An argument against Stalins "facts."
patk at journalist.com
Tue Aug 20 17:41:41 MDT 2002
I was bored, I was reading Stalin's "Leninism or Trotskyism?"
(online here: http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/TL24.html)
"It is related by the well-known John Reed in his book Ten Days. Reed was remote from our Party and, of course, could not know the history of our secret meeting on October 10, and, consequently, he was taken in by the gossip spread by people like Sukhanov. This story was later passed round and repeated in a number of pamphlets written by Trotskyites, including one of the latest pamphlets on October written by Syrkin. These rumours have been strongly supported in Trotsky's latest literary pronouncements."
So thusly, Stalin is attempting to remove the validity of John Reed's Ten Days That Shook The World. However, Lenin read the book and said this:
"With the greatest interest and with never slackening ateention I read John Reed's book, Ten Days That Shook The World, Unreservedly do I reccomend it to the workers of the world. Here is a book I would like to see published in millions of copies and translated into all languages. It gives a truthful and most vivid exposition of the events so significant to the comprehension of what really is the Proletarian Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Thise problems are widely discussed, but before one can accept or reject these ideas one must understand the fill significance of such a decisioon. John Reed's book will undoubtedly help to clear this question, which is the fundamental problem of the universal workers' movement."
(Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov)
Conclusion: Stalin is wrong, or Lenin is wrong.
Either was, it is more proof Stalin was not a follower of Lenin.
Patrick Seán Ryan
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism