Reflections on a Ravaged Century

like

This book is a passionate, saddened condemnation of the implementation of abstract, universal ideas in politics, over and above actual humdrum human needs. The monstrosities of Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Maoism etc. are beyond description. Conquest tries to give us an idea, and in frustration resorts to humor: "a curious little volume might be made of the poems of Stalin, Castro, Mao and Ho Chi Minh, with illustrations by A. Hitler".This book is also a good review of current problems, especially the youthful energy of activists who fail to take seriously these questions:"First, is the cause good?""Second, even if the cause is in this sense good, does the activist use methods that are destructive of other goods?"The best chapter is "The Answer is Education", which he titles in quotes because: "it is obvious that a high level of education in a general sense has often failed to protect twentieth-century minds from homicidal, or suicidal, aberrations."The author is famous for Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics:Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

Conquest sets out in a disparate collection of essays to examine the underlying causes that explain how big-I Ideas came to dominate the political landscape of much of the twentieth century. Examining mostly the rise and reaction to Soviet Communism in Russia, Conquest attacks both the Russian mindsets that encouraged and sustained the Stalinist state and the Western reactions and support that made it possible for the Stalinist government to continue. He ends with a look forward and some instruction on how the resurrection of such states can be avoided.This is the first of Conquest's books I've read, and I found it fascinating, confusing, and a little off-putting. Not being well-read in Russian history, I felt a bit lost as to many of the people and incidents he references, especially since he is explicitly not trying to explain them. Even with that, however, his work was enjoyable and instructive and dovetailed helpfully with the reading I've done in Chinese Communist history. Conquest is often pithy and thought-provoking, and wields a vocabulary like no-one else I've ever read. I look forward to reading more of his work and to someday returning to this volume.

This was a 'differnet' sort of text for me personally, as I'm more into hard data analysis of military campaigns, stratetgy and such so take my opinon with a grain, of sort. "REFELCTIONS" is a good description actually of it overll. Its Obviously WELL researched, intense & IN-depth; this guy knows his stuff, not just as an author or writer. However, I found it a difficult read, at first- not sure why. But eventually I did start to get the 'feel' & flvor of Conquest's writing style, eventually, as i siad. I feel the flow, or at lest to my own personal liking didnt start to kick in of sorts until the 50+ page mark. Its a TON of information and stuff to ponder in such a small text. Good weekend book if you donthave a lot of time to throw down into larger detail-specific, micro-fact oriented 500-900 page texts. Enjoyed it, but didnt 'learn' anything new of sorts. STILL, it sums up the whole mess of the 20th century I think overall and pretty darn well. Great book to buy Amazon cheap. Dont wann give the theme of the book away; you can check it out and decide yourself. yeah, I'd mayeb read it agin for sure, bc its easy to miss stuff the first go around. I'll admit to cheating a bit, here and there, skipping over some lines or a page or two now 7 again when the going got slow and tough. :)

Everything arrived on time and as advertised

As with DRAGONS OF EXPECTATION, this isn't a bad book for a beginner in Conquest, but those who've read his earlier great studies of Stalinist Russia and related matters, it's mostly a repeat of insights better and more fully stated in those books.One deplorable thing: Conquest, having become a right-winger like his old mate Amis, became a favorite of dubious American conservatives like Podhoretz and the National Review crowd. I have a feeling that though the political affinity is sound, in other respects Conquest wouldn't welcome such bedfellows. I'm sure his taste in poetry wouldn't fly with William Buckley's epigones, a sorry bunch of Philistines, and Podhoretz (is he still alive?), though trained as a literary critic, never displayed anything like real insight into literature, except as a means of "making it".My own personal beef is that both Amis and Conquest thought Madame Thatcher was "sexually attractive", which says something about their execrable taste in female beauty (not to mention that Conquest denigrated Brigid Brophy's appeal in an infamous lyric about the "Kraft-Ebbing Trophy", and Brigid, in her prime, was a dish!)

A sophisticated narrative that whilst comprehensive is never verbose. Conquest has the foresight that predicted the final collapse of the Soviet Union as a function of its philosophical contradictions and for the same his appeal at suggesting the next likely steps that could unfold make for compelling reading. Whilst his critics before were certainly vocal they then seem to have misunderstood the clear essence of his hypothesis, that is so calmly based on the underlying philosophical tenets. And it is with that appreciation that one can see how easily a future alignment between the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand (Anglosphere) can take place as we recently bore witness to as Saddam's regime was removed from power as a function of US, UK and Australian forces. Some may critique this, but as a brave historian who got it right before, Conquest cannot be dismissed so easily. I look forward to more of the same.

もう十年以上前の作品です。したがってここでのcenturyは２１世紀ではなくもちろん２０世紀です。前半は主に共産主義に魅入られた知識人たちの思考が探られ、後半は共産主義の崩壊の後に、90年代の世界が直面した問題が、当時に見えた世界の枠組みの中で取り上げられます。後半の視角は、否応なく時代を感じさせます。議論のスタイルは、緻密なものではなく、むしろエッセイや講演といったほうがいいのかもしれません。著者の英語は独特なもので、特に本作品の性格上、慣れていくまでが大変かもしれません。これはその後の著者の作品、 The Dragons Of Expectation: Reality And Delusion In The Course Of History にも共通しています。また著者の知的な引き出しが相当深いせいでしょうか、議論は長年に及ぶ個人的な経験と混ぜ合わされ、引き出しの少ない日本人の私にはついていくのが至難のわざです。制度化されたソヴィエト学のグロテスクな間違い（これは現代の経済学とも同じです）や共産主義の幻想が木端微塵にされてしまいますが The Dream That Failed: Reflections on the Soviet Union 、その原型ともいうべき、フランス革命の啓蒙思想へまで著者の議論が進められることはありません。むしろenglandという辺境における文化そして政治的な経験の蓄積とその帰結としての議会主義と合意形成そして法の支配こそ、著者が文明の理想とするものです、その結果出てくるのが著者の政治的な提言、旧英国の政治伝統を引く国々の緩やかなassociationです。これはどう評価したらいいのでしょうか。英米混血（？）の著者の奇妙なノスタルジアなのでしょうか？それともユーロのグロテスクな矛盾が露呈された現代人にとっては、この程度のところで、政治統合のお遊びはとどめておいた方が、正当化の美名と除去できない現実の矛盾を露呈しないで済むという、現実主義者の賢い助言だったのでしょうか？ The Dragons Of Expectation: Reality And Delusion In The Course Of HistoryThe Dream That Failed: Reflections on the Soviet Union