The Revolution That Divided the World: The Rise and Fall of Soviet Socialism
Good Fit
- Readers who want Russian and Soviet history in plain language as a single-author chronicle
- Anyone interested in totalitarianism and autocracy
- Readers curious about the historian-journalist writing style in the Turkish press
Not a Fit
- Those seeking academic, multi-source and critical Soviet history
- Anyone who wants to understand the Bolshevik revolution through sociological, economic or class analysis
- Readers who do not want to accept the author's anti-communist stance without balancing it
In the preface Akyol sets out the aim of the book: Soviet socialism has collapsed, but at a time when democracies are in crisis and autocracies are rising its experience contains «extremely valuable lessons». The author calls today's Russia under Putin «a typical example of the autocrats of our time», writes openly that he is «anti-communist» and states that the book was written in two years, relying on sources such as Besim Tibuk's advice and «The Black Book of Communism».
The first chapter begins by saying that the Bolshevik revolution «divided the world» and that the Russian experience is a «laboratory» for understanding why totalitarian systems are born and collapse. The main thesis rests on a quotation from Lenin's «Left-Wing Communism»: the revolution happened «only thanks to the historical peculiarities of Russia». From here Akyol moves to the autocratic states of Ivan the Terrible (1530–1584) and Peter I (1672–1725) and uses Pushkin's poem «Demons» and Dostoevsky's «Demons» as a warning about nihilism.
The era of Ivan the Terrible is described with reference to Szamuely: the massacre of Novgorod in 1570, the 6,000-strong «oprichniki» political police, the destruction of the boyars. The author presents this as the beginning of the line «oprichniki — Cheka — GPU», explains the Russian church's subordination to the tsar with the concept of «caesaropapism» and gives examples from Russian proverbs («God in heaven, the Tsar on earth»). The conclusion put forward is that «when Marxism-Leninism is put in place of God and the First Secretary in place of the tsar, autocratic continuity is plainly visible».
Towards the end of the chapter a parallel is drawn between the «Table of Ranks» and the Soviet «nomenklatura»; the heavy condition of landowning nobles and peasants is described. Akyol's approach is explanatory and fluent, but tying all stages of Russian history to a single «tradition of despotism» is a simplification: the Soviet system must also be explained by ideological, economic and international factors, and the author himself says he will turn in this direction in the later chapters.
- The text is plain, chronological and story-like; each subheading shows the thesis clearly
- The main references are historians such as Szamuely, Wolfe and Kurat, given in footnotes
- Russian literature (Pushkin, Dostoevsky) is used to explain political history
- The author's ideological stance (anti-communist) is openly declared and affects the tone of the text
An academic introduction to Russian history; one of Akyol's main references
Akyol's main source: the tradition of despotism in Russian political culture
At the end of the part read, Akyol ties tsarist power to the formula «the will of the Tsar is the will of God», calls the church's subordination to the tsar «caesaropapism» and lists Russian proverbs; then he writes that when Marxism-Leninism and the First Secretary are put in place of God and the tsar, «autocratic continuity» is plainly visible. What follows is outside the scope of this review.
If you see a problem, write to us. Publisher, author, rights holder, or just a reader — it doesn't matter. If there's something problematic about copyright in this review, if the review's author has broken the site's rules, or if you simply have a suggestion or complaint, hey@kitabdanevar.com. We'd rather resolve this between ourselves than go to court: we review requests within 48 hours and, if needed, correct or fully remove the review.
