The Emir of Afghanistan
m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sun Oct 13 07:42:56 MDT 1996
Chris has woken up to the uses of circumstantial implication:
>Hugh counsels patience while he searches for
>arguments that Lenin would not have regarded
>the Emir as progressive.
>And yet Hugh is in favour of no holds barred.
>For someone so reliably caddish as to quote Catullus
>on Lesbia, in the original Latin, when
>I had merely quoted a Wordsworth poem
>about Lucy to illustrate the prevailing sense of
>disillusionment with the list,
>(thereby causing me to waste half a weekend
>identifying the quote a few weeks ago),
>this is clear proof that he does not have to hand
>a convenient Trotskyist critique of this area
>Leninism where he claims Stalin
>is most remarkably at variance with Lenin.
>And if Hugh does not have such a critique to hand,
>it does not exist.
He also shows uncharacteristic vigour here. Life in the old dog yet...
He'll get his critique in good time.
But if what Stalin wrote is so important, why doesn't Chris or any other
Stalinist *ever* quote Stalin's contemporary writings on the Chinese
revolution and the Kuomintang, or on the Nazi counterrevolution, or on
Spain 1936-39? Nothing but the abstract speechday stuff from Foundations of
Almost all the criticism posted against Stalin has been focused on what he
did and how that was totally at variance with what Lenin did and worked
for. Lenin's writings were closely correlated with his actions, as were
Trotsky's and earlier those of Marx and Engels. Stalin used words in a very
So, once again -- down, boy!
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism