Template talk:Anti-communism sidebar: Difference between revisions
Harrystein (talk | contribs) (Created page with "== Historians: Where to draw the line? == I have just added a section titled "Academia" to this template, which currently (WIP) contains the big three anti-communist historians - Service, Conquest, and Pipes - but also should later include key anti-communist contributors of other disciplines (excepting maybe economics, which may belong in its own template or article?) whose legacy lives on as part of the "black legend" of communism. The issue is that historians such as...") |
RedParabola (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The issue is that historians such as J. Arch Getty are clearly critical of the USSR and are opposed to the legacy of communism, but arguably offer important resources to pro-USSR communists and indeed all communists in the 21st century. The question, then, is where to "draw the line". I feel that Getty and other "revisionist school" historians should ''not'' be added here, as this template should involve specifically authors who have contributed massively to modern anti-communist propaganda. Quibbling over Getty and other liberals is meaningless in the face of "1000 billion iPhone Vuvuzela" - a legacy for which we should wholeheartedly thank the former three. [[User:Harrystein|Harrystein]] ([[User talk:Harrystein|talk]]) 17:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | The issue is that historians such as J. Arch Getty are clearly critical of the USSR and are opposed to the legacy of communism, but arguably offer important resources to pro-USSR communists and indeed all communists in the 21st century. The question, then, is where to "draw the line". I feel that Getty and other "revisionist school" historians should ''not'' be added here, as this template should involve specifically authors who have contributed massively to modern anti-communist propaganda. Quibbling over Getty and other liberals is meaningless in the face of "1000 billion iPhone Vuvuzela" - a legacy for which we should wholeheartedly thank the former three. [[User:Harrystein|Harrystein]] ([[User talk:Harrystein|talk]]) 17:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
:Agreed; we shouldn't include historians of the so-called "revisionist school" of Soviet historiography here. People like Arch Getty are partially relevant only because they're taking myths spawned from Conquest and people like him and presenting a more factual view, they aren't really contributing to anti-communism. Keep in mind too that it would be even more difficult to find a place to draw a line in the sand if we decide to include Getty and related historians, as anti-communism or at least anti-Stalinism is inherent in most bourgeois academics. [[User:RedParabola|<span style="color:red">''☭ Parabola ☭''</span>]] [[User talk:RedParabola|<span style="color:red"><sup>''Workers of''</sup></span>]][[Special:Contributions/RedParabola|<span style="color:red"><sup> ''the world, unite!</sup></span>]] 18:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:33, 8 May 2024
Historians: Where to draw the line?
I have just added a section titled "Academia" to this template, which currently (WIP) contains the big three anti-communist historians - Service, Conquest, and Pipes - but also should later include key anti-communist contributors of other disciplines (excepting maybe economics, which may belong in its own template or article?) whose legacy lives on as part of the "black legend" of communism.
The issue is that historians such as J. Arch Getty are clearly critical of the USSR and are opposed to the legacy of communism, but arguably offer important resources to pro-USSR communists and indeed all communists in the 21st century. The question, then, is where to "draw the line". I feel that Getty and other "revisionist school" historians should not be added here, as this template should involve specifically authors who have contributed massively to modern anti-communist propaganda. Quibbling over Getty and other liberals is meaningless in the face of "1000 billion iPhone Vuvuzela" - a legacy for which we should wholeheartedly thank the former three. Harrystein (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed; we shouldn't include historians of the so-called "revisionist school" of Soviet historiography here. People like Arch Getty are partially relevant only because they're taking myths spawned from Conquest and people like him and presenting a more factual view, they aren't really contributing to anti-communism. Keep in mind too that it would be even more difficult to find a place to draw a line in the sand if we decide to include Getty and related historians, as anti-communism or at least anti-Stalinism is inherent in most bourgeois academics. ☭ Parabola ☭ Workers of the world, unite! 18:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)