I like the dude but obviously he also confirms my biases so who knows.
But the only people I see talking bad about him are usually trots and borgeouis historians, what do you all think?
I like the dude but obviously he also confirms my biases so who knows.
But the only people I see talking bad about him are usually trots and borgeouis historians, what do you all think?
I think he’s great. He backs up his research with lots of good primary and archival sources and he is one of the few voices pushing back against the anti-communist historiography that has sadly become accepted as the norm. Obviously he has a bias, but then again so do all historians whether they admit it or not. None of his detractors are able to actually prove him wrong with any solid evidence. They end up resorting to circular sourcing from other anti-communist propagandists and anti-Stalin myths that have simply over the decades become axiomatically accepted in western academia despite dubious or nonexistent evidence and if you dare question them you are accused of being a “Stalinist”. Even after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s to researchers ending up outright debunking many of these narratives a lot of western so-called historians continue to peddle the same nonsense.
Imo i think all communists should at least hear what Furr has to say and not automatically dismiss him without even looking at the evidence and arguments he presents and just writing him off because his conclusions don’t align with the biases and “commonly accepted truths” that we have been taught by our deeply anti-communist educational system.
“The anti-Stalin paradigm.” People can make up whatever bullshit about Stalin they want but if you refute and point out it’s baseless bullshit you are immediately cancelled.
Surely there are more accurate and descriptive terms to use for the range of possible outcomes other than “cancelled” which is a contemporary, ill-defined, and temporary term to encompass a wide range of circumstances.
It’s also based in arrogance in that it assumes the person being “cancelled” somehow has a permanent entitlement to their position or title, that regardless of their behavior the market owes them a permanent place and recognition. This is bourgeois nonsense.
Censorship, market conditions, silencing, etc. are far better descriptors of most circumstances where “cancelled” is used.