The truth?You can't handle the truth!
Yesterday I was reading a socialist book that I received some time ago from the Communist party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), Thinking about the Sixties by Hardial Baines. I was reading in the introduction about the Kruschevite slander of Joseph Stalin after his death.
I have been hearing this allegation from various members of the Anti-Revisionist camp for as long as I have been a communist, but I have never really given it a second thought.
Lately however, I have been having doubts.
I was reminded of when we learned about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Grade eight
social studies. I remember that even then, my social teachers tried very hard to beat it into my head that Kruschev was one of the greatest leaders of the USSR. Very suspicious, now that I think about it. This was in 2000/2001, long after the Soviet Union had collapsed. Why were they still promoting Kruschev so hard?
It is even more strange when I think about how they portrayed all of the other leaders. Lenin was portrayed as "Misguided", Gorbachev was portrayed as " a patriotic reformer" who did "too little, too late," and Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko are barely mentioned. The only Soviet leader portrayed with as much fervor as Kruschev, is Stalin, although in a completely different light. Stalin is portrayed as an Orwellian "Big brother", a merciless mass murderer, even more so than Adolph Hitler in our Social Textbooks.
Why are Canadian Social Studies textbooks parroting the exact same allegations made by Kruschev after the death of Stalin? Especially now, decades after the deaths of Stalin, Kruschev and the Soviet Union.
Maybe it's me, but anytime a NATO country agrees with the leadership of the Soviet Union on anything, that probably isn't a good sign. NATO doesn't compromise, so anytime they tolerate the leader of a country formerly dubbed a "Dictatorship", let alone praise him, that can only mean that this change in leadership is guaranteeing the interests of the United States and it's allies. I have already witnessed this pattern in Iraq,Afghanistan, Haiti and even the former USSR in my own lifetime.
Comrade Baines goes even further, speculating that Joseph Stalin did not die of natural causes, but rather was murdered in conspiracy. The Anti-Stalinist measures adopted almost immediately after his death, by both NATO and the Socialist camp certainly are suspicious.
This is all a very large revelation for me. I was a fervent Anti-Stalinist in my early development as a communist, and I have preached against the Evils of Stalin on several occasions. But now, the more I think about it, the evidence does seem to favor Stalin. At the very least, if every other argument I have read can be explained away, there is still one nagging doubt: When have I ever learned anything in Social Studies that wasn't biased and twisted? Much of the official version of history I was taught has turned out to be a pack of lies. Why would they tell the truth about Stalin, but lie about everything else as far as the USSR and the socialist camp are concerned?
Very suspicious...
I have been hearing this allegation from various members of the Anti-Revisionist camp for as long as I have been a communist, but I have never really given it a second thought.
Lately however, I have been having doubts.
I was reminded of when we learned about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Grade eight
social studies. I remember that even then, my social teachers tried very hard to beat it into my head that Kruschev was one of the greatest leaders of the USSR. Very suspicious, now that I think about it. This was in 2000/2001, long after the Soviet Union had collapsed. Why were they still promoting Kruschev so hard?
It is even more strange when I think about how they portrayed all of the other leaders. Lenin was portrayed as "Misguided", Gorbachev was portrayed as " a patriotic reformer" who did "too little, too late," and Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko are barely mentioned. The only Soviet leader portrayed with as much fervor as Kruschev, is Stalin, although in a completely different light. Stalin is portrayed as an Orwellian "Big brother", a merciless mass murderer, even more so than Adolph Hitler in our Social Textbooks.
Why are Canadian Social Studies textbooks parroting the exact same allegations made by Kruschev after the death of Stalin? Especially now, decades after the deaths of Stalin, Kruschev and the Soviet Union.
Maybe it's me, but anytime a NATO country agrees with the leadership of the Soviet Union on anything, that probably isn't a good sign. NATO doesn't compromise, so anytime they tolerate the leader of a country formerly dubbed a "Dictatorship", let alone praise him, that can only mean that this change in leadership is guaranteeing the interests of the United States and it's allies. I have already witnessed this pattern in Iraq,Afghanistan, Haiti and even the former USSR in my own lifetime.
Comrade Baines goes even further, speculating that Joseph Stalin did not die of natural causes, but rather was murdered in conspiracy. The Anti-Stalinist measures adopted almost immediately after his death, by both NATO and the Socialist camp certainly are suspicious.
This is all a very large revelation for me. I was a fervent Anti-Stalinist in my early development as a communist, and I have preached against the Evils of Stalin on several occasions. But now, the more I think about it, the evidence does seem to favor Stalin. At the very least, if every other argument I have read can be explained away, there is still one nagging doubt: When have I ever learned anything in Social Studies that wasn't biased and twisted? Much of the official version of history I was taught has turned out to be a pack of lies. Why would they tell the truth about Stalin, but lie about everything else as far as the USSR and the socialist camp are concerned?
Very suspicious...
posted by RedJulie at 11:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home