Comrades!: A History of World Communism Paperback – Illustrated, September 1, 2010

Id do personally appreciate the highly critical attitude of the author towards the phenomena of communism. As a citizen of an ex communist country I can confirm that he properly understood the consequences and the impact of the ideology on the peoples subjected to its influence.After reading the book I have shaped the answer to the question "Why?" that I was searching for. I could explain myself why such a senseless delusion was accepted by societies ruled by it. The answer is well explained with all the complexity involved. Shortly, it wasn't accepted. It was forced onto people by madmen.The topic is broad and the author has chosen the amount of information and the topics thatI was pleased by the well balanced choice of topics and the amount of information included in the book. It is neither too shallow nor unbearably detailed.Best wishes for the author.

I loved this book, felt like I knew so much more about the Russian revolution. The book was dark, and it made me sad that so many had to suffer, but a book is good when it draws you into the time period so well.

Robert Service writes and excellent book that tells the story of the beginning of Communism all the way to its ultimate failure. He tells the truth about how abuse lead to the rise of Communism which in turn installed its own abuse under the guise of being fair. Service also explains how communism failed and how countries that claim to be communist today and are thriving (such as China) are far from actually being communist at all! This should be required reading in High School government classes! I gave 4 stars only because the front cover of the book and its binding seemed cheap. But it didn't fall apart when reading it (I am very hard on books). Great read I highly recommend.

I bought it as a gift for my Chinese friend who lives in China and came to the US. He read it within three nights and left in my house. "Don't you know we have a border control?" he asked. "But keep it for me, when I come back I read it again."

Takes it all in, very sober and well written. Ideal for people who know little about communism and a solid reference book for others.

Robert Service is one of the best historians of communism, and this book shows why. Very well written, solidly researched and tremendously informative for Social Science students.

Unique insight by an outstanding scholar .

It is welcome news, or should be, to have an overall treatment of Communism from a major scholar. But Professor Service's work is superficial and riddled with errors.I enjoyed Professor Service's taking-down of the likes of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, and other fellow-travellers. In retrospect, and not only in retrospect, these cultured products of the West were more harmful to liberty than regiments of Soviet troops. But even when Professor Service is so obviously right, he goes wrong. "What inspired [the Webbs] to speak for Stalin ? .... They believed in central and state planning...." (P. 207) If only things were that simple !I assume that the author's treatment of the Soviet Union is competent, but this cannot be said of what he has to say of the Communist parties in Western Europe and America. A seemingly small error is indicative of much that went wrong with this book.Speaking of the famous African-American baritone Paul Robeson, Professor Service tells us (p. 278), without benefit of footnotes of any kind: "He never joined the Communist Party of the USA. (Not that this saved him from investigation by Joe McCarthy.)"The first thing that is curious here is that Professor Service gives a nod to those -- unlike himself -- who think that the late Senator McCarthy was a far greater threat to humanity than the late Joseph Stalin. Coming from a staunch anti-Communist like Professor Service, this is a false note.But what about the substance of the claim that Robeson never was a Party member ? How does Professor Service know that this is so ? True, Robeson always claimed, throughout his life, that he was not a member. But those who know about the American CP -- this is the main point -- also know that there always were secret members in addition to the open ones. Robeson's unfailing support of every twist of the Party line, including his support of the Stalin-Hitler pact, always led to the strong suspicion, among those who understood the Party, that he most probably was under Party discipline, i.e. that he was a member. If Professor Service has no such suspicion, I would say that he knows little about American communism.Of course, in the case of Robeson, we can go beyond suspicion. We have evidence, from the very mouth of one of the horses, that he was a Party member: "My own most precious moments with Paul were when I met with him to accept his dues and renew his yearly membership in the CPUSA. I and other Communist leaders like Henry Winston, the Party's late, beloved national chair, met with Paul to brief him on politics and Party policies and to discuss his work and struggles." Gus Hall, "Paul Robeson: An American Communist," published by CPUSA, 1988.The Robeson matter by itself is a detail. But Professor Service's complete misunderstanding of the political alignments of the 1930's is more than a detail: "But undoubtedly it was the socialists in Europe and North America who bowed lowest in their admiration of Stalin."(p. 212). And this goes with Professor Service's ignoring of the profound anti-Stalinism of the Weimar-era SPD in Germany, of the inter-war SFIO of France (think Leon Blum !), of the anti-Bolshevism of British Labour, of the anti-Communist struggles of the CCF in Canada and the Socialist Party of the US (think Norman Thomas !).A reader looking for further reading about, say, the French or German Communist parties will find no help at all in Professor Service's sparse footnotes. Take the rich historiography on the French CP. It seems that Professor Service is completely innocent of any knowledge here. The important "Histoire" by Courteois and Lazar is not on the bibliography. There is no title by Annie Kriegel. There is no mention of Robrieux. And, as far as Professor Service is concerned, the German scholars who spent so many years studying the KPD (Ossip Flechtheim, Hermann Weber, etc.) might as well have saved their trouble.In short, no, this book is simply not good enough.

delivery and quality excellent.... thank you to all..

