A NEGLIGIBLE DETAIL

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Tue Sep 24 18:56:40 MDT 1996


 What kind of
>quality is it?  Lenin called this quality "loyalty."  He used this somewhat
>inconspicious  word in his "Addition" to the "Letter to the Congress,"
>which during the frame-up purges of the 1930s was proclaimed a forgery.
>
>	...I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing
>	Stalin from that post (of a general secretary - V.B.) and
>	appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects
>	differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage,
>	namely, that of being more tolerable, more loyal, more polite,
>	and more considerate, less capricious, etc. This circumstance
>	may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the
>	standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between
>	Stalin and Trotsky it is not a detail, or it is a detail which
>	can assume decisive importance.
>						Lenin
>
>This was what I was thinking about reading Oleachea's post.  He is a good
>revolutionary.  He is also capable of slandering another revolutionary.
>This is just a certain pettiness, a secondary flaw of character, perhaps,
>a negligible detail. So far.
>
>I am not the kind of cook who "concocts nothing but peppery dishes," but some
>of them will be quite spicy. And since I am a good-natured fellow and,
>moreover, realize that good digestion helps good revolutionary work,
>I suggest that from now on Adolfo starts drinking his coffee BEFORE turning on
>his computer.
>
>Vladimir Bilenkin
>


Bilenkin - you are nothing but a lying wimp.  Stalin never negated the
above.  It was true, and it was Lenin's opinion.  And so what?  What does it
prove as compared to the fact that Lenin also expressed that Trotsky was no
bolshevik? Besides all the other opinion of Lenin about Trotsky which have
been published in this list.  An accusation of rudeness and not being
"comradely" with Trotsky.  Trotsky certainly was not comradely to Stalin either!
You really had to scrub the bottom of the barrel and that is all you got:  A
wish on Lenin's part for a better person than Stalin - who nevertheless he
recognises as having excellent qualities.

The mere fact that the Party could not find the better man which Lenin was
wishing for, only means that concrete conditions are not so easy to change
at will, and that not all wishes - even lenin's wishes - can be fulfilled.
Lenin himself could no suggest a better man - or did he?  He did not.  So,
all you have proven is that Stalin was not perfect and that Lenin wished he
was, or that there was someone better than him to be General Secretary.  But
the facts are also that there was not and Stalin was and remained General
Secretary!

I think you are exposing your absurd petty bourgeois philistinism.  Did I
say that individuals play no special role?  No.  What I said is that the
role of Chairman of a Soviet is not a SPECIAL role - at least not in my own
experience.

I was talking of Trotsky - who never played a special role.  Marx, Engels,
Lenin, Mao, Stalin, did, Chairman Gonzalo does.  I did not.  Any good
revolutionary minded person with a few conditions of leadership and a basic
political and military sense could have played my role, with more or less
success, with more or less efficiency.  That is what I aws arguing, not as
you try to twist it - dismissing the role of individuals altogether.

To be the Chairman of an organ of power of the proletariat you do not need
to be a Lenin.  Just be the best available representative of a popular
organisation, be it a Union, a student federation, a popular journal, etc.
or the person upon which the different tendencies can agree upon, a
conciliator, maybe a good orator, a person capable of inspiring the
combatants into enthusiatic action, an organiser of the various tasks of
administration, war mobilisation, etc.

Maybe such a person can even contribute some inspired solutions to practical
problems too.  But the Soviets, the mass movement, the power, the glory and
the fighting, belong to the masses who are the true protagonists of all history.

There are exceptional people too.  People who can play a role such as the
great leaders in revolutionaries processes.  People of whom it can be said
that their role was decisive:  Lenin.  Mao Tse-tung.  That is leadership in
ALL LEVELS AT ALL TIMES AND OVER A PROLONGED HISTORICAL PERIOD.

Trostky fough well in October, and played there and in the ensuing Civil War
a far more responsible role than in 1905, of which you were making so much
hay due to his "precocioussness" (The young "Prophet" - a bit like Jesus in
the Temple with the Doctors of the Law in Trotskyst mythology - heh?).  But
so did quite a few other people.

Moreover, it is an incontrovertible fact that Trotsky fought under the
leadership and guidance of the Bolshevik Party and he played NO SPECIAL ROLE
- as he himself was forced to admit when the central Committee condemned the
absurd claims of his coterie to a SPECIAL ROLE which he allegedly played in
October.

Now, during the revolution and until Lenin's death, the Party was guided by
the Central Committee, of which he was the leading force, the teacher and
the guide. That is true leadership and true genius.  The same can be said of
Mao, and of Stalin's great leadership in the construction of socialism and
the anti-fascist war.  That is proletarian leadership.  Leadership with the
Central Committee, the Party, and the class, not outside of it!

Moreover, for me, Trotsky, like Bernstein and Kautsky, and so many others,
wahtever he did in October, later became an out and out
counter-revolutionary and an enemy of the working class - bitter enemy too,
because the Party and the people turned their backs on his scheming and his
prima donna attitudes.  So what is all this crap about insulting a
"revolutionary"?.  Since when would you assume that I would regard the
arch-traitor and renegade mouthpiece of the Rothermere press Leon Trotsky as
a "revolutionary comrade"?

Are you dreaming?  Are you feverish?  Or what?

I do not work for the British Civil Service or for the BBC, and I am
therefore not compelled to celebrate neither Trotsky, Zinoviev nor Bukharin
in order to denigrate the cause of socialism.

Adolfo


PS:  What is this "principle" about not "attacking a dead comrade" anyhow?
How come you attack every comrade of mine - dead or alive -  when you
slander Stalin in tune with their reactionary bourgeoisie and the enemies of
all peoples?

Spare me the sanctimonious bits, Bilenkin.  I thought you a bit more
intelligent than that!  Kautsky is dead too, and so is Bernstein.  Is it
disloyal to say they were RENEGADES?  Lenin said it quite a few times, and
come to think of it, even wrote entire pamphlets dedicated to say so!





     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list