crazy to me how kotkin comes to mention the contingencies of ussr's history and communism history yet fails to consider them at all in his analisys. "what would've stalin become if it werent for lenin's death"; lenin had his party as lex said put in place these institutions to constraint one's power. kotkin doesnt dive in that area where ussr and the revolution brought alot of the rights and progressive ideas that we live under today (abortions, women's right, divorce, lgbt right, civil rights etc. etc.). "everywhere communism was tried historically it failed; produced an immense amount of casaulties" without mentionning the very economical contingencies that were put on these regimes by the capitalist world for it to fail (latin america are the best example).  he said himself, that capitalist economies produced fascist nazi authoritharian states, based on historical contingencies. how is that a fair treatment of ussr history? so capitalism go fascist in the 30's and its historical contingencies, commmunsism goes authoritarian under economical pressure and its a problem of ideology and equality of outcome. how can you study ussr and communsim your whole life and simply backhand brush it to the garbage like that. that's crazy to me, as if he chose to become a ussr historian just to find confirmation that communism is bad.