Marx and Lenin Vs. Trotsky

[Revolution Hero]

According to the Marxist-Leninist theory, the continuous revolution is the ascending development of the revolutionary process from bourgeois-democratic movement against feudal institutes to the anti-capitalistic struggle and proletariat’s accession to power.
This contains the bases of the theory of the continuous revolution, which had been originally called “permanent”, and changed to “continuous” later, in order to distinguish from Trotsky’s theory.
It is apparent that Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution is completely different from Marx’s as Trotsky’s theory stands for the world revolution, negating the possibility of the socialistic building originally in one country. According to Trotskyism, proletariat can’t built socialism in one country until the socialistic revolution in the world- wide scale would come. In contrary, Marxism- Leninism says that it is possible to build socialism originally “in one separately taken country” and then the world revolution can be also reached.

Resolution of the 14th Conference of the Communist Party:
“One of the component part of the trotskyist theory of the permanent revolution is the statement that “the true raising of the socialistic economy in Russia can be possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the most important European states” ( Trotsky, 1922)-this statement dooms USSR’s proletariat on the fatal passivity at the present moment. Comrade Lenin wrote against such “theories”: ”This is extremely patterned statement, which they have learned by hard during the development of the west European social-democracy, the point of which is that we are not ready for socialism, that we don’t have objective economical preconditions for socialism.”

Trotskyism is the rival ideology to Marxism- Leninism and we , communists consider it our main obligation to defend our great theoretical legacy from the attacks of anti-communists.

[nz revolution]

If the CPSU carried on doing the right thing then why did it fail?

It's all history, weep and move on comrade

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from nz revolution on 6:01 pm on Dec. 10, 2002
If the CPSU carried on doing the right thing then why did it fail?

It's all history, weep and move on comrade


Communist Party of the Soviet Union, just like any other Marxist-Leninist Party, had a strong discipline and was centralized, it functioned according to the principles of the democratic centralism. That was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who set the fundament of the strong Communist Party, that were true Marxist-Leninists, who followed the steps of the great leader and defended his ideas on how the party should work.
Any member or members, who go against Marxism-Leninism and the party’s policy must be expelled from any Communist Party, as a Communist Party must not have any factions, which can weaken not only it’s internal unity, but the whole communist movement.
Therefore, Party took a completely correct decision and was totally right, when it expelled Trotsky and his followers.

You asked: “If the CPSU carried on doing the right thing then why did it fail?”

Answer. CPSU didn’t “carry on the right thing” and that is why it failed. The mistake of the CPSU was that it didn’t expel Gorbachev, Yeltsin and other renegades. That were those traitors, who destroyed THE FIRST SOCIALISTIC STATE IN THE WORLD….

Quote: ”It's all history, weep and move on comrade”

LOL

We need to know the history in order not to repeat the mistakes, which were done in the past; without history there is no future for us, communists.




(Edited by Revolution Hero at 8:27 am on Dec. 11, 2002)

[bolshevik1917]

Nationalism and Marxism are incompatible. But nationalism is the inseparable Siamese twin of Stalinism in all its varieties. At the heart of the ideology of Stalinism is the so-called theory of socialism in one country. This anti-Marxist notion could never have been countenanced by Marx or Lenin. As late as 1924, Stalin continued to support Lenin's internationalist position. In February of that year, in his Foundations of Leninism, Stalin summed up Lenin's views on the building of socialism thus:

"The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient—the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.

"Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution."

That these were precisely the "characteristic features of the Leninist theory of proletarian revolution" was nowhere in dispute up to the first part of 1924. They had been repeated time and time again in hundreds of speeches, articles and documents by Lenin since 1905. Yet before the end of 1924, Stalin's book had been revised, and the exact opposite put in its place. By November 1926, Stalin could assert the exact opposite: "The party always took as its starting point the idea that the victory of socialism in that country, and that task can be accomplished with the forces of a single country."

These lines mark a complete break with Lenin's policy of proletarian internationalism. Stalin could never have expressed himself in this way while Lenin was still alive. Initially, the "theory" of socialism in one country reflected the mood of the rising caste of bureaucrats who had done well out of the October revolution and now wished to call a halt to the period of revolutionary storm and stress. It was the theoretical expression of a petty bourgeois reaction against October. Under the banner of Socialism in one Country, the Stalinist Bureaucracy waged a one-sided civil war against Bolshevism which ended in the physical destruction of Lenin's Party and the creation of a monstrous totalitarian regime.

The regime that was erected on the bones of the Bolshevik Party eventually destroyed every vestige of the October Revolution. But this was not evident in advance. After the Russian Revolution, the Communist International again defended a correct position on the national question. But with the development of Stalinism and the degeneration of the Third International all of the fundamental ideas were lost. Most of the leaders of the foreign Communist Parties blindly followed the line from Moscow. Those who tried to maintain an independent position were expelled. The Comintern was transformed from a vehicle of the world proletarian revolution into a passive instrument of Stalin's foreign policy. When it no longer suited him, Stalin contemptuously dissolved it in 1943, without even calling a congress.

Only one man explained in advance where the theory of Socialism in one Country would inevitably lead. As early as 1928, Leon Trotsky warned that if this theory was adopted by the Comintern, it would inevitably be the start of a process that could only end in the national-reformist degeneration of every Communist Party in the world, whether in or out of power. Three generations later, the USSR and the Communist International lay in ruins, and the Communist Parties had long since abandoned any pretence to stand for a real Leninist policy everywhere.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 3:36 am on Dec. 11, 2002
Nationalism and Marxism are incompatible. But nationalism is the inseparable Siamese twin of Stalinism in all its varieties. At the heart of the ideology of Stalinism is the so-called theory of socialism in one country. This anti-Marxist notion could never have been countenanced by Marx or Lenin. As late as 1924, Stalin continued to support Lenin's internationalist position. In February of that year, in his Foundations of Leninism, Stalin summed up Lenin's views on the building of socialism thus:

"The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient—the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.

"Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution."

That these were precisely the "characteristic features of the Leninist theory of proletarian revolution" was nowhere in dispute up to the first part of 1924. They had been repeated time and time again in hundreds of speeches, articles and documents by Lenin since 1905. Yet before the end of 1924, Stalin's book had been revised, and the exact opposite put in its place. By November 1926, Stalin could assert the exact opposite: "The party always took as its starting point the idea that the victory of socialism in that country, and that task can be accomplished with the forces of a single country."

These lines mark a complete break with Lenin's policy of proletarian internationalism. Stalin could never have expressed himself in this way while Lenin was still alive. Initially, the "theory" of socialism in one country reflected the mood of the rising caste of bureaucrats who had done well out of the October revolution and now wished to call a halt to the period of revolutionary storm and stress. It was the theoretical expression of a petty bourgeois reaction against October. Under the banner of Socialism in one Country, the Stalinist Bureaucracy waged a one-sided civil war against Bolshevism which ended in the physical destruction of Lenin's Party and the creation of a monstrous totalitarian regime.

The regime that was erected on the bones of the Bolshevik Party eventually destroyed every vestige of the October Revolution. But this was not evident in advance. After the Russian Revolution, the Communist International again defended a correct position on the national question. But with the development of Stalinism and the degeneration of the Third International all of the fundamental ideas were lost. Most of the leaders of the foreign Communist Parties blindly followed the line from Moscow. Those who tried to maintain an independent position were expelled. The Comintern was transformed from a vehicle of the world proletarian revolution into a passive instrument of Stalin's foreign policy. When it no longer suited him, Stalin contemptuously dissolved it in 1943, without even calling a congress.

Only one man explained in advance where the theory of Socialism in one Country would inevitably lead. As early as 1928, Leon Trotsky warned that if this theory was adopted by the Comintern, it would inevitably be the start of a process that could only end in the national-reformist degeneration of every Communist Party in the world, whether in or out of power. Three generations later, the USSR and the Communist International lay in ruins, and the Communist Parties had long since abandoned any pretence to stand for a real Leninist policy everywhere.




Quote:” Nationalism and Marxism are incompatible.”

I agree.

Quote:” At the heart of the ideology of Stalinism is the so-called theory of socialism in one country.”

