Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 20:17:46 GMT From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org> Subject: M-TH: Excess deaths in Soviet Union Justin: >>> Well, suppose the Stalin total of murders was only in the neighborhood of ten million (7 million in the collectivization famine, three million in the various purges), as R.W. Davies and Paul Getty argue. Does that make him a nice guy whose reciord we should appluad? <<< LeoCasey: >> The notion that the Stalin regime's murder of millions (starting with majority of the Bolshevik Central Committee and continuing down to the most ordinary of workers and peasants) is an open, debatable proposition is akin to claims of Holocaust and Middle Passage deniers that the existence of these mass murders is open to question. It is hardly the mark of an open mind, unless one defines as open that mind which is unable to retain historical fact. << I think the intense heat this question has generated is because for some if not many people it is a question of holocaust denial. Other serious Trotskyists have argued for a polemic on political grounds. I welcome this and wish to take the opportunity to refute any insinuation or suspcion that I support killings. Nor do I regard myself as a Stalinist, but if others want to debate politics and use that name about me, I cannot stop them. I would ask however that some distinctions are made. In robust exchanges with Hugh on M1, I never got the impression that he felt I would be in favour of illegal killings. If only one or two people are prepared to denounce other people as shits on this list, the debate will not take place here, or will not take place without seriously damaging other possibilities that this list might offer. Perhaps though before any serious debate can take place, as Jerry implied, there must be an agreement about the facts of the deaths. There are some parallels here with the Truth and Reconciliation hearings in South Africa, which the ANC attended recently to admit to the torture and death of a number of captives suspected of being spies. How did all this flare up on this list? My understanding is that someone who has contributed some very interesting points about the law of value, encouraged Richard to present more detailed evidence he said he had about the Soviet Union in Stalin's time. Richard did. Barkley criticised its relevance as objective evidence. And I stepped in to support Barkley on this point and to draw a distinction between this issue and whether one supports the efforts to build socialism in the former Soviet Union, which is what Richard supports. In his replies, Richard has clarified that he would not call himself a Stalinist. So in principle there is not an irreconcilable problem here. For Mota the admiration of Stalin is as a hero of the fight against nazism and fascism, a fight which may have a much more immediate meaning for someone from the left whose family lived under the Salazar fascist dictatorship than for other members of the list. If people give Mota the benefit of the doubt, what have they to lose? Perhaps his father was tortured to death by the government in Portugal? It is not necessarily the case that he supports violations of socialist legality in the Soviet Union. That can be clarified. My hope was that this list would be able to take more of an overview of the question than some others. This appears to be in question. The horror at the loss of life and the damage to marxism is so great that even intelligent people cannot read the words on the page, and assume "geocites" means "genocide". The debate has become symbolic. And a parallel gets drawn with a post on marxism-international which brackets me with Barkley, in order apparently to justify bracketing me with Richard here. This list may not be the best list for this debate. But I do not think this problem will go away from marxism-space. New people will drift in not as conscious disrupters by any means, and one in 100 will have a regard for Stalin, and 5 in 100 will think the way forward is the avenge the disgusting death of Trotsky. Yet we are 50 years on and we ought to be able to make a marxist analysis of what happened. Perhaps we are only at the stage of being able to record that extremely serious events occurred. I had hoped by quoting Stalin himself about "grave mistakes" and a statement that there would be no more purges, this was one of the quickest ways to help those who admire Stalin for other reasons, to accept that the historical record is the historical record, and becoming clearer each year as the archives are being examined. What is that record? I have several times in marxism space urged anybody who takes part in a debate on this question to get "Stalinist Terror, New Perspectives" ed J Arch Getty and Roberta Manning, CUP pb 1993. While not putting everything down to one man, in the way IMO some Trotskyist analysis does, this catalogues "an abundance of gruesome new details". Before Richard forwards evidence of Tukhachevskii's alleged crimes I would like him to be aware that Getty states "we now know that there is human blood spattered on Marshall Tukhachevskii's 'confession'". It sounds as if DNA tests have not been carried out so far, but it seems to me unlikely that the blood was Stalin's. Getty says we now know that Stalin helped draft the indictments of Marshall Tukhachevskii and his fellow defendants, chose the composition of their court, and personally ordered death sentences for them." Stalin signed numerous death sentences, the record number being 3,167 on Dec 12th 1938. The latest issue of New Left Review, 219, contains an exchange between Robert Conquest and RW Davies about the reliability of historical sources about the number of "Excess Deaths in the Soviet Union". Conquest appears to have revised his figure down to around 14 million up to 1939. RW Davies appears to have revised his estimate up from 7 million to 11 million. I am therefore going on record as confirming to the best of my understanding the figure that Justin quotes. In the note Davies gives a corrected table for the number of people detained in 1939: Prisons 351,000 Camps 1,317 " Colonies 355 " Special Settlements 939 " Total 2,962 " This brief note refers to the substantive article by Davies in NLR 1995 214, which surveys the data overall. It quotes from "Stalinist Terror", as an authoritative work, with only one criticism of Manning for arguing unconvincingly that economic problems may have been a factor in promoting the purges of 1937-8. This does not accept the figure of 7 million executions, (which are different from deaths) but quotes a formerly secret report in the archives, prepared for Malenkov and Khrushchev, that from 1921 to 1952 inclusive 799,257 persons were executed by the decision of various agencies and tribunals of the OGPU and its successors and by the Military Collegium. Davies comments that if correct these figures seem to comprise the vast majority of all those executed. The stated number of executions was much higher than normal in six of the 32 years: 9,701 1921 20,201 1930 10,651 1931 353,074 1937 328,618 1938 23,278 1942 In total, something of the order of 800,000, maybe up to 1 million executions. Conquest claims that in Russia communists are making much of Stalin having killed less than a million people. The largest loss of life apart from the war was in association with famines, about which I have shared information with Barkley before. Davies writes: "The most bitter controversy was waged not about the camps themselves but about the terrible famine of 1933. The United States Congress, with strong backing from American-Ukrainian organisations, established a Commission of the Ukraine Famine. In 1988, the commission found that the famine was 'man-made', and that 'Joseph Stalin and those round him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-33.' In the publicity surrounding the commission, the famine in Ukraine was often referred to as a 'holocaust', the term usually used to characterize Hitler's extermination of the Jews." Despite the remarks of Chris S and Jukka, in attempting to moderate this question on this list, I would have thought that feelings are clearly so hot that the best that could be achieved is some discussion of *how* and *where* to discuss these extremely hot issues. It could be relegated to the "marxism-administration" list, but although this question will probably keep cropping up in Spoons marxism space, I doubt whether that list on its own would be confident about coming up with conclusions. One other suggestion, John Plant who comes from a Trotskyist tradition and has experience with the journal Revolutionary History, and who I undersand, has had some contact with the Moscow Archives, might be approached for advice. I would of course appreciate an apology from Ralph. I would only concede this point to him: if agreement on how to proceed cannot be reached, then further postings on this matter, will indeed ruin the promise of this list. Chris Burford London. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005