Una nuova recensione per l'edizione francese della Controstoria

Lo storico statunitense Grover Furr a proposito del dibattito su Stalin tra Domenico Losurdo e Nicolas Werth

Dear Grover Furr,

... Regarding your comment about my essay: your argument of the periodic famines in the Russian countryside is very strong and persuasive! As for the collectivization of the agriculture, I agree with you that it was the precondition for victory in WW2. (I have expressed this opinion in my Stalin-book). But I cannot define as a triumph a terrible civil war, that implied the disappearing of every rule of law and made the very large, arbitrary killing by Ezov possible. Only in this sense I speak of «horror» (as you have written, Stalin himself spoke of a «fearful» period). Sometimes history is tragic: in its last stage the struggle of Toussaint Louverture was a racial war and in this sense was horrible, but at the same time this struggle was a great step to emancipation of the black people and of the mankind.

Best, Domenico Losurdo

Qui l'intervento di Werth; qui un commento di Joao Carlos Graça.

Dear Professor Losurdo:

Here are my thoughts on your exchange with Nicolas Werth.

I’ll begin with Werth. He is an inveterant anticommunist. I have caught him in one or two blatant lies, though not in this exchange with you.

In my opinion, Werth’s intervention here rests on some misconceptions, no doubt deliberate ones:

* Werth refers to “the archives”, and especially to the 7-volume series on the “Tragedy of the Soviet Countryside”, as though their existence resolved anything. It doesn’t.

I have possessed a copy of this 7-volume work since it was published. It is a useful compilation of primary documents. But documents, in themselves, prove nothing, and the same is true of this collection.

* Werth refers repeatedly to “the peasants.” There was no such group. The Russian (and Ukrainian, etc.) peasantry was sharply differentiated. For example, a huge number had no land at all. Another large number had very small parcels of land. They were called “batraki” (the landless) and “bedniaki” (the poor, either landless or with very little land).

These peasants lost nothing by entering kolkhozes or sovkhozes. So the notion that collectivization was a “war against the peasantry” is a smokescreen.

* Collectivization did not cause the famine of 1932-33. That was caused by bad weather conditions. Both Davies and Wheatcroft and Mark Tauger – the greatest scholars in the West on this subject – agree here. Tauger believes that Davies and Wheatcroft exaggerate the extent to which collectivization was one of several primary causes, and attributes the famine primarily to bad weather.

* Collectiviation was a great success in that it stopped the periodic famines that had plagued Russia (including Ukraine) every 3-4 years for a millennium. The famine of 1932-33 was the very last such famine – except for that of 1946-47. Wheatcroft has recently argued that this was caused by catastrophic weather conditions and not by Soviet government mismanagement.

Viewed in this light, collectivization in the USSR was one of the greatest feats of social reform of the 20^th century, alongside the industrialization of the USSR. It saved millions of lives that would have been lost in future famines, which would have continued to recur with regularity.

Of course, it also enabled industrialization and victory in WW2. That was no small accomplishment. But even setting this aside, collectivization stopped the endless cycle of famines, saving millions.

In addition, one must say this: those whom the famine of 1932-33 killed were from all classes of the peasantry, the rich as well as the poor. In previous famines, rich peasants had thrived, merchants had hoarded grain for higher prices, and only the poor had starved. This, no doubt, is one of the reasons collectivization is so hated by Werth and reactionaries generally: it removed the privilege of the rich and protected the poor.

Bukharin’s plan could not possibly have permitted industrialization, and therefore would have meant that the Nazis would have won the war. In addition, the capitalist elements in the countryside were growing rapidly under the NEP. This would have continued.Incidentally, Trotsky’s plan was the same as Bukharin’s here.

* Werth refers to the “massive importation of American grain” in the ‘70s and ‘80s. So what? Collectivization stopped periodic starvation, as it was supposed to do. See the famous quotation from Stalin, as he talked to Winston Churchill.

In a famous passage in his memoir of World War II, Hinge of Fate, Churchill quoted Stalin as saying:

“Ten million,” he said, holding up his hands. “It was fearful. Four years it lasted. It was absolutely necessary for Russia, if we were to avoid periodic famines, to plough the land with tractors.”

I quote this passage in a short article here:

http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=22947

Russia and the Ukraine are far more northerly than is the USA. The point is that, having industrialized, the USSR could pay for the importation of grain when necessary. Collectivization allowed for industrialization and stopped the cycle of famines.

* Werth is completely wrong about the “mass murders of 1937-1938.” These were not in the least a “prophylactic cleansing” – though this explanation is the one being promoted now by anticommunists generally.

I’ve done a lot of research on this and intend to write a book on it in the future. For now, see my article here:

"The Moscow Trials and the "Great Terror" of 1937-1938: What the Evidence Shows."–

http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/trials_ezhovshchina_update0710.html

Here I have included links to all the interrogations of Ezhov that have been made public, along with translations of them into English, as well as to some other interrogations. They are very enlightening.

In a recent volume of documents on 1937-1938 (in Russian) t Khaustov, an inveterate anticommunist, concedes that Stalin believed the reports Ezhov was sending him about bands of rebels and oppositionists. Arch Getty showed a decade ago that Ezhov murdered far more people than the Politburo ever contemplated. It was Ezhov, not Stalin and the PB, that set “quotas” for arrests and executions. Stalin and the PB had called for “limits.”

* The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been demonized by the anticommunists and crypto-Nazis in Eastern Europe, aided by their allies elsewhere. But they have it completely wrong.

+ Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia were colonial possessions of Poland, obtained by conquest from Soviet Russia in 1921 and then “settled” by Polish “settlers” (osadniki), largely former military officers, in order to “Polonize” them.

+ Ukrainians and Belorussians were a majority in these areas but Poland progressively took away their rights to use of their languages, to schooling in those languages, to government employment, and in general discriminated against them in many ways.

+ The large Jewish population of these areas was similarly subject to official discrimination.

+ Poland added to this imperialist conquest when it took the Teszczin area way from Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich sell-out in 1938.

+ Finally (for now): The Soviets did not send in the Red Army until September 17, 1939, after the Germans had informed them that, in their view, Poland as a state no longer existed. This meant that Germany would not abide by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact division of spheres of influence. The Germans officially warned the Soviets that “new states” – i.e., a pro-Nazi Ukrainian Nationalist state – would arise in W. Ukraine and W. Belorussia if the Red Army did not come in.

+ The Germans were, in fact, correct – Poland as a state had ceased to exist when its government, along with its military leadership, interned itself in Rumania on September 17 1939.

I have a long article, with 17 or 18 web pages of evidence, on this question at

http://www.tinyurl.com/furr-mlg09

The article is the first link on the left. All the other pages are evidence.

Note that Winston Churchill agreed with the Soviet incursion into what had formerly been Eastern Poland.

The Germans almost seized Moscow and Leningrad as it was! If the USSR had not entered former Eastern Poland, the Wehrmacht would have started its invasion much closer to the Soviet heartland than it did and most likely captured Leningrad and Moscow.

To sum up:

* The “Danilov volumes” prove nothing, though they are useful as any collection of documents is useful;

* The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not only salutary, but essential. Far from a crime or an “invasion”, the USSR acted as any state would have done in entering Western Poland to keep the Wehrmacht as far as possible from its pre-1939 borders.

* Collectivization was a success in ending the endless cycle of famines and in permitting industrialization.

* Collectivization did not cause the famine. No doubt the famine would have been less severe if it had not coincided with collectivization. But that was almost sure to happen anyway. The main thing is: This famine was the LAST famine.

* The “Terror” – really, the Ezhovshchina – of 1937-1938 was the result of Ezhov’s conspiracy, along with that of some of the First Secretaries. Of course it was horrible. But Stalin and the PB did not undertake it.

I should mention here that, in my Russian-only book (with my Moscow colleague Vladimir Bobrov) I have an essay in which I show that Bukharin knew about Ezhov’s conspiracy but did not mention it in his interrogations or at trial. If Bukharin, Rykov, et al. had done this, Ezhov could have been stopped and the mass murders either avoided or curtailed. Bukharin’s, and the Right’s, responsibility for Ezhov’s mass murders has not been pointed out elsewhere.

When you read the MS of my Kirov book you will note that we have much evidence that the conspiracies alleged in the three public Moscow Trials, plus the Tukhachevsky trial, did exist – they were not at all “fabrications” by Stalin or anyone else.

As for your own contribution, I must be honest: I find it to be excellent!

You have certainly made arguments that I have not encountered elsewhere, and certainly have not thought of myself.

I would like to translate it into English and circulate it – that is, if you agree.

Also, do you have a version in Italian? I would like to send it to some friends in Italy.

I like very much your response about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: “s’il y a course au

compromis avec Hitler, Stalinel’aperdue”. Imagine anyone objecting to the Soviets signing the M-R Pact in the face of Munich!

I would only add that the M-R Paact was not only defensible – it was essential, and quite probably saved the USSR, and thereby all of us, from defeat in the war.

That said, there are a few points where I would disagree with you somewhat. They all boil down to this: In my view, you cede too much to Werth, every single one of whose claims is false.

Trotsky, for example. All the evidence we now possess points to Trotsky’s having been guilty of all the charges made against him in the Moscow Trials. This includes a good deal of evidence from the Trotsky Archives at Harvard and at the Hoover Institution, as discovered by Pierre Broué, a famous Trotskyist.

I would disagree that collectivization was “La période la plus horrible estcelle de la collectivisation del’agriculture.” As I stated above, in my view it was a triumph.

Naturaly the Bolsheviks made many errors in carrying it out. They were the first; it had never been done. Pioneers always make errors; in fact it is impossible to be an innovator without making errors.

The Chinese and North Vietnamese learned from these errors, and carried out collectivization in different ways. The end result was, I think, fewer casualties. But they had the Soviet example to learn from.

For “most horrible” I’d vote for the Ezhovshchina – which, as I have argued above, Werth and all the other anticommunists falsify. Werth has absolutely no evidence that it was an attempt at “nettoyageprophylactique” – this is just verbiage. It was a disaster, of course, but a disaster for which Bukharin, so sacred to the anticommunists and to Khrushchev in his day, bears significant responsibility.

I do not agree that “the Stalin period” was a “horror”. I think you do not really agree either.

But of course it was tragic, in that errors were made that led to socialism being sidetracked, and then betrayed altogether. It led to Khrushchev – and Khrushchev and his ilk were nourished during the Stalin period. Therefore, obviously, reactionary developments were taking place. We need to study to discover what they were.

But in sum, I think your essay is excellent! I know that Werth will not accept a word of it.

So much the worse for him. His father, Alexander Werth, was an honest observer, in my estimation, and his books are well worth reading today, all of them. Nicolas Werth’s are what I call “propaganda with footnotes.”

My apologies for writing at such length.

Warm regards, Grover Furr

Un intervento da Marx XXI

Dagli F-35 agli attacchi di Bersani. L'unico voto utile è per Rivoluzione Civile

24 Gennaio 2013 12:55 Italia - Quadro politico

di Fosco Giannini, Segreteria nazionale PdCI

Anche in Francia la Controstoria del liberalismo

http://www.editionsladecouverte.fr

Le libéralisme continue aujourd'hui d'exercer une influence décisive sur la politique mondiale et de jouir d'un crédit rarement remis en cause. Si les « travers » de l'économie de marché peuvent à l'occasion lui être imputés, les bienfaits de sa philosophie politique semblent évidents. Il est généralement admis que celle-ci relève d'un idéal universel réclamant l'émancipation de tous. Or c'est une tout autre histoire que nous raconte ici Domenico Losurdo, une histoire de sang et de larmes, de meurtres et d'exploitation. Selon lui, le libéralisme est, depuis ses origines, une idéologie de classe au service d'un petit groupe d'hommes blancs, intimement liée aux politiques les plus illibérales qui soient : l'esclavage, le colonialisme, le génocide, le racisme et le mépris du peuple.
Dans cette enquête historique magistrale qui couvre trois siècles, du XVII^e au XX^e siècle, Losurdo analyse de manière incisive l'oeuvre des principaux penseurs libéraux, tels que Locke, Burke, Tocqueville, Constant, Bentham ou Sieyès, et en révèle les contradictions internes. L'un était possesseur d'esclaves, l'autre défendait l'extermination des Indiens, un autre prônait l'enfermement et l'exploitation des pauvres, un quatrième s'enthousiasmait de l'écrasement des peuples colonisés... Assumer l'héritage du libéralisme et dépasser ses clauses d'exclusion est une tâche incontournable. Les mérites du libéralisme sont trop importants et trop évidents pour qu'on ait besoin de lui en attribuer d'autres, complètement imaginaires.

NICOLAS JOURNET su "Sciences Humaines", fevr. 13

Cinque conferenze di Domenico Losurdo in Austria

Kommunistische Initiative (KI) http://www.kommunisten.at

Einer der wichtigsten lebenden marxistischen DenkerInnen kommt Ende Jänner nach Wien Fortschritt oder Reaktion? Der Klassenkampf vom 20. zum 21. Jahrhundert”Vortrag und Diskussion mit Prof. Domenico Losurdo

Dienstag, 22. Januar 2013 19:00 Uhr
Hörsaal D, Campus Uni Wien (Altes AKH, Spitalgasse 2)

Der Begriff des Klassenkampfes scheint aus der Mode gekommen zu sein. Speziell in den letzten zwanzig Jahren mutet es so an, als hätte eine neoliberale Offensive beinahe weltumspannende Hegemonie erlangt. Dennoch gibt es Streben nach Veränderung, nach einer Überwindung des kapitalistischen Wahnsinns. Und auch heute sind wir in einer Lage, die auf der einen Seite auch positive und sogar erfreuliche Perspektiven aufweist: Die Bewusstwerdung der Krise des Kapitalismus gibt der Perspektive des Sozialismus nicht nur in der "Dritten Welt", sondern auch in den fortgeschrittenen kapitalistischen Ländern wieder Auftrieb.
Der italienische Philosoph Domenico Losurdo lehrt an der Universität Urbino und ist Präsident der Internationalen Gesellschaft für dialektisches Denken. Er ist Autor von zahlreichen historischen und philosophischen Büchern und gehört heute zu den wichtigsten marxistischen DenkerInnen Europas. Er referiert zu seinem demnächst erscheinenden Buch „Che cos'è la lotta di classe? Una storia politica e filosofica“. Der Vortrag ist deutschsprachig. Event auf Facebook

_________________________________________________________________

Eine Veranstaltung des Bildungsverein der KPÖ Steiermark

http://bildungsverein.kpoe-steiermark.at

Reden über Stalin » 23.1.: Buchpräsentation & Diskussion mit Domenico Losurdo, Felix Wemheuer und David Mayer Vor vier Jah ren ver öf f ent lich te der ita lie ni sche Phi lo soph Do me ni co Losur do un ter dem Titel „Sta lin. Storia e critica di una legenda ner a“ eine nicht un umstrittene Biographie des sowjeti­schen Diktators Josef Wissarionowitsch. In Graz stellt Losurdo die deutsche Übersetzung des Bu­ches vor. Den kritischen Kommentar besorgt Fe lix Wem heuer (Sinologe Universität Wien). Das Gespräch führt David Mayer (Historiker Universität Leipzig). Mittwoch 23. Jän ner 2013 19 Uhr KPÖ-Bil dungs zen trum La ger gas se 98a 8020 Graz Ei ne Ver an stal tung des Bil dungs ve r ein der KPÖ Stei er mark. » lesen

---

Flucht aus der Geschichte? » 24.1.: Buchpräsentation & Diskussion mit Domenico Losurdo „1818 mit ten in der Re stau ra ti ons zeit und zu ei nem Zeit punkt da das Schei tern der fran zö si­schen Re vo lu ti on of fen kun dig schi en gin gen auch je ne die das 1789 Be gon ne ne an fangs be grüßt hat ten auf Di s tanz: es war für sie nun ein ko los sa les Miss ver ständ nis oder sch lim mer ein schänd li cher Ver rat ed ler Idea le. Müs sen wir die se Ver zweif lung heu te zu der un se ren ma chen wo bei dann nur 1789 durch 1917 und die „Sa che der Frei heit“ durch die Sa che des So zia lis­mus zu er set zen wä re? Müs sen sich die Kom mu nis ten ih rer Ge schich te schä m en“ fragt Do me ni­co Lo sur do in sei nem Buch „Flucht aus der Ge schich te?“. In Leo ben stellt der ita lie ni sche Phi lo­soph den im Neue Im pul se Ver lag er schie ne nen Band vor. Das Ge spräch führt LAbg. Wer ner Murgg (KPÖ). Donnerstag 24. Jän ner 2013 19 Uhr

_________________________________________________________________

www.comunista.at

kommunistischer studentInnenverband
Fortschritt oder Reaktion? Der Klassenkampf vom 20. zum 21. Jahrhundert”Vortrag und Diskussion mit Prof. Domenico Losurdo
25. Januar 2013 19:00 Uhr
Salzburg

Auf Einladung von KJÖ, KSV und KI hält der Philosophie-Professor Domenico Losurdo aus dem italienischen Urbino am 25.01. einen Vortrag an der Universität Salzburg über "Fortschritt oder Reaktion? Der Klassenkampf vom 20. zum 21. Jahrhundert". Zum selben Thema erscheint demnächst Losurdos Buch "Che cos'è la lotta di classe? Una storia politica e filosofica".
 

_________________________________________________________________

Salzburger Gesellschaft fuer dialektische Philosophie www.dialektik-salzburg.at
26.01.2013: Salzburger Tagung für dialektische Philosophie: Domenico Losurdo

La raison à l’épreuve des grandes crises historiques

par Domenico Losurdo

da voltairenet

La Révolution française ? « Une folie de possession satanique » pour Baader, un « virus d’une nouvelle espèce inconnue » d’après Tocqueville. En plein XXe siècle, le Français François Furet et l’États-unien Richard Pipes resserviront à leurs lecteurs la phrase de Tocqueville pour décrire la Russie révolutionnaire. Selon cette logique simplificatrice, si Jacques Roux a écrit que « l’égalité n’est qu’un vain fantôme quand le riche, par le monopole, exerce le droit de vie et de mort sur son semblable », c’est probablement parce qu’il était fou. Le professeur de philosophie Domenico Losurdo nous montre qu’il a toujours été plus facile, et bien moins embarrassant, d’attribuer les grandes crises historiques à la simple folie – collective ou individuelle – plutôt que d’analyser leur contexte politique et social.


Extrait de Psychopathologie et démonologie. La lecture des grandes crises historiques de la Restauration à nos jours, essai publié dans la revue Belfagor. Rassegna di varia umanità, dirigée par Carlo Ferdinando Russo, Editions Leo S. Olschki, Florence, mars 2012, p. 151-172.
Traduction Marie-Ange Patrizio

Comment expliquer la grande crise historique qui débute avec la Révolution française et qui, un quart de siècle plus tard, se conclut (provisoirement) avec le retour des Bourbons ? Friedrich Schlegel et la culture de la Restauration n’ont de cesse de dénoncer la « maladie politique » et le « fléau contagieux des peuples » qui font rage à partir de 1789 ; mais c’est Metternich même qui met en garde contre la « peste » ou le « cancer » qui dévaste les esprits [1]. Pour être plus exacts – renchérit cet autre idéologue de la Restauration qu’est Baader – nous sommes en présence d’une « folie de possession satanique » ; au renversement de l’Ancien régime a succédé non pas la démocratie mais bien la « démonocratie » [2], c’est-à-dire le pouvoir de Satan...
Leggi tutto

Domenico Losurdo parla della storia del colonialismo a Radio Campus Lille

Domenico Losurdo sur Campus / C'est l'heure de l'mettre !

Écrit par L'heure de l'mettre

CE MERCREDI 12 DECEMBRE 2012 à 18H30

Domenico Losurdo est philosophe et historien de la philosophie. Ce pourrait être une tare en ces temps où la philosophie promène sur les champs de bataille sa chemise blanche « démocratique ». Mais c’est oublier qu’en dehors des écrans de télévision, demeurent des penseurs, et qui plus est marxistes.

Pourfendeur du concept de « totalitarisme », démystificateur des « légendes noires » du communisme, Losurdo s’attache également à la guérison des autophobiques :

Pour écouter ou télécharger l'émission, cliquer ci-dessous

« L'autophobie se manifeste aussi dans les rangs de ceux qui, tout en continuant à se déclarer communistes, se montrent obsédés par le souci de réaffirmer qu'ils n'ont absolument rien à voir avec un passé qu'ils considèrent, eux comme leurs adversaires politiques, comme tout simplement synonyme d'abjection. Au narcissisme hautain des vainqueurs, qui transfigurent leur propre histoire, correspond l'autoflagellation des vaincus. [...] Parmi les divers problèmes qui affectent le mouvement communiste, celui de l'autophobie n'est certainement pas le moindre. »

« Il va de soi que la lutte contre la plaie de l'autophobie s'avérera d'autant plus efficace que le bilan du grand et fascinant moment historique commencé avec la révolution d'Octobre sera radicalement critique et sans préjugés. Car, malgré leurs assonances, l'autocritique et l'autophobie sont deux attitudes antithétiques. Dans sa rigueur, et même dans son radicalisme, l'autocritique exprime la conscience de la nécessité de faire ses comptes jusqu'au bout avec sa propre histoire. L'autophobie est une fuite lâche devant cette histoire et devant la réalité de la lutte idéologique et culturelle toujours brûlante. Si l'autocritique est le présupposé de la reconstruction de l'identité communiste, l'autophobie est synonyme de capitulation et de renonciation à une identité autonome. » (Fuir l’Histoire, Ed. Le Temps des Cerises, 2007)

C’est de cela, mais aussi du colonialisme, de l’impérialisme, de la crise, de la Chine et de bien d’autres choses du plus haut intérêt que nous nous sommes entretenus avec Domenico Losurdo.

Eh oui ! Car nous avons eu cette chance de le rencontrer, et de longuement discuter avec lui. C’était le 13 novembre dernier, à Lille. Et c’est en exclusivité sur Campus. Parce que c’est l’heure de l’mettre !

 

Pour écouter l'émission (l'intervista inizia quache minuto dopo l'avvio del file mp3)