re-hugh's question

Michael Luftmensch MLuftmensch at hubcap.mlnet.com
Tue Apr 2 21:26:21 MST 1996


re-hugh's question

Hugh, you wrote:

"A useful thread sometime would be one on the
mindless linking of Trotsky =
Stalin. Someone - Marcus or Michael I think it
was - juxtaposed 'Committee
Sol Stalin' and 'Committee Sol Trotsky',
as if Stalin and Trotsky and what
they stood for were equally worthless
pieces of junk. Would either of them
consider doing any serious work on, say,
the Russian revolutions, the rise
of Nazism or the Chinese and Spanish
revolutions without giving Trotsky's
work a central place in it?"

*

I'm the one who made the quip about the committees.
I wasn't referring to the historical
roles of Stalin and Trotsky, but to their hagiographic
roles in many of the exchanges on this list.

Being at odds with the authoritarian tradition of bolshevism,
I have no reason to deny Trotsky's role in the Russian revolution.

However, I do find Communist hagiography to be oppressive. Needless
to say - but I'll say it anyway - I'm fully aware that a state-sponsored
personality cult is by far more oppressive than sectarian hero worship.

michael luftmensch




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list