Make your own free website on

One need only read all 45 volumes of Lenin's Collected Works as well as
some of his other writings to see that he often criticized and
vehemently denounced Trotsky.  Those who seem to think Trotsky was the
proper carrier of Lenin's torch definitely need to read the following 10
postings in this regard.  But first we should note Lenin's compliments
of Stalin.

A couple of noteworthy instances are the following.

    In a 1913 article in the Social Democrat entitled The
 National Programme of the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin stated,
"Why and how the national question has, at the present time,
been bought to the shown in detail in the resolution itself.
 There is hardly any need to dwell on this in view of the clarity of
the situation.  This situation and the fundamentals of a national
 programme for Social-Democracy have recently been dealt with
in Marxist theoretical literature (the most prominent place being
 taken by Stalin's article."  He is referring to the writing by Stalin
entitled Marxism and the National Question.

At the 11th Congress of the R.C.P. (B) in 1922 Lenin was
more flattering toward Stalin when he said,  "It is terribly difficult to
 do this; we lack the men!  But Preobrazhensky comes along and
airily says that Stalin has jobs in two Commissariats.  Who among
 us has not sinned in this way?  who has not undertaking several
 duties at once?  And how can we do otherwise?  What can we
 do to preserve the Nationalities; to handle all the Turkestan,
Caucasian, and other questions?  These are all political questions!
 They have to be settled.  These are questions that have engaged
 the attention of European states for hundreds of years, and only
an infinitesimal number of them have been settled in democratic
republics.  We are settling them; and we need a man to whom the
representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their
difficulties in all detail.  Where can we find such a man? 
I don't think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better
candidate than Comrade Stalin.


Lenin Denounces Trotsky
 POST #1

   It is very important to note that the following statements about
Trotsky's ideas, tactics, and personality were made by Lenin, not Stalin.

     At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P in 1903 Lenin said in the
Third Speech in the Discussion on the Agrarian Programme,
     "Therein lies the fundamental difference between us and the liberals,
 whose talk about changes and reforms 'pollutes' the minds of the
 people.  If we were to set forth in detail all the demands for the
abolition of serf-ownership, we should fill whole volumes.  That is
why we mention only the more important forms and varieties of
serfdom, and leave it to our committees in the various localities to
draw up and advance their particular demands in development of
the general programme.  Trotsky's remark to the effect that we
 cannot concern ourselves with local demand is wrong, for the not only a local one."
     At the same Congress Lenin made an extremely important and
farsighted comment with respect to Trotsky's theoretical wisdom.
 He stated,
     "To come to the main subject, I must say that Comrade Trotsky
has completely misunderstood Comrade Plikhanov's fundamental
 idea, and his arguments have therefore evaded the gist of the matter. 
He has spoken of intellectuals and workers, of the class point of view
 and of the mass movement, but he has failed to notice a basic
 question: does my formulation narrow or expand the concept of a
 Party member?  If he had asked himself that question, he would
have easily have seen that my formulation narrows this concept,
 while Martov's expands it, for  (to use Martov's own correct statement)
 what distinguishes his concept is its 'elasticity.'  And in the period of
 Party life that we are now passing through it is just this 'elasticity'
undoubtedly opens the door to all elements of confusion, vacillation,
 and opportunism.  To refute this simple and obvious conclusion it has
 to be proved that there are no such elements; but it has not even
occurred to Comrade Trotsky to do that.  Nor can that be proved, for
 everyone knows that such elements exist in plenty, and they are to be
found in the working class too....
     Comrade Trotsky completely misinterpreted the main idea of my
 book, What Is To Be Done? when he spoke about the Party not being
 a conspiratorial organization.  He forgot that in my book I propose a
 number of various types of organizations, from the most secret and most
 exclusive to comparatively broad and 'loose' organizations.  He forgot
 that the Party must be only the vanguard, the leader of the vast masses
 of the working class, the whole (or nearly the whole) of which works
 'under the control and direction' of the Party organizations, but the
 whole of which does not and should not belong to a 'party.'  Now let
us see what conclusions Comrade Trotsky arrives at in consequence
 of his fundamental mistake.  He had told us here that if rank after
of workers were arrested, and all the workers were to declare that they
 did not belong to the Party, our Party would be a strange one indeed!
  Is it not the other way round?  Is it not Comrade Trotsky's argument
that is strange?  He regards as something sad that which a
revolutionary with any experience at all would only rejoice at. 
If hundreds and thousands of workers who were arrested for taking
 part in strikes and demonstrations did not prove to be members of
 Party organizations, it would only show that we have good
organizations, and that we are fulfilling our task of keeping a more
or less limited circle of leaders secret and drawing the broadest
 possible masses into the movement."

     In an article written in 1905 entitled "Social-Democracy and the
Provisional Revolutionary Government" Lenin spoke of Parvus and
      "He openly advocated (unfortunately, together with the windbag
Trotsky in a foreward to the latter's bombastic pamphlet 'Before the
 Ninth of January') the idea of the revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship, the idea that it was the duty of Social-Democrats to
 take part in the provisional revolutionary government after the
overthrow of the autocracy." 

     Later in the same article Lenin stated,
      "It would be extremely harmful to entertain any illusions on
this score.  If that windbag Trotsky now writes (unfortunately,
side by side with Parvus) that a Father Gapon could appear
only once,' that 'there is no room for a second Gapon.\,' he does
so simply because he is a windbag.  If there were no room in
Russia for a second Gapon, there would be no room for a truly
 'great' consummated democratic revolution."

In a 1904 letter to Stasova, Lengnik, and others Lenin stated,
     A new pamphlet by Trotsky came out recently, under the editorship
of *Iskra*, as was announced.  This makes it the "Credo" as it were of
the new Iskra.  The pamphlet is a pack of brazen lies, a distortion of
the facts....  The pamphlet is a slap in the face both for the present
Editorial Board of the C.O. and for all Party workers.  Reading a
pamphlet of this kind you can see clearly that the "Minority" has
indulged in so much lying and falsehood that it will be incapable of
producing anything viable...."

     In a 1905 article entitled "Wrathful Impotence" Lenin stated,
     'We shall remind the reader that even Mr. Struve, who has
often voiced sympathy in principle  with Trotsky, Starover, Akimov,
 and Martynov, and with the new-Iskra trends in general and the
 new-Iskra Conference in particular--even Mr. Struve was in his
time obliged to acknowledge that their stand is not quite a correct
one, or rather quite an incorrect one."

    At the 1907 Fifth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P Lenin stated,
      "A few words about Trotsky.  He spoke on behalf of the
 'Centre,' and expressed the views of the Bund.  He fulminated
 against us for introducing our 'unacceptable' resolution.  He
 threatened an outright split, the withdrawal of the Duma group,
which is supposedly offended by our resolution.  I emphasize
 these words.  I urge you to reread our resolution....  When Trotsky
 stated: 'Your unacceptable resolution prevents your right ideas
 being put into effect,' I called out to him: 'Give us your resolution!'
Trotsky replied: 'No first withdraw yours.'  A fine position indeed for
 the 'Centre' to take, isn't it?  Because of our (in Trotsky's opinion)
 mistake ('tactlessness') he punishes the whole Party....  Why did
you not get your resolution passed, we shall be asked in the
localities.  Because the Centre (for whom Trotsky was speaking)
 took umbrage at it, and in a huff refused to set forth its own
 principles!  That is a position based not on principle, but on the
Centre's lack of principle." 

     Speaking at the same Congress Lenin objected to Trotsky's
 amendments to the Bolshevik resolution on the attitude towards
 bourgeois parties by saying,
     "It must be agreed that Trotsky's amendment is not Menshevik,
 that it expresses the 'very same,' that is, bolshevik, idea.  But
Trotsky has expressed this idea in a way that is scarcely better
 (than the Menshevik--Ed.)....  Trotsky's insertion is redundant, for
 we are not fishing for unique cases in the resolution, but are laying
 down the basic line of Social-Democracy in the bourgeois Russian

     While later discussing the same issue (the attitude the party
should have toward bourgeois parties) Lenin said, 
     "The question of the attitude of Social-Democracy towards
 bourgeois parties is one of those known as 'general' or 'theoretical'
questions, i.e., such that are not directly connected with any definite
practical task confronting the Party at a given moment.  At the
London Congress of the R.S.D.L.P, the Mensheviks and the Bundists
 conducted a fierce struggle against the inclusion of such questions
 in the agenda, and they were, unfortunately, supported in this by
Trotsky, who does not belong to either side.  The opportunistic
wing of our Party (notice that that is the group with which Trotsky
 allied himself--Ed.) like that of other Social-Democratic parties,
 defended a 'business-like' or 'practical' agenda for the Congress. 
They shied away from 'broad and general' questions.  They forgot
 that in the final analysis broad, principled politics are the only
practical politics.  They forgot that anybody who tackles partial
problems without having previously settled general problems, will
 inevitably and at every step 'come up against' those general problems
 without himself realizing it.  To come up against them blindly in
every individual case means to doom one's politics to
 the worst vacillation and lack of principle." 
     And it is quite clear to which philosophy Trotsky adhered.

Lenin Denounces Trotsky

     Our list of statements about Trotsky by Lenin continues:

    In 1909 Lenin wrote an article entitled "The Aim of the Proletarian
Struggle in our Revolution" and said the following,
     "As for Trotsky, whom Comrade Martov has involved in the
 controversy of third parties which he has organized...we positively
cannot go into a full examination of his views here.  A separate article
 of considerable length would be needed for this.  By just touching
upon Trotsky's mistaken views, and quoting scraps of them,
Comrade Martov only sows confusion in the mind of the reader.... 
Trotsky's major mistake is that he ignores the bourgeois character
of the revolution and has no clear conception of the transition from
this revolution to the socialist revolution.  This major mistake leads to
 those mistakes on side issues which Comrade Martov repeats when
 he quotes a couple of them with sympathy and approval.  Not to
 leave matters in the confused state to which Comrade Martov has
reduced them by his exposition, we shall at least expose the fallacy
of those arguments of Trotsky which have won approval of Comrade

     Later in the same article Lenin states,
     "Trotsky's second statement quoted by Comrade Martov is wrong
 too.  It is not true that 'the whole question is, who will determine the
 government's policy, who will constitute a homogeneous majority in
 it,' and so forth.  And it is particularly untrue when Comrade Martov
 uses it as an argument against the dictatorship of the proletariat and
the peasantry.  Trotsky himself, in the course of his argument, concedes
that 'representatives of the democratic population will take part' in the
 'workers' government,' i.e., concedes that there will be a government
 consisting of representatives of the proletariat AND the peasantry.
 On what terms the proletariat will take part in the government of the
 revolution is quite another question, and it is quite likely that on
question the Bolsheviks will disagree not only with Trotsky, but also
with the Polish Social-Democrats." 
     Notice how Lenin does not consider Trotsky to be a bolshevik.

     And finally, Lenin also states in the same article,
      "In any case, Comrade Martov's conclusion that the conference
 agreed with Trotsky, of all people, on the question of the relations
 between the proletariat and the peasantry in the struggle for power
is an amazing contradiction of the facts, is an attempt to read into a
 word a meaning that was never discussed, not mentioned, and not
 even thought of at the conference."

