My last and only note on this strand. Anthony - thanks for your credo. I would argue that the tack taken is wrong. Because it focuses on one man, and that is certainly not the issue. The underlying issue is instead the battle between socialism and capitalism. If any single particular example of that is pertinent - it is whether Lenin and Stalin were correct or not on the matter of socialism in one country.
The rest requires a consideration of what happened to the archives. Assuming that a signature on some statements (or many of them as Anthony states) is a guarantee of the evil master-mind behind the matter is not advisable. That is ignoring the query of what happened to the documents over time. Are we assuming that Khruschev and team did not manufacture and turn the archives upside down? This is not a perspective prompted by this note, I had warned about it back in the 1990s. Some Marxist-Leninists have never denied that there were some very significant miscarriages of justice. Where they disagree with the conventional view is asking to what extent was Stalin driving this. I do not think without delving into the details of each of the points made, it can be said that the matter is concluded. Far from being QED as Marv appears to think - I think it will take a great deal of further time and disinterested research to conclusively solve these matters. And on these questions the weight of imperialist ideology has been heavy, and far more sophisticated than the days of the sponsoring of the White Armies in the Civil War following 1917. On that question some - both Western and Russian based academics - have gingerly pushed the knowledge barrier further. Many bourgeois academics concede that there were large systemic issues that Stalin was not behind. Mostly they emanate from sources who are deeply hostile to Marxism-Leninism. I think they have thus far revealed only a modicum of the true power battles going on behind the scenes. A last matter. It may have been noticed that I hold no brief for Furr. Any brief I hold for researchers in the field are for Bland whose views were quite distinct, as mine are - from Furr. However, the attacks on Furr on this list include the bizarre assertions that somehow he is not qualified to make statements as his ‘official’ brief was in medieval history. This is a crass remark and takes the ground form all (I think) here on the list who argue about the politics of the USSR. It may have followed Charles’ assertions that an appointment at a college as a professor of medieval history gives him a cachet. Both poles of the argument are wrong and disempower any who are not specifically qualified in Soviet - or Chinese - or Iranian etc history. That means disempowering all so-called "non-experts". That is you and I. I am a part time student of history for some 60 years, and only for the last 10 have i had any adequate to explore more deeply. Hari -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43401): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43401 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/121137801/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
