Who did Lenin want as successor?

[Drace]

I was reading the book "Another View of Stalin" and it points out that Trotsky was in full opposition to the Bolsheviks, arguing that Lenin did not want him to succeed him.

According to this however, Lenin did not want Stalin either...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm

[LOLseph Stalin]

You're quite correct. Lenin didn't want either Stalin or Trotsky succeeding him. He saw Stalin as "rude" and various other things. With Trotsky it was likely the opposition issue.

[Nils T.]

I would be more curious about who the russian proletariat wanted to succeed stalin, and why.

[RedSonRising]

I've read that he favored Trotsky over Stalin, especially because of the personal insults Stalin made to Lenin's wife, though to be honest favoring over another does not necessarily mean ultimate choice.

[Q]

Lenin's critique on Trotsky was that he was too formal at times, but besides that an excellent comrade.

Also, "Another view on Stalin" was written by Ludo Martens, an avid Stalinist/Maoist from Belgium.

[RedAnarchist]

Why would Lenin's views on who he wanted as his successor be the final say? He wasn't a monarch. It should have been up to the Soviet workers.

[KC]

I was reading the book "Another View of Stalin"

Well there's your problem.

[Prairie Fire]

(Sigh)

Every now and again, I see this discussion pop-up, both here on revleft and elsewhere.

Maybe it's me, but I didn't realize that the Soviet Union was a feudal aristocracy, nor that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was a fiefdom passed down through a unilaterally decided line of succession :rolleyes:.

Many Trots make this argument, that "Trotsky should have been Lenin's heir" (some of them even use the word "heir", as though the worlds first socialist state was a family heirloom :lol:). This shows total contempt for party process and models of workers democracy.



He saw Stalin as "rude" and various other things


Because Stalin was rude to his wife. How does being "rude" invalidate a persyn as a leadership candidate? I work with several comrades who have no people skills, but they are still talented at what they do.


Also, "Another view on Stalin" was written by Ludo Martens, an avid Stalinist/Maoist from Belgium.

What's your point?

This is a typical argument that I encounter: a pro-Stalin information source is somehow "invalid" because it is written by a supporter of Stalin.

I always counter that how could anyone who knows the truth about the Stalin era of the Soviet Union remain neutral, let alone not become a steadfast stalin supporter?

Ever consider that Ludo Martens, and others, are so called "Stalinists" precisely because of the evidence the research that they have done, which they share in their works? I know that this was the case for me.

[BobKKKindle$]

What is commonly referred to as "Lenin's Testament" is actually an advisory document containing comments on each Bolshevik leader, that was never intended to serve as a firm statement of opinion on who should have "succeeded" Lenin - presumably as leader of the Bolshevik party. The basic notion that Lenin was able to nominate a successor for any given post and force the entire party to abide by his decisions is absurd because, despite the intensifying bureaucratic degeneration suffered during the 1920s by both the party and the state apparatus, resulting from the defeats of the Civil War, all decisions inside the Bolshevik party were passed through a process of democratic discussion and voting, whereby - at least prior to the ban on factions - dissenting opinions could be voiced, and were listened to. Despite the claims of bourgeois historians, the Bolshevik party was always intended to be a genuinely democratic and pluralist body, and this is reflected in the discussions surrounding the imperialist war with Germany shortly after the Bolsheviks had taken power in 1917, because Lenin only won the rest of his party over to his own position (that a peace treaty should be signed regardless of the territorial cost) after an extended period of struggle and debate, most notably against Bukharin, who wanted the war to be transformed into a revolutionary war, designed to spread socialism at the point of a bayonet. As PF points, the whole concept of a "succession" is silly, and shows an ignorance of how the Bolshevik party functioned. This is not to say that Lenin was a huge fan of Stalin, or that Stalin being able to attain power was advantageous for the Soviet proletariat, but this should not be the basis of our criticisms against Stalin.

[KurtFF8]

(This should be in history)

[Le Libérer]

Moved to history.

[ComradeOm]

See this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-and-trotskyists-t90312/index.html?t=90312&highlight=trotsky) and this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1248865&postcount=6)


Why would Lenin's views on who he wanted as his successor be the final say? He wasn't a monarch. It should have been up to the Soviet workers.It was. To quote one one of the above, "the position of Chairman of Sovnarkom was an elected one - following Lenin's death his actual successor Rykov was voted into the position"

[Panda Tse Tung]

You're quite correct. Lenin didn't want either Stalin or Trotsky succeeding him. He saw Stalin as "rude" and various other things. With Trotsky it was likely the opposition issue.
Actually he called Trotsky a bureaucrat. And he was pissed off at Stalin over Stalins fights with his wife (as was pointed out). Also as an addition to Bob, elections we're held and Trotsky lost them big time.

