Stalin vs. Trotsky - who was bearer of lenins ideologie?

[Kingnothing]

I just wanted to see waht you guys thought of this discusion... it´s quite a common discusion i have had it many times with other leftists. Personally i believe that the one who should have succeded Lenin was Trotsky. I think that he was much more determined to promote and continue the revolution and he was much more human than stalin who ended up emprisoning thousands in work camps and killing many more, i do not see communism in those actions. On the other hand i think that trotsky had much more concrete economic plans and much better as regards the distribution of wealth becouse stalins promoted a party buerocracy which was extremely elitist and thus anti the basic communist principles. What do you think?

[honest intellectual]

I agree. Yay Trotsky. In Lenin's will (censored by Stalin), he leans towards Trotsky as his succesor.

[libereco]

I don't like either of them...

I just read about how Lenin, and Trotzkys Red Army first used and then Slaughtered the Partisan Manchowzi in the Ukrain. A truely socialist movement of mostly Farmers that wanted to live freely and had organised communes on their own after liberating from their landlords and opressors. They thought the Bolsheviki were comrades in revolution...

After the counterrevolution was defeated however, the Hunt for the Manchowzi began.

[MJM]

I'd say niether of them.
I think lenin was caught between a rock and a hard place. He didn't like Trotsky and he had his doubts about Stalin.
Trotsky and Lenin were basically enemies weren't they?
So the idea that Stalin somehow usurped power from the legitimate succession of Trotsky is a lie.




(Edited by MJM at 1:56 pm on April 6, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Lenin broke off comradely relations with Stalin after he (stalin)was rude to his wife Krupskaya.
Trotsky, Lenin considered too bureaucratic. They had good personal relations.
Trotsky was by far the greater thinker and man.
His arrogance was a good bit off putting but his ideas
of Permnanent Revolution were more in line wih Lenin and Marxism in general. Whereas Stalin's 'Socialism
in one country' opposed Marxism as it put the interests of a single state above those of the international working class.

[Michael De Panama]

Nobody is going to say that Stalin's centralized authoritarian communist rule could compare to Lenin's ideology. If they do, they are fucking idiots who need to be caned.

[TheDerminator]

I agree, that Trotsky was much closer to Lenin, than Stalin in terms of socialist theory, but it was Gramsci, who did the most take theory forward, and augment modern socialist thinking; thus I believe the highest point reached by Marxist thinkers is Gramsci-leninism, if either such classifications could be made, and I think not.
Make of it as you will.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[Reuben]

To an extent I am with Libereco. Of course Trotsky was much better than Stalin, however it could be argued that the dictatorial elitist nature of the Revolution was established under Lenin's leadership.

For example Lenin punished socialists wwho did not conform to his way of thinking. The bund, who were socialist revolutionaries, found many of their members being sent back to the same prisons they had been held in by the Tsars.

P.S. gramsci is great

[CautheN]

Stalin was a fucken nutcase that forever stained the name of Communism

Trotsky wasnt a saint either, fuck both of them.

[Guest]

I totally agree. Stalin fucked us so bad. He tended to the weed of destruction of the soviet union. As I see him. He was not an Idealist or a realist. But just some power hungry mother fucker. I speak bluntly because he and those who followed him are the reason communism is an "evil" thing. Fuck stalin
let me say that again
FUCK STALIN

[antitrot]

Hmmm, I see some people who seem to think of Lenin and Trotsky as hand and hand. Big misconception. Lenin, for the most part, generally despised Trotsky because he was such a bureaucrat:

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

Trotskyites like to turn history on its head and pretend that the Leninist struggle against bureaucracy began as a struggle against Stalin, but it actually began in opposition to the bureaucratic methods and excesses which had been introduced into Tsekran by Trotsky’s appointees. With the departure of Lenin, Trotsky soon began to pose as an anti-bureaucrat. In his struggle to gain the leadership, Trotsky began to disregard Lenin’s view concerning anti-bureaucratic platforms, which tended to reduce the question of combating bureaucracy to a simple, one-sided, political matter.

Trotsky was just a petty opportunist. It's really a shame to see so many communists buy into his work. Trotsky's "theories" were basically laughed out of the country by the Russian people back in the 20's and 30's. The opposition to Trotsky came from the people... not the Soviet government.

Some interesting claims...

The first is that Stalin ruined the name of Socialism (or communism, whatever label you prefer). First off, I get allot of flak for saying "Stalin didn't kill X million people" or that there was a working (generally economic) democracy under him. Neither seem to be generally accepted historical facts and espousing them immediately returns the label "Stalinist." I will hopefully only need to say this once, I am not a Stalinist. I am a Libertarian Communist. My thumbs generally go up when I read Kropotkin... the difference is, they also do with Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Where I differ most in theory from Lenin, Stalin and Mao is that I am a genuine communist that opposes the two stage theory. That means no (or a very minimal) state, no wages, etc. I just want to get that out of the way.

Anyway, Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist however you spin it. The Soviet method of production was Socialist and fairly democratic in it's own way. The accomplishments Stalin made did indeed end, but spitting on his legacy is very anti-communist or anti-Socialist in nature. Back to the original point, Stalin didn't give any movement a bad name, the American media and delusional sick characters like Robert Conquest did.

The next one is that Lenin somehow resented Stalin because of his "rude comments." Wow, I remember being a Trot and finding that thinking "this is the final nail in the Stalinist coffin." Ahhh, how logic was lost on me then. So what exactly does this letter say?

"You have been so rude as to summon my wife to the telephone and use bad language. Although she had told you that she was prepared to forget this, the fact nevertheless became known through her to Zinoviev and Kamenev. I have no intention of forgetting so easily what has been done against me, and it goes without saying that what has been done against my wife I consider having been done against me as well. I ask you , therefore, to think it over whether you are prepared to withdraw what you have said and to make your apologies, or whether you prefer that relations between us should be broken off."

Ouch! Well, Lenin was a strong man but few can escape the horrible effects of a stroke... not even Lenin. This is the case with this letter. I hate to say it, I really do, but Lenin was effectively a crazed veggie by this time in 1923. To the exact origin of the letter, I believe it had to do with the information Lenin's wife, who hated Stalin, was feeding him on his deathbed. How exactly this note came about was explained to me, though I don't remember the exact details. However, unless I am thinking of another note, it indeed had to do with Lenin's wife (and her hatred of Stalin).

The last testament seems to be a "last stand" for Trotsky to link himself to Lenin but the way they exploit it is absolutely horrible and cold when you understand why it was written. Without stealing too much from the essay, I'll take the first few paragraphs from an essay on the "ATO" page that explains some about this testament...


[...]clearly there was something that occurred to alter Lenin's opinion in 1922 of Trotsky and Stalin. What else could cause a sharp change in a person's attitude than a stroke! It was recorded in May 1922 that Catastrophe struck: his right hand and leg become paralyzed and his speech was impaired, sometimes completely, so his convalescence was slow and tedious. He never fully regained his health. The return to public life was not to last long. His testament was written in late 1922. Then Lenin suffered 2 more strokes that same year and remained a vegetable till his death in 1924. The autopsy report stated:

"The basic disease of the deceased was disseminated vascular arteriosclerosis based on premature wearing out of the vessels. The narrowing of the lumen of the cerebral arteries and the disturbances of the cerebral blood supply brought about focal softening of the brain tissue which can account for all symptoms of the disease (paralysis, disturbance of speech)." R.Payne: Report on the Pathological-Anatomical Examination of the Body of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in: 'The Life and Death of Lenin'; London; 1967; p. 632.

The controversial document known as 'Lenin's Testament' was dictated between 23 and 31 December 1922, with a supplement dated 4 January 1923, after Lenin had already suffered four severe strokes which had adversely affected his brain function. Thus. Lenin's radical changes of opinion on Stalin, on Trotsky and on Transcaucasia are partly explicable by psycho-pathological factors.

Also let it be noted that Stalin was never aloud to see Lenin personally during the whole period. Strict rules were established so only the doctors and Lenin's immediate family were able to visit him. Also remember Krupskaya's hatred of Stalin noted by her biographer, Robert McNeal. She joined the opposition after Lenin's death.

"Krupskaya . showed not the slightest intention of carrying out the orders of the doctors and the Politburo; and so small scraps of information were fed to Lenin. . . While he lay ill, she was his ears and eyes, his sole powerful contact with the outside world."

(The article can be found here (http://antitrot.tripod.com/articles/testament.htm) though it is a very rough draft. I took the liberty to do some light editing to make it a bit more readable.)

Finally, I just want to comment on the numerous screw ups that DID happen as a result of Lenin or Stalin...

Lenin himself said that only fools make no mistakes. The Soviet government, up until the period of Capitalist restoration (after Stalin), was definitely looking far from foolish. The first Socialist state stumbled along the best it could. For what it had, what the revisionists and capitalists of the world put it through, I think it was amazing it did as well and lasted as long as it did. Does anyone really get things right the first time around? Or for that matter the second, third, fourth or fifth? Capitalism sure failed it's fair share, I'd expect the same thing with what's to come.

As far Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky go... just remember, there is no Stalinism. Stalin was a Leninist. Maybe not the best one, but far better then most (specifically Trotsky).

Leninism and Trotskyism... two very separate ideologies...

(Edited by antitrot at 3:14 am on April 13, 2002)

[honest intellectual]

Lenin, for the most part, generally despised Trotsky because he was such a bureaucrat

Bullshit. In his last testament, Lenin called trotsky 'the most able man in the politburo' while he said of Stalin "Comrade Stalin, in his role as party secretary, has ammassed a great amount of power in his hands. I am not sure that he will always be able to use this power with due restraint". How right he was

[antitrot]

No, it's not bullshit, it's fact. If you would have read the explanation for the Last Testament, you would understand. Up until a series of strokes crippled Lenin, both mentally and physically, Lenin had much praise for Stalin (much more, if any, then for Trotsky):

If I could borrow a little more from that essay I referred to earlier...


"We have a marvelous Georgian who has sat down to write a big article for ‘Prosveshcheniye', for which he has collected all the Austrian and other materials."Lenin: Letter to Maksim Gorky, in: 'Collected Works', Volume 35; Moscow; 1966; p. 84.

A little later, in December 1913 Lenin was characterizing Stalin as the Party's leading Marxist analyst of the national question:

"The situation and the fundamentals of a national program for Social Democracy have recently been dealt with in Marxist theoretical literature (the most prominent place being taken by Stalin's article)." V.I. Lenin: 'The National Program of the RSDLP', in: 'Cool Works', Vol 19; Moscow; 1963; p.539.

And here Lenin defends Stalin against criticism from someone who believed Stalin had to much power:

"The 'Turkestan, Caucasian and other questions . . are all political questions! They have to be settled. These are questions that have engaged the attention of European states for hundreds of years. . We are settling them; and we need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail. Where can we find such a man? I don't think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better candidate than Comrade Stalin... The same thing applies to the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection. This is a vast business; but to be able to handle investigations we must have at the head of it a man who enjoys high prestige, otherwise we shall become submerged in and overwhelmed by petty intrigue." V.I. Lenin: 'The National Program of the RSDLP', in: 'Coll Works', Vol 19; Moscow; 1963; p.539.

[kingbee]

i dont think the strokes affected lenins ability to critisize, anti trot.
"Up until a series of strokes crippled Lenin, both mentally and physically, Lenin had much praise for Stalin (much more, if any, then for Trotsky)!Up until a series of strokes crippled Lenin, both mentally and physically, Lenin had much praise for Stalin (much more, if any, then for Trotsky)", so you say? if you look at the date of the letters praising stalin, you will see it being 1913, at a time when he was still friendly to stalin, and against trotsky. that was 1913, years before the soviet goverment had been established, years before stalin showed his autocratic and greed-fuelled tendencies.

trotsky was one of the most able men, so lenin said. thats what brought his downfall, as many became jealous of this. that is why stalin used kamenev and zinionev against him in the politburo. also, the letters quoted were printed in the soviet union, which was highly anti trotskyist, and would never dream of printing works praising trotsky.

i dont think either that lenin would blindly take his wifes word that stalin was rude. he would obviously know before printing the testament that he was rude.

trotsky and lenin fell out, and trotsky revealed he didnt like lenin because he could not understand his ruthlessness.
joffe, an ambassador to china, europe and japan later revealed in his suicide note:
" i heard lenin admit in 1905, that you and not he was right. one does not lie before his death, and i bring this to you"
joffe commited suicide because he became depressed wih the degeneration around him, btw.

lenin called for the politburo to remove stalin from the being the secetary. lenin would not call for this because of a tale from his wife, so antitrot claims.

overall, stalin was a autocratic ruler, who was paranoid (which led to the purges), and was against any form of critism.trotskt called for soviets, inner party democracy and critised the soviet goverment (see the revolution betrayed).

since antitrot uses lenin quoes that are pro stalin, i will use some that are pro trotsky-
on stalin- "this cook will only cook peppery dishes"
when resisted by bela kun, bukharin and zinoviev- "fools!trotsky is right! i support in all essentials what trotsky said"

i mean not to critisize you personally anti trot, just put my side of the view forward

[antitrot]

i dont think the strokes affected lenins ability to critisize, anti trot.

I'm sure they did. Read the quote from the autopsy report. When your brain begins to soften, that's very serious business. Lenin's brain was literally turning to mush. Beyond that, I believe Lenin's wife was feeding him false information about Stalin.

trotsky was one of the most able men, so lenin said.

Having read Lenin in great detail, Lenin was rare to ever compliment to Trotsky. Most Trotskyites cannot provide Lenin's praise of Trotsky beyond what was in the Last Testament which I have explained was not written by Lenin in a capable state. I think it's terrible Trotskyites exploit it like they do.

thats what brought his downfall, as many became jealous of this. that is why stalin used kamenev and zinionev against him in the politburo.

No one was jealous of Trotsky. Trotsky's position in the party, outside his small clique, was resented. Not because Lenin thought anything great of him and the others felt neglected either. Lenin didn't think much of Trotsky at all. Trotsky was resented because he was an annoying bureaucrat.

also, the letters quoted were printed in the soviet union, which was highly anti trotskyist, and would never dream of printing works praising trotsky.

Or they just couldn't find anything praising him. Trotsky was certainly not ever really liked in the USSR. Not in early 1900's, not in the 20's, not in the 30's, not as a Menshevik, not as a Bolshevik.

i dont think either that lenin would blindly take his wifes word that stalin was rude. he would obviously know before printing the testament that he was rude.

As I said, it's entirely possible. Lenin's wife hated Stalin.

lenin called for the politburo to remove stalin from the being the secetary. lenin would not call for this because of a tale from his wife, so antitrot claims.

Lenin never called for Stalin's removal. If that was the case, why would he have given him so much power in the first place? Come to think of it, Stalin was re-elected to his positions a number of times even after he tried to resign. Even Trotsky had voted for him to stay in his position as General Secretary right up to the very end.

Lenin was still praising Stalin in the later years as well. However, with Trotsky this praise was not so. In January 1921, Lenin severely criticized Trotsky for dereliction of party duty and factionalism:

"The Central Committee sets up a trade union commission and elects Comrade Trotsky to it. Trotsky refuses to work on the commission, magnifying by this step alone his original mistake, which subsequently leads to factionalism, becomes magnified and later leads to factionalism." V.I. Lenin: 'The Party Crisis', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 32; Moscow; 1965; p. 45.

The same month, Lenin criticized him for his proposal to "militarize" the trade unions:

"Comrade Trotsky's theses has landed him in a mess. That part of them which is correct is not new, and what is more, turns against him. That which is new is all wrong. Comrade Trotsky's political mistakes distract our party’s attention from economic tasks. All his theses, his entire pamphlet, are so wrong." V.I. Lenin: 'Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin, in: 'Collected Works', Volume 32; Moscow; 1965; p. 74, 85, 90.

overall, stalin was a autocratic ruler, who was paranoid (which led to the purges), and was against any form of critism.trotskt called for soviets, inner party democracy and critised the soviet goverment (see the revolution betrayed).

That's a very unfounded statement you've made. The comment about the purges certainly brings into question your knowledge of Soviet history. The purges were panicked and were hardly Stalin's doing. When NKVD executions went on the rise, Stalin was the one who stepped in. He was anything but paranoid. The Nazi's had a fifth column in both Britain and the US and the Soviets knew this. This panic was certainly justified. On the other hand, not of all the NKVD executions were. Stalin realized this and put a stop to them. As far as critics go, he also had his fair share of them in the USSR and they all seem to be alive and well. Some, actually many, still in Russia.

As far as Trotsky calling for this or that, I think you should refer to Lenin's wise words about Trotsky. All that glitters is not gold.

since antitrot uses lenin quoes that are pro stalin,

Yep, that was kind of the idea of this thread read? See who Lenin favored? ;)

on stalin- "this cook will only cook peppery dishes"

If that was on Stalin, how is it negative? I suspect it means he was true to his words.

when resisted by bela kun, bukharin and zinoviev- "fools!trotsky is right! i support in all essentials what trotsky said"

Could you cite your quotes? I don't recall Lenin ever making any such statements.

[Kez]

Trotsky became a bolshie at teh last moment, unlike Stalin, who was bolshie from the start.

Stalin was much much more leninist than Trotsky, however i dont see that leninism was the best solution

Best solution = Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Trotskyist-Eurocommunist

:)

comrade kamo

[kingbee]

im not the biggest fan of trot, jus i dont like stalin.ok- antitrot

i dont think trotskyists exploit lenins last testament, i believe the last testament was a valid piece.

if lenin didnt think much of him, wy would he bring his idea of the bloshieviks almost into line with the one of trot of the permanent revolution

trotsky was never really liked in thew ussr because he was censored, and anyone who liked him was probably going to be dragged away

i dont think krupskyua would tell lenin something that he would contain in his last works if it were a lie. if she did hate him that much, then something bad must have been bought on by stalin

in the last testament, lenin called for the committee to "find a way to remove stalin". i dontr know why llenin gave him such a high post. people make mistakes- maybe lenin did like him- im not denying that

lenins criticism of trotsky- i didnt say he didnt criticsize trotsky either.

stalin almost certainly had something to do with the purges. i dont think the police themselves killed bela kun, kirov (a big rival of stalin, who had just gained more votes than him), kamenev, zinoviev and trotsky.

"stalin had promised if zinoviev confessed, their lives would be spared"- oops.

3 million were killed. if they werent his doing, then surely he could have intervened.

"this cook will only cook peppery dishes"- this shows he brings up contoversy"

lenin is quoted as saying "i support in essentials what trotsky said" in trotsky for beginners, in the 3rd international when bela kun, bukharin and zinoviev resisted his and trotskys idea for a united front.

im not saying that stalin didnt stay true to lenins ideas- i just posted what i thought about stalin.

[TheDerminator]

EH Carr - The Russian Revolution from Lenin to Stalin

"Stalin had a form of vanity totally alien to Lenin, which demanded, not indeed the holding or the trappings of office, but absolute obedience and the recognition of his infallibility. No overt criticism, no expression of dissent, appeared any longer in the party press, or even is specialist journals. Such discussions of current questions as could still be found were marked by tasteless and uniform tributes to the leader, and by the celebration of often mythical achievements. Stalin became a remote isolated figure, exalted above ordainary mortals, and indeed above his closest colleagues. He seems to have lacked any warmth of feelings for his fellow men; he was cruel and vindictive to those who thwarted his will, or excited his resentment or antipathy. His commitment to Marxism and to socialism was only skin deep. Socialism was not something that grew out of the objective economic situation and out of the revolt of class-conscious workers against the oppressive domination of capitalism, it was something imposed from above, arbitarily and by force. Stalin's attitude towards the masses was contemptuous; he was indifferent to liberty and equality; he was scornful of the prospects of revolution in any country outside the USSR. He was the only member of the party central committee who, as early as January 1918, had maintained in opposition to Lenin, that 'there is no revolutionary movement in the West'.
"The commitment to socialism in one country, though the attitudes which crystallised into the new doctrine were not exclusively of Stalin's making, perfectly fitted the man. It enabled him to match professions of socialism with Russian nationalism, the only political creed that moved him deeply. In Stalin's treatment of national minorities or the smaller nations, nationalism easily degenerated into chauvinism. Notes of the old Russian anti-Semitism, sternly denounced by Lenin and the early Bolsheviks were heard; and official condemnations of it, though persistant, began to sound less decisive. In art and literature, the eager experimentation of the first years of the revolution were abandoned in favour of a return to traditional Russian models, enforced by increasingly strict censorship. Marxist schools of history and law passed under a cloud; to seek continuity with the Russian past was no longer a cause for reproach. Socialism in one country pointed back to an old Russian national exlusiveness rejected by Marx as well as Lenin. It was altogether incongruous to place Stalin's regime in the context of Russian history."

There is a huge difference between Lenin and Stalin. Not to know it is an affrontery to the humanity of the socialst spirit. These Stalinists are all theory and no heart or spirit. The theory is appalling stuff.

Resistance is futile!

derminated

[antitrot]

kingbee - I'll get back to you later but PLEASE cite your quotes. Otherwise they are bullshit to me.

[antitrot]

Well if we're going into Stalin's personality...
http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/pers-cult.html

STALIN AND THE CULT OF PERSONALITY? WAS THIS REAL?

It is difficult enough to try to stop people from hating you; you can try to be nice to them; that might work. But what about when people like you - or love you? Is it possible to stop them from feeling this? Sure it is, but to what end would anyone do that?

In "THE 'CULT OF THE INDIVIDUAL'" (1934-52) A paper read by William B. Bland (of the Communist League- UK) to the Stalin Society in May 1991.(Note: An earlier version of this talk was given to the First Communist League summer school in 1975). Available on the web at the website of Alliance Marxist-Leninist, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/109...ALLIANCEML.html (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/1091/ALLIANCEML.html)

On 14 February 1956 the Soviet revisionist politician Nikita Khrushchev (1894 -1971); First Secretary of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1953-64); Premier (1958-64); then First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, publicly, but obliquely, attacked Stalin at the 20th Congress of the Party: "It is of paramount importance to re-establish and to strengthen in every way the Leninist principle of collective leadership. The Central Committee . . . vigorously condemns the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism". (N.S. Khrushchev: Report to the Central Committee, 20th Congress of the CPSU, February 1056; London; 1956; p. 80-81). In his 'secret speech' to the same Congress on 25 February (leaked to the US State Department but not published within the Soviet Union) Khrushchev attacked Stalin more directly, asserting that "The cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person". (Russian Institute, Columbia University (Ed.): 'The Anti-Stalin Campaign and International Communism'; New York; 1956; p. 69).

The "cult of personality" has been written about extensively by many anti-Communists and anti-Stalinists alike, always giving the same hearsay or impressionistic opinions as facts. Yet many witnesses testify to Stalin's simplicity and modesty. So, let us look now at eye witnesses from all quarters that had NO REASON to lie.

We begin with neutral and/or hostile eye witnesses and Stalin himself on the subject.

The American diplomat Joseph Davies (American lawyer and diplomat (1876-1958); Chairman (1915-16) and Vice-Chairman (19l6-18) of Federal Trade Commission; Ambassador to Moscow (1936-38), to Belgium (1938-39).remarked on Stalin's simple, kindly manner: "I was startled to see the door . . . open and Mr. Stalin come into the room alone. . . . His demeanor is kindly, his manner almost depreciatingly simple. . He greeted me cordially with a smile and with great simplicity, but also with a real dignity. . . . His brown eye is exceedingly kindly and gentle. A child would like to sit in his lap and a dog would sidle up to him". (J. E. Davies: 'Mission to Moscow'; London; 1940; p. 222, 230).

Isaac Don Levine- [Russian born American newspaper correspondent (1892-1981)] - writes in his hostile biography of Stalin: "Stalin does not seek honours. He loathes pomp. He is averse to public displays. He could have all the nominal regalia in the chest of a great state. But he prefers the background." (J. D. Levine: 'Stalin: A Biography'; London; 1931; p. 248-49).

Another hostile critic, Louis Fischer, [American writer (1896-1970)] testifies to Stalin's 'capacity to listen': "Stalin . . inspires the Party with his will-power and calm. Individuals in contact with him admire his capacity to listen and his skill in improving on the suggestions and drafts of highly intelligent subordinates". (L. Fischer: Article in: 'The Nation', Volume 137 (9 August 1933); p. 154).

Eugene Lyons , [Russian-born American writer (1898-1985)] in his biography entitled 'Stalin: Czar of All the Russias', describes Stalin’s simple way of life: "Stalin lives in a modest apartment of three rooms. . . . In his everyday life his tastes remained simple almost to the point of crudeness. . . . Even those who hated him with a desperate hate and blamed him for sadistic cruelties never accused him of excesses in his private life. . Those who measure 'success' by millions of dollars, yachts and mistresses find it hard to understand power relished in austerity. . There was nothing remotely ogre-like in his looks or conduct, nothing theatrical in his manner. A pleasant, earnest, ageing man -- evidently willing to be friendly to the first foreigner whom, he had admitted to his presence in years. 'He's a thoroughly likeable person', I remember thinking as we sat there, and thinking it in astonishment". (E. Lyons: 'Stalin: Czar of All the Russias'; Philadelphia; 1940; p. 196, 200).

