What was Lenin's opinion of Stalin?

[Guerrilla22]

I know that there have been around a billion threads dealing with the issue of whether or not Stalin was a bad guy, but I'd just like to ask the question is there any actual documented evidence that would describe how Lenin actually felt about Stalin? I've read that Lenin actually tried to take steps before his death to ensure that Stalin wouldn't come into power. Although, the books I have read were also written in the west and books about the USSR written here tend to be slanted in their view point. So I guess I'm wondering what was Lenin's opinion of Stalin?

[Roses in the Hospital]

From Lenin's famous 'Testament':


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...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.


He also critisised Trotsky for being 'arrogant.' By the time this document became public Stalin already had too much of a foothold in power to be removed...

[M_Rawlins]

During this same period Lenin also dictated other letters which were taken down, and smuggled out of Lenin’s room by his secretaries. These letters concerned the following struggles:

1 Supporting Trotsky’s proposal to invest the State Planning Authority with additional powers. [December 1922]

2 Opposing Stalin’s move to weaken the state monopoly on foreign trade, and authorising Trotsky to ‘stand up for my views on the foreign-trade monopoly’. [December 1922]

3 Opposing Great Russian chauvinism of Stalin in relation to his proposal for “union” of the independent republics in the Russian Federation. [December 1922]

4 Reduction of the size of the Workers and Peasants Inspection (The ‘Rabkrin’, of which Stalin was the head) [January 23, 1923]

5 Better Fewer, But Better. “everyone knows that Rabkrin does not at present enjoy the slighest authority ... nothing can be expected from this People’s Commissariat .. ” [February 7 1923]

6 Opposing Stalin’s “persecution” of the “Georgian case”. [March 5-6 1923]

[elijahcraig]

^That is such trash. Digging through Lenin's letters, etc for criticisms of the opinions of Stalin...this is a new low for Trots.

[Louis Pio]

^That is such trash. Digging through Lenin's letters, etc for criticisms of the opinions of Stalin...this is a new low for Trots.


Funny coming from you who have never felt too good to post obscure articles about different things. Get a grip with your pathetic trot screaming.

[elijahcraig]

Obscure articles? Like what, Parenti? Hardly obscure as he is nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

[Saint-Just]

Here are a couple of things Lenin said about Trotsky:

Trotsky's outrageous individualism, his open disdain for Bolshevik cadres, his authoritarian style of leadership and his taste for military discipline frightened many Party cadres. They thought that Trotsky could well play the rôle of a Napoléon Bonaparte, effecting a coup d'état and setting up a counter-revolutionary authoritarian régime.''. I. Lenin, The Trade Unions, the Present Situation, and Trotsky's Mistakes (30 December 1920). Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1960--1970), vol. 32, pp. 19--42.

‘All that glitters is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless’. V.I. Lenin

‘…we were right in calling Trotskyism a representative of the "worst remnants of factionalism’. V.I. Lenin

A joke is the only way of responding mildly to Trotsky's intolerable phrasemongering. - V.I. Lenin, May 1914

[Daymare17]

There has been so much slander and distortion of this question that it would take a book to answer it all

Here is that book. :)

http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/

[elijahcraig]

Good god, you are a fucking moron.

Care to post something not by Alan Woods?

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:54 PM
Good god, you are a fucking moron.

Care to post something not by Alan Woods?
Why am I a moron?

And why shouldn't I post things by Alan Woods?

[elijahcraig]

You are a dogmatic Trotskyist, who believes everything you read on marxists.org.

Step out of the trap of the trot mentality the same way you step out of the nietzschean herd mentality and take a look at the other side of the story, the Stalin side of the story.

[Daymare17]

Umm... ok.

(steps out of the "trap of trot mentality")

<_<

(takes a look at the "Stalin side of the story")

:rolleyes:

[elijahcraig]

Here is a site which refutes Trot lies:

http://antitrot.tripod.com/

[Scottish_Militant]

Like I said before, you can dig up many quotes from Lenin critiscising Trotsky, you wont find any after 1917 however, why is this? Why can you only find quotes praising Trotsky?

Could Lenin have changed his mind, sorted out past differences with Trotsky?

If he didn&#39;t then why did he praise him, and the great work he was doing so much? You try to make Lenin look like a muddled buffoon.

I once called my best friend a prick, I said I hated him, you can quote me on it yeah but it wont prove anything, we&#39;re friends again.

Stop digging up graves, grow up and start discussing politics

[elijahcraig]

This is a reaction to the trot mentality of "Trotsky, O Savior, betrayed by the Devil, Satan, Stalin".

YOU are the factionist in being a Trotskyist.

[Scottish_Militant]

I see you "forgot" to answer the question :lol:

[elijahcraig]

I&#39;m not scrounging the internet for "quotes" criticizing Trotsky.

That&#39;s what Trots do.

[Scottish_Militant]

I didn&#39;t ask you to, I asked you why Lenin didn&#39;t critiscise Trotsky after 1917

[elijahcraig]

I&#39;m not sure he didn&#39;t, and I&#39;m not going looking for little bits of information on this. Although I am sure that him and Trotsky disagreed on many issues, especially the amount of force to use with trade unions, etc., which Trotsky sent the army in to put down.

But does it really matter? Is Lenin the all-knowing source of judgement on these matters?

Good god, Trotskyists act like Trotsky had some kind of direct line to god and was the savior who got screwed over. It&#39;s just pathetic.

[Louis Pio]

Ejliah thanks for showing textbook secterianism, your way of acting is the best way to make sure nobody takes what you say serious...

[Hate Is Art]

EC you make me laugh some times, you&#39;ve spent two threads just shouting Trot and Sectarian at people. If you don&#39;t have a point shut up please.

[elijahcraig]

The point? I&#39;ve restated it numerous times...if you can&#39;t gather this point, you have something very much wrong with you.

And I&#39;m not "shouting Trot"--I am pointing out the cult which has been formed around this "betrayed" man who is treated like some sort of heroic myth figure, and Lenin (the immortal god who has supposedly written a secret memo to Trotsky giving him power and calling Stalin..."crude") is equally cult-like for followers of the Trotskyist line.

This isn&#39;t "shouting Trot"--it&#39;s the same as TAT saying that Leninists betrayed the revolution in the form of a party, and the same as Trotskyists saying that Stalin betrayed the revolution--it&#39;s MY position on the factionism/psychology of the Trotskyist left.

You, on the other hand, quoted your US HISTORY textbook of "accounts of Stalin&#39;s horrible USSR" or whatever garbage you called it. YOU have already embarrassed yourself with that--so you should fucking shut up because no one in their right mind would take you (what are you, 12?) seriously.

[Louis Pio]

And I&#39;m not "shouting Trot"--I am pointing out the cult which has been formed around this "betrayed" man who is treated like some sort of heroic myth figure, and Lenin (the immortal god who has supposedly written a secret memo to Trotsky giving him power and calling Stalin..."crude") is equally cult-like for followers of the Trotskyist line.


Hahahaha you talk about cultism? You are the one spending all your time talking about the greatness of different leaders. Quite cultish.
I don&#39;t go against stalin because of some mythical letters (calling them mythical is bending the truth, something you seem to like), but because on all important aspects concerning the revolution Trotsky and Lenin was in absolut agreement. Stalin on the other hand took a menshevic position om many of the matters (we shouldn&#39;t make a revolution etc) and besides from that the man hasn&#39;t produced any political material of value.
Even the russian revolution was a good example of the permanent revolution, you guys on the other hand has looked away from that and started advancing class collaboration, the zig-zag turns of the communist movement was even worse and let to many a defeat.

[elijahcraig]

Show me a comment I have made praising the "greatness of leaders."


Stalin on the other hand took a menshevic position om many of the matters (we shouldn&#39;t make a revolution etc) and besides from that the man hasn&#39;t produced any political material of value.

Can you prove this former part of the sentence? I disagree with the latter. He was well known in the party as a specialist on the "national problem."

[Louis Pio]

Can you prove this former part of the sentence? I disagree with the latter. He was well known in the party as a specialist on the "national problem."


I was thinking along the lines of his refusal (along with many other bolshevics) to see the need for going towards socialism instead of stopping with the bourgios revolution, he of course changed his position when Lenin got back.
Also the latter reintroduction of the menshevic 2 stage theory.
Anyway if you look at what he produced of material it&#39;s nowere near the level of other cc members, he was more of a practico, a comiteeman you might call it. Socialist theory was his weakest side.



Show me a comment I have made praising the "greatness of leaders."


One just need to take a look at the forum made up for stuff like that ie. ernestoguevara.

[autocritique]

From Comrade Lenin himself:


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.

Now this is a very interesting statement. The ironic part, is that Trotskyites spend a lot of time and resources reproducing this "testament" but apparently very little time reading it and thinking about what it might mean for their main man, Trotsky.

It also demonstrates the lie (at least in Lenin&#39;s eyes&#33;) that "Trotsky and Lenin were united on all important points". Stalin was rude and impolite. He apparently wasn&#39;t the nicest guy. It even appears that Lenin and Stalin had some personal conflicts.

Lenin was suggesting that Stalin be replaced with someone a little kinder, that is it&#33; Most communists would prefer a "nice person" with a correct line to a "mean person" with a correct line. And why not? I like people to be nice. But if it&#39;s a choice between "being nice" and having a correct line, the choice is very clear. Line is decisive&#33;

[Louis Pio]

Well we just need to go a bit further to see it. Because as you are well aware it is in the same book. So just post the quote in full and you could have left out the speculations

[Louis Pio]

It also demonstrates the lie (at least in Lenin&#39;s eyes&#33;) that "Trotsky and Lenin were united on all important points".

Well there were in perfect agreement considering the revolution. Stalin was against it in the beginning. It doesn&#39;t take a genious to make your own assumptions from that.
Anyway the russian revolution is a perfect example of the theory of permanent revolution. I know your group RCP has taken it up in a distorted form which is why some maoists refer to you as pseudotrotskyists.

[autocritique]

Well we just need to go a bit further to see it. Because as you are well aware it is in the same book. So just post the quote in full and you could have left out the speculations

To see what? I only pasted that little clip because it was the most relevent to the point I was making.


Well there were in perfect agreement considering the revolution.

Wrong, Trotsky opposed the revolution, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party until late in the summer of 1917.

Lenin wrote to Kollanti in a letter dated 17 March 1917:


In my opinion, our main task is to guard against getting entangled in foolish attempts at "unity" with the social-patriots (or, what is still more dangerous, with the wavering ones, like . . . Trotsky and Co.) and to continue the work of our own party in a consistently internationalist spirit.

At the last minute, Trotsky changed course and joined the Bolshevik Party. He was given the benefit of the doubt, for the time being.


Stalin was against it in the beginning. It doesn&#39;t take a genious to make your own assumptions from that.

Lenin actually had to threaten to resign from his post in order to "coerce" the Bolshevik CC into backing his call for revolution. The correctness of his line was of course proven very soon&#33;


Anyway the russian revolution is a perfect example of the theory of permanent revolution. I know your group RCP has taken it up in a distorted form which is why some maoists refer to you as pseudotrotskyists.

How and how?&#33;

Search the MIM document good and hard. Revisionists of all stripes appear to be uniting.

[Louis Pio]

To see what? I only pasted that little clip because it was the most relevent to the point I was making.


Too see what he actually wrote instead of your assumptions.


Wrong, Trotsky opposed the revolution,

Working for unity doesn&#39;t mean you oppose a revolution. That&#39;s a pathetic thing to say. You can do better than that I hope.


At the last minute, Trotsky changed course and joined the Bolshevik Party. He was given the benefit of the doubt, for the time being.


As well as countless others who joined the bolshevics, former menshevics, left social revolutionaries and so on.
In times of revolution people are put to the test and the petty sqyabbles of yesterday don&#39;t hold much meaning, only for the secterian.


Lenin actually had to threaten to resign from his post in order to "coerce" the Bolshevik CC into backing his call for revolution. The correctness of his line was of course proven very soon&#33;


Yes, but this doesn&#39;t change the fact that Stalin, Kamenev and Zioniev failed when they should have stood the test. It reveals how the individual can play a big role in history. If Lenin hasn&#39;t been there the bolshevics would probably not have gained power.


How and how?&#33;


That you need to take the revolution further instead of stoping at the bourgios revolution. The bourgiosie of nations like russia at the time couldn&#39;t even implement the basic tasks of the bourgios revolution: land to the peasants and so on. I think you in RCP have somewhat the same line today. Which is of course correct because the bourgisie of these nations can&#39;t develop national capitalism because they are too weak and entangled with imperialism. That didn&#39;t stop the stalinists from looking (without finding) after the progressive bourgiosie of nations such as Indonisia. That lead to defeat and massslaughter on communists.


Search the MIM document good and hard. Revisionists of all stripes appear to be uniting.

MIM are fucking hilarious, however I can&#39;t see why they are less maoist than RCP, they are just hardcore dogmatists.

[elijahcraig]

I was thinking along the lines of his refusal (along with many other bolshevics) to see the need for going towards socialism instead of stopping with the bourgios revolution, he of course changed his position when Lenin got back.
Also the latter reintroduction of the menshevic 2 stage theory.
Anyway if you look at what he produced of material it&#39;s nowere near the level of other cc members, he was more of a practico, a comiteeman you might call it. Socialist theory was his weakest side.

As I disagree fundamentally with this...I don&#39;t see this debate going anywhere. It&#39;s just the same nonsense we have debated time over and over. Gets old.


One just need to take a look at the forum made up for stuff like that ie. ernestoguevara.

YES, look there--I usually get insulted or get people angry at me for opposing the "cult" of leaders. Geist and I both attacked the "cult of Stalin" on that board.

[Louis Pio]

As I disagree fundamentally with this...I don&#39;t see this debate going anywhere. It&#39;s just the same nonsense we have debated time over and over. Gets old.


But nomatter what it is a fact that the 2 stage theory was made by the menshevics. You can dispute a fact. The menshevics had the same idea. Lenin and Trotsky was against. And once more the russian revolution is indeed a good example of the theory of permament revolution. If they had followed the 2 stage theory the bolshevics would never have taken power but stopped at the bourgios revolution.


YES, look there--I usually get insulted or get people angry at me for opposing the "cult" of leaders. Geist and I both attacked the "cult of Stalin" on that board.


Fair enough

[elijahcraig]

But nomatter what it is a fact that the 2 stage theory was made by the menshevics. You can dispute a fact. The menshevics had the same idea. Lenin and Trotsky was against. And once more the russian revolution is indeed a good example of the theory of permament revolution. If they had followed the 2 stage theory the bolshevics would never have taken power but stopped at the bourgios revolution.

When you say "2 stage theory" are you speaking of socialist transition?

If so, I don&#39;t know what you mean by the "Mensheviks inventing it". MARX had that idea.

[Louis Pio]

When you say "2 stage theory" are you speaking of socialist transition?

Im talking about the idea that in less developed countries, they first need a long period with "bourgios democracy". That was the idea under which Stalin viewed the revolution in several asian countries, like Indonisia.
This meant that they looked desperately for a "progresive bourgiosie" to work with. Against that is the theory of permanent revolution, which to say short. Knows that the bourgiosie of those countries are to weak to build a national economy (they always end up supporting imperialism) and that we therefore need to jump one stage and take on the task of building socialism imidiately. Russia is a good example of the neccesity of this.

Here&#39;s an quote from an article by 2 guys you love to hate on the subject Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism: Third World in Crisis (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/colrev.html)


The permanent revolution

The theory of the permanent revolution was first developed by Trotsky as early as 1904. The permanent revolution, while accepting that the objective tasks facing the Russian workers were those of the bourgeois democratic revolution, nevertheless explained how in a backward country in the epoch of imperialism, the "national bourgeoisie" was inseparably linked to the remains of feudalism on the one hand and to imperialist capital on the other and was therefore completely unable to carry through any of its historical tasks. The rottenness of the bourgeois liberals, and their counterrevolutionary role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, was already observed by Marx and Engels. In his article The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution (1848), Marx writes:

"The German bourgeoisie has developed so slothfully, cravenly and slowly that at the moment when it menacingly faced feudalism and absolutism it saw itself menacingly faced by the proletariat and all factions of the burgers whose interests and ideas were akin to those of the proletariat. And it saw inimically arrayed not only a class behind it but all Europe before it. The Prussian bourgeoisie was not, as the French of 1789 had been, the class which represented the whole of modern society vis-a-vis the representatives of the old society, the monarchy and the nobility. It had sunk to the level of a kind of social estate, as distinctly opposed to the crown as to the people, eager to be in the opposition to both, irresolute against each of its opponents , taken severally, because it always saw both of them before or behind it; inclined to betray the people and compromise with the crowned representative of the old society because it itself already belonged to the old society; ". (K. Marx, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution, in MESW, vol. 1, p. 140-1.)

