HK: 1) Dear Mr Heartfield: To start as you do - with my name. I am most glad that you approve of good literature, although since I was born just after Scott wrote his Raj Quartet I can claim no personal inspiration for his character. By the way, I have no intention of being framed. As you may know, HK is a very common name where I come from. What is your point? 2) Secondly, I believe that a large portion of my reply to you, would largely, however inadequately from your point of view - be based on similar comments that I provided to Grant Lee. That of Poland is I fully agree, not dealt with in my prior remarks. In fact, I am quite fortuitously and not inspired (alas) by your sharp comment, engaged in exploring this. However, I am unwilling to comment further till I have digested a good deal more material. 3) Regarding the probity and usefulness of sources emanating from Heinz Neumann [or his cohabittee Margeret Buber) regarding the coming to power of the German fascists I am perhaps a little more guarded than you. After all, it had been Neumanns prompting regarding the notorious slogan of the Communist party of Germany: Beat the fascists wherever you find them! , which had led to the CPG instead of building a broad anti-fascist movement, adopting tactics of street brawls against groups of Nazis. These tactics were condemned at the 12th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the CI in August/September 1932, but the correction came too late for an effective anti-fascist United Front to be built in Germany. Naturally, given the similarity of your name to that of John Heartfield (nee Helmut Herzfeld), you must have a special interest in the German movement & no doubt will object. [By the way which photo-montage of Cmde Heartfield do you prefer? For myself, there is almost no beating the vultures of No Passaran! Paseremos!.. almost. They are all so good arent they? The economists amongst us no doubt would prefer Der Gipfel ihrer Wirtschaftweisheit]. 4) Perhaps to be thought of as completely off-topic or perhaps not I would ask the following. I believe the leftists have to adhere to some standard of equi-poise. This is a methodological matter, much talked of in the bio-medical community by those assessing data in order to consider whether a question is decided or not. I have found, from the adoption of some heretical notions, that relatively few on the left are prepared to countenance viewpoints of the history of the USSR that cross their historical personal choices. Thus I have been reviled by both Trotskyites & ML-ists, for simply stating rather inconvenient facts. It is like expecting a committed cell-line to revert to the uncommitted toti-potential stem cell. Let me be less fanciful. The choice may not be simply a versus b, like: Support anti-Stalinists because otherwise you support capital by making a case for butchery . The choice may not be: Either Trotskys version or Stalins [assuming we know Stalins usually we do know Trotskys].
I am simply saying that the data that we thus far know, too often tends to be fitted into the Procrustean bed that ones own personal political choices have already long made. Yours Truly, The Most Commonly Named, Hari Kumar.