A 'recent' member of the Bolsheviks & October
m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se
Wed Aug 21 16:49:41 MDT 1996
Richard B writes:
>1) I was not trying to squash Nick.
>2) You agree that the Bolsheviks were not a Trotskyist party.
No I don't. I don't agree with you at all about the relationship between
Bolshevism and Trotskyism.
I said that we could 'assume for the sake of argument that the Bolsheviks
weren't a Trotskyist party'. This is not the same as saying 'the Bolsheviks
weren't a Trotskyist party'.
A Trotskyist party that lives up to the name is a Bolshevik-Leninist party,
and would call itself a Bolshevik-Leninist party. Given the choice between
the labels Stalinist (vintage 1940) or Trotskyist (same year, after the
icepick), most of the members of the revolutionary Bolshevik party in 1917
(after April) would have plumped for being Trotskyist (I'm assuming they
would have access to a truthful crystal ball to help them make their
choice). Perhaps Richard thinks the ones assassinated by Stalin would vote
for the Stalinist alternative to manifest their undying gratitude for the
way he purged their evil anti-Soviet malevolence?
>3) I did not make any claims about it being a "Stalinist" party.
It's there implicit in your tradition. Stalinism as the true heir to
revolutionary Bolshevism. Ask Adolfo.
Perhaps you need some lessons from MIM in 'revolutionary arrogance' so you
don't have to be so defensive about this kind of thing. I mean, from your
point of view, what's wrong with a Stalinist party?
>4) There was nothing that you could point to as inaccurate in what I
But stop dealing in superficialities. The whole foundation for your
argument -- the Stalinist tradition -- is riddled with inaccuracies and
>5) Stop hurling insults about. I will not do it back to you. Then maybe
>we can both learn something. I admit that I do not know it all. It would
>be good if you would admit the same in an honest fashion.
Everything I have written about the Stalinist tradition has been couched in
terms that are far too diplomatic and mealy-mouthed.
If you went for content instead of surface, there might be the chance of a
substantive discussion getting under way. Discuss policies, not labels.
Why should I adopt the same rhetorical attitude as you? Are you calling me
dishonest because I don't? If you're implying that nobody knows everything,
I think MIM and Adolfo might have some reservations about that. Also, if
everybody has limited knowledge, what's the big deal? Are you really saying
that *everyone* should preface *everything* with the disclaimer: 'I don't
know everything, but...'?
Listen, Richard, I admit I'm human. It would be good if you would admit the
same in an honest fashion...
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism