GenZedong

4298 readers

187 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

Elara@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml

Whats yalls opinion on Grover Furr? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by based_mushroom@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzedong@lemmygrad.ml

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I like the dude but obviously he also confirms my biases so who knows.

But the only people I see talking bad about him are usually trots and borgeouis historians, what do you all think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I haven't read much Furr, but as far as the common accusations of "historical revisionism" go...

ALL history books are attempts at historical revisionism. What else is the point of writing a history book if not to recontextualize and revise how we see historical narratives? Any "serious" historian that charges another historian with "revisionism" for offering counter-narratives is a clown.

That's not to say that a scholar altering cold hard facts should go without challenge (that douchebag Stephane Courtois), but Furr doesn't do this. Like others have pointed out, his work is well sourced, much of it from the Soviet archives, which when declassified disproved so many anticommunist myths.

Given Furr's reputation though, I would only feel comfortable bring his name up in leftist circles. If you're in a discussion with some left-sympathetic liberal on the cusp of a breakthrough and want to recommend an esteemed historian that challenges the "Evil Stalin" narrative, I'd recommend Ludo Martens.