Lyons asked Stalin "Are you a dictator?": "Stalin smiled, implying that the question was on the preposterous side. 'No', he said slowly, 'I am no dictator. Those who use the word do not understand the Soviet system of government and the methods of the Communist Party. No one man or group of men can dictate. Decisions are made by the Party and acted upon by its organs, the Central Committee and the Politburo". (E. Lyons: ibid.; p. 203). (Editorial Comment; remember that Lyons was one of the Western reporters who collaborated with the Nazis in the "collectivization famine" hoax.)

The Finnish revisionist Arvo Tuominen- [Finnish revisionist politician (1894-1981)]-- strongly hostile to Stalin, comments in his book, "The Bells of the Kremlin," on Stalin's personal self-effacement: "In his speeches and writings Stalin always withdrew into the background, speaking only of communism, the Soviet power and the Party, and stressing that he was really a representative of the idea and the organisation, nothing more. . I never noticed any signs of vainglory in Stalin". (A. Tuominen: 'The Bells of the Kremlin'; Hanover (New Hampshire, USA); 1983; p. 155, 163).

Here the same author expresses surprise at the contrast between the real Stalin and the propaganda picture spread of him: "During my many years in Moscow I never stopped marvelling at the contrast between the man and the colossal likenesses that had been made of him. That medium-sized, slightly pock-marked Caucasian with a moustache was as far removed as could be from that stereotype of a dictator. But at the same time the propaganda was proclaiming his superhuman abilities". (A. Tuominen: ibid., p. 155).

The Soviet marshal Georgy Zhukov [Soviet military officer (1869-1974); Chief of Staff (1941); Marshal (1943); Minister of Defence (1955-57)]:- speaks of Stalin's 'lack of affectation': "Free of affectation and mannerisms, he (Stalin –Ed) won the heart of everyone he talked with". (C. K. Zhukov: 'The Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov'; London; 1971; p. 283).

Stalin's daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva-[Stalin's daughter (1926- )] - is gullible enough to accept almost every slander circulated about her father, but even she dismisses the charge that he himself engineered the 'cult' of his personality. She describes a train trip with Stalin from the Crimea to Moscow in 1948: "As we pulled in at the various stations we'd go for a stroll along the platform. My father walked as far as the engine, giving greetings to the railway workers as he went. You couldn't see a single passenger. It was a special train and no one was allowed on the platform. . . . Who ever thought such a thing up? Who had contrived all these stratagems? Not he. It was the system of which he himself was a prisoner and in which he suffered from loneliness, emptiness and lack of human companionship. . . Nowadays when I read or hear somewhere that my father used to consider himself practically a god, it amazes me that people who knew him well can even say such a thing. . . . He never thought of himself as a god". (S. Alliluyeva: 'Letters to a Friend'; London; 1968; p. 202-03, 213).

She describes the grief of the servants (that was their job, they were paid) at the dacha when Stalin died: "These men and women who were servants of my father loved him. In little things he wasn't hard to please. On the contrary, he was courteous, unassuming and direct with those who waited on him. . Men, women, everyone, started crying all over again. . No one was making a show of loyalty or grief. All of them had known one another for years. . . No one in this room looked on him as a god or a superman, a genius or a demon. They loved and respected him for the most ordinary human qualities, those qualities of which servants are the best judges of all". (S. Alliluyeva: ibid,; p. 20, 22).

Furthermore, the facts show that on numerous occasions Stalin himself denounced and ridiculed the 'cult of the individual' as being contrary to Marxism-Leninism. For example,

June 1926: "I must say in all conscience, comrades, that I do not deserve a good half of the flattering things that have been said here about me. I am, it appears, a hero of the October Revolution, the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet, the leader of the Communist International, a legendary warrior-knight and all the rest of it. This is absurd, comrades, and quite unnecessary exaggeration. It is the sort of thing that is usually said at the graveside of a departed revolutionary. But I have no intention of dying yet. I really was, and still am, one of the pupils of the advanced workers of the Tiflis railway workshops". (J. V. Stalin: 'Works’, Volume 8; Moscow; 1954; p. 182).

October 1927: "And what is Stalin? Stalin is only a minor figure". (J. V. Stalin: 'Works’. Volume 10; Moscow; Moscow; 1954; p. 177).

December 1929: "Your congratulations and greetings I place to the credit of the great Party of the working class which bore me and reared me in its own image and likeness. And just because I place them to the credit of our glorious Leninist Party, I make bold to tender you my Bolshevik thanks". (J. V. Stalin: 'Works', Volume 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 146).

April 1930: "There are some who think that the article 'Dizzy with Success was the result of Stalin's personal initiative. That, of course, is nonsense. It is not in order that personal initiative in a matter like this be taken by anyone, whoever he might be, that we have a Central Committee". (J. V. Stalin: 'Works', ibid.; p. 218).

August 1930: "You speak of your devotion' to me. . . I would advise you to discard the ‘principle' of devotion to persons. It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals". (J. V. Stalin: 'Works', Volume 13; Moscow; 1955; p. 20).

December 1931: "As for myself, I am just a pupil of Lenin's, and the aim of my life is to be a worthy pupil of his. . . . Marxism does not deny at all the role played by outstanding individuals or that history is made by people. But . . great people are worth anything at all only to the extent that they are able correctly to understand these conditions, to understand how to change them. If they fail to understand these conditions and want to alter them according to the promptings of their imagination, they will find themselves in the situation of Don Quixote. Individual persons cannot decide. Decisions of individuals are always, or nearly always, one-sided decisions. . . . In every collective body, there are people whose opinion must be reckoned with. . . . From the experience of three revolutions we know that out of every 100 decisions taken by individual persons without being tested and corrected collectively, approximately 90 are one-sided. . Never under any circumstances would our workers now tolerate power in the hands of one person. With us personages of the greatest authority are reduced to nonentities, become mere ciphers, as soon as the masses of the workers lose confidence in them". (J.V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 107-08, 109, 113).

February 1933: "I have received your letter ceding me your second Order as a reward for my work. I thank you very much for your warm words and comradely present. I know what you are depriving yourself of in my favour and appreciate your sentiments. Nevertheless, I cannot accept your second Order. I cannot and must not accept it, not only because it can only belong to you, as you alone have earned it, but also because I have been amply rewarded as it is by the attention and respect of comrades and, consequently, have no right to rob you. Orders were instituted not for those who are well known as it is, but mainly for heroic people who are little known and who need to be made known to all. Besides, I must tell you that I already have two Orders. 'That is more than one needs, I assure you." (J. V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 241).

May 1933: Robins to Stalin: I consider it a great honour to have an opportunity of paying you a visit. Stalin to Robins: There is nothing particular in that. You are exaggerating." Robins to Stalin: What is most interesting to me is that throughout Russia I have found the names Lenin-Stalin, Lenin-Stalin, Lenin-Stalin, linked together. Stalin to Robins: That, too, is an exaggeration. How can I be compared to Lenin? (J. V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 267)

February 1938: "I am absolutely against the publication of 'Stories of the Childhood of Stalin'. The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, of alterations, of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. But . . the important thing resides in the fact that the book has a tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental. The theory of 'heroes' and the 'crowd' is not a Bolshevik, but a Social-Revolutionary (i.e. Anarchist) theory. I suggest we burn this book". (J. V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 327).

And from friendly sources:

The French writer Henri Barbusse (French writer (1873-1935) describes the simplicity of Stalin's life-style: "One goes up to the first floor, were white curtains hang over three of the windows. These three windows are Stalin's home. In the tiny hall a long military cloak hangs on a peg beneath a cap. In addition to this hall there are three bedrooms and a dining room. The bedrooms are as simply furnished as those of a respectable, second-class hotel. The eldest son, Jasheka, sleeps at night in the dining room, on a divan which is converted into a bed; the younger sleeps in a tiny recess, a sort of alcove opening out of it. . . . Each month he earns the five hundred roubles, which constitute the meagre maximum salary of the officials of the Communist Party (amounting to between £20 and £25 in English money). . . This frank and brilliant man is . . . a simple man. . . . He does not employ thirty-two secretaries, Like Mr. Lloyd George; he has only one. . . . Stalin systematically gives credit for all progress made to Lenin, whereas the credit has been in very large measure his own". (H. Barbusse: 'Stalin: A New World seen through One Man'; London; 1935; p. vii, viii, 291, 294).

True, Stalin had the use of a dacha, or country cottage, but here too his life was equally simple, as his daughter Svetlana" relates: "It was the same with the dacha at Kuntsevo. . My father lived on the ground floor. He lived in one room and made it do for everything. He slept on the sofa, made up at night as a bed". (S. Alliluyeva: "Letters to a Friend"; London; 1967; p. 28).

The Albanian leader Enver Hoxha (Albanian Marxist-Leninist politician (1908-85); leader of the Communist Party of Albania (Later the Party of Labour of Albania)(1941-85); Prime Minister (1944-54); Minister of Foreign Affairs (1946-54); - describes Stalin as 'modest' and considerate': "Stalin was no tyrant, no despot. He was a man of principle; he was just, modest and very kindly and considerate towards people, the cadres and his colleagues." (E. Hoxha: 'With Stalin: Memoirs'; Tirana; 1979; p. 14-15).

The British Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb (Sidney Webb, British economist (1859-1947; Beatrice Webb, British economist and sociologist (1858-1943), in their monumental work 'Soviet Communism": A New Civilisation?', emphatically reject the notion that Stalin exercised dictatorial power: "Sometimes it is asserted that . . . the whole state is governed by the will of a single person, Josef Stalin. First let it be noted that, unlike Mussolini, Hitler and other modern dictators, Stalin is not invested by law with any authority over his fellow-citizens. He has not even the extensive power, which . . . the American Constitution entrusts for four years to every successive president. . . . Stalin is not, and never has been, . . . the President of the USSR. . . . He is not even a People's Commissar, or member of the Cabinet. . . . He is . . . the General Secretary of the Party. . We do not think that the Party is governed by the will of a single person, or that Stalin is the sort of person to claim or desire such a position. He has himself very explicitly denied any such personal dictatorship in terms which . . certainly accord with our own impression of the facts. The Communist Party in the USSR has adopted for its own organisation the pattern which we have described. . . . In this pattern individual dictatorship has no place. Personal decisions are distrusted, and elaborately guarded against. In order to avoid the mistakes due to bias, anger, jealousy, vanity and other distempers . . . it is desirable that the individual will should always be controlled by the necessity of gaining the assent of colleagues of equal grade, who have candidly discussed the matter and who have to make themselves jointly responsible for the decision. . Stalin . . . has . . . frequently pointed out that he does no more than carry out the decisions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. . . The plain truth is that, surveying the administration of the USSR during the past decade under the alleged dictatorship of Stalin, the principal decisions have manifested neither the promptitude nor the timeliness, nor yet the fearless obstinacy that have often been claimed as the merits of a dictatorship. On the contrary, the action of the Party has frequently been taken after consideration so prolonged, and as the outcome of discussion sometimes so heated and embittered, as to bear upon their formulation the marks of hesitancy and lack of assurance. . . These policies have borne . . . the stigmata of committee control". (S. & B. Webb: 'Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation'; London; 19 ; p. 4231, 432, 433, 435).

Perhaps Barbusse, Hoxha and the Webbs may be considered biased witnesses. Yet observers who are highly critical of Stalin agree with the testimony of the former.

Thus, the 'cult of the individual' or 'Cult of Personality' as built up around Stalin was contrary to Marxism-Leninism, and its practice was contrary to the expressed wishes of Stalin.

This raises an important question.

We have seen that, although Stalin expressed strong opposition to the 'cult of Personality', the legend of a 'cult of personality' continued. It therefore follows irrefutably that: 1) either Stalin was unable to stop it, or 2) he did not want to stop it and so was a petty-minded, lying, non-Marxist-Leninist, hypocrite, or 3) he was not aware of it entirely, or 4) the legend was fabricated after the fact and/or behind his back; when was the first time anyone heard of it? Was Stalin like Elvis Presley? Elvis was a "HIT." Everyone knew about it AT THE TIME Elvis was a hit, not after the fact.

The Initiators of the 'Cult'

The 'cult of personality' around Stalin was not built up by Stalin, but against his wishes. Then by whom was it built up?

The facts show that the most fervent exponents of the 'cult of personality' around Stalin were revisionists and concealed revisionists like Karl Radek [Soviet revisionist politician (1885-1939); pleaded guilty at his public trial to terrorism and treason (1937); murdered in prison by fellow-prisoner (1939) ], Nikita Khrushchev and Anastas Mikoyan [Soviet revisionist politician (1895-1978); Politburo member (1935-78); People's Commissar for Trade (1926-31), for Supply (1931-34), for Food Industry (1934-38), for Foreign Trade (1938-49); Deputy Premier (1946-64); President (1964-65)].

Roy Medvedev[Soviet revisionist historian (1925- )] points out that: "The first issue of 'Pravda;' for 1934 carried a huge two-page article by Radek, heaping orgiastic praise on Stalin. The former Trotskyite, who had led the opposition to Stalin for many years (!), now called him 'Lenin's best pupil, the model of the Leninist Party, bone of its bone, blood of its blood'. . . . 'He is as far-sighted as Lenin', and so on and on. This seems to have been the first large article in the press specifically devoted to the adulation of Stalin, and it was quickly reissued as a pamphlet in 225,000 copies, an enormous figure for the time". (R. A. Medvedev: 'Let history Judge': The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism'; London; 1972; p. 148).

It was Khrushchev who introduced the term 'vozhd' ('leader', corresponding to the German word 'Fuehrer'). At the Moscow Party Conference in January 1932, Khrushchev finished his speech by saying: "The Moscow Bolsheviks, rallied around the Leninist Central Committee as never before, and around the 'vozhd' of our Party, Comrade Stalin, are cheerfully and confidently marching toward new victories in the battles for socialism, for world proletarian revolution". ('Rabochaya Moskva', 26 January 1932, cited in: L. Pistrak: 'The Grand Tactician: Khrushchev's Rise to Power'; London; 1961; p. 159).

At the 17th Party Conference in January 1934 it was Khrushchev, and Khrushchev alone, who called Stalin: "vozhd' or 'genius'. (XVII s'ezd Vsesoiuznoi Kommunisticheskoi Partii (B.); p, 145, cited in: L.Pistrak: ibid.; p. 160).

In August 1936, during the treason trial of Lev Kamenev [Soviet Trotskyist politician (1883-1936); admitted to treason at his public trial (1936); sentenced to death and executed (1936)] and Grigory Zinoviev [Soviet Trotskyist politician (1883-1936); President of Communist International (1919-26); admitted to treason at his public trial (1936); sentenced to death and executed (1936)], Khrushchev, in his capacity as Moscow Party Secretary, said: "Miserable pygmies! They lifted their hands against the greatest of all men, . . our wise 'vozhd', Comrade Stalin! . . Thou, Comrade Stalin, hast raised the great banner of Marxism-Leninism high over the entire world and carried it forward. We assure thee, Comrade Stalin, that the Moscow Bolshevik organisation -- the faithful supporter of the Stalinist Central Committee – will increase Stalinist vigilance still more, will extirpate the Trotskyite-Zinovievite remnants, and close the ranks of the Party and non-Party Bolsheviks even more around the Stalinist Central Committee and the great Stalin". ('Pravda', 23 August 1936, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid; p. 162).

At the Eighth All-Union Congress of Soviets in November 1936 it was again Khrushchev who proposed that the new Soviet Constitution, which was before the Congress for approval, should be called the 'Stalinist Constitution' because: "it was written from beginning to end by Comrade Stalin himself". (As a matter of fact, it was not written by Stalin himself.) ('Pravda', 30 November 1936, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid.; p. 161).

It has to be noted that Vyacheslav Molotov, [Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1890-1986); Member of Politburo (1926-53); Prime Minster (1930-41); Deputy Prime Minister (1941-57); Minister of Foreign Affairs (1939-49, 1953-56); Ambassador to Mongolia (1957-60)] then Prime Minister, and Andrey Zhdanov [Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1896-1948); Member of Politburo (1935-48)], then Party Secretary in Leningrad, did not mention any special role by Stalin in the drafting of the Constitution.

In the same speech Khrushchev coined the term 'Stalinism': "Our Constitution is the Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism that has conquered one sixth of the globe". (Ibid.).

Khrushchev's speech in Moscow to an audience of 200,000 at the time of the treason trial of Grigori Pyatakov;[ Soviet Trotskyist politician (1890-1937); Assistant People's Commissar for Heavy Industry (I931-37); admitted to treason at his public trial (1937); sentenced to death and executed (1937)] and Karl Radek in January 1937 was in a similar vein: "By lifting their hands against Comrade Stalin they lifted them against all the best that humanity possesses. For Stalin is hope; he is expectation; he is the beacon that guides all progressive mankind. Stalin is our banner! Stalin is our will! Stalin is our victory!" (‘pravda', 31 January 1937), cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid,; p., 162).

Stalin was described by Khrushchev in March 1939 as: "our great genius, our beloved Stalin", ('Visti VTsVK', 3 March 1939, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid,; p. 164).

And at the 18th Congress of the Party in March 1939 as: "The greatest genius of humanity, teacher and 'vozhd', who leads us towards Communism, our very own Stalin." (XVIJI s'ezd Vsesoiueznoi Kommunisticheskoi Partii (B.), p. 174, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid,; p. 164).

And in May 1945 as: "great Marshal of the Victory", ('Pravda Ukrainy', 13 May 1945, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid.; p. 164).

On the occasion of the celebration of Stalin's fiftieth birthday in December 1929, Anastas Mikoyan accompanied his congratulations with the demand: "That we, meeting the rightful demand of the masses, begin finally to work on his biography and make it available to the Party and to all working people in our country". ('Izvestia', 21 December 1929, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid,; p. 164).

Ten years later, on the occasion of Stalin's sixtieth birthday in December 1939, Mikoyan was still urging the creation of a: "scientific biography of Stalin"; ('Pravda', 21 December 1939, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid,.; p. 158).

The biography was eventually published in 1947, compiled by: " G. F. Alexandrov, M. R. Galaktionov, V. S. Kruzhkov, M. B. Mitin, V. D. Mochalov and P. N. Pospelov". ('Joseph Stalin: A Short Biography'; Moscow; 1947).

However, in his 'secret speech' to the 20th Congress of: the CPSU in 1956, basing himself on the 'cult of personality' which he and his colleagues had built up around Stalin, Khrushchev attributed the authorship of the book to Stalin himself: 'One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin’s self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his 'Short Biography'. . . This book is an example of the most dissolute flattery". (Russian Institute, Columbia University (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 69).

Goes to show you that the SUCK-UPS do so against the wishes of their idols who never wanted to be idolized at all, and when the idols reject them, or are gone, they BLAME the idols for making them into the suck ups the were all along. Despicable shits.

The Motives for Building up the 'Cult of the Individual'

Of course, many Soviet citizens admired Stalin and expressed this admiration. But clearly, the 'cult of personality' around Stalin was built up mainly by the concealed revisionists, against Stalin’s wishes. Why? Possible reasons:

Firstly, to disguise the fact that the Party and the Communist International were dominated by concealed revisionists and to present the fiction that these were dominated personally by Stalin; thus blame for breaches of socialist legality and for deviations from Marxist-Leninist principles on their part could later be laid on Stalin;

Secondly, to provide a pretext for attacking Stalin at a later date (under the guise of carrying out a programme of ‘democratisation’, which was in fact a programme of dismatling socialism and replacing it with state capitalism.

That Stalin himself was not unaware of the fact that the concealed revisionists were the main force behind the ‘cult of personality’ was reported by the Finnish revisionist Tuominen in 1935, who describes how, when he was informed that busts of him had been given prominent places in Moscow's leading art gallery, the Tretyakov, Stalin exclaimed: "That's downright sabotage!" (A. Touminen: op. cit.; p. 164).

The German writer Lion Feuchtwanger [Lion Feuchtwanger, German writer (1884-1958)] in 1936 confirms that Stalin suspected that the 'cult of personality' was being fostered by 'wreckers' with the aim of discrediting him: "It is manifestly irksome to Stalin to be worshipped as he is, and from time to time he makes fun of it. Of all the men I know who have power, Stalin is the most unpretentious. I spoke frankly to him about the vulgar and excessive cult made of him, and he replied with equal candour. He thinks it is possible even that 'wreckers' may be behind it in an attempt to discredit him". (L. Feuchtwanger: 'Moscow 1937'; London; 1937; p. 93, 94-94).

To conclude, the attack made by the revisionists, on the 'cult of personality' in the Soviet Union was an attack not only upon Stalin personally as a leading Marxist-Leninist and leading defender of socialism, but was the first stage in an attack upon Marxism-Leninism and the socialist system in the Soviet Union.

Perhaps the best comment on it is the sarcastic toast which the Finnish revisionist Tuominen records is having been proposed by Stalin at a New Year Party in 1935: "Comrades! I want to propose a toast to our patriarch, life and sun, liberator of nations, architect of socialism (he rattled off all the appelations applied to him in those days), Josef Vissarionovich Stalin, and I hope this is the first and last speech made to that genius this evening". (A. Tuominen: op. cit.; p. 162).

[antitrot]

i dont think trotskyists exploit lenins last testament, i believe the last testament was a valid piece.

Now tell me why you think it's valid. See, I can present medical evidence to prove otherwise, but all you seem to have is a "gut feeling."

if lenin didnt think much of him, wy would he bring his idea of the bloshieviks almost into line with the one of trot of the permanent revolution

I think you've been reading a little to much Ted Grant. He tried to claim something similar. A friend of mine, upon taking an objective look, found that while Grant said Lenin had done this or that, he either provided no evidence or his evidence was bunk.

I believe you are referring, as did Grant, to the April Theses. Trotskyites like to say this was proof that Lenin agreed with the idea of permanent revolution, but if that's the case, then so did Stalin. After all, Stalin, upon reviewing the April Theses said...


"The Party (its majority) groped its way towards this new orientation. It adopted the policy of pressure on the Provisional Government through the Soviets on the question of peace and did not venture to step forward at once from the old slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry to the new slogan of power to the Soviets. The aim of this halfway policy was to enable the Soviets to discern the actual imperialist nature of the Provisional Government on the basis of the concrete questions of peace, and in this way to wrest the Soviets from the Provisional Government. But this was a profoundly mistaken position, for it gave rise to pacifist illusions, brought grist to the mill of defencism and hindered the revolutionary education of the masses. At that time I shared this mistaken position with other Party comrades and fully abandoned it only in the middle of April, when I associated myself with Lenin's theses. A new orientation was needed. This new orientation was given to the Party by Lenin, in his celebrated April Theses"

I'll be honest. I don't remember which document that quote came from. It came from an older argument about the April Theses so take it for what you will.

i dont think krupskyua would tell lenin something that he would contain in his last works if it were a lie. if she did hate him that much, then something bad must have been bought on by stalin

I pulled this from a short essay about Krupskyua just now. Again, take it for what you will...

Krupskaya had opposed Lenin's calls for an early revolution but [...] she hid her political differences with her husband.

stalin almost certainly had something to do with the purges. i dont think the police themselves killed bela kun, kirov (a big rival of stalin, who had just gained more votes than him), kamenev, zinoviev and trotsky.

Well, unfortunately, the physical evidence doesn't exist. The purges I'm speaking of were in the 30's and based on the Nazi infiltration of the Soviet government. These are the ones most people speak so low of.

As far as the in party purges, there were valid reasons. I'm sure you remember the Moscow trials? The historical revisionists like to say they were show trials, yet at the time this was only coming from the mouths of the accused. The trials were actually a way for the Soviet government to prove it's legitimacy. Thus, it invited many foreign legal observers to come watch and study the trials. When it was all over, it was applauded as an extremely fair event and not at all what they expected (a show trial). Of course, I believe a few later changed this story for the u$ual rea$son$.


3 million were killed.

No, this is the theory forum. The Socialism vs. Capitalism forum is that way. *points at Socialism vs. Capitalism forum* ;)

[RedRevolutionary87]

troteskies idea of everlasting revolution is simply this: the government preocupies the people with the army and protecting the nation so as that they dont have time to think for themselves, neether stalin nor trotsky were good, however i think the cccp would have been alot worse if it was trotsky in power

[Ho]

trotsky luis trotsky

[kingbee]

ok antitrot- i didnt want my points turned into a huge onslaught against me. you obviously put more effort into your points, so well done for that. to be honest, i cant be fucked. ps- who the hell is ted grant?!