Reviews for The Economy and Material Culture of Russia, 1600-1725

The average rating for The Economy and Material Culture of Russia, 1600-1725 based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2011-06-24 00:00:00 Andrew Smale This is a clear, easy to understand book about the origins and performance of the Soviet economic system from its inception down through the time of Khrushchev - which also touches briefly on why the USSR collapsed etc. It has very little economic jargon - thankfully - and so will be understandable to any average reader. It was written in 1998 and incorporates then newly-available economic/statistical information from the ex Soviet archives, but the book is really more an overview of about 40 or 45 years of Soviet economic history rather than a detailed study of Soviet economic trends. The book explains how the Soviet Union managed to become a super power after the Second World War despite having a much smaller economy than that of the US, but that the emphasis on defense came at a price. Also, the Soviet economic/political system stifled innovation, along with dissent, political discussion etc. This was a huge flaw that led to the USSR falling behind in technical innovation starting from the 1970s. The one-party State, which didn't even allow much discussion within the one party, the repression especially during the Stalinist era, didn't foster an economic environment conducive to technological progress. The CP's dominance led to the development of what was exactly not wanted by the founders of the USSR - a ruling class of Communist cadres, and they were loathe to reform the economy, much less the political system. There were repeat attempts to reform the economy before Gorbachev's final attempt in the mid-80s, but none of them worked - perhaps because it was impossible to reconcile the contradictions between the planned system and that of a market economy. At least it wasn't possible to do so in the Soviet Union although we have since seen that the CP of China has successfully relaxed restrictions on private enterprise while still maintaining control over key sectors such as banking (mostly), plus the State still owns all the land in China. The Russian Empire was a sprawling mostly agrarian domain in which the vast majority of the population languished in villages, mostly illiterate. The peasantry supplied a fighting man that couldn't compete vs. the literate soldiers from the West, including Westernizing countries such as Japan. Tsarism didn't pour resources into developing the population, such as mandating public school education, and providing more institutions of higher education. Russia was left behind under the Tsars and the difference between the Russian fighting man and the soldiers of Western countries meant that Russia would always be vulnerable unless it upgraded its population quickly, not just its industry, especially its defense industry. The West had pulled ahead in the 19th-early 20th C with respect to developing its populations not just industrialization. The system of tsarism imposed a pyramidal power and economic structure on the population, with no possibility of advancement or development. When the chips were down, the army was lacking, because resources had not been poured into it by the tsars. The WW1 collapse of several empires included that of Russia. However, in the case of the end of the Russian Empire, its dissolution was forestalled for almost 100 years, by the takeover of the crumbling Russian State by the Bolsheviks, who sold the idea of overthrowing the old order to the masses. Even before the Bolshevik Revolution, there was an agrarian revolution in the countryside - where the peasants spontaneously took over the land of the large estate holders and shared it out among themselves. Lenin was very Empire-minded - which was in itself a contradiction with respect to the principle of self-determination - but the population went along with his recommendations, even those in the subject or colonial areas, since he promised a marked improvement in the standard of living, the abolition of classes and so forth. The Russian Revolution was very thorough-going and resulted in the flattening of the pyramid of power & money that had existed under the tsar system. However, it seems to me that Lenin, however smart he may have been, was winging it when it came to the Soviet economy. The prescriptions of Karl Marx had never been tried on a national scale before - would it have made more sense to try out the system on a smaller scale first to see if it worked before extending it to the entire USSR? As stated above, the classless society promised by Lenin eventually led to the development of a new CP ruling class anyway - perhaps seen by the particular dictator in power at any given time as a way of "guaranteeing" loyalty by CP officials, by letting them have better apartments and various other perks. This was of course another weakness of the system - although politically, the "paranoia" and repression and lack of free speech and a free press must be listed as weakness #1; the fact that the State had to rule through terror, not allow an opposition, and also prevent citizens from reading information/news that was not