Bukharin and Historical Materialism

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm no Bukharinist, i have no plans on ever becoming one and I certainly know his severe limitations (capitulation to Stalinism, "Socialism in One Country," "Market Socialism," etc.) but one criticism I've heard directed against Bukharin is that he was somewhat of a mechanical materialist. I've been reading his book on Historical Materialism and I must say its not all that bad (I haven't read it all, but it makes some good points). I particularly like his defense of historical materialism against teleology and fatalism (these are things, though, I've heard Bukharin accused of.) So, are the criticisms of Bukharin's fatalism and teleology jusitfied or not? For me its hard to say. I much prefer Labriola, but it seems that maybe Bukharin is condemned more than is deserved in his book on the sociology of Historical Materialism:

http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm