And today, not to mention the first decade since the XX Congress, you can hear the judgment that in itself Communist Lenin's idea is correct, it just distorted cling to the sacred cause of crooks.
danger of a split and personal qualities of the members of the Central Committee
Who, then, were these Bolsheviks?Party leaders, who came to power in 1917, had a different character traits, had their own opinions on different issues, some of them shone eloquence, others are more silent.But something in common they have all the same, of course, it was.
Who could they know better than the leader, inspirer and chief theoretician of the proletarian revolution?Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks, in his "Letter to the Congress" has characterized the most active members of the Central Committee and pointed out the measures, which, in his opinion, could prevent a split of the party.
Once this has been.The second Party Congress (1903, Brussels - London) threw the party members into two opposing camps, Lenin and March.With Ulyanov were supporters of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and Martov - all the rest.There were other differences, not as principal.
Bolshevik leader wrote the letter are not in one sitting.From 23 to 26 December 1922, he worked on the main theses, and on January 4 next year, added another.Attention is drawn to the repeated desire to increase the composition of the Central Committee of 50-100 members to ensure the sustainability of the work.But the main reason that this document has been remarkable for a long time (until 1956) can not non-partisan, and even the Communists, is the presence of the characteristics of data the most active members of the party at the end of 1922.
Stalin or Trotsky?
According to Lenin, the primary role ("more than half") to ensure the stability of relations between the two parties play a member of the Central Committee - Trotsky and Stalin.Next - on the latter.This leader of the Bolsheviks, to concentrate power "immense" in their own hands as thought leader, he will not be able to use it "quite carefully."As it turned out later, I was able to.In fact, Lenin, Stalin came in every respect, that's just very rude and intolerant "to his comrades."If exactly the same, but more loyal, more polite and more attentive ("to his comrades"), then everything would be fine.
second leader of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky, the ability of all members of the Central Committee, but some arrogant administrators.And suffering Bolshevism.And so, in general, is also good.
But what about the rest?
In October 1917, Kamenev and Zinoviev in general nearly thwarted the whole revolution.But it is not their personal fault.People are good, dedicated and capable.
Another leader of the Bolsheviks - Bukharin.It is the largest and most valuable theoretician of the party, besides the universal favorite.However, nothing ever studied, and views it did not completely Marxist.He and scholastic dialectics "of any tooth foot", but still theoretical.
Another leader - Pyatakov.Very strong-willed and capable, but the administrator so ossified that it can not rely on any political issues.
good company.Letter to the Congress is able to completely dispel the illusion that if the legacy of Lenin found another party member, then things would have been fine.After such characteristics involuntarily comes to mind that, given the empty language of ignoramuses and babblers snapper Stalin's candidacy is not so bad.
And if instead run the country would Trotsky with his idea of "labor armies" that the troubles of the people struck on the head would be even greater.About Pyatakov, Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev and assumptions no mistake ...
