File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9707, message 137


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Hugh bemoans the fact that I do not cite a date and a page reference for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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005