This small selection is shared from the research papers
of Grover Furr, based on the study of Stalin era of the socialist. It is
written by Grover Furr in reply to Roger Keeran's critique of his book "Khrushchev
Lied" (Analysis of 61 Lies of Khrushchev). Grover Furr is a research
scholar in Montclair State University, New Jersey.
His work exposed many lies of Khrushchev about Soviet
Union in the epoch of Stalin, which were distorted in many ways after Stalin and
misused by many historians, revisionists and whole media about socialist Russia
to dishonor many greatest social and economic achievements of socialism in
entire human history of development, with some mistakes, obviously (which we can
only conclude today.).
I would like to share it among everyone who seriously thinks
about present social-economical-political issues affecting life of every
individual. And where every day millions of the lives of people across the
world are destroyed and millions are forced to live in the conditions like hell.
We must go through this article to look more real views of history in a
better way. Once dust will be cleared from the mirror of history future will reflect in it more clearly.
In the light of these lies we can also analyze the present
Indian social, political and economical conditions and made conclusions for
future out of it.
Few selected paragraphs from it are posted here, all
taken from
Complete article present on: M
Today
From the article:
Only the 61 so-called “revelations” are the subject of my study. These are the accusations that shook the world; that caused half the world’s communists (outside of the communist countries themselves) to quit their parties; that led directly to the Sino-Soviet split, and later to Gorbachev’s ideological smokescreen by which he justified the return to predatory capitalism and the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Only the 61 so-called “revelations” are the subject of my study. These are the accusations that shook the world; that caused half the world’s communists (outside of the communist countries themselves) to quit their parties; that led directly to the Sino-Soviet split, and later to Gorbachev’s ideological smokescreen by which he justified the return to predatory capitalism and the breakup of the Soviet Union.
...
We have more than enough evidence today to
prove that Khrushchev lied about many other matters as well.
…
I would have been much
happier if my research had concluded that 25% of Khrushchev’s “revelations”
about Stalin and Beria were false.
…
Over 50 years ago the
worldwide communist movement was rebuilt in accordance with Khrushchev’s Speech
and the many subsequent lies about Stalin by Khrushchev and his henchmen. To
accept the fact that Khrushchev did virtually nothing but lie in this
world-altering speech shakes the foundations of the political commitments that
a great many people have held for a lifetime.
No wonder, then, that many
find the truth is unpalatable. But it is the duty of Marxists to look the
truth, no matter how disillusioning, squarely in the eye.
…
The only way to arrive at
statements that approximate the truth is by the scientific process of research:
mastering the secondary literature; identifying the primary source evidence;
locating, obtaining, and studying that evidence; drawing correct conclusions,
appropriately qualified, from that evidence. To pretend, or to suggest to
others, that one can arrive at a truthful account of events by outlining what
somebody – anybody -- “thinks”, is to substitute idealism for materialism.
...
“Opinions”, “views”, and
“what X thinks” where X is some “expert” -- whatever that means -- are to be
studiously avoided! Remember Sherlock Holmes’ famous dictum:
It
is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to
twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (“A Scandal in
Bohemia”)
If Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle, a man who believed in fairies, understood this principle materialists
have no excuse for ignoring it! What we are greatly wanting is conclusions solidly
founded upon an objective study of all the evidence.
....
We know that Khrushchev kept hidden from
them much of the evidence we now have. A careful, objective researcher today –
granted, there are precious few such – can learn much more than Molotov or
Kaganovich ever knew about these events
….
In a private email to
Keeran in October 2011 I tried to put this vital matter another way:
I
think Stalin et al., like Lenin et al., and like Marx and Engels, were “the
best.” None were ever better.
In
my view Stalin and those who were closely associated with him, plus tens or
hundreds of thousands of Soviet communists, were faithful followers of Lenin.
They did in fact implement, bring into being, what Lenin wanted -- socialism.
“Socialism in one country”, in fact.
They
did not “fail to understand”, or “distort”, etc., Lenin's ideas. They fulfilled
them.
Lenin,
of course, was striving to embody and fulfill what Marx and Engels had
concluded. And I believe he did understand Marx and Engels better than anybody
before or since, and did in fact follow their teachings with intelligence and
innovation.
But
you can't “have it both ways.” If Stalin et al., faithfully followed Lenin, and
Lenin et al. (for Lenin wasn't alone either) did likewise with Marx and Engels,
then it follows that there are some fundamental problems -- flaws, if you will
-- in this whole line of thought. Because it ended up right back with
capitalism!
To
put it another way: If WE, or the communists of the future, strive to do what
Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels advocated, then AT BEST we are going to end up
right back with capitalism.
But
we will not have their excuse. They were the first, the pioneers. Pioneers
always make mistakes. In fact, it is inevitable -- mistakes are a necessary
part of any process.
But
making the same mistake again is NOT a necessary part of the process. To make the same mistake again is to
squander the lessons of both success and of failure that the predecessors in
the communist movement have to teach us.
We
have to learn from their mistakes, as well as their successes. Then we, at
best, will make NEW mistakes, creative mistakes, mistakes “on a higher level”
(in a Hegelian or dialectical sense). Along with new successes.
But,
if we pretend that “Marx and Engels had all the answers”, or “Lenin had all the
answers” (many Maoists literally believe that “Mao had all the answers”; many
Trotskyists, of course, believe that “Trotsky had all the answers”) -- if we
believe that, then we are guaranteed, AT BEST, to fall far short of what they
achieved.
Marx
said something about “first as tragedy, then as farce.” The tragedy of the
international communist movement of the 20th century was that, ultimately, it
failed.
Unless
we figure out where they went wrong -- ALL of these figures -- then we are
doomed to be the “farce.” And that would be a crime -- OUR crime.
So
we have to look with a critical eye at ALL of our legacy.
Marx's
favorite saying was: “De omnibus dubitandum” -- “Question everthing.” Marx
would be the last person in the world to exclude himself from this questioning.
I
hope these remarks are helpful. They are intended in a friendly spirit, Roger.
Please take them as such!
I urge readers to study
Keeran’s review, then to study this response of mine. Then obtain a copy of my
book – from your local library, if they have it (and if they don’t, have them
buy a copy) --and study it. Decide for yourselves.
