Yesterday's Tomorrow: On the Loneliness of Communist Specters and the Reconstruction of the Future

by Bini Adamczak, Adrian Nathan West (Translation), Raymond Geuss (Foreword)

How the communist revolution failed, presented in a series of catastrophes.

The communist project in the twentieth century grew out of utopian desires to oppose oppression and abolish class structures, to give individual lives collective meaning. The attempts to realize these ideals became a series of colossal failures. In Yesterday's Tomorrow, Bini Adamczak examines these catastrophes, proceeding in reverse chronological order from 1939 to 1917: the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Great Terror of 1937, the failure of the European Left to prevent National Socialism, Stalin's rise to power, and the bloody rebellion at Kronstadt. In the process, she seeks a future that never happened.

Genres: History, Politics, Theory, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Russia

184 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2011

Reviews

[Kai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Adamczak's book is a kind of backwards assessment of the worst wrong turns of the russian revolution in the early 20th century. instead of simply asking "where the russian revolution went wrong" and then suggesting more democratic alternatives, the book asks what memory and responsibility we (i.e. communists) need to have to and for these wrong turns, what responsibility for the conditions that made them possible, and what memory of the communist victims of communism. it refuses to take a stance of moral purity or transcendence, or to suggest that there is some way of easily dismembering marx from his heirs. the book is beautifully, frustratingly written in a sort of post-derridian aphoristic and questioning manner, while explicitly refusing that kind of derridianism that loves its aporias. it's all of those things and more, it's much more than what i expected. that said, it's also (you might guess) a book that ends with kronstadt.

[Tyler Munn]

Everyone who calls themselves a communist must read this book. Through Adamczak lyrical prose, she crafts an argument for why communists cannot divorce themselves from the failures of the 20th century. I cannot say that this book necessarily inspires hope, but it does move communists through the first stage of grief--denial. I hope this book becomes immensely popular as we can only begin to strive for a new vision of tomorrow once we've mourned the loss of yesterday's tomorrow.

[Owen Hatherley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A modest, fresh, beautifully written and often moving Left-Communist perspective on the 'when and why did it all go wrong with 20th century communism' question.

[Dmitri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ein Buch das wir Kommunist*innen alle gelesen haben sollten.

[Bruno]

I have to read it again.

[Jonathan Auer · Rating 3 out of 5]

dem antikommunismus ist zu allererst vorzuwerfen, dass er die verbrechen des stalinismus verharmlost. nicht weil in den gulags neben den menschen auch noch eine idee gemordet worden wäre - was für ein zynischer einfall –, sondern weil erst der kommunismus das historisch einklagbare anrecht in die welt gezwungen hat, keine entmündigung hinnehmen, keine erniedrigung mehr ertragen zu müssen. seit dem ist noch das kleinste unrecht größer und das größte schmerzt um ein vielfaches mehr.

verworrene, oft aber in der wortwahl sehr wohlgeformte, über weite strecken für mich schwer verständlich verteidigung des kommunismus in der kritik seiner historischen form. bini adamczak schreibt einfach sehr schön und klug und auch wenn ich nur die hälfte verstanden habe, gehe ich mit einem anderen blick aus der lektüre. lohnt sich für leute mit linkem theorie-bedürfnis allemal.

[Jay · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book but I don’t. I don’t know if it was the flowery language that went over my head or the structure, but I felt that this could have been served better as a short essay. I couldn’t help but keep drifting off constantly throughout this book. I felt that the author used a lot of words and to really not say all that much. Too much fluff not enough substance in my opinion, I wonder if they were paid by the word…I felt the engagement with the history was weak, unsatisfactory, and surface level. The structure of working in reverse chronological order of the “important dates” didn’t serve the text in a meaningful way, I assume it was to show off the author’s intellect and writing “skill.” It’s played out in movies but hey, let’s try it in theory I guess. The first chapter was the most compelling, and the last chapter was fine. Maybe I’m wrong but if you’re looking for a book on communist hauntology, keep Yesterday’s Tomorrow in the past.

[Luke Echo · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book makes me long for a sober historical treatment of the same events. I find the author's rambling introspective style, with its unending rhetorical questions, so annoying.