[Tower of Bebel]

This thread should be closed. One says all arguements are "bourgeois propaganda" derived from bourgeois sources, the other says it stems from the "Stalin school of falsification". Either way, in case of Revleft there is no definite answer. I searched the forum for some threads (covering Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin; Lenin's testament, personal relations, blablabla...)

Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/true-ruler-soviet-t99899/index.html?&highlight=lenin+stalin+trotsky+testament)
Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-and-trotskyists-t90312/index.html?&highlight=lenin+stalin+trotsky+testament)
Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-vs-lenin-t48859/index.html?t=48859&highlight=lenin+stalin+trotsky+testament)
Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/if-ii-t75564/index.html?t=75564&highlight=lenin+stalin+trotsky+testament)
Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/relations-between-lenin-t40092/index2.html?highlight=lenin+stalin+trotsky+testame nt)

Oldies:
Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-39-s-t22885/index.html?&highlight=lenin+stalin+trotsky+testament)
Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/whom-did-lenin-t5106/index.html?t=5106&highlight=lenin+stalin+trotsky+testament)
Thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-did-he-t5342/index.html?&highlight=lenin+stalin+trotsky+testament)

[Charles Xavier]

I don't care if Lenin wanted Micky Mouse to be his successor, its not a monarchy, its a democracy, the members decide.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yeah but micky mouse woulda been pretty bad ass.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I think it is important to note that Lenin's revolutionary world view, especially towards the end of his life, on the importance of colonial struggle of the 'East' diverged quite remarkably from Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' which placed the strategic significance on Europe.

Trotsky and Lenin had butted heads on this issue before, mainly because of Trotsky's obstinance. Trotsky wanted to continue fighting Germany during WW1 in order to provoke the German proletariat to revolution. The Russian masses hated the war and wanted out. Lenin had to threaten to quit the Bolsheviks in order to bring the Trotsky-led opposition around and conclude an immediate peace deal.

That said, towards the end of his life, Lenin saw Trotsky as an effective counter-bloc to Stalin- and upon this basis elevated him within the eyes of the party. Too little too late though. Stalin was more popular amongst the party, and was able to route Trotsky on several issues, ending in his eventual purging.

[Dimentio]

double post

[Revy]

Why would Lenin's views on who he wanted as his successor be the final say? He wasn't a monarch. It should have been up to the Soviet workers.

Exactly, it should have been up to the Soviet workers, but it wasn't. Nevertheless, Lenin's views would have played a decisive role but Lenin's Testament wasn't revealed at all, because it was deliberately prevented from being revealed by Stalin, who already at that time was General Secretary of the party. It was Lenin who wrote that Stalin should have been removed from that position, and that he was rude and power-hungry.

If the successor was chosen democratically, and the testament revealed, the testament would have had great sway in leading the vote away from Stalin. But Stalin, as head of the party was already poised for that power (Stalin did not take over Lenin's post, rather, it was Stalin's post, General Secretary, was elevated to the power of Lenin's) and could already use his power against his opponents.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Stalin offered to step down but the CC refused the offer.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Central Committee. Perhaps it was the Poliburo.

[muzzle]

I'm doing a course on the October Revolution. And I'm doing a paper on 'who is Lenin's heir?' any thoughts? Does anyone know any good works on the subject?

Most people would argue Trotsky, I assume

[Q]

See this most recent thread on the sbject (http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-lenin-want-t104793/index.html).

Can this be closed?

[Q]

I think it is important to note that Lenin's revolutionary world view, especially towards the end of his life, on the importance of colonial struggle of the 'East' diverged quite remarkably from Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' which placed the strategic significance on Europe.

Trotsky and Lenin had butted heads on this issue before, mainly because of Trotsky's obstinance. Trotsky wanted to continue fighting Germany during WW1 in order to provoke the German proletariat to revolution. The Russian masses hated the war and wanted out. Lenin had to threaten to quit the Bolsheviks in order to bring the Trotsky-led opposition around and conclude an immediate peace deal.

That said, towards the end of his life, Lenin saw Trotsky as an effective counter-bloc to Stalin- and upon this basis elevated him within the eyes of the party. Too little too late though. Stalin was more popular amongst the party, and was able to route Trotsky on several issues, ending in his eventual purging.

Sorry, but you have your historical facts quite wrong. To note just one detail: Trotsky headed the peacetalks with the Germans which culminated in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/05/brestlitovsk.htm).

[Led Zeppelin]

I'll merge the threads.

