Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:12:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Making Sense of Lenin,  Stalin & Ourselves


Louis Godena:
>
>But Louis,  a number of writers sympathetic to the Bolshevik Revolution have
>come essentially to the same conclusion as Professor Pipes; namely,  that
>Stalin was the logical heir to Lenin -- given both the vagaries of Russian
>history and the institutions created beginning 1917.    Prominent among them
>is our revered EH Carr who has more or less taken this view since the 1940s
>(see his review of *Stalin* by Isaac Deutscher in the *Times Literary
>Supplement* of June 10, 1949).    (Others who share this general perspective
>-- such as RW Davies,  Maurice Dobb,  and Jerry Hough --- while diverging
>amongst themselves on a number of pedagogical issues relating to the Soviet
>Union,   can hardly be said to be anti-communist: both Davies and Dobbs
>were,  in fact,  card-carrying members of the CPGB in the fifties).   

Louis Proyect:

I absolutely think that Carr and Deutscher's case is grounded in Marxist
theory. I haven't read Dobb, but I have a feeling that would be the same for
him as well. After all, Trotsky himself was pro-Stalin in the context of
being against Bukharin for some number of years.

Pipes, however, is not a Marxist. He is an anticommunist. I think that the
prospects of finding out anything new about the former Soviet Union by
taking on the Adam Ulams, Edward Luttwaks, Richard Pipes, etc. of this world
on this list are dim. This is where Ali the Iranian from Sweden wanted to
take us. This is also where Tim Wolforth, Justin Schwartz and Barkley Rosser
have tried to lead us from time to time. It didn't get very far, thank
goodness. It would blow this list sky-high.

Now for those of us who are pro-Lenin, the question comes up as to who is
the logical continuator of Lenin. Some comrades think that Stalin is; others
think that Trotsky is. My position is that this list simply can not bear up
under this type of discussion. I happen to think that Fidel Castro and Che
Guevara are the logical continuators of Lenin, but these folks are not
nearly as controversial. We have gotten comfortable with pro-Gonzalo
positions, pro-Mao positions and one pro-Tito position. Trying to make the
case for Stalin will lead to the same sort of head-banging cauterwauling
that used to greet Hugh Rodwell's interventions on behalf of Trotsky. I must
admit that I developed a dislike for the goateed, deceased revolutionist in
the course of arguing with his backers on m1 that I never would have dreamed of.

The whole Stalin-Trotsky busienss rapidly leads to a discussion of the
Moscow Trials, Trotsky's assassination and all the other garbage that used
to debase m-1. I think our best bet is to discover those areas of agreement
that bind us and work on the differences that we have among them and that we
can discuss in a comradely manner. These include the revolutionary potential
of the working-class, the market socialism problematic and a million other
things.

I once told Adolfo that a big debate on the Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin debate on
this list would be as welcome as hemorrhoid surgery. I still think that is true.





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---