Hong Kong
- This topic has 637 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Furr has produced no actual evidence despite the extensive access being available to Nazi archives and Stalin-era archives.”
Alan has no authority to discuss Furr’s work because he has not read a word of it. Instead Alan bases his entire critique of Furr on hearsay gathered from two hostile pod-casters whose political views clearly cloud their judgement. Their performance consists of nothing but straw-man and ad hominem attacks while the guest professor misrepresents Furr’s research in an underhanded manner. I reiterate, if the hosts had an ounce of courage they would have invited Furr on to defend his research. The pod-cast and its hosts are a joke.
The only organization in the USA which supports Chinese capitalism and its leadership, and Vietnam capitalism and the leadership of Vietnam and call them socialist countries, and are still supporting Jose Stalin, and are saying that Gorbachev and Brezhnev were traitors is the CPUSA
That organization known as Marxist Humanist Initiative which is headed by Andrew Killman has written a book on Trumpism which is an incorrect stand because the problem of the USA is not Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Obama or George Bush, the problem is capitalism, like any other place around the earth, and I have read the book, and the arguments written are correct
Do they have to send an invitation to Donald Trump before publishing the book ? There is something on socialism and Marxism known as critique, and all the works of Marx are based on a critique which is capitalism, should have Marx invited David Ricard and all the members of the school of political economic before writing Das Kapital ? Should have Marx invited all the German Philosophers and Greek before writing his critiques to Philosophy ? Mao was the only one who has said that the person being critiques must be presented, but that is not a critique, that is the definition of gossiping
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_political_economy.
There are historians and pseudo historians, like all the Bourgeois economists are pseudo economists even if they have a doctorate degree
“I learn new things every day.”
Perhaps, but you invariably draw the wrong conclusions.
“I never realised how close China came to another civil war with armies facing down one another.”
That’s because it did not come close to a civil war. As part of the colour revolution attempt Voice of America was broadcasting false reports of PLA mutinies. The broadcasts were happening in real time in hope of engineering just such an outcome. Thankfully, few commanders fell for the ruse and order was restored.
“I never realised how many workers rather than only students were involved such as the Workers Autonomous Federation described here
But who trusts Trotskyists to tell the truth, eh?”
I don’t deny the worker protests. I was aware of them well before you ever were Alan, so don’t presume what I do and don’t know. You’re getting close to the truth of the matter but you are still staring at the cave walls. One more turn and you will see all, but alas, I think it too bright and dazzling for your eyes.
So, we have established that there was no massacre on the Square and that there was a simultaneous worker uprising, correct? What you still fail to comprehend is that there was a third group, the rioters (probably criminal gangs) armed with Molotv cocktails; thousands of them at a time when fuel was strictly rationed in China. Where did all these bombs come from? This element were the linchpin to the success of the regime change operation. The students had not drawn the brutal crack down upon themselves that their leaders had hoped for.
It was thus left to the criminal elements to provoke the government repression required to exacerbate the crisis further. Just as had been done to overthrow Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran.
It was these thugs who no doubt filled most of the body bags that night along with others swept up in the mentality of the mob as well as the soldiers/police and innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. Tienanmen Square was a failed colour revolution engineered from Washington. Ever since it has been portrayed as an act of savage brutality by western imperialist media and faux-leftists such as those populating this thread.
You are cooking yourselves in your own sauce, All those argumentations that you have presented is what the Leninist and also the Bolsheviks called Liquidationism which is to negate the revolutionary nature of the working class, therefore you are contradicting Lenin
Lenin on volume 15 of his collected works wrote about that. The followers of Donald Trump and Joe Biden are members of the working class, the peoples who protested in China,( they are frequently workers protests in China ) Hong Kong and Taiwan are also members of the working class
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/jul/11.htm
“…Alan has no authority to discuss Furr’s work because he has not read a word of it…”
You have read him in-depth, you say. As they say, those who make the claims, the burden of proof is upon them to make their case.
I will read the relevant proofs if you copy and paste what you consider the best evidence here. A few examples will be suffice.
But our contemporary commentary on the event at the time can be read here.
A summary is what our Executive Committee said
The existence of discontent in Russia is not due to agitation by Trotskyites or anyone else, but to disappointment with conditions (the low standard of living, inequality of wages, etc.) and with Government policy at home and abroad. Although the active discontent may be relatively small, and not united, the Stalin Government evidently fears lest the various discontented groups come together, especially in the elections due shortly under the new constitution.
[substitute a few words and you have the situation in China and Hong Kong]1936
1937
1938
1939
1956
Stalin in Eclipse: They came not to praise him but to bury him . . .
Some of the content of the articles are speculative but they show that our analysis is not based upon “careerist” historians but information gathered from what was in the public domain added to the rationality of understanding world events through the prism of the materialist conception of history.
I am sure Grover Furr has not read what we had to say as anti-Bolsheviks. You are free to send your mentor this list of links contemporaneous as the trials unfolded and request his comments.
Moderator alert
TS.
Stop doing duplicated posts. If a post doesn’t show use, the ‘Contact Forum Admin’link (last in drop down menu under ‘Forum’) and I will clear it. https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/contact-forum-admin/You had 21 posts in the spam folder which I have binned.
Grover Furr has a home page. You can go there and find all the information you require. On his website you will find an email link. He does answer his emails.
Furr has published a book on the trials.
“In this brilliant book, Professor Furr shows that “on the evidence, by means of an objective verification process, the only legitimate conclusion is that the Moscow Trials testimony is genuine, in that it represents what the defendants themselves chose to say.”
He shows that “there is not now, nor has there ever been any evidence that the Moscow Trials defendants were in reality innocent, compelled or persuaded by some means (threats to them or against their families, loyalty to the Party, etc.) to testify falsely.” He sums up, “Every time we can check a statement made in Moscow Trials testimony against independent evidence, we find that the Moscow Trials testimony or charge is verified.”
As Professor Furr states, “The earliest and most dramatic discovery emerged from the Harvard Trotsky Archive [TA] within months of its opening to researchers on January 2, 1980. This was the proof that the bloc of oppositionists inside the Soviet Union had really existed. The existence of the bloc was the chief framework for the conspiracies charged against the defendants in all three Moscow trials. The bloc was the link among the different conspiratorial oppositionist groups in which the Moscow Trials defendants confessed membership. … Defendants in all three Moscow trials testified that Trotskyists, Zinovievists, and other oppositionists inside the Soviet Union had formed a bloc and agreed to carry out assassinations (in Russia, to employ ‘terror’) against Soviet leaders.”
Furr explains, “Very soon after the TA was opened [Trotskyist historian Pierre] Broué and his team began to discover that Trotsky had deliberately lied in his published works. First they found evidence that the bloc of Oppositionists, including Trotskyists, Zinovievists, Rights, and others, had really existed. The activities of this bloc were the major allegation in all three of the Moscow Trials. Trotsky and [his son Leon] Sedov always denied that any such bloc existed and claimed that it was an invention by Stalin. Broué identified documents in the TA that proved that Trotsky and Sedov had lied: the bloc had indeed existed.” For example, in a letter of 1932, Sedov wrote that the bloc “has been organised. In it have entered the Zinovievists, the Sten-Lominadze group and the Trotskyists (former ‘capitulators’).”
Isaak Reingold testified on 3 July 1936, “the fundamental aim of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc was to remove by violence the leadership of the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet Government, and Stalin in the first place. … I know that the Trotskyite section of the bloc received instructions from L.D. Trotsky to adopt the path of terrorism and to prepare attempts on the life of Stalin.”
Grigori Zinoviev testified on 26 July 1936, “I was indeed a member of the united Trotskyist-Zinovievist center organized in 1932. The Trotskyist-Zinovievist center considered as its chief task the murder of leaders of the VKP(b) and, first and foremost, the murder of Stalin and Kirov. The center was connected with Trotsky through its members I. N. Smirnov and Mrachkovsky. Direct instructions from Trotsky for the preparation of Stalin’s murder were received by Smirnov.”
Ivan Smirnov stated, “I admit that Ter-Vaganyan, who with my knowledge conducted negotiations with the Leftists and the Zinovievites in the name of the Trotskyite group, formed in 1932 a bloc with Kamenev, Zinoviev and the Lominadze group for joint struggle against the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet Government, and that L. Trotsky’s instructions regarding terror against the leaders of the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet state were made the basis of this bloc.” Sergei Mrachkovsky testified that “Trotsky replied, agreeing to the formation of a bloc on the condition that the groups uniting in the bloc would agree to the necessity of removing by violence the leaders of the C.P.S.U. and Stalin in the first place.”
Nikolai Bukharin’s friend Jules Humbert-Droz revealed in 1971 that Bukharin told him in 1928 that he and his followers were already planning to kill Stalin: “Bukharin also told me that they had decided to utilise individual terror in order to rid themselves of Stalin.”
NKVD General Genrikh Liushkov defected to the Japanese in June 1938. He told his Japanese handlers that he knew of a military conspiracy involving General Ian Gamarnik, a member of Marshal Tukhachevsky’s group. The conspirators aimed, as US historian Alvin Coox concluded, “to conduct a putsch in the Far East and to reach agreement with the Japanese for help and for combined operations against the Soviet Union.”
In 1987 German historian Ivan Pfaff found a note of 9 February 1937 by Voytech Mastny, the Czech minister in Berlin, recording that the German government believed that “there was a growing probability of a sudden turn of events very soon, the fall of Stalin and Litvinov, and the imposition of a military dictatorship.” Documents from the German Foreign Ministry showed that the General Staff showed a special interest in Tukhachevsky at this time. Furr comments, “This is strong corroboration that Marshal Tukhachevsky was indeed planning a coup against the Stalin regime, as he confessed in late May 1937. There is also a great deal of evidence from within the Soviet archives that the Tukhachevsky conspiracy really existed and that the Soviet commanders were guilty.”