[ComradeOm]

Sorry, but you have your historical facts quite wrong. To note just one detail: Trotsky headed the peacetalks with the Germans which culminated in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/05/brestlitovsk.htm).AvanteRedGarde's thrust is broadly correct, if the details largely incorrect. Trotsky did in fact disagree with Lenin (who wanted an immediate peace) and Bukharin (who called for a revolutionary war into Europe). His own compromise position was the idiotic one of "no war, no peace" which saw the Bolsheviks simply walk away from the peace talks. This simply led to a renewed German offensive and finally an acceptance by the Party of Lenin's position which resulted in much worse peace terms than if the treaty had been initially accepted

[Led Zeppelin]

AvanteRedGarde's thrust is broadly correct, if the details largely incorrect. Trotsky did in fact disagree with Lenin (who wanted an immediate peace) and Bukharin (who called for a revolutionary war into Europe). His own compromise position was the idiotic one of "no war, no peace" which saw the Bolsheviks simply walk away from the peace talks. This simply led to a renewed German offensive and finally an acceptance by the Party of Lenin's position which resulted in much worse peace terms than if the treaty had been initially accepted

He had a reason for his position: If they had signed a peace-treaty with the Germans it would come as a terrible moral blow to the revolutionary movement of the West, especially Germany, so he wanted to make sure to drag on the proceedings as much as possible.

He also thought that the Germans weren't able to carry out a major offensive anymore.

In hindsight he was wrong, but then again, in hindsight he was right when he called for the offensive on Poland to be stopped and Lenin supported its continuation. I wouldn't say that Lenin had a "idiotic position" on that issue, he was simply wrong and miscalculated the situation, just as Trotsky did at Brest-Litovsk.

[ComradeOm]

Naturally "idiotic" is a matter of opinion but personally I feel the scale (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Armisticebrestlitovsk.jpg) of this mistake warrants the tag. Trotsky was wrong in the assumption that the Germans would not call his bluff and he was wrong in that assumption that a renewed offensive would have any impact at all in the West. The negotiations could not be stalled any longer and it was a matter of either accepting peace or try (no doubt futilely) to fight... what Trotsky chose was a third option which, while admirable in its sheer chutzpah, effectively amounted to what Lenin dismissed as "a piece of international political showmanship"

The error was then compounded when, following the announcement that the German advance would continue, Trotsky voted against Lenin's CC motion on 17 Feb for an immediate peace. Instead he proposed, and had accepted by the CC, that the Soviets would not declare their willingness to sue for peace until after the German offensive had resumed in the vain hope that revolution might break out in Germany

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, yes, as I said as well, he was proven to be wrong. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

Anywho, could you please source that Lenin quote? I'd be interested in reading the article/book it is from. :)

[ComradeOm]

Anywho, could you please source that Lenin quote? I'd be interested in reading the article/book it is from. :)Figes mentions it in A People's Tragedy but I have seen it before (Swain's Trotsky springs to mind). It appears to be an archival source from the CC meeting in which the discussion took place

In fact, a quick google search found this Word file (www.mml.cam.ac.uk/slavonic/courses/ugrad/schpapers/RU2Texts.doc) (see pg 10) which appears to be a partially translated copy of the minutes of that meeting!

[Matina]

You're quite correct. Lenin didn't want either Stalin or Trotsky succeeding him. He saw Stalin as "rude" and various other things. With Trotsky it was likely the opposition issue.

What opposition issue? Lenin and Trotsky were in complete agreement, there was no left-opposition during Lenin's time. Even if you are a Stalinist and you think that Trotsky was not in agreement, you cannot disagree that there was NO left-opposition, as this is a fact!

In fact Lenin had every right to recommend someone for the leadership of the Soviet Union, everyone had the right to recommend people for the leadership and the fact is that Lenin's opinion would count more than let's say someone who just joined the party. Except if you don't want people to have opinions or put forward recommendations.

According to Lenin's testament, the only fault that Lenin found on Trotsky was that he was too confident of himself. He did not think that Trotsky was a bureaucrat as some people have said above. Lenin had a particular dislike of bureaucrats. He would not agree with a "bureaucrat" (in the sense that Lenin used the term), to be the head of the Commissariat of War, or the one of Foreign Affairs.

Unlike what Stalinists claim, it is not an attribute of a "kingdom" to recommend a successor. Lenin had every right to do so and the fact is that he wanted Trotsky to be his successor rather than anyone else. Besides Lenin had offered Trotsky to be the head of the Soviet Union instead of him, but Trotsky refused as that would give a base for the critics to "confirm" their ridiculous propaganda that the October Revolution was made by Jews (yes it was the whites who invented that, not Hitler).

[spritely]

After 40+ years of these conversations, allow me to say on behalf of people who work for a living everywhere: Who cares?