Revisionism

Books like Grover Furr's "Krutschev Lied" and other revisionist works that seek to vindicate Stalin and other controverse left personalities seem to be becoming more abundant these days. I mistrust them as much as i mistrust Segal-Montfiore (and the wikipedia is terribly biased in favor of his work), but one thing is for sure, we haven't heard all the details yet.

What do you comrades make up of this?

Grover Furr is indeed a peculiar character who is almost delusional in his apologetic treatment of Stalin's Russia. It is definitely wise to maintain a highly skeptical view of his work. I am not familiar with Segal-Montfiore.

I believe it follows in the long-standing tradition of leftist responses to the Soviet system. The "ultra-leftists" and anarchists long abandoned any notions of the Soviet Union as representative of socialism while another stratum of the left devoted itself to the USSR as an unquestionable expression of "actually existing socialism." This latter group criticized the anti-Soviet left for its "petit-bourgeois" idealism. After the collapse of the USSR, such individuals could either reform their views or continue apologizing for Stalinism and other failures. The Trotsyists, of course, represent a third group here: anti-Stalinist but nonetheless pro-Bolshevik.

Why is this thread called Revisionism? Anti Revisionism is the correct term to apply to Grover Furr and those who are against Khrushchevite Revisionism.

slavicsocialist wrote:Why is this thread called Revisionism? Anti Revisionism is the correct term to apply to Grover Furr and those who are against Khrushchevite Revisionism.

Because this thread is about the supposed historical revisionism of the likes of Furr.