide propaganda.
If you read this just bear in mind that is history from a capitalist point of view, not an unbiased history.
The book also jumps back and forward in time, sometimes by decades, often making the times things occurred obscure. However the main issue I have with the book is that there is little description of the bad parts of capitalism, there are lots of description of how the poor were worse off under communism but of course no mention of homelessness, drug addiction, depression etc caused by capitalism so the reader is left with the impression that everyone living under capitalist societies were and are better off under capitalist government no matter how autocratic that is. The recent Trump and Musk activities have shown just how bad a government run by rich capitalists can be.
The book does provide some context on other communist countries and organisations although an almost passing reference to Cuba, Castro, and Guevara really does not provide enough detail.
Still the biggest issue for me is the historians’ folly of one-sided story telling. Communism is bad and capitalism is great, the historians’ job is to document history, not provide propaganda.
If you read this just bear in mind that is history from a capitalist point of view, not an unbiased history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews