Re: [Marxism] Furr

[DW via Marxism]

  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.
*

 I don't disagree at all with the criticism's most people have of Furr. I
know him personally. We meet about once a year in the Bay Area. What I
would ask Furr is the same thing he uses to convict the entire Bolshevik
Central Committee of: where is the evidence Tokarev was "coerced"? A fair
enough question.

Furr will make huge leaps of logic. For example, while it was revealed in
1981 or so that Trotsky lied before the Dewey Commission when asked about
having contacts in the USSR (for obvious reasons) in the *reveled*
communications via his son, Leon Sedov, there is zero damning him. In fact
it's more inquisitive by Trotsky about the positions of the many
Oppositionist groups that went through a revival in 1932. It's clear from
what I've read that Trotsky didn't really have clue about what was going on
in "his" underground. This 1932 reproachment by various Opposition groups
when found out about it by Stalin, is the source of Stalin's paranoia about
being overthrown. Keep in mind that this is years before Trotsky considered
the Bureaucracy "counter-revolutionary through and through and needed to be
overthrown" (1936/37).

At any rate Furr loves to say "and of course Trotsky was a liar
thefore...". A huh. Secondly, one of things that Broue admitted too was the
removal of a document he found when given permission to view the Trotsky
archives at Harvard. Without knowing whatsoever what the document was about
he concludes Trotsky guilty of malfeasance. It is very much a method of
Furr.

David Walters
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Furr

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

This is the kind of thing that troubles me about anything that Furr 
writes. In his "The “Official” Version of the Katyn Massacre 
Disproven?", the article that is focused on debunking the notion that 
Polish prisoners at Volodymyr Volyns’kiy were executed, he also has 
something to say about the Smolensk killings that, as I pointed out, 
produced 22 times more corpses than those found in the Ukraine mass grave.


He claims that a former NKVD agent named Tokarev was forced into 
testifying against Stalin in an investigation that was held in tandem 
with the release of the Katyn papers in 1990 even though he wasn't "at 
the Katyn Forest, the place where 4000+ bodies of Polish POWs were 
unearthed by the Germans in 1943, and none of them has anything to say 
about this, the most famous of the execution/burial sites subsumed under 
the rubric 'the Katyn Massacre.'"


He may have not been in the forest but he was an eyewitness to the 
executions in NKVD headquarters, from which the bodies were later 
transported to the forest. This is from "Katyn: a crime without 
punishment", edited by Anna M. Cienciala, Natalia S. Lebedeva, Wojciech 
Materski:


	NKVD documents do not show how the Ostashkov prisoners were killed, but 
an eyewitness was found half a century after the event who deposed 
testimony on this particular mass murder. In March 1991 the aged Tokarev 
(b. 1902) gave many details on the fate of the Ostashkov prisoners 
during his interrogation by Lieutenant Colonel Anatoly Yablokov, a 
military prosecutor in the Soviet Main Military Prosecutor’s Office, who 
was in charge of the Soviet Katyn investigation from 1991 to 1994. 
Tokarev claimed that he was not personally involved in the killing 
because a special group of NKVD men came from Moscow to do the “work.” 
He stated that those in charge of the operation were GB Major V. M. 
Blokhin, head of the Komendatura [Command] of the AKhU 
[Administrative-Housekeeping Board of the NKVD]; Kom-brig [Brigade 
Commander] M. S. Krivenko, head of NKVD Convoy Troops; and Senior GB 
Major N. I. Sinegubov, head of Intelligence for the NKVD Main Transport 
Administration and its deputy chief.


	According to Tokarev, about thirty NKVD men, mostly drivers and some 
prison guards, took part in shooting the prisoners, always at night, 
after which they would retire to their special quarters and drink a lot 
of vodka. Blokhin was the chief executioner. His special uniform 
consisted of a leather cap, an apron, and gloves reaching above the elbows.


According to Furr, Tokarev was coerced into making this testimony, a 
funny thing to hear from someone who defended the integrity of the 
Moscow Trials.


In his article, he would lead the reader into believing that Tokarev 
didn't see bodies being dumped into mass graves. If he wasn't so dodgy, 
he could have instead tried to debunk his testimony about what he *did* 
see rather than dismiss him for being an expert witness to events he did 
not claim to see.


Typical Furr.





_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Furr

[David McDonald via Marxism]

  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.
*

Furr contacted me privately to assure me that Timothy Snyder's book is
utterly fictional and that NONE of his charges against Stalin are true. I
wrote him back and asked about the underlying documents containing hundreds
of admissions by various Soviet officials, that the Katyn massacres were
organized by them and the whole thing approved by Stalin. These documents,
first translated in English in this book are not some sort of mea culpas
imagined after the fact but the actual paperwork that accompanied the
massacres as they were decided upon and unfolded. Michael Meerpol's hazy
recollection is accurate afaik.

I recognize that Louis considers Snyder suspect and perhaps he is but that
doesn't mean his book is bullshit through and through. I am not going to
buy and read either Furr or Cienciala because that's what review literature
is FOR. If Snyder, a bigshot professor at Yale, just idiotically quoted a
fabricated book of hundreds of documents released by the Russian
government, do you not think that someone in the academy would have noted
and commented, if only to make some waves?

The documentary book is Katyn, A Crime Without Punishment, Anna M.
Cienciala, Natalia S. Lebedeva, and Wojciech Materski, eds., New Haven,
Yale University Press, 2007.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Furr

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 8/26/19 10:28 AM, DW via Marxism wrote:

The USSR never admitted to anything about the Massacre. It has always
denied it.


Really? Did it deny it in 1990 when it released classified documents 
about Katyn?


I can't find any reference to that here:

The New York Times
April 14, 1990, Saturday, Late Edition - Final
By ESTHER B. FEIN, Special to The New York Times

Dateline: MOSCOW, April 13

President Mikhail S. Gorbachev today gave President Wojciech Jaruzelski 
of Poland cartons of documents that the Soviet leader said ''indirectly 
but convincingly'' proved that the Soviet secret police killed thousands 
of Polish officers in Katyn Forest in the spring of 1940.


''It is not easy to speak of this tragedy, but it is necessary,'' Mr. 
Gorbachev said. The Soviet Government has for the first time officially 
and publicly accepted responsibility for this long-denied crime of the 
Stalinist era, a massacre in the thick pine and birch forests west of 
Smolensk.


In response, General Jaruzelski said, ''The Soviet statement about the 
crime of Katyn is, for our people, especially important and valuable 
from a moral point of view.''


''For us, this was an unusually painful question,'' said the general, 
who is in Moscow on a state visit. On Saturday, he is scheduled to visit 
the clearing in the Katyn woods where a monument to the Polish officers 
was put up last year.


A Lift for Jaruzelski

The truth of what happened in the forests of Katyn has been, as Mr. 
Gorbachev said today, one of the ''historical knots'' that has 
complicated Soviet-Polish relations, particularly in the last year, as 
Eastern European countries have emerged from long domination by the 
Soviet Union.


Mr. Gorbachev's admission of Soviet culpability in the killings during 
Mr. Jaruzelski's visit could serve as a lift for the Polish President, 
one of the last Communist leaders to survive the turmoil in Eastern 
Europe, as he struggles to hold his position against a challenge by more 
liberal forces.


Some 15,000 Polish officers and others disappeared after they were 
handed over to the Soviet secret police when Soviet forces occupied 
parts of Poland in April and May of 1940. The occupation came as part of 
a secret Soviet-Nazi agreement at the outset of World War II.


The bodies of about 4,500 of those officers were unearthed in 1943 by 
Nazi troops after the Nazis captured the region. The German troops and 
several international commissions blamed the Soviets for the massacre 
after examining documents found on the dead officers and the uniforms 
that they were wearing when they were herded into the forest and shot. 
The 10,500 Poles who were not buried at Katyn vanished without a trace.


Move Toward Admitting Guilt

The men whose bodies were found in the mass graves in Katyn had all been 
shot in the head. The hands of many of the men were tied behind their 
backs, and many were bound, gagged and blinded by greatcoats flung or 
bound around their heads.


Polish investigators traveled to the forest to examine the bodies at the 
behest of the Polish government-in-exile in London after the Germans 
discovered the bodies in 1943. The investigators concluded that the 
Soviet Union was reponsible, but Stalin blamed Hitler. Eventually, 
Stalin broke relations with the London exile government, a move that led 
to the establishment of a Communist Government in Poland.


The Soviet side persisted until this year in blaming the Nazis for the 
crime, saying the killings took place in 1941, when the territory was in 
German hands. The inscription in stone that marks the spot of the 
killings says the officers were victims of fascism, shot by Hitler's troops.


But it has been clear since last summer that Soviet officials were 
gradually moving toward admitting guilt for the killings, under pressure 
from journalists and historians who have uncovered incriminating 
evidence and from the Polish Government, whose previous Communist 
Government long conspired in blessing the official Soviet version of events.


Moscow's 'Profound Regret'

''After searching through the archives here and abroad, we came to the 
unmistakable conclusion that officers found at Katyn were shot and 
buried by Stalin's secret police,'' said Valentina S. Porsadnova, a 
member of the official Soviet-Polish commission set up two and a half 
years ago to resolve historical disputes between the counties. She said 
the commission's conclusions on Katyn were to be published soon.


The official statement outlining the new Soviet position on Katyn, which 
was reported today by the official press agency Tass, expressed the 
Soviet Union's ''profound regret 

Re: [Marxism] Furr

[DW via Marxism]

  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.
*

[I've been hearing very informally from others that Furr's book is not half
bad on the massacre. I'll leave it at that. I have a copy and will
eventually read it as I did a few of his other volume that are more drek
like]

The USSR never admitted to anything about the Massacre. It has always
denied it. There is a split among the current crop of right wing
nationalists in Russian academia over Katyn. The contradictions are that
among these anti-communists is to praise Stalin or condemn him. Thus, the
anti-communist wing wanted to admit to Soviet responsibility for Katyn and
a more nationalist wing wanted to deny it and blame the Germans (the
official Soviet position). Obviously neither "wing" of anti-communist
academics can be trusted.

David Walters
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Furr

[Michael Meeropol via Marxism]

  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.
*

So let me get this straight as an outsider --- Russians did NOT "admit"
that Stalin murdered the Polish officers at Katyn?   I thought that was
settledPolish writers might be somewhat "objective" having bones to
pick with Russians AND Germans re over 200 years of history -- but perhaps
the anti-communism of the current Polish polity leans towards blaming
Stalin as a knee jerk reaction I agree that western "Cold Warriors" are
suspect --- it's really up to the new generation with access to sources
(always problematic in Russia, even today) to sort things out --- that's
why I thought that some Russian (officially?) "admitted" that Stalin did it
--- but memory is hazy in this old man 



> 
>  
> <82b78547-2eed-47a6-a705-5e314713a...@nyc.rr.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Furr

[Glauber Ataide via Marxism]

  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.
*

Few comments about Furr really addressed the low-level details one should
expect in such a debate.

Too many emotional conclusions, but insufficient development leading to
them.

Probably we'll have to wait some years until someone diggers deeper than
Furr in these recently disclosed files and comes up with different
conclusions.



Andrew Stewart via Marxism  schrieb am So.,
25. Aug. 2019, 21:13:

>   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.
> *
>
> Grover Furr and his quixotic quest to repudiate the entire indictment of
> Stalin is compromised rather unfortunately by his mixture of purported new
> insights with quite old Maoist “anti-revisionist” talking points that were
> tired and annoying in 1968. There is a serious need for a genuine analysis
> of the Soviet Union’s history that is not tethered to Trotskyist ideas
> (which I find to be simply unreasonable and altogether determinist) but
> Furr doesn’t deliver that, instead he charges at the windmills of
> “Khrushchevite revisionism” in a way that doesn’t even acknowledge how the
> economy under the different leaderships evolved over time. The reason why
> this is important (and why Furr fails) is because that is the primary
> reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Socialism Betrayed by Kenny
> and Keeran (published by International, the CPUSA label) makes a convincing
> case that the collapse was caused by the growth of the second economy, a
> black market that sprang up parallel to the command system that undermined
> the command system and eventually fostered a dual power standoff between
> the Soviet and capitalism in 1991. The genesis for this issue stems from
> two different wings of the Communist Party. Stalin’s centrism ended up
> being the left wing within the mainstream after the smothering of the Left
> Opposition. Bukharin was the right wing and wanted to continue the NEP
> rather than move towards forced collectivization and expropriation of the
> kulaks. Kenny and Keeran argue that Bukharin’s theories remained viable
> within the party long after he was killed and that first Khrushchev and
> later Gorbachev subsequently worked to reintroduce those policies under
> their tenures. Notably the recent major biography of Deng Xioaping argues
> that the same thing happened when Deng took power, he had studied in the
> Soviet Union when Bukharin was the major Comintern theoretician on economic
> matters. The difference between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
> maintenance of the Chinese Communist Party was essentially the policy on
> dissent in mass uprisings by workers as these policies began to create
> further hardship for them, Alexander Cockburn pointed this out in a few
> pieces from the period:
>
> https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/06/the-meaning-of-tiananmen-square/
>
> https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/radical-reality
>
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew Stewart
> - - -
> Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via
> https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/
> gkiss...@nyc.rr.com
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 13:46:53 -0400
> From: Glenn Kissack 
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>
> Subject: [Marxism] Furr
> Message-ID: <82b78547-2eed-47a6-a705-5e314713a...@nyc.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
>
>
> > To start with, I am not going to spend $20 on anything written by Furr.
> I got bootlegged copies of Sunkara and Blumenthal's books to review for the
> same reason. I might consider that in Furr's case but Columbia does not
> have any of his books. Quelle surprise.
> >
>
> Louis: I understand your feelings. So just two final (I promise) questions
> about Grover Furr for the listserv:
>
> 1. Are any parts of his work valuable as a corrective to the anti-Soviet
> writings of people like Robert Conquest? As you wrote, Furr reads Russian
> and has worked with Russian historians in examining the Soviet archives. So
> has he made any valuable discoveries?
>
> 2. Have there been any scholarly refutations of his claims?
>
> People like J. Arch Getty (Origins of the Great Purges), Robert Thurston
> (Life and Terror in Stalin?s Rus

Re: [Marxism] Furr

[Andrew Stewart via Marxism]

  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.
*

Grover Furr and his quixotic quest to repudiate the entire indictment of Stalin 
is compromised rather unfortunately by his mixture of purported new insights 
with quite old Maoist “anti-revisionist” talking points that were tired and 
annoying in 1968. There is a serious need for a genuine analysis of the Soviet 
Union’s history that is not tethered to Trotskyist ideas (which I find to be 
simply unreasonable and altogether determinist) but Furr doesn’t deliver that, 
instead he charges at the windmills of “Khrushchevite revisionism” in a way 
that doesn’t even acknowledge how the economy under the different leaderships 
evolved over time. The reason why this is important (and why Furr fails) is 
because that is the primary reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. 
Socialism Betrayed by Kenny and Keeran (published by International, the CPUSA 
label) makes a convincing case that the collapse was caused by the growth of 
the second economy, a black market that sprang up parallel to the command 
system that undermined the command system and eventually fostered a dual power 
standoff between the Soviet and capitalism in 1991. The genesis for this issue 
stems from two different wings of the Communist Party. Stalin’s centrism ended 
up being the left wing within the mainstream after the smothering of the Left 
Opposition. Bukharin was the right wing and wanted to continue the NEP rather 
than move towards forced collectivization and expropriation of the kulaks. 
Kenny and Keeran argue that Bukharin’s theories remained viable within the 
party long after he was killed and that first Khrushchev and later Gorbachev 
subsequently worked to reintroduce those policies under their tenures. Notably 
the recent major biography of Deng Xioaping argues that the same thing happened 
when Deng took power, he had studied in the Soviet Union when Bukharin was the 
major Comintern theoretician on economic matters. The difference between the 
collapse of the Soviet Union and the maintenance of the Chinese Communist Party 
was essentially the policy on dissent in mass uprisings by workers as these 
policies began to create further hardship for them, Alexander Cockburn pointed 
this out in a few pieces from the period:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/06/the-meaning-of-tiananmen-square/

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/radical-reality


Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 
- - -
Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via 
https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/
gkiss...@nyc.rr.com
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 13:46:53 -0400
From: Glenn Kissack 
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
   
Subject: [Marxism] Furr
Message-ID: <82b78547-2eed-47a6-a705-5e314713a...@nyc.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8


> To start with, I am not going to spend $20 on anything written by Furr. I got 
> bootlegged copies of Sunkara and Blumenthal's books to review for the same 
> reason. I might consider that in Furr's case but Columbia does not have any 
> of his books. Quelle surprise.
> 

Louis: I understand your feelings. So just two final (I promise) questions 
about Grover Furr for the listserv:

1. Are any parts of his work valuable as a corrective to the anti-Soviet 
writings of people like Robert Conquest? As you wrote, Furr reads Russian and 
has worked with Russian historians in examining the Soviet archives. So has he 
made any valuable discoveries?

2. Have there been any scholarly refutations of his claims?

People like J. Arch Getty (Origins of the Great Purges), Robert Thurston (Life 
and Terror in Stalin?s Russia, 1934-1941), and others who were able to look in 
the newly opened archives, were able to correct some of earlier false and 
exaggerated claims about the Stalin period. Is Furr continuing in this 
tradition? 

It?s amazing to me how much Furr written about this period:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=grover+furr=nb_sb_noss_1 
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=grover+furr=nb_sb_noss_1>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Furr<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Furr>

The problem I have is that many of the people (like Conquest) who have written 
about Stalin despised Soviet socialism and wanted to paint it in the worse 
possible light. People like Furr, Losurdo (and many of us, I believe) think 
that Soviet socialism was imperfect but did accomplish a lot, so we have reason 
to question the old anti-communist narrative.

Glenn
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Furr

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  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.
*

On 8/25/19 1:46 PM, Glenn Kissack via Marxism wrote:

The problem I have is that many of the people (like Conquest) who have written 
about Stalin despised Soviet socialism and wanted to paint it in the worse 
possible light. People like Furr, Losurdo (and many of us, I believe) think 
that Soviet socialism was imperfect but did accomplish a lot, so we have reason 
to question the old anti-communist narrative.


I have big problems with Sovietologists myself. Someone recommended 
Timothy Snyder. I had issues with him on the Non-Aggression Pact itself:


https://louisproyect.org/2010/11/22/an-american-revisionist-historian/

There are people on the left who are reliable when it comes to these 
sorts of questions. I recommend the following:


1. Ronald Suny wrote "A State of Nations: Empire and Nation-making in 
the Age of Lenin and Stalin". Very good book.


2. Tony Wood, lots of articles. Particularly good on Chechnya. Has 
written for NLR.


3. R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft. They co-authored a definitive 
book on the Ukraine famine, plus lots of other books on their own. Like 
Suny and Wood, they are frequent NLR contributors.



_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Furr

[Glenn Kissack via Marxism]

  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.
*


> To start with, I am not going to spend $20 on anything written by Furr. I got 
> bootlegged copies of Sunkara and Blumenthal's books to review for the same 
> reason. I might consider that in Furr's case but Columbia does not have any 
> of his books. Quelle surprise.
> 

Louis: I understand your feelings. So just two final (I promise) questions 
about Grover Furr for the listserv:

1. Are any parts of his work valuable as a corrective to the anti-Soviet 
writings of people like Robert Conquest? As you wrote, Furr reads Russian and 
has worked with Russian historians in examining the Soviet archives. So has he 
made any valuable discoveries?

2. Have there been any scholarly refutations of his claims?

People like J. Arch Getty (Origins of the Great Purges), Robert Thurston (Life 
and Terror in Stalin’s Russia, 1934-1941), and others who were able to look in 
the newly opened archives, were able to correct some of earlier false and 
exaggerated claims about the Stalin period. Is Furr continuing in this 
tradition? 

It’s amazing to me how much Furr written about this period:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=grover+furr=nb_sb_noss_1 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Furr 


The problem I have is that many of the people (like Conquest) who have written 
about Stalin despised Soviet socialism and wanted to paint it in the worse 
possible light. People like Furr, Losurdo (and many of us, I believe) think 
that Soviet socialism was imperfect but did accomplish a lot, so we have reason 
to question the old anti-communist narrative.

Glenn


_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com