I know this seems like an obvious attempt to start a struggle session, but I promise I’m asking in a good faith attempt to learn:) y’all are way smarter and better read than any group I’ve ever been a part of before tbh

I’m listening to the rev left Stalin episode and they’re discussing the holodomor. Clearly a lot of what I thought I knew is capitalist propaganda. However, there also seems to be a possible motivation here to gloss over some of the bad elements of the USSR? I also feel slight alarm bells going off at some parts but idk why really, probably bc it brings up feelings associated w Holocaust denial, even though I know they’re v different issues.

I’m kinda new to the left so I don’t feel like I have the knowledge or the critical thinking skills to tackle this issue on my own.

It seems to boil down to: did the holodomor happen? If yes, was it intentional? If no, was it avoidable?

I’m sure this discussion has happened before so feel free to just link me to stuff haha. Insight appreciated!

  • Burnbabylon [she/her]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Well, I will. But a big point of the ep is that a lot of sources cited surrounding the issue are unreliable or straight propaganda and I don’t know if I could reliably spot that. Also, it’s a very big issue and I’m a slow reader so I thought reading other ppls takes could at least help me understand the debate and the sources. Idk why I would need to start from scratch alone when I am part of a community of people already familiar with the subject.

    • gammison [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      There are some easy sanity checks to tell with soviet historiography. First is the source pre archive opening, or was it given specialized access before hand like Getty, or is it using historical documents made available outside the USSR. If it fails this check, look for something more modern as the history has changed a lot after archives were opened in the late 80s. There are many good historians to look for in various Slavic and Russian studies departments. Two, was the source written by an activist or a historian. Not all activist literature is bad, but it is first and foremost not history. Three, what do other soviet historians say about this person. Even liberal historians respect the Marxist ones, and the Marxist ones really hate cranks and liberals and will say if something is bad history. If they say nothing, or dismiss casually, or go out of their way to point out the crap in their arguments that's a warning sign that that person is not taken seriously by historians (giant red flag on people like Grover Furr or Tottle) and you shouldn't either.

      • Burnbabylon [she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        This is so so helpful thank you! Any advice on identifying reliable primary sources?

        • gammison [none/use name]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Okay so all primary sources will be colored with the historical and political context and ideology of the writer. One thing to consider when looking at a primary source is who the audience was. Sources for the public, such as the conspiracy laden Pravda were designed by the party for particular aims of getting the public to believe things, and the writers themselves were brought up in a conspiracy prone institution (after all the party was facing so many threats and wars and secrecy that it ended up just laying on conspiracy theories in it's own documents). Then there are documents that were considered for different levels of the party, and there are conditions of that institutions that result in those documents having their own biases. Generally internal documents that were pulled out of archives are factually accurate in that they are the real beliefs of the people writing them, and figures on material items are not too far off. However the conditions of the institutions and people in the party can result in clashes in conflicting documents. For example figures on grain production internal to the party were actually accurate, however sections of the party, and Stalin, thought they were lying. Furthermore, some of the collectivization drives may have actually been highly influenced by a conspiracy theory that Britain was going to invade via central Asia, which got into the zeitgeist of the party in 1927 (even though in reality the British empire was already beginning to crumble, they were blinded with the pre revolution status of Britain as the biggest imperial threat)

          Also really keep in mind that anything published as political theory will be extremely colored by political context, and the actual ideology of the writer.

      • Burnbabylon [she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I’m obviously not gonna take everything at face value. also it’s not a decided issue on the left I believe so seeing the debate is useful. from what I’ve seen here ppl are much more truthful and give a lot better sources than what I would get if I googled holodomor.

        • Burnbabylon [she/her]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Also, If you’re genuinely concerned about me not taking a purely solo approach then I’d appreciate any good historic sources you could guide me to.