State-approved - proves how weak the State really was, if it had to rely on such heavy-handed, and finally, counter-productive, measures to "control" the population. But none of this would have resonated in Russia at the time as the people who made the Russian Revolution must have felt like they were re-enacting the French Revolution but on a much more gigantic scale. They wouldn't have listened to anyone anyway, and probably characterized any opposing viewpoints as those of despised capitalists, the bourgeoisie, and so forth. The fall of the USSR is a topic that will be written about and discussed for a long time to come, since it represents the downfall of what was then the #2 economy on Earth, as well as a super power, one of only two. Obviously, the fact is, if the USSR could crumble - then any country can, either because of centrifugal political forces or an economic crash or a combination of both. I think the population of the Soviet Union must have had enough with the oppression of the CP in particular, and were willing to trade their super power status, and even about 1/3 of their territory, to achieve a more normal, less paranoid, or terrorized, way of life. That's the only way to explain why they did nothing to prevent the fall of the Soviet Union - there were no mass demonstrations supporting the CP. Yeltsin was the antithesis of a Soviet leader, even though he had previously been a Soviet leader - perhaps the dissolution of the Soviet Union left him unhinged or un-moored, and he just saw the new era as an opportunity to live it up. He allowed the State to fall into chaos and into the power vacuum stepped the Russian mafia, together with the oligarchs - pals of Yeltsin to whom Yeltsin sold various pieces of the Soviet economy often at rock-bottom prices. The oligarchs in turn kicked "commissions" back to Yeltsin, who could use State power to ensure they retained control of the former State-owned enterprises that they now owned. Law enforcement, tax collection, society in general was in tatters by the upheaval - actually about the 8th or 9th upheaval suffered by Russia in the 20th C (Loss of Russo-Japanese War, Loss of WW1, Russian Revolution, Civil War, Forced Collectivization/Famine, Stalinist Repression, WW2, Fall of Soviet Union, Rise of Organized Crime in Russia). Putin was actually OK initially in that he tried to roll back some of the glaring corruption in the new system, but Putin eventually re-introduced some of the techniques of the former system, in order to retain control. Such as co-opting the press and political parties, making a mockery of the Duma, OK-ing selected political assassinations, etc. New Russia isn't much of a constitutional democracy because Putin won't tolerate dissent, exactly the way dissent wasn't tolerated in the old Russia. He has also stated that he regrets the fall of the Soviet Union - which is neither here nor there. I bet a lot of Britons regret the US having broken away back in the 18th C, and the UK eventually losing practically all of its former colonial possessions. Every ex colonial power probably "regrets" losing their ex colonies, but pushing decolonization globally was actually an official policy of the USSR, why shouldn't it apply to the non-Russian areas conquered by the tsars? Gorbachev was evidently promised by Bush I that the ex Soviet republics would never be permitted or invited to join NATO - but that promise wasn't honored, so that most of the Warsaw Pact and ex-Soviet republics in Europe have now joined NATO. Gorbachev's agreement to dissolve the USSR was with Belarus and Ukraine, with the understanding that the three States would, upon the dissolution of the USSR, form the core of a new association of independent States. Unfortunately, it seems that the new association didn't pan out as planned - although it exists, it's not much of anything beyond an organization on paper. However, there is no reason why the former members of the USSR couldn't form an EU-like bloc - they already have Russian as a language in common (or as a second language). But none of that really worked out as planned - since the Russian economy essentially collapsed in the 90s under Yeltsin, so what was the upside of joining Russia in anything? Ukraine is a glaring example of the planned new association not having worked out. Russia should leave Ukraine alone although a free trade agreement between Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine would be beneficial for all three countries. As far as a military pact, I wonder if any of the ex Soviet republics would want to rejoin Russia on that level. So far, they have mostly fled - many into NATO. Putin needs to continue with developing Russia - the same task that was underway under communism, but not under the communist political-economic model. Once the Russian economy is on a par with that of any major Western power, then the ex Soviet republics can seriously consider a closer association with Russia, as long as it's a trade pact, or an environmental treaty etc. It is ridiculous to think that any of the ex Soviet republics would want to become subject states of a re-imagined Russian Empire. But they might want to join Russia in a free trade area etc if it was worth their while to do so, if the Russian economy were successful, progressive, and dynamic - instead of dominated by a group of oligarchs, protected by a rather thuggish political system. Russians were not paying attention - perhaps the fatalism or obliviousness toward politics was ingrained after seven decades under a dictatorship - when Putin became President and now it is too late for them to take back their democracy, unfortunately, since Putin has grabbed all the levers of power, and basically rules through a form of 21 C terror, just like Stalin used to. The only thing Russia needs to do is actually abide by their Constitution, remove the influence of Putin from the press, allow real political opposition and political parties that are not co-opted by Putin, have an independent judiciary and tax collection service, respect and protect individual rights. Russians have never had a real democracy, it seems - or maybe they did in the chaotic years under Yeltsin. Unless they reform their society, they are going to head into the same dead-end that they ended up in under communism: Stagnation, repression, lack of innovation, etc. Here are the many quotes: From Chapter 1 - the Introduction: "...Soviet authorities deliberately distorted their published statistics in order to present a more favorable impression of economic progress." From Chapter 2 - The Tsarist economy: "From the sixteenth century onward [the tsars] ... sought intermittently to establish Russia as a great European power." "During the early nineteenth century, the Russian market widened considerably, and a cotton-based textile industry developed rapidly largely using imported machinery from Britain." "Population and industrial skills were concentrated in the central area of European Russia around Moscow and St. Petersburg; coking coal and iron ore were located in the south, and transport in a northerly direction by river was impossible." "The industrial boom of the 1890s,during which large-scale industrial production increased by as much as 8-9 per cent a year, launched Russia into the age of heavy industry." "Industrialization was accompanied by growing political and social instability." "Russian agricultural production increased in the period 1900-14." "Between 1908 and 1913, the production of large-scale industry increased by almost 8 per cent a year, nearly as rapidly as the 1890s..." "...capital goods industries, with some exceptions, were financed from abroad and under the strong influence of the state, and had marked oligopolistic tendencies." "The Communist Party stressed...that Russian pre-revolutionary capital was strong enough to provide a basis for completing the construction of socialism int he Soviet Union without assistance from successful revolutions elsewhere." "Many [Western historians] agree ...that a modern capitalist economy was successfully emerging in Tsarist Russia." "...the structure of Russian industry, with its large units, poor working conditions and oppressive discipline, made for social unrest and political radicalization..." "Other Western historians ... ...explain the collapse of Tsarism primarily in terms of the failure of its political system to adapt to the needs of a modernizing society." "Some Western historians...see the [First World] war as an unlucky accident, which interrupted the progressive course of Russian evolution towards capitalism and parliamentary democracy..." "The Russian attempt to catch up the West placed enormous strains on the system, and these were greatly exacerbated when Russia confronted the economically more advanced Imperial Germany. On this view, the collapse of the Tsarist economy must be seen in the context of the profound contradictions within the European political order." "...apparently favorable [economic] trends were abruptly reversed in 1916." "The grain harvest of 1916 was poor." "By 1916, industrial labor was in short supply... And in the winter of 1916/17 food supplies to the towns fell drastically even though the urban population was increasing remorselessly. The decline in urban and military food supply triggered the mass discontent of the early months of 1917." "...by the winter of 1916-17 the Russian Empire was creaking and cracking under the pressure of the armies of Germany and her allies, superior in the amount and quality of their weapons and the educational level of their soldiers." "Peasants in uniform and middle classes joined the industrial working class in overturning the old regime. For the mass of the population food supplies and living conditions continued to det

Review # 2 was written on 2012-08-09 00:00:00 L D John Like the majority of the western historians when they write about the Soviet Union, the writer tended to defame the Soviet economy in a biased way. Mass collectivisation, capital goods industries, central planning are damned from the western point of view, damned because they were what made the Soviets great history. The book didn't provide any new information, only the old lies about famines, coercion, labour camps, and much more of the same stuff that Trotsky used against Stalin, especially the myth of exploiting the peasants to finance the mass industrialisation, which is used throughout the whole book.