And today, not to mention the first decades that have passed since the Twentieth Congress, one can hear judgments that the communist Leninist idea itself is correct, it was simply distorted by crooks adherent to the holy cause.
The danger of schism and the personal qualities of members of the Central Committee
Who were the real Bolsheviks then? The leaders of the party that came to power in 1917 had various traits of character, had their own opinions on various issues, some of them shone 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 a split in the party.
Once it already happened. 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 all the rest with Martov. There were other differences, not so fundamental.
The Bolshevik leader wrote a letter in more than one sitting. From December 23 to 26, 1922 he worked on the main points, and on January 4 of the following year he added more. Noteworthy is the repeated desire to increase the composition of the Central Committee to 50-100 members in order to ensure the stability of the work. But the main reason that this remarkable document was for a long time (until 1956) inaccessible to non-partisans 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 paramount role (the “greater half”) in ensuring the stability of the party is played by the relations of two members of the Central Committee — Trotsky and Stalin. Further - about the last. This leader of the Bolsheviks, who concentrated power "immense" in their own hands, as the leader believed, will not be able to use it "quite carefully." As it turned out later, managed. Actually, Stalin approached Lenin in all respects, only rude, very intolerant, "to his comrades." If it were exactly the same, but more loyal, 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 Bolshevism. And so, in general, is also good.
But what about the rest?
In October 1917, Kamenev and Zinoviev almost all but thwarted the entire revolution. But this is not their personal fault. They are good people, loyal and capable.
Another leader of the Bolsheviks is Bukharin. This is the largest and most valuable party theorist, moreover, a universal favorite. True, he never studied anything, and his views are not entirely Marxist. He is a scholastic and in the dialectic "not a tooth in the tooth", but still a theorist.
Another leader is Pyatakov. A very strong-willed and capable, but so ossified administrator that you can not rely on him in any political matters.
Good company. A letter to the congress can completely dispel the illusion that if another party member had acquired the legacy of Lenin, everything would have worked out perfectly. After such characteristics, the thought involuntarily comes that against the background of an ignorant and empty-minded talkers, the candidacy of the rude Stalin is not so bad.
And if, instead of him, Trotsky with his idea of “labor armies” would rule the country, then more troubles would fall on the people’s head. About Pyatakov, Bukharin and Zinoviev with Kamenev and assumptions are not worth building ...