What do you think?
Rate this book
Assignment in Utopia
This is a story of belief, disillusionment and atonement. Long identified with leftist causes, the journalist Eugene Lyons was by background and sentiment predisposed to early support of the Russian Revolution. A "friendly correspondent," he was one of a coterie of foreign journalists permitted into the Soviet Union during the Stalinist era because their desire to serve the revolution was thought to outweigh their desire to serve the truth. Lyons first went to the Soviet Union in 1927, and spent six years there. He was there as Stalin consolidated his power, through collectivization and its consequences, as the cultural and technical intelligentsia succumbed to the secret police, and as the mechanisms of terror were honed. As Ellen Frankel Paul notes in her major new introduction to this edition, "It was this murderous reality that Stalin's censors worked so assiduously to camouflage, corralling foreign correspondents as their often willing allies." Lyons was one of those allies.Assignment in Utopia describes why he refused to see the obvious, the forces that kept him from writing the truth, and the tortuous path he traveled in liberating himself. His story helps us understand how so many who were in a position to know were so silent for so long. In addition, it is a document, by an on-the-scene journalist, of major events in the critical period of the first Five-Year Plan.As Ellen Frankel Paul notes in her major new introduction to this new edition, Assignment in Utopia is particularly timely. The system it dissects in such devastating detail is in the process of being rejected throughout Eastern Europe and is under challenge in the Soviet Union itself. The book lends insight into the "political pilgrim" phenomenon described by Paul Hollander, in which visitors celebrate terrorist regimes, seemingly oblivious to their destructive force. The book is valuable for those interested in the Stalinist era in the Soviet Union, those interested in radical regimes and political change, as well as those interested in better understanding current events in Europe. It will also be useful for the tough questions it poses about journalistic ethics.
681 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1937
6 people are currently reading
464 people want to read
About the author
Eugene Lyons
37 books12 followers American Anticommunist.
In his younger years Lyons was a member of the Young People’s Socialist League the youth section of the Socialist Party USA.
He became critical of the Soviet Union after working there as a correspondent of United Press International.
During the early 1940s and the Second Red Scare which followed World War II, Lyons was a frequent contributor to the popular press on anti-Communist themes, targeting liberals if Lyons deemed them inadequate in their denunciations of the Soviet regime.
Lyons also wrote a biography of President Herbert Hoover.
In his younger years Lyons was a member of the Young People’s Socialist League the youth section of the Socialist Party USA.
He became critical of the Soviet Union after working there as a correspondent of United Press International.
During the early 1940s and the Second Red Scare which followed World War II, Lyons was a frequent contributor to the popular press on anti-Communist themes, targeting liberals if Lyons deemed them inadequate in their denunciations of the Soviet regime.
Lyons also wrote a biography of President Herbert Hoover.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 20, 2020
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
The lessons for the modern world in this book are legion.
When I was in college in the late '70s (UC Davis, Class of 1980), so many years ago, I observed that the general favoritism/excuse-making by my professors had an unusual exception: Russian-language professors. Every Russian-language professor I had no hesitation in describing the Soviet Union as an absolute police state that terrorized and oppressed its people.
To really know Communism by being able to speak to the victims of Communism is to really appreciate how awful it is.
This book is an illustration of that principle. Eugene Lyons was born into a Russian-Jewish, New York Leftwing family in 1898. (Lyons was actually born in Russia, which could have led to some problems in leaving the Soviet Union when he worked there as a reporter.) Lyons radicalized in his youth and was heavily involved in radical politics, including supporting the cause of Sacco and Vanzetti, about whom he wrote a book, hobnobbing with radicals, and supporting the fledgling Soviet Union. His Socialist/Leftwing credential were bona fide.
He disappointed his family by turning to journalism instead of medicine. As a young man, he went to Italy after World War I in order to be the John Reed of the expected Italian Revolution, which died in the cradle thanks to Mussolini. In the 1920s, he cut his journalistic teeth by working for the Soviet press agency, TASS. In 1928 he was dispatched to Moscow by United Press International to serve as its local correspondent without speaking a word of Russian, although he made up for this deficiency to be able to conduct the historic first interview with Stalin largely in Russian.
This book is in many ways a conversion story like that of St. Augustine, although the conversion of Lyons was not so total. I suspect that although he was read out of the Left by Leftists, he still remained true to his radical roots. Nonetheless, this story is as much about Lyons and his life as it is about the Soviet Union. Thus, we learn about Lyons' family, his wife, his child, his friends, his vacations, and other items that someone interested only in the historic details might find distracting. However, in some ways, these are the most interesting bits as we see Lyons incidentally and casually interact with Joan London, the daughter of Jack London, Malcolm Muggeridge, e.e. cummings, George Bernard Shaw and host of other notables who came to experience "utopia" and acted in ignorant and foolish ways.
Lyons organizes the book around the theme of his emergence from craven Bolshevik-worship. He started his assignment with the conscious position of being a protector of the Soviet Revolution. He intended not to dispatch anything that would present the Soviet Union in anything other than the best possible light. He was not alone in this mission; it was largely shared by other Western reporters in the Soviet Union. However, Lyons was seeing the obviously shame trials that the Communists were putting up to explain the failures in their economic planning. He was also seeing the reduction of workers and peasants to the status of State Slaves and his faith in Communism was shaken.
However, it was not so shaken as to stop him from being a Soviet apologist. Two items illustrate. In one, Lyons came back from the Soviet Union during an extended vacation where he gave lectures on the Soviet Union. He acknowledges that his concern for not disillusioning the Socialist faithful led him to continue to misrepresent the Soviet Union as a land of milk and honey.
The second instance involves the manufactured Ukrainian famine. Lyons acknowledges that he participated in a conspiracy of silence to prevent the world from learning about the famine, even though it was well-known to every Western reporter in Moscow. This deceit extended to discrediting the veracity of Gareth Jones' absolutely truthful eyewitness reporting on the Holodomir. (Walter Duranty is mentioned, but, interestingly, he is mostly identified as the "New York Times' reporter.")
Obviously, there are reasons for this. First, telling the truth would probably have meant the expulsion of the reporter from the Soviet Union. Lyons describes how his own stabs at telling the truth transformed him in Soviet eyes from being a totally loyal puppet to someone who they often made wait for a visa. Likewise, the social repercussions in the West were a deterrent. Lyons describes how his occasionally less than glowing reports led his radical American friends to start gossipping about how he had become a counter-revolutionary. Finally, there was simply the weight of loyalty; Lyons did not want to break with his radical ideal of himself.
Interestingly, these things seem to be a constant theme in the lives to those who break with the "Movement." For example, Whittaker Chambers tortured himself over his loyalty to his fellow Communists to the extent that he chose not to report on them; a loyalty that Communists never reciprocated.
Another theme is the shattering of ideals by reality. For, Lyons it was the show trials of 1930; for Chambers it was the show trials of 1937; for Howard Fast, it was Kruschev's speech about Stalin. For each of them, it was something immediate in their lives. One wonders why they couldn't have learned the truth from the facts that were always before them?
The lessons from these incidents apply to today. I have come to doubt the veracity of reporting from China, for example. Why do we think that reporting out of China is any less distorted than it was for reporting from Moscow in the 1930s?
The lessons for the modern world in this book are legion. We see the thuggery of the left, the narrow provincialism of the left, the granting of power in the left to mediocrities to determine the guidelines of art and culture, and the hatred of the left for the persons before them because they are creating a utopia for the future.
This is a fascinating and deep book that I highly recommend.
The lessons for the modern world in this book are legion.
When I was in college in the late '70s (UC Davis, Class of 1980), so many years ago, I observed that the general favoritism/excuse-making by my professors had an unusual exception: Russian-language professors. Every Russian-language professor I had no hesitation in describing the Soviet Union as an absolute police state that terrorized and oppressed its people.
To really know Communism by being able to speak to the victims of Communism is to really appreciate how awful it is.
This book is an illustration of that principle. Eugene Lyons was born into a Russian-Jewish, New York Leftwing family in 1898. (Lyons was actually born in Russia, which could have led to some problems in leaving the Soviet Union when he worked there as a reporter.) Lyons radicalized in his youth and was heavily involved in radical politics, including supporting the cause of Sacco and Vanzetti, about whom he wrote a book, hobnobbing with radicals, and supporting the fledgling Soviet Union. His Socialist/Leftwing credential were bona fide.
He disappointed his family by turning to journalism instead of medicine. As a young man, he went to Italy after World War I in order to be the John Reed of the expected Italian Revolution, which died in the cradle thanks to Mussolini. In the 1920s, he cut his journalistic teeth by working for the Soviet press agency, TASS. In 1928 he was dispatched to Moscow by United Press International to serve as its local correspondent without speaking a word of Russian, although he made up for this deficiency to be able to conduct the historic first interview with Stalin largely in Russian.
This book is in many ways a conversion story like that of St. Augustine, although the conversion of Lyons was not so total. I suspect that although he was read out of the Left by Leftists, he still remained true to his radical roots. Nonetheless, this story is as much about Lyons and his life as it is about the Soviet Union. Thus, we learn about Lyons' family, his wife, his child, his friends, his vacations, and other items that someone interested only in the historic details might find distracting. However, in some ways, these are the most interesting bits as we see Lyons incidentally and casually interact with Joan London, the daughter of Jack London, Malcolm Muggeridge, e.e. cummings, George Bernard Shaw and host of other notables who came to experience "utopia" and acted in ignorant and foolish ways.
Lyons organizes the book around the theme of his emergence from craven Bolshevik-worship. He started his assignment with the conscious position of being a protector of the Soviet Revolution. He intended not to dispatch anything that would present the Soviet Union in anything other than the best possible light. He was not alone in this mission; it was largely shared by other Western reporters in the Soviet Union. However, Lyons was seeing the obviously shame trials that the Communists were putting up to explain the failures in their economic planning. He was also seeing the reduction of workers and peasants to the status of State Slaves and his faith in Communism was shaken.
However, it was not so shaken as to stop him from being a Soviet apologist. Two items illustrate. In one, Lyons came back from the Soviet Union during an extended vacation where he gave lectures on the Soviet Union. He acknowledges that his concern for not disillusioning the Socialist faithful led him to continue to misrepresent the Soviet Union as a land of milk and honey.
The second instance involves the manufactured Ukrainian famine. Lyons acknowledges that he participated in a conspiracy of silence to prevent the world from learning about the famine, even though it was well-known to every Western reporter in Moscow. This deceit extended to discrediting the veracity of Gareth Jones' absolutely truthful eyewitness reporting on the Holodomir. (Walter Duranty is mentioned, but, interestingly, he is mostly identified as the "New York Times' reporter.")
Obviously, there are reasons for this. First, telling the truth would probably have meant the expulsion of the reporter from the Soviet Union. Lyons describes how his own stabs at telling the truth transformed him in Soviet eyes from being a totally loyal puppet to someone who they often made wait for a visa. Likewise, the social repercussions in the West were a deterrent. Lyons describes how his occasionally less than glowing reports led his radical American friends to start gossipping about how he had become a counter-revolutionary. Finally, there was simply the weight of loyalty; Lyons did not want to break with his radical ideal of himself.
Interestingly, these things seem to be a constant theme in the lives to those who break with the "Movement." For example, Whittaker Chambers tortured himself over his loyalty to his fellow Communists to the extent that he chose not to report on them; a loyalty that Communists never reciprocated.
Another theme is the shattering of ideals by reality. For, Lyons it was the show trials of 1930; for Chambers it was the show trials of 1937; for Howard Fast, it was Kruschev's speech about Stalin. For each of them, it was something immediate in their lives. One wonders why they couldn't have learned the truth from the facts that were always before them?
The lessons from these incidents apply to today. I have come to doubt the veracity of reporting from China, for example. Why do we think that reporting out of China is any less distorted than it was for reporting from Moscow in the 1930s?
The lessons for the modern world in this book are legion. We see the thuggery of the left, the narrow provincialism of the left, the granting of power in the left to mediocrities to determine the guidelines of art and culture, and the hatred of the left for the persons before them because they are creating a utopia for the future.
This is a fascinating and deep book that I highly recommend.
January 4, 2018
This book had a significant influence on George Orwell.
From the book....
“Soviet industrialization under Stalin went forward with a great roar and frenzied war whoops. The slogan “The Five Year Plan in Four Years” was advanced, and the magic symbols “ 5 in 4” and “2+2=5” were posted and shouted throughout the land.
The formula 2+2=5 instantly riveted my attention. It seemed to me at once bold and preposterous—the daring and the paradox and the tragic absurdity of the Soviet scene, its mystical simplicity, its defiance of logic, all reduced to nose-thumbing arithmetic....2+2=5: in electric lights on Moscow housefronts, in foot-high letters on billboards, spelled planned error, hyperbole, perverse optimism.”