First of all Stalinism is not a theoretical teaching. Secondly, theory of socialism in one country never existed.

Quote:” As late as 1924, Stalin continued to support Lenin's internationalist position”

By the way, Joseph Stalin always remained internationalist. The quote, you mentioned doesn’t belong to Stalin. I am sure that it doesn’t. Give me the name of the work, in which I would be able to find it, and we’ll see if you are sincere.

But let’s analyze the quote anyway.
At the beginning it says:” The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism.”
What is the complete victory of socialism? The complete victory of socialism is the victory of socialism in the world- wide scale.
The victory of socialistic revolution in one country really can’t guarantee the complete victory of socialism, which means the victory of socialism in all countries, but the victory of the socialistic revolution in one country is the first step towards the victory of socialism in all countries. Without this first step the complete victory of socialism will never take place. Therefore, victory of socialism “originally in one country” (Lenin) will push proletariat of other countries to move towards the socialism in their countries.

Quote:” The main task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—remains ahead.”

This task was completed by the Soviet state.

Quote:” Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible.”

This is very wrong position. Let’s suppose that the victory of the socialistic revolution takes place in one separately taken country. Does it mean that proletariat and peasantry of this country should wait for help of the proletariat and peasantry of the several advanced countries? What will happen if this help doesn’t come? Trotskyists would answer, that then socialistic revolution would be defeated.
After the Great October revolution there could happen only one victorious revolution in the west European advanced country- the revolution in Germany. Was this revolution successful? No, it wasn’t. So, what should have soviet working class done, according to the negative answer in the presented quote? There was no help from the outside, did it mean that revolutionary working class had to surrender? No, in contrary, revolutionary working class has to concentrate all it’s power and move towards socialism. And when socialism is built, then this socialistic state will show an example to the proletariat of all other countries and the international proletariat will follow the steps of the socialistic state.

Quote:” For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient.”

This is very pessimistic statement. The history showed that socialism took a final victory in the USSR; therefore it is possible to reach socialism originally in one country.

Quote:” For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary. “

Again, what will happen if “proletarians of several advanced countries” can’t help?

Quote:” That these were precisely the "characteristic features of the Leninist theory of proletarian revolution" was nowhere in dispute up to the first part of 1924. They had been repeated time and time again in hundreds of speeches, articles and documents by Lenin since 1905”

Let’s suppose that you are right and the principles of the proletarian revolution and the impossibility of the victory of socialism in one country were “repeated by Lenin since 1905.” I say that your statement is a blatant lie of anti-leninist scum, but let’s just suppose that you are right. In this case, Lenin had been mistaken for 10 years and then corrected his mistake in 1915. I would like to present the quote from Lenin’s work, which is called “About the slogan of the United States of Europe” and was written in 1915:
“Unevenness of the economical and political development is the absolute law of capitalism. Therefore, the victory of socialism originally in few or even in one, separately taken, capitalistic country is possible. The victorious proletariat of this country would expropriate capitalists and organize socialistic production and would stand against the rest of the capitalistic world, attracting the oppressed classes of other countries, raising the revolt against capitalists, setting out, in the case of necessity, even with the military power against the class of the exploiters and their states.” (LCW, vol.26, p. 354).
This quote perfectly proves that Vladimir Ilyich Lenin strongly believed in the victory of socialism “originally in one separately taken country”.

Quote:” These lines mark a complete break with Lenin's policy of proletarian internationalism. Stalin could never have expressed himself in this way while Lenin was still alive. Initially, the "theory" of socialism in one country reflected the mood of the rising caste of bureaucrats who had done well out of the October revolution and now wished to call a halt to the period of revolutionary storm and stress. It was the theoretical expression of a petty bourgeois reaction against October. Under the banner of Socialism in one Country, the Stalinist Bureaucracy waged a one-sided civil war against Bolshevism which ended in the physical destruction of Lenin's Party and the creation of a monstrous totalitarian regime.”

Now after reading the quote, which presented the genius conclusion of Lenin about the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, you should understand what kind of bullshit had been said by you.

Quote:” As early as 1928, Leon Trotsky warned that if this theory was adopted by the Comintern, it would inevitably be the start of a process that could only end in the national-reformist degeneration of every Communist Party in the world, whether in or out of power.”

