Lenin's testament

What if rather than being suppressed in 1924 Lenin's testament was read in front of the 13th Party Congress?
Considering it was particularly critic against Stalin, could it have damaged his rise to power?
Lenin also advocated for changing part of the soviet istitutions so what would have been the consequences on the soviet government if his istructions had been followed?
 
What if rather than being suppressed in 1924 Lenin's testament was read in front of the 13th Party Congress?
Considering it was particularly critic against Stalin, could it have damaged his rise to power?
Lenin also advocated for changing part of the soviet istitutions so what would have been the consequences on the soviet government if his istructions had been followed?
Lenin¡s testament should be an equivalent of soviet conspiracy, is not real or knew, some argue is even apologia from trokist or post cold war marxist....the whole thing is weird, specially as Stalin was close lenin line of thought.
 
Lenin¡s testament should be an equivalent of soviet conspiracy, is not real or knew, some argue is even apologia from trokist or post cold war marxist....the whole thing is weird, specially as Stalin was close lenin line of thought.
1)Lenin's testament is real
It was written by him shortly before his death and it was supposed to be read at the 12th party congress
2)Care to elaborate the last part?
 
)Lenin's testament is real
It was written by him shortly before his death and it was supposed to be read at the 12th party congress
https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/80/ Ummm

2)Care to elaborate the last part?
Unlike NEP and chinese people think, the NEP of Lenin was to be temporal, Lenin used the managerial models for the soviet union as was the only system he knew, the five year plans is not different any company projections and that was always Lenin idea.
 
https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/80/ Ummm


Unlike NEP and chinese people think, the NEP of Lenin was to be temporal, Lenin used the managerial models for the soviet union as was the only system he knew, the five year plans is not different any company projections and that was always Lenin idea.

Personally I wouldn't trust a video "debunking" a real thing by a person with the word Bolshevik in their name or link to a wordpress site about Marxist-Leninist theory, they both might be a tad bit biased towards a genocidal dictator

Edit: also just realized that the site you linked was pro-DPRK, yikes
 
https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/80/ Ummm


Unlike NEP and chinese people think, the NEP of Lenin was to be temporal, Lenin used the managerial models for the soviet union as was the only system he knew, the five year plans is not different any company projections and that was always Lenin idea.
1)That site is full of theories not facts
Also it says that Lenin's testament is real
Also i already knew about the fact that Lenin criticised Trostky too
2)This thread is about Lenin's testament beimg read not his political ideas
 
The weird thing about the "Lenin's testament is fake" theory is that--as the Stalin-friendly Russian historian who is its leading advocate, V. A. Sakharov, acknowledges--Stalin himself accepted it as genuine! [1]

"It is a fact that Lenin’s authorship of these documents, publicly from the very beginning, unfortunately was never questioned. It was taken as an accepted fact that they were authored by V.I. Lenin. This was even accepted by J.V. Stalin himself." http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n1/LenTest.htm

However, it would not quite be fair to say that only Stalinist cranks take Sakharov's theory seriously. Stephen Kotkin has also expressed doubts that Lenin was really in a condition to dictate much of the Testament. I tend to agree with Christopher Reed's critique of Sakharov and Kotkin. After noting that Krupskaya herself did not think Stalin's "rudeness" to her was worth breaking relations with him, Reed observes:

"This last point also undermines recent interpretations which suggest Krupskaya actually forged the letter. A Russian historian largely favourable to Stalin, Valentin Sakharov, first questioned the authenticity of the testament along these lines. Kotkin has, more cautiously, adopted the view that Krupskaya's role in its production was decisive. However, he also points out that Krupskaya had no reason to favour Trotsky with whom she had had longer and deeper differences than the transient spat with Stalin. Also, why would Lenin's sister, Maria, close to Lenin, Krupskaya and Stalin, have gone along with such an attack? It is unlikely in the extreme. While there is no ultimate proof it seems the anomalies in the testament are most logically explained as a consequence of the conditions in which they were produced. In other words a sick Lenin was not at the height of his powers and his ideas were being filtered piecemeal through the intervention of his secretary, Fotieva, and Krupskaya, Maria Ulyanova and other members of his household. In fact, Kotkin agrees this might be possible — that 'someone knowing Lenin's thoughts, rendered some barely audible but genuine words and gestures into this form' — but favours the interpretation which emphasizes Krupskaya's intervention." Stalin: From the Caucasus to the Kremlin https://books.google.com/books?id=6iklDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA103

Moreover, Kotkin acknowledges that Lenin's sister Maria, who was certainly no enemy of Stalin, confirmed much of the substance of the Testament.

I think we should accept the Testament as basically authentic, even if "filtered." However, what we should not do is accept it as Holy Writ. Lenin was ill, touchy, and may have overreacted to things like Ordzhonikidze slapping a Georgian Bolshevik who had called him "Stalin's mule" or Stalin using impolite language to Krupskaya.

Moreover, we should remember that the Testament criticizes all the leading Bolsheviks, not just Stalin--which would limit the use his opponents could make of it:

"He [Trotsky] 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." https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm

This may not seem like very severe criticism, but it alludes to two of Trotsky's least popular characteristics: his arrogance, and his inclination to rule by fiat ("administration" being a euphemism for this).

Lenin also alludes to Trotsky's "struggles against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat for Communications" and in one sentence scores hits against Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky:

"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." (In other words, Lenin was pointedly reminding his comrades of the things about Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky that in the next breath he says shouldn't be held against them...)

The other Bolsheviks don't fare much better, e.g.: "Bukharin is not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favorite of the whole Party, but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with the great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of dialectics, and, I think, never fully appreciated it)." Translation: We all love Comrade Bukharin, but let's face it, he is no politician.

If there is anything to be drawn from this, it is that Lenin did not consider any of the Bolshevik leaders to be worthy of succeeding him. Some of the others seem to be guilty of things at least as bad as Stalin's "rudeness."

[1] "It is said that in that "will" Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin's "rudeness" it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin's place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.

"What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.

"A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post.

"What else could I do?

"As regards publishing the "will," the congress decided not to publish it, since it was addressed to the congress and was not intended for publication..."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm Stalin here quite clearly accepts the authenticity of the documents in question even if he objects to calling them Lenin's "will" (and he is actually right to reject that word IMO--the party was not Lenin's property to be disposed of according to his wishes). He defends the decision not to publish the documents in question, not by saying they were forgeries but by saying they were intended for the Congress. He actually accepts the allegation of "rudeness" and tries to put a positive spin on it.
 
Top