Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:36:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Philip Goldstein <pgold-AT-strauss.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: Russia, Marx, Stalin


	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


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