Lenin looking down from heaven...

[fa2991]

A hypothetical:

If Lenin went up to heaven and looked down upon the Soviet Union from the time of his death until the time Trotsky was assassinated, whose side do you think he'd take: Stalin or Trotsky?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Terrible thread.

[bcbm]

why isn't this in history/trash/wherever the souls of aborted fetuses go?

[fa2991]

Terrible thread.

:D

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Heaven, eh?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Thats Comrade God to you.

[fa2991]

Heaven, eh?

:lol: Yeah. There was probably a (much) less stupid way to phrase the question, but it's late, so that's the best I could come up with.

[AK]

Our glorious leader Lenin peering down from the heavenly clouds to observe his great socialist paradise below? fapfapfap

[Tenka]

This is an eternally doomed topic.:(
Regardless, I think God-Lenin could not control his vomiting if he looked at the USSR from Khrushchev onwards.

[Kayser_Soso]

Who gives a shit?

[Saorsa]

Yeah. There was probably a (much) less stupid way to phrase the question, but it's late, so that's the best I could come up with.

Why didn't you just say "hey guys, do you think Lenin would have preferred Trotsky or Stalin to lead the USSR?"

[RED DAVE]

trotsky

The Testament of Lenin


By the stability of the Central Committee, of which I spoke before, I mean measures to prevent a split, so far as such measures can be taken. For, of course, the White Guard in Russkaya Mysl (I think it was S.E. Oldenburg) was right when, in the first place, in his play against Soviet Russia he banked on the hope of a split in our party, and when, in the second place, he banked for that split on serious disagreements in our party.

Our party rests upon two classes, and for that reason its instability is possible, and if there cannot exist an agreement between those classes its fall is inevitable. In such an event it would be useless to take any measures or in general to discuss the stability of our Central Committee. In such an event no measures would prove capable of preventing a split. But I trust that is too remote a future, and too improbable an event, to talk about.
I have in mind stability as a guarantee against a split in the near future, and I intend to examine here a series of considerations of a purely personal character.

I think that the fundamental factor in the matter of stability – from this point of view – is such members of the Central Committee as Stalin and Trotsky. The relation between them constitutes, in my opinion, a big half of the danger of that split, which might be avoided, and the avoidance of which might be promoted, in my opinion, by raising the number of members of the Central Committee to fifty or one hundred.

Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated an enormous power in his hands; and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution. On the other hand, Comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the People’s Commissariat of Ways and Communications, is distinguished not only by his exceptional abilities – personally he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee – but also by his too far-reaching self-confidence and a disposition to be too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affairs.

These two qualities of the two most able leaders of the present Central Committee might, quite innocently, lead to a split; if our party does not take measures to prevent it, a split might arise unexpectedly.

I will not further characterize the other members of the Central Committee as to their personal qualities. I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but that it ought as little to be used against them personally as the non-Bolshevism of Trotsky.

Of the younger members of the Central Committee, I want to say a few words about Bukharin and Pyatakov. They are, in my opinion, the most able forces (among the youngest) and in regard to them it is necessary to bear in mind the following: Bukharin is not only the most valuable and biggest theoretician of the party, but also may legitimately be considered the favorite of the whole party; but his theoretical views can only with the very greatest doubt be regarded as fully Marxist, for there is something scholastic in him (he never has learned, and I think never has fully understood, the dialectic).
And then Pyatakov – a man undoubtedly distinguished in will and ability, but too much given over to administration and the administrative side of things to be relied on in a serious political question.

Of course, both these remarks are made by me merely with a view to the present time, or supposing that these two able and loyal workers may not find an occasion to supplement their knowledge and correct their one-sidedness.

December 25, 1922

Postscript: Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely supportable in relations among us Communists, becomes insupportable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore, I propose to the comrades to find a way to remove Stalin from that position and appoint to it another man who in all respects differs from Stalin only in superiority – namely, more patient, more loyal, more polite and more attentive to comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may seem an insignificant trifle, but I think that from the point of view of preventing a split and from the point of view of the relation between Stalin and Trotsky which I discussed above, it is not a trifle, or it is such a trifle as may acquire a decisive significance.(emph. added)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/12/lenin.htm

RED DAVE

[ContrarianLemming]

trotsky

The Testament of Lenin

(emph. added)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/12/lenin.htm

RED DAVE


Don't ruin it..we're having a fine trolling here and you're trying to be serious..

[Devrim]

I think that the important point is not which leader was in control, but the fact that the working class wasn't.

Devrim

[bricolage]

I think that the important point is not which leader was in control, but the fact that the working class wasn't.
I also think its strange people try and justify who should have been in control based on what Lenin supposedly wanted, as if Lenin on his own had some sort of god given right to choose his successor.

[piet11111]

I also think its strange people try and justify who should have been in control based on what Lenin supposedly wanted, as if Lenin on his own had some sort of god given right to choose his successor.

Well had lenin be able to at least prevent stalin from taking power then that would have definitely been a positive change to history.

[Tifosi]

He would give his support to anyone that wanted to put his weird long dead body 6 feet under, he doesn't like all those chemicals in his bath:D.

