Understanding some of many lies from history

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  

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/

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.

...

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.