Hello Gojo: I hesitate quite frankly - to engage. Because I sincerely do not think that on this matter there is likely to be anything but, as Mao put it "an antagonistic contradiction:. [I very rarely feel inspired to cite a phrase by Mao, but in this case it as a phrase pithily sums up what I think might occur with extended discussion on this.] However you will not be satisfied with this, and I can quite understand that.
Hence I will offer simply a very broad summary. But I hope it provides you with a clearer sense of what I am saying. 1) The minor point to make, is that the differences between Stalin and Tito are pretty well known, and even thus from your own vantage point, an equation between the two should be evidently problematic. We have written on the reasons underlying the start of the Cominform, and I am sure you know that history yourself. 2) In a broader way what I was saying was the overt claim that 'because I come from Yugoslavia I know more than you can do about the meanings of various terms". You certainly have a perspective, as we do - as conditioned by our own peculiar personal circumstances. But that is not a 'gold standard'. In other areas, I have always challenged that type of thought. For example, I know of many Caucasians (a dangerous term, but for now it works in this case) - who either - know far more than I do about casteism in India; or hose spin on aspects of India are very insightful. While Cmde John Imani and others may disagree with me, I would say that not being black does not invalidate a non-Black from having a view about the condition of 'Blackness'. 3) But perhaps the primary problem is that - the use of the term Stalinist is very consciously used to paint Marxist-Leninists as infant eating lying monsters. Some here will agree with such a depiction. I would argue that if they were to use for a category of communists (who still exist especially in the once 'standard' CPs ) - the term 'Yezhovite" - I might agree with those intent on labelling those persons. Many of my writings for about 40 years now, and those of my mentors from about 55 years ago that taught me, put the position that the cult of personality was propagated to smear Stalin; that the secret service especially under Yezhov set out to destroy socialism from within by perpetrating false charges and exerting summary "justice" by a miscarriage of justice; that the Comintern was taken over by revisionists. . . . I believe that the term 'S-ist' as used by most writers, thinkers, clearly does not fit such a perspective as mine. Ideologues do not understand that, but some historians like Arch Getty Jr certainly do. Please accept this as an honest attempt to try and persuade you that there may be some sense to the argument that the term 'Stalinist' is - as used by many - a very convenient dismissal from the stage. H -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#34293): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/34293 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/110224367/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
