The /r/communism101 page has a post that, in their opinion, "debunks" many claims made by mainstream history against communist nations. I'm no historian, but some of it seems to hold up. There's certainly some stuff there that goes a bit too far for me, even for someone with a serious left-wing bias, but there does seem to be some truth to what their post claims. I find it very unlikely that EVERY communist leader was the horrible dictator that our history books make them out to be, and our school-system certainly has bias against communsim, so it doesn't seem too surprising that mainstream history would, perhaps, put a bit too much faith in weak sources that confirm their bias. However, I also find their claims that every communist leader other than Pol Pot was a saint, and they clearly have a bias too. So, as historians (or aspiring historians), what are your thoughts on their claims, and, if any, what communist leader do you think was "good"?
Here's the link to the post: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/debunk
Thank you!
/u/International_KB had an excellent Badhistory post debunking this very post, mostly dealing with the Stalin period : The Revolution Will Not Be Adequately Sourced. Yes, it's /r/Communism again.
International_KB neatly summed up the masterpost in theit conclusion:
The best that can be said is that r/ communism makes highly selective use of good sources, ignoring the overall thrust and context of the work. The framing of the famine question is just highly disingenuous – it entirely sidesteps current discourse on the question. This is obvious from the material referenced: no one can read the Years of Hunger and come away thinking that the Soviet state was innocent of responsibility for the agricultural crisis of the early 1930s.
At its worst the list is just wrong, providing sources that openly contradict the assertions made. Getty's work in particular is ill-treated: his 'low' estimates of repression dead are still in the millions.
And, of course, the ugliest element is the space given to Furr and other Stalinist apologists. These are not historians and their arguments lie well outside the historical mainstream for a reason.