Is it futile to debate about history?

[Black Sheep]

I mean, since you cannot know the objective truth, u can reach to no objective conclusion.Since slander and controlled media thrive.

Example? Stalin

It is the anti-stalin side versus the pro-stalin side.
What is the point?

I think that -theory- is where we should focus.

[Red_or_Dead]

I mean, since you cannot know the objective truth, u can reach to no objective conclusion.Since slander and controlled media thrive.

Example? Stalin

It is the anti-stalin side versus the pro-stalin side.
What is the point?

I think that -theory- is where we should focus.


I agree. But it is difficult to just debate theory. Everytime I say something about communism, I get stuff about the Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, ect. thrown in my face.

[Lynx]

It's not futile to learn about history or refine your own positions on various issues. Disagreement is just something you have to accept.

[Bilan]

It's not futile. There are things that most certainly did happen. The point is not to buy into dishonesty from any sides - bourgeois analysis, apologists, or what have you. The point is to understand the failures and the successes, and where to go from.

Stalin is a class example. Do not replicate.

[Post-Something]

Basically a mixture of what Lynx and Black & Red said. All great leaders and thinkers have seen the importance of history and used it to come to their conclusions. Even Hitler dedicated a chapter at the start of Mein Kampf as to how pivotal historical analysis was in his development. To progress, we have to see what has gone wrong, why it went wrong, and what could have been done to change it. Otherwise, we will simply fall into the same trap as those before us.

Plus, what do you think Marx did? He analysed history from a materialist perspective, and saw that it was basically just a long line of class struggles. Thus, the solution, would be to eradicate the notion of "class"; make everyones relation to the means of production equal. Obviously, this could never have been done without analysing history.

The thing about slander and all that stuff, you're looking at it from an idealist perspective. You really have to look at the material conditions if you want to gain any real understanding as to what was going on with the economy etc and why it turned out that way.

[ComradeOm]

Example? Stalin

It is the anti-stalin side versus the pro-stalin side.
What is the point?That's not history, that's today's politics with fanboys masturbating over their own hero while berating their rivals. 'Stalin v Trotsky' threads make an absolute mockery of the real discussion (what precious little of it there is) that goes on in the history forum. If I had my way all but one of those threads would be cleaned out of the forum

The problem of course not being history itself but the gobshites that are drawn to these various 'hot topic' discussions or (and I'm thinking of a recent economic discussion here) those who view everything through their own mind-numbingly narrow ideological stance that precludes any alternative positions or worthwhile discussion. Its perfectly possible to sit down and discuss the various aspects of the USSR in a rational and level headed way... but you won't find many people capable of that on this site

[chimx]

When discussing controversial subjects you have to analyze the sources used. Criticizing a source simply because it is "bourgeois" or "socialist" is meaningless. You should present information as to why that source is biased with your own sources, something that does not often happen here.

[Black Sheep]

For example:
Was the USSR a state with its economy planned towards a socialist mode of production?

You can say either yes or no. (or something between,but always clinging to an answer belonging to the binary system -yes or no)

Depending on ur answer,depending on "what you accept as truth" you will inevitably support either this or that revolutionary theory.

Do you get my point? An individual's judgement of history carves his/her theoretical blueprint by which to bring about the revolution.

[trivas7]

I mean, since you cannot know the objective truth, u can reach to no objective conclusion.Since slander and controlled media thrive.

I think that -theory- is where we should focus.
The point of history is to learn from it. For the Marxist history is indespensible, because all truth is historically mediated: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

Even if interpretations diifer, history is objectively true.

[loveme4whoiam]

History is, without question, of prime importance, and should be continually debated. While we cannot ever just say exactly what happened (to paraphase von Ranke), by continually researching to find more evidence and through debate, history continues to be relevant to today. "You can only know where you are going by knowing where you have come from" - these and other such truisms are such because our actions today are so enormously influenced by those that occurred in the past, and how can furthering our attempts to understand those past actions ever be futile?

Addendum - The above was written by someone who is an historian by vocation and training, so its a bit biased as if historical was futile, I would be rather more hungry than I am now :lol:

[Chapter 24]

You cannot study theory before first studying and debating history, whether that includes people, events, technology, etc. History displays the material from which we can look at and develop theory. Marxist theory is based off of the historical observation of class antagonisms, for example. There can be no theory to explain the present without past knowledge and action.

[ComradeOm]

For example:
Was the USSR a state with its economy planned towards a socialist mode of production?

You can say either yes or no. (or something between,but always clinging to an answer belonging to the binary system -yes or no)

Depending on ur answer,depending on "what you accept as truth" you will inevitably support either this or that revolutionary theory.

Do you get my point? An individual's judgement of history carves his/her theoretical blueprint by which to bring about the revolution.Funny/depressing story: I recently had a 'discussion' with someone on this site who claimed that since the USSR was not socialist it was not have possessed a planned economy. Reminds me of hearing about the Trot who claimed that since Stalinism could not have survived WWII, that war was clearly still ongoing :rolleyes:

[the questionist]

I mean, since you cannot know the objective truth, u can reach to no objective conclusion.Since slander and controlled media thrive.

Example? Stalin

It is the anti-stalin side versus the pro-stalin side.
What is the point?

I think that -theory- is where we should focus.

That is extremely insightful. It is extremely hard to arrive to an objective conclusion about history but perhaps the conclusion isn't meant to be exactly objective or subjective. Consider, a conclusion is almost always reached using a methodology for determining truth from falsehood. It seems to me that the methodology used for arriving to the conclusion should be more critically examined.In my humble opinion historical conclusions shouldn't always be static but rather subject to change based on a methodology that would take all past and future evidence into account. What do you think?

Can you tell me more about the pro-Stalin and anti-Stalin sides? I apologize for my lack of knowledge of the subject.
Thanks.

-?ist

[the questionist]

It's not futile to learn about history or refine your own positions on various issues. Disagreement is just something you have to accept.

I'm inclined to agree. History can show us valuable clues. I am curious to what you mean by refining positions. Does it also mean changing positions as well?
I thought disagreement was something that was accepted in the beginning of debate or discourse and it was the issue to be resolved. Accepting disagreement afterwards seems unproductive and suggests that debate in the first place was not very useful.

[RHIZOMES]

I would agree to a certain extent. My party, the Worker's Party (NZ) - came about from two differing groups merging together, as they realized they may have MASSIVE historical differences, but their theoretical differences were minimal if not completely non-existent.

The History of the left movement should still have healthy democratic debate among the left to, as Black & Red said, determine what the successes and failures are. But I don't think pro-Stalin and anti-Stalin peeps should really divide the left movement over the Stalin question if they fundamentally agree on everything that actually matters in the present day.

[Lynx]

I'm inclined to agree. History can show us valuable clues. I am curious to what you mean by refining positions. Does it also mean changing positions as well?
My position on the necessity and role of the vanguard has changed; my conceptualization of the emphasis between revolution and greater democracy has been refined.

I thought disagreement was something that was accepted in the beginning of debate or discourse and it was the issue to be resolved. Accepting disagreement afterwards seems unproductive and suggests that debate in the first place was not very useful.
Debate is most productive when it is used as a learning tool. Using it as a sport, where the objective is all about winning over the opponent or the audience, is best left to politicians. While it would be nice to achieve consensus and formally unite the various leftist factions, decades of debate have not achieved this. If your goal is unity, then it would seem that further debate is unproductive. But such debates remain useful for individual comrades.
To not accept disagreement is to promote sectarianism.

[Tower of Bebel]

I have this quote in my profile for several months now:

Marxist thought can only evolve and prosper outside of a "vanguardist" framework. The kind of discussion that a socialist party requires is exactly the kind of discussion that takes place on the Internet: uncensored, democratic and critical. [...] the socialist movement can not move forward without it.By having frequent discussions on various topics we progress in a dialectical way. History can't be changed, and we will never know the truth in details, but it wont do us anything good if we stop discussing important subjects. Because it's such a behavior that kills any dynamics within parties or groups, on websites and in newspapers.

Of course some topics here seem to go on forever and the road to a solution or compromise seems long; yet we have to overcome such feelings and discover the positive side of it.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Of course theory is important, but when it comes to trying to implement political change, hindsight can be invaluable. Thus even if you hold plain theory as something of prime importance above the application/testing of theories, it is vital to analyze history for purposes of advancing theory.

You'll find that it's tough to attract others to Communism when speaking in terms of theory alone. You'll almost always face bourgeois distortions of history which in turn distort perceptions of what Communist theory really is. So, in essence, it's actually more futile to solely debate theory.

We cannot lose sight of history and hold to Communism on purely idealistic terms.
Mao Zedong speaks at length in his essay "On Contradictions" about the particularity of contradiction vs general contradiction.

For example, from a purely idealistic perspective, bourgeois nationalists and revolutionary internationalists could never be allies.
In practice, however, there may be circumstances where it is mutually beneficial to fight off a common enemy while building up revolutionary forces.

The point being, we should base theory on history and not the other way around.
The bourgeois understand that by manipulating the peoples' common perceptions of history, they can moderate theory in turn.

"Our dogmatists are lazy-bones. They refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things, they regard general truths as emerging out of the void, they turn them into purely abstract unfathomable formulas, and thereby completely deny and reverse the normal sequence by which man comes to know truth. Nor do they understand the interconnection of the two processes in cognition-- from the particular to the general and then from the general to the particular."
-Mao Zedong, On Contradiction.

On the question of "rivalries" between historical leaders like Stalin and Trotsky:

"Some people treat Stalin's writings in a doctrinaire manner and therefore cannot analyse and see what is correct and what is not and everything that is correct they consider a panacea and apply indiscriminately, and thus inevitably they make mistakes. For instance, Stalin put forward a formula that in different revolutionary periods the main blow should be so directed as to isolate the middle-of-the-road social and political forces of the time. This formula of Stalin's should be treated according to circumstances and from a critical, Marxist point of view. In certain circumstances it may be correct to isolate the middle forces, but it is not correct to isolate them under all circumstances...We should view Stalin from a historical standpoint, make a proper and all round analysis to see where he was right and where he was wrong and draw useful lessons therefrom. Both the things he did right and the things he did wrong were phenomena of the international communist movement and bore the imprint of the times."
-Mao Zedong, Stalin's Place in History.

I don't mean to just throw large quotes at you..but this is all important in terms of understanding the peculiarities of a theory under different circumstances.

If we hope to turn theory into practice, we must apply the lessons of history.
This does not mean dogmatic adherence to any particular lesson, but application of the right methods to resolve a conflict/address economic issues where appropriate.

The point is not to be pro or con. That's extremely sectarian.
The point is to recognize and measure successes and shortcomings, and to understand the context behind them.