The authenticity of Lenin's testament.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

By "Lenin's Testament" I'm referring to the document that was apparently written by Lenin before his death, wherein he wrote various pros and cons of fellow soviet officials, and where he rather explicitly stated that Stalin possessed more power than he could handle and that he should be removed from his office as Secretary General of the Party.

I've heard that, among Marxists-Leninists there has been question of whether or not this document was authentic, and that it might be an outright forgery. Now, the historical consensus has long been that its in fact authentic...but I believe in hearing all of the evidence.

So, could some of you perhaps inform me a bit more on this? Thanks.

[Brotto Rühle]

If it criticized Stalin, it is both antimarxist and bourgeois propaganda made personally by Trotsky.:rolleyes:

[Questionable]

Bill Bland wrote an article on Lenin's last testament, which also includes some background info on his relationship with both Stalin and Trotsky.

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm

[Brotto Rühle]

Bill Bland wrote an article on Lenin's last testament, which also includes some background info on his relationship with both Stalin and Trotsky.

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm
I'm sure if Bill Bland wrote of the glories of genital mutilation, you'd be running around calling us reactionaries for opposing it.

[Remus Bleys]

Bill Bland wrote an article on Lenin's last testament, which also includes some background info on his relationship with both Stalin and Trotsky.

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm
>Bill Bland
> Revolutionary Democracy
> Democracy

How credible. Yes, we leftists are all about "democracy" or whatever!
Bill Bland never distorts the truth, and is completely objective!

[khad]

Why does this even matter? Did any of you stop yourselves and ask that question?

[CyM]

I believe Lenin's wife when she vouched for the testament.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why does this even matter? Did any of you stop yourselves and ask that question?
It's important, who's the rightful heir, after all.

[DDR]

It's important, who's the rightful heir, after all.

Daenerys Stormborn, Mother of Dragons, Breaker of Chains, Queen of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Queen of Meereen, Princess of Dragonstone.

Now, seriously, what's the relevance of that document in today's struggle?

[Per Levy]

It's important, who's the rightful heir, after all.

well after the king died without a child to inherit the throne, house bronstein and house dschughaschwili tried to take over the throne. house bronstein had a better claim but house dschughaschwili was more powerful and therefore houe bronstein went extinct. in the in the game of thrones you win or you die there is no middle ground.

edit: damn it, ddr beat me to it.

[Rafiq]

The point isn't about who Lenin believed to be the most capable at helm, the soviet government was more than that, more than Lenin. It was a complicated political system that Lenin died adhering to, therefore even if he despised either Trotsky or Stalin, their ascendance is not de legitimized by that alone. I think many were more capable than both Trotsky and Stalin (of course Stalin is preferable to that scoundrel), like Frunze.

[Rafiq]

No, I'm afraid I'm much worse. The best possible scenario for me would be a Napoleon esque coup by Tukhachevsky during the mid 30's, Stalin betrayed the legacy of the revolution by depriving it of it's destiny, which would have put the military at helm. Stalin was in that way worthless, he had no exceptional mind for strategy, he was capable at securing his own political power but other than that, useless as far as being a leader goes. Stalin never had it in him for being a leader. He was good at getting things done, but never to lead. Whether Lenin agreed or not is irrelevant.

What Trotskyists will never accept is that there were alternatives to both Trotsky and Stalin. A vice by Stalin gives no credit to Trotsky. We had Bukharin, we had others. We can acknowledge that Trotsky was a piece of shit while recognizing Stalin represented madness.

[CyM]

The testament is relevant because it shows the line in the sand between bolshevism and stalinism. This is also the reason why ultralefts dismiss its importance, because it is an inconvenient document that disproves the lie that leninism and stalinism are the same.

That being said, consider this a general warning to all posters that further irrelevant references to game of thrones will be considered trolling and earn an infraction.

[Sea]

The point isn't about who Lenin believed to be the most capable at helm, the soviet government was more than that, more than Lenin. It was a complicated political system that Lenin died adhering to, therefore even if he despised either Trotsky or Stalin, their ascendance is not de legitimized by that alone. I think many were more capable than both Trotsky and Stalin (of course Stalin is preferable to that scoundrel), like Frunze.The funny part about it is that Lenin criticized both Stalin and Trotsky in his 'testament'.
The testament is relevant because it shows the line in the sand between bolshevism and stalinism. This is also the reason why ultralefts dismiss its importance, because it is an inconvenient document that disproves the lie that leninism and stalinism are the same.I don't think we're referring to the same document. Lenin's testament wasn't about competing "-isms".

[Ismail]

Furr has an article on the subject of the "Testament" here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=40979

The claims it was forged come from Russian authors, I'm not aware of MLs who deny the validity of the text. See: http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n1/LenTest.htm

I'd consider it exceedingly unlikely it was forged, if for the simple reason that everyone who was aware of it and reacted to it had not the slightest doubt as to its authenticity.


The testament is relevant because it shows the line in the sand between bolshevism and stalinism. This is also the reason why ultralefts dismiss its importance, because it is an inconvenient document that disproves the lie that leninism and stalinism are the same.Lenin called Stalin "rude." If that indicates the great divide between Leninism and "Stalinism" then the differences between "Stalinism" and Trotskyism must be intergalactic in nature.

[reb]

No, I'm afraid I'm much worse. The best possible scenario for me would be a Napoleon esque coup by Tukhachevsky during the mid 30's, Stalin betrayed the legacy of the revolution by depriving it of it's destiny, which would have put the military at helm. Stalin was in that way worthless, he had no exceptional mind for strategy, he was capable at securing his own political power but other than that, useless as far as being a leader goes. Stalin never had it in him for being a leader. He was good at getting things done, but never to lead. Whether Lenin agreed or not is irrelevant.

What Trotskyists will never accept is that there were alternatives to both Trotsky and Stalin. A vice by Stalin gives no credit to Trotsky. We had Bukharin, we had others. We can acknowledge that Trotsky was a piece of shit while recognizing Stalin represented madness.

So your opinion is that the revolutionary thing would have been to support Stalin in the 20s and then support a coup in the 30s?


The testament is relevant because it shows the line in the sand between bolshevism and stalinism. This is also the reason why ultralefts dismiss its importance, because it is an inconvenient document that disproves the lie that leninism and stalinism are the same.

That being said, consider this a general warning to all posters that further irrelevant references to game of thrones will be considered trolling and earn an infraction.

No it doesn't. I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the document does Lenin say that he is a Leninist and then outlines a list of what leninism is, then says that stalin is a stalinist and then gives us a description of stalinism. You're also ignoring the historical trajectory that social-democracy took during the whole time from before the turn of the century right up to the collapse of the soviet union.

[Sea]

So your opinion is that the revolutionary thing would have been to support Stalin in the 20s and then support a coup in the 30s?I don't think Rafiq implied this.

[reb]

I don't think Rafiq implied this.

I did a little looking


The archtype for a good Communist. An eternal hero of the proletariat, the mighty sword of the october revolution. Never before has the class enemy trembled before a name as much as they did Dzerzhinsky. Felix, honorable and noble as he was, allowed himself to be the face of the terror, in order to save the revolution. Personally, despite his work, he was kind and gentle, even took up the task of sheltering all of Moscow's homeless children. Dzerzhinsky was the most skilled counter intelligence officer to ever exist. And a feirce enemy of the counter revolution. Indeed he sided with Stalin, as any good marxist would have, had they not known what was to come. Every revolution needs a Felix Dzerzhinsky.

Implication was pretty strong in retrospect.

[Rafiq]

When faced with a camp led by Trotsky and one led by Stalin, which included the truest of Communists, then I would gladly and proudly support Stalin. That doesn't imply Stalin at helm is desirable.

[reb]

When faced with a camp led by Trotsky and one led by Stalin, which included the truest of Communists, then I would gladly and proudly support Stalin. That doesn't imply Stalin at helm is desirable.

Did you not say that there were other alternatives a couple of posts ago, but you would still support Stalin anyway?

[Five Year Plan]

The funny part about it is that Lenin criticized both Stalin and Trotsky in his 'testament'.I don't think we're referring to the same document. Lenin's testament wasn't about competing "-isms".

The issue that the OP seems to be concerned about, the relationship between Lenin and Stalin, isn't best captured by restricting discussion solely to the testament (though it is important), and certainly not captured by references to how the testament may or may not have criticized both Trotsky and Stalin. The point that these snippets miss is that during the final year of his life, Lenin threw all of his political weight behind fighting the bureaucratization of the party, which he identified closely with Stalin, and tried to have Stalin removed from power. Pointing out that Lenin had criticisms of Trotsky, or vice versa, is irrelevant. In a Stalinist universe of personal combinationism and unprincipled power grabs and purges, it might be easy to forget this, but principled political criticism was how politics were normally to be carried out under Bolshevism. I would be alarmed if Trotsky never criticized Lenin, or Lenin never criticized Trotsky.

The essential point here, though, is that whatever political criticisms the two had of one another, there never arose a situation comparable to what Lenin was trying to do with Stalin. And in fact, Lenin approached Trotsky toward the end of the former's life, hoping to enlist the latter in the campaign against Stalin (see the goings-on just before the Georgian affair). Why? Because Trotskyism, views the working class, functioning through its party and not against it, as the agency that carries out revolution and consummates the transition to socialism, whereas Stalinism views party bureaucrats, forcibly enlisting the working class against their will as "participants," as the fundamental agency.

These issues are thoroughly discussed in Moshe Lewin's excellent "Lenin's Final Fight," and in the document collection "Lenin's Last Struggle."

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

When faced with a camp led by Trotsky and one led by Stalin, which included the truest of Communists, then I would gladly and proudly support Stalin. That doesn't imply Stalin at helm is desirable.

Why not Trotsky.

It's not a loaded question, you know I'm not fond of the man, but what are your particular reasons?

[Ismail]

These issues are thoroughly discussed in Moshe Lewin's excellent "Lenin's Final Fight," and in the document collection "Lenin's Last Struggle."Lewin's work, written in the 60's, doesn't stand up very well to post-1991 materials. See for instance Erik van Ree's revisiting: dare.uva.nl/document/26117‎ (http://dare.uva.nl/document/26117‎)


Because Trotskyism, views the working class, functioning through its party and not against it, as the agency that carries out revolution and consummates the transition to socialism, whereas Stalinism views party bureaucrats, forcibly enlisting the working class against their will as "participants," as the fundamental agency.This is the same Trotsky who proposed military methods in mobilizing the working-class and who both Lenin and Stalin criticized for his treatment of the trade unions.

[Sea]

The issue that the OP seems to be concerned about, the relationship between Lenin and Stalin, isn't best captured by restricting discussion solely to the testament (though it is important)No, it's not important. If I recall, Lenin was, at various times, friendly with both Stalin and Trotsky. At other times he said other things. But it doesn't matter who the guy had on his buddy list. That isn't the point.


Lenin threw all of his political weight behind fighting the bureaucratization of the party, which he identified closely with Stalin, and tried to have Stalin removed from power.I'm calling bullshit on this. Even as last as 1928 Stalin spoke out against bureaucracy and advocated fighting against it.


And in fact, Lenin approached Trotsky toward the end of the former's life, hoping to enlist the latter in the campaign against Stalin (see the goings-on just before the Georgian affair).Source?


Why? Because Trotskyism, views the working class, functioning through its party and not against it, as the agency that carries out revolution and consummates the transition to socialism, whereas Stalinism views party bureaucrats, forcibly enlisting the working class against their will as "participants," as the fundamental agency.But that can't be so because in Lenin's lifetime there was no such thing as either of those -isms.

[Five Year Plan]

Lewin's work, written in the 60's, doesn't stand up very well to post-1991 materials. See for instance Erik van Ree's revisiting: dare.uva.nl/document/26117‎ (http://dare.uva.nl/document/26117‎)

People can read the collection of primary documents authored by Lenin himself, and make up their own mind whether they find Lewin's account believable, or the account of van Ree. I will just note that you don't actually contradict any of the substance of my post. Evidence demonstrates that Lenin was deeply concerned about Stalin as the epitome of bureaucratization within the party and the state, and hoped to enlist Trotsky in a political bloc to remove him from power.