Furr asks us to “consider for a moment what WW2 would have been like if Tukhachevsky and his co-conspirators had been successful. The industrial and military might of the Soviet Union, plus its resources of raw material and manpower, would have been teamed up with those of Hitler’s Germany. … One could conclude that in uncovering and stopping this conspiracy the Soviet leadership – ‘Stalin’ – saved European civilization from Nazism.””
Pierre Broue analysis of the “Bloc”
“…Alan has no authority to discuss Furr’s work because he has not read a word of it…”
You have not read it either , you are just repeating what others Stalinists have said, and you have not read the works of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hoxha. All the works of Furr have been published in Marxist Internet Archives. This is a portion of his works. Most of those things that he has written are written in the works of Joseph Stalin and on the Opposition, even more, Stalin said that the Opposition started on 1921
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover%20Furr/index.htm
He is not the only one who has written about the Moscow Trail there were others, specially from the CPGB
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1936/moscow-trial.htmThis is what a group of Trotsky has said about the Moscow Trial and others event that took place during the time of Stalin
https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/historyCategory/moscow-trials-political-genocide-ussr
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/01/pers-s01.htmlThe person who killed Trotsky was an ex-Trotsky that is reason why he was able to penetrate so easily in the place where he was living in Mexico, he knew his own assassin and the government of Mexico was also part of the plot. That type of murdering plot was also carried by the USA in others countries.
I have read Furr and he presents the same “evidences” presented by others groups, there are also accusation that Trotsky was a Zionist and that accusation is false too
Politically there were not difference between Trotsky and Stalin, and when he was the commander of the Red Army he was part of the repression made against the Anarchists and the Bolsheviks who rejected the new plan of austerity, and he was the one who imposed military discipline on the production.
There was not counterrevolution in Russia, the coup of the Bolsheviks was not a socialist revolution, no more than 10% of the population of Russia supported the Bolsheviks, the rest of the population opposed the Leninists including the peasants. Most of the peasants did not know anything about socialism.
There is not solid evidence that Trotsky was a collaborator of the Nazis, he was one of the supporter of the Hitler Stalin Pact and that created a huge division among the Trotskyists around the world and that is one of the reason why Raya Dunayeskaya created her own organization and broke away from him, in many aspects Trotsky collaborated with Stalin despite all the crimes that committed he continued supporting the Soviet Union and the vanguard party and for him state property was socialism. Instead of reading somebody else works, it is much better to read the original sources.
There were not differences between the trials made in the Soviet Union and the trial made in others capitalists countries, a similar trial was made in the USA against several members of the Communist Parties accused of treason, and they created the Espionage act and most of them were innocents and McArthy destroyed the coalition of Communists, socialists, anarchists and workers unions that pushed for the New Deal.
The accused in the Moscow Trial were already guilty before being taken to court, the trial was done before they were taken to a public trial. The public trial was only windows dressing they have already been declared guilty without any legal representation, at least in other capitalist countries most of the accused of treason had the right for legal representation.
To defend Stalin in this epoch is a real stupidity and a lack of historical knowledge because everybody knows that he was a criminal, even more some ex Stalinists organization came to know that and they eliminated Stalinism from their own program, and they questioned all his crimes and they questioned the so called socialist character of the Soviet Union
There is not need to read second sources of information. Everything has been published including the court transcripts, and by reading them anybody can see that it was a case made by the Stalinists, everything was preconceived before being taken to the court. A person who has studied Evidence at any Law School will see that all these evidences are completely false
https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/law/1936/moscow-trials/index.htm
There were others who wrote the same thing as Furr
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1936/moscow-trial.htmThe last paragraph is a laughable one, because none of the Bolsheviks believed in the revolutionary nature of the working class by itself, according to them including Lenin the working class needed the intellectuals that is reason why Lenin wrote What is to be done, and many of the accused included Bukharin created many theories that were used by the Bolsheviks and Lenin himself, the concept of socialism in one country was developed by Bukharin and Stalin took it by himself and the Bolsheviks continue using many of Bukharin theories, now this writer is saying that they did not have any intellectuals capacity, the reality is that Bukharin was the aptest of the Bolsheviks
This article contradicts what the above writer says about the accused before they were Leninists and they supported the Vanguard Party Concept, and from one moment to another they stopped being Leninists,
This pamphlet was used by all the Leninist parties and was part of the education given to all new members, therefore, all members of the Leninist did not believe in the revolutionary nature of the working class, they need the help of the intellectuals
All those accused ones collaborated with Lenin since the very beginning and they were part of repression against the workers, the killing of workers did not start with Stalin, it started when Lenin and Trotsky were commissars
- The topic ‘Hong Kong’ is closed to new replies.