Lev Lurie : Vladimir Lenin was Poisoned by Stalin

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Russian historian Lev Lurie believes Lenin, could have been poisoned by his political rival and successor Joseph Stalin.


The founder of Russian communism Vladamir Lenin died after being poisoned by his political successor Joseph Stalin, according to a sensational new theory.
Russian historian Lev Lurie, believes that while Lenin was already in poor health having suffered several strokes, Stalin may have finished him off after a bitter feud.
Lenin, who had initially supported Stalin's rise to power, later began aligning himself with Leon Trotsky.

Dr. Vinters says this claim is prattle, and stress was most likely the cause.
'People were always trying to assassinate him, for example.' Dr Vinters said.
Dr Vinters, who reviewed autopsy records and the leader's clinical history, said toxicology tests that might have revealed poisoning were not conducted during the autopsy.
Reports from the time also show Lenin was active and talking a few hours before his death.
'And then he experienced a series of really, really bad convulsions which is quite unusual for someone who has a stroke,' Vinters said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139527/Vladamir-Lenin-poisoned-Joseph-Stalin-Russian-communism-founder-bumped-political-rival.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Opinions? I haven't looked into it much about Joseph Stalin, Trotsky, and Lenin. I guess I know the rivalry, but nothing more than that. I wonder what the opinions are here, and if someone could give me more insight on how this conspiracy is either true or false.

I WILL ASK FOR THIS POST TO BE CLOSED IF USERS CAN NOT CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A CIVIL MATTER! PLEASE, NO FIGHTING!

[the Leftâ„¢]

I dont think this is plausible considering how even to Lenins dying day, Stalin and Lenin wrote each other and genuinely cared about each others well-being. Even after Lenin's death Stalin eulogized him in a very romantic and moving speech, no suggestion of even contempt or malice towards him. This seems a bit far-fetched imo. His father had a history of hemmorraging and stroke, it seems under the stress of revolutionary life and leadership, hardship and assassination attempts Lenins ailments and ultimate death weren't atypical.

[Koba Junior]

Lenin most certainly was not allying himself with Leon Trotsky towards the end of his life.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

This is not true. If Stalin hated Lenin so much, then why did he keep his legacy alive for so many years to come and use his teachings as the basis for Soviet policy?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Sounds fishy. Everything else I've read about dying Lenin's relationship with Stalin and Trotsky says the opposite of this bit: "Lenin, who had initially supported Stalin's rise to power, later began aligning himself with Leon Trotsky."

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is not true. If Stalin hated Lenin so much, then why did he keep his legacy alive for so many years to come and use his teachings as the basis for Soviet policy?I don't believe this claim of poisoning, but the fetishization of Lenin and Marx in the USSR had less to do with actual love and respect for their actual work than trying to cloak the USSR in their credibility.

I can't think of a better metaphor for the USSR's relationship to the Russian Revolution and the revolutionary politics of the Bolsheviks at that time than they way they made a false idol out of Lenin's lifeless, mutilated, reconstructed and horrifically preserved body. The post-revolutionary communism of the USSR: a lifeless husk and parody. What was it that Marx said about what ruling classes do to the images and legacies of dead revolutionaries?

[Dire Helix]

Love the user comments from the article:


Really! Who cares how the evil die?
Trotsky was a monster who is behind massacre of 30 million best Russian people!
All brutally evil, sadistic killers...
I own a small store, capitalism works for me.

[ComradeOm]

Poisoning is unlikely. Not impossible and not far-fetched, see below, but ultimately Lenin's health was so shot by 1923 that there was hardly any reason to pro-actively intervene in hastening the end. This looks more likely to be a case of historical autopsy of the sort that has occupied Napoleon scholars for decades


I dont think this is plausible considering how even to Lenins dying day, Stalin and Lenin wrote each other and genuinely cared about each others well-beingHmmm? You don't have to be a Trotskyist to see Stalin's behaviour in the last year of Lenin's life as sinister. As Lenin embarked on his final series of notes, which culimated in the sharply critical Better Fewer, But Better, every effort was made by Stalin to control Lenin's access to information. Particularly so during the Georgian Affair. It's not new information that Lenin's entourage was under pressure to keep him in the dark about certain subjects and update Stalin when he did take an interest in a subject


Even after Lenin's death Stalin eulogized him in a very romantic and moving speech, no suggestion of even contempt or malice towards himA speech that incidentally marked the (re)launch of the Lenin Cult and its appropriation by Stalin to legitimise his own policies. Many prominent Soviet politicians made gushing and overwrought speeches on the eve of the funeral but few had the explicit political meaning of Stalin's 'oath speech'; the symbolic moment in which Stalin publicly and dramatically swore to uphold Lenin's legacy, thus positioning himself as the guardian of this

Or do you expect that Stalin would have stood up at the Second All-Union Congress of Soviets and publicly slated, or otherwise spoken with "contempt or malice" towards, the dead Lenin? :confused:

[Sir Comradical]

Not a fan of Stalin but this sounds like bullshit. Not even Trotsky levelled this accusation.

[Nox]

It seems far-fetched but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.

[Omsk]

Not even Trotsky levelled this accusation.
Trotsky was one of the first people to claim that Stalin poisoned Lenin.

I had a discussion about this with daft-punk,our favorite Trotskyite,and in the end,he basically gave up,because there is no proof at all which could even hint that Stalin had any kind of a role in Lenin's death.

To quote an old post i wrote in those 'productive' days:

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.

[Geiseric]

There was a purpose for Stalin to kill Lenin, but I don't think it really matters if he actually did it at this point. It's not like we can arrest him and throw him in a Gulag.

What is important though is that Stalin revised basically every doctrine that made the Bolsheviks seperate from the Mensheviks, and he in basically every case advocated for his own brand of "revolutionary defensism," which is what the SRs went by in order to appease the Entente, which is the same purpose Stalin has for instituting extreme Stagism in most 3rd world countries that had Comintern parties.

[PFay]

Russian historian Lev Lurie believes Lenin, could have been poisoned by his political rival and successor Joseph Stalin.

Dr. Vinters says this claim is prattle, and stress was most likely the cause.


This is not a novel discovery by the news media and so-called "historian" Lev Lurie. However, it may have been a novel idea in 1940, when Trotsky 'discovered' (or invented) it:

"Si Staline envoya le poison à Lénine après que les médecins aient laissé entendre à demi-mot qu'il n'y avait plus d'espoir, ou s'il eut recours à des moyens plus directs, je l'ignore. Mais suis fermement convaincu que Staline n'aurait pu attendre passivement quand son destin était en jeu et que la décision dépendait d'un petit, d'un très petit mouvement de sa main." (Stalin, by Leon Trotsky, 1940)

[Whether Stalin sent the poison to Lenin with the hint that the physicians had left no hope for his recovery or whether he resorted to more direct means I do not know. But I am firmly convinced Stalin could not have waited passively when his fate hung by a thread and the decision depended on a a small, very small motion of his hand."]
- "marxists.org/francais/trotsky/livres/staline/lt_stal19.htm"

How's that for evidence-based historical fact? "I do not know", but "I am convinced." Why 'convinced'? For no reason, because there is no evidence. This is the origin of this particular lie about Stalin, which has been repeated ad-nauseum as fact for 70 years.

This fake story was also reported on the front pages of all US newspapers in 1946, certainly by many of the same ones that reported today's "new discovery": - "news.google.com/newspapers?id=x0YaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LCUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2250,3281845&hl=en"

Apparently not a lot has changed since the 1940's in bourgeois journalism: when there is no evidence against the enemies of capitalist rule, just make it up - any old lie will do.

- theclearview.wordpress.com

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I dont think this is plausible considering how even to Lenins dying day, Stalin and Lenin wrote each other and genuinely cared about each others well-being. Even after Lenin's death Stalin eulogized him in a very romantic and moving speech, no suggestion of even contempt or malice towards him. This seems a bit far-fetched imo. His father had a history of hemmorraging and stroke, it seems under the stress of revolutionary life and leadership, hardship and assassination attempts Lenins ailments and ultimate death weren't atypical.
Comrade, it is plausible, but highly unlikely. Stalin didn't have access to Lenin in his last days -- no one really did, except Krupskaya, his wife, who was very protective.

Some of the last political writings that Lenin made were attacks on Stalin, including his last will and testament (named after the fact), and a addendum added to it, to specifically recommend Stalin's removal as Party Secretary. Also, he authored a major attack on bureaucratism that was blooming in the party and everyone knew that this was an attack on Stalin (it was read at the 12th Party Congress). Lenin was incensed over Stalin's handling of issues with the Georgian Communist Party.

Stalin, was ALWAYS very careful when waging fights. He never waged a fight unless he was almost certain to win. So at the 12th Congress he was absolutely pitch perfect in praising Lenin, in a modest and measured way, and also took up Lenin's call to fight bureaucracy and to handle the issue with the SSRs in a much more diplomatic and democratic fashion. At the time of his death, Lenin had already broken off relations with Stalin. But this was not at all widely known in the party.

So, I agree that Lenin died from severe arterial sclerosis, but he and Stalin were not on good terms. Stalin praised Lenin at that time, because it was politically expedient. He was probably quite fearful that he might be removed as Party Secretary. And he was also quite fearful that Lenin might recover from his third stroke. Sadly that did not happen.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Also I said this in another thread and I will repeat it. Stalin's ambitions and vindictiveness knew no bounds. He would have comrades shot if they simply did not agree quickly or fulsomely enough with him. He would have had family members tortured to death if it gave him a small political advantage. So the idea that he could not have done this because he loved Lenin, is utterly absurd. I'm pretty sure Stalin was a sociopath. A very successful one. Given the opportunity and a very low chance of being caught, it seems likely that he would have done the deed. I don't think he had the opportunity -- and this also distracts from the MANY actual crimes of the Soviet Bonaparte.

[Zulu]

I think it's possible that Stalin actually revered Lenin exactly in the way he expressed it - to a somewhat irrational extent. His outburst with Krupskaya, the one over which Lenin demanded an apology, was not quite normal for Stalin, who with all his "ambitions" and "vindictiveness" was always reserved and discreet. Bullying people around openly was certainly "not his style". So one has to assume that in that case he was quite sincere as he reprimanded Krupskaya for her violation of the regimen the doctors prescribed for Lenin.

[JAM]

Unfortunately, the socialist history is full of conspiracy theories, most of them associated to Stalin of course. This is just one more in a countless list. You have conspiracy theories surrounding the death of other socialist figures as well: Stalin, Kirov, Gheorghiu-Dej, Agostinho Neto, just to give you some examples that I am familiar with.

However, I think there is no figure in the world history with more conspiracy theories associated to it than Stalin. You have a conspiracy theory for every aspect of Stalin life: marriages, sons, political assassinations, czarist secret agent, his wife death, his own death, etc... It's not a surprise for me. Great figures always attract this kind of stuff. But Stalin surpasses anybody on this one as well...

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Lenin most certainly was not allying himself with Leon Trotsky towards the end of his life.
Uh, actually he was. See my previous posts on this thread. Lenin was becoming increasingly alarmed at Stalin's use of the Secretariat as a vehicle of his own power in the party. I suggest you take a gander at E.H. Carr's fine book, The Interregnum 1923-1924. Has oodles of details about what was going in in the RCP. And he was not a Trotskyist, if that helps you to believe what he wrote. If you are up to this, it would be most clarifying.

[Bostana]

Uhh Yeah I'm calling bullshit on that.

What would Stalin gain from Lenin's death? I bet some people would think 'well Stalin would be leader of Russia.' Well this certainly isn't true. Stalin had no clue that he would be leader of Russia after Lenin's death. He didn't even have the aim of leading the nation.
There is no direct evidence that Stalin poisoned Lenin. The only evidence they probably have is like the History Channel's. "Nowhere in Stalin's diary does it say he didn't poison Lenin"

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Uhh Yeah I'm calling bullshit on that.

What would Stalin gain from Lenin's death? I bet some people would think 'well Stalin would be leader of Russia.' Well this certainly isn't true. Stalin had no clue that he would be leader of Russia after Lenin's death. He didn't even have the aim of leading the nation.
There is no direct evidence that Stalin poisoned Lenin. The only evidence they probably have is like the History Channel's. "Nowhere in Stalin's diary does it say he didn't poison Lenin"
LOL. Dear diary, today I poisoned comrade Lenin. He deserved it -- he was talking behind my back to Trotsky. :lol:

Even a hardcore intellectually challenged Stalinist would have to admit that Stalin was immensely ambitious. He spent a great deal of time and effort concentrating power into his own hands. And he was masterful at it. Do you think it was an easy matter to outwit all of the leading Bolsheviks -- including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Buhkarin, Rykov, Tomsky, Radek, Preobrazhinsky, etc. ? But he did -- and Lenin, before he died was in the process of launching a major attack on Stalin. It is absolutely immaterial whether or not Stalin actually poisoned Lenin. He murdered all of the other old Bolsheviks -- isn't that enough? There is no real evidence that Stalin murdered Lenin. It is idle speculation. But the idea of Stalin being a man without supreme ambition is rather dim-witted.

[Koba Junior]

Even a hardcore intellectually challenged Stalinist would have to admit that Stalin was immensely ambitious. He spent a great deal of time and effort concentrating power into his own hands. And he was masterful at it. Do you think it was an easy matter to outwit all of the leading Bolsheviks -- including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Buhkarin, Rykov, Tomsky, Radek, Preobrazhinsky, etc. ? But he did -- and Lenin, before he died was in the process of launching a major attack on Stalin. It is absolutely immaterial whether or not Stalin actually poisoned Lenin. He murdered all of the other old Bolsheviks -- isn't that enough? I truly doubt that he did, but so what?

Is it possible any of you revisionists can go one post without flame-baiting Marxist-Leninists? Honestly.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Uhh Yeah I'm calling bullshit on that.

What would Stalin gain from Lenin's death? I bet some people would think 'well Stalin would be leader of Russia.' Well this certainly isn't true. Stalin had no clue that he would be leader of Russia after Lenin's death. He didn't even have the aim of leading the nation.
There is no direct evidence that Stalin poisoned Lenin. The only evidence they probably have is like the History Channel's. "Nowhere in Stalin's diary does it say he didn't poison Lenin"
Okay, call Bullshit on that -- what evidence to you have that Lenin's last will and testament and his attacks on the Secretariat and his last meetings with Trotsky were not aimed at a bloc against Stalin? Spare me the flat assertions.

[Koba Junior]

Okay, call Bullshit on that -- what evidence to you have that Lenin's last will and testament and his attacks on the Secretariat and his last meetings with Trotsky were not aimed at a bloc against Stalin? Spare me the flat assertions.

You've yet to present any evidence for your position; I'm not sure why it's reasonable for you to expect others to provide evidence for disagreeing with it. I'd also be interested in what you might have to say about Lenin's deteriorating mental health in his final years.

[Bostana]

LOL. Dear diary, today I poisoned comrade Lenin. He deserved it -- he was talking behind my back to Trotsky. :lol:

Lol did you even understand what I said?

I said that exact accusation would be stupid. Are you actually going to the accusation that Stalin poisoned Lenin. That's well.....that's idiotic. Have you even read the letters that they wrote to each other during Lenin's final years? Or wait, let me guess, Trotsky said it so it must be the truth. Do a little research and don't listen to one man's story without listening to the others. That would be like the Salem Witch trials.

[Bostana]

what evidence to you have that Lenin's last will and testament and his attacks on the Secretariat and his last meetings with Trotsky were not aimed at a bloc against Stalin? Spare me the flat assertions.

May I ask you provide evidence for this thing that every Trotskyist says and yet provides no evidence for? Can you do that?

[Geiseric]

Stalin was definately head of the Center (opportunist) opposition by the time Lenin died, Lenin wanted to get rid of the N.E.P. and he didn't believe in SoiC at any point in his life, nor did Stalin untill he was given a position as the Great Man of the fSU. So he must of been in favor of Industrialisation and supporting International Communism, which Stalin wasn't in the 1920s - 1930s, thus he would of been in line with Trotsky's bloc had he been part of politics.

[Koba Junior]

Stalin was definately head of the Center (opportunist) opposition by the time Lenin died, Lenin wanted to get rid of the N.E.P. and he didn't believe in SoiC at any point in his life, nor did Stalin untill he was given a position as the Great Man of the fSU. So he must of been in favor of Industrialisation and supporting International Communism, which Stalin wasn't in the 1920s - 1930s, thus he would of been in line with Trotsky's bloc had he been part of politics.

I would be interested in seeing any evidence for any of these claims, at all, even in the minimum.

[Bostana]

Stalin was definately head of the Center (opportunist) opposition by the time Lenin died, Lenin wanted to get rid of the N.E.P. and he didn't believe in SoiC at any point in his life, nor did Stalin untill he was given a position as the Great Man of the fSU. So he must of been in favor of Industrialisation and supporting International Communism, which Stalin wasn't in the 1920s - 1930s, thus he would of been in line with Trotsky's bloc had he been part of politics.

I like how what you just said had nothing to do with the OP's question. Anyway though if anyone was an opportunist in the Bolshevik Story it was Trotsky. He would engage himself in conspiratorial work to undermine to achievement of Socialism in the USSR. One of the main collimation of Trotsky terrorism is when he had his followers try to undermine the first five year plan with murder of Sergei Kirov

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Is it possible any of you revisionists can go one post without flame-baiting Marxist-Leninists? Honestly.
I don't know, comrade. I was actually defending Stalin against the charge of murdering Lenin. That he murdered almost all of the Old Bolsheviks and Trotsky is a matter of fact. That he was ambitious, I would think, is also a matter of fact. Comrade Bostana was calling what I had written "bullshit" with nothing else to back up his assertion. I will save a discussion of "revisionism" for another time and thread, but I don't accept the label.

Hey comrade, if you want to start a thread about how Trotsky was responsible for murdering Kirov, go right ahead. It's idiotic, but go for it. This is not the time or place. You clearly know almost nothing about Trotsky that isn't some kind of Stalinist fabrication. Why don't you try to read some of his works and maybe some supplemental writings by some decent historians. You do read, don't you?

[marl]

May I ask you provide evidence for this thing that every Trotskyist says and yet provides no evidence for? Can you do that?



Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. 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.

...

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's Last Testament - Letter to the Congress (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm)

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

May I ask you provide evidence for this thing that every Trotskyist says and yet provides no evidence for? Can you do that?
Thanks for playing, but, I'm sorry, you don't get to go on to the lightning round -- better luck next time. We've had some back and forth discussions, I provide details and you ignore them with more flat assertions. You really don't contribute much to these discussions comrade.

[JAM]

Lenin wanted to get rid of the N.E.P.

He wanted? "The NEP is in earnest and long-term" by Lenin.

[Koba Junior]

I don't know, comrade. I was actually defending Stalin against the charge of murdering Lenin. That he murdered almost all of the Old Bolsheviks and Trotsky is a matter of fact. That he was ambitious, I would think, is also a matter of fact. Comrade Bostana was calling what I had written "bullshit" with nothing else to back up his assertion. I will save a discussion of "revisionism" for another time and thread, but I don't accept the label.

Hey comrade, if you want to start a thread about how Trotsky was responsible for murdering Kirov, go right ahead. It's idiotic, but go for it. This is not the time or place. You clearly know almost nothing about Trotsky that isn't some kind of Stalinist fabrication. Why don't you try to read some of his works and maybe some supplemental writings by some decent historians. You do read, don't you?

You just can't help yourself, can you?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

You just can't help yourself, can you?
No, I can't:D. But the fact is that Bostana continuously makes the most knuckleheaded of posts. I have had lots of exchanges with Stalinists (or, if you prefer, "Marxist-Leninists") that have been civil. I strongly disagree with what you guys have to say -- but you are rarely idiotic -- just wrong. Bostana brings down the level of the discussion every time. No cites, no reasoning, nothing. If you are going to post about something on this site, you should actually have read a few things about it. I give Omsk a hard time because of the obscure Stalinist hacks he manages to conjure up, but at least he tries. I can respect that. Do you like having Bostana represent MLism on this site?

[Koba Junior]

No, I can't:D. But the fact is that Bostana continuously makes the most knuckleheaded of posts. ...

Agreed.


I have had lots of exchanges with Stalinists (or, if you prefer, "Marxist-Leninists") that have been civil. I strongly disagree with what you guys have to say -- but you are rarely idiotic -- just wrong. Bostana brings down the level of the discussion every time. No cites, no reasoning, nothing. If you are going to post about something on this site, you should actually have read a few things about it. I give Omsk a hard time because of the obscure Stalinist hacks he manages to conjure up, but at least he tries. I can respect that. Do you like having Bostana represent MLism on this site?

Isn't he a Maoist? I think that would give us some wiggle room to distance ourselves from him as a revisionist.

[Bostana]

He asked him to leave the post not the party. I love how trots get the two confused. And just to add to the insult I am going to tell you the story about Lenin's testament. As Lenin asked and Stalin peacefully left the position. Then the issue did come up if Stalin should leave the Bolshevik. So they put it to a vote, and Stalin was voted to be kept in the party. Guess who voted to keep him in the party. Yes Comrade Trotsky himself voted for him to stay in the party.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Lol did you even understand what I said?

I said that exact accusation would be stupid. Are you actually going to the accusation that Stalin poisoned Lenin. That's well.....that's idiotic. Have you even read the letters that they wrote to each other during Lenin's final years? Or wait, let me guess, Trotsky said it so it must be the truth. Do a little research and don't listen to one man's story without listening to the others. That would be like the Salem Witch trials.

Comrade, although I have mocked you at times, I was laughing with you on this one. Here let me say it again I DO NOT THINK STALIN POISONED LENIN.

Do I really have to get the quotes from history books to back up the obvious fact based on his last political writings and his meetings with Trotsky that he was trying to radically curb Stalin's power in the party. Of course, he probably thought Stalin was still useful and could remain on the CC, and maybe even the PB. But Stalin's use of the Secretariat to appoint party officials based on loyalty to Stalin had to be stopped. It wasn't. And didn't that work out well?

"But ten days later, on 6 February 1923, still dwelling on the same subject, Lenin wrote a further article of a very different character, and three times as long as its predecessor, entitled 'Better Less but Better.' This was a fierce uninhibited attack on the whole record and organization of Rabkrin. Stalin's name was not mentioned. But the opening sentence, in Which Lenin gave the advice 'not to run after quantity and not to be too hasty', echoed the criticism in his memorandum of 30 December 1922 of Stalin's 'hastiness and administrative impulsiveness'; and the emphatic indictment, twice repeated, of 'bureaucracy not only in our Soviet institutions, but in our party institutions' was unequivocally aimed at the office of the secretary-general.

Even though the development of Lenin's personal animosity against Stalin was still unknown and unsuspected in the party, where Stalin ranked as one of Lenin's most faithful and useful subordinates, the attack on him in this article was unmistakable. It's publication would be an anouncement to the party that he no longer enjoyed Lenin's confidence. This explains the extraordinary attempts made to prevent publication. Delaying tactics were at first tried, but impatient messages from Lenin through Krupskaya compelled the Politburo to take a secision. According to Trotsky, all those present at the beginning of the meeting except himself -- he names Stalin, Molotov, Kibyshev, Rykov, Kalinin and Bukharin -- were against publication. When the difficluty of Lenin's insistence was raised, Kuibyshev (the third member of the secretariat with Stalin and Molotov) proposed to print a dummy issue of Pravda containing the article to be shown to Lenin. The proposal proved embarrassing for some of his less hardened colleagues; and, when Kamenev, arriving late, took Trotsky's side, the Politburo swung over and resigned itself to publication. The article 'Bettter Less but Better' appeared in Pravda on 4 March 1923. The date 2 March appended to it was evidently designed to coverup the delays and hesitations of the Politburo."

The Interregnum 1923-1924; E.H. Carr (Pelican Books, 1954)

There you go.

[Zulu]

Lenin, before he died was in the process of launching a major attack on Stalin.

Criticizing somebody for being rude is hardly "being in the process of launching a major attack". In fact, Lenin, while making the suggestion to remove Stalin from the position of the Secretary General, praised Stalin as almost an ideal communist with only one flaw of being rude. Did he recommend anybody specific to replace Stalin? Well, no, because he obviously could not think of such a person - an ideal person without any flaws. And in the same "Testament" letter Lenin provides criticism of Trotsky too, siting his disregard for the decisions of the Central Committee and "excessive self-assurance".

Overall the main motive underlying the "Testament", was that a split within the Party must be avoided at all costs. And that's exactly what Stalin was trying to do the entire time after Lenin's death - avoid the split and keep the Party togther. And he got "rude", killing all those "Old Bolsheviks" only after a decade of a bitter struggle, during which all that they did was political infighting and attempts to split the Party - exactly what Lenin warned against. Was Trotsky an "Old Bolshevik" himself? No, he was an old adventurist, who used his cunning and charisma to lead all those "Old Bolsheviks" astray.

And the oppositionists just showed that they had not integrity of their political stance whatsoever. Take Preobrazhensky, for instance. Personally, I think it's a pity he was shoot, and it was a big loss, since he was a talented theoretician of political economy. Only he should have stuck to the theory, and his expertise would have become invaluable later, when the pro-market economists (led by Voznesensky) came in droves after the initial successes of the socialist construction. But in practice Preobrazhensky tossed himself around all the time: first one of the leaders of the opposition during the NEP; then, once the first 5-year plan got underway, he recanted himself and became and ardent supporter of the "general line"; then, after witnessing the difficulties of the realization of the plan, he became a dissident again, but now together with the Bukharinites!

Anyway, Lenin's "Testament" is not that long to read, so everybody should do it and see for themselves, that it was nothing like an "attack on Stalin" and much less of "Lenin's allying with Trotsky":

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





'Better Less but Better.'
...
The Interregnum 1923-1924; E.H. Carr (Pelican Books, 1954)


Yeah, this E. H. Carr is certainly an expert to be listened to... [/sarcasm]

When everybody can go to the Marxists.Org and read "Better Fewer, But Better" (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm), as well as other Lenin's works of 1923, such as "Our Revolution" (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm) and "On Cooperation" (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm), and realize that the hastiness Lenin warned against was the one of the Trotskyists who wanted to put an end to the NEP and get on with industrialization immediately, and also that all those works were expressly written from the SiOC standpoint.



.

[Zulu]

He asked him to leave the post not the party. I love how trots get the two confused. And just to add to the insult I am going to tell you the story about Lenin's testament. As Lenin asked and Stalin peacefully left the position. Then the issue did come up if Stalin should leave the Bolshevik. So they put it to a vote, and Stalin was voted to be kept in the party. Guess who voted to keep him in the party. Yes Comrade Trotsky himself voted for him to stay in the party.

Ooops, no, you're confused here. Nobody suggested to expel Stalin from the Party. The vote was about whether to keep him in the position of the Secretary General. After Lenin's letter was read and discussued at the congress, he basically said "Hell yeah I'm rude, but that's because I can't keep quiet when I see somebody wants to wreck the cause of Lenin. Anyway, comrades, if you feel like I need to stand down, I will". The comrades felt that Stalin did non need to stand down.

[Homo Songun]

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2011/giorgiotsoukalos.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/LeTrotskyDB.jpg/220px-LeTrotskyDB.jpg

Has anybody ever noticed the similarity?

[seventeethdecember2016]

This thread is screwed!

[Omsk]

Hello Lev,so much material so little time.


Even a hardcore intellectually challenged Stalinist would have to admit that Stalin was immensely ambitious.

And this is not even something which we Marxist-Leninists should denounce or refuse to acknowledge. Every important figure of the period was abmbitious,and that is nothing uncommon,because Lenin,Trotsky,Rykov,Bukharin,Bubnov,Sverdlov,Lasim ir,Dibenko,old Bolsheviks,new bolshviks,all of them had ambitions,Sergei Kirov,Molotov,Lazar Kaganovich,Mikoyan,the new figures in the movement,like Hoxha. The only differences is in which way these ambitions guided them,in the case of some,they led them to victories and to the right path which was set up by Lenin and Marx and Engels,for some it was the path of revision and the utterly unsocialist deviations of the likes of Tito or the ones of the old Romanian "King of change".


Do you think it was an easy matter to outwit all of the leading Bolsheviks -- including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Buhkarin, Rykov, Tomsky, Radek, Preobrazhinsky, etc. ?

It is a great historical turn of events that he managed to remove those with ulterior motives.However,as few of them were very violent in their struggle,it is not a surprise that the course of actions had to shift to the field of strict anti-party activity and the moves against the Soviet state and party.


But he did -- and Lenin, before he died was in the process of launching a major attack on Stalin.

This is not adequate.As Stalin and Lenin had some issues,and they are defined with a simple notion made by Lenin that Stalin was sometimes harsh,and this is not something which could cause further factions and inner-party struggles.Because Lenin criticized all of the de-facto important Bolsheviks,as he knew how fragile the Soviet state was,although it may have not looked like it,the USSR was not in a good position.His grave illness prevented the final word for his decision,but now we can't say with assurance what was Lenin's plan for the end of the initial phase of the construction of socialism in Russia and other republics.


It is absolutely immaterial whether or not Stalin actually poisoned Lenin.

He did not.There is no evidence.And unless some concrete evidence is found (And not silly conspiracy theories.) this is a no-discussion.


He murdered all of the other old Bolsheviks -- isn't that enough?

Than i presume that you either forgot Lazar Kaganovich,Sergei Kirov,Grigory Ordzhonikidze,Molotov or you made a mistake? Because it would be unfair to assume that old Kaganovich died in a Gulag and not in 1991.


And i must say that you shouldn't criticize Bostana (Or Koba Junior.) with such malicious claims and insults,because when your 'representative' daft punk first joined up here, i was absolutely civil to him and i answered his arguments without personal remarks. (That is,untill he exploded into a fiery volcano of vulgarism,lies and servile behaviour.)

[A Marxist Historian]

This is not a novel discovery by the news media and so-called "historian" Lev Lurie. However, it may have been a novel idea in 1940, when Trotsky 'discovered' (or invented) it:

"Si Staline envoya le poison à Lénine après que les médecins aient laissé entendre à demi-mot qu'il n'y avait plus d'espoir, ou s'il eut recours à des moyens plus directs, je l'ignore. Mais suis fermement convaincu que Staline n'aurait pu attendre passivement quand son destin était en jeu et que la décision dépendait d'un petit, d'un très petit mouvement de sa main." (Stalin, by Leon Trotsky, 1940)

[Whether Stalin sent the poison to Lenin with the hint that the physicians had left no hope for his recovery or whether he resorted to more direct means I do not know. But I am firmly convinced Stalin could not have waited passively when his fate hung by a thread and the decision depended on a a small, very small motion of his hand."]
- "marxists.org/francais/trotsky/livres/staline/lt_stal19.htm"

How's that for evidence-based historical fact? "I do not know", but "I am convinced." Why 'convinced'? For no reason, because there is no evidence. This is the origin of this particular lie about Stalin, which has been repeated ad-nauseum as fact for 70 years.

This fake story was also reported on the front pages of all US newspapers in 1946, certainly by many of the same ones that reported today's "new discovery": - "news.google.com/newspapers?id=x0YaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LCUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2250,3281845&hl=en"

Apparently not a lot has changed since the 1940's in bourgeois journalism: when there is no evidence against the enemies of capitalist rule, just make it up - any old lie will do.

- theclearview.wordpress.com

The accusation was in an unpublished manuscript by Trotsky, published after his death over his wife's objections. It's not the only thing in Trotsky's Stalin bio I find problematic, it's not up to the level of his other works. Would Trotsky have published the accusation without better proof? Well, we'll never know.

Was the accusation plausible? Of course it was, at the time Trotsky wrote those words, Stalin had just gotten done murdering practically the entire Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party of the year 1917. Why not Lenin too? And besides, as Comrade Om mentioned there were enough odd features about how Stalin, who was in change of Lenin's health in his last year more or less, handled matters to generate suspicion.

The claims made here by our Stalin worshippers that Lenin and Stalin were close to the end, and that Lenin supported Stalin vs. Trotsky to the day he died, are simply laughable. Anybody who has studied Lenin's writings in the last years of his life knows that the opposite is true. The so-called "Testament" proves that in and of itself, and is supplemented by Lenin's writings on the Georgian national question and the monopoly of foreign trade question, which amply confirm Trotsky's statement that Lenin had formed a bloc with Trotsky vs. Stalin, and wanted to get rid of Stalin.

The whole story is copiously described in Moshe Lewin's well known book Lenin's Last Struggle, whose conclusions are virtually unanimously accepted by other historians.

However, was the poisoning accusation true? I think we can safely say that it wasn't. No well known Soviet historian accepts it as valid.

-M.H.-

[Zulu]

The so-called "Testament" proves that in and of itself, and is supplemented by Lenin's writings on the Georgian national question and the monopoly of foreign trade question, which amply confirm Trotsky's statement that Lenin had formed a bloc with Trotsky vs. Stalin, and wanted to get rid of Stalin.
That's how Trotsky himself misrepresented what happened.

The truth was Lenin was not "forming a block" either with with Trotsky against Stalin or with Stalin against Trotsky. In the "Testament" he criticizes them both, perhaps with more emphasis on Stalin's rudeness, due to the events that were recent at the time of writing the letter. Also Lenin chose Trotsky to speak in his stead before the congress of Soviets, obviously because Trotsky was the best (most persuasive) speaker and Lenin wanted to take advantage of it, since he was physically incapable of presenting his position himself.

Why the hell nobody cares to read Lenin himself (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/15.htm), while quoting Trotsky's statements that came over a decade after Lenin's death or even some bourgeois historians, who obviously have a reason to distort the truth so as to prevent people from choosing the path of Marxism-Leninism, which has proven to be dangerously successful in challenging the capitalist order in the world?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Such a festival of denial. Did you think Lenin would have called Stalin a Fuckwad? I mean really, he denounced Stalin. He was critical of Trotsky. He wanted Stalin taken away from the secretariat where he was consolidating a power base -- Lenin saw this, where the others did not. He broke personal relations with Stalin (probably because he was nasty to Krupskaya). These are not speculative -- MATTERS OF FACT. You can dismiss the attacks on Rabkrin and the stuff on the national question in Georgia only if you do not understand how things worked in the RCP at the time.

That being said, Omsk, you are right. He did not call for Stalin's removal. He knew Stalin was energetic and extremely competent. And Lenin was very concerned about a split in the party. He knew, better than Trotsky, that Trotsky's position in the party was, in many ways, dependent upon Lenin's support and protection. The Triumvirs all had reasons to resent the hell out of Trotsky. Trotsky was not nearly as adept a party politician as Stalin -- he did not want a split, and was very slow (compared to Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev) move toward outright opposition. In fact, the most notable thing about the 12th Party Congress in 1923, was the seeming unity of the PB and CC. The last thing Stalin wanted, on the heels of the sharp criticisms of Lenin, was a battle with Trotsky -- he always let others lead the way in their attacks. And since we started here talking about Lenin, Stalin could only do this with Lenin out of the way. Lenin alone had the authority in the party to bring him and Kamenev and Zinoviev to heel. Outside the party, Trotsky still had infinitely more fame, recognition and support from the masses. The party was already being swamped by conservative, careerists, who wanted latitude to "enrich" themselves. Stalin was their god. And he selected and appointed those he thought would support him in whatever he did. If you read Lenin's last writings, it is obvious that he was supporting Trotsky and very leery of Stalin.

And as for Daft Punk, I claim no responsibility for him or his posts. We sometimes agree, but he goes off into some pretty strange places.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Hello Lev,so much material so little time.



And this is not even something which we Marxist-Leninists should denounce or refuse to acknowledge. Every important figure of the period was abmbitious,and that is nothing uncommon,because Lenin,Trotsky,Rykov,Bukharin,Bubnov,Sverdlov,Lasim ir,Dibenko,old Bolsheviks,new bolshviks,all of them had ambitions,Sergei Kirov,Molotov,Lazar Kaganovich,Mikoyan,the new figures in the movement,like Hoxha. The only differences is in which way these ambitions guided them,in the case of some,they led them to victories and to the right path which was set up by Lenin and Marx and Engels,for some it was the path of revision and the utterly unsocialist deviations of the likes of Tito or the ones of the old Romanian "King of change".



It is a great historical turn of events that he managed to remove those with ulterior motives.However,as few of them were very violent in their struggle,it is not a surprise that the course of actions had to shift to the field of strict anti-party activity and the moves against the Soviet state and party.



This is not adequate.As Stalin and Lenin had some issues,and they are defined with a simple notion made by Lenin that Stalin was sometimes harsh,and this is not something which could cause further factions and inner-party struggles.Because Lenin criticized all of the de-facto important Bolsheviks,as he knew how fragile the Soviet state was,although it may have not looked like it,the USSR was not in a good position.His grave illness prevented the final word for his decision,but now we can't say with assurance what was Lenin's plan for the end of the initial phase of the construction of socialism in Russia and other republics.



He did not.There is no evidence.And unless some concrete evidence is found (And not silly conspiracy theories.) this is a no-discussion.



Than i presume that you either forgot Lazar Kaganovich,Sergei Kirov,Grigory Ordzhonikidze,Molotov or you made a mistake? Because it would be unfair to assume that old Kaganovich died in a Gulag and not in 1991.


And i must say that you shouldn't criticize Bostana (Or Koba Junior.) with such malicious claims and insults,because when your 'representative' daft punk first joined up here, i was absolutely civil to him and i answered his arguments without personal remarks. (That is,untill he exploded into a fiery volcano of vulgarism,lies and servile behaviour.)

Hey Omsk, it's been a while. If comrades made dunderheaded posts, especially on a regular basis, that add nothing to the conversation, I think they should be called to task. I actually distinguished you from Bostana. As I said, I usually don't agree with you -- but you do add to the discussion, from you own perspective. Nothing is gained from one line asinine remarks from comrade B. And yes, I get sardonic, why not. If comrades can't make a useful contribution to discussions they should refrain from posting.

I think your technique is often to pick a point I made that is not one hundred percent accurate, argue against it, never really addressing the main point. Okay, Stalin did not kill all of the old Bolsheviks, just 90 percent of the party leadership as constituted after the revolution. That is my point. A few lived, isn't that nice? Kaganovich managed to survive? Fine. He must have been very adept at licking Stalin's boots. So what?

Regarding ambition, there is nothing wrong with it, again not my point. My point was that the view of Stalin as not being very ambitious, just a loyal follower of Lenin is downright stupid. You have to be blind to all of the history before and after the Revolution to believe that.

Also, I AM AGREEING THAT STALIN DID NOT KILL LENIN. Why do you keep quoting me as if I am accusing him of that particular crime?

[Zulu]

He broke personal relations with Stalin
No. He sent Stalin a letter letting Stalin choose to either break personal relations or apologize for his insult to Krupskaya. Stalin chose the latter, but Lenin's health and mental capacity soon deteriorated, so we simply don't know what his reaction to Stalin's apologies would have been. In fact, that letter to Stalin was the last recorded conscious act in Lenin's life.

Lenin's condition, BTW, proves beyond any doubt that Stalin had no point whatsoever in poisoning Lenin, because Lenin lost all his physical and mental faculties months before his heart stopped beating, which Stalin was aware of better than anybody.



If you read Lenin's last writings, it is obvious that he was supporting Trotsky and very leery of Stalin.
Present us with a single quote where Lenin shows anything like support of some Trotsky's original ideas, as opposed to asking Trotsky to announce his, Lenin's, position on this or that matter (Monopoly of the foreign trade, Georgian affair), and your case is proven.

But the truth is, Trotsky shunned the job of being Lenin's spokesman (probably thinking he was to good for something like that).

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/06.htm#fwV42E615




the view of Stalin as not being very ambitious, just a loyal follower of Lenin is downright stupid.
Stalin's ambition was to be the most loyal and consistent follower of Lenin.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No. He sent Stalin a letter letting Stalin choose to either break personal relations or apologize for his insult to Krupskaya. Stalin chose the latter, but Lenin's health and mental capacity soon deteriorated, so we simply don't know what his reaction to Stalin's apologies would have been. In fact, that letter to Stalin was the last recorded conscious act in Lenin's life.

Lenin's condition, BTW, proves beyond any doubt that Stalin had no point whatsoever in poisoning Lenin, because Lenin lost all his physical and mental faculties months before his heart stopped beating, which Stalin was aware of better than anybody.



Present us with a single quote where Lenin shows anything like support of some Trotsky's original ideas, as opposed to asking Trotsky to announce his, Lenin's, position on this or that matter (Monopoly of the foreign trade, Georgian affair), and your case is proven.

But the truth is, Trotsky shunned the job of being Lenin's spokesman (probably thinking he was to good for something like that).

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/06.htm#fwV42E615




Stalin's ambition was to be the most loyal and consistent follower of Lenin.
Trotsky did shun being Lenin's spokesman -- he was very conscious of being something of a newcomer to the Bolsheviks, and was also even more wary of being even perceived as the Soviet Bonaparte. He also was way to slow to take Stalin seriously as a threat. Stalin, on the other hand, knew all along that Trotsky was really his main and most dangerous rival in the party.

As for your interpretation of Stalin's ambition, well, it is quite an understatement to say that he was not the most loyal person.

Lenin certainly came around to Trotsky's position on the Permanent Revolution -- the April Theses pretty much covered that - - that and the seizing of power by the proletariat led by Lenin's party and with his insistence.

At the same time, Trotsky came around to Lenin's concept of the vanguard party -- that is how they could work together as comrades.

I will try to find something on the Georgian affair

[PFay]

The accusation was in an unpublished manuscript by Trotsky, published after his death over his wife's objections. It's not the only thing in Trotsky's Stalin bio I find problematic, it's not up to the level of his other works. Would Trotsky have published the accusation without better proof? Well, we'll never know.
Trotsky completed chapters 1 through 7, which were ready to publish, and the murder accusation was in his handwriting. To contend he didn't mean it, one would have to claim Trotsky didn't believe what he wrote. (Of course, I'm convinced he didn't believe large amounts of what he wrote, but that probably is not what MH intended to imply.)

Regarding providing proof of his statements, it seems Trotsky rarely provided proof- for this claim or others. The 'proof' seemed to comprise of, 'If it were true, it would benefit me greatly, therefore it should be true'. Lenin said Trotsky, "displayed excessive self-assurance".


However, was the poisoning accusation true? I think we can safely say that it wasn't. No well known Soviet historian accepts it as valid.



Was the accusation plausible? Of course it was, at the time Trotsky wrote those words, Stalin had just gotten done murdering practically the entire Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party of the year 1917. Why not Lenin too?

So MH claims the accusation was false, no historian believes it, but then says it is plausible, implying it may be true. Please provide proof of plausibility - we are halfway back to Trotsky's original baseless claim again.


The so-called "Testament" proves [Lenin wanted to 'get rid of Stalin'] in and of itself, and is supplemented by Lenin's writings on the Georgian national question and the monopoly of foreign trade question, which amply confirm Trotsky's statement that Lenin had formed a bloc with Trotsky vs. Stalin, and wanted to get rid of Stalin.

Sorry, those imagined conspiracies are not contained in any of those documents. I've read them. Where is the actual text that proves this?

History is not built from the accumulation of unprovable conspiracy, leaps of logic or narratives of convenience, but rather must be evidence-based.

[Zulu]

I will try to find something on the Georgian affair
Please, do.




Lenin certainly came around to Trotsky's position on the Permanent Revolution -- the April Theses pretty much covered that - - that and the seizing of power by the proletariat led by Lenin's party and with his insistence.

At the same time, Trotsky came around to Lenin's concept of the vanguard party -- that is how they could work together as comrades.

That's hardly "towards the end of Lenin's life". They had some serious disagreements pretty soon after their "October Honeymoon", beginning with the question on the Brest Treaty. And that's not surprising, because the theory of the "permanent revolution" in practice (I can give you that Lenin's tactics in 1917 were ipso facto conforming with it) led to just two possible outcomes: an admittance of the premature takeover of power (the criticisms by Plekhanov and the Second International) or SiOC. Lenin chose the latter, while Trotsky simply went in denial and refused to recognize reality.




Trotsky... was also even more wary of being even perceived as the Soviet Bonaparte.
Oh, he need not have really worried about that. Lenin himself came out as "the Soviet Bonaparte", when he quoted the French one in "Our Revolution".

[A Marxist Historian]

That's how Trotsky himself misrepresented what happened.

The truth was Lenin was not "forming a block" either with with Trotsky against Stalin or with Stalin against Trotsky. In the "Testament" he criticizes them both, perhaps with more emphasis on Stalin's rudeness, due to the events that were recent at the time of writing the letter. Also Lenin chose Trotsky to speak in his stead before the congress of Soviets, obviously because Trotsky was the best (most persuasive) speaker and Lenin wanted to take advantage of it, since he was physically incapable of presenting his position himself.

Why the hell nobody cares to read Lenin himself (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/15.htm), while quoting Trotsky's statements that came over a decade after Lenin's death or even some bourgeois historians, who obviously have a reason to distort the truth so as to prevent people from choosing the path of Marxism-Leninism, which has proven to be dangerously successful in challenging the capitalist order in the world?

Reading Lenin himself is exactly what should be done, especially the statement where Lenin calls Stalin and his buddy Ordzhonikidze "Great Russian bullies."

Lenin formed a bloc with Trotsky around two issues: the national question and the defense of the monopoly of foreign trade.

And, in the last version of the "Testament," Lenin calls for removing Stalin as party General Secretary! If that's not a bloc vs. Stalin, I don't know what is.

Certainly Lenin criticized Trotsky in the testament, for looking at matters from too much of an administrative instead of a political point of view. The validity of this criticism was demonstrated after Lenin had his stroke, when Trotsky shied back from following through on Lenin's desire to fight to remove Stalin as party secretary, contenting himself with getting the economic speech at the party congress and getting a nice paper resolution passed on the national question.

Lenin did not think Trotsky realized the full seriousness of the danger that Stalin as general secretary posed, and he was right. It took Trotsky several years to realize that.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Trotsky completed chapters 1 through 7, which were ready to publish, and the murder accusation was in his handwriting. To contend he didn't mean it, one would have to claim Trotsky didn't believe what he wrote. (Of course, I'm convinced he didn't believe large amounts of what he wrote, but that probably is not what MH intended to imply.)

Regarding providing proof of his statements, it seems Trotsky rarely provided proof- for this claim or others. The 'proof' seemed to comprise of, 'If it were true, it would benefit me greatly, therefore it should be true'. Lenin said Trotsky, "displayed excessive self-assurance".


So MH claims the accusation was false, no historian believes it, but then says it is plausible, implying it may be true. Please provide proof of plausibility - we are halfway back to Trotsky's original baseless claim again.


Sorry, those imagined conspiracies are not contained in any of those documents. I've read them. Where is the actual text that proves this?

History is not built from the accumulation of unprovable conspiracy, leaps of logic or narratives of convenience, but rather must be evidence-based.

Proof of plausibility? That Stalin murdered some 90% of the Bolshevik Central Committee of 1917 demonstrates plausibility. In addition, Yagoda, Stalin's secret police head, already close to Stalin in 1923, did have poisoners, this came out during the Moscow Trials, and has been confirmed by more recent historians, though the accusations that Yagoda poisoned all sorts of Bolshevik leaders are known to be untrue.

And Stalin was in charge of Lenin's health.

So the accusation is plausible.

As for the manuscript, when it was published in the state it was in by Charles Malamuth, this was over the opposition of his widow, who threatened to sue him. It was a manuscript not ready for publication, with much in it of worth and a fair number of things Trotsky would probably have edited out in a final draft.

Was the speculation about Stalin poisoning Lenin one of them? Obviously, we'll never know.

Why? Because Stalin had Trotsky assassinated. So Stalinists have no right to complain about what was in the manuscript Trotsky was working on when Stalin had him murdered.

-M.H.-

[Koba Junior]

I have yet to read anything related to Lenin's deteriorating mental health at the time he wrote the so-called "testament."

[A Marxist Historian]

I have yet to read anything related to Lenin's deteriorating mental health at the time he wrote the so-called "testament."

Nor will you find anything, as it wasn't deteriorating. His mental health was just fine, even for quite long after he lost the ability to speak and write (but not read and listen!) by all accounts.

Stalin never had the audacity to claim that Lenin was nuts when he called for removing Stalin as GenSec. He just asserted that Lenin was under pressure and emotionally overwrought.

Which is hardly how the Testament reads, if anything is is a model of cool objectivity, not even shying from sharp and quite valid critique of his then bloc partner Trotsky.

-M.H.-

[Art Vandelay]

Nor will you find anything, as it wasn't deteriorating. His mental health was just fine, even for quite long after he lost the ability to speak and write (but not read and listen!) by all accounts.

Stalin never had the audacity to claim that Lenin was nuts when he called for removing Stalin as GenSec. He just asserted that Lenin was under pressure and emotionally overwrought.

Which is hardly how the Testament reads, if anything is is a model of cool objectivity, not even shying from sharp and quite valid critique of his then bloc partner Trotsky.

-M.H.-

This. Also was Stalin also not asked by Lenin to kill him if he ever decided it was time? Its been a while since I have read my Lenin biography so I can't remember.

[PFay]

Proof of plausibility? That Stalin murdered some 90% of the Bolshevik Central Committee of 1917 demonstrates plausibility. In addition, Yagoda, Stalin's secret police head, already close to Stalin in 1923, did have poisoners, this came out during the Moscow Trials, and has been confirmed by more recent historians, though the accusations that Yagoda poisoned all sorts of Bolshevik leaders are known to be untrue.

And Stalin was in charge of Lenin's health.

So the accusation is plausible.
-M.H.-

By this tortuous logic (and incorrect history), one could easily argue that since Trotsky employed murder, then plausibly Trotsky himself murdered Lenin. Trotsky personally imposed 'murder' sentences upon many people (whereas Stalin on the other hand, agreed to joint decisions of the party for executions, after full trials):

Trotsky orders executions without trial:
"Comrade Kamenshchikov, whom I have charged with the defense of the Moscow-Kazan line, has arranged for the setting up, at Murom, Arzamas and Sviyazhsk, of concentration camps for the imprisonment of suspicious agitators, counter-revolutionary officers, saboteurs, parasites and speculators, other than those who are to be shot at the scene of their crimes."

Trotsky's issues orders for summary executions to the military commander at Vologda: "Root out the counter-revolutionaries without mercy, lock up suspicious characters in concentration camps - this is a necessary condition of success ... Shirkers will be shot, regardless of past service ..."

Trotsky took innocent officers hostage during the civil war to prevent defections and some were executed. He also took entire civilian families hostage:
"[cable to the RMC at Serpukhov:] I ordered you to establish the family status of former officers among command personnel and to inform each of them by signed receipt that treachery or treason will cause the arrest of their families and that, therefore, they are each taking upon themselves responsibility for their families. That order is still in force." 2 December 1918.

Therefore, using similar logic, is it not entirely plausible that Trotsky himself murdered Lenin?

These are all specious arguments. While Trotsky's murders were 'revolutionary terror' (as Trotsky called it), they were required to save the revolution from overthrow. The trials and executions of counter-revolutionary coup plots in the 1930s were also aimed at saving the revolution from overthrow.

So accusations of 'murder' clearly in no way prove any 'plausibility' of Stalin poisoning Lenin.

[Angry Young Man]

"But why did he have a stroke at such a young age?"

I'm not a medical man, but I'm sure stress can bring on a stroke, and I can't think of any job more stressful than running a country on a completely unprecedented economic base in a country developmentally unsuited for it pending similar revolutions in Europe while the old world order within and without Russia kept shooting at him. Plus I heard he was such a heavy smoker they called him 'Vlad the inhaler.'

[A Marxist Historian]

By this tortuous logic (and incorrect history), one could easily argue that since Trotsky employed murder, then plausibly Trotsky himself murdered Lenin. Trotsky personally imposed 'murder' sentences upon many people (whereas Stalin on the other hand, agreed to joint decisions of the party for executions, after full trials):

Trotsky orders executions without trial:
"Comrade Kamenshchikov, whom I have charged with the defense of the Moscow-Kazan line, has arranged for the setting up, at Murom, Arzamas and Sviyazhsk, of concentration camps for the imprisonment of suspicious agitators, counter-revolutionary officers, saboteurs, parasites and speculators, other than those who are to be shot at the scene of their crimes."

Trotsky's issues orders for summary executions to the military commander at Vologda: "Root out the counter-revolutionaries without mercy, lock up suspicious characters in concentration camps - this is a necessary condition of success ... Shirkers will be shot, regardless of past service ..."

Trotsky took innocent officers hostage during the civil war to prevent defections and some were executed. He also took entire civilian families hostage:
"[cable to the RMC at Serpukhov:] I ordered you to establish the family status of former officers among command personnel and to inform each of them by signed receipt that treachery or treason will cause the arrest of their families and that, therefore, they are each taking upon themselves responsibility for their families. That order is still in force." 2 December 1918.

Therefore, using similar logic, is it not entirely plausible that Trotsky himself murdered Lenin?

These are all specious arguments. While Trotsky's murders were 'revolutionary terror' (as Trotsky called it), they were required to save the revolution from overthrow. The trials and executions of counter-revolutionary coup plots in the 1930s were also aimed at saving the revolution from overthrow.

So accusations of 'murder' clearly in no way prove any 'plausibility' of Stalin poisoning Lenin.

Defense of the Revolution and measures necessary for military victory, including punishment of cowards, traitors and deserters, was not murder.

And any defender of Stalin who raises this vs. Trotsky is the worst form of hypocrite, considering Stalin's rather famous drowning of large numbers of the Tsarist officers under him during the defense of Tsaritsyn in 1918, the future Stalingrad. Without any proof whatsoever of treason, simply pure suspicion on his part

But what is even worse is comparing this to the alleged "counterrevolutionary plots" of the 1930s, in which, according to Stalin, just about every Bolshevik leader during the 1917 Revolution participated, almost the entire Central Committee, which he physically wiped out.

Stalin even had executed some three quarters of the Central Committee of the CPUSSR elected at the 1934 Congress, at which every delegate without exception was praising Stalin to the skies and denouncing all opposition!

Essentially, the trials and purges of the 1930s were Stalin and a narrow clique around him murdering almost everyone personally involved in the Revolution of 1917.

If you really think Stalin's accusations were true, then you would have to think that the Bolshevik Party of Lenin were all secret counterrevolutionaries in disguise, and that the Russian Revolution was basically a sham.

And that Lenin was the biggest counterrevolutionary of all, and that if he were still alive in th '30s, he should have been shot too.

Which is I suspect what Stalin really thought, though of course he never would have dared to say that in public.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Stalin even had executed some three quarters of the Central Committee of the CPUSSR elected at the 1934 Congress, at which every delegate without exception was praising Stalin to the skies and denouncing all opposition!Khrushchev was one of the foremost promoters of the cult of personality around Stalin. Mikoyan, Suslov and others also praised Stalin to the skies only to attack him later. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Stalin himself said to Lion Feuchtwanger that bureaucrats enjoyed using the cult for their own ends.


Essentially, the trials and purges of the 1930s were Stalin and a narrow clique around him murdering almost everyone personally involved in the Revolution of 1917.But is that really a good barometer of anything? If we look at the provisional Central Committee of the Communist Party of Albania, elected at its founding in November 1941, Hoxha was the only one still around by 1956. Two (Qemal Stafa and Vasil Shanto) died in the war while the rest tended to prove themselves as renegades, as did a number of original Party members.

"Old Bolsheviks" aren't automatically wonderful revolutionaries for the rest of their lives, and I'll use some "Old Communists" in Albania as an example:



Koço Tashko, a Cominternist in the 1930's, was so pro-Soviet that at the time of the Soviet-Albanian split he didn't know what "tochka" (Russian for "full stop") meant in a speech given to him by the Soviets and pronounced it along with the rest of said speech.
Liri Belishova, who lost an eye fighting the fascists during the national liberation war and who was also involved in the 1930's communist movement, was expelled from the Central Committee in the same period as Tashko; she, too, was so pro-Soviet that on a visit to China she was telling the Soviets what the Albanian Party leadership wanted her to do while she herself was disobeying her instructions to discuss matters with the Chinese. She's still alive to this day and an ardent anti-communist.
Beqir Balluku, a founding member of the CPA, resented the leading role of the Party in the armed forces and wanted to follow China's pro-US foreign policy course in the early 70's.
Koçi Xoxe, actively involved in the 1930's communist movement, particularly in the trade unions, served as a stooge of Yugoslav influence in Albania.
Tuk Jakova and Bedri Spahiu, both active in the 1930's; endorsed the rehabilitation of Yugoslavia after Stalin's death and were supporters of "de-Stalinization." The latter lived to 1998 and became an anti-communist.
Mehmet Shehu, had a distinguished career first as a communist who spread propaganda within the ranks of the Italian army itself in the 1930's and who later participated in the International Brigades in Spain against fascism. He returned to Albania in the middle of the national liberation war and is generally considered by bourgeois historians to have been the "Trotsky" to Hoxha's "Lenin" (in military terms.) He favored a "pragmatic" foreign policy line and right-wing policies in the sphere of economics.
Sejfulla Malëshova, who was not only a Comintern member but was a participant in the Comintern-endorsed bourgeois-democratic revolution of June 1924. In the 1945-46 period he declared that Albania was following a bourgeois-democratic path and called for good relations with the West as well as calling for the pursuit of right-wing cultural, economic and political domestic policies.


Khrushchev used such things as "evidence" that Albania was ruled by the "cult of the individual" and that Hoxha led a dastardly clique which murdered the glorious genuine revolutionaries.

I could name various others, e.g. Liri Gega, Nako Spiru, Kost Boshnjaku, Gjin Marku, Tajar Zavalani, Llazar Fundo, etc.


If you really think Stalin's accusations were true, then you would have to think that the Bolshevik Party of Lenin were all secret counterrevolutionaries in disguise, and that the Russian Revolution was basically a sham.Wasn't the Russian Revolution waged by the proletariat?

[Brosip Tito]

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2011/giorgiotsoukalos.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/LeTrotskyDB.jpg/220px-LeTrotskyDB.jpg

Has anybody ever noticed the similarity?
No...they look nothing alike...

Maybe that photo of young Trotsky would have been better, but still, not enough alike..

poor trolling...

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

He asked him to leave the post not the party. I love how trots get the two confused. And just to add to the insult I am going to tell you the story about Lenin's testament. As Lenin asked and Stalin peacefully left the position. Then the issue did come up if Stalin should leave the Bolshevik. So they put it to a vote, and Stalin was voted to be kept in the party. Guess who voted to keep him in the party. Yes Comrade Trotsky himself voted for him to stay in the party.
Stalin left the post of Party Secretary? I don't think so. And when were these votes? At which conference/Congress? I don't think anyone was talking about expelling Stalin from the PB or CC, let alone the Party.

[Ismail]

Stalin left the post of Party Secretary? I don't think so. And when were these votes? At which conference/Congress? I don't think anyone was talking about expelling Stalin from the PB or CC, let alone the Party.Here (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/TO27.html) (Stalin talking in third-person):

It is said that in that "will" Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin's "rudeness" it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin's place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.

What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.

A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post.

What else could I do?

[A Marxist Historian]

I must say Ismail gets points for honesty.

Indeed, I hesitate to comment on his post, which is, if nothing else, a fine argument against the notion that Hoxha was any sort of revolutionary.

Indeed the Bolshevik Revolution was waged by the proletariat. But there were leaders, who were the ones the proletariat wanted to have. I see no reason why we should doubt the good judgment of the Russian working class of the year 1917, the very height of proletarian consciousness.

Killing almost all the leaders of the revolution, as Ismail admits Stalin did, proves that Stalin (and Hoxha) were counterrevolutionaries.

-M.H.-


Khrushchev was one of the foremost promoters of the cult of personality around Stalin. Mikoyan, Suslov and others also praised Stalin to the skies only to attack him later. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Stalin himself said to Lion Feuchtwanger that bureaucrats enjoyed using the cult for their own ends.

But is that really a good barometer of anything? If we look at the provisional Central Committee of the Communist Party of Albania, elected at its founding in November 1941, Hoxha was the only one still around by 1956. Two (Qemal Stafa and Vasil Shanto) died in the war while the rest tended to prove themselves as renegades, as did a number of original Party members.

"Old Bolsheviks" aren't automatically wonderful revolutionaries for the rest of their lives, and I'll use some "Old Communists" in Albania as an example:



Koço Tashko, a Cominternist in the 1930's, was so pro-Soviet that at the time of the Soviet-Albanian split he didn't know what "tochka" (Russian for "full stop") meant in a speech given to him by the Soviets and pronounced it along with the rest of said speech.
Liri Belishova, who lost an eye fighting the fascists during the national liberation war and who was also involved in the 1930's communist movement, was expelled from the Central Committee in the same period as Tashko; she, too, was so pro-Soviet that on a visit to China she was telling the Soviets what the Albanian Party leadership wanted her to do while she herself was disobeying her instructions to discuss matters with the Chinese. She's still alive to this day and an ardent anti-communist.
Beqir Balluku, a founding member of the CPA, resented the leading role of the Party in the armed forces and wanted to follow China's pro-US foreign policy course in the early 70's.
Koçi Xoxe, actively involved in the 1930's communist movement, particularly in the trade unions, served as a stooge of Yugoslav influence in Albania.
Tuk Jakova and Bedri Spahiu, both active in the 1930's; endorsed the rehabilitation of Yugoslavia after Stalin's death and were supporters of "de-Stalinization." The latter lived to 1998 and became an anti-communist.
Mehmet Shehu, had a distinguished career first as a communist who spread propaganda within the ranks of the Italian army itself in the 1930's and who later participated in the International Brigades in Spain against fascism. He returned to Albania in the middle of the national liberation war and is generally considered by bourgeois historians to have been the "Trotsky" to Hoxha's "Lenin" (in military terms.) He favored a "pragmatic" foreign policy line and right-wing policies in the sphere of economics.
Sejfulla Malëshova, who was not only a Comintern member but was a participant in the Comintern-endorsed bourgeois-democratic revolution of June 1924. In the 1945-46 period he declared that Albania was following a bourgeois-democratic path and called for good relations with the West as well as calling for the pursuit of right-wing cultural, economic and political domestic policies.

Khrushchev used such things as "evidence" that Albania was ruled by the "cult of the individual" and that Hoxha led a dastardly clique which murdered the glorious genuine revolutionaries.

I could name various others, e.g. Liri Gega, Nako Spiru, Kost Boshnjaku, Gjin Marku, Tajar Zavalani, Llazar Fundo, etc.

Wasn't the Russian Revolution waged by the proletariat?

[Geiseric]

That's funny, the Mehmet Shehu was killed probably for fighting in the international brigades? By the way none of those reasons are ones to be killed for.

[Ismail]

I wrote an article on why Shehu was forced to commit suicide back in February: http://www.revleft.com/vb/death-mehmet-shehu-t168054/index.html?t=168054


By the way none of those reasons are ones to be killed for."In our country the enemies who have placed themselves in the service of foreigners and who have aimed to overthrow the people's state through violence in collaboration with foreigners have rendered account according to the laws of the state and have been punished according to the degree of danger they represented. Those who have opposed the line and the policy of the Party and the socialist state, but who have not been involved in actions against the state and who have not tried to organize anti-socialist putsches and plots, have been expelled from the Party, of course, but they have not faced criminal charges. That is what was done with Sejfulla Malëshova and Koço Tashko, Ymer Dishnica and Liri Belishova, and others, although their activity has caused great harm to socialism and was inspired by foreigners, by the Yugoslav or Soviet revisionists."
(Alia, Ramiz. Our Enver. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1988. pp. 421-422.)

Of Dishnica (another founding member), it should be noted that bourgeois sources have spoken of him being more nationalist than communist, and he certainly proved that in practice during the course of the war.


Indeed the Bolshevik Revolution was waged by the proletariat. But there were leaders, who were the ones the proletariat wanted to have. I see no reason why we should doubt the good judgment of the Russian working class of the year 1917, the very height of proletarian consciousness.And yet Trotsky called Zinoviev and Kamenev traitors because they revealed plans for the carrying out of the revolution on the eve of it to the bourgeois press, whereas Stalin threatened to resign from Pravda if action were taken against either and instead argued that they had made a serious mistake but one which they had duly learned from. Zinoviev was a foremost critic of Trotsky in the early 20's. Bukharin joined the chorus later on, representing the right-wing of the Party.

They went from, in Trotsky's words, "capitulators" to Stalin to being the glorious martyrs of Leninism after the Moscow Trials.

The point is that Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov and all the rest, whatever disagreements they had before the revolution with the policies of Lenin and others, publicly took principled lines during it. But public words aren't always a good indicator of things, although you seem to do it in-re the 1934 Congress and so on. To give an example, in the pamphlet Socialist Albania Will Never Budge from its Revolutionary Positions from 1978, Shehu states that (pp. 9-10), "Under the leadership of the Party, with comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, our people wrote down the most glorious epic in their history – the Anti-fascist National Liberation War... established the dictatorship of the proletariat and set Albania on the road of the construction of socialism... Glory to our beloved Party and its leader, comrade Enver Hoxha!" Belishova, Tashko, Balluku and other proven rightists would speak and write similar things.


Killing almost all the leaders of the revolution, as Ismail admits Stalin did, proves that Stalin (and Hoxha) were counterrevolutionaries.In the case of Albania a number of these leaders later sided with Titoism, Khrushchevism, or the "Three Worlds Theory" of the Chinese Government. Some openly plotted to overthrow the government. Two lived after 1991 (Belishova and Spahiu) revealed themselves as open anti-communists.

[PFay]

And any defender of Stalin who raises this vs. Trotsky is the worst form of hypocrite, considering Stalin's rather famous drowning of large numbers of the Tsarist officers under him during the defense of Tsaritsyn in 1918
[...]
If you really think Stalin's accusations were true, then you would have to think that the Bolshevik Party of Lenin were all secret counterrevolutionaries in disguise, and that the Russian Revolution was basically a sham.

And that Lenin was the biggest counterrevolutionary of all, and that if he were still alive in th '30s, he should have been shot too.

Which is I suspect what Stalin really thought, though of course he never would have dared to say that in public.

-M.H.-

To end this futile discussion seems a herculean task akin to slaying the Hydra of Lerna, who sprouts two new heads each time one is severed, and whose poisonous breath overwhelms the attacker. Once one Trotskyist falsehood is dispatched (that Stalin had anything to do with Lenin's death), two more heads miraculously appear in it's place:


that Trotsky's executions of hostages during the civil war was laudable, while other's orders such as Stalin's or Voroshilov's (or presumably Lenin's) was evil
and that one must suspect that Stalin thought Lenin should be shot

However, I tire of this game, as elsewhere there are real, rather than imagined, controversies deserving of debate.

[A Marxist Historian]

I wrote an article on why Shehu was forced to commit suicide back in February: http://www.revleft.com/vb/death-mehmet-shehu-t168054/index.html?t=168054

"In our country the enemies who have placed themselves in the service of foreigners and who have aimed to overthrow the people's state through violence in collaboration with foreigners have rendered account according to the laws of the state and have been punished according to the degree of danger they represented. Those who have opposed the line and the policy of the Party and the socialist state, but who have not been involved in actions against the state and who have not tried to organize anti-socialist putsches and plots, have been expelled from the Party, of course, but they have not faced criminal charges. That is what was done with Sejfulla Malëshova and Koço Tashko, Ymer Dishnica and Liri Belishova, and others, although their activity has caused great harm to socialism and was inspired by foreigners, by the Yugoslav or Soviet revisionists."
(Alia, Ramiz. Our Enver. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1988. pp. 421-422.)

Of Dishnica (another founding member), it should be noted that bourgeois sources have spoken of him being more nationalist than communist, and he certainly proved that in practice during the course of the war.

And yet Trotsky called Zinoviev and Kamenev traitors because they revealed plans for the carrying out of the revolution on the eve of it to the bourgeois press, whereas Stalin threatened to resign from Pravda if action were taken against either and instead argued that they had made a serious mistake but one which they had duly learned from. Zinoviev was a foremost critic of Trotsky in the early 20's. Bukharin joined the chorus later on, representing the right-wing of the Party.

They went from, in Trotsky's words, "capitulators" to Stalin to being the glorious martyrs of Leninism after the Moscow Trials.

The point is that Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov and all the rest, whatever disagreements they had before the revolution with the policies of Lenin and others, publicly took principled lines during it. But public words aren't always a good indicator of things, although you seem to do it in-re the 1934 Congress and so on. To give an example, in the pamphlet Socialist Albania Will Never Budge from its Revolutionary Positions from 1978, Shehu states that (pp. 9-10), "Under the leadership of the Party, with comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, our people wrote down the most glorious epic in their history – the Anti-fascist National Liberation War... established the dictatorship of the proletariat and set Albania on the road of the construction of socialism... Glory to our beloved Party and its leader, comrade Enver Hoxha!" Belishova, Tashko, Balluku and other proven rightists would speak and write similar things.

In the case of Albania a number of these leaders later sided with Titoism, Khrushchevism, or the "Three Worlds Theory" of the Chinese Government. Some openly plotted to overthrow the government. Two lived after 1991 (Belishova and Spahiu) revealed themselves as open anti-communists.

As for Z and K, I don't recall Trotsky using the word "traitor." Perhaps Lenin might have, but I don't think so. In any case, neither Lenin nor Trotsky wanted to have Z or K shot, quite the contrary. Zinoviev became the head of the Communist International, and Z and K even joined Trotsky's left opposition.

And Stalin defended Z and K in 1917 as he was playing a vacillating centrist role, halfway between Z and K on the one hand and Lenin and Trotsky on the other. By Hoxha's or Stalin's own principles, he should have been taken out and shot too.

Yes, Lenin and Trotsky had different methods of handling political disagreements than shooting those Bolsheviks they disagreed with.

As Hoxha died in the '80s, we don't actually know if he would have supported capitalist restoration or not, as his proteges did. Would the people he had shot resisted capitalist restoration more strongly than Hoxha's proteges? We'll never know.

I am unaware of any way in which Hoxha's line was more revolutionary than Tito's or Khruschchev's, when you get right down to it. Except in words of course, but words are cheap.

-M.H-

[A Marxist Historian]

To end this futile discussion seems a herculean task akin to slaying the Hydra of Lerna, who sprouts two new heads each time one is severed, and whose poisonous breath overwhelms the attacker. Once one Trotskyist falsehood is dispatched (that Stalin had anything to do with Lenin's death), two more heads miraculously appear in it's place:


that Trotsky's executions of hostages during the civil war was laudable, while other's orders such as Stalin's or Voroshilov's (or presumably Lenin's) was evil
and that one must suspect that Stalin thought Lenin should be shot
However, I tire of this game, as elsewhere there are real, rather than imagined, controversies deserving of debate.

What hostages did Trotsky execute during the Civil War? The threat was there to keep the ex-white officers in line, but no hostages were actually executed. In fact, I don't think any hostages were executed by Stalin either.

As for the drowning of officers by Stalin in Tsaritsyn in the summer of 1918, the fact is that Lenin was the one who expressed his displeasure about that. What Trotsky's opinion on that was, I don't know.

It later turned out that there was indeed a White plot among Stalin's officers, so Lenin decided to let it go without making an issue of it. But the fact that the army officers were killed without a trial and indeed without evidence, simply because Stalin suspected them, was definitely not standard Bolshevik practice.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

As for Z and K, I don't recall Trotsky using the word "traitor." Perhaps Lenin might have, but I don't think so. In any case, neither Lenin nor Trotsky wanted to have Z or K shot, quite the contrary. Zinoviev became the head of the Communist International, and Z and K even joined Trotsky's left opposition.Of course neither were said to have actually conspired against the revolution at that time, hence saying "they weren't shot" says nothing. Trotsky did call for them to be expelled, though. It's just a point that being an "Old Bolshevik" (or "old" anything) doesn't mean much in itself. There's still going to be disputes and eventually struggles between those who carried out the revolution as to how it should proceed.


As Hoxha died in the '80s, we don't actually know if he would have supported capitalist restoration or not, as his proteges did. Would the people he had shot resisted capitalist restoration more strongly than Hoxha's proteges? We'll never know.Alia in an interview given about two years before he died said that Hoxha would have been able to command a lot more respect and authority than Alia himself did. Alia said that he himself could have done "another Tienanmen" in 1990 but that he "doesn't like blood," so he didn't. For what it's worth Hoxha's wife Nexhmije said that she and her husband were always Marxists and have "always believed in it," and she still claims to be a Marxist today.

The fact, however, is that in the 1950's-70's there were plenty of figures who wanted Albania to follow either the Yugoslav or post-1956 Soviet road, or alternatively the 1970's pro-West road of China. I rather doubt any of those figures would have not supported capitalist restoration.

For what it's worth even Alia was fairly "hardline" almost to the end. E.g. in April 1990 he said the following to the CC of the PLA:

"The aim of the struggle of our people and Party has been and is to build a just and free society, in which there are neither exploiters nor exploited, in which each person is valued and rewarded according to the work he does and the role he plays in the progress of society, and in which the material and cultural well-being of the people is improved from day to day. We have fought and are fighting for a socialist society in a free, independent and sovereign Albania. This society, for the construction of which our people have combined their energies for five decades, this society, the foundations of which were set on with the blood of 28,000 martyrs and which we built with sweat, sacrifice, and all-round struggle against poverty, against backwardness, against numerous enemies and saboteurs, we must ceaselessly strengthen and raise to new heights. This is our duty, and no one can fulfil this duty other than our people, the people's power and our Party.

I emphasize this question because now, following the upheavals which have occurred in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, reaction and the international bourgeoisie are trying to impose their norms on the peoples as absolute truths, to proclaim their social order and their way of life as universal, and to interfere in the internal affairs of others, in order to dictate how and what should be done. For this purpose, they are employing political pressure and economic blockades, are setting their agents in movement, and spreading all kinds of slanders through the means of public information. Those who talk about democracy and pluralism of ideas are exerting a kind of political 'terrorism' against Marxism-Leninism."
(Alia, Ramiz. Democratization of Socio-Economic Life Strengthens the Thinking and Action of the People. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1990. pp. 30-32)

Of course he still allowed for a mixture of Khrushchevite and Gorby-esque economic "reforms," and in October political parties were legalized. In 1992 he announced that he had been "transformed" and praised social-democracy, although similar to Gorbachev he said in his 2010 memoir that he doesn't like how Albania has embraced "wild west"-style capitalism or whatever.


I am unaware of any way in which Hoxha's line was more revolutionary than Tito's or Khruschchev's, when you get right down to it. Except in words of course, but words are cheap.I know you're unaware of it. You think modern-day China is somehow not capitalist, so I don't think I can convince you of anything.

[Grenzer]

Killing almost all the leaders of the revolution, as Ismail admits Stalin did, proves that Stalin (and Hoxha) were counterrevolutionaries.

Except that it doesn't.

As repugnant as those actions may be, they has little bearing on the political and economic status of the Soviet Union by themselves. This amounts to nothing more than a liberal moralizing statement. There are plenty of good ways you could argue they were counter-revolutionaries; whining about a few unjustly executed people isn't one of them.

Aren't you also of the opinion that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship of the proletariat at this time? That would also mean that the actions of the regime were in the class interest of the proletariat. Bureaucratically deformed you say? But the bureaucracy, by your own admission, isn't even a class. Your views are completely incoherent and inconsistent with the Marxist understanding of class, as is the entire orthodox Trotskyite view of "degenerated workers state" which completely throws class out the window.

I'm not a supporter of Stalin or the Soviet Union, but it seems like you are just spewing out the party line again. Orthodox Trotskyism is, as always, a bizarre mixture of "deformed"(to borrow your term) Marxism and rabid anti-communism; uncertain of which way to throw in the chips with.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Even after Lenin's death Stalin eulogized him in a very romantic and moving speech, no suggestion of even contempt or malice towards him Just sayin, but I doubt Stalin would have scored any brownie points by insulting or in any way brushing of Lenin after his death.

[A Marxist Historian]

Except that it doesn't.

As repugnant as those actions may be, they has little bearing on the political and economic status of the Soviet Union by themselves. This amounts to nothing more than a liberal moralizing statement. There are plenty of good ways you could argue they were counter-revolutionaries; whining about a few unjustly executed people isn't one of them.

Aren't you also of the opinion that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship of the proletariat at this time? That would also mean that the actions of the regime were in the class interest of the proletariat. Bureaucratically deformed you say? But the bureaucracy, by your own admission, isn't even a class. Your views are completely incoherent and inconsistent with the Marxist understanding of class, as is the entire orthodox Trotskyite view of "degenerated workers state" which completely throws class out the window.

I'm not a supporter of Stalin or the Soviet Union, but it seems like you are just spewing out the party line again. Orthodox Trotskyism is, as always, a bizarre mixture of "deformed"(to borrow your term) Marxism and rabid anti-communism; uncertain of which way to throw in the chips with.

This posting defies not just Marxism, but elementary common sense.

If virtually all, not just "a few," of the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were secret counterrevolutionaries, then the Bolshevik Revolution was ... a secret counterrevolution. That is obvious.

Or maybe that's actually your position, and you are using the Stalinists here as a Trojan horse to get that one over?

The Bolshevik Revolution was not just a spontaneous affair, a historical semi-accident like the Paris Commune. It was led by the vanguard party of the working class, which had become exactly that over decades of political and social struggle. Indeed, forming a political party is the only way really a social class can become politically conscious. That's pretty much how it works.

And, by the way, it wasn't just a few members of the Central Committee purged by Stalin in the 1930s. Of the hundreds of thousands of working class members of the Bolshevik Party in 1917, remarkably few were still party members after the Great Terror was over.

So this was a political counterrevolution, not just an episode of brutality and injustice. Beginning with Stalin's personal clique seizing power in the 1920s, and ending with the huge bloodbath of the '30s.

Economically, nothing was changed, as this was a political counterrevolution not an economic and social counterrevolution. The relationship of the state to the economy and the working class was unchanged in socioeconomic terms. The political transformation however was tremendous, and tremendously reactionary.

As I suspect you know perfectly well, unlike the Stalin worshippers you are opportunistically chiming in with.

-M.H.-

[Grenzer]

This posting defies not just Marxism, but elementary common sense.

I profusely apologize good sir. I was reading A Revolution Betrayed last night, and Trotsky must have rubbed off on me.

[PhoenixAsh]

thread closed.