Is there such a thing as objective historical distance? Does 25 years guarantee an evincing of "factual data" or linear historicized truths any more legitimate than the bias of the "moment" would?
>any more legitimate than the bias of the "moment"
Of course they're more legitimate. More data can be scrutinised by various people from differing backgrounds. At the same time if you leave things too late then you have people with completely alien cultural standards making moral judgements and making basic errors.
I should clear up that by "moment" I mean the site of immediate recall. Say the expropriation of Ukraine; there's a simultaneous recalling of a past inheritance and a present mythmaking curtailed by media, commentators, historians, political ideologues/spinters, etc, which is inflicting a causal fault on the event. In a sense, it's historicized and assigned a factual structure in the present, which will later be repeated.
the alienated objects of our labour, even in communism, are not independent of ourselves and are not good in themselves.
Hitherto the historians have sought to document history, the point is to create it.
the act of documentation is at once one of eventualization, you can't document without espousing the double bind of a materialization of a lost object. history is the practice of both melancholy and pure scopophilic perversion. we are already always creating, that's the real kernel of dialectical materialism, the problem is in imprinting the stamp of ontological content and pretending it was always immanent to the historical object itself.
Real history doesn't start until after everyone who was alive during that time of interest has died off. Only then when there's no one personally attached to those experiences can historians go and objectively judge what happened and the causes and effects surrounding it.
There is a qualitative difference between the alienated epistemology of producing documents based on the documentary records of the past, and the praxic epistemology of the start of man's real history.
The production of history, the documenting of the documentary records of the past, is an alien object. Writing a monograph is like making a car. Even in communism, writing a monograph or making a car is about alienating your own human endeavour from yourself, it is a process of individual externalisation. Producing history involves an imperfect cognitive act, just as producing a car involves an imperfect cognitive act. Making history, and making the society that produces monographs and cars, in communism involves praxis amongst groups of people exceeding themselves, and is qualitatively different.
Making a car isn't liberating. Making liberation together (through making a car, or writing a book) is very different.