Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 09:01:10 +0100
Subject: Re: Stalin explained 1


I had sent this quickly as a marker on Friday morning about the 
terms of the debate, but I sent it from the wrong account so it
suffered from "non-member bounce", sorry Lisa. I like the term, BTW.


_________________________________________________


Hugh:
-----
 Chris opens up his defence of Stalinism with an interesting 
pirouette.

Chris B
-------
Thanks for replying Hugh. I was not sure whether this theme is 
one that people want to pursue here. I can well understand that many
might not.

I have only been able to skim your post this am and would not normally
want to respond instantly but I feel I have to comment on your 
first remark straight away. Whether it is an interesting pirouette
or not I simply to not accept the frame of reference you attribute
to me of a "defence" of what you call "Stalinism". 

I regard Stalinism and Trotskyism as two constructs that are in 
opposition and somehow in a dynamic unity with each other in the minds
of some people, which partially but only partially reflects actual
conflicts in the history of the real world. 

I think the Stalinism-Trotskyism conflict needs to be sublated and 
turned into history. Hopefully well-written history. 


Regards,

Chris




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---