On 2012-10-09, at 8:18 PM, c b wrote:
> I disagree that the Soviet Union could do anything much to foster
> revolutions in other countries, a la Trotsky, because the Communists
> in those countries would be defeated on the basis of nationalism and
> interference in other their country by a foreign power. Stalin's or
> Trotsky's fomenting revolution in other countries would have been a
> kiss of death for the Communists in those countries. That happened
> anyway, but Stalin and them were conscious that Soviet agitation in
> other countries would have made it certain to happen.
Who are you arguing with? I suggested that a more active policy to promote social revolution in Germany, Spain, and elsewhere in Europe would have caused the liberal democratic states to suppress their differences with the fascists and engage the Soviet Union (and its CP supporters throughout Europe) in a counter-revolutionary war. It was an objective problem, "which would have confronted any Soviet leadership (Stalinist, Trotskyist, or Bukharinist)." It had less to do with the character of the Stalinist leadership "than that the bourgeoisie, with the benefit of a more developed (albeit crisis-ridden) economy and the assistance of the mass labour and social democratic parties, was able to contain the revolutionary left" in the advanced capitalist countries. Are you saying anything different above?