In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Journal of Cold War Studies 5.3 (2003) 154-156



[Access article in PDF]
Vladimir Shlapentokh, A Normal Totalitarian Society: How the Soviet Union Functioned and How It Collapsed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2001. 340 pp. $70.95.

This new book by Vladimir Shlapentokh, a sociologist at Michigan State University, looks back at Soviet "totalitarian" society from the perspective of the post-Soviet era "without placing moral judgments on the subject." Maintaining—often, but not always—a balanced approach between a "totalitarian" description of Soviet society and an analysis of its functioning over a long period, Shlapentokh bases his work on four key premises: that "the society had a consistent structure and its main institutions remained largely intact after its emergence in 1918-1920"; that a distinction must be made between the Soviet regime centered in Russia and the "empire" that controlled non-Russians, in particular non-Slavs; that "USSR policies and socialist ideology were dedicated to the desire to catch up with and surpass the West"; and, finally, that "the official ideology was a complex construction, adapted to the regime and empire" and "should never be taken at face value" (pp.3-4). [End Page 154]

One can easily agree with Shlapentokh when he indicates that "the Bolshevik ideology quickly became a crossbreed of two major trends ... socialism and Russian nationalism" (p.14). Shlapentokh argues that the construction of the new society was intended "to overcome Russian backwardness and catch-up with the West in order to protect the empire from foreign invasion and to advance its geopolitical interests" (p.17), a claim that understates the significance of Josif Stalin's intensification of trends that had begun under Vladimir Lenin. To carry out this task as rapidly as possible, secrecy was critical. Soviet leaders developed a sophisticated ideological mechanism with two components: open ideology addressing the Soviet public, and a closed system of communication meant solely for the Communist Party elite and the nomenklatura, relying on special channels of information (pp.54-61).

The most controversial aspect of Shlapentokh's book is his resuscitation of a "totalitarian" conception of the Soviet political system as having been "supervised by the supreme leader" who relied on a "sophisticated selection of cadres" to build an "effective political Machine" that exercised "full control of the Province" (pp.71-102). Scholars who have pored over declassified internal reports from the 1930s and 1940s will find these claims hard to accept. Stalin may well have sought "full control," but the Soviet bureaucracy was notable for its incompetence, misunderstandings, counter-orders, and other traits that prevented the smooth implementation of directives from on high.

More convincing are the sections dealing with the Soviet economy, which Shlapentokh describes as "with all its flaws ..., a normally functioning system, with a history of ups and downs" (p.110). The economy, he writes, permitted the buildup and maintenance of the largest military the world has ever known, and it also guaranteed at least a minimal living standard for all citizens from the 1950s on (pp.118-126), having overcome the terrible famines of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.

Analyzing public opinion, Shlapentokh argues that the population can be divided into "three mental worlds" (p.130). In the first, the people supported the regime; in the second, they hated it; and in the third, they largely ignored ideological matters and spent little time, emotion, or thought on any world beyond everyday life. Shlapentokh asserts that "until the time of perestroika, the regime always enjoyed the support (active or passive) of most of the population" (p.127), but it would have been helpful if he had provided greater evidence for this claim and had taken due account of the role of fear, social mobility, and memories of worse times.

In a brilliant chapter dealing with "The Regime and the Empire," Shlapentokh notes that "while endowing Russians with the dominant role in the central elite, the empire energetically promoted the national elite in all the provinces, using 'affirmative action'" (p.160). Noting the "key role of Jews in the...

pdf

Share