Originally published in De Acero No. 1, Stage II, in March 2026.

EL PARADIGMA ANTI-STALIN

Reading the new book translated into Spanish, Stalin Waiting… In The Truth by Grover Furr, I was pleased to see that he developed a concept that is, to say the least, interesting: the anti-Stalin paradigm.

According to this paradigm, within historiography, and not only within it, there exists an unquestionable paradigm whereby any theory, development, or opinion that goes against Stalin and the Soviet period under his rule is automatically deemed credible. In turn, any opinion that seeks not only to defend Stalin but also any position that deviates from the general trend of historiography is labelled false, biased, and, of course, Stalinist, even if the person disseminating such a view is a conservative.

Regardless of the author's ideology, no one is safe from the anti-Stalin paradigm. [1].

Although Grover Furr is correct in his analysis of the general and historiographical view of Stalin, I believe that his definition of the anti-Stalin paradigm does not encompass the entirety of the problem we face both in society and in the historiography of communism.

We are undoubtedly facing an anti-communist paradigm that goes far beyond the historical figure of Stalin. Anything that seeks the truth about experiences, and even about communist ideology itself, is labelled reactionary, outdated, and totalitarian.

Some argue that communism and many of its symbols have become mainstream. However, this is not the case. A deeper investigation reveals that the system, taking advantage of the weakness of both the communist movement and the labour movement itself, has appropriated revolutionary symbols and figures, commodified them, stripped them of their revolutionary essence, and is using them to combat and criminalise precisely what those symbols were supposedly created to oppose.

Taking from Marxism only what is permissible for the bourgeoisie, stripping it of its revolutionary essence, usurping it, and using it to confuse the masses is nothing new. Marxism has always identified this as revisionism. Even with new masks, they continue to play the same role and serve the same masters.

There have been numerous examples of attempts to revise Marxism and transform the revolutionary into the reactionary. We are now facing the latest and most professional of them all. They try to make their proposals appear revolutionary, but they are the new reaction, as rabidly anti-communist as all their predecessors. Their real objective is not the transformation of society, but the imposition of the system's monolithic thinking and its dogmas. [2].

The old reaction collaborates with the postmodern left, blaming Marxism for all existing ills, speaking of cultural Marxism [3] instead of ideological postmodernism. In reality, the old and new reactions are nothing more than two sides of the same coin: the system. They defend it tooth and nail, feeding off each other, accumulating strength to act as capitalism sees fit, and defending one type of bourgeois domination or another. [4].

This criminalisation of communism is not limited to Stalin and his period in the USSR. [5]It goes much further, labelling as totalitarian, genocidal, murderous, anachronistic, and violent anything that deviates from the sanitised and reactionary version of the mainstream.

Thus, we can see how in popular series like Money Heist (La casa de papel), the Italian partisan song "Bella Ciao" is danced and sung even on TikTok. However, the reason those Italian partisans fought against fascism is horrific. [6].

Despite the song's origins as a partisan anthem with the appropriate political connotations, what has been done with it is to de-ideologise it. There are thousands of examples of this type of use of revolutionary culture, but this doesn't mean that the promoters of the system are Marxists; on the contrary, what they are doing is attacking Marxism, something some fascists seem not to understand.

Another clear example of this is their attempt to redefine the term "revolution". Now there's the green revolution, the beer revolution, the feminist revolution, and the revolution of low prices. All of them are associated with something peaceful and joyful.

The struggle for socialist revolution is the struggle for the transformation of society; this involves destroying the capitalist state and building a new superstructure. It involves changing from one mode of production to another, and this won't happen as a concession or a mere cultural shift.

Is there anything more authoritarian and violent than a revolution?

Engels makes it clear:

"A revolution is, undoubtedly, the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannons—authoritarian means, if ever there were any—and the victorious party, if it does not want to have fought in vain, has to maintain this dominion by means of the terror that its weapons inspire in the reactionaries." [7].

There are no peaceful revolutions. The ruling class will never allow its privileges to be taken away without fighting to the death to preserve them. This is just another example of how they want to increase alienation and, with it, their control over the people.

I could give hundreds of examples. The use of certain perverted Marxist categories, some symbols, and even the appropriation of some figures by falsifying their history and eliminating their ideology do not constitute support for communism, but rather a clear intention to destroy it.

---

The anti-communist paradigm in historiography

Continuing with what has been discussed above, I want to raise a series of issues that are characteristic of the treatment of communism in historiography. Furr points out some of them in his Anti-Stalin Paradigm

Academic historiography does not seek the truth regarding communism.

Most of the most celebrated academic authors on communism twist reality to fit their preconceived notions before beginning their research. Kotkin, Conquest, Gross, and Pipes are good examples of this.

Thus, we find that, after the discovery of evidence, especially regarding the declassification of Soviet archives, the lies spread for decades about the role of communists in certain events—which have been used to demonise them—have not been publicly corrected. For example, regarding what happened in the Katyn Forest. [8].

Their objective is not to discover the truth but to follow the anti-communist paradigm to achieve acceptance and success. We already know what happens to those who don't. Furr was included on the list of the 101 most dangerous academics in the United States. [9].

Most of the sources reflect the opinions of renegades and alleged documents of highly dubious origin.

Most of the fabricated narratives about communism originate from renegades like Khrushchev, Gorbachev, or Alia, as well as from supposed documents that are later proven false and references to classified files that, when declassified, expose their proponents.

However, when this happens, they don't backtrack. They double down, relying on the strength of the anti-communist paradigm, which makes everything sound credible despite the evidence.

Furr himself dismantles the validity of these opinions from renegades in the service of capitalism in his book Khrushchev Lied. He refutes these types of sources, as well as each and every one of their accusations against Stalin. [10].

sing Gorbachev as an example, by analysing what he said and what he actually did, one can appreciate the complete invalidity of everything he claimed. He ended up doing commercials for Pizza Hutt [11] and Rolex and admitting that he had always wanted to reinstate unfettered capitalism.

There will be people who criticise me for stating this, alluding to the countless other resources available. I don't want to delve into what is based on mere lies and fabrications used to criminalise communism without any attempt at supporting it, however common it may be. It only works for them thanks to the prevailing paradigm; otherwise, it would only elicit laughter.

Objectivity is conspicuously absent.

Objectivity is not the goal when it comes to communism. Anything other than defining it as totalitarian and genocidal, an evil ideology, is crushed by the force of the paradigm. Existing evidence and proof that contradicts the paradigm's tenets are deliberately ignored.

This is an attack on the objectivity that every rigorous and scientific study must possess. Academic historians do not strive for objectivity; they only defend anti-communist positions. This reflects their actions in accordance with the interests of the ruling class, which they represent and defend: the bourgeoisie.

Furr defines the work of these authors as "propaganda with footnotes". [12].

As I have already stated, those historians who do employ an objective and scientific approach are labelled 'Stalinists', even when they are critical. The pursuit of truth is not something that can be contained by the anti-communist paradigm.

Appeal to authority fallacy

It's common for proponents of the anti-communist paradigm to fall into the trap of using the argument, "X says so, and that person is an expert." " However, when you actually read and study author X's book, you see that this aura of expertise doesn't justify their claims.

They're falling into the fallacy of appealing to authority to justify their lack of information or knowledge on the subject. When you examine the works of these authors, which anti-communists often use to support their positions, you'll find that their sources are references to other historians. If you follow the thread, you can discover that these sources are based on lies and fabricated testimonies.

This type of work was exemplified by Furr in his book responding to Kotkin.

In Spain, authors like Pío Moa, César Vidal, and Federico Jiménez Losantos are referenced, but their objectivity is nonexistent. They don't seek the truth; they only want to mould reality to fit their reactionary positions. The value of their work is nonexistent.

Criminalisation of communist figures to attack the ideology

The criminalisation of communist figures has been a constant in both society and historiography. It is easier to criminalise a single individual than an entire movement and ideology and, by demonising that person, to criminalise the collective. [13].

Lenin already made this clear in his book The State and Revolution:

What is happening today with Marx's doctrine is what has often happened throughout history with the doctrines of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of the oppressed classes in their struggle for liberation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressor classes subject them to constant persecution and embrace their doctrines with the most savage rage, the most furious hatred, and the most unrestrained campaign of lies and slander.

After their death, attempts are made to transform them into harmless icons, to canonise them, so to speak, to surround their names with a certain aura of glory to "console" and deceive the oppressed classes, emasculating the content of their revolutionary doctrine, dulling its revolutionary edge, and debasing it.

In such a "manipulation" of Marxism, the bourgeoisie and opportunists within the workers' movement are currently joining hands. They forget, relegate to the background, and distort the revolutionary aspect of this doctrine, its revolutionary spirit. They bring to the forefront; they extol what is or seems to be acceptable to the bourgeoisie.

All social chauvinists are today—jokes aside! —"Marxists. "And with increasing frequency, the German bourgeois sages, who yesterday were still specialists in pulverising Marxism, speak today of a "national-German" Marx who, according to them, educated these magnificently organised workers' associations to wage a war of plunder! [14].

It couldn't be clearer.

Time would prove him even more right when the criminalisation of communist figures reached its peak after the USSR's victories in World War II. Never before had revolutionary forces achieved such significant successes, and in response, the bourgeoisie unleashed its full potential to criminalise Stalin and other Bolshevik leaders and those of the new people's republics that emerged from the defeat of fascism. [15].

It is the duty of all revolutionaries to defend the historical figures of communist leaders, because in reality, they are not trying to attack an individual but the collective. This is the easiest way to criminalise the entire movement, so we must not allow it. We must confront even those who are supposed to be part of the revolutionary movement but who in reality are not and who play a reactionary and revisionist subversive role.

---

Some of our examples

In our activist work, we have suffered the effects of the criminalisation of communism by the Spanish media.

We are not ashamed and are proud to be communists, a fact we make clear in our activism and activities, which some cannot forgive us for.

I want to show just three examples of media lynching due to our activities and our ideology. There are dozens, but, for reasons of space, I have decided to select only three.

Marxist book fairs

Every year we organise a Marxist fair which, as expected, features stalls selling books on Marxist and revolutionary topics. We also hold events and presentations on various historical, ideological, and political subjects. It's a meeting point for Marxists from all over the country.

Up to this point, no one could have imagined that a media campaign and pressure tactics would be launched to sabotage the fair and prevent it from taking place.

We have problems every year, but never like the first edition. Ricardo E. Rodríguez Sifrés was presenting his book, ¡Stalin Insólito! (Stalin: Unbelievable!), which, due to its title, was considered heresy by the media and certain political parties. [16].

A smear campaign and pressure tactics were launched, forcing the cancellation of the venue we had booked for the event. We had to find another large space in just eight hours.

Despite the difficulty, we mobilised all our resources and capabilities and secured another venue. They portrayed us as genocidal maniacs, pro-murderers, and lunatics without even having read the book or heard what we had to say.

They didn't care. All they cared about was adhering to what was politically correct: the anti-communist paradigm.

The camps

Every summer, in August, the Party's youth wing, the JML (RC), holds a camp where they train, foster camaraderie, study, and participate in a series of activities focused on promoting group spirit, discipline, sacrifice, and effort—all characteristics of communist activism

The first year, they uploaded a video of the activities. As expected, there was a lot of communist symbolism, which didn't sit well with some media outlets.

Their response was to deceive us in an interview and then break their word. They portrayed the camp as something paramilitary and combat-orientated and countless other lies and absurdities. Of course, the accusation of messianic worship of communist leaders was inevitable. [17].

What bothers them isn't what we do; it's who we are. It's unforgivable that we deviate from the established paradigm, and therefore they will do everything in their power to criminalise us.

The parades

Every April 14th, in contrast to the festive processions of other organisations that attend Republic Day as if it were a party or a drinking session, we decided more than ten years ago to hold a parade in honour of all those who fell for the republic and the revolution in Spain, carrying our symbols, of course.

Our marches have gone around the world. Seeing hundreds of young people with red flags and portraits of communist leaders drove more than one person crazy.

First, they mobilised republican and “revolutionary” organisations to try to forcibly remove us. Then, when they couldn't, they began criminalising us, focusing on the portraits of Stalin and Hoxha. [18].

Every year, several newspapers publish extensive articles about us, saying all sorts of things. Their attempts haven't been very effective. Every year our numbers grow, and the trend isn't going to stop. The anti-communist paradigm and its defenders can't forgive us for defending Stalin or Hoxha, but we don't care. We will stand firm.

---

REFERENCES

[1] Grover Furr, Stalin esperando… La verdad. Pamplona: Templando el Acero, 2021.

[2] Michel Yves Clouscard, Neofascismo e ideología del deseo. Carrión Paredes Juan – Gráficas Edithor, 2019, pp. 131-138.

[3] Michael Minnicino, «The Frankfurt School and “Political Correctness”», Fidelio, vol. 1, n.º 1, 1992. Disponible en: https://medium.com/@carl.d/la-nueva-edad-oscura-b38390c59155.

[4] Roberto Vaquero, Resistencia y lucha contra el posmodernismo. Madrid: Letrame, 2019, pp. 19-54.

[5] Enver Hoxha, Con Stalin. Pamplona: Templando el Acero, 2016.

[6] Pere Solà Gimferrer, «El significado de la canción ‘Bella Ciao’ se pervierte tras su uso en ‘La casa de papel’», La Vanguardia, 20 de agosto de 2019. Disponible en: https://www.lavanguardia.com/series/netflix/20190820/464192907070/la-casa-de-papel-bella-ciao-significado-polemica.html.

[7] Friedrich Engels, «De la autoridad». Marxists Internet Archive, 1873. Disponible en: https://www.marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1870s/1873auto.htm.

[8] Grover Furr, «The “Official” Version of the Katyn Massacre Disproven?: Discoveries at a German Mass Murder Site in Ukraine», Socialism and Democracy, vol. 27, n.º 2, julio de 2013, pp. 96-129. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2013.795268. Versión de acceso abierto: http://criticamarxista-leninista.blogspot.com/2014/01/Desmentida-la-version-oficial-de-la-masacre-de-Katyn.html.

[9] David Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2006.

[10] Grover Furr, Kruchov mintió. Pamplona: Templando el Acero, 2020.

[11] Pizza Hut International, Pizza Hut Gorbachev TV Spot Commercial, 1998. Disponible en: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgm14D1jHUw.

[12] Grover Furr, Stalin esperando… La verdad. Pamplona: Templando el Acero, 2021, p. 38.

[13] Roberto Vaquero, Introducción al comunismo. Madrid: Letrame, 2021, pp. 213-214.

[14] Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, El Estado y la Revolución. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2006, p. 39.

[15] Elena Ódena, Escritos políticos. 1: 1986. Madrid: Ediciones Vanguardia Obrera, 1986, pp. 156-160.

[16] Jorge Vilches, «La última batalla del comunismo español: negar los crímenes de Stalin», La Razón, 3 de julio de 2017. Disponible en: https://www.larazon.es/espana/la-ultima-batalla-del-comunismo-espanol-negar-los-crimenes-de-stalin-NB15507479/.

[17] Referencia a la cobertura mediática sobre los campamentos de la JML (RC). En el texto original no aparece desarrollada la referencia bibliográfica completa.

[18] Referencia a reportajes periodísticos sobre los desfiles del 14 de abril. En el texto original no aparece desarrollada la referencia bibliográfica completa.