Trotsky on Lenin & Leninism

In “April 1913 Trotsky wrote a letter to Nikolai Chkheidze, Chairman of the Duma Menshevik fraction, in which he said:

“And what a senseless obsession is the wretched squabbling systematically provoked by the master squabbler, Lenin . . , that professional exploiter of the backwardness of the Russian, working class movement. . . The whole edifice of Leninism at the present time is built up on lies and falsifications and bears within it the poisoned seed of its own disintegration”.
(L. Trotsky: Letter to Nikolai Chkheidze, April 1913, cited in: N.Popov,:, “Outline History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union”; Volume 1; London; n.d.; p. 289).

Sixteen years later Trotsky did not challenge the authenticity of the letter:

“My letter to Chkheidze against Lenin was published during this period (i.e., l924- Ed.). This episode, dating back to April 1913, grew out of the fact that the ‘official Bolshevik newspaper then published in St. Petersburg had appropriated the title of my Viennese publication, ‘The Pravda — a Labour Paper’. This led to one of those sharp conflicts so frequent in the lives of the foreign exiles. In a letter written to Chkheidze, I gave vent to my indignation at the Bolshevik centre and at Lenin. Two or three weeks later, I would undoubtedly have subjected my letter to a strict censor’s revision; a year or two later still, it would have seemed a curiosity in my own eyes. But that letter was to have a peculiar destiny. It was intercepted on its way by the Police Department. It rested in the police archives until the October revolution, when it went to the Institute of History of the Communist Party”.
(L. Trotsky: “My Life”; New York; 1970: p. 5l4-5)

Courtesy: http://www.red-channel.de/

NOTE: Complete transcript of the Letter (1913) can be found in “Revolutionary Democracy” Journal, Vol.XX, No.1 (April, 2014)

Trotsky on Lenin

International Stalin Society Formed

Press Release: International Stalin Society Formed

The formation of International Stalin Society (ISS) has been officially announced today on 17th June 2014. ISS would be a consortium of various Stalin Societies functioning in individual countries across the globe. It has been decided that Mr. Harpal Brar of the Stalin Society (UK) will act as the founding Chair of ISS in its first term. Mr. Zane Carpenter from the Stalin Society (UK), Mr. Saad Yousaf Aahni from the Stalin Society Pakistan, Mr. Kari Kalan from the Stalin Society of India and Mr. Alfonso Casal from the Stalin Society of North America will be acting as the Vice Chair, General Secretary, Joint Secretary and Information Secretary of the ISS respectively in the first term.

The request of the Stalin Tour, an organisation from Georgia, to join ISS has also been approved and further memberships requests are expected.

The International Stalin Society will help coordinate different pro-Stalin organisations across globe to fight anti-Stalin propaganda and to promote Stalin’s progressive legacy. Standing against all massive anti-Stalin false propaganda and lies, ISS will be propagating research-based reliable history of Marshal Joseph Stalin, the great teacher of the working class and liberator of humanity from the clutches of Fascism.

The Head Offices of the Stalin Societies of UK, Pakistan, North America and India will serve as the regional offices of the ISS.

Signed:

Chairman (Harpal Brar)
Vice Chairman (Zane Carpenter)
General Secretary (Saad Yousaf Aahni)
Joint Secretary (Kari Kalan)
Information Secretary (Alfonso Casal)

International Stalin Society
June 17, 2014.

Source: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv20n2/stalsoc.htm

Lenin’s Sister on Lenin-Stalin Relation

M.I. Ulyanova to the presidium of the
joint plenum of the cc and CCC of the RCP(b)
.

26th July, 1926

To the Joint Plenum of the CC and CCC

The oppositional minority in the CC in the recent period has carried out a systematic attack on Comrade Stalin not even stopping at affirming as though there had been a rupture between Lenin and Stalin in the last months of the life of V.I. With the objective of re-establishing the truth I consider it my obligation to inform comrades briefly about the relations of Lenin towards Stalin in the period of the illness of V.I. (I am not here concerned with the period prior to his illness about which I have wide-ranging evidences of the most touching relations between V.I. and Stalin of which CC members know no less than I) when I was continually present with him and fulfilled a number of charges.

Vladimir Ilyich really appreciated Stalin. For example, in the spring of 1922 when V. Ilyich had his first attack, and also at the time of his second attack in December 1922, he invited Stalin and addressed him with the most intimate tasks. The type of tasks with which one can address a person on whom one has total faith, whom you know as a dedicated revolutionist, and as a intimate comrade. Moreover Ilyich insisted, that he wanted to talk only with Stalin and nobody else. In general, in the entire period of his illness, till he had the opportunity to associate with his comrades, he invited comrade Stalin the maximum. And during the most serious period of the illness, he invited not a single member of the politbureau except Stalin.

There was an incident between Lenin and Stalin which comrade Zinoviev mentions in his speech and which took place not long before Ilyich lost his power of speech (March, 1923) but it was completely personal and had nothing to do with politics. Comrade Zinoviev knew this very well and to quote it was absolutely unnecessary. This incident took place because on the demand of the doctors the Central Committee gave Stalin the charge of keeping a watch so that no political news reached Lenin during this period of serious illness. This was done so as not to upset him and so that his condition did not deteriorate, he (Stalin) even scolded his family for conveying this type of information. Ilyich, who accidentally came to know about this and who was also always worried about such a strong regime of protection, in turn scolded Stalin. Stalin apologized and with this the incident was settled. What is there to be said – during this period, as I had indicated, if Lenin had not been so seriously ill then he would have reacted to the incident differently. There are documents regarding this incident and on the first demand from the Central Committee I can present them.

This way, I affirm that all the talk of the opposition about Lenin’s relation towards Stalin does not correspond to reality. These relations were most intimate and friendly and remained so.

26th July 1926. M. Ulyanova.

(Ts PA IML, F. 17, Op. 2, D. 246, Vyp. IV; Tipografskii tekst).

Courtesy: ‘Izvestia Ts.K. KPSS’, 1989, No. 12, p. 196. available at http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/

mariya

Bill Bland on Dimitrov

Despite the contributions made by Bill Bland to the communist movement it is not possible to ignore some serious errors of interpretation committed by him pertaining to the history of the international communist movement. As is known the victory of Nazism in Germany brought about a situation in which the perspectives of a revolutionary socialist offensive envisaged by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern of 1928 no longer held and it became imperative to reorientate the international communist movement towards a policy of defeating fascism. In 1934 Dimitrov and Stalin took the initiative to apply the tactics of united front in a new manner, especially through the popular front. During the course of the war they jointly refashioned the organizational forms of proletarian internationalist unity, dissolved the Comintern in 1943, established the International Information Department of the CPSU(b) and, later, the Cominform. Bill Bland rejected these policies even though Stalin had expressed his support for them, dubbed them as ‘revisionist’ and located these as the fountainhead of modern revisionism. Stalin was not directly or openly assailed on these questions but Dimitrov was categorized as an agent of Nazism and a tool of imperialism. Stalin had, it was argued, no role to play in the Comintern after 1928 which was controlled by a ‘revisionist majority’. By this contrived fiction artificially superimposed on the history of the Comintern the actual policies of Stalin were rejected and the ‘real policies’ of Stalin as interpreted by Bill Bland were counterposed in their place. We may also note the pronounced errors on the national and colonial questions. Bill Bland rejected the views of Lenin and the Comintern on the existence of the black nation with the right of self-determination in the USA. He also upheld the social-democratic theory of ‘decolonisation’ propagated by M.N. Roy by which it was considered possible for significant economic development, industrial advance and ‘decolonisation’ to take place in colonies such as India without the occurrence of a democratic revolution. This theory was rejected firmly at the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928 and its falsity has been confirmed in the decades after 1947.

Bill Bland will be remembered by the communist movement for having devoted his entire adult life to the cause of communism, for standing by the principles of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin when almost the whole international communist movement was being penetrated and corroded by lesser doctrines, for having applied the principles of the classics to cognise the problems engendered by modern revisionism and to have sought out the path to communism in difficult times. If in these complex circumstances he sometimes strayed or erred in his interpretations these will be put to one side and all that is positive will form part of the treasure-house of Marxism.

Prof. Vijay Singh

Source: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandobit.htm

bland on dimitrov

Brezhnev acknowledging Stalin-era Achievements

“Communists and all Soviet people knew that the building of socialism was only the first step towards communism. Already in 1939 at its 18th Congress the Party began to chart the first steps of the transition to the next stage, to the building of communism. But before these steps were taken our country, our people had to with-stand the sternest test in their history.

The great successes achieved by the Soviet people, who in less than a quarter of a century turned their country into a flourishing socialist state, evoked fury in the imperialist camp….”

L. I. BREZHNEV (1967)

Source: Fifty Years of Great October Revolution (Report by L. I. Brezhnev), Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1967. 

brez st

Lenin on ‘Jewish Nation’

” But the Bund’s third argument, which invokes the idea of a Jewish nation, is undoubtedly of the nature of a principle. Unfortunately, however, this Zionist idea is absolutely false and essentially reactionary. “The Jews have ceased to be a nation, for a nation without a territory is unthinkable,” says one of the most prominent of Marxist theoreticians, Karl Kautsky…

Absolutely untenable scientifically, the idea that the Jews form a separate nation is reactionary politically. Irrefutable practical proof of that is furnished by generally known facts of recent history and of present-day political realities…

That is precisely what the Jewish problem amounts to: assimilation or isolation?—and the idea of a Jewish “nationality” is definitely reactionary not only when expounded by its consistent advocates (the Zionists), but likewise on the lips of those who try to combine it with the ideas of Social-Democracy (the Bundists). The idea of a Jewish nationality runs counter to the interests of the Jewish proletariat, for it fosters among them, directly or indirectly, a spirit hostile to assimilation, the spirit of the “ghetto”. “

 

V. I. LENIN (1903)

Source: The Position of the Bund in the Party, Iskra, No. 51, October 22, 1903.

Lenin  Israel