Vladimir Lenin & Joseph Stalin

[Everyday Anarchy]

VLADIMIR LENIN and JOSEPH STALIN


"A river of blood seperates Stalin from Lenin." Those were the words of Leon Trotsky, a Russian Communist. Who were Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin? How were they different?
Lenin's early life played a big role in his actions as a ruler. On April 22, 1870 in Simbirsk, Russia, Lenin was born. Later in his life, Lenin's radical brother was executed for conspiracy to assassinate Tsar Alexander III. His brother's execution was the event that caused Lenin to become a revolutionist. In college, Lenin was expelled from Kazan University for participating in many student protests. As he got older, Lenin's political actions continues. After being arrested multiple times, Lenin was exiled to Siberia.
Stalin's early life is not as documented as Lenin's, but it still reflects on his ruling days. Stalin was born in Gori, Georgia on December 18, 1878. Growing up in Russia, Stalin was often teased or mocked about his Georgian accent. When Stalin joined with Lenin, some historians say that he was a Tsar spy, this, however, is still unknown. Like Lenin, Stalin was also exiled to Siberia for political dissent.
When Lenin returned to Russa, he boosted the revolutionary spirit throughout the country. His movement eventually led to the October Revolution, als known as the Bolshevik Revolution. Lenin led the revolution to victory with the overthrowing of the Tsars' monarchy.
Stalin returned to Russia to be a part of the uprising as well. Stalin was not a leader of the revolution like Lenin, and he did not contribute much either. Some Stalin supporters argue that Stalin may not have done as much as Lenin, but he still did what was necessary for the succes of the revolution.
After the revolution, Lenin was elected ruler of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the USSR, on November 8. Lenin was a strong believer in the teachings of Karl Marx. Lenin was also a support of "Internation Revolution," the idea of spreading Communism around the world. When World War I erupted, the USSR was involved. However, by signing a treaty, Lenin was able to pull his country out of the war.
Stalin's worship-me-and-I-won't-kill-you control caused the USSR to take a turn for the worse. Stalin was a control freak who nearly obtained absolute power. He ruled like a lion rules his jungle, dangerous and always wanting more. Stalin used his power to exile his former Bolshevik comrades and many kulaks, people considered to be too rich to be peasants. Those who were not exiled were executed or placed in forced labor camps called gulags. He also betrayed Lenin's idea of International Revolution by introducing "Socialism in One Country."
January 21, 1924 was a sad day for the Bolshevik revolutionists and common Lenin supporters. It was this day that Lenin was announced dead. His cause of death was a stroke. Days before Lenin died, but after being warned of a nearing death, Lenin wrote a Final Testament. In his writings, he warned of Stalin's rude behavior and increasing power which he asked he be removed of. This was, unfortunately, never followed through with.
Stalin was found dead in his room on March 5, 1953. The night before, Stalin attended a party at which, rumors say, Stalin was poisoned. Although the official cause of death was cereberal hemmorage, scientists report finding arsenic present in Stalin's blood.
In conclusion, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin were two very different men with two very different ideas. As Leon Trotsky said, "A river of blood seperates Stalin from Lenin."




~Xero~

[Everyday Anarchy]

It's not that great, and it skips much of their lives. But what can you expect from an eigth grade compare/contrast essay? :P

I got a 95% on it only because of a few grammar mistakes.
Oh, and just ignore the cheesy writing tricks. We had to have at least three examples of figurative language, full circle ending, etc :\.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:07 AM
It's not that great, and it skips much of their lives. But what can you expect from an eigth grade compare/contrast essay? :P

I got a 95% on it only because of a few grammar mistakes.
Oh, and just ignore the cheesy writing tricks. We had to have at least three examples of figurative language, full circle ending, etc :\.
Sorry to have to tell you this, but you lack much knowledge on the role Stalin played in the revolution.

It's interesting to note that Trotsky didn't even join the bolsheviks until - what? - four months before the revolution!

Well Stalin was doing heavy on-the-ground organizing, Trotsky was in New York City sipping coffee in pettty-bourgeois cafes and writing for New Life (Menshevik Paper[/i].



