You're viewing a single thread.
I hear alot about this "trotsky was the successor of Lenin" line...where does it come from?
As comrade Dolores said, it's overblown myth based on few last letters of Lenin which were most likely forged and trots build a legend around that which is very much ridiculous for anyone who followed the Lenin's writings.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm
Tldr: In Lenin's final letters, he said Stalin was rude and that he might not show enough caution using power as Secretary-General
Stalin agreed. And he also thought the Secretary-General position shouldn’t exist: https://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/
I dunno maybe I'm reading this way too ungenerously but this always felt to me more like political theater than genuine attempts at resignation. I mean if he really wanted to resign what were they going to do force him at gunpoint to lead the country?
He likely felt a strong sense of duty to the USSR. And if the politburo felt he was the best to lead it, even if he disagreed (not just with him doing it, but also with the existence of a leadership position in general), he couldn’t just “leave”.
He also talks about how he understands why he was the chosen one at the time. He was indeed a great war leader. He was objective, cold and calculating. The USSR likely needed someone like him during that period. They were in their most position vulnerable against the western powers since the revolution. The west almost aligned with the Nazis against the Soviets. It was very likely that a new invasion of the USSR by imperial powers could happen again.
Idk. No person should be idolised, and their faults and mistakes brushed over. But I mean, leftists are rarely ones to uncritically support anyone or anything…
but this always felt to me more like political theater than genuine attempts at resignation
Note that if you live in the capitalist country, you are conditioned to never believe politicians (and in those countries, for a good reason!), but it can be different in socialism, for example super high support for CPC or the new family code passed in Cuba etc.
Now do it on a website that doesn’t do Trotskyist revisionism (they even admit to it!) — wonder if it looks different
It's an old myth that was invented by Trotskyists after they lost the inter-party struggle in the 1920s and 30s.
frankly both of them are dead now so it seems like it doesn't matter anymore
Yeah, they're dead and the SU is also dead, take what you can from both and move on.
Trotsky has good points about the nomenklatura and aspects of Permanent Revolution and Transitional Programs are well worth reading. Stalin is obviously more correct but I continue to take Luxemburg's position on the national question, at least for western orgs (De-colonial movements are obviously a different matter).
It's also wild that they believe this because it implies that they 100% accept the myth that the URSS was this despotic state where the last great leader simply appoints his successor with no democratic thought put into it whatsoever.
It's not that they believe that's how it was but that they believe that's how it should have been.
They believe that Lenin should have had the king-like right to appoint his successor and they are furious that instead it was the party collectively deciding who the best person for the job was.
Nevermind the evidence that the so-called "Lenin's testament" was a forgery, even arguing about that is a distraction from the main issue, which is that anyone who brings up this argument about Lenin having somehow anointed Trotsky to be the next leader is thinking fundamentally un-democratically. Lenin was a great man but he was still just one man. He still got only one vote, and i would argue his vote should not count after his death anyway, you don't get to vote posthumously.
you don’t get to vote posthumously.
And when Juche Necromancy is involved...