The years the author spent in Russia were years of appalling hardship, culminating in the Ukraine famine of 1933, resulting in the starvation of 3.9 million Ukrainians.
The author went to the Soviet Union as a correspondent. He arrived an idealist-socialist eager to see if utopia was finally underway and ended up writing an expose of the brutality and terror he found instead. (Let it be noted that the word "utopia," coined by Sir Thomas More for a book he wrote with that title, is the Greek word for "nowhere." More's use of this word was meant to be ironic).
This review of a new book, "Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine," fills in some of the backstory on that tragedy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/bo...
From the book....
“Soviet industrialization under Stalin went forward with a great roar and frenzied war whoops. The slogan “The Five Year Plan in Four Years” was advanced, and the magic symbols “ 5 in 4” and “2+2=5” were posted and shouted throughout the land.
The formula 2+2=5 instantly riveted my attention. It seemed to me at once bold and preposterous—the daring and the paradox and the tragic absurdity of the Soviet scene, its mystical simplicity, its defiance of logic, all reduced to nose-thumbing arithmetic....2+2=5: in electric lights on Moscow housefronts, in foot-high letters on billboards, spelled planned error, hyperbole, perverse optimism.”
The years the author spent in Russia were years of appalling hardship, culminating in the Ukraine famine of 1933, resulting in the starvation of 3.9 million Ukrainians.
The author went to the Soviet Union as a correspondent. He arrived an idealist-socialist eager to see if utopia was finally underway and ended up writing an expose of the brutality and terror he found instead. (Let it be noted that the word "utopia," coined by Sir Thomas More for a book he wrote with that title, is the Greek word for "nowhere." More's use of this word was meant to be ironic).
This review of a new book, "Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine," fills in some of the backstory on that tragedy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/bo...
July 8, 2020
Call it 4.5 stars. Published in 1939 but oh-so-timely in today’s domestic political climate, where “socialism” is being dragged out as something worth considering.
The author began a politically active life as a very young man, assisting in the defense of Sacco & Vanzetti. A Marxist but never a member of the Communist party, he worked for the Soviet news agency Tass in the United States and eventually was hired by the United Press as its Moscow correspondent. He went to Russia full of optimism about "the revolution" and its meaning for the world, only to see that reality and theory were poles apart.
(Must pause -- Full review to come.)
July 2020: been too long — consider this the “full review “
Thank you, Fort Hays State College Forsythe Library through Johnson County interlibrary loan, for access to a very hard-to-find book.
The author began a politically active life as a very young man, assisting in the defense of Sacco & Vanzetti. A Marxist but never a member of the Communist party, he worked for the Soviet news agency Tass in the United States and eventually was hired by the United Press as its Moscow correspondent. He went to Russia full of optimism about "the revolution" and its meaning for the world, only to see that reality and theory were poles apart.
(Must pause -- Full review to come.)
July 2020: been too long — consider this the “full review “
Thank you, Fort Hays State College Forsythe Library through Johnson County interlibrary loan, for access to a very hard-to-find book.
November 4, 2022
I didn't find this an easy read, but I found it an informative read. Eugene Lyons was on assignment as a journalist in Russia during the 1920s-1930s. A communist idealogue, Lyons saw the 5-year-plan (a communist ideal) force people into working 7 days a week, making people give up their personal property to become collective property; see theft of collective property be punishable by death and a famine of epic proportions lay waste to the Russian people.
Over time the rose-tinted glasses from which Lyons viewed the Russian communist regime, would gradually lose lustre and the illusion which they showed would be replaced by the stark reality that the Marxist Utopian had become a living nightmare.
This is his story, and perhaps it is a warning to those enamored by the 'noble ideals of sharing everything' so that no one goes without.
Over time the rose-tinted glasses from which Lyons viewed the Russian communist regime, would gradually lose lustre and the illusion which they showed would be replaced by the stark reality that the Marxist Utopian had become a living nightmare.
This is his story, and perhaps it is a warning to those enamored by the 'noble ideals of sharing everything' so that no one goes without.
October 13, 2021
More content than literature, but still something everyone should read. If you know nothing about the Soviet experiment, start here.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews