Here, in the last Lenin entry, we are coming face to face with one of history’s greatest misconceptions, or, perhaps, putting it more accurately, the deliberate and wanton historical falsification, centering around the so-called Lenin’s Testament. There is no other historical document, to my knowledge, which, although it has not been misquoted or altered as such, yet has been so universally and unequivocally misinterpreted as to be turned over on its head, drawing the opposite conclusion about its content, compared to what its content has been intended to impart… Unique, absolutely unique!
The "Testament" was a letter, dictated by Lenin to his secretary on December 25, 1922, and here is its full content:
“Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated immeasurable power in his hands, and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution. On the other hand, Comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Tse-Ka (the Central Committee of the RKPb) in connection with the question of the People’s Commissariat of Railroads, is distinguished not only in his exceptional abilities (personally, to be sure, he is perhaps the most able man in the present Tse-Ka), but also by his excessive self-assurance and excessive enthusiasm for the purely administrative aspect of his work.
These two qualities of the two most eminent leaders of the present Tse-Ka might quite innocently lead to a split, and if our party does not take steps to prevent it, a split might arise unexpectedly.
I will not further characterize the other members of the Tse-Ka, as to their personal qualities. I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but neither can it be used against them any more than the non-Bolshevism of Trotsky.
Of the younger members of the Tse-Ka I want to say a few words about Bukharin and Pyatakov. They are, in my opinion, among the most outstanding of the younger members, and in regard to them the following ought to be borne in mind: Bukharin is not only the most valuable and most important theoretician in our party, but he also can be considered rightfully as the favorite of the entire party; but his theoretical views can only with the greatest reserve be regarded as fully Marxist. For, there is something scholastic about him; he has never studied dialectics, and I think he has never fully understood them.”
Two short postscripts were added to the document in the next couple of days. One went on to characterize Pyatakov still further as “a man undoubtedly distinguished in will and ability, but too much given over to administrative methods and the administrative side of affairs to be relied on in serious political matters.” The other was about Pyatakov and Bukharin together, adding that “those outstanding and loyal workers” might be of even greater service to the party, if only they added on to their knowledge and corrected their one-sidedness.
A longer “postscript” was added on January 4, 1923, with a rather bizarre piece of bitter invective against Stalin, as if it were a very personal attack of a wounded heart against its assailant. This document, however, should be put in perspective, as it had been provoked by Lenin’s wife Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya tearfully complaining to Lenin about Stalin’s rudeness to her in a particular instance. As you are reading the following paragraph without preconceptions, you will find it strangely uncharacteristic of the usual acerbic style, which Lenin has been famous for. There can be no doubt that this document was written to soothe his distraught wife, mostly for her own consumption, rather than as a bona fide letter to his unsentimental party comrades.
I am, therefore, reluctant to consider it as an authentic political document, but here is what Lenin says about Stalin, in it, so that my reader can properly judge, and either agree or disagree with me on this matter:
“Stalin is too rude, and this fault although tolerable in dealings among us Communists becomes intolerable in a General Secretary. (A clear reference to that incident with Krupskaya, and, knowing Lenin for what he was, his style in this instance, as well as the severity of the recommended punishment, which now follows, should hardly merit any serious consideration.) Therefore, I suggest that the comrades think about finding a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing someone else in his stead, who differs from Comrade Stalin in one characteristic, namely, someone more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and considerate to his comrades, less capricious, etc. (Someone, he says, yet gives no name or names to choose from, how come?! This is so uncharacteristic of Lenin the professional, I dare say! Not to mention the fact that the whole thing about the importance of being polite and considerate is simply preposterous!) This circumstance may seem to be a mere trifle, but I believe that from the point of view of preventing a split, and from the point of view of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky, this is not a mere trifle, but it is a trifle that can acquire a decisive importance.” (From everything I know about Lenin, including the opinions of people who knew him personally, I see this passage as an exercise in typical Lenin sarcasm, as otherwise, this would be complete nonsense. The attempt to connect a silly discussion of Stalin’s rudeness with Stalin’s relationship with Trotsky, is all the more strange that these two cannot possibly be connected!)
So much for that unseemly whining about Stalin’s rudeness. But let us now return to the far more relevant principal text of Lenin’s Testament, which reads much more like the professional Lenin, although dictated by him in the last weeks of his mental lucidity.