The bourgeoisie, Marx explains, did not come to power as a result of its own revolutionary exertions, but as a result of the movement of the masses in which it played no role: "The Prussian bourgeoisie was hurled to the height of state power, however not in the manner it had desired, by a peaceful bargain with the crown but by a revolution". (K. Marx, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolution, MESW, vol. 1, p. 138.)

Even in the epoch of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Europe, Marx and Engels mercilessly unmasked the cowardly, counterrevolutionary role of the bourgeoisie, and emphasised the need for the workers to maintain a policy of complete class independence, not only from the bourgeois liberals, but also from the vacillating petty bourgeois democrats:

"The proletarian, or really revolutionary party," wrote Engels, "succeeded only very gradually in withdrawing the mass of the working people from the influence of the democrats whose tail they formed in the beginning of the revolution. But in due time the indecision weakness and cowardice of the democratic leaders did the rest, and it may now be said to be one of the principal results of the last years&#39; convulsions, that wherever the working class is concentrated in anything like considerable masses, they are entirely freed from that democratic influence which led them into an endless series of blunders and misfortunes during 1848 and 1849." (F. Engels, Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany, MESW, vol. 1, p. 332.)

The situation is clearer still today. The national bourgeoisie in the colonial countries entered into the scene of history too late, when the world had already been divided up between a few imperialist powers. It was not able to play any progressive role and was born completely subordinated to its former colonial masters. The weak and degenerate bourgeoisie in Asia, Latin America and Africa is too dependent on foreign capital and imperialism, to carry society forward. It is tied with a thousand threads, not only to foreign capital, but with the class of landowners, with which it forms a reactionary bloc that represents a bulwark against progress. Whatever differences may exist between these elements are insignificant in comparison with the fear that unites them against the masses. Only the proletariat, allied with the poor peasants and urban poor, can solve the problems of society by taking power into its own hands, expropriating the imperialists and the bourgeoisie, and beginning the task of transforming society on socialist lines.

By setting itself at the head of the nation, leading the oppressed layers of society (urban and rural petty-bourgeoisie), the proletariat could take power and then carry through the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution (mainly the land reform and the unification and liberation of the country from foreign domination). However, once having come to power, the proletariat would not stop there but would start to implement socialist measures of expropriation of the capitalists. And as these tasks cannot be solved in one country alone, especially not in a backward country, this would be the beginning of the world revolution. Thus the revolution is "permanent" in two senses: because it starts with the bourgeois tasks and continues with the socialist ones, and because it starts in one country and continues at an international level.

The theory of the permanent revolution was the most complete answer to the reformist and class collaborationist position of the right wing of the Russian workers&#39; movement, the Mensheviks. The two stage theory was developed by the Mensheviks as their perspective for the Russian revolution. It basically states that, since the tasks of the revolution are those of the national democratic bourgeois revolution, the leadership of the revolution must be taken by the national democratic bourgeoisie. For his part, Lenin agreed with Trotsky that the Russian Liberals could not carry out the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and that this task could only be carried out by the proletariat in alliance with the poor peasantry. Following in the footsteps of Marx, who had described the bourgeois "democratic party" as "far more dangerous to the workers than the previous liberals", Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counter-revolution.

"The bourgeoisie in the mass" he wrote in 1905, "will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, and against the people as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it &#39;recoils&#39; from consistent democracy (and it is already recoiling from it&#33;). (Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 9, p. 98.)

What class, in Lenin&#39;s view, could lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution? "There remains &#39;the people&#39;, that is, the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling" (Ibid.)

In all of Lenin&#39;s speeches and writings, the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeois-democratic Liberals is stressed time and time again. However, up until 1917, he did not believe that the Russian workers would come to power before the socialist revolution in the West--a perspective that only Trotsky defended before 1917, when it was fully adopted by Lenin in his April theses. The correctness of the permanent revolution was triumphantly demonstrated by the October Revolution itself. The Russian working class--as Trotsky had predicted in 1904--came to power before the workers of Western Europe. They carried out all the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and immediately set about nationalising industry and passing over to the tasks of the socialist revolution. The bourgeoisie played an openly counterrevolutionary role, but was defeated by the workers in alliance with the poor peasants. The Bolsheviks then made a revolutionary appeal to the workers of the world to follow their example. Lenin knew very well that without the victory of the revolution in the advanced capitalist countries, especially Germany, the revolution could not survive isolated, especially in a backward country like Russia. What happened subsequently showed that this was absolutely correct. The setting up of the Third (Communist) International, the world party of socialist revolution, was the concrete manifestation of this perspective.

Had the Communist International remained firm on the positions of Lenin and Trotsky, the victory of the world revolution would have been ensured. Unfortunately, the Comintern&#39;s formative years coincided with the Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia, which had a disastrous effect on the Communist Parties of the entire world. The Stalinist bureaucracy, having acquired control in the Soviet Union developed a very conservative outlook. The theory that socialism can be built in one country--an abomination from the standpoint of Marx and Lenin--really reflected the mentality of the bureaucracy which had had enough of the storm and stress of revolution and sought to get on with the task of "building socialism in Russia". That is to say, they wanted to protect and expand their privileges and not "waste" the resources of the country in pursuing world revolution. On the other hand they feared that revolution in other countries could develop on healthy lines and pose a threat to their own domination in Russia, and therefore, at a certain stage, sought actively to prevent revolution elsewhere.

Instead of pursuing a revolutionary policy based on class independence, as Lenin had always advocated, they proposed an alliance of the Communist Parties with the "national progressive bourgeoisie" (and if there was not one easily at hand, they were quite prepared to invent it) to carry through the democratic revolution, and afterwards, later on, in the far distant future, when the country had developed a fully fledged capitalist economy, fight for socialism. This policy represented a complete break with Leninism and a return to the old discredited position of Menshevism--the theory of the "two stages".

[Hate Is Art]

EC, those were sources from my UK text-book, we aren&#39;t living in Stalinist Russia anymore where they re-write history&#33; How did I embarrass myself


And i&#39;m 16&#33; (I don&#39;t see how it matters)

[Rex_20XD6]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 09:00 PM
During this same period Lenin also dictated other letters which were taken down, and smuggled out of Lenin’s room by his secretaries. These letters concerned the following struggles:

1 Supporting Trotsky’s proposal to invest the State Planning Authority with additional powers. [December 1922]

2 Opposing Stalin’s move to weaken the state monopoly on foreign trade, and authorising Trotsky to ‘stand up for my views on the foreign-trade monopoly’. [December 1922]

3 Opposing Great Russian chauvinism of Stalin in relation to his proposal for “union” of the independent republics in the Russian Federation. [December 1922]

4 Reduction of the size of the Workers and Peasants Inspection (The ‘Rabkrin’, of which Stalin was the head) [January 23, 1923]

5 Better Fewer, But Better. “everyone knows that Rabkrin does not at present enjoy the slighest authority ... nothing can be expected from this People’s Commissariat .. ” [February 7 1923]

6 Opposing Stalin’s “persecution” of the “Georgian case”. [March 5-6 1923]
He even has the dates. Wow you really did your research&#33;

[DaCuBaN]

we aren&#39;t living in Stalinist Russia anymore where they re-write history&#33;

They rewrite history in ole blighty too y&#39;know...

[elijahcraig]

EC, those were sources from my UK text-book, we aren&#39;t living in Stalinist Russia anymore where they re-write history&#33; How did I embarrass myself


And i&#39;m 16&#33; (I don&#39;t see how it matters)

Another discredited poster?

Seriously though, you SHOULD NOT trust the western view of history.

EVERYONE here should know that.

In my history book, it says that Salvador Allende was a dictator, that Afganistan was a success (new books, it even has Iraq, but doesn&#39;t go into the mistakes), etc.

History is written in quips and paragraphs without documentation and without depth. They expect children to learn these little ejaculated tidbits without question, without source, without any rational reason to do so...other than the capitalist-based book has the word "History" on it.

[DaCuBaN]

History is merely an account - in one form or another - of a human being. It will always contain bias.

Look to find at least 5-6 different sources on a single event before you even consider taking something as &#39;fact&#39; - even then be prepared to change your thought at the flip of a coin.

What you surely must not do is to assume what you are &#39;spoonfed&#39; is correct - It seldom is.

[autocritique]

Look, the thread was about Lenin&#39;s opinion of Trotsky. I summed up a few key points of his "testament". The writing is there for people to read if they want.

Lenin didn&#39;t always like Stalin on a personal level, but, judging from his "testament", he more or less agreed with his line (at that time).

Socialist revolutions are Marxist, not Trotskyite. Trotsky did not come up with that idea&#33;

The idea that there&#39;s no national bourgeoisie in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries turns reality on its head. Of course they are not capable of leading bourgeois democratic revolutions due to the influence of imperialism and the "spontaneity" that it develops. This is why, even in the "third world", Leninist vanguard parties are required.

The CCP under the leadership of Mao Tsetung implemented this strategy and brought 1/4 of the planet&#39;s population under the red flag of the proletariat. Trotskyites fail to grasp this strategy and have yet to win 1/4 of anything besides, perhaps, in some British trade union.

[autocritique]

Additionally, I am not an RCP member. You shouldn&#39;t assume.

MIM does not call RCP "crypto-Trotskyist" because they uphold so-called Permanent Revolution (which they do not). You should read the accusations in full if you wish to understand them.

[autocritique]

I must correct myself.


Look, the thread was about Lenin&#39;s opinion of Trotsky.

I meant to say "Lenin&#39;s opinion of Stalin", although there&#39;s certainly a dialectic between the two&#33;

[Daymare17]

Socialist revolutions are Marxist, not Trotskyite. Trotsky did not come up with that idea&#33;

The idea that there&#39;s no national bourgeoisie in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries turns reality on its head. Of course they are not capable of leading bourgeois democratic revolutions due to the influence of imperialism and the "spontaneity" that it develops. This is why, even in the "third world", Leninist vanguard parties are required.

The CCP under the leadership of Mao Tsetung implemented this strategy and brought 1/4 of the planet&#39;s population under the red flag of the proletariat. Trotskyites fail to grasp this strategy and have yet to win 1/4 of anything besides, perhaps, in some British trade union.

The Chinese revolution was not a proletarian one like that of Russia in 1917. Although it abolished capitalism and landlordism it did not put the working class in power. Rather it introduced a bureaucratic totalitarian regime like that of Stalin&#39;s Soviet Union. Mao&#39;s model was Moscow, 1949, not Moscow 1917&#33; When the workers of Shanghai greeted Mao&#39;s army with red flags, they were put to the wall and shot down like pheasants. Why? Because Mao did not want any workers&#39; democracy but only the rule of himself and his bureaucratic buddies.

Also, the facts of Chinese foreign policy give the lie to the idea that China was a socialist country. Why did Maoism support the reactionary feudal-capitalist regime of Pakistan? Such a thing would be unthinkable for the USSR under Lenin, who pursued a genuine revolutionary diplomacy. It was because of the power and prestige of the Maoist bureaucracy that these shameful acts were carried out. The regime in Beijing had nothing in common with a real regime of workers&#39; democracy, as existed in the early days of the Soviet Union. It was a totalitarian caricature.

Do you deny that ever since WWII, the policy of international "Communism" has been the policy of the "People&#39;s Front", i.e. of searching for a non-existent "progressive bourgeoisie" to make an alliance with? Do you also deny that this policy has led to disaster after disaster after terrible disaster?

[Louis Pio]

The CCP under the leadership of Mao Tsetung implemented this strategy and brought 1/4 of the planet&#39;s population under the red flag of the proletariat. Trotskyites fail to grasp this strategy and have yet to win 1/4 of anything besides, perhaps, in some British trade union.

And then some mythical thing called revisionism came and destroyed it all? :rolleyes:
Mao followed the 2 stage theory at first but was later forced to abandon it because it was impossible to reach another agreement with chiang kai shek. Also they had burned their hands before following the disgracefull advice of the 3 international to subdue themselves to chiang kai shek.


Socialist revolutions are Marxist, not Trotskyite. Trotsky did not come up with that idea&#33;


What do you mean by this?
Trotskyism is merely marxism and as I explained the russian revolution is a good example of the permanent revolution in pracsis. Not even you can deny that.


MIM does not call RCP "crypto-Trotskyist" because they uphold so-called Permanent Revolution (which they do not). You should read the accusations in full if you wish to understand them.

So they do it for some other reason, well ok.
Frankly I couldn&#39;t give less about that. MIM seems to be a internet only group and RCP is quite semi-religious. To most people in the world their petty squabbles mean nothing.