[Kiev Communard]

Frankly this is quite naive question. To begin with, Lenin had profound political disagreements with both Stalin and Trotsky. He thought Stalin was too rigid and bureaucratic in his attitude to the Party building, suspecting him of Great Russian chauvinism after the Georgian Affair of 1922, while Trotsky's stance on Trade Unions question earned him Lenin's criticism in the speech charasterically highlighted The Trade Unions, the Present Situation and Trotsky's Mistakes, so I doubt he ever viewed any of them as his "successor" as Stalin's or Trotsky's fans respectively claim to this day.

Secondly, Lenin was an atheist and as such could not look down from the Heaven;) ...

[Hit The North]

Secondly, Lenin was an atheist and as such could not look down from the Heaven;) ...

That's right. As an atheist and a communist, he would have been consigned to Hell.

Moved to Chit Chat.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think that the important point is not which leader was in control, but the fact that the working class wasn't.

Devrim

I agree. It is partly for this reason that I am neither a dogmatic orthodox Maoist nor a dogmatic orthodox Trotskyist. Rather than concentrating on squabbling over history, I'm more concerned with genuine worker's democracy.

Nowadays both Trotskyists and Maoists claim that they support worker's democracy. Contemporary Maoism in China tends to be a bit more critical of Stalin than old Maoism. There was an article written in Chinese by a contemporary Maoist titled: "Without complete democracy, socialism is surely to be betrayed". So as far as I'm concerned as long as they genuinely support worker's democracy, I can give my political support to both Maoists and Trotskyists. I'm really not sectarian.

[28350]

The legitimacy of Lenin's successors is not determined by his preferences, but by our estimation

[fa2991]

Why didn't you just say "hey guys, do you think Lenin would have preferred Trotsky or Stalin to lead the USSR?"

:lol: Where were you last night at 3 o' clock when I needed you, Alastair?

I think the question I'm asking is a little different from just who he would have preferred to lead, because I think it's clear he wanted Trotsky on his deathbed. Who he wanted then could be different from who he wanted after experiencing decades of the Stalin/Trotsky feud, the world war, Trotsky's writings, Stalin's tactics... which is why this a hypothetical, not a call to just post the letter where he calls Stalin rude. :)


I also think its strange people try and justify who should have been in control based on what Lenin supposedly wanted, as if Lenin on his own had some sort of god given right to choose his successor. Well, I think it does matter, as both Stalin and Trotsky to some extent staked their claims to having the right to lead on their respective claims to being the direct heirs of Lenin's thought.


Secondly, Lenin was an atheist and as such could not look down from the Heaven;) ... Do you have a better metaphor that would give Lenin power to see and know events that happened decades after his death? :D

"A hypothetical:

Lenin comes alive as a zombie, but only at night when no one is around, and he uses his glass tomb as a magic crystal ball to see everything that happens for the next few decades - whose side do you think he would have taken, Trotsky or Stalin?" :p

[Kiev Communard]

Do you have a better metaphor that would give Lenin power to see and know events that happened decades after his death? :D

"A hypothetical:

Lenin comes alive as a zombie, but only at night when no one is around, and he uses his glass tomb as a magic crystal ball to see everything that happens for the next few decades - whose side do you think he would have taken, Trotsky or Stalin?" :p

Yes, that was much better, especially from the purely literary point of view :D.

[ContrarianLemming]

I agree. It is partly for this reason that I am neither a dogmatic orthodox Maoist nor a dogmatic orthodox Trotskyist. Rather than concentrating on squabbling over history, I'm more concerned with genuine worker's democracy.

Nowadays both Trotskyists and Maoists claim that they support worker's democracy. Contemporary Maoism in China tends to be a bit more critical of Stalin than old Maoism. There was an article written in Chinese by a contemporary Maoist titled: "Without complete democracy, socialism is surely to be betrayed". So as far as I'm concerned as long as they genuinely support worker's democracy, I can give my political support to both Maoists and Trotskyists. I'm really not sectarian.

you dont belong here

[Queercommie Girl]

you dont belong here

Why not? And why should my status here be determined by a nobody like you?

[The Red Next Door]

Why do we have these stupid stalin and trotsky thread. who cares, they both are looking at grass and dirt.

[Imposter Marxist]

Neither. Lenin wanted ME to be in charge.

[NecroCommie]

Lenin would defeat god in a glorious duel! He would then mop the floor with satan and proceed to the throne of global soviet union himself.

[Il Medico]

Neither. Lenin wanted ME to be in charge.
No. You are a revisionist, our glorious god Lenin would have wanted me! in charge.

[Tenka]

– namely, more patient, more loyal, more polite and more attentive to comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may seem an insignificant trifle, but
No, no. You can stop there. It doesn't matter what your batshit wife thinks of him.;)

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/9qoFGWbygh8yop21yPN5Sc6Oo1_400.jpg

[AK]

you dont belong here
What, because she isn't a sectarian like the rest of us here? :lol:

[Kuppo Shakur]

What, because she isn't a sectarian like the rest of us here? :lol:
I'm pretty sure he was joking, and that was exactly the joke.