In this article David Joravsky asks us to be wary of the complacency with which many scholars describe the collapse of communism as the disappearance of a system inherently at odds with the truth. This type of ideological thinking prevents scholars from seeking generalizations on the level at which they are usefully explored, for example, questions about why communist revolutions failed in some places and succeeded in others, or about why communism took a revolutionary form in some places and a parliamentary form in others. Joravsky counsels against dividing the world into “us” and “them” and assuming that “we” have the truth toward which others ought to strive. In reviewing some of the leading writers on communism, Joravsky points out their tendencies toward ideologizing, and he criticizes the current urge for us to help the former communist countries make their history usable. Only they can do this, he advises, and only with attention to the political culture of their countries before the turn to communism.
