Talk:Lenin's Testament/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deutscher's "Stalin"

A contributor had cited the Swedish 2nd edition of Deutscher's biography of Stalin and I have now pointed it to the correct pages in the English edition and also tried to fix some awkward language which appears to have been added by a non-native English speaker and could cause confusion. One of the claims added along with the citation was not supported in the pages of Deutscher's biography that were pointed to, but very well could be in it somewhere else. I have left it here in case a proper citation can be found.

"But above it all, it expresses a fear of a future fragmentation of the Bolshevik Party. As late as during October 1922, had Lenin (during a brief return to Moscow) given Stalin his expressed his "unreserved support" for the General Secretary and for his work with a new constitution." --Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Revisions

I feel that the coverage in this article is uneven and incomplete, and occasionally inaccurate. There is for example no suggestion that the testament was intended to be read on the XIIth party congress, but instead Lenin's instructions specified it was to be read posthumously.

The prevailing message is one of democratization, hence the criticisms of leading party members.

Criticism of Stalin has been interpreted as one of mismatch between personality and position, rather than of him in general.

I am frustrated that this article sucks. I will be working on revising it.

iloveads47 (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As to democratisation, Lenin actually wrote about centralisation of power in hands of the Central Comittee. Here's why the suggestion to include more people in the Comittee. - 92.100.165.149 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, in unrelated, how-come Lenin's Article is shorter than Trotsky's.... it boggles my mind. I mean Lenin is like at least 3 times as notable as Trotsky is.........

iloveads47 (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Existence of the Will

First and foremost the existence of the WIll is dubious. There is not a single shred of evidence, except Trotsky's claim in his books that it existed. And secondly, had it even existed, it is more likely that it was written by Lenin as a personal reflections to be read to the party at some point.

Trotsky later claimed that there existed no such purported will. He said that the relations of Lenin to the Communist party left him in no postion to write such a document and designate his heir to the chairmanship of the party. (added by User:Bealfan)

Are we talking about the (non-)existence of Lenin's "Letter to the Congress" that was published by the Soviet government in 1956 here? Or is this in reference to something else? Ahasuerus 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation

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. In the original the syntax of the thought is different, and Lenin appears more hesitant. He says, it either is not a minor detail, or, [at the very least], it is indeed a minor detail, but such one that may [or may not] prove important [in the turmoil of the complex combinations of future events]. (Like the straw that can break the camel's back). So, the feel of the sentence is very different. He, of course, still discusses the possible split of the party between followers of harsh Stalin and ambitious Trotskiy, which split never really happened and so there was no foresight that someone above spoke about (if the letter was a fake, its contents cannot be considered an argument for its fakeness). - 92.100.165.149 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Old talk

I feel that this is article has a somewhat skewed point of view about this testament. For example: "The most significant aspect of the Testament was Lenin's criticisms of Stalin". Says who? Lenin criticizes Stalin and Trotsky in it (as well as other Politburo members) - why was the criticism of Stalin more important than that of the other Politburo members? This seems to be not a neutral point of view. Also, Lenin was a scientific socialist, and I think he and others of this school would not agree that the personal comments about Stalin's rudeness, Pyatakov's lack of reliability, Trotsky's excessiveness and so forth were as important as his suggestions of how to solve those minor (in their mind) problems - increase the membership of the Central Committee.

It is true that Lenin criticized Stalin, but he also criticized Trotsky (and others). The idea that Lenin criticized Stalin harshly, others less, and Trotsky barely at all, and that this information was diabolically suppressed by Stalin and his supposed "cronies" on the Politburo is a Trotskyist point of view, and should be labelled as such. Two facts from this story are correct: Lenin criticized Stalin (and Trotsky, and others) and the testament was not published immediately. Pitaco 05:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lenin urged that Stalin be removed from the position of General Secretary. He did not urge that anyone else in the Politburo be removed from their positions. Hence, the Testament is harder on Stalin than on the others.AndyL 06:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, given that Zinoviev and Kamenev were blocking with Stalin at the time (even before Lenin's death) criticisms of them, ie criticisms of Stalin's allies, can also be seen as an attempt to weaken Stalin's position. AndyL 06:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The criticism of Trotsky was far gentler than that of Stalin; Lenin even says that Trotsky is "the most able man in the present Central Committee". This seems to suggest that Lenin intended Trotsky to succeed him. I cannot see why so many people have overlooked this. MattL 00:35, 23 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see why so many overlook the fact that Lenin takes four issues with Trotsky: his fight against the Central Committee to militarize unions - which greatly lowered Trotsky's political standing, accuses him of hubris of which he was infamous for within the party, notes a bureaucratic nature which is ironic considering Trotsky's chiding of Stalin as a bureaucrat, and goes out of his way to mention Trotsky's past "non-bolshevism" which is not insignificant. The argument that it was a harmless comment is absurd, Lenin similarly 'excused' Zinoviev and Kamenev for their past vacillation but his mentioning of it is damning enough.

And Lenin called for a replacement of Stalin to have "one more trait" -- politeness. He never criticized Stalin's political record, only his brusqueness. Are we really to judge Lenin's overall view of Stalin by his reaction to Stalin calling his wife a 'syphilitic whore'?Hu!tz!l0p0chtl! 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. But don't forget that we, i.e., wikipedians, have no right to judge anything. We can only report facts and judgements of reputable authors. Please refresh your knowledge of the basic policies, "No original essays", WP:Verifiability, and WP:CITE. Also, please keep in mind that article talk page are for discussion of articles, not for idle chat. What is your suggestion about the improvement of the article? `'mikka 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)