This is the same Trotsky who proposed military methods in mobilizing the working-class and who both Lenin and Stalin criticized for his treatment of the trade unions.Citing Trotsky's position on the militarization of labor doesn't contradict the view that Trotsky viewed the working class as the sole agency capable of building socialism. Trotsky supported provisional substitutionist measures like the militarization of labor and episodes like Kronstad as emergency stopgaps, to prevent an overthrow of revolutionary leadership in the bureaucracy, in the hopes that the revolutionary leadership could stimulate class consciousness and agency among the working class necessary for transitioning to socialism. This is different than viewing such measures as themselves constitutive of transitioning to socialism, which by its very essence Trotsky (like Marx, Lenin, and Engels, in contrast to Stalin) viewed as a classless society of associated producers collectively and democratically managing the economy. It therefore makes no sense from a Leninist-Trotskyist perspective to speak of transitioning to socialism without a growth in working-class democracy, both inside and outside the workplace, whatever substitutionist gambits any of these figures may have advocated as temporary curbs on working-class democracy.

[Five Year Plan]

No, it's not important. If I recall, Lenin was, at various times, friendly with both Stalin and Trotsky. At other times he said other things. But it doesn't matter who the guy had on his buddy list. That isn't the point.

This is just more vagueness. "Stalin and Lenin and Trotsky all disagreed with one another at various times, and agreed with each other at various times." No kidding. My specific claim, which you didn't contradict, was that Lenin singled out Stalin's removal from power as one of his top political priorities in his final year of his life.


I'm calling bullshit on this. Even as last as 1928 Stalin spoke out against bureaucracy and advocated fighting against it.Great. You think it's bullshit, and you're entitled to your opinion. Lenin was entitled to his, and his opinion was crystal clear.


Source?"Besides, Lenin could not but pay attention to the fact that rather serious qualitative changes had taken place in the Central Committee of the Party: when Stalin became the General Secretary, he managed to transform the Secretariat of the Central Committee from an organizational-technical body to a political one, while his own post was changed into a supreme administrative one in the system of apparatus "hierarchy of secretaries," which, according to Lenin, allowed him to concentrate unbounded power in his hands. Lenin was realistic enough to understand that, possessing such power, Stalin could go to the end in his struggle against Trotsky right up to the split in the ranks of the Central Committee, which would threaten the stability of Bolshevik power as a whole.

"The circumstances made Lenin seek for political counterbalance to the power of the 'troika.' As Trotsky later recalled, Lenin, during a long debate with him,* suggested concluding an alliance to struggle against bureaucracy in general and against the Orgburo (i.e., against Stalin) in particular.(6) The similarity of their positions has been strengthened by the unity of their views on other important problems.

"As was illustrated by the events that followed, and as documentarily confirmed in the letters of Trotsky to the Central Comrnittee(7) published in this collection, the Lenin and Trotsky bloc was based on the principal coincidence of their views and positions on cardinal problems in the political life of those times. The case in point was the preservation of the monopoly of foreign trade, the principles of the national policy, and the "Georgian affair," (8) about stimulating the activity of the State Planning Committee (Gosplan), and the necessity to reorganize the supreme bodies of Party power. Judging from the documents the "Lenin-Trotsky" bloc could become the real political force capable of withstanding the "troika" and changing radically the course of events."

*The debate took place on October 11, 1922. (Ed.)

-Preface to VP Vilkova's "Struggle for Power," a collection of internal documents within the Soviet government in 1923, many of them available to credentialed researchers for a very brief period of time very early in Yeltsin's regime before they were resealed.


But that can't be so because in Lenin's lifetime there was no such thing as either of those -isms.The names hadn't developed at that early point, but the foundational (and fundamentally different) conceptions of socialist revolution were already evident in the political struggles being waged within the bureaucracy. What later became "Trotskyism," was nothing more and nothing less than what had been known as Bolshevism, before it had been revised by Stalin and his bureaucratic clients seeking to entrench their positions of authority. This revision also entailed another revision: that socialism as a mode of production could be achieved in one country. But that is a different subject for a different debate.

[Geiseric]

No, I'm afraid I'm much worse. The best possible scenario for me would be a Napoleon esque coup by Tukhachevsky during the mid 30's, Stalin betrayed the legacy of the revolution by depriving it of it's destiny, which would have put the military at helm. Stalin was in that way worthless, he had no exceptional mind for strategy, he was capable at securing his own political power but other than that, useless as far as being a leader goes. Stalin never had it in him for being a leader. He was good at getting things done, but never to lead. Whether Lenin agreed or not is irrelevant.

What Trotskyists will never accept is that there were alternatives to both Trotsky and Stalin. A vice by Stalin gives no credit to Trotsky. We had Bukharin, we had others. We can acknowledge that Trotsky was a piece of shit while recognizing Stalin represented madness.

Lol sorry you don't know shit about soviet history if you seriously think Bukharins right opposition, the most ardent supporters of the NEP, would of made better policies than the left opposition, who correctly forsaw the economic disasters and famines in the 1920s as a result of the absence of collectivization, which Stalin and Bukharin both supported. Neither of them supported collective property. Both of them supported supporting individual and privately owned farms, while that system was starving the cities. The crisis due to Stalin and Bukharin led to basically a second civil war.

Also you spend a lot of time on the internet, but i'm not sure that gives you the right to call any historical marxist leader a "piece of shit." Especially one who has led more revolutionary people, and done more for the working class than you ever will.

[Geiseric]

When faced with a camp led by Trotsky and one led by Stalin, which included the truest of Communists, then I would gladly and proudly support Stalin. That doesn't imply Stalin at helm is desirable.

That's because you have a fetish for strong men, like Dzherinsky who was just as active in bureaucratizing the fSU as Stalin. Dzherinsky was sent by Lenin during the Georgian affair, but he quickly saw that his job would seem more necessary if he was harassing poor Muslims in the Caucuses instead of punishing soviet officials.

[Geiseric]

Lewin's work, written in the 60's, doesn't stand up very well to post-1991 materials. See for instance Erik van Ree's revisiting: dare.uva.nl/document/26117‎ (http://dare.uva.nl/document/26117‎)

This is the same Trotsky who proposed military methods in mobilizing the working-class and who both Lenin and Stalin criticized for his treatment of the trade unions.

The movement to militarize the working class wasn't attacked by anybody. Especially not Stalin. It was adopted unanimously at an All Russian Trade Union Congress. Fuck you man, Stalin used Stakhnovites to push people to exhaustion while he got fat and ate Caviar.

[Remus Bleys]

he got fat and ate Caviar.
I demand a source.

[Ismail]

People can read the collection of primary documents authored by Lenin himself, and make up their own mind whether they find Lewin's account believable, or the account of van Ree. I will just note that you don't actually contradict any of the substance of my post. Evidence demonstrates that Lenin was deeply concerned about Stalin as the epitome of bureaucratization within the party and the state, and hoped to enlist Trotsky in a political bloc to remove him from power.And of course I'd say Van Ree's article speaks for itself. Obviously Lewin's purpose is to interpret Lenin's words, just like, say, Radosh in Spain Betrayed utilized Comintern and Soviet documents to try and denounce their conduct in the Spanish Civil War.

A lot of your posts have no content to them, just appeals as to how much Trotsky supposedly cared about the working-class and how awesome democracy is. Case in point:


It therefore makes no sense from a Leninist-Trotskyist perspective to speak of transitioning to socialism without a growth in working-class democracy, both inside and outside the workplace, whatever substitutionist gambits any of these figures may have advocated as temporary curbs on working-class democracy.Pretty sure Stalin argued the same exact thing, hence the Stalin Constitution, and Enver Hoxha's calls for the working-class to exercise ever greater control.


The movement to militarize the working class wasn't attacked by anybody. Especially not Stalin. It was adopted unanimously at an All Russian Trade Union Congress.Both Lenin and Stalin criticized the policy. You can claim they're hypocritical if you'd like, but the fact is that they clearly denounced it and Trotsky made clear how little he actually cared for the trade unions in practice.


Fuck you man, Stalin used Stakhnovites to push people to exhaustion while he got fat and ate Caviar.What's funny is that I've seen many Trots make the opposite argument: that Stakhanovites were used Stalin to create a supposed labor aristocracy loyal to his "bureaucratic clique." In any event various works attest to the mass enthusiasm the movement created.

[Five Year Plan]

And of course I'd say Van Ree's article speaks for itself. Obviously Lewin's purpose is to interpret Lenin's words, just like, say, Radosh in Spain Betrayed utilized Comintern and Soviet documents to try and denounce their conduct in the Spanish Civil War.

A lot of your posts have no content to them, just appeals as to how much Trotsky supposedly cared about the working-class. Case in point:

Pretty sure Stalin argued the same exact thing, hence the Stalin Constitution, and Enver Hoxha's calls for the working-class to exercise ever greater control.

It is called a logical deduction, Ismail. If socialism is conceived of as a classless society in which the producers democratically and collectively manage the economy, it makes no sense to think of suppression of factions of the working class as helping to realize the vision. At best it can only be a measure intended to thwart a potential political reversal by eliminating the possibility that some counter-revolutionary segment of the population is politically neutralized.

Stalin would not argue the same thing about transitioning to socialism, because he thought that socialism was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and was replete with class antagonisms and value relations. Democratic "forms" were secondary to fighting the class struggle by maintaining a revolutionary "line." A class struggle that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky all envisioned as being part of a society transitioning to socialism under a dictatorship of the proletariat following a socialist revolution, not part of socialist society proper. Stalin's ideas on socialism were actually appropriate to a description of revolutionary strategy under a transitional society under the dictatorship of the proletariat, at least until the party line became an outright revision of Marxism advocated by bureaucrats to protect their class position.

[Remus Bleys]

ITT: We fetishize democracy because OP wants to know who Lenin loved more (in the traditional narrative of Trotsky v Stalin, of course).

[Geiseric]

And of course I'd say Van Ree's article speaks for itself. Obviously Lewin's purpose is to interpret Lenin's words, just like, say, Radosh in Spain Betrayed utilized Comintern and Soviet documents to try and denounce their conduct in the Spanish Civil War.

A lot of your posts have no content to them, just appeals as to how much Trotsky supposedly cared about the working-class and how awesome democracy is. Case in point:

Pretty sure Stalin argued the same exact thing, hence the Stalin Constitution, and Enver Hoxha's calls for the working-class to exercise ever greater control.

Both Lenin and Stalin criticized the policy. You can claim they're hypocritical if you'd like, but the fact is that they clearly denounced it and Trotsky made clear how little he actually cared for the trade unions in practice.

What's funny is that I've seen many Trots make the opposite argument: that Stakhanovites were used Stalin to create a supposed labor aristocracy loyal to his "bureaucratic clique." In any event various works attest to the mass enthusiasm the movement created.

Show me a quote from Lenin denouncing the militarization of labor after it was passed.

The stakhnovites did create that clique, as well as working millions of people to near death.


ITT: We fetishize democracy because OP wants to know who Lenin loved more (in the traditional narrative of Trotsky v Stalin, of course).

Realistically it was more like Trotsky vs. Bukharin and Stalin, and then Bukharin vs. Stalin after Trotsky and the left opposition was kicked out of the fSU. The famines were de facto supported by Stalin and Bukharin since they continued the policies which led to that point. The worse the famines got, the stronger the bureaucracy got since they were in charge of distributing food. When it got so bad, and the left opposition proved to be correct about how bad the famines were to get, the stalinists bastardized the left opposition's solution: collectivization, which was supposed to be implemented as soon as the economy was reconstructed from the NEP. It was reconstructed by 1925, however the right and center refused to support collectivization when the NEP petit bourgeois inside the country was relatively weaker in power than they were in 1928 when Stalin started the first 5 year plan; and while the great depression was going on in other countries.

The first famine happened in 1925 however the plan to collectivize, and to take the power away from the rich peasants was abandoned.

[d3crypt]

Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hoxha all suck :lol:

[Remus Bleys]

Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hoxha all suck :lol:
Mao and Hoxha are unrleated to this thread.
You can keep posting that everywhere, doesn't make it relevant.

[Rafiq]

Did you not say that there were other alternatives a couple of posts ago, but you would still support Stalin anyway?


A camp led by Stalin includes candidates more appropriate than Stalin and Trotsky. Stalin didn't fully consolidate his power until the great purges.

[Ismail]

Show me a quote from Lenin denouncing the militarization of labor after it was passed.I'm sure you're well aware: http://marx2mao.com/Lenin/TUTM20.html

As one work (http://marx2mao.com/Other/OT73i.html) put it,

In November 1920, [Trotsky] suggested that state officials should be substituted for the unions' elected representatives. That is why Lenin criticised Trotsky's tendency to adopt 'the administrative point of view'. He denounced his dogmatic formalism, describing it as 'bureaucratic project-hatching'. He declared that 'his policy is a policy of bureaucratic shake-up of the trade unions'. Trotsky's argument on the question of the trade unions amounted to this: the workers do not need a relatively autonomous organisation to defend themselves from the Soviet state since it belongs to them. Lenin replied that they required such an organisation because they were dealing not with a worker's state but with a 'worker-peasant' state which was in addition 'bureaucratically deformed'. That is why he said of Trotsky's 'pamphlet programme' 'The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions': 'From beginning to end . . . it is thoroughly permeated with the spirit of the "shaking-up-from-above" policy', that is, of administratively 'removing, transferring, appointing, dismissing etc' the union's elected leaders. Lenin made repeated reference to 'the useless and harmful bureaucratic excesses of Tsektran' which was headed by Trotsky. In his 'Testament', Lenin criticised Trotsky for 'the sin of excessive confidence and an exaggerated infatuation with the purely administrative side of things'.

[RevolucionarBG]

Let me quote one of my Marxist friends on this question:

"You Trots really seem to want to make Lenin seem like an excessive drug user heh? Why in the world would anyone be willing to believe an opportunist like Trotsky (who only joined the party in 1917) would outdo a loyal member like Stalin (who suffered 8 years of prison while a member of the Bolsheviks) in Lenin's mind?

As Ian Grey noted, Lenin was the one who supported Stalin for seats in the Central Committee, Orgburo, Secretariat, and Politburo. Note the seat in the Central Committee, which he received in 1912 after escaping prison (which he was arrested again shortly later).

Lenin certainly did think Trotsky was a better politician as Stalin, as he was far more experienced, however Stalin had done a very good job in his Politburo position- which won him favor as well. He called for the Central Committee to be expanded, but after Stalin insulted Lenin's wife Lenin called for him to be removed from his position as General Secretary for being too rude. That was in 1922, however it hadn't be released for another two years (and he kept warm relations with Stalin nevertheless). He even applauded Stalin's attack against Trotsky, in 1923, where he claimed that Trotskyism wasn't Leninist. After Lenin's deaths and the releasing of his testament, Stalin offered his resignation twice but was denied by the Central Committee. The same happened the next year, and the same occurred.

Stalin even noted,
Quote:
...Now about Lenin's "will." The oppositionists shouted here—you heard them—that the Central Committee of the Party "concealed" Lenin's "will." We have discussed this question several times at the plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission, you know that. (A voice: "Scores of times.") It has been proved and proved again that nobody has concealed anything, that Lenin's "will" was addressed to the Thirteenth Party Congress, that this "will" was read out at the congress (Voices: "That's right!"), that the congress unanimously decided not to publish it because, among other things, Lenin himself did not want it to be published and did not ask that it should be published. The opposition knows all this just as well as we do. Nevertheless, it has the audacity to declare that the Central Committee is "concealing" the "will."
The question of Lenin's "will" was brought up, if I am not mistaken, as far back as 1924. There is a certain Eastman, a former American Communist who was later expelled from the Party. This gentleman, who mixed with the Trotskyists in Moscow, picked up some rumours and gossip about Lenin's "will," went abroad and published a book entitled After Lenin's Death, in which he did his best to blacken the Party, the Central Committee and the Soviet regime, and the gist of which was that the Central Committee of our Party was "concealing" Lenin's "will." In view of the fact that this Eastman had at one time been connected with Trotsky, we, the members of the Political Bureau, called upon Trotsky to dissociate himself from Eastman who, clutching at Trotsky and referring to the opposition, had made Trotsky responsible for the slanderous statements against our Party about the "will." Since the question was so obvious, Trotsky did, indeed, publicly dissociate himself from Eastman in a statement he made in the press. It was published in September 1925 in Bolshevik, No. 16.

Permit me to read the passage in Trotsky's article in which he deals with the question whether the Party and its Central Committee was concealing Lenin's "will" or not. I quote Trotsky's article:


"In several parts of his book Eastman says that the Central Committee 'concealed' from the Party a number of exceptionally important documents written by Lenin in the last period of his life (it is a matter of letters on the national question, the so-called 'will,' and others); there can be no other name for this than slander against the Central Committee of our Party. From what Eastman says it may be inferred that Vladimir Ilyich intended those letters, which bore the character of advice on internal organisation, for the press. In point of fact, that is absolutely untrue. During hisillness Vladimir Ilyich often sent proposals, letters, and so forth, to the Party's leading institutions and to its congress. It goes without saying that all those letters and proposals were always delivered to those for whom they were intended, were brought to the knowledge of the delegates at the Twelfth and Thirteenth Congresses, and always, of course, exercised due influence upon the Party's decisions; and if not all of those letters were published, it was because the author did not intend them for the press. Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any 'will,' and the very character of his attitude towards the Party, as well as the character of the Party itself, precluded the possibility of such a 'will.' What is usually referred to as a 'will' in the emigre and foreign bourgeois and Menshevik press (in a manner garbled beyond recognition) is one of Vladimir Ilyich's letters containing advice on organisational matters. The Thirteenth Congress of the Party paid the closest attention to that letter, as to all of the others, and drew from it conclusions appropriate to the conditions and circumstances of the time. All talk about concealing or violating a 'will' is a malicious invention and is entirely directed against Vladimir Ilyichs real will, and against the interests of the Party he created" (see Trotsky's article "Concerning Eastman's Book After Lenin's Death," Bolshevik, No. 16, September 1, 1925, p. 68)....


We have the decision of a plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission in 1926 to ask the Fifteenth Congress for permission to publish this document. We have the decision of the same plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission to publish other letters of Lenin's, in which he pointed out the mistakes of Kamenev and Zinoviev just before the October uprising and demanded their expulsion from the Party.
Obviously, talk about the Party concealing these documents is infamous slander. Among these documents are letters from Lenin urging the necessity of expelling Zinoviev and Kamenev from the Party. The Bolshevik Party, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, have never feared the truth. The strength of the Bolshevik Party lies precisely in the fact that it does not fear the truth and looks the truth straight in the face...


Indeed, it is a fact that in his "will" Lenin accuses Trotsky of being guilty of "non-Bolshevism" and, as regards the mistake Kamenev and Zinoviev made during October, he says that that mistake was not "accidental." What does that mean? It means that Trotsky, who suffers from "non-Bolshevism," and Kamenev and Zinoviev, whose mistakes are not "accidental" and can and certainly will be repeated, cannot be politically trusted.
It is characteristic that there is not a word, not a hint in the "will" about Stalin having made mistakes. It refers only to Stalin's rudeness. But rudeness is not and cannot be counted as a defect in Stalin's political line or position.
Here is the relevant passage in the "will":
"I shall not go on to characterise the personal qualities of the other members of the Central Committee. I shall merely remind you that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, not accidental, but that they can be blamed for it personally as little as Trotsky can be blamed for his non-Bolshevism."
"The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now" - Joseph Stalin

The will of Lenin is not the determining factor in the SU. Lenin wasn't a Totalitarian Fascist dictator as you Trotskyist scum would like us to believe. The party, and not individuals, were the forces that arranged how the party would function- as was the rule of Democratic Centralism. Lenin's word was most certainly not final, and Lenin's "successor" was actually Rykov who took over his position as Primer."

[Geiseric]

I'm sure you're well aware: http://marx2mao.com/Lenin/TUTM20.html

As one work (http://marx2mao.com/Other/OT73i.html) put it,

Lenin had a fair enough argument. Still his criticism of Trotsky is for more or less an attempt at positive bureaucratism, Stalin simply bullied and oppressed people in the caucauses through the 1920s for no reason other than russian chauvanism.