Jan 24, 2025 08:18 PM
(This post was last modified: Jan 25, 2025 07:25 PM by C C.)
https://jacobin.com/2025/01/black-book-c...is-history
INTRO: The British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan had a similar message as he prepared for “the most monstrous of centenaries.” According to Hannan, communism was far worse than slavery or Nazism: “The Atlantic slave trade killed perhaps 10 million people, the Nazis 17 million — but the Communists killed 100 million.” The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which runs a museum in Washington, carries the following message on its website: “Communism Killed Over 100 Million: We’re telling their stories.”
These claims ultimately rest upon a highly influential collection of essays titled The Black Book of Communism that was put together under the direction of French academic Stéphane Courtois. Originally published in French, the Black Book has been translated into multiple languages. Yet far from representing the established consensus among historians, the claims that Courtois made in the book’s introduction were not even accepted by all of his own contributors, some of whom were harshly critical of their editor after seeing the final product.
Despite the criticisms directed at the Black Book by many historians, the work is still often presented as a definitive account of the experience of communism, and its arguments have also influenced many people indirectly, even if they have never heard of Courtois or his book. A closer look at the way in which the Black Book was produced and the flaws that scholars have identified in its approach to twentieth-century history is very much in order... (MORE - details)
COMMENT: But OTOH, due to heavy competition from science, literary intellectual culture in the 20th-century had to pursue pragmatic justifications for its existence. That meant a dominant shift to becoming the "conscience" and morality center of the Western World. And since it was a secular operation, that meant heavy dependence upon Marxism and related socioeconomic justice schools of thought (including critical theory and other adjacent scholarly movements).
Those biased presuppositions lead it to a pervasively reoccurring theme of apologizing for collectivism gone awry in historically horrible ways, and the usual lamenting that "we just need to get it right, rather than throw it away". It's fundamentally protective about that territory, especially when the evaluation comes from outside the echo chamber. And in this instance, the Jacobin is also an outright socialist magazine.
In light of where the vast majority of humanities scholars stand politically, it's pretty difficult for anyone capable of actually residing thought-wise outside the Left/Right stranglehold to buy into potential cherry-picking counter criticisms being fully objective themselves, anymore than putatively that in TBBOC.
The stealth advantage that both old-fashioned Marxism and Neo-Marxism have enjoyed is that they function and disseminate propaganda behind the facade of social and economic do-gooderism. The monster-hood is concealed and only incrementally revealed after the revolution or other forms of conquest. Whereas, fascism is arguably out in the open and upfront about its end-game nastiness (or you can always rely on the MSM of this era to primarily focus on that menace rather than that of its left twin).
There's a section of dialogue from "Billions" that is useful for illustrating that kind of dichotomy, albeit here in the different context of a progressive capitalist versus a classic capitalist.
BILLIONS (season 7, episode 11) - "Axe Global", TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT:
Michael Prince is too smooth. Too confident. He's built different. It's like he ate the Great Man Theory and asked for seconds.
[CHUCKLES] Well, no argument there. But I'm not seeing enough evidence your guy is that different. Which is why I am here.
And I am grateful you are, Governor.
I don't need gratitude. I need clarity.
Clarity. Okay.
Well, Bobby Axelrod doesn't lie to himself. If he says he's gonna do something monstrous, that's what he does.
And that's what he is. A self-aware monster.
If he says we can get you to the White House, it's not to serve his ego. It is simply the truth. An honest cocky son of a bitch.
And there's your difference. Axe has ego, and doesn't pretend otherwise.
[Michael] Prince wants you to believe he is the benevolent, humble servant of the greater good. A selfless billionaire.
If success in politics is the ability to seem sincere when no sincerity actually exists, then Prince is the ultimate politician.