Truth and Lies about Stalin

Interview of  professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University, Grover Furr, on the occasion of the 140th birth anniversary of Joseph Stalin

 Sixty-five years after his death, the name of Joseph Stalin remains at the epicenter of anti-communism. The bourgeois historiography, as well as bourgeois political forces, continue the vilification of Stalin, calling him a “dictator”, a “bloodthirsty tyrant” who supposedly “killed tens of millions of people”. According to your view, why anti-communists still focus their attacks on Stalin and what are the major sources of their claims?

G.FURR: Defenders of capitalism need to depict communism as something horrible! So, in addition to hiding the horrors of capitalism- imperialism, they require a “boogeyman” to focus on as the epitome of the “evil” of communism. Stalin was the leader of the USSR and the world communist movement during the period of its greatest triumphs, and therefore of its greatest threat to capitalism. So Stalin would be a natural target in any case. 

But there are at least two other factors. The first is Leon Trotsky, who lied about Stalin in virtually everything he wrote from 1928 until his murder in 1940. Trotsky’s post-1929 writings were the first major source of lies and slander against Stalin and the USSR. The second is Nikita Khrushchev. His “Secret Speech” of February 25, 1956 to the XX Party Congress was a devastating blow to the world communist movement. And it was an invaluable gift to the anticommunists of the world! 

After the XXII Party Congress in October, 1961, when Khrushchev and his people attacked Stalin even more viciously, with even more lies, Khrushchev and the CPSU sponsored hundreds of books and articles attacking and lying about Stalin. Khrushchev also sponsored hundreds of books and articles attacking and lying about Lavrentii Beria, whose murder Khrushchev organized on June 26, 1953. Beria is not as significant a figure in Soviet history as is Stalin. But Khrushchev and his men slandered Beria at least as viciously, if not more viciously, as they did Stalin. And those who had been closest to Stalin – Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich – supported Khrushchev in this unprincipled attack upon and murder of Beria.

What should we make of the yellow vest movement ?

We have seen the movement that grew up around the 17 November take off over the last few weeks, both in terms of media coverage and on the ground. At work and at home, on the streets and on public transport, the “yellow vest” movement is on everyone’s lips. The time has come to take stock of the situation.

What happened on 17 November (and the following days) ? 

It is clearly is a far-reaching movement, enjoying considerable media coverage from the outset unlike other social movements and making a show of its apolitical character has played in its favour. But the media have still tended to underplay the number of people involved, setting the figure at around 300,000 when even a quick estimate easily reveals that the true figure is considerably higher.
Unsurprisingly, most of the people involved come from the commuter belt of large towns and cities, rural areas, and small and medium sized towns because they are the ones with the furthest to travel to work.