And today, not to mention the first decades,After the 20th Congress, one can hear judgments that the communist Leninist idea itself is correct, it was simply distorted by rogues who clung to the holy cause.
The danger of a split and the personal qualities of members of the Central Committee
Who then were the real Bolsheviks?The leaders of the party that came to power in 1917 had different character traits, had their own opinions on various issues, some of them shone with eloquence, others were more silent. But they had something in common, no doubt.
Who could know them better than the leader himself,ideological inspirer and chief theoretician of the proletarian coup? Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks, in his “letter to the congress” described the most active members of the Central Committee and indicated measures that, in his opinion, could have prevented the split of the party.
Once this has already happened.The second congress of the RSDLP (1903, Brussels - London) divided the party members into two opposing camps, Lenin and March. With Ulyanov there remained the adherents of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and with Martov all the rest. There were other differences, not so fundamental.
The leader of the Bolsheviks wrote the letter is not onesit down. From December 23 to December 26, 1922, he worked on the main theses, and on January 4 of the following year he added more. The repeated desire to increase the membership of the Central Committee up to 50-100 members draws attention to ensure the sustainability of work. But the main reason why this remarkable document was for a long time (until 1956) inaccessible to non-party and even communists is the presence of characteristics given to the most active party members as of the end of 1922.
Stalin or Trotsky?
According to Lenin, the paramount role (“the greaterhalf ”) in ensuring the sustainability of the party is played by the relationship of two members of the Central Committee - Trotsky and Stalin. Further - about the latter. This leader of the Bolsheviks, who concentrated the power "immense" in his own hands, as the leader believed, would not be able to use it "carefully enough." As it turned out later, he managed. Actually, Stalin Lenin approached in all respects, that's just very rude and intolerant "to his comrades." If it were exactly the same, but more loyal, polite and more attentive (“to the comrades”), then everything would be fine.
The second leader of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky, the most capable of all members of the Central Committee, but some self-confident administrator. And suffers non-minority. And so, in general, is also good.
But what about the rest?
In October 1917, Kamenev and Zinoviev almost completely disrupted the whole revolution. But this is not their personal fault. People are not bad, loyal and capable.
Еще один лидер большевиков – Бухарин.This is the largest and most valuable party theorist, besides the universal favorite. True, he never learned anything, and his views are not entirely Marxist. He is a scholastic and in the dialectic "not in the tooth with his foot", but still a theorist.
Another leader is Pyatakov. Very strong-willed and capable, but so numbed administrator that you can not rely on him in any political issues.
Good company.A letter to the congress can completely dispel the illusion that if the legacy of Lenin had been acquired by another party member, everything would have turned out fine. After such characteristics, the thought involuntarily comes that, against the background of ignorant and idle talkers, the candidacy of the bastard Stalin is not so bad.
And if, instead of him, to rule the countryTrotsky with his idea of "labor armies", then the troubles on the head of the people would have collapsed even more. About Pyatakov, Bukharin and Zinoviev with Kamenev and there is no need to build assumptions ...
