Rise and Fall (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 297 Soviet history is thorough and well articulated, and he notes the revolution that Stalinism represented while acknowledging its popular support and Russian /communist cultural préfigurations. Drawing on his own thorough biography of Bukharin, Cohen then explores communist alternatives to Stalin's Russia and the possibilities for reform inherent in Lenin's New Economic Policy and Bukharin's theoretical interpretations of Marxism. Although Cohen discusses the continuing appeal of post-revolutionary experimentation, he neglects the importance of authoritarian strains and characterizes Stalin's victory as due solely to his opponents' inept political maneuvering rather than to the power structure and leadership history of the Bolshevik party. This dual interpretive link is imperative when considering the lingering appeal of Stalin's legacy and the possibilities for true reform. In considering the future of the "Stalin question," Cohen discusses its historical, social, political, and moral aspects in view of the continuing struggle between the friends and foes ofde-Stalinization. From Khrushchev's attempts at innovation and reform through today's disjunction between a truly posttotalitarian Russia and the incomplete exorcism of Stalin's legacy, Cohen makes the case for complexity rather than simplicity in any analysis ofthe Soviet Union, but somewhat overdraws the case for significant institutional change. His assertion that the current political conflict (the book was written prior to Gorbachev's accession) is "simultaneously a quarrel about the Soviet past, present, and future" accurately denotes the seeds of reformism and conservatism inherent in Stalin's passing, but mistakes seeds for blossoming flowers and posits as legitimate the tenuous possibility for dramatic reform within the existing political structure. Cohen's perceptive study is a trenchant réévaluation of the historical forces that have shaped the Soviet Union. While few would reject outright the possibility for some future reform in the country, Cohen seems to be exceedingly optimistic about a "coalition for change." His totally unanticipated conclusion— that internal reform is predicated on external (that is, Western) policy— represents a non sequitur and forced "lesson" of international politics. Having demonstrated that the future of the Soviet system is not predetermined by its past, Cohen unfortunately then concludes it is inextricably bound to East-West détente. This is not rethinking, but new revisionist determinism. Its conclusion aside, however, Cohen's study is a valuable contribution to Soviet historiography and the continuing political debate. Rise and Fall. By Milovan Djilas. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1985. pp. 424. Reviewed by Sheila Bindman, M.A. candidate, SAIS. Rise and Fall, the continuation of Milovan Djilas's autobiography, records his political and personal Odyssey from planner of a model communist prison in 1946 to released prisoner of the new order in 1966. Although his private life (divorce and remarriage) provides a framework for his political transfiguration, the author's high-level government experience ensures that the book is also a compendium of Yugoslavia's development from the end of World War II through the Soviet conflict and into the early 1960s prior to domestic liberalization . There are some interesting new details and insights about Stalin, Tito, and 298 SAIS REVIEW their respective governments, but the volume represents essentially a retelling and a refutation of other accounts of the period. Djilas's review of his own and others' revolutionary and political experiences achieves a high degree of fairness, objectivity, and painfully acquired wisdom. Although the memoir's ostensible purpose "is not to refute someone else's lies but to narrate truths of my own," there is still a rather self-conscious desire to vindicate his own role in Yugoslav politics, which lends an underlying tension to the account. Despite Djilas's assertions that he has "never been ashamed of [his] party and revolutionary past," and that he understands "the importance of power, especially for carrying out political ideas," he insists he is repelled by that power and has always desired most to "withdraw from [it] into intellectual and moral independence." An engaging chapter on Djilas's friendship with Yugoslavian cultural figures is thus presented in opposition to his political and propaganda activities—as an illustration and foreshadowing ofthe simple man ofideas who eschews personal power for a road of his own choosing. References...