The verdict of historians on Lenin’s Testament is that it is a pointedly anti-Stalin document, and at the same time a recognition (of sorts) of Trotsky’s towering importance. Many go so far as to suggest that, had Lenin lived a little longer, and had others not been in so much awe of Stalin, it would have been Trotsky, and not Stalin, who would have been made Lenin’s immediate successor.
This is however incredible nonsense. To begin with, Stalin had already become Lenin’s successor, by virtue of being elected General Secretary of the Communist Party, in April 1922, with Lenin’s blessing, we might add. The position of Party Secretary was of course the pinnacle of power in Lenin’s Partocracy, as I’ve had a chance to explain in an earlier entry.
…But let us take a closer look at the different kinds of praise and censure, which Lenin throws at his chosen contestants in the winner-take-all game.
Stalin comes first, which only proves my assertion that by then Stalin had already won the game, and neither Lenin’s approaching death, nor Trotsky’s steps or missteps, could really matter. Lenin himself recognizes as much: “Having become General Secretary, (Comrade Stalin) has concentrated immeasurable power in his hands.” And then he starts talking about Stalin’s lack of “sufficient caution,”--- he, Lenin, who had made his fortune by throwing caution to the winds!!! Coming from Lenin’s, everything he says about Stalin, including Stalin’s “rudeness,” rings like a topnotch endorsement! And so it is, in my judgment, and from everything I know.
On the other hand, Trotsky’s demerits, and with him, those of Comrades Zinoviev and Kamenev, are far-far more serious. “The October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev, (which) was not of course accidental” refers to their joint open publication in a newspaper, one week precisely before the planned Bolshevik uprising, of their joint opposition to it. Apparently, it was their rather uncomradely way of trying to prevent the October Revolution from happening, an act amounting to treason. At the time, Lenin was beside himself with anger, and threatened them with expulsion from the Party. They were not expelled, however, but the sword would be always hanging over their heads, until their treacherous behavior back in 1917 would become one of the articles in their criminal prosecution, resulting in their execution in 1936.
Lenin’s sarcasm toward them is for everybody to see, except that the Western historians have chosen not to see it, on account of the conclusion of that same sentence in Lenin’s Testament: “but neither can it be used against them any more than the non-Bolshevism of Trotsky,” which they have, irresponsibly, interpreted as an exculpation of all three. Are they trying to say that, in Lenin’s eyes, Stalin’s rudeness and lack of caution are greater crimes than Trotsky’s non-Bolshevism, and Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s act of betrayal?
“Trotsky is distinguished not only in his exceptional abilities, but also by his excessive self-assurance and excessive enthusiasm for the purely administrative aspect of his work.” Lenin’s sarcasm and condemnation of Trotsky cannot be doubted in this passage, whereas his wicked interjection, “personally, to be sure, he is perhaps the most able man in the present Tse-Ka,” immediately brings to my mind Little Napoleon’s praise of Spats Colombo two minutes before rubbing him out: “He is a man that go far; you can’t put a good man down,” etc. Incidentally, Little Napoleon starts his praise of the already condemned man by suggesting that he is considering him as his successor! Perhaps, historians in this may need to hone their professional skills by watching the delightful movie Some Like it Hot, from which I am quoting?
And finally, Lenin’s sarcasm about the upstart Bukharin (a despicable character, discussed in more detail in my Stalin book and in the later entry The Favorite Of The Entire Party) is equally unmistakable, as he picks up Bukharin’s most proud accomplishment, his being “the most valuable and most important theoretician in our party,” to which he adds in the same sentence, “but his theoretical views can only with the greatest reserve be regarded as Marxist… he has never studied dialectics, and I think he has never fully understood them.” A devastating critique of the most valuable and important theoretician in the party, if you ask me, with yet more acid poured on the fellow, with this extra pat on the back: “but he also can be considered rightfully as the favorite of the entire party.”
As for Grigori Pyatakov, another “outstanding and loyal worker,” and still another mediocrity, Lenin is clearly pouring another pint of molten sarcasm on Comrade Stalin’s competition, or rather the lack thereof. (Not to mention the fact that Pyatakov was ‘famous’ for opposing Lenin on many political issues before and after the Bolshevik Revolution, and Lenin famously hated all opposition, which makes Lenin’s ‘support’ of Pyatakov here all the more fantastic, and, therefore, unmistakably sarcastic.)
And so, we have reached the end of this entry, which confirms our foregone, but the only correct conclusion that even without any insider’s knowledge of the situation, a careful and unbiased analysis confirms that this remarkable document, commonly known as Lenin’s Testament, is in fact a ringing endorsement of Comrade Stalin, already in power, and a sarcastic ridicule of everybody else in Stalin’s Central Committee. The next entry will raise the subject of Trotsky and his role in the government of Soviet Russia in the first years after the Bolshevik takeover of power in October/November (Old Style/New Style) 1917.
The "Testament" was a letter, dictated by Lenin to his secretary on December 25, 1922, and here is its full content:
“Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated immeasurable power in his hands, and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution. On the other hand, Comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Tse-Ka (the Central Committee of the RKPb) in connection with the question of the People’s Commissariat of Railroads, is distinguished not only in his exceptional abilities (personally, to be sure, he is perhaps the most able man in the present Tse-Ka), but also by his excessive self-assurance and excessive enthusiasm for the purely administrative aspect of his work.
These two qualities of the two most eminent leaders of the present Tse-Ka might quite innocently lead to a split, and if our party does not take steps to prevent it, a split might arise unexpectedly.
I will not further characterize the other members of the Tse-Ka, as to their personal qualities. I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but neither can it be used against them any more than the non-Bolshevism of Trotsky.
Of the younger members of the Tse-Ka I want to say a few words about Bukharin and Pyatakov. They are, in my opinion, among the most outstanding of the younger members, and in regard to them the following ought to be borne in mind: Bukharin is not only the most valuable and most important theoretician in our party, but he also can be considered rightfully as the favorite of the entire party; but his theoretical views can only with the greatest reserve be regarded as fully Marxist. For, there is something scholastic about him; he has never studied dialectics, and I think he has never fully understood them.”
Two short postscripts were added to the document in the next couple of days. One went on to characterize Pyatakov still further as “a man undoubtedly distinguished in will and ability, but too much given over to administrative methods and the administrative side of affairs to be relied on in serious political matters.” The other was about Pyatakov and Bukharin together, adding that “those outstanding and loyal workers” might be of even greater service to the party, if only they added on to their knowledge and corrected their one-sidedness.
A longer “postscript” was added on January 4, 1923, with a rather bizarre piece of bitter invective against Stalin, as if it were a very personal attack of a wounded heart against its assailant. This document, however, should be put in perspective, as it had been provoked by Lenin’s wife Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya tearfully complaining to Lenin about Stalin’s rudeness to her in a particular instance. As you are reading the following paragraph without preconceptions, you will find it strangely uncharacteristic of the usual acerbic style, which Lenin has been famous for. There can be no doubt that this document was written to soothe his distraught wife, mostly for her own consumption, rather than as a bona fide letter to his unsentimental party comrades.
I am, therefore, reluctant to consider it as an authentic political document, but here is what Lenin says about Stalin, in it, so that my reader can properly judge, and either agree or disagree with me on this matter:
“Stalin is too rude, and this fault although tolerable in dealings among us Communists becomes intolerable in a General Secretary. (A clear reference to that incident with Krupskaya, and, knowing Lenin for what he was, his style in this instance, as well as the severity of the recommended punishment, which now follows, should hardly merit any serious consideration.) Therefore, I suggest that the comrades think about finding a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing someone else in his stead, who differs from Comrade Stalin in one characteristic, namely, someone more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and considerate to his comrades, less capricious, etc. (Someone, he says, yet gives no name or names to choose from, how come?! This is so uncharacteristic of Lenin the professional, I dare say! Not to mention the fact that the whole thing about the importance of being polite and considerate is simply preposterous!) This circumstance may seem to be a mere trifle, but I believe that from the point of view of preventing a split, and from the point of view of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky, this is not a mere trifle, but it is a trifle that can acquire a decisive importance.” (From everything I know about Lenin, including the opinions of people who knew him personally, I see this passage as an exercise in typical Lenin sarcasm, as otherwise, this would be complete nonsense. The attempt to connect a silly discussion of Stalin’s rudeness with Stalin’s relationship with Trotsky, is all the more strange that these two cannot possibly be connected!)
So much for that unseemly whining about Stalin’s rudeness. But let us now return to the far more relevant principal text of Lenin’s Testament, which reads much more like the professional Lenin, although dictated by him in the last weeks of his mental lucidity.
The verdict of historians on Lenin’s Testament is that it is a pointedly anti-Stalin document, and at the same time a recognition (of sorts) of Trotsky’s towering importance. Many go so far as to suggest that, had Lenin lived a little longer, and had others not been in so much awe of Stalin, it would have been Trotsky, and not Stalin, who would have been made Lenin’s immediate successor.
This is however incredible nonsense. To begin with, Stalin had already become Lenin’s successor, by virtue of being elected General Secretary of the Communist Party, in April 1922, with Lenin’s blessing, we might add. The position of Party Secretary was of course the pinnacle of power in Lenin’s Partocracy, as I’ve had a chance to explain in an earlier entry.
…But let us take a closer look at the different kinds of praise and censure, which Lenin throws at his chosen contestants in the winner-take-all game.
Stalin comes first, which only proves my assertion that by then Stalin had already won the game, and neither Lenin’s approaching death, nor Trotsky’s steps or missteps, could really matter. Lenin himself recognizes as much: “Having become General Secretary, (Comrade Stalin) has concentrated immeasurable power in his hands.” And then he starts talking about Stalin’s lack of “sufficient caution,”--- he, Lenin, who had made his fortune by throwing caution to the winds!!! Coming from Lenin’s, everything he says about Stalin, including Stalin’s “rudeness,” rings like a topnotch endorsement! And so it is, in my judgment, and from everything I know.
On the other hand, Trotsky’s demerits, and with him, those of Comrades Zinoviev and Kamenev, are far-far more serious. “The October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev, (which) was not of course accidental” refers to their joint open publication in a newspaper, one week precisely before the planned Bolshevik uprising, of their joint opposition to it. Apparently, it was their rather uncomradely way of trying to prevent the October Revolution from happening, an act amounting to treason. At the time, Lenin was beside himself with anger, and threatened them with expulsion from the Party. They were not expelled, however, but the sword would be always hanging over their heads, until their treacherous behavior back in 1917 would become one of the articles in their criminal prosecution, resulting in their execution in 1936.
Lenin’s sarcasm toward them is for everybody to see, except that the Western historians have chosen not to see it, on account of the conclusion of that same sentence in Lenin’s Testament: “but neither can it be used against them any more than the non-Bolshevism of Trotsky,” which they have, irresponsibly, interpreted as an exculpation of all three. Are they trying to say that, in Lenin’s eyes, Stalin’s rudeness and lack of caution are greater crimes than Trotsky’s non-Bolshevism, and Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s act of betrayal?
“Trotsky is distinguished not only in his exceptional abilities, but also by his excessive self-assurance and excessive enthusiasm for the purely administrative aspect of his work.” Lenin’s sarcasm and condemnation of Trotsky cannot be doubted in this passage, whereas his wicked interjection, “personally, to be sure, he is perhaps the most able man in the present Tse-Ka,” immediately brings to my mind Little Napoleon’s praise of Spats Colombo two minutes before rubbing him out: “He is a man that go far; you can’t put a good man down,” etc. Incidentally, Little Napoleon starts his praise of the already condemned man by suggesting that he is considering him as his successor! Perhaps, historians in this may need to hone their professional skills by watching the delightful movie Some Like it Hot, from which I am quoting?
And finally, Lenin’s sarcasm about the upstart Bukharin (a despicable character, discussed in more detail in my Stalin book and in the later entry The Favorite Of The Entire Party) is equally unmistakable, as he picks up Bukharin’s most proud accomplishment, his being “the most valuable and most important theoretician in our party,” to which he adds in the same sentence, “but his theoretical views can only with the greatest reserve be regarded as Marxist… he has never studied dialectics, and I think he has never fully understood them.” A devastating critique of the most valuable and important theoretician in the party, if you ask me, with yet more acid poured on the fellow, with this extra pat on the back: “but he also can be considered rightfully as the favorite of the entire party.”
As for Grigori Pyatakov, another “outstanding and loyal worker,” and still another mediocrity, Lenin is clearly pouring another pint of molten sarcasm on Comrade Stalin’s competition, or rather the lack thereof. (Not to mention the fact that Pyatakov was ‘famous’ for opposing Lenin on many political issues before and after the Bolshevik Revolution, and Lenin famously hated all opposition, which makes Lenin’s ‘support’ of Pyatakov here all the more fantastic, and, therefore, unmistakably sarcastic.)
And so, we have reached the end of this entry, which confirms our foregone, but the only correct conclusion that even without any insider’s knowledge of the situation, a careful and unbiased analysis confirms that this remarkable document, commonly known as Lenin’s Testament, is in fact a ringing endorsement of Comrade Stalin, already in power, and a sarcastic ridicule of everybody else in Stalin’s Central Committee. The next entry will raise the subject of Trotsky and his role in the government of Soviet Russia in the first years after the Bolshevik takeover of power in October/November (Old Style/New Style) 1917.
No comments:
Post a Comment