And today, not to mention the first decades,after the 20th Congress, one can hear judgments that the communist Leninist idea is in itself correct, but it was simply distorted by the rascals who had become attached to the holy cause.
Who were the real Bolsheviks then?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 were shining with eloquence, others were silent more. But they still had something in common.
Who could know them better than the leader himself,the ideological inspirer and chief theoretician of the proletarian revolution? 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 prevent the split of the party.
Once such was already.The Second Congress of the RSDLP (1903, Brussels-London) divided the party members into two opposing camps, Lenin and March. With Ulyanov remained 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 a letter not in onecrouching. From December 23 to 26, 1922, he worked on the main theses, and on January 4 of the following year he added more. It is worth noting the repeated wish to increase the membership of the Central Committee to 50-100 members in order to ensure the stability of the work. But the main reason why this remarkable document was for a long time (until 1956) unavailable to non-party and even communists, is the availability of the characteristics given to the most active members of the party at the end of 1922.
According to Lenin, the primary role ("greathalf ") in ensuring the stability of the party play the relationship of two members of the Central Committee - Trotsky and Stalin. Next - about the latter. This leader of the Bolsheviks, who concentrated power "immense" in his own hands, as the leader believed, could not use it "quite cautiously." As it turned out later, he managed. Actually, Stalin approached Lenin in all respects, that's just a rough and very intolerant "to his comrades." If exactly the same, but more loyal, polite and more attentive ("to 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 he suffers from non-Bolshevism. And so, in general, is also good.
In October 1917, Kamenev and Zinoviev almost completely broke the whole revolution. But this is not their personal fault. People they are good, loyal and capable.
Bukharin is another leader of the Bolsheviks.This is the largest and most valuable party theorist, besides a universal favorite. True, I never learned anything, and his views are not completely Marxist. He is a scholastic in the dialectic "not in the tooth", but still a theorist.
Another leader is Pyatakov. Very strong-willed and capable, but so stiff-necked administrator, that you can not rely on him in any political issues.
A good company.A letter to the congress is capable of completely dispelling the illusion that if the legacy of Lenin was acquired by another party member, everything would have been fine. After such characteristics involuntarily comes the thought that against the background of ignorant and empty talkers, the candidacy of the rude Stalin is not so bad.
And if instead of him to rule the country would becomeTrotsky with his idea of "labor armies," then the troubles on the people's head would collapse even more. About Pyatakov, Bukharin and Zinoviev with Kamenev and no plans to build ...
