Jose G. Perez
jgperez at SPAMfreepcmail.com
Mon Dec 6 09:27:33 MST 1999
>>Have been looking at some of the Bukharin materials for other reasons.
Seems like a bright guy.
>>Why is he so notably absent in American leftish literature? A web
search turns up very little. If he is so influential what's the deal?<<
Don't know that that many of Bukharin's followers survived the purges of
the 1930s. Generally, all the old Bolsheviks were killed, including not just
followers of Bukharin and other "oppositionists" but many of Stalin's own
As to why Bukharin is so little prominent today, to the extent that
there was an international current around him (represented in the U.S. by
Lovestone, for example) they all tended to abandon a communist perspective
and drift into social democracy. A section were also re-absorbed by the
Stalinists when Moscow abandoned the "third period" ultraleftism for the
popular fronts of the 1930s. Bukharinism as a current in the world working
class or communist movement was extinguished more than 60 years ago.
From: jnstewart at email@example.com
<jnstewart at firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: marxism at lists.panix.com <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 11:42 AM
> Realizing that American communists have been polarized along the
>Trotsky-Stalin dichotomy, I noted a paper, which I have not got in front of
>me now, in which the argument was made that Stalin put all of the
>Bukharinists in the pokey until after the war when he actually needed them
>to run the country. This interpretation held, as I understand it, that
>Bukharin represented a sort of pragmatic approach which wound up as the
>stream after the mid fifties.
> Have been looking at some of the Bukharin materials for other reasons.
>Seems like a bright guy.
> Why is he so notably absent in American leftish literature? A web
>search turns up very little. If he is so influential what's the deal?
More information about the Marxism