|
View the h-hoac Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-hoac's March 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-hoac's March 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-hoac home page.
To: "Recipients of H-HOAC digests" <H-HOAC@H-NET.MSU.EDU> Cc: "Grover Furr" <furrg@mail.montclair.edu> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 3:21 PM Subject: Re: CPUSA Stalinism RE: communism and Nazism This "logic" is completely fallacious. There is no comparison between the communist movement and the Nazi movement. It would be more apt to compare, say, the Jim Crow system of the US South, or French, British, Dutch, Italian, etc., policies of murder and massive repression in their colonial empires, to the Nazis, than to make any such comparison involving the USSR. I think that the record of the CPUSA in fighting for reform during the period up to, say, the 1960, was unmatched by that of any other organization. The greatest writers in the USA during this period were those in and around the Communist Party, including every significant Black writer in the country, including Richard Wright, probably the greatest American writer of the first half of the 20th century. Lawson was not one of the greatest, but he was a good one. I much prefer the works of Howard Fast, or Jack Conroy (never in the CPUSA, but close to it). The Comintern itself was the greatest -- most influential, but also, most _democratic_ -- movement for reform in the world. It is obvious that the CPUSA took its leadership, ultimately, from the Bolsheviks (after 1952: the CPSU) and, during its existence, the Comintern, which did likewise. Clearly, then, the affiliation between the CPUSA, the Comintern, and the Bolsheviks -- whom Prof. Schwartz calls "Stalinists" -- was very positive. Conversely, the demonization of the Bolsheviks, including the epithet "Stalinist," is not only an unscholarly attempt to denigrate the activities of the Bolsheviks themselves, particularly during Stalin's leadership, but of all communists everywhere. This is "guilt by association" with a vengeance. Furthermore, it assumes what is to be proven, by assuming that the Bolsheviks were "guilty" -- that is, "bad" in some universally recognized way -- to begin with. This is also factually and historically incorrect. Re: Andreu Nin, head of the POUM, was tortured and murdered. By, probably, the Spanish Communist Party, who had every reason to hate him, as they believed -- and a good case can be made that they were right -- that Nin had been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of fighters for the Spanish Republic, precisely at the time the Fascists were on the offensive and, therefore, acted as though he were a Fascist agent. It's absurd to consider the killing of Nin, or of Trotsky (see below), as "murders", i.e. outside their political context. Nin was killed in the middle of a desperate war for the survival of a state -- the Spanish Republic -- one which he and his forces were, arguably (I would argue that) undermining. Furthermore, it is simply not true that every communist is responsible for everything every _other_ communist in the world does, did, or will do. Therefore, the "fact" mentioned by Prof. Schwartz in itself means nothing. Re: Trotsky's death Trotsky was conspiring with men who planned to arrest and kill the leadership of the Soviet government and party, and almost certainly with the Japanese and German military as well, as detailed by defendants in the Moscow Trials and as supported by some documentary information that has emerged in Russia since 1991. If these allegations are true -- as most evidence, as opposed to the unsubstantiated prejudices of anti-communist scholars, suggests they are -- then Trotsky's assassination was a crime in Mexico, but not the least immoral in political terms. On the contrary! RE: Stalinists killed members of the CNT and POUM This is untrue. Such assassinations as charged here have never been proven. I know -- I have looked for it. It's one thing to discuss allegations that the CPUSA, or the Bolsheviks during Stalin's time, or Stalin himself, did things that were wrong, or immoral, or unhelpful to the working class struggle. It's quite another thing to _assume_ those statements are true, and irresponsible to do so. The Bolsheviks, the Comintern, the CPUSA, can all be criticized in many ways on their own terms. But there were simply no other forces in the world that stood up for the working class, and therefore for most of the rest of humanity, as they did. Sincerely, Grover Furr Montclair SU
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|