And today, not to mention the first decades that have passed since the 20th Congress, one can hear judgments that the communist Leninist idea in itself is correct, it was just distorted by crooks clinging to the holy cause.
The danger of a split and the personal qualities of the 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 certainly had something in common.
Who could know them better than the leader himself, the ideological inspirer and the main theorist 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 pointed out measures that, in his opinion, could prevent a split in the party.
It happened once before. The Second Congress of the RSDLP (1903, Brussels - London) divided the party members into two opposing camps, Lenin and March. Adherents of the dictatorship of the proletariat remained with Ulyanov, and everyone else remained with Martov. There were other discrepancies, not so fundamental.
The Bolshevik leader wrote the letter more than in one sitting. From December 23 to December 26, 1922, he worked on the main theses, and on January 4 of the following year he added more. Attention is drawn to the repeated desire to increase the composition of the Central Committee to 50-100 members in order to ensure the stability 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 members of the party as of the end of 1922.
Stalin or Trotsky?
According to Lenin, the relationship of two members of the Central Committee - Trotsky and Stalin - plays a paramount role ("more than half") in ensuring the stability of the party. Next - about the latter. This leader of the Bolsheviks, who concentrated "immense" power in his own hands, as the leader believed, would not be able to use it "carefully enough." As it turned out later, he succeeded. In fact, Stalin approached Lenin in all respects, that's just very rude and intolerant "to his comrades." If it were exactly the same, but more loyal, more polite and attentive (“to comrades”), then everything would be fine.
The second leader of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky, the most capable of all the members of the Central Committee, but some kind of self-confident administrator. And suffers from non-Bolshevism. And so, in general, is also good.
What about the others?
In October 1917, Kamenev and Zinoviev almost thwarted the entire revolution. But this is not their personal fault. They are good people, dedicated and capable.
Another leader of the Bolsheviks is Bukharin. This is the most important and most valuable party theoretician, and besides, everyone's favorite. True, he never studied anything, and his views are not entirely Marxist. He is a scholastic and in the dialectic "not in the teeth", but still a theoretician.
Another leader is Pyatakov. Very strong-willed and capable, but such a hardened administrator that one cannot rely on him in any political matters.
Good company. The letter to the congress can completely dispel the illusion that if another party member had acquired Lenin's legacy, then everything would have turned out fine. After such characteristics, the thought involuntarily comes that against the background of ignoramuses and empty talkers, the candidacy of the rude Stalin is not so bad.
And if Trotsky would govern the country instead of him with his idea of "labour armies", then even more troubles would fall on the head of the people. About Pyatakov, Bukharin and Zinoviev with Kamenev, it’s not worth building assumptions …
