[lbo-talk] Stalin exonerated! Khrushchev lied!!

[wrobert at uci.edu]

>
>
>>>> Doug Henwood
> [the irrepressible Grover Furr reports to the MLG list]
>
> Dear MLG friends:
>
> ^^^^
> CB: I wonder why Litvinov, Kalinin, Molotov and other members of the
> "National Board" all along with Stalin don't have the same reputation
> as Stalin ? I think there actually was a collective leadership through
> all of "it".
> ___________________________________

I think that there are probably many reasons.  Probably the most relevant
within the states is that the figure of Stalin allows for a sort
parallelism of totalitarians argument of which probably Arendt's is the
most sophisticated version.  The sort of 'cold war' thinking that you are
so quick to reference.  There is also a version of history created by
Kruschev that is neccessarily directed towards shrinking his role in the
time period.  The Trots pick up the sort of animosity towards Stalin
through the hatred of the old man.  Finally, it's not totally wrong.  I
think that the authority that Stalin took in the party is much stronger
than the first amongst equals role that Lenin played.  I don't think that
the Thermidor thesis is completely wrong in its emphasis of the
destruction of the party.  Robert Wood