The heart of a leftist/Last time

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Sure, but it's not "Stalinism" that does it--it's any commitment to 
>the left, or near it. It wouldn't have helped if my ex-collegaues 
>had been clearer, had they cared, that I am an anti-Stalinist. There 
>is an old joke about a cop in a labor dispute who starts to beat up 
>a scab: "You commie scum!" he yells, belaboring ahim about the head. 
>"Wait, wait," said the the scab, "I am an anticommunist!" "I don't 
>care what kind of communist you are," says the cop. "All you reds 
>are the same to me!" And I don't think that criticism of evil, vile, 
>and stupid positions among ourselves ought to be muted because in 
>the wrong context, like a departmental retention evaluation, which 
>this is not, they might be misused. --jks

I think your experience tragically illustrates one of the points that 
I have been trying to make.  Attacks on those who have been called 
Stalinists (which in America have been the same as attacks on not 
only the CPers but also anyone who doesn't denounce the Soviet Union 
& the Communist Party ritualistically) have narrowed the limits of 
acceptable political discourse considerably (this is the point that 
Ellen Schrecker, among others, has made), to the extent that your 
view (despite enthusiasm for the ACLU and all that), too, is not 
acceptable in an American philosophy department, for you have never 
dismissed Marx and Marxism altogether as the *discursive origin* of 
the show trials, etc., which is the ultimate litmus test of the 
official anti-Stalinism in America.  Your criticism of the Soviet 
Union didn't stop you from joining anti-war movements, supporting 
Central American revolutionaries like Sandinistas, etc.  That's a big 
no-no.

In this culture, it is nearly impossible to debate, say, the 
political economy of the Soviet Union rationally, even though the 
Soviet Union doesn't exist any longer!  A while ago, Michael Perelman 
wrote:


>From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>Subject: Re: The heart of a leftist/Last time
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 100 13:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
>
>One problem with the charge of Stalinism is that it tends to buy into
>official demonization.  In effect, we are expected to say, I oppose the
>policy in XXX, but I oppose Saddam, Milosovich, Khadaffi, Castro or
>whoever is the offical devil.  Why can't someone say that I think that the
>soviet xxx was good without having to account for whatever number of
>deaths is attributed to Stalin.  Should I have to say that I approve of
>social security without having to say that I oppose the screwing of
>interns?
> --
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

This is the problem I'm talking about.

It is to the credit of younger scholars like Robin Kelley & Mark 
Naison that they have been able to produce a very nuanced 
understanding of American Communists.  The same should be done with 
the study of the political economy of the Soviet Union and anything 
else for that matter.  Without either uncritical support or ritual 
denunciations.

Yoshie