Now let us look at some facts. Trotsky himself joined the Bolsheviks in July 1917. What happened to the Party up to that date, to the Party that led successfully the October Revolution? During the first imperialist war, between July 1915 and December 1916, the Party organised 480 strikes in Petrograd alone, with 500,000 participants. On February 14, 1917, the Bolsheviks organised the stay-in strike at the Putilov Works, with 30,000 participants. During January and February 1917 the Bolsheviks led 575,000 strikers. In Petrograd, early in 1917, there were no less than fifteen sub-district committees of the Party.

Who led all this work and built the committees and cells? People like Stalin, Sverdlov, Kalinin, Molotov and others, whilst Trotsky was a regular visitor to New York cafes and a constant contributor to Menshevik papers.

Stalin: Slander and Truth (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/stalincr.htm), C. Allen

Stalin organized strikes, edited the Bolshevik paper, was a leading member of the central committee and acted as general secretary of the party. He was in exile in Siberia when the actual revolution took place in October, but just because he wasn't noted in the bourgeois press at the time doesn't mean he didn't play important roles in building the party and organizing masses up to the point of revolution.

Then, you jump right over to Stalin supposedly being this ego-maniac dictator. You say absolutely nothing about how Stalin became general secretary. You mention Trotsky but nothing about what an anti-Bolshevik scoundrel he was. Why don't you explain why 90% of the party supported Stalin, and out fo the 10% that didn't maybe 3-6% actually supported Trotsky and his constant attempts to split the party.

As for the question of "Socialism in one country", neither Marx, Engels or Lenin ever said you can't have socialism in one country.

See: Debate on "Socialism in One Country" (http://free.hostultra.com/~mrodden/debate/socialisminonecountry.htm)
"Socialism In One Country"; MarxEngels 'Permanant Revolution' (http://www.allianceml.com/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE41_ME_SOCONECOUNTRY.html) by Alliance Marxist-Leninist

Your criticism of Stalin pushing forward with collectivisation and liquidating the Kulacks as a class is kind of meaningless, especially since Trotsky's criticism at the time was that it should have been done sooner. You're also over simplifying what happened. Read stuff by Sholokov like Virgin Soil Upturned or some of Stalin's speeches on the matter such as Dizzy With Success (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/DS30.html).

Lenin never called for Stalin's removal in the so-called "Lenin Testamnet", but did say he was rude. Stalin later replied something like "Yes, I am rude to those who try to split and break the party. I have never tried to hide this." Also, it is a very contraversial question of whether or not Lenin actually wrote any or all of those documents. Some of them where not even signed by him. Even if he did write them, he was not in his right mind at the time.

See more info: Forgery of Lenin's Testament (http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/LeninTest.htm)
Lenin and the Myth of the"Testament" (http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/TESTAMENT.HTM) (longer article that contains all of what is in the above one as well)

Your conclusion is that Stalin and Lenin were totally different people with different ideas. That's interesting. Certainly they had disagreements and differences on occasion, but you might want to look into the massive differences Lenin and Trotsky had, before and after 1917.

See Trotsky Against the Bolsheviks PI (http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass2-Trotsky1975.htm) (up to 1914) and Trotsky Against the Bolsheviks PI (http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass3-Trotsky2-1975.htm) (1914-1917)

You can see for yourself the pile of shit Trotsky through at Lenin and the Bolsheviks; his attempts to split the party, the little support he had, and how he hypocritically attacked beauruecracy when it didn't work in his favour (before that he had no probelm with it).

Edit: Oh, and never end with the exact same opening.

[Roses in the Hospital]

It's interesting to note that Trotsky didn't even join the bolsheviks until - what? - four months before the revolution!

Well Stalin was doing heavy on-the-ground organizing, Trotsky was in New York City sipping coffee in pettty-bourgeois cafes and writing for New Life (Menshevik Paper[/i].

"All the work of practical organisation of the insurrection was conducted under the immediate leadership of the President of the Petrograd Soviet, Comrade Trotsky. It is possible to declare with certainty that the swift passing of the garrison to the side of the Soviet, and the bold execution of the work of the Military Revolutionary Commitee, the party owes principally and first of all to Comrade Trotsky."
- Josef Stalin

In addition to leading the Petrograd Soviet and organising the October insurrectionTrotsky was also responsible for organising and commanding the Red Army during the civil war, without which the revolution would have almost certainly have been crushed by the Whites, so I think regardless of when he joined the Bolshevik party to dismiss the role of Trotsky is bordering on plain ignorance...



As for the question of "Socialism in one country", neither Marx, Engels or Lenin ever said you can't have socialism in one country.

The phrase 'working men of all countries unite' springs to mind. :P Regardless of that I'd say the degeneration of the USSR into a totalitarian dictatorship and it's eventual collapse rather suggest that 'Socialism in one country' dosen't work...

[Everyday Anarchy]

Edit: Oh, and never end with the exact same opening.
It's called full circle ending, it was required in the essay. Thanks for all the knowledge, I really appreciate it. As I said, it's not that great and it skips much of their lives.

As for Lenin asking for Stalin to be removed from his growing power, I was looking at this:

Originally posted by Lenin's Last Testament; Letter to the Congress

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/19...nt/congress.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm)

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.


You mention Trotsky but nothing about what an anti-Bolshevik scoundrel he was.
The paper wasn't about Trotsky. I was simply using a quote to open and close the paper that would show that the paper was explaining Lenin and Stalin.

[ComradeOm]

You should've finished reading that quote of Lenin's:

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.
In other words Stalin was too rude. Though personally I agree with you that Lenin did not want Stalin running the show. No doubt this was just a way to remove Stalin without fear of dividing the Party.

[tatu]

"Let us now pass to the legend about Trotsky's special role in the October uprising. The Trotskyites are vigorously spreading rumours that Trotsky inspired and was the sole leader of the October uprising. These rumours are being spread with exceptional zeal by the so-called editor of Trotsky's works, Lentsner. Trotsky himself, by consistently avoiding mention of the Party, the Central Committee and the Petrograd Committee of the Party, by saying nothing about the leading role of these organisation, in the uprising and vigorously pushing himself forward as the central figure in the October uprising, voluntarily or involuntarily helps to spread the rumours about the special role he is supposed to have played in the uprising. I am far from denying Trotsky's undoubtedly important role in the uprising. I must say, however, that Trotsky did not play any special role in the October uprising, nor could he do so; being chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, he merely carried out the will of the appropriate Party bodies, which directed every step that Trotsky took. To philistines like Sukhanov, all this may seem strange, but the facts, the true facts, wholly and fully confirm what I say" - Stalin

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 10 2005, 12:31 PM
In addition to leading the Petrograd Soviet and organising the October insurrectionTrotsky was also responsible for organising and commanding the Red Army during the civil war, without which the revolution would have almost certainly have been crushed by the Whites, so I think regardless of when he joined the Bolshevik party to dismiss the role of Trotsky is bordering on plain ignorance...

The phrase 'working men of all countries unite' springs to mind. :P Regardless of that I'd say the degeneration of the USSR into a totalitarian dictatorship and it's eventual collapse rather suggest that 'Socialism in one country' dosen't work...
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I never said Trotsky didn't play a role in the actual uprising, did I? My whole point was that he was around at a convienient time. Stalin was exiled to Siberia and was there during the uprising. Trotsky was quite well known as a Menshevik and was shown in the bourgeois press. This doesn't necessrily reflect on the overall role he played in building the Bolshevik Party, which was frankly, not much at all. Only four months worth.

Now, bearing that in mind, Trotsky's role in leading the revolution in October is horribly over exaggerated, as Stalin said in the quote tatu took from Trotskyism or Leninism (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/TL24.html#s1).

As for Trotsky's role in the Civil war, sure it he played a key role, but:
On the eve of the Insurrection the C.C. of the Bolsheviks elected the first political bureau to lead the Revolution composed of Lenin, Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Sokolnikov, and Bubnov. A Military Revolutionary Committee was elected on October 29 to direct the insurrection, and it was composed of Stalin, Sverdlov, Bubnov, Dzherzhinsky, and Uritsky. Trotsky as chairman of the Petrograd Soviet did, and spoke, what the Military Revolutionary Committee and the Political Bureau decided.

Let it be borne in mind that when the first Soviet Government was formed, Trotsky was assigned to the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs and not to any of the Defence Commissariats. On the other hand we find Stalin, at the side of Lenin, directing the orders to General Dukhonin, the Chief of Staff of Kerensky, and ordering the general's dismissal. Stalin is the only Commissar at the time, who in addition to being a Commissar of a special department (Nationalities) was assigned many responsible positions, either at the front, or in organising a Party Congress, or putting matters right in the Ukraine or Georgia. From these assignments Lenin learned of his great military abilities.

This is the reason for Stalin's outstanding role during the Civil War. Deutscher, as usual, distorts completely his role, and attributes victories of Stalin to Trotsky. Thus the famous Tsaritsyn victory is ascribed to Trotsky! Stalin, though not Commissar of War, was given by Lenin and the Soviet Government plenary powers to take decisions without consulting with Trotsky, the then Commissar of War.

Stalin: Slander and Truth (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/stalincr.htm), C. Allen
Among these legends must be included also the very widespread story that Trotsky was the "sole" or "chief organiser" of the victories on the fronts of the Civil War. I must declare, comrades, in the interest of truth, that this version is quite out of accord with the facts. I am far from denying that Trotsky played an important role in the Civil War. But I must emphatically declare that the high honour of being the organiser of our victories belongs not to individuals, but to the great collective body of advanced workers in our country, the Russian Communist Party. Perhaps it will not be out of place to quote a few examples. You know that Kolchak and Denikin were regarded as the principal enemies of the Soviet Republic. You know that our country breathed freely only after those enemies were defeated. Well, history shows that [cont. onto p. 118. -- DJR] both those enemies, i.e., Kolchak and Denikin, were routed by our troops in spite of Trotsky's plans.
Judge for yourselves.
1) Kolchak. This is in the summer of 1919. Our troops are advancing against Kolchak and are operating near Ufa. A meeting of the Central Committee is held. Trotsky proposes that the advance be halted along the line of the River Belaya (near Ufa), leaving the Urals in the hands of Kolchak, and that part of the troops be withdrawn from the Eastern Front and transferred to the Southern Front. A heated debate takes place. The Central Committee disagrees with Trotsky, being of the opinion that the Urals, with its factories and railway network, must not be left in the hands of Kolchak, for the latter could easily recuperate there, organise a strong force and reach the Volga again; Kolchak must first be driven beyond the Ural range into the Siberian steppes, and only after that has been done should forces be transferred to the South. The Central Committee rejects Trotsky's plan. Trotsky hands in his [cont. onto p. 119. -- DJR] resignation. The Central Committee refuses to accept it. Commander-in-Chief Vatsetis, who supported Trotsky's plan, resigns. His place is taken by a new Commander-in-Chief, Kamenev. From that moment Trotsky ceases to take a direct part in the affairs of the Eastern Front.
2) Denikin. This is in the autumn of 1919. The offensive against Denikin is not proceeding successfully. The "steel ring" around Mamontov (Mamontov's raid) is obviously collapsing. Denikin captures Kursk. Denikin is approaching Orel. Trotsky is summoned from the Southern Front to attend a meeting of the Central Committee. The Central Committee regards the situation as alarming and decides to send new military leaders to the Southern Front and to withdraw Trotsky. The new military leaders demand "no intervention" by Trotsky in the affairs of the Southern Front. Trotsky ceases to take a direct part in the affairs of the Southern Front. Operations on the Southern Front, right up to the capture of Rostov-on-Don and Odessa by our troops, proceed without Trotsky.
Let anybody try to refute these facts.

Trotskyism or Leninism? (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/TL24.html) , J.V. Stalin.