Lenin's 'will' and trotskyists

[Black Sheep]

Trotsky (and -ists) claim that Lenin had mentioned in his will that Trotsky should be the party's next GC.

Quoting 'another view of Stalin' by Ludo Martens

On April 23, 1922, on Lenin's suggestion, Stalin was also appointed to head the secretariat, as General Secretary. and the controversial part, Martens says:

Then Lenin `judged' the five main leaders of the Party. We cite them here:
`Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands; and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat for Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by exceptional abilities. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has diplayed excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.
`These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split ....
`I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky ....
`Bukharin is not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favourite of the whole Party, but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it).'

And it mentions that this piece of text was not his will,anyway,for the context you can check the chapter about Lenin's will online, http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node13.html#SECTION00400400000000000000
Biased source? Can i find the original stuff from CPSU or something?

[Tower of Bebel]

Lenin's testament (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm).

Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.

I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the C.C. I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev [See Vol. 26, pp. 216-19] was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky.

Speaking of the young C.C. members, I wish to say a few words about Bukharin and Pyatakov. They are, in my opinion, the most outstanding figures (among the youngest ones), and the following must be borne in mind about them: Bukharin is not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favourite of the whole Party, but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of the dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it).

December 25. As for Pyatakov, he is unquestionably a man of outstanding will and outstanding ability, but shows too much zeal for administrating and the administrative side of the work to be relied upon in a serious political matter.

Both of these remarks, of course, are made only for the present, on the assumption that both these outstanding and devoted Party workers fail to find an occasion to enhance their knowledge and amend their one-sidedness.
And "Another view of Stalin" is sectarian propaganda.

Addition to the above letter

Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.
Last letter to comrade Stalin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05.htm)

Dear Comrade Stalin:

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.

[turquino]

The first correspondence Rakunin posted doesn't really say anything negative about Stalin, just that his new authority is untested. The other two letters are private correspondences which Trotsky got a hold of and tried to use to damage Stalin's reputation. There is no indictment of Stalin's politics in either of them. This isn't to say Lenin and Stalin never had disagreements on political questions, but i reckon these were minor in comparison to some of the differences Lenin had with Trotsky.

Stalin was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee, irrespective of 'Lenin's will'. Even in 1922 Trotsky was an outsider in the party, and it was Stalin who moved to block efforts to have him purged.

[Yehuda Stern]

Stalin was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee, irrespective of 'Lenin's will'. Even in 1922 Trotsky was an outsider in the party, and it was Stalin who moved to block efforts to have him purged.

This is nonsense. Trotsky was accepted by Lenin as one of the best Bolsheviks in 1917 and he had a lot of authority in the party, the International, and the red army, to the point where if he would've wanted, he would've been able to carry out a coup against Stalin.

I'm not sure Lenin wanted Trotsky to be GC - he probably wanted someone neutral in that position to avoid a split. It's pretty unambiguous that he had much more respect for Trotsky, though, as did anyone else in the party at the time.

[Tower of Bebel]

The first correspondence Rakunin posted doesn't really say anything negative about Stalin, just that his new authority is untested. The other two letters are private correspondences which Trotsky got a hold of and tried to use to damage Stalin's reputation. There is no indictment of Stalin's politics in either of them. This isn't to say Lenin and Stalin never had disagreements on political questions, but i reckon these were minor in comparison to some of the differences Lenin had with Trotsky.

Stalin was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee, irrespective of 'Lenin's will'. Even in 1922 Trotsky was an outsider in the party, and it was Stalin who moved to block efforts to have him purged.
Do you have the information to back these claims?

Lenin's testament, his last letter, shouldn't be used to decide who should have been leading the Bolshevik party after Lenin's death. We should try to use these letters to find out in what shape the USSR at that time was and how the Bolshevik party was responding to it.

[ComradeOm]

This is nonsense. Trotsky was accepted by Lenin as one of the best Bolsheviks in 1917 and he had a lot of authority in the party, the International, and the red army, to the point where if he would've wanted, he would've been able to carry out a coup against StalinHuh? What gave you this notion? The Red Army excepted, Trotsky did not command significantly more influence than Stalin within the Party or International. Indeed in the former it was quite the opposite - Trotsky was viewed as brilliant but aloof, cosmopolitan, former Menshevik, Jewish (yes) intellectual, and generally not a good Party man. By the time of the 12th Party Congress (1923) only a handful the delegates could be said to support him and his censuring by the Central Committee (102-2) in the same year, on the charge of factionalism, effectively sealed his political demise. The 13th Party Congress (1924) merely confirmed this as Trotsky's support almost entirely 'evaporated'

Now the traditional charge is to blame Stalin's political intrigues, which undoubtedly were effective, but this should not disguise the fact that even before Lenin's death Trotsky had effectively lost the Party. He maintained some support amongst the Red Army and Moscow universities but without the Party or the provinces he had no future... never mind staging a coup


I'm not sure Lenin wanted Trotsky to be GC - he probably wanted someone neutral in that position to avoid a split. It's pretty unambiguous that he had much more respect for Trotsky, though, as did anyone else in the party at the time.Lenin's support for Trotsky was never as strong as Trots make out (similarly neither was his dislike of Stalin) but I do think that he had decided by 1922 that Trotsky would make the best successor. His offer to appoint the latter as his deputy in the Sovnarkom - a body that, despite Stalin's undermining, was very much Lenin's tool - seems a good indication of that. Of course Trotsky refused the offer, perhaps understanding better than Lenin that power in the country had shifted to the Party

As for Stalin "moving to block efforts to have him purged", see below


Do you have the information to back these claims?On the second point, Stalin did block a Central Committee motion in 1922 (mentioned above) by Kamenev and Zinoviev to have Trotsky expelled from the Party on the charge of factionalism. He was eventually merely censured (sealing his political fate) and Stalin was allowed to appear as the voice of moderation

[Figes. O., (1996), A People's Tragedy]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade OM:


Lenin's support for Trotsky was never as strong as Trots make out (similarly neither was his dislike of Stalin) but I do think that he had decided by 1922 that Trotsky would make the best successor. His offer to appoint the latter as his deputy in the Sovnarkom - a body that, despite Stalin's undermining, was very much Lenin's tool - seems a good indication of that. Of course Trotsky refused the offer, perhaps understanding better than Lenin that power in the country had shifted to the Party

Except Lenin wrote this:


Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Huh? What gave you this notion? The Red Army excepted, Trotsky did not command significantly more influence than Stalin within the Party or International. Indeed in the former it was quite the opposite - Trotsky was viewed as brilliant but aloof, cosmopolitan, former Menshevik, Jewish (yes) intellectual, and generally not a good Party man.

In a documentary on Stalin, there was this Bolshevik guy who said this in an interview:

Trotsky was all rhetoric. Bukharin: theory. Zinoviev: cheap propaganda. Stalin: [Forgot]... concepts, logic.


Now the traditional charge is to blame Stalin's political intrigues, which undoubtedly were effective, but this should not disguise the fact that even before Lenin's death Trotsky had effectively lost the Party. He maintained some support amongst the Red Army and Moscow universities but without the Party or the provinces he had no future... never mind staging a coup

The intrigues were more anti-Trotsky than pro-Stalin. I have read stuff regarding the intrigues in Uchraspred, the Records and Assignments Department of the Central Committee.


Lenin's support for Trotsky was never as strong as Trots make out (similarly neither was his dislike of Stalin), but I do think that he had decided by 1922 that Trotsky would make the best successor. His offer to appoint the latter as his deputy in the Sovnarkom - a body that, despite Stalin's undermining, was very much Lenin's tool - seems a good indication of that. Of course Trotsky refused the offer, perhaps understanding better than Lenin that power in the country had shifted to the Party

I wonder if Lenin, had he not been the target of the failed assassination attempted, would have been sidelined by somebody OTHER than Stalin in the early 30s...

Stalin gets removed from any influential positions, but Andreyev, Molotov, Rudzutak, and Syrtsov (at Uchraspred) come to mind.

[Led Zeppelin]

‘…it is clear that Trotsky and the “Trotskyites and conciliators” like him are more pernicious than any liquidator…’ (V.I. Lenin: Vol.17; p.242- 44. [Liquidators were those who wanted to liquidate the underground party in favour of a legal organisation, Ed.)

one of the 'best Bolsheviks' eh?

Sucks for you that Lenin's "best Bolshevik" comment was made long after that quote.

Oh well, guess you're gonna have to burst that bubble of delusion that you live in.

[ComradeOm]

Rosa: As I said, by the time of Lenin's death Trotsky was probably his chosen heir (I don't think you're disagreeing with that) but his has to be qualified with two reservations:

1) This was a decision reached relatively late. It was only in 1922 that Lenin seems to have sat down and devoted time to the matter of succession (all part of his late works on limiting bureaucracy). Trotsky was not, as Yehuda Stern seems to imply above, the anointed successor as early as 1917. By the same token it was only the same year (1922) that Lenin had cause to rethink Stalin's role and formulate doubts as to his ambitions

2) The reasons for the above are largely the same as those that led to Trotsky's demise. There is no doubting his brilliance or his role in the Revolution (which was as pivotal as any man's could have been) but Trotsky remained something of an outsider in the Party, far more had home in the company of intellectuals than the Party rank and file. The contrast with Stalin being obvious. This can be seen the mild rebuke in Lenin's endorsement that you quoted - "excessive self-assurance" and "excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work". In other words - arrogance and an inability/unwillingness to connect with the Party body. The latter can be seen in Trotsky's refusal of the Sovnarkom post and echoes Lenin's criticism of Pyatakov in the same letter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm)

EDIT: Incidentally, the reason I attach so much importance to Lenin's offer of the Sovnarkom is that it is something concrete. Relying on out of context quotes (this is not a criticism of yourself but something that I've noticed from others in this thread and indeed throughout this forum) from the midst of political dogfights is messy and generally not conclusive. Political positions change and the rhetoric and targets of polemics invariably follows suit


Trotsky was all rhetoric. Bukharin: theory. Zinoviev: cheap propaganda. Stalin: [Forgot]... concepts, logicTrotsky was more than rhetoric (even if he was a gifted speaker) but this summary is a fair reflection as to how he was perceived by the Bolsheviks. Its notable that by Lenin's death the other three (plus Kamenav) each commanded more significant levels of Party support than that of Trotsky. Which is not to say that his political demise was inevitable, even after the triumvirate closed ranks on him, but Trotsky never managed to build a stable support base amongst the proletariat or peasantry. Compare to Zinoviev (who had Petrograd), Kamenav (Moscow), Stalin (the provinces). Even Bukharin, today thought of mostly as a somewhat erratic theoretical genius, was widely popular amongst the Party


I wonder if Lenin, had he not been the target of the failed assassination attempted, would have been sidelined by somebody OTHER than Stalin in the early 30s...Well its an interesting course of speculation. Personally I think Lenin demonstrated enough political graft (he was a noted veteran of the early RSDLP sectarian struggles after all) to ward off any overt challenge to his position. It was his health that removed him from from the political scene for the last years of his life and allowed Stalin, and others, free reign. Had this illness not intervened then Stalin would most likely be little more than a footnote in historybooks

[Tower of Bebel]

Lenin would have sidelined Trotsky and expelled him long before the Party under Stalin's leadership did, that's if Lenin's health had not taken a turn for the worst. Trotsky, when he realized he was in free-fall with Party views, basically did political suicide and when uber sectarian, until the Party had no choice but to expel him.

Trotskyism formulates policies independently of the given concrete circumstances. On the surface, these policies appear very ‘left’ and ‘revolutionary’, but there is nothing to support them in actuality, so that if such policies are carried out, they end up serving the needs of counterrevolution. Trotsky's Transitional Program, his stance on the peasantry, his opposition to national liberation struggles and skipping over phases, are all evidence of this.

Which, if it were true, exactly illustrates how degenerated the party was in the early 20's. We need democratic centralism, not bureaucratic unity.

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh there's much more:

In the trade union dispute, for instance, Lenin warned that Trotsky’s position leads ‘…to the downfall of Soviet Power’. (Lenin: Vol.32; p.57)

Lenin furthermore accused Trotsky of taking up the position of ‘the lunatic fringe’.

On the question of Trotsky’s role in the revolutionary movement, Lenin remarked on this role as one of shielding the opportunists, ‘…there you have the essence of Trotskyism.’ (Lenin: Vol.17; p.242-44)

Ohhh, cool! The good old quotes game! You'll lose though.

The first quote from the trade union dispute was from January, 1921.

The second "lunatic fringe" quote is nowhere to be found in Lenin's writings on MIA, nor in his writings on the trade-union dispute, so that's probably a historical falsification.

The third quote you tried to sneak in between the other two was from 1911 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/sep/14b.htm), so once again, it was made long before his "best Bolshevik" quote.

Now here are some nice things Lenin said about Stalin in December of 1922, long after what he said about Trotsky during the trade-union dispute:


I think that Stalin's haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialism" [Stalin critised the minority nations for not being "internationalist" because they did want to unite with Russia], played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles.

[...]

The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" (whereas he himself is a real and true "nationalist-socialist", and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice...

[...]

The political responsibility for all this truly Great-Russian nationalist campaign must, of course, be laid on Stalin and Dzerzhinsky.
The Question of Nationalities or "Autonomisation" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm)

Notice how unlike the Stalinist I actually linked to the quotes I posted, that's because I don't have to worry about anyone checking out the quotes and finding out it was a result of the good ol' school of falsification.

[Led Zeppelin]

Goddamnit, that asshole was a Kromando sock-puppet, I just wasted my time replying to him.

Figures.

[Random Precision]

Mostly I agree with Comrade Om. The Sovnarkom post was a concrete offer by Lenin to "anoint" Trotsky as his successor. However Trotsky refused it in multiple occasions, which was later used by the triumvirs to level charges of arrogance against him, which I suppose were mostly justified. Also, it is mostly true that Trotsky was seen as disconnected from the Party, especially by the "Old Bolsheviks" who still viewed him as an outsider and such.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To Trotsky's credit, I read somewhere in a library many years ago that even after the revolution Lenin proposed that Trotsky head the Soviet government (sources would be appreciated). Trotsky refused, saying that he was Jewish and that Lenin would criticize from the sidelines.

[Valeofruin]

Lenin wrote entire books criticising Trotsky's limited understanding of key concepts, what he writes in his will is obviously the work of an angry and dieing man.

Stalin did the right thing by Lenin in his final hours, whether or not Lenin saw it at the time is irrelevant.

[Tower of Bebel]

Lenin wrote entire books criticising Trotsky's limited understanding of key concepts, what he writes in his will is obviously the work of an angry and dieing man.

Stalin did the right thing by Lenin in his final hours, whether or not Lenin saw it at the time is irrelevant.
You never knew of the polemical context, do you? Find me an entire book btw.

[Led Zeppelin]

Hahahah, he probably has some lying around in that famous school.

[RedDawn]

Lenin wrote entire books criticising Trotsky's limited understanding of key concepts, what he writes in his will is obviously the work of an angry and dieing man.

Stalin did the right thing by Lenin in his final hours, whether or not Lenin saw it at the time is irrelevant.

Yes, because people's political views don't change over time? Fuck all, you should probably start claiming Lenin was a Marxist revisionist because Lenin didn't follow all of Marx's theories either, even at the end of his life!

Trotsky was the most Leninist in the whole damn CC in 1922. A decade earlier he was a Menshevik.

You completely through dialectics out the window if you don't think people's ideas change over time.

[ComradeOm]

To Trotsky's credit, I read somewhere in a library many years ago that even after the revolution Lenin proposed that Trotsky head the Soviet government (sources would be appreciated). Trotsky refused, saying that he was Jewish and that Lenin would criticize from the sidelines.Its true that in 1917 Trotsky was offered (and rejected) the post of Commissar of the Interior. Perhaps his claims of fearing anti-Semitism were true (although he then went on to pick up the more prestigious Foreign Affairs) but sheer arrogance can't be rejected. To my knowledge this was the first, and only, example of Trotsky playing up his Jewish heritage in his entire career

[Die Neue Zeit]

So Trotsky wasn't offered the Sovnarkom chair? I was always under the impression that there was some maneuvering before Lenin took it upon himself to take the chair.

[Winter]

Trotsky was the most Leninist in the whole damn CC in 1922. A decade earlier he was a Menshevik.

A decade? I thought it was Five years earlier, when the Bolsheviks were on the verge of success.

[ComradeOm]

So Trotsky wasn't offered the Sovnarkom chair? I was always under the impression that there was some maneuvering before Lenin took it upon himself to take the chair.Not that I know of. Although I'd be very surprised if Trotsky was offered the position of Chairman which, from 1918 to 1922*, was the most powerful role in the country

* When Stalin arrived as General Secretary and the balance of power began to shift from Sovnarkom to Party

[Random Precision]

Lenin wrote entire books criticising Trotsky's limited understanding of key concepts, what he writes in his will is obviously the work of an angry and dieing man.

Lenin probably wrote and published a polemic against Nadezhda when she made borscht for dinner two nights in a row. :lol:

Seriously though. There was not one major Bolshevik who escaped such polemics against them by Lenin.


A decade? I thought it was Five years earlier, when the Bolsheviks were on the verge of success.

No. Trotsky broke with the Mensheviks in 1904 and until 1917 was a "conciliator", someone who sought to bring together the two parties, as almost happened in 1912. And he joined the Bolsheviks during the July Days, when the reaction was still quite strong and the revolution was nowhere near "the verge of success".

[Black Sheep]

Lenin's testament, his last letter, shouldn't be used to decide who should have been leading the Bolshevik party after Lenin's death. We should try to use these letters to find out in what shape the USSR at that time was and how the Bolshevik party was responding to it.
What?Didn't the CPSU elect its general secretary?

[S&Y]

A decade? I thought it was Five years earlier, when the Bolsheviks were on the verge of success

Ha!
Stalinist bullshit.

Trotsky broke with the Mensheviks in 1904 and was a conciliator from 1904 to 1917!

People learn your history!

Also Trotskys ideas were Leninist . Stalin's ideas were Menshevik . Don't forget the Stage Theory.

I still cannot understand how there are still stalinists out there.

I think most of the are just disillutioned remnants of the propaganda of the Communist Parties back then.

I don't agree in one thing with Trotsky which is his political revolution idea.

It was anti-Marxist and opportunist.

But I agree with many things he said on the USSR.

[Berianidze]

Lenin's testament is the quintessential point raised by Trotskyite-revisionists on the subject of Stalin's A) illegitimacy as leader of the Party in the post of General Secretary; and B) his ineptitude for the position.

On the first note, a careful read of Lenin's "testament" was far more damning to the other leaders, who all took an active role in suppressing it. On another note, at the time Lenin's mental health was questionable due to the series of strokes he suffered, the egging on of the Krupskaya, and not to mention the relatively mild altercation between Stalin and the latter. That being said, the most one could take from the testament is that A) Stalin was "rude," and B) he should be removed from the post of *General Secretary," not power altogether.

As for Stalin's ineptitude, his political acumen was second to none. True, he wasn't a glorified intellectual such as Trotsky, Bukharin, or Kamenev, but he was by no means the bureaucratic mediocrity Trotsky painted him.

Trotsky was the epitome of opportunism and hypocrisy. He called for the same iron-discipline and tactics used by Stalin when he was War commissar and in the majority; however, when the Party apparatus and punitive organs of state (OGPU) were targeting his camp of Trotskyites (who invariably decided it was an opportune time to abandon the principles of democratic centralism) he ostensibly called for more "inter-party democracy."

[Panda Tse Tung]

Everybody, please calm down!

Everybody knows that Lenin was a Monarch, there's proof he hand-picked Trotsky, thus Trotsky was the rightful successor of Lenin. Fuck the CPSU, fuck democracy, it was all Lenin.

Now get on with your life.