Talk:Lenin's Testament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Lenin's Testament is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