Your words prove that Trotsky went not only against Lenin, but he contradicted to the Marxist- Leninist teaching as a whole.

Quote:” Three generations later, the USSR and the Communist International lay in ruins, and the Communist Parties had long since abandoned any pretence to stand for a real Leninist policy everywhere.”

This is complete nonsense, especially the last part. You wanted to say Trotskyist policy, didn’t you?

[bolshevik1917]

My quote from Stalin which proves your entire argument to be completely false was from his original 'foundations of Leninism' in 1924. Many copies still exist of this edition, but I beleive Stalin had it edited later on when he went through his fetish for re-writing history.

Overall you are boring, I have heard this all before. So too have those 'arseholes' Ted Grant and Alan Woods, thus why they produced this

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/national_question.html

Go on now, educate yourself

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 2:10 am on Dec. 12, 2002
My quote from Stalin which proves your entire argument to be completely false was from his original 'foundations of Leninism' in 1924. Many copies still exist of this edition, but I beleive Stalin had it edited later on when he went through his fetish for re-writing history.

Overall you are boring, I have heard this all before. So too have those 'arseholes' Ted Grant and Alan Woods, thus why they produced this

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/national_question.html

Go on now, educate yourself


Quote:” My quote from Stalin which proves your entire argument to be completely false was from his original 'foundations of Leninism' in 1924. Many copies still exist of this edition, but I beleive Stalin had it edited later on when he went through his fetish for re-writing history.”

It is just another nice little story of trotskyists. How can you prove that your words are correct? You can’t, can you? For someone like you, it is so easy to falsify the facts and the history, and it is so hard to debate and to argue against the truth!

Quote:” Overall you are boring, I have heard this all before.”

Oh, sorry, I don’t post here to entertain you.

Quote:” Go on now, educate yourself”

Don’t need to, I have received good education, thanks to my teachers, Marx and Lenin!

“Bolshevik1917”, as I understood, you had decided to retreat. Remember, I told you that your rotten strategy wouldn’t work! By the way, it is clear that you have nothing to say against Lenin’s quote, as if you dare to say something , then you will be damn hypocrite, “Bolshevik”!

[bolshevik1917]

I have not chosen to 'retreat' I am telling you that you have failed to come up with anything new, anything original - and like a typic stalinist seem to spend your time raking the garbage bin's of history.

Check the source I gave you, you will find the quote. I must also say that Stalin was not clever enough to write such things alone, these are definatley a recreation of Lenin's words.

When you find this quote is true you will find you have been defeated, and I trust you will admit it

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 4:53 pm on Dec. 12, 2002
I have not chosen to 'retreat' I am telling you that you have failed to come up with anything new, anything original - and like a typic stalinist seem to spend your time raking the garbage bin's of history.

Check the source I gave you, you will find the quote. I must also say that Stalin was not clever enough to write such things alone, these are definatley a recreation of Lenin's words.

When you find this quote is true you will find you have been defeated, and I trust you will admit it

Quote:” I have not chosen to 'retreat' “

Actually, your past reply was just a move of escaping from the arguments.

Quote:” I am telling you that you have failed to come up with anything new”

I didn’t fail, as “coming up with something new” was not my goal. My aim was to prove that Trotsky was anti-leninist, Lenin’s quote from the genius work “About the slogan of the United States of Europe” is a good answer on Trotsky’s anti-communistic “theory” of the permanent revolution. Again, you decided not to pay attention!!!

Quote:” Check the source I gave you, you will find the quote.”

The site is not a source I can respect. I am sure the quote was made up by the trotskyist bastards. Anyway, I have analyzed it and had expressed my opinion, which is based on the Marxist- Leninist theory. Obviously, you have nothing to say against my arguments!

Quote:” Stalin was not clever enough to write such things alone, these are definatley a recreation of Lenin's words.”

Stalin was clever enough to debate with Trotsky and other traitors. Trotsky was never right in these debates, as he went against Leninism each time.

Quote:” When you find this quote is true you will find you have been defeated,”

LOL
Hey, whoever you are, I have defeated you long time ago!!!

[bolshevik1917]

You have defeated no one, and nothing.

You have ignored all my sources and evidence, they are all 'falsifications' and 'anti-leninist'

You are unable to debate with, therfore you will just have to wait untill my comrades and I have completed our website defending Trotsky and Bolshevism.

I havbe nothing more to say to you

[Revolution Hero]

Quote:” You have defeated no one, and nothing.”

You just don’t admit it.

Quote:” You have ignored all my sources and evidence, they are all 'falsifications' and 'anti-leninist'”

You should have at least admitted, that I had not ignored any of your words. I do ignore opportunistic sites, as I don’t want to waste my time on reading bullshit.

Quote:” You are unable to debate with”

Actually that is you, who can’t debate! You ignored Lenin’s quote, this showed nothing but your weakness. You just don’t want to comprehend, do you???

Quote:” I havbe nothing more to say to you”

| and after all is said, which includes my arguments against falsified quote, which as you claimed belonged to Stalin; your unwillingness to consider Lenin’s words and your failure to give a rational reply |

You have to admit that you lost this struggle!

[bolshevik1917]

We will leave it to the comrades on the forum to see who has been defeated.

One more time, for the benefit of the blind..

"The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient—the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.

"Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution." (Stalin 'Foundations of Leninism' 1924)

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from unknown translator: "The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient—the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary”

This quote is nothing but a falsification! Where did you get it? What is the name of trotskyist, who dared to translate Stalin’s work? I want to know the name of the liar and slanderer.
I have finished reading Stalin’s “Foundations of Leninism” recently, as your blatant lie forced me to read it; I haven’t found the part you quoted, liar!

Here are two quotes I translated from original work:



1.
“The victory of revolution in one country was considered impossible before, as it was thought, that joint action of proletariat of all advanced countries or at least the majority of such countries is necessary in order to defeat bourgeois class. This point of view doesn’t correspond to reality now. Now we have to proceed from the possibility of such victory (victory of socialistic revolution in one country, R.H.), as uneven and spasmodic character of different capitalistic states development in imperialistic condition, the development of disastrous antagonisms inside imperialism, which lead to inevitable wars, the growth of the revolutionary movement in all states of the world,- all these lead not only to the possibility, but to the necessity of the victory of proletarians in separately taken states. History of Russian revolution is the direct proof to it.”

And

2.
“To overthrow bourgeois power and to set the power of proletariat in one country doesn’t guarantee the final victory of socialism. Strengthening it’s power and leading peasantry, proletariat of victorious country can and must build socialistic society. But does it mean that it (proletariat, R.H.) will reach the full, final victory of socialism, in other words, does it mean that it can finally consolidate socialism with the powers of one country and guarantee a country against intervention and restoration? No, it doesn’t mean this. The victory of revolution at least in few countries is necessary for this. That is why development and support of the revolution in other countries is the substantial task of the victorious revolution. That is why the revolution of the victorious country doesn’t need to consider itself as self-sufficing value, but as help and the mean for speeding-up the victory of proletariat in other countries.”

The latter is followed by the quote from Lenin and "Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution", ending the THIRD PART.

Comrades, you just witnessed the complete defeat of hypocritical trotskyist!

Thank you…..

[bolshevik1917]

You have nothing of the sort, if you want to see defeat have a look at the permanent revolution thread in the history section.

As I have said already Stalin had the book re-written. Your copy is obviously a re-written one, I have the original at home, email me at [email protected] with your address and I shall send you a photocopy.

[bolshevik1917]

Oh and the 'liar and slanderer' the 'trotskyist who dared translate stalins work' was my comrade Ted Grant, I will pass on your regards to him.

By the way, he didn't translate it - he read the 1924 edition and the 'updated' 1926 edition like me, witnessing Stalin's amazing U-turn. Stalin would never have written such things when Lenin was alive - he would have been slaughtered!

Anyway, here is that nasty trotskyist Ted explaining Stalins falsification, the full article can be found on http://www.marxist.com/theory/national_question

"Nationalism and Marxism are incompatible. But nationalism is the inseparable Siamese twin of Stalinism in all its varieties. At the heart of the ideology of Stalinism is the so-called theory of socialism in one country. This anti-Marxist notion could never have been countenanced by Marx or Lenin. As late as 1924, Stalin continued to support Lenin's internationalist position. In February of that year, in his Foundations of Leninism, Stalin summed up Lenin's views on the building of socialism thus:

"The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient—the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.

"Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution."

That these were precisely the "characteristic features of the Leninist theory of proletarian revolution" was nowhere in dispute up to the first part of 1924. They had been repeated time and time again in hundreds of speeches, articles and documents by Lenin since 1905. Yet before the end of 1924, Stalin's book had been revised, and the exact opposite put in its place. By November 1926, Stalin could assert the exact opposite: "The party always took as its starting point the idea that the victory of socialism in that country, and that task can be accomplished with the forces of a single country."

These lines mark a complete break with Lenin's policy of proletarian internationalism. Stalin could never have expressed himself in this way while Lenin was still alive. Initially, the "theory" of socialism in one country reflected the mood of the rising caste of bureaucrats who had done well out of the October revolution and now wished to call a halt to the period of revolutionary storm and stress. It was the theoretical expression of a petty bourgeois reaction against October. Under the banner of Socialism in one Country, the Stalinist Bureaucracy waged a one-sided civil war against Bolshevism which ended in the physical destruction of Lenin's Party and the creation of a monstrous totalitarian regime.

The regime that was erected on the bones of the Bolshevik Party eventually destroyed every vestige of the October Revolution. But this was not evident in advance. After the Russian Revolution, the Communist International again defended a correct position on the national question. But with the development of Stalinism and the degeneration of the Third International all of the fundamental ideas were lost. Most of the leaders of the foreign Communist Parties blindly followed the line from Moscow. Those who tried to maintain an independent position were expelled. The Comintern was transformed from a vehicle of the world proletarian revolution into a passive instrument of Stalin's foreign policy. When it no longer suited him, Stalin contemptuously dissolved it in 1943, without even calling a congress."

[Revolution Hero]

I see that it is not just falsification, but a great falsification. Mail it to [email protected] Please, do it as soon as possible, as I would not have much free time at the beginning of the next year.

Quote:” By the way, he didn't translate it - he read the 1924 edition and the 'updated' 1926 edition like me, witnessing Stalin's amazing U-turn. Stalin would never have written such things when Lenin was alive - he would have been slaughtered!”

First of all Stalin wrote “Foundations of Leninism” after Lenin’s death.
Secondly, I translated parts from original 1924 edition.

So, Grant and you read incorrectly translated work. The translator was trotskyist provocateur and you guys are just the victims of disinformation.

BTW, do you know Grant personally? Please, inform him that he used the wrong sources and he need to get his book rewritten… Also, it will be good if he comes here and we’ll have real debate.

[bolshevik1917]

I cannot, despite the wonders of modern technology, email you a photocopy.

And if Ted and I have read 'incorrectly translated work' how can you explain Trotsky's photocopies of the 1924 Russian edition?

Instead of telling him to re-write his book, i'll tell him theres still someone out there who beleives Stalin was a Marxist, im sure he'd find that rather funny!

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 8:17 pm on Dec. 30, 2002

And if Ted and I have read 'incorrectly translated work' how can you explain Trotsky's photocopies of the 1924 Russian edition?




You know, I want to see exactly these photocopies, they must be from " Pravda" if they are true one. I will send more information about " Foundations of Leninism" later.


(Edited by Revolution Hero at 3:34 am on Dec. 31, 2002)

[bolshevik1917]

I will ask around and see where I can find them.

They may be available in the following books, as I have yet read none I could not say but I do plan to buy them very soon.

All 3 come highly recommended for any Marxist seeking evidence to defeat stalinism, the enemy of the working class.

'From Lenin to Stalin' by Victor Serge

'The Red Book' by Leon Sedov

'Stalin's Year of Terror' by Vadim Z. Rogovin

All available on http://wellred.marxist.com/index.asp?c=FB

[Revolution Hero]

“Foundations of Leninism” were originally read as lectures in the University of Sverdlovsk in the spring of 1924. This work was dedicated to the Lenin enrollment to the Communist Party, which took place right after Lenin’s death.
Let’s think about the possibility of which our respected Mr. Trotskyist talked. You, Mr. Trotskyist, claim that Stalin wrote originally the version you presented the quote from, you claim that this quote was originally written by Stalin, as he couldn’t write the other way, because Lenin was still alive and would have criticized him (Stalin). This declaration of yours is completely wrong and shows that you haven’t really read “Foundations of Leninism”. As if you had read it, then you would have known that Stalin wrote it after Lenin’s death and dedicated this work to the Lenin enrollment to the Communist Party (that was a great enrollment, which was connected with the death of the GREAT LEADER of THE GREAT REVOLUTION). This was the first mistake of yours.
Your second mistake follows. You said that Stalin rewrote “Foundations of Leninism” in 1926. This lie could sound very sincere and could give you the hope for the ideological victory, but again the lack of original material made you look as a fool. If you had read the original work of Stalin, then you should have known that “Foundations of Leninism” were the lectures, which were read by Stalin to the students of Sverdlovsk University in the spring of 1924. According to your false statement Stalin had read the students one work (which as you said conform to Leninism) and then he rewrote it in the one which was anti-Leninist. Is it logical? No, it is not. If Stalin really wanted to make something like this he wouldn’t have read the first original (and as you said the one which Lenin would agree with) work in public. This is the second mistake of yours.
Your third lie was that Trotsky had used , so called original work, in the public debate against Stalinists. Let’s think of this possibility now. You say that Stalin rewrote “Foundations of Leninism” in 1926. Trotsky was expelled from the Communist Party at the end of the same year. You claim that Trotsky used the original work for the purposes of debate. I have a logical question to ask. Why was Trotsky expelled then if he was right and correct “defending Lenin’s teaching”? The answer is simple: the debate never had taken place, just like Stalin had never rewritten “Foundations of Leninism”.

FALSIFIED QUOTES WILL NOT PASS in the debates with me!!!
“Bolshevik1917” you have to finally admit that you are a complete failure, you have to admit all of your mistakes. You have to admit them no matter how hard it is to do….

At the end I would like to give more information about Stalin’s work “Foundations of Leninism”.
It was published in “Pravda” ¹¹ 96, 97, 103,
105, 107, 108, 111;
in 26th and 30th of April, 9th , 11th , 14th , 15th and 18th of May 1924.

The newspapers can be found in the archives of the libraries situated on the post-soviet territory. I recommend to look for them in the Lenin Library in Moscow. Tell, trotskyist Grant that he should come to Russia, hire an excellent translator and visit the central Moscow’s library. Sitting in the library and reading the true original works he would understand that he was misled by the provocateur, whose name was Leo Bronshtein.

[bolshevik1917]

Firstly I did not claim that Stalin produced 'foundations of Leninism' when Lenin was alive, I don't know where you got this from.

But whilst the theory of Lenin's internationalism stood fresh in peoples heads Stalin could not have went against it so quickly. Stalin had maybe not even considered the errinous theory of socialism in one country untill after 1925.

The FACTS are that Trotsky produced photocopies of the original which he kept on file. I am certain they will be published in at least one of the three books I have listed here. I will of course be making enquiries after the new year.

You have mixed yourself up here "Your third lie was that Trotsky had used , so called original work, in the public debate against Stalinists"

Not Stalin and his Stalinsts. CP members in other countries who spread lies about him being a nazi and an agent of Hitler.

Ted Grant debated the CPGB when they were churning out this filth, he produced the very photocopies (and more) exposing the pathetic vermin in front of many workers.

None of my evidence is false, I have said already that if you supply me with your address I will post it to you.

[Revolution Hero]

OK.
You said this:
“As late as 1924, Stalin continued to support Lenin's internationalist position. In February of that year, in his Foundations of Leninism, Stalin summed up Lenin's views on the building of socialism thus”

But Stalin didn’t write “Foundations of Leninism” in February of 1924, but in April and May of 1924. This contradiction doesn’t work on your side.

Quote:” Stalin had maybe not even considered the errinous theory of socialism in one country untill after 1925.”

Stalin never supported so called “theory of socialism in one country”. The quotes from true original work presented by me perfectly prove this.

Quote:” The FACTS are that Trotsky produced photocopies of the original which he kept on file.”

I am sure that Trotsky could go on any provocation. For example, it is possible that he published the “original work” by himself, made some photocopies and started slandering Stalin.

Quote: ”CP members in other countries who spread lies about him being a nazi and an agent of Hitler.”

So, Trotsky used, so called “original work” in the debates with “CP members in other countries”. This is another contradiction. Why didn’t he use it in the debates with the SOVIET COMMUNISTS? He wouldn’t have been expelled if he had been right.
CP members in other countries were easy victims for hypocrite Trotsky. They probably couldn’t give him an appropriate answer and more likely that they believed his lies.

Quote:” Ted Grant debated the CPGB when they were churning out this filth, he produced the very photocopies (and more) exposing the pathetic vermin in front of many workers.”

This is the same story. I am interested if English workers could read Russian and understand so called “original work”.

Quote:” None of my evidence is false”

I swear that my evidence is 100% correct and true. Again, I used the quotes from the work, which had been written in 1924 and I am sure that it was never rewritten later.

Quote:” I have said already that if you supply me with your address I will post it to you.”

It’ll be very interesting to look at that falsified work. Can’t you send it on my e-mail?

[bolshevik1917]

"Stalin didn’t write “Foundations of Leninism” in February of 1924, but in April and May of 1924"

I can assure you that this was the date on the orginal, perhaps not on the 'updated' version. I have offered to send you photocopies - I cannot send these by email. If you email me your postal address you will receive my evidence asap.

Your theory that Trotsky himself wrote the 'original' 'foundations of Leninism' are hilarious and stink of stalinist hypocracy!

"
So, Trotsky used, so called “original work” in the debates with “CP members in other countries”. This is another contradiction. Why didn’t he use it in the debates with the SOVIET COMMUNISTS? He wouldn’t have been expelled if he had been right."

Why dont you read up on the Moscow trials? Whether anyone was right or wrong was irrelivant to Stalin, ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THERE WAS DEMOCRACY IN STALINIST RUSSIA?? Trotsky was murdered for his struggles, he was no longer safe in the USSR. Again a ridicilous suggestion.

I have offered to send you evidence, the ball is in your court. Do you seek the truth or not?

I also observe you are no longer contributing to the debates on the 'history' section, is this the signs of defeat I see?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote:” "Stalin didn’t write “Foundations of Leninism” in February of 1924, but in April and May of 1924"

I can assure you that this was the date on the orginal, perhaps not on the 'updated' version.”

The point is that Stalin wrote “Foundations of Leninism” as lectures for the University students of Sverdlovsk. So, he wrote “Foundations of Leninism” partly, not as a whole work, but as lectures. It is clear that it wasn’t written in February of 1924, but in April and May of 1924, as Stalin read and wrote lectures at the same time and these lectures were published in “Pravda” one part after another. It wasn’t originally published as a whole book.

Quote:” Why dont you read up on the Moscow trials?”

Moscow trials were from the totally different story. One day I will go to the secret archives to research them.
What I said was very logical. Trotsky had all opportunity to debate with the party if he was sure that he was right in 1926. Trotsky was expelled not by the decision of Stalin, but by the decision of the Party of Bolsheviks. He was free to defend himself on the Congress.

Quote:” I have offered to send you evidence, the ball is in your court. Do you seek the truth or not?”

Why can’t you e-mail the evidence? I don’t want to show you my cards, by giving you my postal address.
BTW, do you know Russian? I can try to send you my evidence after passing winter session.

Quote:” I also observe you are no longer contributing to the debates on the 'history' section, is this the signs of defeat I see?”

Go there and see the signs of your defeat.
YOU ARE IN THE TRAP!

[bolshevik1917]

I am offering to provide you with paper evidence (paper cannot be email btw) to back up my argument. You have my email address, you know where to find me - its up to you!

We will continue debating in the history section where I can assure you I am in no 'trap' of being defeated.

Happy New Year

[Revolution Hero]

If you really have some proof then:
1.SCAN IT;
2.E-MAIL IT.

It is ver simple.