Q's regarding the History of the CPSU(B) Short Course

[Rooster]

Has anyone read this? Are the facts contained within it accurate? I haven't read it myself but I come across references to it frequently in other works usually saying that it's not accurate. That some facts have been changed. Is this the case? If so, then what was the point of the document? Or is this down to purely errors in compiling it?

[Q]

Do you have a link?

I'm completely unfamiliar with said course, despite my nickname being in the title

[Rooster]

Do you have a link?

I'm completely unfamiliar with said course, despite my nickname being in the title

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar.../x01/index.htm

Oops. I meant to add that link in my OP.

[Q]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar.../x01/index.htm

Oops. I meant to add that link in my OP.

It was first published in 1939, well into he period of the bureaucratic counterrevolution. If you want to know how the Stalinist bureaucracy viewed the development of the CPSU, then I suppose this is a great read. But read it with the proverb in mind that it is the victors who write history.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Are you serious? I will assume you are, so here is my humble opinion. This is a scurrilous piece of trash. It falsifies a tremendous amount of history. I would not trust so much as a sentence out of this book. If you would like a partial antidote I recommend the old Spartacist pamphlet, "The Stalin School of Falsification Revisited" it is available online at the IBT's website under Marxist Archive/Other Materials from the revolutionary period of the Spartacists, or if you prefer a source closer to the time, Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed."

[GoddessCleoLover]

The Short Course ought never to be considered a principled analysis, rather it was designed to promote the intellectual hegemony of the Stalinoid party leadership.

[Grenzer]

I'm not a Trotskyist, but I can say that Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution and A Revolution Betrayed aren't terrible reads. They have their flaws of course, but I would say that it is better that the work you linked.

[Rooster]

It falsifies a tremendous amount of history.

I'm looking for specific instances. I'll dig out the book I was reading by EH Carr and see if I can find the part I'm looking for.

"The Stalin School of Falsification Revisited"

Does that cite specific instances?

Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed."

I'll have to dig my copy out.

The Short Course ought never to be considered a principled analysis, rather it was designed to promote the intellectual hegemony of the Stalinoid party leadership.

I'm constantly seeing it being referred to as a great piece of history writing by individuals of a certain tendency on this board. I'm just wondering if these things, the false facts, are taken to be actual fact, or as errors or are they seen as a means of strengthening the cult of personality around Stalin. He was involved with it, wasn't he?

It was first published in 1939, well into he period of the bureaucratic counterrevolution.

Is 1939 an accurate date for it's first publication? I'm sure the copy I've seen was published in 1938... not that it makes a difference. I probably just haven't remembered it correctly.

[Zulu]

It's more of a programmatic document than a historical study. For example, it includes Stalin's doctrine of "socialism in one country", and the explanation why the victory of such a socialism cannot be final, which requires promotion of socialism in on other countries by the USSR.

[Rooster]

It's more of a programmatic document than a historical study. For example, it includes Stalin's doctrine of "socialism in one country", and the explanation why the victory of such a socialism cannot be final, which requires promotion of socialism in on other countries by the USSR.

I dont get this. I know that there are some clear historical errors in the book regarding stalin's role within the party. Are you saying that there were innocent mistakes and should be ignored because the point of the book is not a historical work? But it's an outline of a program? Isnt that kind of similar to the way religious people read their bibles?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Good point. Back in the day the Short Course was regarded as biblical in some quarters.

[Zulu]

I dont get this. I know that there are some clear historical errors in the book regarding stalin's role within the party. Are you saying that there were innocent mistakes and should be ignored because the point of the book is not a historical work? But it's an outline of a program? Isnt that kind of similar to the way religious people read their bibles?

No, it's not unintentional errors, it's indeed the orwellian thing. You know that famous picture that Nikolai Yezhov was erased from? Same happened to him in this book: he was mentioned in the first edition and wasn't in the second. But the focus of this book was not so much to rewrite history to glorify Stalin, but to instruct the junior party cadre in Marxism-Leninism with the latter chapters formulating tasks in economy and politics for the immediate future.

[commieathighnoon]

Clearly the program of the Soviet elite in 1939 reflects the orientation of class struggle today. But you don't want to miss out on the Marxist-Leninist Eagle Badge, now do you?

[Die Neue Zeit]

It was first published in 1939, well into he period of the bureaucratic counterrevolution. If you want to know how the Stalinist bureaucracy viewed the development of the CPSU, then I suppose this is a great read. But read it with the proverb in mind that it is the victors who write history.

As you already know, comrade, the only interesting part of that work is that somewhat Erfurtist part which Stalin personally wrote.

For other posters:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6559

In a way, Stalin himself was censored by a sort of political correctness, since he, though knowing otherwise, had to attribute the Merger Formula to Lenin's WITBD and not to foreign works.