Need help choosing a good book

[Red Storm]

Greetings all. I am new here and though I am not to sure of just exactly where I belong I am glad to be here. I define myself as revolutionary socialist and have read quite a bit of literature and books on Marx, Engels, and communism. I am getting ready to go on a long trip and need to find a good read to occupy my time constructively. So I was hoping someone could recommend a long or thick book that covers the subject of Socialism, imperialism, etc.. Something like the Complete Works of Karl Marx would work nicely but I thought maybe someone could offer up a better idea. Thank you for your time.

[daft punk]

My Life by Trotsky

[The Idler]

A People's History of the World by Chris Harman
Marx and the Alternative to Capitalism by Kieran Allen

[Bostana]

"The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels

[Omsk]

John Engles

Typo comrade.

[Ostrinski]

My Life by TrotskyYou're kidding. You couldn't even recommend any of his theoretical work? Christ.

[Bostana]

Typo comrade.

Fixed it

[Ostrinski]

Fixed itI'm pretty sure the incorrect first name, and not the misspelling of of Engels was what Omsk was pointing out.

[Ostrinski]

Anyway, you could get the Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert Tucker. It's pretty big, has a healthy amount of Marx's and Engels's writings.

[Decolonize The Left]

Greetings all. I am new here and though I am not to sure of just exactly where I belong I am glad to be here. I define myself as revolutionary socialist and have read quite a bit of literature and books on Marx, Engels, and communism. I am getting ready to go on a long trip and need to find a good read to occupy my time constructively. So I was hoping someone could recommend a long or thick book that covers the subject of Socialism, imperialism, etc.. Something like the Complete Works of Karl Marx would work nicely but I thought maybe someone could offer up a better idea. Thank you for your time.

I would steer clear of any "complete" works for now. You're much better off going for the Marx-Engels Reader or something like that. You can couple that with any number of more specific books by specific authors (like Trotsky, Luxembourg, etc..) for a broader theoretical scope if you like.

- August

[TrotskistMarx]

DEAR SOCIALIST FRIEND TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE EVIL CAPITALIST SYSTEM !! I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GET INTO A BOOK-READING ROUTINE, FOR SOME MONTHS OR YEARS. THIS BOOK-READING LIST HERE WILL TRANSFORM YOU INTO A MARXIST-SUPERMAN, YOU WILL EXPERIENCE A METAMORPHOSIS FROM REGULAR JOES AND JANES TO HEROES, OLYMPIC HEROES DESTINED FOR A VERY HIGH GOAL OF SAVING USA FROM THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM WHICH IS THE POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT IT IS OPRESSING THE GREAT MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD.

ACCORDING TO MY STUDIES OF PHILOSOPHY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, HISTORY AND THE BIOGRAPHIES OF REVOLUTIONARIES, THESE ARE THE BEST WRITTERS TO TURN YOU INTO A POWERFUL REVOLUTIONARY. SO PLEASE GO TO http://www.amazon.com/, ANOTHER GOOD PLACE FOR FREE WHOLE BOOKS FROM THESE PHILOSOPHERS IS http://www.marxists.org

SO BUY ALL THE BOOKS WRITTEN BY THESE WRITTERS: KARL MARX, VLADIMIR LENIN, JOSEPH STALIN, MAO TSE TUNG, NICHOLAS MACHIAVELLI, FREDRICH NIETZSCHE (BUY ALL HIS BOOKS, THE PHILOSOPHER OF THE SUPERMAN, VERY IMPORTANT), ROBERT GREENE THE WRITTER OF THE BOOK "THE 48 LAWS OF POWER", PLATO, ARISTOTLE, HEGEL, LUDWIG FEUERBACH, LEON TROTSKY, THUCYDIDES, MONTESQUIEU, LA ROCHEFOUCAULD, BLAISE PASCAL, HOMER, MICHAEL FOUCAULT, SWIFT, LESSING, MIRABEAU, GALIANI, FRANZ KAFKA, ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER, HERDER, DOSTOYESVKY, HOMER, VICTOR HUGO, KANT, ROUSSEAU, JACK KEROUACK, VOLTAIRE, SPINOZA, LESAGE, REGNARD, DANCOURT, GALIANI, GOETHE, PROSPER MERIMEE, ARTHUR RIMBAUD, ANTHONY ARTAUD, MONTAIGNE, GUSTAVE FLABUERT, BERKELEY, WITTINGSTEIN, JOSE INGENIEROS, MIGUEL UNAMUNOS, FERNANDO SAVATER, JOSE ORTEGA Y GASSET, LOPE DE VEGA, HABERMAS, MARCUSE, DERRIDA, THEODORE ADORNO, DELEUZE, ALBERT CAMUS, ALDOUS HUXLEY, CARL JUNG, WILLIAM BLAKE, WILLIAM JAMES, ALLEN GINGSBERG, MICHAEL MCCLURE, HENRY DAVID THOREAU, HERDEGGER, MONTAIGNE, THOMAS PAYNE, EDGAR ALLAN POE, HENRY MILLER, RALPH WALDO EMERSON, JOHN STEINBECK, CHARLES BAUDELIERE, EDUARDO GALEANO, WILLIAM SHAKESPERE, GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ, OCTAVIO PAZ, MIGUEL CERVANTES, FEDERICO GARCIA LORCA

HERE IS ANOTHER LIST OF BOOK-WRITTERS THAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN http://www.marxists.org AND http://marxists.org/archive/selected-marxists.htm OR BUY THEM FROM http://www.amazon.com/ Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Trotsky, Allan Maass, Gramsci, Karl Kautsky, Daniel Deleon, Clara Zetkin, James Connolly, Rosa Luxemburg, Alexandra Kollontai, Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch, José Carlos Mariátegui, CLR James, Ted Grant, Sam Marcy, Tom Engelhardt, Bob Avakian, Fred Goldstein, Chris Hedges, Michael Parenti, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, George Padmore, Hal Draper, Paul Mattick, Paul Lafargue, Paul Craig Roberts, James Petras, Joe Bageant

BUY THE BIOGRAPHIES OF: THOMAS PAYNE, VLADIMIR LENNIN, BUENAVENTURA DURRUTI, PATRICK HENRY, JULIUS CAESAR, NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, HUGO CHAVEZ (WRITTEN BY ALEYDA GUEVARA, CHE GUEVARA'S DAUGHTER), CHE GUEVARA, FIDEL CASTRO, GEORGE WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, MALCOM X, FRED HAMPTON, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JIM MORRISON, ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

AND LISTEN TO THE MUSIC OF: ICE T, MOLOTOV, MOLOTOV U.K.S, TOOL, RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE, TRACEY CHAPMAN, MELVINS, SUICIDAL TENDENCIES, SUBHUMANS, THE SEX PISTOLS, NIRVANA, THE DOORS, THE WHO, PINK FLOYD, JIMMY HENDRIX, SNOOP DOGGY DOG, SILVIO RODRIGUEZ, ALI PRIMERA, SOUNDGARDEN, JANES ADDICTION, NINE INCH NAILS, SYSTEM OF A DOWN, ALICE IN CHAINS, COLLECTIVE SOUL, DINOSAUR JR., OUR LADY PEACE, AFGHAN WHIGS, U2, THE POLICE, STING, GENESIS, GREEN DAY, PUNK ROCK, AND VERY REBELLIOUS MUSIC IN ORDER TO ELEVATE THE REVOLUTIONARY INSTINCTS AND WILL TO POWER IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE CAPITALIST CLASS !!

THESE REALIST THINKERS, AND PHILOSOPHERS AND MUSICIANS WILL GIVE LEFTISTS, PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS THE NECESSARY EMOTIONAL, SPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL POWER NEEDED IN ORDER TO DESTROY AND OVERTHROW THE UNFAIR OLIGARCHIC CAPITALIST SYSTEM . BECAUSE AS NIETZSCHE SAID: "AS A TOOL OF POWER WORKS KNOWLEDGE, A REALITY THAT GROWS AS POWER GROWS"

PS: SORRY I WROTE THIS IN CAPS, I TOOK COPIED FROM A TEXT DOCUMENT I HAD IN MY COMPUTER. I HOPE YOU LIKED THIS LIST OF BOOK WRITTERS, OF PHILOSOPHY, MARXISM AND SOCIALISM. THANKS !!

HAVE A GOOD TIME WITH YOUR READING !!

.




Greetings all. I am new here and though I am not to sure of just exactly where I belong I am glad to be here. I define myself as revolutionary socialist and have read quite a bit of literature and books on Marx, Engels, and communism. I am getting ready to go on a long trip and need to find a good read to occupy my time constructively. So I was hoping someone could recommend a long or thick book that covers the subject of Socialism, imperialism, etc.. Something like the Complete Works of Karl Marx would work nicely but I thought maybe someone could offer up a better idea. Thank you for your time.

[Tim Cornelis]

DEAR SOCIALIST FRIEND TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE EVIL CAPITALIST SYSTEM !! I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GET INTO A BOOK-READING ROUTINE, FOR SOME MONTHS OR YEARS. THIS BOOK-READING LIST HERE WILL TRANSFORM YOU INTO A MARXIST-SUPERMAN, YOU WILL EXPERIENCE A METAMORPHOSIS FROM REGULAR JOES AND JANES TO HEROES, OLYMPIC HEROES DESTINED FOR A VERY HIGH GOAL OF SAVING USA FROM THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM WHICH IS THE POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT IT IS OPRESSING THE GREAT MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD.

ACCORDING TO MY STUDIES OF PHILOSOPHY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, HISTORY AND THE BIOGRAPHIES OF REVOLUTIONARIES, THESE ARE THE BEST WRITTERS TO TURN YOU INTO A POWERFUL REVOLUTIONARY. SO PLEASE GO TO http://www.amazon.com/, ANOTHER GOOD PLACE FOR FREE WHOLE BOOKS FROM THESE PHILOSOPHERS IS http://www.marxists.org

SO BUY ALL THE BOOKS WRITTEN BY THESE WRITTERS: KARL MARX, VLADIMIR LENIN, JOSEPH STALIN, MAO TSE TUNG, NICHOLAS MACHIAVELLI, FREDRICH NIETZSCHE (BUY ALL HIS BOOKS, THE PHILOSOPHER OF THE SUPERMAN, VERY IMPORTANT), ROBERT GREENE THE WRITTER OF THE BOOK "THE 48 LAWS OF POWER", PLATO, ARISTOTLE, HEGEL, LUDWIG FEUERBACH, LEON TROTSKY, THUCYDIDES, MONTESQUIEU, LA ROCHEFOUCAULD, BLAISE PASCAL, HOMER, MICHAEL FOUCAULT, SWIFT, LESSING, MIRABEAU, GALIANI, FRANZ KAFKA, ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER, HERDER, DOSTOYESVKY, HOMER, VICTOR HUGO, KANT, ROUSSEAU, JACK KEROUACK, VOLTAIRE, SPINOZA, LESAGE, REGNARD, DANCOURT, GALIANI, GOETHE, PROSPER MERIMEE, ARTHUR RIMBAUD, ANTHONY ARTAUD, MONTAIGNE, GUSTAVE FLABUERT, BERKELEY, WITTINGSTEIN, JOSE INGENIEROS, MIGUEL UNAMUNOS, FERNANDO SAVATER, JOSE ORTEGA Y GASSET, LOPE DE VEGA, HABERMAS, MARCUSE, DERRIDA, THEODORE ADORNO, DELEUZE, ALBERT CAMUS, ALDOUS HUXLEY, CARL JUNG, WILLIAM BLAKE, WILLIAM JAMES, ALLEN GINGSBERG, MICHAEL MCCLURE, HENRY DAVID THOREAU, HERDEGGER, MONTAIGNE, THOMAS PAYNE, EDGAR ALLAN POE, HENRY MILLER, RALPH WALDO EMERSON, JOHN STEINBECK, CHARLES BAUDELIERE, EDUARDO GALEANO, WILLIAM SHAKESPERE, GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ, OCTAVIO PAZ, MIGUEL CERVANTES, FEDERICO GARCIA LORCA

HERE IS ANOTHER LIST OF BOOK-WRITTERS THAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN http://www.marxists.org AND http://marxists.org/archive/selected-marxists.htm OR BUY THEM FROM http://www.amazon.com/ Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Trotsky, Allan Maass, Gramsci, Karl Kautsky, Daniel Deleon, Clara Zetkin, James Connolly, Rosa Luxemburg, Alexandra Kollontai, Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch, José Carlos Mariátegui, CLR James, Ted Grant, Sam Marcy, Tom Engelhardt, Bob Avakian, Fred Goldstein, Chris Hedges, Michael Parenti, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, George Padmore, Hal Draper, Paul Mattick, Paul Lafargue, Paul Craig Roberts, James Petras, Joe Bageant

BUY THE BIOGRAPHIES OF: THOMAS PAYNE, VLADIMIR LENNIN, BUENAVENTURA DURRUTI, PATRICK HENRY, JULIUS CAESAR, NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, HUGO CHAVEZ (WRITTEN BY ALEYDA GUEVARA, CHE GUEVARA'S DAUGHTER), CHE GUEVARA, FIDEL CASTRO, GEORGE WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, MALCOM X, FRED HAMPTON, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JIM MORRISON, ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

AND LISTEN TO THE MUSIC OF: ICE T, MOLOTOV, MOLOTOV U.K.S, TOOL, RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE, TRACEY CHAPMAN, MELVINS, SUICIDAL TENDENCIES, SUBHUMANS, THE SEX PISTOLS, NIRVANA, THE DOORS, THE WHO, PINK FLOYD, JIMMY HENDRIX, SNOOP DOGGY DOG, SILVIO RODRIGUEZ, ALI PRIMERA, SOUNDGARDEN, JANES ADDICTION, NINE INCH NAILS, SYSTEM OF A DOWN, ALICE IN CHAINS, COLLECTIVE SOUL, DINOSAUR JR., OUR LADY PEACE, AFGHAN WHIGS, U2, THE POLICE, STING, GENESIS, GREEN DAY, PUNK ROCK, AND VERY REBELLIOUS MUSIC IN ORDER TO ELEVATE THE REVOLUTIONARY INSTINCTS AND WILL TO POWER IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE CAPITALIST CLASS !!

THESE REALIST THINKERS, AND PHILOSOPHERS AND MUSICIANS WILL GIVE LEFTISTS, PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS THE NECESSARY EMOTIONAL, SPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL POWER NEEDED IN ORDER TO DESTROY AND OVERTHROW THE UNFAIR OLIGARCHIC CAPITALIST SYSTEM . BECAUSE AS NIETZSCHE SAID: "AS A TOOL OF POWER WORKS KNOWLEDGE, A REALITY THAT GROWS AS POWER GROWS"

PS: SORRY I WROTE THIS IN CAPS, I TOOK COPIED FROM A TEXT DOCUMENT I HAD IN MY COMPUTER. I HOPE YOU LIKED THIS LIST OF BOOK WRITTERS, OF PHILOSOPHY, MARXISM AND SOCIALISM. THANKS !!

HAVE A GOOD TIME WITH YOUR READING !!

.

WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME?!

http://www.osovo.com/pics/crying/crying-babies06.jpg

[RevSpetsnaz]

god is not Great: How Religion Poisions Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

[pluckedflowers]

god is not Great: How Religion Poisions Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

The comrade asks for some good reading on socialism and you recommend rubbish from an ex-Communist turned bloody neo-con? Really?

In any case, OP, I highly recommend the work of David Harvey.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A good read on imperialism would be "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War 2" by John A. Dower. It is a great book and the author clearly endorses Lenin's theory of imperialism (though I am unsure of his exact political loyalties). He goes in deeply to descrive the situation the Japanese faced and the dictatorial nature of the Americans.

For something more in depth try A Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

[RevSpetsnaz]

The comrade asks for some good reading on socialism and you recommend rubbish from an ex-Communist turned bloody neo-con? Really?

In any case, OP, I highly recommend the work of David Harvey.

Its a good book regardless.

[Lei Feng]

"The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and John Engels

thats probably the best place to start. Once you finish that, try Vladimir Lenin's "The State and Revolution" or "Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism" and if you find that interesting, try reading a bit of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong". Also, anything by Enver Hoxha is good.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

thats probably the best place to start. Once you finish that, try Vladimir Lenin's "The State and Revolution" or "Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism" and if you find that interesting, try reading a bit of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong". Also, anything by Enver Hoxha is good.

Good selections to be sure, but the OP was asking for long books and the manifesto and revolution aren't very lengthy reads.

[pluckedflowers]

Its a good book regardless.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I feel duty-bound to insist: No, it's really not. It's idealist, moralizing rubbish that stands in complete opposition to materialist analysis. "The foundation of irreligious criticism," Marx observed, is that "man makes religion, religion does not make man." Hitchens argues quite the opposite; namely, that, while false, religious ideology, not material social relations, is what determines the actual being of religious people.

[Deicide]

Greetings all. I am new here and though I am not to sure of just exactly where I belong I am glad to be here. I define myself as revolutionary socialist and have read quite a bit of literature and books on Marx, Engels, and communism. I am getting ready to go on a long trip and need to find a good read to occupy my time constructively. So I was hoping someone could recommend a long or thick book that covers the subject of Socialism, imperialism, etc.. Something like the Complete Works of Karl Marx would work nicely but I thought maybe someone could offer up a better idea. Thank you for your time.

''The ragged trousered philanthropists'' By Robert Tressel. It's an incredible book. You should all read this book comrades! It's a marvellous piece of working class literature.


Plot

Clearly frustrated at the refusal of his contemporaries to recognise the inequity and iniquity of society, Tressell's cast of hypocritical Christians, exploitative capitalists and corrupt councillors provide a backdrop for his main target — the workers who think that a better life is "not for the likes of them". Hence the title of the book; Tressell paints the workers as "philanthropists" who throw themselves into back-breaking work for poverty wages in order to generate profit for their masters.

The hero of the book, Frank Owen, is a socialist who believes that the capitalist system is the real source of the poverty he sees all around him. In vain he tries to convince his fellow workers of his world view, but finds that their education has trained them to distrust their own thoughts and to rely on those of their "betters". Much of the book consists of conversations between Owen and the others, or more often of lectures by Owen in the face of their jeering; this was presumably based on Tressell's own experiences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ragged-Trousered_Philanthropists

A second suggestion. If you like philosophy, read 'language, truth and logic' by A.J. Ayer, although it's now mostly irrelevant, its still an electrifying polemic against the contemporary philosophers of his day. The main position he posits is that factual propositions are only meaningful if they could be verified by direct experience. He completely dismisses metaphysical claims as being literally nonsense! One of the profesors at Cambridge University was so enraged by the book that he threw out of his window!

[RevSpetsnaz]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I feel duty-bound to insist: No, it's really not. It's idealist, moralizing rubbish that stands in complete opposition to materialist analysis. "The foundation of irreligious criticism," Marx observed, is that "man makes religion, religion does not make man." Hitchens argues quite the opposite; namely, that, while false, religious ideology, not material social relations, is what determines the actual being of religious people.

If i remember correctly i didnt find that anywhere in this particular book.

[Franz Fanonipants]

god is not Great: How Religion Poisions Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

this is literally the best shit i read on revleft today

[Franz Fanonipants]

If i remember correctly i didnt find that anywhere in this particular book.

no wait cancel that

Anyways Marx-Engels reader is a great place to start. idk if you are interested in anti-imperialism or anything, but Wretched of the Earth p. much changed my life.

[Per Levy]

WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME?!

he is using the traditional royal canterlot voice

r0WDNnxInFM

@op: if you dont mind history books then id suggest:

Paul Mason - Live Working or Die Fighting, how the working class went global

its a really good book on the history of the working class movement, from the earliest stages to the revolutions of the early 20th century.

Live Working Or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global - Paul Mason - Google Bücher (http://books.google.de/books?id=rKrTo_Am_VEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[Ostrinski]

The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, The State, and American Labor Activism 1865- 1925 by David Montgomery. Pretty good history of the American labor movement.

[Omsk]

You should read Lenin's works if you are interested in Russian politics/general Leninist theory.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/sw/index.htm

Marxist.org is a great source for online reading.A huge recommendation.

[Red Storm]

Wow, where to start? First I want to say thank you, to all of you, for all of these excellent recommendations. I probably should have specified my background on the subject a little more in the OP. I have read the manifesto, parts of Das Kapital, The State and Revolution, What must be done, the Fuerbach thesis, and quite a few others that escape me at the moment. I owned a copy of Marx's complete works but I lost it in the flood that hit the east coast of the US last fall. The Marx-Engels reader sounds enticing as does the subject of Trotsky in general. Anyhow, I think I may go with two or even three of these suggestions. I hope that I can read most of these over the next year or so. I do quite a bit of reading so long as I have time.

Once again thank you comrades for taking the time to respond. You have been a tremendous help and it is truly appreciated.

[kevster03]

'Behind the Urals' by John Scott is a good book.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would start with The Communist Manifesto. When I became politically active back in the 70s I found The ABCs of Communism by Nikolai Bukharin and Evgen Preobrazhensky to be the best ideological primer after the Manifesto. Is anyone else familiar with this book? Is it still in print?

[Ostrinski]

I would start with The Communist Manifesto. When I became politically active back in the 70s I found The ABCs of Communism by Nikolai Bukharin and Evgen Preobrazhensky to be the best ideological primer after the Manifesto. Is anyone else familiar with this book? Is it still in print?It was recommended to me when I first became class conscious.

http://www.amazon.com/ABC-Communism-Nicholas-I-Bukharin/dp/0850365430/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330218898&sr=1-7

[GoddessCleoLover]

I found it to be an excellent primer. Did you read it and if so was it helpful?

[Kitty_Paine]

I'll recommend something a little different (apologies if someone mentioned this and I skipped over it). I don't know how interested you are in Che but I would definitely recommend the Bolivian Diary written by Che or the Motorcycle Diaries. Actually you should read both :)

[Rooster]

If you want a good read for Trotsky then I recommend Permanent Revolution; a Trotsky Anthology (at least I think that's how the title goes). It's just a very selected works but it's quite entertaining. Also, if you've already read some Lenin and want to learn more, then I highly recommend Alec Nove's An Economic History of the USSR or EH Carr's The Bolshevik Revolution which is in three volumes. A really good read of the times from before the revolution up to the show trials is Sheila Fitzpartrick's The Russian Revolution. Sheila's work might be the most easily read. Nove's work might not be that interesting to most people but I found it to be so and EH Carr is somewhere in the middle. You should also try to get a copy of Engel's Anti-Duhring. Some parts of it are quite entertaining as well.

[daft punk]

You're kidding. You couldn't even recommend any of his theoretical work? Christ.

Oh pardon me for mentioning a great, highly readable book that documents the Russian revolution from the perspective of one of it's two main leaders.

"In this wonderfully readable and modest account of his life, Trotsky charts his progress from his youth through his revolutionary awakenings to his exile from the Soviet Union and persecution by the force of Stalinism.
More important than the account of Trotsky's personal life though is the parralell story of the birth of Marxism in Russia and its progress from being in the minority in the workers movement to the vindication of Marxism that was the October revolution. His battle with the bureaucracy in the CPSU is also laid out for all to see.
This inspiring book is a must-read for all Socialists."
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41XoPeVbm8L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jpg

[Omsk]

Oh so you changed your line eh?Now its,the two main leaders,before,it was "Trotsky led the revolution,he was the most important man of the revolution!!" right?

Oh,and:



Oh pardon me for mentioning a great, highly readable book that documents the Russian revolution from the perspective of one of it's two main leaders.


It's biased.

Unless,- you recomend it to him as a novel.

[daft punk]

Oh so you changed your line eh?Now its,the two main leaders,before,it was "Trotsky led the revolution,he was the most important man of the revolution!!" right?

Oh,and:



It's biased.

Unless,- you recomend it to him as a novel.

Biased my arse. Yes Trotsky did lead the revolution, as Stalin wrote to Lenin:

"All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky."

For some reason this got omitted from later editions of Stalin's book, and instead were statements that Trotsky played "no particular role".

Not that Stalin is a lying bastard or anything.

[daft punk]

taster extract from My Life by Leon trotsky:

"The twelfth hour of the revolution was near. The Smolny was being transformed into a fortress. In its garret there were a dozen or two machine-guns, a legacy from the old Executive Committee. Captain Grekov, commandant of the Smolny, was an undisguised enemy. On the other hand, the chief of the machine-gun company came to tell me that his men were all on the side of the Bolsheviks. I instructed some one perhaps Markin to inspect the machine-guns. They proved to be in poor condition as a result of continuous neglect – the soldiers had grown slack because they had no intention of defending Kerensky. I had a new and more reliable machine-gun detachment brought to the Smolny.
October 24 [1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch27.htm#n1), a gray morning, early. I roamed about the building from one floor to another, partly for the sake of movement and partly to make sure that everything was in order and to encourage those who needed it. Along the stone floors of the interminable and still half-dark corridors of the Smolny, the soldiers were dragging their machine-guns, with a hearty clangor and tramping of feet – this was the new detachment I had summoned. The few Socialist-Revolutionists and Mensheviks still in the Smolny could be seen poking sleepy, frightened faces out at us. The music of the guns was ominous in their ears, and they left the Smolny in a hurry, one after the other. We were now in full command of the building that was preparing to rear a Bolshevist head over the city and the country.
Early in the morning, two workers, a man and a woman, panting after their run from the party printing-works, bumped into me on the staircase. The government had closed down the central organ of the party and the paper of the Petrograd Soviet. Government agents, accompanied by military students, had put seals on the printing-works. For a moment the news startled us; such is the power exercised over the mind by legal formality.
“Couldn’t we break the seals?” the woman asked.
“Break them,” I answered, “and to make it safe for you we will give you a dependable escort.”
“There is a battalion of sappers next door to us; the soldiers are sure to back us,” said the woman printer, confidently.

The Military-Revolutionary Committee immediately issued an order: “(1) The printing-works of revolutionary newspapers to be reopened. (2) The editorial staffs and compositors to be invited to continue publishing the papers. (3) The honorary duty of protecting the revolutionary printing-works from counter revolutionary attacks to be intrusted to the gallant soldiers of the Litovsky regiment and the Sixth Sapper Reserve Battalion.” And from that time on, the printing-works ran without interruption, and both newspapers continued publication.
On the 24th, there was difficulty at the telephone exchange. Military students had intrenched themselves there, and under their protection the telephone operators went into opposition to the Soviet and refused to make our connections. This was the first, sporadic instance of sabotage. The Military-Revolutionary Committee sent a detachment of sailors to the telephone exchange, and the detachment placed two small guns at the entrance. The telephone service was restored. Thus began the taking over of the organs of administration.
On the third floor of the Smolny, in a small corner room, the Committee was in continuous session. All the reports about the movements of troops, the attitude of soldiers and workers, the agitation in the barracks, the designs of organizers of pogroms, the intrigues of the bourgeois politicians and the foreign embassies, the happenings in the Winter Palace all these came to this centre, as did the reports of the conferences of the parties formerly in the Soviet. Informants came from all sides workers, soldiers, officers, porters, socialist military students, servants, wives of petty officials. Many of them told us utter rubbish, but some supplied us with serious and very valuable information.
All that week I had hardly stepped out of the Smolny; I spent the nights on a leather couch without undressing, sleeping in snatches, and constantly being roused by couriers, scouts, messenger-cyclists, telegraphists, and ceaseless telephone calls. The decisive moment was close at hand. It was obvious that there could now be no turning back."

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think Trotsky's The Russian Revolution is a great read. It's pretty long, very detailed, etc.

[Omsk]

Biased my arse.

It is.And it's not even a great book...


Yes Trotsky did lead the revolution

No he did not.Lenin,the Bolshevik party and the masses were responsible for it.Stop with this bizzare cult of personality you are forcing.


Not that Stalin is a lying bastard or anything.

Actually,Trotsky was the liar.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It is.And it's not even a great book...



No he did not.Lenin,the Bolshevik party and the masses were responsible for it.Stop with this bizzare cult of personality you are forcing.



Actually,Trotsky was the liar.
Seriously?

[ProletariatPraetorian]

god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

[Omsk]

Where am i wrong in that quote?

[Rooster]

It's biased.

Oh, so I guess the short course is okay then?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

What is wrong with what you said? You look like a child who can't even take that Trotsky had a leading role in the revolution(as Stalin himself admitted as daft punk showed). You don't have to be a Trotskyist(As I'm not) to see this.

[Omsk]

What is wrong with what you said? You look like a child who can't even take that Trotsky had a leading role in the revolution(as Stalin himself admitted as daft punk showed). You don't have to be a Trotskyist(As I'm not) to see this.


I love when you make strawman arguments.
I objected to his notion that Trotsky led the revolution.Not to wether he had an important role or not.

And i also dont see anything wrong with the note that Trotsky did lie about Stalin.

[Comrade Jandar]

Anyway, you could get the Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert Tucker. It's pretty big, has a healthy amount of Marx's and Engels's writings.

It took me forever to read through that, but it was totally worth it. I highly recommend it.

[eric922]

You know it seems like that if given enough time every thread on this forum will turn into some kind of tendency war.

[Ostrinski]

You know it seems like that if given enough time every thread on this forum will turn into some kind of tendency war.That's only because some users like daft punk are obsessed with certain historical figures. It's always a minority of people who make it bad for the majority of us.

Anyway OP: Don't bother with My Life. Although I definitely would read History of the Russian Revolution.

[daft punk]

It is.And it's not even a great book...

How many leading revolutionaries wrote a biography? The book is unique. It is a great book from both a literary point of view and historical record.




" Yes Trotsky did lead the revolution "
No he did not.Lenin,the Bolshevik party and the masses were responsible for it.


Stalin, telegram to Lenin :

"All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky."

I already pasted that. Why do you force me to repeat myself over and over? What about the above cannot sink in?

Lenin:

“After the majority of the Petrograd Soviet passed into the hands of the Bolsheviks, [Trotsky] was elected its chairman and in that position organized and led the insurrection of October 25.”

Actually it wasn't a one day job, it didn't happen overnight, Trotsky had been organising it for weeks.

If you play a bit dirty, at least tell the truth...


Trotsky:

Letter to the Bureau of
Party History

(Part 1)



"However unpleasant it is to dig into rubbish, it seems necessary for me, as a fairly close participant in and witness of the events of that time, to testify as follows: The role of Lenin, of course, needs no illumination. Sverdlov I often met and I often turned to him for counsel and for people to help me. Comrade Kamenev, who, as is well known, held then a special position [10] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf04.htm#n10), the incorrectness of which he himself has long ago acknowledged, took, nevertheless, a most active part in the events of the insurrection. The decisive night, from the 25th to the 26th, Kamenev and I spent together in the quarters of the Military Revolutionary Committee, answering questions and giving orders by telephone. But stretch my memory as I will, I cannot answer the question in just what consisted, during those decisive days, the role of Stalin. It never once happened that I turned to him for advice or cooperation. He never showed the slightest initiative. He never advanced a single independent proposal. This fact no “Marxian historian” of the new style can alter."


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf04.htm


bear in mind Trotsky was forced to descend to this level by the masses of lies and the purges...

Stalin:

“Comrade Trotsky played no particular role in the party or the October insurrection and could not do so, being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period.” (J. Stalin: Trotskyism or Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm), pp.68f.)

Bare faced lies, refuted above in his own words and Lenin's. You worship Stalin, it must be worship because there is no logical reason for a communist to support Stalin, especially these day when the facts are all out. The game is up!




Stop with this bizzare cult of personality you are forcing.

Now, please stop with the Stalinist lies. We all know that the only personality cult was around Stalin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
Cult of personality



Past examples

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cult_of_personality&action=edit&section=5)] Soviet Union



"
Nikita Khrushchev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev) recalled Marx's criticism in his 1956 "Secret Speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Personality_Cult_and_its_Consequences)" denouncing Stalin to the 20th Party Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Party_Congress):
“ Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin's self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality#cite_note-2) This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, "the greatest leader," "sublime strategist of all times and nations." Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.
We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book."

No mention of Trotsky.




Actually,Trotsky was the liar.

You cannot give evidence for that because there is none. The only lie ever told by Trotsky was one very minor white lie in the Dewey Commission to save several innocent lives. Support or retract.

[daft punk]

You know it seems like that if given enough time every thread on this forum will turn into some kind of tendency war.

The Stalinists cant even admit what they have in front of their faces. It is pitiful. I said Trotsky led the revolution. That is undeniable. Lenin was an important figure, but Trotsky actually led it. Even Stalin said it, clearly, in black and white. But to Stalinists, it is impossible to even see what is in front of their noses, because they are in denial.

It is important because later Stalin denied Trotsky's leading role, said he played "no particular role", and this denial was a crucial part of a bloody political counter-revolution in which a million were killed, a million expelled from the Communist party, 10,000 Trotskyists shot, and the Spanish revolution sabotaged.

Socialism aint gonna happen until the truth is known by everybody.


That's only because some users like daft punk are obsessed with certain historical figures. It's always a minority of people who make it bad for the majority of us.

Anyway OP: Don't bother with My Life. Although I definitely would read History of the Russian Revolution.

You display a lack of understanding of the historical process, the dialectical role of the subjective factor and the objective conditions. Also a sectarian, yet pack following mentality. Just my thoughts. Try being a bit more positive and less sniping. Do you understand how and why Stalinism arose? If you do you will know the role of the individual and the role of the material conditions.

Try reading this

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm

[Omsk]

You cannot give evidence for that because there is none. The only lie ever told by Trotsky was one very minor white lie in the Dewey Commission to save several innocent lives. Support or retract


He lied that Stalin poisoned Lenin,and that was a complete lie.He lied about Stalin in many cases,dont make me find examples.



How many leading revolutionaries wrote a biography? The book is unique. It is a great book from both a literary point of view and historical record.




You are saying that only because you are a follower of Bronstein.

If you were not a Bronsteinist,you would not even read the first two or three lines.


Now, please stop with the Stalinist lies. We all know that the only personality cult was around Stalin.

Are you joking?

Every single one of your posts is a praise dedicated to Bronstein!

You are so blind with your cultish approach to Trotsky,that you cant accept the slightest criticism.

And you simply come out as a joke when you cite wikipedia and Nikita on Stalin.

[eric922]

The Stalinists cant even admit what they have in front of their faces. It is pitiful. I said Trotsky led the revolution. That is undeniable. Lenin was an important figure, but Trotsky actually led it. Even Stalin said it, clearly, in black and white. But to Stalinists, it is impossible to even see what is in front of their noses, because they are in denial.

It is important because later Stalin denied Trotsky's leading role, said he played "no particular role", and this denial was a crucial part of a bloody political counter-revolution in which a million were killed, a million expelled from the Communist party, 10,000 Trotskyists shot, and the Spanish revolution sabotaged.

Socialism aint gonna happen until the truth is known by everybody
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm
I agree with you on the Stalin V Trotsky issue, I just don't think this is the thread to have this fight in, is all.

[Ocean Seal]

My Life by Trotsky
Dear OP, what you should be reading is every single work by Stalin and Mao. That is all.

[Ocean Seal]

Now, please stop with the Stalinist lies. We all know that the only personality cult was around Stalin.

You cannot give evidence for that because there is none. The only lie ever told by Trotsky was one very minor white lie in the Dewey Commission to save several innocent lives. Support or retract.
I swear that Trotsky the infallible being who only told one lie in his life did not have a personality cult.

[eric922]

Dear OP, what you should be reading is every single work by Stalin and Mao. That is all.
You know, I've never been a fan of Mao's writings. I don't know why, but the style always seemed odd to me.

[Ocean Seal]

You know, I've never been a fan of Mao's writings. I don't know why, but the style always seemed odd to me.
I was making a joke more than anything really, because the OP asked a serious question and Daft Punk brought Trotsky into it. I think that Mao is odd because he often writes very poetically (for better or worse).

[Brosip Tito]

I think "Why Marx was Right" by Terry Eagleton was good.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I love how someone asking for books, sparks a Trotsky V Stalin discussion.
On-topic:
Marx -Engels reader is pretty good.

[daft punk]

He lied that Stalin poisoned Lenin,and that was a complete lie.He lied about Stalin in many cases,dont make me find examples.


So far you have one, which you cannot prove. Stalin may well have poisoned Lenin. Stalin's future was at stake. Lenin had written that Stalin should be removed from office, he had broken, or threatened to break off all relations with Stalin. In his last year as his health declined, Lenin's main preoccupation was fighting several battles with Stalin, on trade monopolies, and Georgia. These were the last things Lenin wrote about, and he enlisted Trotsky to fight Stalin for him.

Did Stalin poison Lenin? Trotsky said he thought so, just before Stalin killed him.

The story is here, on the left,

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/74943476



DID STALIN POISON LENIN?
Trotsky's Last Contribution to the Political
Underworld of Russian Leadership.
Just prior to his assassination in Mexico, when he was struck down by a pack-axe in his home by an intruder, Leon Trotsky, than whom there was no man better hated by the Russian rulers, penned this startling and sensational sidelight on history, in which he expressed the opinion, based upon his association with Stalin and Latin at die time, that Stalin poisoned Lenin.
During the ten years of my exile the Kremlin's literary agents have systematically relieved themselves of the need to answer pertinently any thing I write about the U.S.S.R. by alluding, to my '.'hatred" of Stalin, wrote Trotsky. Yet Stalin and I have been separated by events so fiery that they have consumed "in flames and reduced to ashes everything per sonal. Stalin is my enemy. But Hitler, too, is. my enemy, and so is Musso lini, and so are many others. Today there remains in me as little per sonal feeling toward Stalin as to ward General Franco or the Mikado.
"The last period of Lenin's life was filled with intense conflct between Him a nd St^Jin, which culminated in a complete break between them. As always, there was nothing in any way personal about Lenin's hostility to ward Stalin. But as time went on Stalin took increasing advantage of the opportunities his post presented for revenging himself upon his op ponents. Little by little, Lenin became convinced that certain of Stalin's traits were directly inimical to the party. From that matured his decision to reduce Stalin to a rank-and-file member of the Central Committee.
, LENIN'S HEALTH.
"Lenin's health took a sudden turn for the worse toward the end of 1921. The first stroke came in May, 1922. For two months he was unable either
to move, to speak, or write. In July i he began to convalesce slowly. In Oc-> tober he returned from the country to the Kremlin and took up his work again. In December he opened fire against Stalin's persecutions. He came out against Stalin on the question of foreign trade monopoly and was pre paring for the forthcoming party con gress an Address which would be 'a bombshell against Stalin.'
CONDEMNED STALIN.
" 'Let us-speak frankly,' wrote Lenin on March 2. 'The Commissariat of Inspection does not today enjoy the slightest authority . . . There is no worse institution among us than our People's- Commissariat of Inspection.' At the head of the Inspection was Stalin. He well understood the impli cations of such language.
"In the middle of December, 1922, Lenin's health obliged him to absent himself from conference. Stalin' at once hid from Lenin much informa tion. Measures of blockade were insti tuted against persons closest to Lenin. Lenin was aflame with alarm and in-, dignation. His chief source of worry was Stalin, whose behavious became bolder as the reports of physicians about Lenin's health became less fa vourable. In those days Stalin was morose, snarling, his pipe firmly clenched between his teeth, a sinister gleam in his jaundiced eyes. His fate
was at stake.
"Several lines dictated by. Lenin on March 5, 1923, to a trusted steno grapher announced dryly the sever ance of 'all personal and comradely relations with Stalin.' That note is the last surviving Lenin document. The very next night he again lost his power of speech.
"When Stalin first read the text he broke out into a triade of abuse against Lenin. The testament not only failed to terminate the internal struggle, which was what Lenin want ed, but "enhanced it to a feverish pitch. Stalin could no longer doubt that Lenin's return to activity would mean his own political death. Only Lenin's death could clear the way for him. t
"I followed the course of Lenin's second illness day-by day through the physician we had in common, Dr.
Gaitier.
" 'Is it possible, Doctor, that this .is the end?' my wife and I would ask him time and time again.
"'That cannot be said at all. Com rade Lenin can get on his feet again. He has a powerful organism.' . .. "'And his mental faculties?'
" 'Basically, they will remain un touched. Not every note, perhaps, will keep its former purity, but the virtu oso wall remain a virtuoso.'
ASKED FOR POISON?
"Yet at a meeting of the Politburo members, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and my self, Stalin informed us, after the de parture of the secretary, that Lenin had suddenly called him in and had asked him for poison. Lenin was again losing the faculty of speech, consid
ered his position hopeless, foresaw the
approach of< a new stroke, did not trust his physicians. His mind was perfectly dear and he suffered un endurably.
"I recall how extraordinary, enig matic, and out of tune with the cir cumstances Stalin's face seemed to me then. A sickly smile was fixed on it, as
on a mask. I see before me the pale and silent Kamenev, who sincerely loved Lenin, and \Zinoviev, bewildered. | Had they known about Lenin's re
quest? Or had Stalin sprung this as a surprise on his allies in the trium virate as well as on me?
" 'Naturally, we cannot even con sider carrying out this request!' I exclaimed. 'Gaitier has not lost hope. Lenin can still recover.'
WOULDN'T LISTEN.
" 'I told him all that,' Stalin re plied, not without a touch of annoy ancie. 'But he wouldn't listen to rea son. The old man is suffering. He says he wants to have the poison at
hand. He'll use it when he is con vinced that his condition is hopeless.'
" 'Anyway, it's out of the question,' I insisted. 'He might succumb to a passing mood and take the irrevocable
step.'
" 'The old man is suffering,' Stalin repeated, staring vaguely past us. No vote was taken, since this was not a formal conference, but we parted with the implicit understanding that we could not even consider sending
poison to Lehin.
WHY STALIN?
"Only a few days before, Lenin had written his pitiless postscript to- the testament Several days later he broke off all personal relations with
Stalin.
"Wky should lie turn to Stalin, of all people, with his tragic re
quest?
"The answer is simple: He saw in Stalin the only man $rho would grant it, since Stalin was directly interested in doing so. At the same time it is possible that he wanted to test Stalin: just how eagerly would Stalin take advantage of this opportunity? « In those days Lenin thought not only of death but of the fate of the party.
"But did Lenin actually ask Stalin for poison ? Was the whole version not invented by Stalin to prepare his alibi? He could have had no reason to fear a verification, for no one could question the sick Lenin.
"More than, ten years before the no torious Moscow trials Stalin had con fessed to Kamenev and DzeTzhinski, his allies of that time, that his highest delight in life was to keep a keen eye on an _enemy, prepare everything painstakingly, mercilessly revenge himself, and then go to sleep.
CONFESSIONS TO CRIMES.
"During the last big trial, staged in March, 1938, a Special place in the pri soner's dock was occupied by Henry Yagoda. Some secret bound Stalin to Yagoda, who had worked in the Cheka and the G.P.U. for sixteen years, at first as an assistant chief, later as the head, and all the time as Stalin's most trusted aide against the opposition. The system of confessions to crimes that had never been committed is Ya goda's handiwork, if not his brain child. In 1933 Stalin rewarded Ya goda with the Order of Lenin, in 1935 elevated him to the rank of Com 'missar General of State Defence^
that is, Marshal of the Political ! Police. In Yagoda's person was "ele vated a nonentity. The old revolution ists exchanged looks of indignation.
| RETRIBUTION.
j "At the time of the great 'purge' ' Stalin decided to liquidate his fellow culprit who knew too much. In April, 1937, Yagoda was arrested, and even
tually executed.
"It was revealed at that trial that Yagoda, a former pharmacist, had a special poison cabinet from which he would bring out vials and entrust them to his agents. He had at his disposal several toxicologists, for whom he organised a special labora tory, providing it with means without limit and without control. It is, of course, unthinkable that Yagoda might have established such an enterprise for his own personal needs.
GORKY'S DEATH.
"Suspicions that Stalin had some what aided the destructive force of nature in the case of Maxim Gorky sprang up directly after the great writer's death. A concomitant task of Yagoda's trial was to clear Stalin of that suspicion. Hence the repeated declarations by Yagoda, the physi cians, and the other accused, that Gorky was 'a close friend of Stalin,' 'a trusted person,' an enthusiastic 'Sta
. i
linist.' If only half of this were true, Yagoda would not have taken it upon himself to kill Gorky, and still less would he have entrusted sucli a plot to a Kremlin physician, who could have destroyed him by simply tele phoning Stalin.
POISON "CABINET.
"During the days of the trial, the accusations, like the confession|, seemed phantasmagoric to me. Subse quent information and analysis forced me to alter that judgment. Not every thing in the trials was a lie. Not all the poisoners were sitting in the pri soner's dock. The chief among them was conducting the trial by telephone. It is only Yagoda who has disap peared ; his poison cabinet remains.
"At the 1938 trial Stalin charged Bukharin with having prepared in 1918 an attempt on Lenin's life. The naive and ardent Bukharin venerated Lenin, worshipped him, could not have had personal ambitious designs. All the accusations^ of the Moscow trials are cut to this pattern. Stalin sees the best means to dispel sus picions against himself in ascribing the crime to his adversary and forcing him to 'confess.'
"Lenin asked for poison-if he really did-at the end of February, 1923. In the beginning of March he was again paralysed. But his powerful organism, supported by his inflexible will, re assured itself. Toward winter he be gan to improve slowly, to move about more freely; he listened to reading and read himself; his faculty of speech began to come back to him. The findings of the physicians became increasingly, more hopeful. Yet he
died.
"I believe that Stalin poisoned him." i







You are saying that only because you are a follower of Bronstein.

If you were not a Bronsteinist,you would not even read the first two or three lines.

Why do you call him that? Call him Trotsky ffs and stop talking like a....

The book is a classic.

It ranks 31st at Amazon on books on the Russian revolution.

[Omsk]

So far you have one, which you cannot prove. Stalin may well have poisoned Lenin. Stalin's future was at stake. Lenin had written that Stalin should be removed from office, he had broken, or threatened to break off all relations with Stalin. In his last year as his health declined, Lenin's main preoccupation was fighting several battles with Stalin, on trade monopolies, and Georgia. These were the last things Lenin wrote about, and he enlisted Trotsky to fight Stalin for him.





And,yet again "daft punk" goes into his usual lines of anti-historical materialism and his negation of some very serious and proven facts that surround the death of the great socialist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin,as we all know,his health was bad,and it was mainly the result of the many assassination atempts and his bad health,which was understandable,because of the years of intelectual labour Vladimir Lenin passed trough,however,the usual Trotskyists lie that somehow,Stalin,the second man after Lenin,was ploting to assassinate the man who spoke about him like a comrade,and criticized him when the situation called,and the man who was one of the first serious marxist thinkers he met while he advanced from poor and backward Georgia to the center of the future Soviet Union,Russia,and to Petrograd.Further more,i am not obliged to write about their own relationship,which was,at best,one of the more solid in the entire Bolshevik state leadership,which is showed by Lenins own words,and by the acts of Joseph Stalin,after the death of the great revolutionary Lenin - : Soon after Lenin died a year later, Stalin had the Marx-Engels Institute re-named the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute. He insured, by means of a special Central Committee decision, that all materials, documents, and letters, including those of a personal nature, would be deposited in this new center for the "research of Lenin's heritage." A Lenin archive of 4500 documents was created, as Tikhomirnov informed Stalin in early 1933. It would soon grow to 26,000. On Stalin's orders all Lenin material that had belonged to Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev and other leading figures was transferred to it, and expeditions by Ganetsky, Adoratsky, and Tikhomirnov scoured Vienna, Warsaw, Cracow, Zurich, Brussels, and Paris in search of more Leniniana. Volkogonov, Dmitrii. Lenin: A New Biography. New York: Free Press, 1994, p. 274. Not to mention that Stalin was not ignoring Lenin in no possible way,in fact,it is know that he proposed his resignation,however...(in his own words) : Right from the first session of the Central Committee, after the 13th Congress, I asked to be released from the obligations of the General Secretaryship. The Congress itself examined the question. Each delegation examined the question, and every delegation, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, voted unanimously in favor of Stalin remaining at his post. What could I do then? Abandon my post? Such a thing is not in my character.... At the end of one year I again asked to be set free and I was again forced to remain at my post. What could I do then?
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 244

Now i would like to mention a few words aimed at your notion that Trotsky never lied about Stalin,while the supporters of Trotsky of course,in most cases,completely accept such ideas,there have been voices against such words,and to be honest,to the non-Trotskyists part of the forum,it is pretty obvious that Trotsky did in fact lie about Stalin a lot,as it was his strategy,and one of his main weapons: his literary skill,since he didn't have support from the masses,he could only write books and criticise Stalin for the things he would not dream of.The many of his lies are by now,well known : Nevertheless, in composing the portrait [of Stalin], he [Trotsky] uses abundantly far too often the material of inference, guess, and hearsay. He picks up any piece of gossip or rumor if only it shows a trait of cruelty or suggests treachery in the young Djugachvili. He gives credence to Stalin's schoolmates and later enemies who in reminiscences about their childhood, written in exile thirty or more years after the events, say that the boy Soso "had only a sarcastic sneer for the joys and sorrows of his fellows": that "compassion for people or for animals was foreign to him"; or that from "his youth the carrying out of vengeful plots became for him the goal that dominated all his efforts."... There is no need to go into many examples of this approach. The most striking is, of course, Trotsky's suggestion, mentioned earlier, that Stalin had poisoned Lenin....Deutscher, Isaac. The Prophet Outcast. London, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963, p. 452 .Lenin was always close to Stalin,and had much trust in him,which is showed when he placed entire battalions under his command,and thousands of men,he complimented him,both before the revolution,and after.And now to finally adress the question of Stalin poisoning Lenin,an idea which is in its essence,absurd.

Trotsky would later speak of "Stalin's poison." But this is irrelevant. Professor V. Shklovsky, son of the imminent physician M. Shklovsky, found in his father's records the testimony [originally meant to be destroyed] of V. Osipov, one of the senior doctors attending Lenin, and a speech therapist S. Dobrogayev. We read in particular that "the final diagnosis dismisses the stories of the syphilitic character of Lenin's disease, or of arsenic poisoning. It was atherosclerosis, mainly affecting the cerebral blood vessels. The calcium deposit was so thick that during dissection the tweezers made a noise as if they were rapping on stone. Lenin's parents also died of this disease." But the story that Lenin had been poisoned would never die. Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 213

This delusion has been utilized by various writers, Trotsky the most eminent, who have argued that Stalin murdered Lenin. Lenin was not in such bad shape, they maintain, so is it not strange that he died so suddenly? In the nature of things Stalin's innocence cannot be proven, and in history, unlike some judicial systems, it cannot be presumed. But it strains the imagination to believe that the official account of Lenin's arterial sclerosis was fabricated. Furthermore, the general impression of Stalin's tactics in this whole period, roughly 1922-28, is that he considered time to be on his side and was remarkably patient in waiting to see whether events would unfold to his advantage. It is unlikely that in early 1924 he feared that Lenin might revive and cause trouble. McNeal, Robert, Stalin: Man and Ruler. New York: New York University Press, 1988, p. 85 .This all reminds me of the many debates i had regarding Stalin and him being an 'agent of the Okhrana - which,as i have proved,was a complete lie.

[daft punk]

And,yet again "daft punk" goes into his usual lines of anti-historical materialism and his negation of some very serious and proven facts that surround the death of the great socialist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin,as we all know,his health was bad,and it was mainly the result of the many assassination atempts and his bad health,which was understandable,because of the years of intelectual labour Vladimir Lenin passed trough,however,the usual Trotskyists lie that somehow,Stalin,the second man after Lenin,was ploting to assassinate the man who spoke about him like a comrade,and criticized him when the situation called,and the man who was one of the first serious marxist thinkers he met while he advanced from poor and backward Georgia to the center of the future Soviet Union,Russia,and to Petrograd.Further more,i am not obliged to write about their own relationship,which was,at best,one of the more solid in the entire Bolshevik state leadership,which is showed by Lenins own words,and by the acts of Joseph Stalin,after the death of the great revolutionary Lenin - : Soon after Lenin died a year later, Stalin had the Marx-Engels Institute re-named the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute. He insured, by means of a special Central Committee decision, that all materials, documents, and letters, including those of a personal nature, would be deposited in this new center for the "research of Lenin's heritage." A Lenin archive of 4500 documents was created, as Tikhomirnov informed Stalin in early 1933. It would soon grow to 26,000. On Stalin's orders all Lenin material that had belonged to Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev and other leading figures was transferred to it, and expeditions by Ganetsky, Adoratsky, and Tikhomirnov scoured Vienna, Warsaw, Cracow, Zurich, Brussels, and Paris in search of more Leniniana. Volkogonov, Dmitrii. Lenin: A New Biography. New York: Free Press, 1994, p. 274. Not to mention that Stalin was not ignoring Lenin in no possible way,in fact,it is know that he proposed his resignation,however...(in his own words) : Right from the first session of the Central Committee, after the 13th Congress, I asked to be released from the obligations of the General Secretaryship. The Congress itself examined the question. Each delegation examined the question, and every delegation, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, voted unanimously in favor of Stalin remaining at his post. What could I do then? Abandon my post? Such a thing is not in my character.... At the end of one year I again asked to be set free and I was again forced to remain at my post. What could I do then?
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 244

Now i would like to mention a few words aimed at your notion that Trotsky never lied about Stalin,while the supporters of Trotsky of course,in most cases,completely accept such ideas,there have been voices against such words,and to be honest,to the non-Trotskyists part of the forum,it is pretty obvious that Trotsky did in fact lie about Stalin a lot,as it was his strategy,and one of his main weapons: his literary skill,since he didn't have support from the masses,he could only write books and criticise Stalin for the things he would not dream of.The many of his lies are by now,well known : Nevertheless, in composing the portrait [of Stalin], he [Trotsky] uses abundantly far too often the material of inference, guess, and hearsay. He picks up any piece of gossip or rumor if only it shows a trait of cruelty or suggests treachery in the young Djugachvili. He gives credence to Stalin's schoolmates and later enemies who in reminiscences about their childhood, written in exile thirty or more years after the events, say that the boy Soso "had only a sarcastic sneer for the joys and sorrows of his fellows": that "compassion for people or for animals was foreign to him"; or that from "his youth the carrying out of vengeful plots became for him the goal that dominated all his efforts."... There is no need to go into many examples of this approach. The most striking is, of course, Trotsky's suggestion, mentioned earlier, that Stalin had poisoned Lenin....Deutscher, Isaac. The Prophet Outcast. London, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963, p. 452 .Lenin was always close to Stalin,and had much trust in him,which is showed when he placed entire battalions under his command,and thousands of men,he complimented him,both before the revolution,and after.And now to finally adress the question of Stalin poisoning Lenin,an idea which is in its essence,absurd.

Trotsky would later speak of "Stalin's poison." But this is irrelevant. Professor V. Shklovsky, son of the imminent physician M. Shklovsky, found in his father's records the testimony [originally meant to be destroyed] of V. Osipov, one of the senior doctors attending Lenin, and a speech therapist S. Dobrogayev. We read in particular that "the final diagnosis dismisses the stories of the syphilitic character of Lenin's disease, or of arsenic poisoning. It was atherosclerosis, mainly affecting the cerebral blood vessels. The calcium deposit was so thick that during dissection the tweezers made a noise as if they were rapping on stone. Lenin's parents also died of this disease." But the story that Lenin had been poisoned would never die. Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 213

This delusion has been utilized by various writers, Trotsky the most eminent, who have argued that Stalin murdered Lenin. Lenin was not in such bad shape, they maintain, so is it not strange that he died so suddenly? In the nature of things Stalin's innocence cannot be proven, and in history, unlike some judicial systems, it cannot be presumed. But it strains the imagination to believe that the official account of Lenin's arterial sclerosis was fabricated. Furthermore, the general impression of Stalin's tactics in this whole period, roughly 1922-28, is that he considered time to be on his side and was remarkably patient in waiting to see whether events would unfold to his advantage. It is unlikely that in early 1924 he feared that Lenin might revive and cause trouble. McNeal, Robert, Stalin: Man and Ruler. New York: New York University Press, 1988, p. 85 .This all reminds me of the many debates i had regarding Stalin and him being an 'agent of the Okhrana - which,as i have proved,was a complete lie.
Did you even bother to read the article I pasted?

The above tells us nothing, except that Stalin offered to resign, presumably because of Lenin's letter calling for Stalin to be removed from office. He says Trotsky voted for him to stay. Is this true?

I suggest you read this:

Leon Trotsky

On the Suppressed
Testament of Lenin

(December 1932)



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

The testament was suppressed, so I dunno if Trotsky was forced on that vote or what, the troika was already in control!

I suggest you read it, and read the last few things Lenin wrote, which was basically three or more different battles against Stalin.


"As will appear later, the testament could not have been a surprise to Stalin. But this did not soften the blow. Upon his first acquaintance with the document, in the Secretariat, in the circle of his closest associates, Stalin let fly a phrase which gave quite unconcealed expression to his real feelings toward the author of the testament. The conditions under which this phrase spread to wide circles, and above all the inimitable quality of the reaction itself, is in my eyes an unqualified guarantee of the authenticity of the episode. Unfortunately this winged phrase cannot be quoted in print. The concluding sentence of the testament shows unequivocally on which side, in Lenin’s opinion, the danger lay. To remove Stalin – just him and him only – meant to cut him off from the apparatus, to withdraw from him the possibility of pressing on the long arm of the lever, to deprive him of all that power which he had concentrated in his hands in this office. Who, then, should be named General Secretary? Someone who, having the positive qualities of Stalin, should be more patient, more loyal, less capricious. This was the phrase which struck home most sharply to Stalin. Lenin obviously did not consider him irreplaceable, since he proposed that we seek a more suitable person for his post. In tendering his resignation, as a matter of form, the General Secretary capriciously kept repeating: “Well, I really am rude ... Ilyich suggested that you find another who would differ from me only in greater politeness. Well, try to find him.” “Never mind,” answered the voice of one of Stalin’s then friends. “We are not afraid of rudeness. Our whole party is rude, proletarian.” A drawing-room conception of politeness is here indirectly attributed to Lenin. As to the accusation of inadequate loyalty, neither Stalin nor his friends had a word to say. It is perhaps not without interest that the supporting voice came from A.P. Smirnov, then People’s Commissar of Agriculture, but now under the ban as a Right Oppositionist. Politics knows no gratitude.
Radek, who was then still a member of the Central Committee, sat beside me during the reading of the testament. Yielding with abandon to the influence of the moment and lacking inner discipline, Radek took instant fire from the testament and leaned to me with the words, “Now they won’t dare go against you.” I answered him, “On the contrary, they will have to go the limit, and moreover as quickly as possible.” The very next days of that Thirteenth Congress demonstrated that my judgment was the more sober. The troika were compelled to forestall the possible effect of the testament by placing the party as soon as possible before a fait accompli. The very reading of the document to the local delegations with “outsiders” not admitted, was converted into a downright struggle against me. The leaders of the delegations in their reading would swallow some words, emphasize others, and offer commentaries to the effect that the letter had been written by a man seriously ill and under the influence of trickery and intrigue. The machine was already in complete control. The mere fact that the troika was able to transgress the will of Lenin, refusing to read his letter at the Congress, sufficiently characterizes the composition of the Congress and its atmosphere. The testament did not weaken or put a stop to the inner struggle, but on the contrary lent it a disastrous tempo"
(my emphasis)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There is nothing I enjoy more than a good Stalin vs. Trotsky quote war
luckily for me it exists in just about every thread on this forum.

[Omsk]

The above tells us nothing, except that Stalin offered to resign

Ah,you yet again show that you didn't even bother to read what i said,and what i did say and prove,with various sources from books,is that Trotsky lied about Stalin and accused him of poisoning Lenin,such an accusation was of course,laughable,and i proved that.


There is nothing I enjoy more than a good Stalin vs. Trotsky quote war
luckily for me it exists in just about every thread on this forum.




I actually wrote the better part of the post myself.Quotes,however,do come handy when discussing history.

And dont mix me up with daft-punk,he is the one who started this.

[daft punk]

Ah,you yet again show that you didn't even bother to read what i said,and what i did say and prove,with various sources from books,is that Trotsky lied about Stalin and accused him of poisoning Lenin,such an accusation was of course,laughable,and i proved that.



I actually wrote the better part of the post myself.Quotes,however,do come handy when discussing history.

And dont mix me up with daft-punk,he is the one who started this.

You proved nothing. You claim that the doctors son reckoned there was no foul play. Well maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Stalin certainly had motive. Lenin's last written document breaks of relations with Stalin. He had also written his testament etc. If Lenin had revived, Stalin's political death was certain.

Trotsky said he believed Lenin was poisoned, not that it was fact. Stalin had said Lenin wanted poison in case he could no longer tolerate his condition. Unfortunately the other witnesses to that, Kamenev and Zinoviev, were killed by Stalin so we shall never know. Soon after, Trotsky too was killed by Stalin.

Stalin killed Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamemev, most of the old Bolsheviks, most of their families, why not Lenin too? He had a huge motive.


Lenin's last writings



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/volume45.htm

Lenin Collected Works:
Volume 45

Letters November 1920-December 1923



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/volume45.htm
"Last Testament"
Letters to the Congress


V. I. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/14.htm) Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/15c.htm)

807

LETTER TO J. V. STALIN FOR MEMBERS OF THE R.C.P.(B.) C.C.


"I am now through with putting my business in order, and am in a position to leave without worry.[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/15b.htm#fwV45E758) I have also come to an arrangement with Trotsky to stand up for my views of the foreign trade monopoly. There is only one thing that is worrying me extremely—it is that I am unable to speak at the Congress of Soviets." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/15b.htm#fwV45E759)

"I am resolutely opposed to any delay on the question of the foreign trade monopoly. If the idea should arise, for whatever reason (including the proposition that my participation in the question is desirable), to postpone it until the next plenum, I should most resolutely object to this, because I am sure that Trotsky will be able to stand up for my views just as well as I myself."


Stalin and his cronies had overturned Lenin's proposal while Lenin was ill and Trotsky away.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

1923

812

To: L. D. TROTSKY[2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm#fwV45E765)


Top secret
Personal Dear Comrade Trotsky:
It is my earnest request that you should undertake the defence of the Georgian case in the Party C.C. This case is now under “persecution” by Stalin and Dzerzhinsky, and I cannot rely on their impartiality. Quite to the contrary. I would feel at ease if you agreed to undertake its defence. If you should refuse to do so for any reason, return the whole case to me. I shall consider it a sign that you do not accept.[3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm#fwV45E766)
With best comradely greetings
Lenin[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm#fwV45P607F01)


"Top secret
Personal Copy to Comrades Kamenev and Zinoviev
Dear Comrade Stalin:
You have been so rude as to summon my wife to the telephone and use bad language. Although she had told you that she was prepared to forget this, the fact nevertheless became known through her to Zinoviev and Kamenev. I have no intention of forgetting so easily what has been done against me, and it goes without saying that what has been done against my wife I consider having been done against me as well. I ask you, therefore, to think it over whether you are prepared to withdraw what you have said and to make your apologies, or whether you prefer that relations between us should be broken off.[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05.htm#fwV45E767)
Respectfully yours,
Lenin
March 5, 1923"




"Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.
Lenin
Taken down by L.F.
January 4, 1923"

[Omsk]

I don't have the time to respond to your pointless copy-pasting.

Are you aware that Trotsky also got hit hard in Lenin's testament?

But lets ignore that,can you find any concrete evidence that Stalin poisoned Lenin,as Trotsky suggested?

I am waiting.

[Grenzer]

Sorry, but I really do have to say that the notion that Stalin killed Lenin is very laughable. There is no proof to it whatsoever. Sure Stalin was a pretty terrible guy, but this is a pretty huge claim.

A lot of historians say that it was syphilis that killed Lenin, but I can't vouch for the authenticity of that claim. I've read it in several biographies of Lenin at least.

[daft punk]

I don't have the time to respond to your pointless copy-pasting.

Are you aware that Trotsky also got hit hard in Lenin's testament?

But lets ignore that,can you find any concrete evidence that Stalin poisoned Lenin,as Trotsky suggested?

I am waiting.

"Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work. "


"I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin"

Yeah, right. Give it up. This is old stuff, and the poisoning story, well, Stalin poisoned Trotskys son, Lev (his other son was shot instead).

The fact is that Stalin was a murdering psycho who killed anyone who opposed his one man anti-socialist dictatorship.

Are you gonna waste the rest of your life repeating these anti-socialist lies from the 1930s? Are you just going through the motions, testing your beliefs? How can you believe this garbage? It's all been debunked a million times.

Trotsky had good reason to believe Stalin poisoned Lenin and Stalin had motive and opportunity. And we know that Stalin was capable of murder, without batting an eyelid. We know he killed millions. So spare us the fake protest.

[Omsk]

Yeah, right. Give it up. This is old stuff, and the poisoning story, well, Stalin poisoned Trotskys son, Lev (his other son was shot instead).



And?

You have no proof,you have no evidence,you have nothing.


The fact is that Stalin was a murdering psycho who killed anyone who opposed his one man anti-socialist dictatorship.


And this is what?First grade marxist analysys?

I understand you believe Trotsky was some kind of a saint,but you should know that Lenin criticized to an extent both Stalin and Trotsky.

... Indeed, in his "Testament" Lenin chose to remind the party of Trotsky's non-Bolshevik past, even though his tone was not accusatory. There may have been political intimacy between them, but not close friendship. Trotsky's wife, Natalya Sedova, did not visit Krupskaya, and Trotsky, unlike Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, and Stalin, did not visit Lenin at home. Nor was he drawn to his sick leader's bedside, where the others were frequently to be found.
Volkogonov, Dmitrii. Lenin: A New Biography. New York : Free Press, 1994, p. 256

That paragraph [comparing Stalin with Trotsky in Lenin's testament] is probably a genuine excerpt from Lenin's letter. But there is another sentence which is admittedly an authentic postscript and which Stalin himself has quoted. It runs thus: "Stalin is too crude, and although this failing does not count for very much amongst us as Communists it will not be borne with in the business office of the General Secretary. Therefore I would suggest that we find a way to remove him from this position. These apparent trivialities can sometimes be of decisive significance."
To this double-sided criticism I must add by way of comment a very important statement which I have on the authority of Radek. He said: "After Lenin's death we, nineteen men of the Executive Committee, sat together and anxiously awaited the advice which our leader would give us from the tomb. Lenin's widow had brought us the letter. Stalin read it aloud to us. As he did so, nobody made a sound. When it came to speak of Trotsky, the letter said: 'His un-Bolshevik past is not an accident.' All at once Trotsky interrupted the reading and asked: 'What was that?' The sentence was repeated. These were the only words that were spoken during that solemn hour." It must have been a terrible moment for Trotsky. His heart must have stood still when he heard these six words, words which really decided his career. Lenin had not concealed his misgivings in regard to those two men whom he singled out as the most capable followers.
Ludwig, Emil. Leaders of Europe . London : I. Nicholson and Watson Ltd., 1934, p. 364




Trotsky had good reason to believe Stalin poisoned Lenin and Stalin had motive and opportunity.


He lied.Get over it,its such a trivial question,but you in your cultish approach to Trotsky,can't get over it.

And a question for you: Why didn't Trotsky come to Lenin's funneral,when he had enough time to do so?

[daft punk]

"Yeah, right. Give it up. This is old stuff, and the poisoning story, well, Stalin poisoned Trotskys son, Lev (his other son was shot instead).
And?"

You have no proof,you have no evidence,you have nothing.

Yeah right. Stalin murdered most of Trotsky's family. Not just Trotsky, the old Bolsheviks and Left Opposition. Most of their families were murdered by Stalin.



"The fact is that Stalin was a murdering psycho who killed anyone who opposed his one man anti-socialist dictatorship. "
And this is what?First grade marxist analysys?

Simple observation.
For instance Bukharin wrote a greovelling letter to Stalin begging to spare his life. The note was still in Stalin's desk drawer nearly 20 years later when he finally snuffed it.

You dont kill your political opponent's grandchildren if you are normal.

Stalin did let one of Trotsky's daughers, Zinaida, out, but she was forced to choose which of her two children to take with her! She had to leave her daughter Alexandra behind! Alexandra was looked after by her grandmother who was then exiled and died in the labour camps. She was then exiled herself to Kazakhstan. Zinaida's husband disappeared in the Gulag.



I understand you believe Trotsky was some kind of a saint,

Not a very marxist comment





but you should know that Lenin criticized to an extent both Stalin and Trotsky.

... Indeed, in his "Testament" Lenin chose to remind the party of Trotsky's non-Bolshevik past, even though his tone was not accusatory.

He used it because he knew every snide **** like Stalin would. He said it was NOT to be used against him. Dont fucking twist his words.





There may have been political intimacy between them, but not close friendship.

big deal





Trotsky's wife, Natalya Sedova, did not visit Krupskaya, and Trotsky, unlike Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, and Stalin, did not visit Lenin at home. Nor was he drawn to his sick leader's bedside, where the others were frequently to be found.
Volkogonov, Dmitrii. Lenin: A New Biography. New York : Free Press, 1994, p. 256
The fact is that of Lenin's last writings, many are letters to Trotsky asking him to stand up to Stalin for him. Spare me the fairy tale.


That paragraph [comparing Stalin with Trotsky in Lenin's testament] is probably a genuine excerpt from Lenin's letter. But there is another sentence which is admittedly an authentic postscript and which Stalin himself has quoted. It runs thus: "Stalin is too crude, and although this failing does not count for very much amongst us as Communists it will not be borne with in the business office of the General Secretary. Therefore I would suggest that we find a way to remove him from this position. These apparent trivialities can sometimes be of decisive significance."
To this double-sided criticism I must add by way of comment a very important statement which I have on the authority of Radek. He said: "After Lenin's death we, nineteen men of the Executive Committee, sat together and anxiously awaited the advice which our leader would give us from the tomb. Lenin's widow had brought us the letter. Stalin read it aloud to us. As he did so, nobody made a sound. When it came to speak of Trotsky, the letter said: 'His un-Bolshevik past is not an accident.' All at once Trotsky interrupted the reading and asked: 'What was that?' The sentence was repeated. These were the only words that were spoken during that solemn hour." It must have been a terrible moment for Trotsky. His heart must have stood still when he heard these six words, words which really decided his career. Lenin had not concealed his misgivings in regard to those two men whom he singled out as the most capable followers.
Ludwig, Emil. Leaders of Europe . London : I. Nicholson and Watson Ltd., 1934, p. 364

Bullshit. Stick to what was said.

"I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the C.C. I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev [See Vol. 26, pp. 216-19] was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky. "

Lenin says Trotsky's non Bolshevism should not be used against him. He says it because it is blatantly obvious that creeps like Stalin will use it against him.

"Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C.,..."

Bear in mind that after this was written lenin wrote to Trotsky several times asking him for his help in battling against Stalin, wrote that he wanted Stalin removed from office, and wrote to Stalin more or less breaking off all relations with him or threatening to, and incredible thing to do.





He lied.Get over it,its such a trivial question,but you in your cultish approach to Trotsky,can't get over it.

And a question for you: Why didn't Trotsky come to Lenin's funneral,when he had enough time to do so?

Because Stalin gave Trotsky the wrong date ffs. Trotsky would have been head mourner. Stalin made sure that didnt happen. Trotsky was ill, and away, and Stalin gave him the wrong date so it appeared impossible for Trotsky to get back in time, but in fact he could have, if he hadnt been lied to by Stalin.

Do you never google any of this shit?

Stop wasting my time, please.

[Omsk]

Yeah right. Stalin murdered most of Trotsky's family. Not just Trotsky, the old Bolsheviks and Left Opposition. Most of their families were murdered by Stalin.



Don't resort to such derailing avoidance,i want proof that Stalin poisoned Lenin.As was suggested by Trotsky.



Simple observation.
For instance Bukharin wrote a greovelling letter to Stalin begging to spare his life. The note was still in Stalin's desk drawer nearly 20 years later when he finally snuffed it.

You dont kill your political opponent's grandchildren if you are normal.

Stalin did let one of Trotsky's daughers, Zinaida, out, but she was forced to choose which of her two children to take with her! She had to leave her daughter Alexandra behind! Alexandra was looked after by her grandmother who was then exiled and died in the labour camps. She was then exiled herself to Kazakhstan. Zinaida's husband disappeared in the Gulag.



No nothing.


Not a very marxist comment

You dont like it because it's true?


He used it because he knew every snide **** like Stalin would. He said it was NOT to be used against him. Dont fucking twist his words.


He still mentioned it,which showed everyone that Lenin never forgot Bronsteins words before the revolution.

And dont use such sexist slurs.


Bear in mind that after this was written lenin wrote to Trotsky several times asking him for his help in battling against Stalin, wrote that he wanted Stalin removed from office, and wrote to Stalin more or less breaking off all relations with him or threatening to, and incredible thing to do.



Are you aware that Lenin wrote in a very positive light about Stalin too?And that their real clash occoured only during the later years.


Because Stalin gave Trotsky the wrong date ffs. Trotsky would have been head mourner. Stalin made sure that didnt happen. Trotsky was ill, and away, and Stalin gave him the wrong date so it appeared impossible for Trotsky to get back in time, but in fact he could have, if he hadnt been lied to by Stalin.

Do you never google any of this shit?

Stop wasting my time, please.

And you are,as usual,wrong,and arogant.Before you write such hasty contributions,think it all the way trough.
And if you dont have to say anything other than what you said,than i think you should stop wasting my time.



When Lenin died, Trotsky was in Tiflis. He was at once informed by wire from Stalin. He had a week to get back to Moscow for the funeral and was not too ill to do so. Instead he went to Sukhumi on the Black Sea coast. His absence at the last rites was the first of a long series of political blunders.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 199




It is clear from his own account that it was not the state of his health which prevented Trotsky from taking part in Lenin's funeral.
Duranty, Walter. I Write as I Please. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935, p. 229





The absence of Trotsky was the absorbing question in that week of strain and sorrow to everyone in Moscow, whether Russian or foreign. It was a period of intense popular emotion and we all knew that to 9/10's of the Russian masses Trotsky was second only to Lenin in popular esteem. He was said to be sick and traveling to a cure in the Caucasus, but nothing could condone his absence save the fact that he was so near death that it would have been fatal for him to make the return journey, which was not the case. Whatever may have been his reasons, Trotsky's failure to pay his last tribute to the dead leader horrified the people of Moscow as a want of respect and good taste. It was, moreover, a political error of the first magnitude and dealt a fatal blow to Trotsky's prestige, which his adversaries were quick to see and turn to good account. To this day I cannot imagine why he did not come. The night after the funeral I discussed the problem with my friend Rollin, the only French correspondent in Moscow at that time....
Rollin agreed with me that Trotsky's absence was inexplicable. "From all I can learn," he said, "Trotsky is not even dangerously ill, although I won't accept the view that his illness is wholly, or mainly, diplomatic." He paused and rubbed his high, broad forehead. "Yes," he said, "it's extraordinary--worse than any surrender. How pleased Stalin must be!"
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 99



Trotsky's own explanation in his autobiography of his absence from Lenin's funeral is thin and unconvincing, and does small credit either to his heart or head. He declares that a coded message from Stalin announcing Lenin's death was delivered to him in his private car at the station in Tiflis on January 21st, that is to say a few hours after Lenin died. He continues, "I got the Kremlin on the direct wire. In answer to my inquiry I was told: 'The funeral will be on Saturday; you cannot get back in time and so we advise you to continue your treatment.' Accordingly, I had no choice. As a matter of fact, the funeral did not take place until Sunday and I could easily have reached Moscow by then. Incredible as it may appear, I was even deceived about the date of the funeral."
This final accusation was as unjust as it was ungenerous. Lenin died on the afternoon of Monday, January 21st, and his funeral was originally set for Saturday, the 26, but the number of people who wished to see him was so great--thousands came from places more distant than Tiflis--that it was postponed 24 hours. The journey from Moscow to Tiflis by ordinary express takes three days and three nights--allow four or even five days and nights in 1924 in winter-time. Trotsky's private car was in the station when he received the news on Monday night. Tiflis is one of the biggest railroad depots in south Russia and there is not the slightest doubt that the Red war-lord, whose authority was still unquestioned, could have ordered a special chain and been back in Moscow within 72 hours. Trotsky's account continues theatrically, "The Tiflis comrades came to demand that I should write on Lenin's death at once. But I knew only one urgent desire--and that was to be alone. I could not stretch my hand to lift the pen." He then adds that he wrote a "few handwritten pages." Strangest of all, there is no word in Trotsky's recital of any surmise on his part, much less compunction, as to what people in Moscow might feel about his failure to return immediately. Any thought of the duty he owed to his dead comrade seems to have been as remote from his mind as perception of the political effects of his absence. Instead he writes of spending those days before the funeral lying on a balcony in the sun at Sukhumi, a twenty-four hour train journey from Tiflis which apparently caused him no physical distress--facing the glittering sea and the huge palms--and of his own "sensation of running a temperature" with which mingled, he says, thoughts of Lenin's death. To make the picture complete Trotsky quotes a passage from his wife's diary: "We arrived quite broken down; it was the first time we had seen Sukhumi. The mimosa were in full bloom, magnificent palms, camellias. In the dining room of the rest-house there were two portraits on the wall, one--draped in black--of Vladimir Ilich, the other of L. D. (Trotsky). We felt like taking the latter one down but thought it would be too demonstrative." Later Madame Trotsky wrote: "Our friends were expecting L. D. to come to Moscow and thought he would cut short his trip in order to return, since no one imagined that Stalin’s telegram had cut off his return.” (This refers to the [alleged] message from the Kremlin saying that the funeral would be on Saturday and that Trotsky could not get back in time.) “I remember my son’s letter received at Sukhumi. He was terribly shocked by Lenin’s death and, though suffering from a cold with a temperature of 104, he went in his not very warm coat to the Hall of Columns to pay his last respects and waited, waited, and waited with impatience for our arrival. One could feel in his letter his bitter bewilderment and diffident reproach.” On these extracts from his wife’s diary Trotsky makes no comment at all.
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 100


On the day of Lenin's death, Trotsky arrived in Tiflis en route to the resort city of Sukhumi. He learned of it the next day from a coded telegram signed by Stalin. In response to a cable query, Stalin advised him that the funeral would take place on Saturday (Jan. 26) and added that since there was not enough time for him to return for the funeral, the Politburo thought it best that he proceed to Sukhumi as planned. As it turned out, the funeral took place on Sunday. Trotsky subsequently accused Stalin of deliberately misinforming him in order to have him miss the funeral. The charge does not stand up to scrutiny. Lenin died on Monday and Trotsky had the information on Tuesday morning. It had taken him three days to travel from Moscow to Tiflis. Had he immediately turned around, he could have reached Moscow by Friday at the latest, in good time to attend the funeral even if it had been on Saturday. Instead, for reasons he never satisfactorily explained, he followed Stalin's advice and went on to Sukhumi. There he basked in the Black Sea sun while Lenin's body lay in state in wintry Moscow attended by the Old Guard. His absence caused widespread surprise and dismay.
[Footnote]: The decision to postpone Lenin's funeral to Sunday was announced only on Friday, Jan. 25, so that it is by no means apparent that in cabling on Jan. 22 that it would take place on Saturday, Stalin was deliberately deceiving him, as Trotsky later claimed. Deutscher, in a not uncharacteristic instance of carelessness favorable to his hero, claims that Stalin advised Trotsky the funeral would be "the next day". Stalin's second cable stated that the funeral would be on Saturday, i.e., not the "next" day but in four days.
Pipes, Richard. Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1993, p. 487

At 6:50 p.m. on Monday 21 January 1924, Lenin died.
Stalin notified all regional and republican Party committees of Lenin's death, and called for immediate steps to maintain order and prevent panic. Among his numerous other chores, Stalin sent a coded cable to Tiflis: "Tell Comrade Trotsky that on 21 January at 6:50 p.m. Comrade Lenin died suddenly. Death was caused by paralysis of the respiratory center. Funeral Saturday 26 January 1924."
Volkogonov, Dmitrii. Lenin: A New Biography. New York: Free Press, 1994, p. 435-436

[daft punk]

Fiction is stranger than truth.

[Brosip Tito]

And,yet again "daft punk" goes into his usual lines of anti-historical materialism and his negation of some very serious and proven facts that surround the death of the great socialist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin,as we all know,his health was bad,and it was mainly the result of the many assassination atempts and his bad health,which was understandable,because of the years of intelectual labour Vladimir Lenin passed trough,however,the usual Trotskyists lie that somehow,Stalin,the second man after Lenin,was ploting to assassinate the man who spoke about him like a comrade,and criticized him when the situation called,and the man who was one of the first serious marxist thinkers he met while he advanced from poor and backward Georgia to the center of the future Soviet Union,Russia,and to Petrograd.Further more,i am not obliged to write about their own relationship,which was,at best,one of the more solid in the entire Bolshevik state leadership,which is showed by Lenins own words,and by the acts of Joseph Stalin,after the death of the great revolutionary Lenin - : Soon after Lenin died a year later, Stalin had the Marx-Engels Institute re-named the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute. He insured, by means of a special Central Committee decision, that all materials, documents, and letters, including those of a personal nature, would be deposited in this new center for the "research of Lenin's heritage." A Lenin archive of 4500 documents was created, as Tikhomirnov informed Stalin in early 1933. It would soon grow to 26,000. On Stalin's orders all Lenin material that had belonged to Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev and other leading figures was transferred to it, and expeditions by Ganetsky, Adoratsky, and Tikhomirnov scoured Vienna, Warsaw, Cracow, Zurich, Brussels, and Paris in search of more Leniniana. Volkogonov, Dmitrii. Lenin: A New Biography. New York: Free Press, 1994, p. 274. Not to mention that Stalin was not ignoring Lenin in no possible way,in fact,it is know that he proposed his resignation,however...(in his own words) : Right from the first session of the Central Committee, after the 13th Congress, I asked to be released from the obligations of the General Secretaryship. The Congress itself examined the question. Each delegation examined the question, and every delegation, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, voted unanimously in favor of Stalin remaining at his post. What could I do then? Abandon my post? Such a thing is not in my character.... At the end of one year I again asked to be set free and I was again forced to remain at my post. What could I do then?
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 244

Now i would like to mention a few words aimed at your notion that Trotsky never lied about Stalin,while the supporters of Trotsky of course,in most cases,completely accept such ideas,there have been voices against such words,and to be honest,to the non-Trotskyists part of the forum,it is pretty obvious that Trotsky did in fact lie about Stalin a lot,as it was his strategy,and one of his main weapons: his literary skill,since he didn't have support from the masses,he could only write books and criticise Stalin for the things he would not dream of.The many of his lies are by now,well known : Nevertheless, in composing the portrait [of Stalin], he [Trotsky] uses abundantly far too often the material of inference, guess, and hearsay. He picks up any piece of gossip or rumor if only it shows a trait of cruelty or suggests treachery in the young Djugachvili. He gives credence to Stalin's schoolmates and later enemies who in reminiscences about their childhood, written in exile thirty or more years after the events, say that the boy Soso "had only a sarcastic sneer for the joys and sorrows of his fellows": that "compassion for people or for animals was foreign to him"; or that from "his youth the carrying out of vengeful plots became for him the goal that dominated all his efforts."... There is no need to go into many examples of this approach. The most striking is, of course, Trotsky's suggestion, mentioned earlier, that Stalin had poisoned Lenin....Deutscher, Isaac. The Prophet Outcast. London, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963, p. 452 .Lenin was always close to Stalin,and had much trust in him,which is showed when he placed entire battalions under his command,and thousands of men,he complimented him,both before the revolution,and after.And now to finally adress the question of Stalin poisoning Lenin,an idea which is in its essence,absurd.

Trotsky would later speak of "Stalin's poison." But this is irrelevant. Professor V. Shklovsky, son of the imminent physician M. Shklovsky, found in his father's records the testimony [originally meant to be destroyed] of V. Osipov, one of the senior doctors attending Lenin, and a speech therapist S. Dobrogayev. We read in particular that "the final diagnosis dismisses the stories of the syphilitic character of Lenin's disease, or of arsenic poisoning. It was atherosclerosis, mainly affecting the cerebral blood vessels. The calcium deposit was so thick that during dissection the tweezers made a noise as if they were rapping on stone. Lenin's parents also died of this disease." But the story that Lenin had been poisoned would never die. Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 213

This delusion has been utilized by various writers, Trotsky the most eminent, who have argued that Stalin murdered Lenin. Lenin was not in such bad shape, they maintain, so is it not strange that he died so suddenly? In the nature of things Stalin's innocence cannot be proven, and in history, unlike some judicial systems, it cannot be presumed. But it strains the imagination to believe that the official account of Lenin's arterial sclerosis was fabricated. Furthermore, the general impression of Stalin's tactics in this whole period, roughly 1922-28, is that he considered time to be on his side and was remarkably patient in waiting to see whether events would unfold to his advantage. It is unlikely that in early 1924 he feared that Lenin might revive and cause trouble. McNeal, Robert, Stalin: Man and Ruler. New York: New York University Press, 1988, p. 85 .This all reminds me of the many debates i had regarding Stalin and him being an 'agent of the Okhrana - which,as i have proved,was a complete lie.
Learn to debate by making your own arguments, not copy-pasting from articles.

[Omsk]

Learn to debate by making your own arguments, not copy-pasting from articles.

Have you even read that you poor excuse for a 'debater'? No.

That was not an article,i mean,i understand you are not the sharpest knife,but at least read it - it's composed of quotes from books and my own words.

Some people are unbelievable.

Just because someone can write a post longer than 10 lines or so,does not mean he 'copy-paste's' it. (And dont pay attention to daft-punk,he just can't face that his idol and saint Bronstein lied..)