01-19-2009, 04:51 PM
Despite the widespread impression to the contrary, the main target of the "Secret Speech" was not Stalin himself but the political course, a certain direction of development, that was associated with his name. The Russian historian Yuri Zhukov has stated it clearly: Khrushchev’s goal was to put an end to the democratic reforms begun but far from completed during Stalin’s lifetime (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html).
Today – and, it must be said, under the influence of Khrushchev’s Speech – "Stalin" and "democracy" are antipodal concepts in the minds of most people, conceptions that denote two incompatible extremes, phenomena that are polar opposites. But this view is in error. Stalin shared Lenin’s views on representative democracy and strove to root its principles in the building of the Soviet state.
It was Stalin himself who stood at the head of the fight for democratizing Soviet society, a struggle which was at the very heart of the political processes that took place in the USSR during the 1930s to 1950s. The essence of this program was as follows: the role of the Communist Party in the governing of the state would be reduced to normal limits, like those in other countries, and the political leadership of the state would be chosen not according to party lists but on the basis of democratic procedures.
Not only Khrushchev but, evidently, other Soviet leaders too disagreed with the course of such reforms. In any case Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich, the major political figures associated with Stalin, accepted, even if unwillingly, the secret subtext of the "Secret Speech" and assented to it. Khrushchev was able to come to power, deliver his potentially explosive "Secret Speech," and establish his own ideas only because he was able to win the Soviet Party elite to his side..
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/ ... 8_eng.html
I don't think posting this type of propaganda is a good idea personally. What it is really saying is that the SU went "revisionist" with Kruschev rather than Stalin. In which case we pretty much have lost sight of why it is important to defend the actions and legacy of Stalin and the USSR in the first place.
I mean, Mao and the Chinese said the same thing as this more or less, and look what happened there..
PS I've read some of the Grover Furr essay that your quote links to, I think it is OK, but I think it is easy to lose sight of *why* these questions matter