As the Bolshevik leader of his comrades-in-arms

And today, not to mention the first decades that have passed since 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.

The danger of schism and the personal qualities of the members of the Central Committee

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 the main 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 the letter not in one sitting. 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 composition 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 party members at the end of 1922.

Stalin or Trotsky?

According to Lenin, the primary role ("the greater part") in ensuring the stability of the party is played by the relations 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, would not be able to use it "sufficiently cautiously." As it turned out later, he managed. Actually, Stalin approached Lenin in all respects, that's just a very rude and intolerant "to his comrades." If exactly the same, but more loyal, polite and more attentive ("to the 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.

But what about the rest?

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 Trotsky, with his idea of "labor armies," would instead rule the country, then more people would fall on the head of the people. About Pyatakov, Bukharin and Zinoviev with Kamenev and no assumptions to build ...