[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/marx/ - Marxism

Now with 2% more Hoxha

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 1435383999890.jpg (17.02 KB, 300x384, 25:32, Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_W….jpg)

 No.2659

I find source validity to be exceedingly difficult to verify when dealing with socialism. There are many conflicting accounts and propaganda both ways. I try not to take anything at face value, but it's hard to sort the truth from the lies.

Example: Grover Furr clearly puts a lot of work into his works but he isn't exactly an actual expert on the area and sometimes I question the roots of his sources. He also has said that Stalin never committed any crimes. Even the most hardcore Marxist-Leninist has to admit Stalin at least made a mistake at some point. I like what Grover Furr is saying but It's hard to tell how valid it is.

 No.2660

>>2659

>He also has said that Stalin never committed any crimes.

Not even when he was breaking the law to organize revolution under the regime of the Tsar? Nothing to be ashamed of, but is Furr really rewriting history so much as to even deny revolutionary activity just to whitewash Stalin?

Grover is an ideologist, move on.


 No.2661

>>2660

Just because he has said some ridiculous baseless things, doesn't mean everything he has said is wrong though. A lot of his academic work seems fine. Like, "Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform." which seems decently well sourced, but it seems impossible to check every source, especially when those sources are deep in the archives and written in Russian.


 No.2662

File: 1435403101200.jpg (104.95 KB, 960x599, 960:599, Stalin speech.jpg)

>>2660

>Not even when he was breaking the law to organize revolution under the regime of the Tsar?

Furr was talking about the sort of "crimes" Khrushchev and his successors accused Stalin of. Being an outstanding revolutionary obviously wasn't one of them.

>>2659

>Even the most hardcore Marxist-Leninist has to admit Stalin at least made a mistake at some point.

I think Bill Bland made a good summary of how to view any mistakes Stalin made: "You could always say that Stalin could have done more, could have done this, could have shot this person beforehand. But I would be unwilling to criticise Stalin at all, because I feel that Stalin stands head and shoulders above all of us, all existing communists as far as his line was concerned – I think it is becoming more and more clear, if our analysis is correct, that Stalin was not the all seeing all powerful dictator that he is presented as being, but was in fact one member of a collective, in which membership was included concealed revisionist conspirators, and people were able to be misled by these conspirators, by their wrong line, even though they weren’t conspirators themselves, then I think we must, our admiration for Stalin must increase tremendously because he was able to prevent this revisionist group from taking any steps which really critically damaged socialist society, and it was not until three years after his death that the first moves were made to change, to start disrupting socialist society. It took another thirty years or so before they were able to actually come out and disrupt the whole structure of socialism as handed down by Stalin. I don’t think we have anything to criticise Stalin for, of course one could point out mistakes that Stalin made, but Stalin being a living person and not a divinely inspired person, must have made some mistakes, but I can’t find any. I have read the whole of his works and I can find nothing today even after all this hindsight that is available to us now, there is nothing he said, definitely said, that is inaccurate now."


 No.2663

>>2662

With mistakes I was thinking of his military blunders. He had the common sense to let the generals do their own thing after he fucked up though.


 No.2677

File: 1436334243546.jpg (37.24 KB, 438x604, 219:302, Stalin as Marshall.jpg)

>>2663

There's a few works which discuss Stalin as a military leader. The most up-to-date one is "Stalin's Wars" by Geoffrey Roberts, but another good read is Ian Grey's "Stalin: Man of History." Both authors are bourgeois, they weren't "fellow-travellers" or whatever, and both do demonstrate that Stalin was an able commander.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]