During the month of being a CFC member, I've read tons of ..err ...bull's excrements (let's call it "BE", because you'll meet this word many times in this message) ..so, tons of BE about Stalin's and Lenin's relationships. Most of the opinions I've mentioned had the following essence: 1) Stalin was appointed by Lenin to be a general secretary of Russian Communist Party; 2) Stalin always followed the principles of Leninism and did everything according to that theory; 3) The GULAG system of concentration camps was established and developed by Lenin; 4) Lenin's favorite method of struggling the opponents and opposition was shooting their leaders and frightening those who shared their ideas; 5) All in all, everything Stalin did had never contradicted the general principles of Leninism, whether Lenin was alive during the period of 1920-1930 he would have done everything as Stalin did.
When I was reading such messages my hair stood on end. I understood that there are some people who are still able to humiliate a theory without any attempt to understand it, just because it is considered a delirium and evil. So I gathered some materials, read some books of different authors that describe the period of 1920-1930 and now I feel myself ready to seperate "the evil Lenin" from "the evil Stalin". The following message may look like praising Lenin and humiliating Stalin, well, it wasn't my essence, though reading the books about Lenin and books by Lenin made me think in a strange way: "was it possible for USSR to become a democratic country,without any revolutions , whether Stalin wasn't a general secretary?" "was it possible for USSR to become a capitalistic country, without any revolutions, whether Stalin wasn't a general secretary?". So express your point of view, but first read the following message.
I'll describe the Lenin's and Stalin's attitude to the opposition for you to make conclusions.
One of the first serious oppositions in communist party - the Shliapnikov's opposition.
The "labour opposition" with Shliapnikov being at the head of it appeared in 1920 - it caused important discussions on the topic of role of the trade unions in the life of the country. In the communist party there were endless debates about the financial situation of workers, Lenin and Shliapnokov argued all the time about that, and btw, had direct opposite opinions on some topics, but what was the Lenin's attitude to the"labour opposition"? Here is the quote from Lenin's speech: "As labour opposition protected the democracy, and its requirements were not senseless, we'll do anything to draw together our opinions". Stalin's attitude to any opposition was direct opposite. After Lenin's death he became the only authority in communist paty, he could do anything he wished, and what about the opposition? - The opposition during the time Stalin was the general secretary was very weak, disabled, just because Stalin shoot any members of opposition that appeared, and it didn't matter whether the leaders of the oposition were his friends or foes. It is predictable that the members of Shliapnikov's opposition were shoot in the fall 1937.
"Labour opposition" is not the only example that shows the difference between Stalin's and Lenin's attitude to opposition.
And what about the Stalin's and Lenin's relationships? I think it is easy to understand why they were not friendly. Here is the quote from Lenin's "Testament": "Stalin is too rough, and this lack, quite tolerable in the surroundings and association with us, communists, becomes intolerable on the post of general secretary. That is why I suggest comrades to think over the way of replacing Stalin from his post and appointing another man on the post of general secretary, the man that differs from comrade Stalin by his traits: he should be more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate towards comrades, he also should have less capricious and uncertain."
So the essence of this thread is to show the difference between Stalin's and Lenin's tolerance towards the opposition. So here is a question I've asked at the beginning: "If Stalin wasn't a general secretary, and the party followed the principles of Leninism, could USSR slowly become a democratic counry?"
There was one more question about USSR becoming a capitalist country. I think I will post here something on this topic later, because it will take me as much time, as political question did.
When I was reading such messages my hair stood on end. I understood that there are some people who are still able to humiliate a theory without any attempt to understand it, just because it is considered a delirium and evil. So I gathered some materials, read some books of different authors that describe the period of 1920-1930 and now I feel myself ready to seperate "the evil Lenin" from "the evil Stalin". The following message may look like praising Lenin and humiliating Stalin, well, it wasn't my essence, though reading the books about Lenin and books by Lenin made me think in a strange way: "was it possible for USSR to become a democratic country,without any revolutions , whether Stalin wasn't a general secretary?" "was it possible for USSR to become a capitalistic country, without any revolutions, whether Stalin wasn't a general secretary?". So express your point of view, but first read the following message.
I'll describe the Lenin's and Stalin's attitude to the opposition for you to make conclusions.
One of the first serious oppositions in communist party - the Shliapnikov's opposition.
The "labour opposition" with Shliapnikov being at the head of it appeared in 1920 - it caused important discussions on the topic of role of the trade unions in the life of the country. In the communist party there were endless debates about the financial situation of workers, Lenin and Shliapnokov argued all the time about that, and btw, had direct opposite opinions on some topics, but what was the Lenin's attitude to the"labour opposition"? Here is the quote from Lenin's speech: "As labour opposition protected the democracy, and its requirements were not senseless, we'll do anything to draw together our opinions". Stalin's attitude to any opposition was direct opposite. After Lenin's death he became the only authority in communist paty, he could do anything he wished, and what about the opposition? - The opposition during the time Stalin was the general secretary was very weak, disabled, just because Stalin shoot any members of opposition that appeared, and it didn't matter whether the leaders of the oposition were his friends or foes. It is predictable that the members of Shliapnikov's opposition were shoot in the fall 1937.
"Labour opposition" is not the only example that shows the difference between Stalin's and Lenin's attitude to opposition.
And what about the Stalin's and Lenin's relationships? I think it is easy to understand why they were not friendly. Here is the quote from Lenin's "Testament": "Stalin is too rough, and this lack, quite tolerable in the surroundings and association with us, communists, becomes intolerable on the post of general secretary. That is why I suggest comrades to think over the way of replacing Stalin from his post and appointing another man on the post of general secretary, the man that differs from comrade Stalin by his traits: he should be more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate towards comrades, he also should have less capricious and uncertain."
So the essence of this thread is to show the difference between Stalin's and Lenin's tolerance towards the opposition. So here is a question I've asked at the beginning: "If Stalin wasn't a general secretary, and the party followed the principles of Leninism, could USSR slowly become a democratic counry?"
There was one more question about USSR becoming a capitalist country. I think I will post here something on this topic later, because it will take me as much time, as political question did.
but i have been in the forums since august......why od i anger u? ill stop ....wahtever it is
