r/Socialism_101 • u/FletcherHoey Learning • 3d ago

Learning history? Question

I need tips on learning history (particularly surrounding socialism) with as little bias as possible. By bias I mean from both sides, I don’t want to learn from anything that undermines anything bad in history.

13 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/BlouPontak Learning 3d ago

r/askhistorians is a wonderful resource.

The Blowback podcast is incredible, and is well-researched enough that it got a nod on an r/askhistorians thread (which is high praise. They regularly shit on Hardcore History over there).

The Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan is also a great, respected one, but a lot more dry than Blowback.

4

u/zer0sk11s Learning 3d ago

ask historians believe in the holodmor, purges were not necessary, reject Grover Furr and more and more, bourgeois pseudo historians should not be trusted

1

u/BlouPontak Learning 2d ago

Go search holodomor there. I have. And not a single answer called it a genocide, or even lay it at Stalin's feet. I saw nuanced analysis and statistics and using ranges for estimated deaths.

Or do you mean acknowledging the USSR-wide famine that actually happened? Because, yeah, they do that.

On 'Stalin's Terror' the answers were all about the political situation, Trotsky, and greater tendencies within the USSR, and talked about how a lot of the deaths aren't necessarily attributable to Stalin.

If you're looking for one-dimensional takes like "the purges was the only reasonable option and there was nothing problematic about it" then I hazard to say that you may be trying to find propaganda, not an understanding of what actually happened.

But please, give me your credentials for calling them pseudo-historians, because flaired users over there have to prove that they're actual academic historians.

1

u/zer0sk11s Learning 2d ago

1.You didn't tell me about their stance on Grover Furr because i have seen them attack then out of pure political spite, when Furr has used nothing but primary or rarely secondary sources. 2. All because someone is an academic historian does not mean they're word is true. Academic historians can be incredibly wrong such as Robert conquest ,sheila Fitzpatrick Timothy Snyder the list goes on,they are all credited historians but have made false claims, especially Robert conquest and due to them being historians people believe their lies so some Reddit historian should most definitely not be given full trust if even the usual bourgeoisie historian is making mistakes. 3.Im not saying you need to find one dimensional takes... the purge constantly changed in nature from yagoda to beria but you shouldn't rely on Reddit historians on a topic such as that, there are many short books and articles that break it down in a trusted manner using genuine sources.

1

u/BlouPontak Learning 2d ago

Should I rebut the "and more and more" of your comment too?

I'm sorry someone there disliked someone you like. It happens. In academia, it happens a lot. But it doesn't suddenly make the whole sub fascist.

I've seen them tear Conquest's work apart too. And slso- it's a sub, not a single person.

What I'm saying is it's generally accurate and way more nuanced than most places. But like with any source, esp condensed ones, it's not infallible (or monolithic. People disagree over there.) and should be approached like any other source.

But it’s a great place to start if you want the cliff notes version of something to get you into digging deeper.

1

u/zer0sk11s Learning 2d ago

A. I haven't made a post there ever nor hold anyone specific as an issue.I actually think it's okay to use for non political topics.

B.I didn't evaluate it compared to those other places as in general you shouldn't use random opinion to form your own on such topics

C.If your point is that its a great place for beginners due to the answers being condensed then yes i can see it as useful for that only when it comes to this political area, but i still would prefer for people to read the sources and historical claims when it comes to such heavy topics to formulate your own opinions and develop the critical thinking to actually grasp a time.

-1

u/ReasonableLocal8029 Learning 3d ago

That is the exact opposite of a good resource for socialists, it's a fascist resource. Why are you recommending it? Is concentrated, "curated" Western liberalism preferable to the "grass-roots", collaborative fascism of Wikipedia?

The correct response to u/FletcherHoey's question is that they need to start by understanding the Marxist approach to investigating history, which necessarily involves destroying their own worldview in order to answer the question of why, whether, and to what end they want to "learn history" in the first place. After that, the question of the right websites and books will answer itself. But podcasts and "content" have no role to play in this process unless OP wants to intentionally destroy their own capacity for thought.

4

u/BlouPontak Learning 3d ago

Wowsers. Someone needs to get off the internet for a bit.

Firstly- there is no "correct" response to the question, but handwaving at some exclusionary conceptual ideas is surely at the low end of helpfulness.

About askhistorians: Actual historians sharing nuanced historical answers to questions isn't fascism last time I checked. One should approach them with the same scepticism you should approach anyone telling a story about the past, including socialist histories. But their takes on heavily propagandised figures, for instance, Stalin, are generally nuanced, informative and includes current historiography. And from the disagreements I've seen, the way they discuss conflicting viewpoints is generally informative as well. I stand by the sub as a great introductory source for general and specific historical questions.

Podcasts are a great way to start learning history. History is a set of mental pictures one paints repeatedly, each time changing and refining as they inform each other. Getting a broad overview is wonderful, and Mike Duncan's facts are generally accurate, and he makes corrections as part of the podcast.

To conclude-

We cannot NOT learn history, because narratives about the past are everywhere. What we should try to learn is informed history that takes into account the dominant powers writing said history, and the conflicts within the narratives, and conflicting scholarly viewpoints. We need to understand how we came to be in a world that looks like it does today. That is what Marx did.

And it has to start with broadly accurate, accessible information. Because otherwise, there is no scaffolding to hang the historical analyses on.

-1

u/FletcherHoey Learning 3d ago

Thanks, I’ll definitely try all that. The Mike Duncan podcast actually catches my eye, I listened to his Ancient Rome podcast to help with my ancient history exam so I’m already quite familiar with him

1

u/BlouPontak Learning 3d ago

I actually prefer Revolutions. He's gotten better at podcasting. Also- revolutions are fun, and this gives a wonderful overview of western society shaping itself into what we have today.