Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 19:48:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bryan A Case <godwin-AT-umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Russia, Marx, Stalin


Althusser also makes this point in "On the Materialist Dialectic" 
(1963).  Relying a bit on Lenin and Mao rather than Trotsky Althusser 
argues that Russian development progressed more slowly than any of the 
other critical societies (hence Lenin's 'weakest link' discussion).  The 
unevenness of development *within* the Russian empire led to a 
convergence of forces normally kept apart; this confrontation generated 1917.



--Bryan A. Case a/k/a Bryan.Case-AT-um.cc.umich.edu a/k/a godwin-AT-umich.edu--
	"I have come to die for your sins," Jesus told a stooped figure
passing him on the road. 
	"Then what am I to die for?" the old man asked.
	Jesus took a small notebook from his pocket and copied the 
question.  "If I may have your name and address," he said, "an answer 
will be sent to you."
				-A.J. Langguth, JESUS CHRISTS

On Thu, 11 Aug 1994, Philip Goldstein wrote:

> 	Thanks, Alex Trotter, for the comparison of Marx's historical 
> schema and Stalin's. Totalitarian theorists and LaClau and Mouffe have 
> worked this comparison out in great detail. A whole series of books 
> taught in Political Science Departments, especially, and including 
> _Communism_ by Meyer or titles like Communism, Liberalism, Democracy, or 
> The Three Isms, argue that Marx invented or produced an account of 
> history in which communism was inevitable. Despite Marx's humanism and 
> theoretical sophistication, this "scientific" account of history's 
> necessary development of communism led to Lenin and Stalin. 
> 	The best critique of this view is LaClau and Mouffe's, I think. 
> They show that what actually permitted the Russian revolution was what 
> Trotsky called uneven or mixed development, whereby representatives of 
> what the classical schema called distinct historical stages were together 
> at the same time. In particular the Russian revolution gave the 
> workingclass the identity of the bourgeoisie, who were supposed to 
> industrialize society, educate it, and produce democratic conditions. The 
> historical schema don't explain what the Russian workingclass actually 
> did or what it became. 
> 	I forgot to sign my explanation of Lewin's views. Sorry
> Philip Goldstein
> 


     ------------------