本書で取り上げる共産主義とは、1917年のロシア革命によって生まれた、ソ連と言う国と、その影響を受けて、世界各国で繰り広げられた共産主義運動、具体的に言えば共産党の活動を指すと見てよいだろう。国家の体制として言えば、経済面では、産業の国有化、農地解放とそれに続く農業の集団化であり、政治的には共産党の一党独裁、政治警察と言論統制である。共産主義運動と言うのは政治的なエリートの指揮下にある共産党が、前衛政党として大衆を動員して行く形態である。何れも、レーニンとトロッキーが、第一次世界大戦下の破綻した帝政ロシアと臨時政府から権力を奪取して、ソ連と言う国家を作り守り抜く為に、産み出したものが引き継がれ拡がったものと著者は見ている。著者は、以上のような共産主義国家と共産主義運動にも否定的な立場で、経済体制としても資本主義に引き離されて、最終的には行き詰まって幕を閉じざるを得なかったものとしている。ロシア革命からソ連の崩壊までの約70年間、世界の歴史は、共産主義対反共産主義を軸に動いて来たと見るこが可能だ。その前段と後日談を加えると丸ごと20世紀になる。ソ連⇒東欧・中国・ベトナム・北朝鮮・キューバと最盛期には、世界地図上の広大な版図を誇った、共産主義国家と共産主義運動の興亡を詳細に綴った本書は、世界史理解の上で、貴重な視点をもたらしてくれると思う。そこに描かれるのは、共産主義運動への情け容赦の無い凄惨な弾圧、生まれたばかり共産主義政権の転覆を図る資本主義列強の経済的・政治的陰謀と軍事的干渉である。生きるか死ぬかの瀬戸際で、共産主義運動側の反撃も壮絶であり、共産主義国家も反革命の芽を徹底的に摘み取る無慈悲な独裁体制に至る。双方の死屍累々の歴史を本書は余す所なく描き出す。著者の叙述は極めて客観的である。共産主義運動に優れた若者が参加して行った理由、資本主義や帝国主義の下で貧富の差の拡大や虐げられた労働者や農民の存在、これらに目を閉ざすことはしていない。共産主義国家が成し遂げた、福祉や教育の向上も評価する。だが、一党独裁体制は、そもそも民主主義の原理に反する上に、硬直した経済政策を生み出すと言う現実面の限界もあり容認していない。東欧では、共産主義体制の崩壊により政治的自由は得たものの、失業の増加や社会福祉の後退が生じたことも忘れずに指摘している。共産主義運動と共産主義国家は袋小路に入り、なぜ潰えていったのかを冷静に解き明かす力作であると感じた。

For those historians who like to think big, and take the brave decision to write a book which tackles a very large concept, a long period of time or controversial idea, it is difficult not to fall in to a trap of excessive simplicity or letting the bigger picture slip away amidst a barrage of details. Few subjects are as complex, debatable or relevant as communism, and this is the story of an ideology that changed the world.It is also a subject on which it is impossible to be neutral. Communism as a monstrous ideology which led to more deaths than Facism, a brutal system implemented by thuggish dictators? Or a utopian idea whose time was not right, or that was implemented in the wrong places? A brave attempt at challenging age old iniquities, or an concept with a foolish disregard for human weaknesses. With this in mind it is important to note that Robert Service does have a bias, but that all historians do, and he does his job as an academic historian well with a thorough grasp of the sources available.Some have commented that Service does not come across as a fan of communism. To be fair this might be true, but then given the raft of evidence at hand of the excesses in the Soviet system this is unsurprising. What is more important is that as far as possible Service approaches the subject dispassionately and does not become a slave to an ideological dogma. Instead he is thorough in his research, and lets the evidence speak for itself.Unsurprisingly he is an expert in the history of Russia, a fellow of St Antony's College, Oxford and was one of the first historians to gain access to the Soviet archives after the collapse of the USSR. Having written biographies on Lenin, Stalin and working on the end of this literary triptych with Trotsky, he has broadened his subject out to the ideology that most affected modern Russia, and looks at its historical roots, and its global impact.Service is stronger when talking about Russia and Europe, with a wealth of experience and knowledge quite evident. But he is more than able when dealing with communism's impact around the world. He is not limited to a specific time period, and deals with the pre-19th century roots (albeit in a slight gallop - this is only a single volume) and the present day.Service might be an academic historian, but he also has a flair for writing. He has an engaging and natural style, and an excitement and interest in the subject which leaps from the page. Russian history is well served by excellent writers, Orlando Figes, Richard Pipes and Simon Sebag Montefiore included, but Service now deserves a much higher profile amongst this quartet.The only criticism is that it is a subject so vast as to be necessarily done a disservice by a single volume. But as a primer or introductory text, or as a very readable piece of history, it is excellent.Again, weaknesses of Amazon's star system prevent giving a more accurate 4.5 stars. But it seemed harsh to drop down to a 4 for a really rather excellent book.

Robert Service has provided a decent, detailed, yet highly readable account of the world communist movement, that leaves no stone unturned.Most of the book, especially the earlier part, is focused on the USSR, but there is decent insight into Yugoslavia, Cuba, and China. However, Comrades is not a simple chronology of the world communist movement, it is an account of the factors, the attitudes, and the evolving nature of communism, and why it ultimately failed.Service begins with a theoretical analysis of pre-Marxist communist, followed with examination of Marx and Engels, the early communist movement, leading to the Russian Revolution. While it focuses on the policies, power struggles, and other key factors, it frequently backtracks to the attitudes, and fortunes of people in communist parties all around the world, particularly Great Britain, Italy, France and the USA.The only criticism one can have with Comrades is that certain countries, perhaps some of the most severe, such as Albania and North Korea, could have done with some more insight, but with a book so decently constructed, one can hardly quibble.Service reaches a conclusion, held by many, that Communism, as we knew in the Soviet or Maoist models, is highly unlikely to ever return in such a guise. However, the legacy of communism is strongly ingrained and is unlikely to ever disappear in the near future. Such a legacy is the burden on democratic development, authoritarian practices, and the continual nature of the Chinese state, which retains all the key characteristics of communist authoritarianism.Robert Service decently accounts for the failure of communism, and with regard to the pivotal moment, Perestroika, he delivers a fairly positive portrait of Gorbachev, but concedes that ultimately Gorbachev held a romanticized view of a caring, humanitanitarian Lenin who ultimately never existed.

Like Communism itself, this text of this book is dominated by the history of the USSR from 1917 to 1991. The result of this is that pre-1917 the often disparate ideas of those who called themselves "Communists" forms the basis of the text, but afterwards any spirit of intellectual enquiry vanishes, and the book is simply a straightforward history of the countries of the Eastern Bloc (and China from 1949).There are digressions into the West, particularly the Italian and French Communist Parties - and an amusing look at the splintered history of the British Communist movement - but the majority of the book is an overview of the history of those countries that called themselves "Communist" or "Socialist". The unchecked nature of the policy pursued in those countries is established, and while the book presents a factual base for all assertions the occasional authorial sideswipe at a regime or leader does sometimes jar; however, this slight editorial mis-step does rather pale against the crimes taking place in the countries themselves.Covering such a vast number of countries does mean that any individual focus can be lost: the fall of the Ceaușescu regime takes two pages, while there is hardly a mention of what happens to the Baltic states from 1945 to 1989. Latin America is covered in more depth: both Cuba and Chile are given a relatively sympathetic hearing, with the government of Allende in Chile repeatedly shown to be the only near-Communist state that did not repress its population. The leaders in Eastern Europe post-1945 do not have the page-count to get across any sense of individuality or motivation behind their actions (with the possible exception of Tito) making these sections of the book more of a slog, though it may be that this colourlessness accurately reflects the regimes in question.The excellent final chapter of the book suggests that Communism as demonstrated in the world should be seen as a peculiar accident of Russian history; if the "Ten Days That Shook The World" had failed to shake then it is unlikely that other Communist regimes would have either formed, or been allowed to form by the capitalist states. Speculation of this kind is absent from the earlier parts of the history, and while this makes for a shorter book it suggests that a longer work may well have been an even more rewarding one.