longer.blue

My full thoughts on Torkil Lauesens book. It deserved more in depth analysis than what I gave. Included are my full thoughts on this volume. Be patient with me, I had to write the previous post on my short break at work. I guess I do recommend the book but be critical, there are some sections that receive more attention than others as far as citations and sources go. Some of the sources are problematic, especially in the highly controversial sections where the most accurate information with citations is crucial. The background on some of the sourcing is problematic as well. It casts doubt on the points you want to make when you source people who are western academics who view everything from a liberal bourgeois world view to anti-communists. I almost expected to see Robert Conquest or William Randolph Heart as a cited author. Especially on the topics such as collectivization and the Purges, and Trotsky. The rest of the book cites such well respected authors such as Losurdo, Kadri and Emmanuel. And this wouldn’t have bothered me so much if the rest of the book wasn’t so well cited. It almost gives you whiplash. It is extremely abrupt, two or more sources per page and the authors own words fit right in. You get to the more controversial sections on the Soviet Union and the citations just….stop. You can really see just how much the author dislikes certain things because his sourcing disappears and there is much more psych historical elements present. Trying to ascribe intentions, the figures for deaths just appear with nothing to back them up, percentages tied to nothing. He spends most of the Soviet section subscribing to the black legend that has been painted of Stalin. But, confusingly enough, the facts he DOES cite, contradict what he writes. The section on Trotsky is short and sweet but again he does nothing to address the controversies that Trotsky was involved in, nor address anything from Krupskaya’s experience with Trotsky in opposition to Lenin leading up to the October Revolution. But yet mentions the infamous “Lenin Testaments” addressed to Krupskaya. And again, very sparse citations for this information. At one point the author even claimed that he tried to address the topics in a balanced historical materialistic way. It is an expectation, that if you intend to write about such topics, you should dig deep and provide AS MUCH source material as you can, we are to educate people, not just convince them of our way of thinking.   Then we get to China, Mao, this section was almost polarized compared to the Soviet section, you can really see the author enjoyed this section over the last because this section was extremely fleshed out, citations EVERYWHERE, even through the controversies, such as the Great Leap Forward, Deng, and The Tiananmen Square conversation. And this isn’t to say it was a bad thing, but it felt off that you wouldn’t flesh out the section before. I learned quite a bit, I had plenty of sources to do some additional reading, this section really shined as far as information. It was enjoyable to read and really highlighted this authors ability to write in a easy to understand way. He can be a bit redundant at times but that’s okay, I can be as well. The sections on today’s situation regarding the unipolar and multipolar struggle taking place was really the highlight of the book, I was engaged because the information, sourced and cited, felt well put together on explaining the situation that we, anti-imperialists, find ourselves in. It really does put you into historical perspective on the struggles ahead and who to look to for an example on shifting our mode of production to something sustainable that won’t kill the planet. I really enjoyed the beginning section of the book, a quick overview of past revolutions and the class struggle was nicely paced and addressed the issue with trusting social democrats, specifically in the failed German Revolution that ended with Rosa and Karl being killed. The Paris Commune was addressed as well for once in not an idealistic way but in a critical way showing exactly why it failed. A nice touch was addressing some of the lesser know attempts at revolution, specifically Finland, which I will need to research more on.   Overall, the book ends on a hopeful and realistic note, which I very much enjoyed. It is rare these days to feel the revolutionary optimism come back to you after reading of the struggle for a better world. I came away from this book on a positive note and I liked that. This doesn’t shy me away from Lausen’s writings. And it shouldn’t to you. If you read the book, be critical, look up the authors being sourced and do a little more digging on the more controversial topics. We can address these in an honest way. We don’t have to use anti-communist information to address criticism of mistakes, past leaders, and certain events. Criticism and self criticism is the path forward.