Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 19:43:53 +0100 From: Jim <jim-AT-cag1.demon.co.uk> Subject: M-G: Re: M-I: On the April theses and Trotsky's lies Hugh's post was the predictable mixture of bluff, pomp, and nonsense. Amid all the insults and the evasions, not one word to explain the only question I posed: Why, if Lenin came over to the theory of Permanent Revolution, did he never write a single line saying just that? Why did he make no verbal admission either, outside of the alleged exchange with the Trotskyist Joffe? Hugh evades the question because he has no answer. The real answer, the obvious answer, he will not even contenance, because if he did then his whole theoretical edifice would crumble: Lenin didn't go over to the theory of permanent revolution at all. The April Theses do not mark a doctrinal shift, but are rather an evaluation of the stage of the revolution, *after* February, in which the main task had become the preparation for the next stage of the revolution. Throughout the April Theses, the idea of two stages remains. At no time does he go over to the "hopelessly leftist" position of the permanentists. Hugh bemoans the fact that I do not cite a date and a page reference for these comments by Lenin, and for Trotsky's comments on Lenin. Is he seriously denying their validity? Come on, now Hugh, you know better than that. Answer my question if you can. For communism Jim H --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005