     In 1910 Lenin wrote several articles in which he said the following:
     Article= "Faction of Supporter of Otzovism and God-Building" in
which he said,
               "The 'point' was that the Mensheviks (through the mouth
Trotsky in 1903-04) had to declare: the old Iskra and the new ones
 are poles apart."
     Article= "Notes of a Publicist" in which he said,
     "With touching unanimity the liquidators and the otzovists are
 abusing the Bolsheviks up hill and down dale.  The Bolsheviks are
 to blame, the Bolshevik Centre is to blame....  But the strongest
abuse from Axelrod and Alexinsky only serves to screen their complete
 failure to understand the meaning and importance of Party unity.
 Trotsky's resolution only differs outwardly from the 'effusions' of
Axelrod and Alexinsky.  It is drafted very 'cautiously' and lays claim
 to 'above faction' fairness.  But what is its meaning?  The 'Bolshevik
leaders' are to blame for everything--this is the same 'philosophy of
 history' as that of Axelrod and Alexinsky....  This question needs only
 to be put for one to see how hollow are the eloquent phrases in
Trotsky's resolution, to see how in reality they serve to defend the
 very position held by Axelrod and Co., and Alexinsky and Co....  It is
 in this that the enormous difference lies between real partyism, which
consists in purging the Party of liquidationism and otzovism, and the
'conciliation' of Trotsky and Co., which actually renders the most faithful
 service to the liquidators and otzovists, and is therefore *an evil*
is all the more dangerous to the Party the more cunningly, artfully and
 rhetorically it cloaks itself with professedly pro-Party, professedly
anti-factional declamations."

     Later Lenin stated, "The draft of this resolution was submitted to
Central Committee by myself, and the clause in question was altered by
 the plenum itself after the commission had finished its work; it was
altered on the motion of Trotsky, against whom I fought without
     And this was later followed by,
      "Here you have the material--little, but characteristic material--which
 makes it clear how empty Trotsky's and Yonov's phrases are." 

     Referring to Trotsky's stance while discussing liquidationism Lenin
      "Of this we shall speak further on, where it be our task to
demonstrate the utter superficiality of the view taken by Trotsky...." 

     In another stinging indictment in the same article Lenin says,
     "Hence the 'conciliatory' efforts of Trotsky and Yonov are not ridiculous
 and miserable.  These efforts can only be explained by a complete
 failure to understand what is taking place.  They are harmless efforts
now, for there is no one behind them except the sectarian diplomats
 abroad, except ignorance and lack of intelligence in some out-of-the-way

     Continuing in the same vein, Lenin states,
      "The heinous crime of *spineless 'conciliators'* like Yonov and
who defend or justify these people, is that they are causing their ruin by
 making them more dependent on liquidationism.... 
     That this position of Yonov and Trotsky is wrong should have been
 obvious to them for the simple reason that it is refuted by facts."

     In an article entitled "How certain Social-Democrats Inform the
International About the State of Affairs in the R.S.D.L.P." Lenin
      "Yes, it is the 'non-factional' Comrade Trotsky, who has no
 compunction about openly advertising his faction's propaganda

     In an article written in 1910 entitled "An Open Letter to All Pro-Party
 Social-Democrats" Lenin said about Trotsky,
     "If Trotsky and similar advocates of the liquidators and otzovists
declare this rapprochement 'devoid of political content,' such speeches
 testify only to Trotsky's *entire lack of principle*, the real
hostility of
 his policy to the policy of the actual (and not merely confined to
 promises) abolition of factions."

Lenin Denounces Trotsky

   Our list of denunciations of Trotsky by Lenin continues: 

  In a 1911 letter "To the Central Committee" Lenin said,
      "We resume our freedom of struggle against the liberals and
 *anarchists*, who are being encouraged by the leader of the
 'conciliators,' Trotsky.  The question of the money is for us a
 secondary matter, although of course we do not intend to hand
 over the money of the faction to the bloc of
liquidators+anarchists+Trotsky, while in no way renouncing
 our right to expose before the international Social-Democratic
 movement this bloc, its financial 'basis' (the notorious
Vperyodist 'funds' safeguarded from exposure by Trotsky
and the Golosists)."

  Later Lenin says,
     "There has been a full development of what was already outlined
 quite clearly at the plenum (for instance, *the defence of the
 anarchist school, by Trotsky* + the Golosists).  The bloc of liberals
and anarchists with the aid of the conciliators is shamelessly
 destroying the remnants of the Party from outside and helping to
 demoralize it from within.  The formalistic game of 'inviting' the
 Golosists and Trotskyists on to the central bodies is finally reducing
 to impotence the already weakened pro-Party elements."
     In a 1911 article entitled "Historical Meaning of Inner-Party
Struggle in Russia" Lenin commented,
     "The theory that the struggle between Bolshevism and
Menshevism is a struggle for influence over an immature proletariat
 is not a new one.  We have been encountering it since 1905 in
innumerable books, pamphlets, and articles in the liberal  press.
 Martov and Trotsky are putting before the German comrades
 *liberal views with a Marxist coating*...." 
      Trotsky declares: 'It is an illusion' to imagine that Menshevism
 and Bolshevism 'have struck deep roots in the depths of the
 proletariat.'  This is a specimen of the resonant but empty phrases
 of which our Trotsky is a master.  The roots of the divergence between
 the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks lie, not in the 'depths of the
 proletariat,' but in the economic content of the Russian revolution. 
By ignoring this content, Martov and Trotsky have deprived themselves
 of the possibility of understanding the historical meaning of the
 inner-Party struggle in Russia."
     Later in the same article Lenin states,
      "For the same reason Trotsky's argument that splits in the
 International Social-Democratic movement are caused by the
 'process of adaptation of the social-revolutionary class to the
 limited (narrow) conditions of parliamentarism,' while in the
 Russian Social-Democratic movement they are caused by the
 adaptation of the intelligentsia to the proletariat, is *absolutely false*.
  Trotsky writes....  This truly 'unrestrained' phrase-mongering is
merely the 'ideological shadow' of liberalism.  Both Martov and
Trotsky mix up different historical periods and compare Russia,
which is going through her bourgeois revolution, with Europe, where
 these revolutions were completed long ago."
     Subsequently Lenin says,
     "As regards boycotting the trade unions and the local
 self-government bodies, what Trotsky says is *absolutely untrue*.
 It is equally untrue to say that boycottism runs through the whole
 history of Bolshevism....  *Trotsky distorts Bolshevism*, because
 he has never been able to form any definite views on the role of
 the proletariat in the Russian bourgeois revolution."

     In the same article Lenin said regarding Trotsky,
     "It is not true.  And this untruth expresses, firstly, *Trotsky's
lack of theoretical understanding*.  Trotsky has absolutely failed to
 understand why the plenum described both liquidationism and
 otzovism as a 'manifestation of bourgeois influence on the
 Secondly, in practice, this untruth expresses the 'policy' of
 advertisement pursued by Trotsky's faction.  That Trotsky's venture
is an attempt to create a faction is now obvious to all, since Trotsky
 has removed the Central Committee's representative from Pravda.
 In advertising his faction Trotsky does not hesitate to tell the Germans
 that the Party is falling to pieces, that both factions are falling to
 pieces and that he, Trotsky, alone, is saving the situation.  Actually,
we all see now--and the latest resolution adopted by the Trotskyists
in the name of the Vienna Club, on November 26, 1910 proves this
 quite conclusively--that *Trotsky enjoys the confidence exclusively
of the liquidators and the Vperyodists*. 
     The extent of *Trotsky's shamelessness* in belittling the Party and
exalting himself before the Germans is shown, for instance, by the
 following.  Trotsky writes that the 'working masses' in Russia consider
 that the 'Social-Democratic Party stands outside their circle' and he
 talks of 'Social-Democrats without Social-Democracy. 
     How could one expect Mr. Potresov and his friends to refrain from
 bestowing kisses on Trotsky for such statements? 
     But these statements are refuted not only by the entire history of
 the revolution, but even by the results of the elections to the Third
Duma from the workers' curia.... 
     That is what Trotsky writes.  But the facts are as follows.... 
     When Trotsky gives the German comrades a detailed account
of the stupidity of 'otzovism' and describes this trend as a
 'crystallization' of the boycottism characteristic of Bolshevism
as a whole...the German reader certainly gets no idea how much
subtle *perfidy* there is in such an exposition.  Trotsky's Jesuitical
 'reservation' consists in omitting a small, very small 'detail.'  He
 'forgot' to mention that at an official meeting of its representatives
held as far back as the spring of 1909, the Bolshevik faction
 repudiated and expelled the otzovists.  But it is just this 'detail' that
 is inconvenient for Trotsky, who wants to talk of the 'falling to
pieces' of the Bolshevik faction (and then of the Party as well) and
not of the falling away of the non-Social-Democratic elements!....
     One day Trotsky *plagiarizes* from the ideological stock-in-trade
 of one faction; the next day he plagiarizes from that of another, and
therefore declares himself to be standing above both factions.  In
 theory Trotsky is on no point in agreement with either the liquidators
or the otzovists, but in actual practice he is in entire agreement
 with both the Golosists and the Vperyodists. 
     Therefore, when Trotsky tells the German comrades that he
 represents the 'general Party tendency,' I am obliged to declare
 that Trotsky represents only his own faction and enjoys a certain
amount of confidence exclusively among the otzovists and the
 liquidators.  The following facts prove the correctness of my

     After listing his facts and referring to 'Trotsky's anti-Party
Lenin states,
      "Let the readers now judge for themselves whether Trotsky
represents a 'general Party,' or a 'general anti-Party' trend in
Russian Social-Democracy."

Lenin Denounces Trotsky


Our on-going expose of Lenin's Opinion of Trotsky continues:

     In an article entitled "Letter to the Russian Collegium of the
Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin attacked Trotsky by
     "Trotsky's call for 'friendly' collaboration by the Party with the
Golos and Vperyod groups is *disgusting hypocrisy and
 phrase-mongering*.  Everybody is aware that for the whole year
 since the Plenary Meeting the Golos and Vperyod groups have
worked in a 'friendly' manner against the Party (and were secretly
 supported by Trotsky).  Actually, it is only the Bolsheviks and
Plekhanov's group who have for a whole year carried out friendly
Party work in the Central Organ.  Trotsky's attacks on the bloc of
 Bolsheviks and Plekhanov's group are not new; what is new is the
 outcome of his resolution: the Vienna Club (read "Trotsky") has
organized a 'general Party fund for the purpose of preparing and
convening a conference of the RSDLP
     This indeed is new.  It is a direct step towards a split.  It is *a clear
 violation of Party legality* and the start of an adventure in which
Trotsky will come to grief.  This is obviously a split....  It is quite
 possible and probable that 'certain' Vperyod 'funds' will be made
 available to Trotsky.  You will appreciate that this will only stress
 the adventurist character of his undertaking. 
     It is clear that this undertaking violates Party legality, since
not a
word is said about the Central Committee, which alone can call the
conference.  In addition, Trotsky, having ousted the C.C. representative
 on Pravda in August 1910, himself *lost all trace of legality*,
converting Pravda from an organ supported by the representative
 of the C.C. into a purely factional organ.... 
     Taking advantage of this, 'violation of legality,' Trotsky seeks an
 organisational split, creating 'his own' fund for 'his own'

     After this critique of Trotsky, Lenin really comes down solid on
 him by stating,
     "You will understand why I call Trotsky's move an adventure; it is
 an adventure in every respect. 
     It is an adventure in the ideological sense.  *Trotsky groups all
 the enemies of Marxism*, he unites Potresov and Maximov, who
detest the 'Lenin-Plekhanov' bloc, as they like to call it.  *Trotsky
 unites all to whom ideological decay is dear*, *all who are not
concerned with the defence of Marxism*; *all philistines* who do not
understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to
learn, think, and discover the ideological roots of the divergence
of views.  At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it
is easy for Trotsky to become the 'hero of the hour' and *gather
 all the shabby elements around himself*.  The more openly this
attempt is made, the more spectacular will be the defeat.
      It is an adventure in the party-political sense. At present
everything goes to show that the real unity of the Social-Democratic
 Party is possible only on the basis of a sincere and unswerving
repudiation of liquidationism and otzovism.  It is clear that Potresov
 and the Vperyod group have renounced neither the one nor the
other. Trotsky unites them, basely deceiving himself, *deceiving
 the Party, and deceiving the proletariat*.  In reality, Trotsky will
 achieve nothing more than the strengthening of Potresov's and
 Maximov's anti-Party groups.  The collapse of this adventure is

     And Lenin concludes by saying,
      "Three slogans bring out the essence of the present situation
 within the Party:...
     3. Struggle against the splitting tactics and the *unprincipled
adventurism of Trotsky* in banding Potresov and Maximov against

     In a 1910 article entitled "The State of Affairs in the Party" Lenin
 again attacks Trotsky's anti-Party stance by saying,
     "...Trotsky's statement of November 26, 1910...completely
distorts the essence of the matter.... 
     It is not enough to lay bare the anti-Party activities of Golos
 and Trotsky; they must be fought.

     In the same article Lenin states,
     "When Trotsky, in referring to the Meeting's decisions on
Pravda, fails to mention this fact, all one can say about it is that
*he is deceiving the workers*.  And this deception on the part of
Trotsky is all the more *malicious*, since in August Trotsky removed
the representative of the Central Committee from Pravda.... 
     Therefore, we declare, in the name of the Party as a whole, that
 Trotsky is pursuing an anti-Party policy.... 
     Trotsky is trying again and again to evade the question by passing
 it over in silence or by phrase-mongering; *for he is concerned to
 keep the readers and the Party ignorant of the truth*, namely that
 Potresov's group, the group of sixteen, are absolutely independent
 of the Party, represent expressly distinct factions, are not only doing
nothing to revive the illegal organization, but are obstructing its
 revival, and are not pursuing any Social-Democratic tactics.  *Trotsky
 is concerned with keeping the Party ignorant of the truth*, namely,
 that the Golos group represent a faction abroad, similarly separated
 from the Party, and that they actually render service to the liquidators
 in Russia.... 
     Trotsky maintains silence on this undeniable truth, because *the
 truth is detrimental to the real aims of his policy*.  The real aims,
however, are becoming clearer and more obvious even to the least
 far-sighted Party members.  They are" an anti-Party block of the
 Potresovs  with the Vperyod group--a bloc which Trotsky supports
 and is organizing." 

     Lenin later states,
     "We must again explain the fundamentals of Marxism to these
 masses; the defence of Marxist theory is again on the order of the
day.  When Trotsky declares that the rapprochement between the
 pro-Party Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks is 'devoid of political
content' and 'unstable,' he is thereby merely revealing *the depths
 of his own ignorance*, he is thereby demonstrating *his own
 complete emptiness*." 

     Lenin later follows this up with,
     "...Trotsky, who is in the habit of joining any group that happens
 to be in the majority at the moment.... 
     Trotsky's policy is adventurism in the organisational sense; for,
as we have already pointed out, it violates Party legality...." 

Lenin Denounces Trotsky
POST #5   

Our continuing revelation of Lenin's Opinion of Trotsky proceeds

     In a 1911 article entitled "Judas Trotsky's Blush of Shame"
 Lenin states,
     "At the Plenary Meeting *Judas Trotsky* made a big show of
 fighting liquidationism and otzovism.  He vowed and swore that
 he was true to the Party.  He was given a subsidy.... 
     Judas expelled the representative of the Central Committee
from Pravda and began to write liquidationist articles.... 
     And it is this Judas who beats his breast and loudly professes
his loyalty to the Party, claiming that he did not grovel before the
Vperyod group and the liquidators.
     Such is Judas Trotsky's blush of shame."

     In a leaflet published in 1911 entitled "Resolution Adopted by
the Second Paris Group of the R.S.D.L.P. on the State of Affairs
in the Party" Lenin addressed this same theme by saying,
      "People like Trotsky, with his inflated phrases about the
 R.S.D.L.P. and his *toadying* to the liquidators, who have nothing
 in common with the R.S.D.L.P., today represent
'*the prevalent disease*.'  They are trying to build up a career
 for themselves by cheap sermons about 'agreement'--agreement
with all and sundry, right down to Mr. Potresov and the otzovists.... 
Actually they preach surrender to the liquidators who are building
 a Stolypin labour party."

     And in the 1911 article entitled "From the Camp of the Stolypin
 Labour Party" Lenin revisits this issue by saying,
      "Hence it is clear that Trotsky and the 'Trotskyites and
like him are *more pernicious than any liquidators*; the convinced
 liquidators state their views bluntly, and it is easy for the workers to
 detect where they are wrong, whereas the *Trotskys deceive the workers*,
 *cover up the evil*, and make it impossible to expose the evil  and to
remedy it.  *Whoever supports Trotsky's puny group supports a policy
of lying and of deceiving the workers*, a policy of shielding the
liquidators.  Full freedom of action for Potresov and Co. in Russia,
 and the shielding of their deeds by 'revolutionary' phrase-mongering
 abroad--there you have the essence of the policy of 'Trotskyism'."

     In an article entitled "The New Faction of Conciliators, or the
Virtuous" Lenin stated,
     "Trotsky has been *deceiving the workers in a most unprincipled
 and shameless manner* by assuring them that the obstacles to
 unity were principally (if not wholly) of an organizational nature. 
This deceit is being continued in 1911 by the Paris conciliators; for
 to assert now that they organizational questions occupy the first
 place is sheer mockery of the truth.  In reality, it is by no means the
 organizational question that is now in the forefront, but the question
 of the entire programme, the entire tactics and the whole character
 of the Party....  The conciliators call themselves Bolsheviks, in order
 to repeat, a year and a half later, *Trotsky's errors* which the
 Bolsheviks had exposed.  Well, is this not an abuse of established
Party titles?  Are we not obliged, after this, to let all and sundry
that the conciliators are not Bolsheviks at all, that they have nothing
 in common with Bolshevism, that they are simply inconsistent

     In a 1911 article on the same theme entitled "Trotsky's Diplomacy
 and a certain Party Platform," Lenin states,
     "Trotsky's particular task is to conceal liquidationism by throwing
dust in the eyes of the workers. 
     It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue,
 because *Trotsky holds no views whatever*.  We can and should
argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists;; but it is no use
arguing with a man whose game is to hide errors of both these
 trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a *diplomat
of the smallest caliber*."

     In an article entitled "Fundamental Problems of the Election
 Campaign" Lenin states,
     "There is nothing more repugnant to the spirit of Marxism than

     And later on he states,
     "But there is no point in imitating Trotsky's inflated phrases."
     In a 1912 pamphlet entitled "The Present Situation in the
R.S.D.L.P. Lenin stated,"
     This is incredible, yet it is a fact.  It will be useful for the Russian
 workers to know how *Trotsky and Co. are misleading our foreign

     In another 1912 pamphlet  entitled "Can the Slogan 'Freedom
 of Association' Serve as a Basis for the Working-Class Movement
Today?" Lenin responds by saying,
      "In the legal press, the liquidators headed by Trotsky argue
 that it can.  They are doing all in their power to distort the true
character of the workers' movement.  But those are hopeless
efforts.  The drowning of the liquidators are clutching at a straw
 to rescue their unjust cause."

     In a 1912 pamphlet entitled "Platform of the Reformists and
 the Platform of the Revolutionary Social-Democrats" Lenin stated,
     "The revolutionary Social-Democrats have given their answer
to these questions, which are more interesting and important than
the *philistine-Trotskyist* attitude of uncertainty; will there be a
revolution or not, who can tell?.... 
     Those, however, who preach to the masses their *vulgar,
 intellectualist, Bundist-Trotskyist scepticism*--'we don't know
whether there will be a revolution or not, but the current issue is
reforms'--are already *corrupting the masses, preaching liberal
 utopias to them*."

     In the 1912 pamphlet entitled "The Illegal Party and Legal
Work" Lenin again referred to Trotsky by saying,
     "We have studied the ideas of liberal labour policy attired in
 Levitsky's everyday clothes; it is not difficult to recognize them
 in *Trotsky's gaudy apparel* as well."

In a letter to the Editor of Pravda in 1912 Lenin said,
     "I advise you to reply to Trotsky throught the post: 'To Trotsky.
We shall not reply to disruptive and slanderous letters.'  Trotsky's
dirty campaign against Pravda is one mass of lies and slander.  The
well-known Marxist and follower of Plekhanov, Rothstein, has written to
us that he received Trotsky's slanders and replied to him: I cannot
complain of the Petersburg Pravda in any way.  But this intriguer and
liquidator goes onlying, right and left.
P.S.  It would be still better to reply in this way to Trotsky through
the post: 'To Trotsky.  You are wasting your time sending us disruptive
and slanderous letters...."                                            

     In a 1913 article in Pravda Lenin really blistered Trotsky on the
 question of Party unity by saying,
     "It is amazing that after the question has been posed so clearly
 and squarely we come across Trotsky's old, pompous but perfectly
meaningless phrases in Luch No. 27 (113).  Not a word on the
 substance of the matter!  *Not the slightest attempt to cite precise
facts and analyze them thoroughly!*  Not a hint of the real terms
 of unity!  Empty exclamations, high-flown words, and haughty sallies
 against opponents whom the author does not name, and
impressively important assurances--that is *Trotsky's total
     That won't do gentlemen....  The workers will not be intimidated or
coaxed.  They themselves will compare Luch and Pravda...and simply
shrug off Trotsky's verbiage....
     You cannot satisfy the workers with mere phrases, no matter how
 'conciliatory' or honeyed.
      'Our historic factions, Bolshevism and Menshevism, are purely
 intellectualist formations in origin,' wrote Trotsky.  This is the
 *repetition of a liberal tale*.... 
     It is to the advantage of the liberals to pretend that this fundamental
 basis of the difference was introduced by 'intellectuals.'  But
merely disgraces himself by echoing a liberal tale*.

     In a 1913 article entitled "Notes of a Publicist" Lenin states,
      "Trotsky, doing faithful service to liquidators, assured himself and
 the naive 'Europeans' (lovers of Asiatic scandal-mongering) that the
 liquidators are 'stronger' in the legal movement.  And this lie, too,
is refuted by the facts."

     Lenin again blasted Trotsky in an article published in 1914
entitled "Break-up of the 'August' Bloc" by stating,
     "Trotsky, however, has never had any 'physiognomy' at all; *the
only thing he does have is a habit of changing sides*, of *skipping
from the liberals to the Marxists and back again*, of mouthing scraps
of catchwords and bombastic parrot phrases....
     Actually, under cover of high-sounding, empty, and obscure
 phrases that confuse the non-class-conscious workers, Trotsky
is defending the liquidators....
     But *the liquidators and Trotsky...are the worst splitters*."

     And in an article entitled "Ideological Struggle in Working-Class
 Movement" Lenin states,
     "People who (like the liquidators and Trotsky) ignore or falsify this
 twenty years' history of the ideological struggle in the working-class
 movement do tremendous harm to the workers."

Lenin Denounces Trotsky

     Our ongoing revelation of what Lenin thought of Trotsky proceeds
 on schedule.

     In a 1914 article named "Disruption of Unity" Lenin stated,
     "Trotsky's 'workers' journal' is Trotsky's journal for workers, as there
 is not a trace in it of either workers' initiative, or any connection with
 working-class organizations....
     The question arises: what has 'chaos' got to do with it?  Everybody
 knows that *Trotsky is fond of high-sounding and empty phrases*.... 
If there is any 'chaos' anywhere, it is only in the heads of cranks who
 fail to understand this....
     To sum up:
     (1) Trotsky does not explain, *nor does he understand, the historical
 significance of the ideological disagreements among the various
 Marxist trends and groups*, although these disagreements run
through the twenty years' history of Social-Democracy and concern
 the fundamental questions of the present day (as we shall show
later on);
     (2) Trotsky fails to understand that the main specific features of
group-division are nominal recognition of unity and actual disunity;
     (3) Under cover of 'non-factionalism' Trotsky is championing the
 interests of a group abroad which particularly lacks definite
and has no basis in the working-class movement in Russia.
          All that glitters is not gold.  *There is much glitter and
sound in
Trotsky's phrases, but they are meaningless*....
     But joking apart (although joking is the only way of retorting mildly
 to Trotsky's insufferable phrase-mongering).  'Suicide' is a mere
 empty phrase, mere 'Trotskyism'....
     If our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong in theory, in
principle, then Trotsky should say so straightforwardly, and state
definitely, without equivocation, why he thinks it is wrong.  But
has been evading this extremely important point for years....
     Trotsky is very fond of using, with the learned air of the expert,
*pompous and high-sounding phrases* to explain historical
 phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky.  Since 'numerous
 advanced workers' become 'active agents' of a political and Party
 line which does not conform to Trotsky's line, Trotsky settles the
 question unhesitatingly, out of hand: these advanced workers are
 'in a state of utter political bewilderment,' whereas he, Trotsky, is
evidently 'in a state' of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to
the right line!  And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast,
fulminates against factionalism, parochialism, and the efforts of
intellectuals to impose their will on the workers!"
      "Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself;
*is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come*?"

     Later in the same article Lenin states,
     "Those who accused us of being splitters, of being unwilling or
unable to get on with the liquidators, were themselves unable to
 get on with them.  The August bloc proved to be a fiction and broke
     By concealing this break-up from his readers, *Trotsky is deceiving

     Still later, Lenin confronted a problem I have often encountered by
     "*The reason why Trotsky avoids facts and concrete references is
because they relentlessly refute all his angry outcries and pompous
 phrases*....  Is not this weapon borrowed from the arsenal of the
 period when Trotsky posed in all his splendor before audiences of
high-school boys?"

     And finally, in the same article Lenin shatters Trotsky,
 his theory of Permanent Revolution, and his all
consuming equivocating, with which I am thoroughly familiar, by
     "Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901-03, and Ryazanov described
 his role at the Congress of 1903 as 'Lenin's cudgel.'  At the end of
1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the
Iskrists to the Economists.  He said that 'between the old Iskra and
 the new lies a gulf'.  In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and
occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the
Economist), now proclaiming his
**absurdly Left permanent revolution theory**.  In 1906-07, he
approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that
he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg.
     In the period of disintegration, after long 'non-factional'
he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc
with the liquidators.  He has now deserted them again, although in
 substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas."

     In another 1914 article entitled "Objective Data on the Strength of
Various Trends" Lenin commented,
     "One of the greatest, if not the greatest, faults (or crimes against
 the working class) of the Narodniks and liquidators, as well as of the
various groups of intellectuals such as the Vperyodists, Plekhanovites
 and Trotskyists, is their subjectivism.  At every step they try to pass
 off their desires, their 'views', their appraisals of the situation and
 their 'plans', as the will of the workers, the needs of the working-class

     In a article published in 1914 entitled "The Right of Nations to
Self-Determination" Lenin stated,
     "**The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy!** 
Trotsky could produce no proof, except 'private conversations"
 (i.e., simply *gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists*), for classifying
 'Polish Marxists' in general as supporters of every article by Rosa
     Why did Trotsky withhold these facts from the readers of his
 journal?  Only because it pays him to speculate on fomenting
 differences between the Polish and the Russian opponents of
liquidationism and to *deceive the Russian workers* on the question
 of the programme."

     And now comes another comment that blows off Trotsky's doors.
     "**Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important
question of Marxism**.  He always contrives to worm his way into
 the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side
 for the other.  At the present moment he is in the company of the
 Bundists and the liquidators.  And these gentlemen do not stand
 on ceremony where the Party is concerned."

     In an article first published in 1917 Lenin noted that Trotsky made
 a number of errors by saying,
     "A number of Trotsky's tactical and organizational errors spring
 from this fear...."

     In an article published in 1915 in the Social-Democrat entitled
 "Defeat of One's Government in Imperialist War" Lenin stated,
     "This is an instance of *high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky
 always justifies opportunism*....
     The *phrase-bandying Trotsky* has completely lost his bearings
 on a simple issue.  It seems to him that to desire Russia's defeat
means desiring the victory of Germany....  To help people that are
unable to think for themselves, the Berne resolution made it clear
 that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the
 defeat of its own government.  Bukvoyed and Trotsky preferred to
avoid this truth....
     *Had Bukvoyed and Trotsky done a little thinking, they would have
realized that they have adopted the viewpoint on the war held by
 governments and the bourgeoisie, i.e., that they cringe to the 'political
 methodology of social-patriotism', to use Trotsky's pretentious language*."

     And in another 1915 article labeled "The State of Affairs in
 Russian Social-Democracy" Lenin comments,
     "Trotsky, who as always entirely disagrees with the
social-chauvinists in principle, but agrees with them in everything
in practice...."

Lenin Denounces Trotsky

     More on Lenin's Opinion of Trotsky will now be presented.

     In 1915 article in the Social Democrat entitled "On the Two Lines
in the Revolution" Lenin comments on Trotsky's failure to realize the
 importance of the peasantry by saying,
     "The length *Trotsky's muddled thinking* goes to is evident from
his phrase that by their resoluteness the proletariat will attract the
 'non-proletarian popular masses' as well!  Trotsky has not realized
 that if the proletariat induce the non-proletarian masses to
 confiscate the landed estates and overthrown the monarchy, then
 that will be the consummation of the 'national bourgeois revolution'
 in Russia; it will be a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
 proletariat and the peasantry!....  This is such an obvious truth that
 not even the thousands of phrases in scores of Trotsky's Paris
 articles will 'refute' it.  *Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal-labour
 politicians* in Russia, who by 'repudiation' of the role of the
peasantry understand a refusal to raise up the peasants for the

     In a 1921 pamphlet entitled "The Trade Unions, the Present
Situation and Trotsky's Mistakes" Lenin drops a whole series of
 bombs on Trotsky's theoretical analyses by saying,
     "My principal material is Comrade Trotsky's pamphlet, The
Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions.  When I compare it with the
theses he submitted to the Central Committee, and go over it
very carefully, I am amazed at the number of *theoretical mistakes
 and glaring blunders* it contains.  How could anyone starting a
big Party discussion on this question produce *such a sorry
 excuse for a carefully thought out statement*?  Let me go over
 the main points which, I think, contain the original *fundamental
 theoretical errors*.
     Trade unions are not just historically necessary; they are
historically inevitable as an organization of the industrial proletariat,
 and, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, embrace nearly the
 whole of it.  This is basic, but Comrade Trotsky keeps forgetting
it; he neither appreciates it nor makes it his point of departure....
     Within the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the trade
unions stand, if I may say so, between the Party and the government.
 In the transition to socialism the dictatorship of the proletariat is
inevitable, but it is not exercised by an organization which takes
in all industrial workers.  Why not?....  What happens is that the
shall we say, absorbs the vanguard of the proletariat, and this
vanguard exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat....  But the
 dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an
organization embracing the whole of that class, because in all
capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most
backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so
 corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an
 organization taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise
 proletarian dictatorship.  It can be exercised only by a vanguard
 that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class....  From
this alone it is evident that there is something fundamentally wrong
 in principle when Comrade Trotsky points, in his first thesis, to
 'ideological confusion', and speaks of a crisis as existing
specifically and particularly in the trade unions....  *It is Trotsky
who is in 'ideological confusion'*, because in this key question
of the trade unions' role, from the standpoint of transition from
capitalism to communism, he has lost sight of the fact that we
have here a complex arrangement of cogwheels which cannot
be a simple one; for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be
exercised by a mass proletarian organization.  It cannot work
 without a number of 'transmission belts' running from the
 vanguard to the mass of the advanced class, and from the
 latter to the mass of the working people.
     (Lenin is making precisely the point I made several weeks ago
during one of my posts to this newsgroup--Ed.)
     ...When I consider the role of the trade unions in production,
 I find that Trotsky's basic mistake lies in his always dealing with
it 'in principle,' as a matter of 'general principle.'  All his theses
 are based on 'general principle,' an approach which is in itself
fundamentally wrong....  In general, Comrade Trotsky's great
 mistake, his mistake of principle, lies in the fact that by raising
 the question of 'principle' at this time he is dragging back the
 Party and the Soviet power.  We have, thank heaven, done with
 principles and have gone on to practical business.  We chatted
 about principles--rather more than we should have--at the Smolny.
     The actual differences, apart from those I have listed, really
 have nothing to do with general principles.  I have had to
 enumerate my 'differences' with Comrade Trotsky because,
with such a broad theme as 'The Role and Tasks of the Trade
Unions,' **he has, I am quite sure, made a number of mistakes
 bearing on the very essence of the dictatorship of the
     ...I must say that had we made a detailed, even if small-scale,
 study of our own experience and practices, we should have
managed to avoid the hundreds of quite unnecessary
 'differences' and *errors of principle in which Comrade
Trotsky's pamphlet abounds*.
     ...While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky
 falls into error himself.  He seems to say that in a workers' state
it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the
 material and spiritual interests of the working class.  That is a
 mistake.  Comrade Trotsky speaks of a 'workers' state.'  May I
 say that this is an abstraction.  It was natural for us to write about
 a workers' state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: 'Since
 this is a workers' state without any bourgeoisie, against whom
 then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?'
The point is that it is not quite a workers' state.  That is where
Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes....  This will not do.
 For one thing, ours is not actually a workers' state but a workers'
and peasants' state.  And a lot depends on that.
     ...Well, is it right to say that in a state that has taken this
in practice the trade unions have nothing to protect, or that we can
do without them in protecting the material and spiritual interests of
the massively organized proletariat?  No, this reasoning is
theoretically quite wrong.  It takes us into the sphere of abstraction
 or an ideal we shall achieve in 15 or 20 years time, and I am not
so sure that we shall have achieved it even by then.
     ...At any rate, see that you choose fewer slogans, like 'industrial
democracy,' which contain nothing but confusion and are
theoretically wrong.  *Both Trotsky and Bukharin failed to think
out this term theoretically and ended up in confusion*.  ...I say:
cast your vote against it, because it is confusion.  Industry is
 indispensable, democracy is not.  Industrial democracy breeds
some utterly false ideas.  The idea of one-man management
was advocated only a little while ago.  We must not make a mess
 of things and confuse people: how do you expect them to know
when you want democracy, when one-man management, and
when dictatorship.  But on no account must we renounce
dictatorship either....

Lenin Denounces Trotsky
 POST #8


  But to go on.  Since September we have been talking about switching
from the principle of priority to that of equalization....
     ...Priority implies preference for one industry out of a group of vital
 industries because of its greater urgency.  What does such preference
 entail?  How great can it be?  This is a difficult question....  And so
if we
are to raise this question of priority and equalization we must first of
give it some careful thought, but that is just what we fail to find in
 Comrade Trotsky's work; *the further he goes in revising his original
theses, the more mistakes he makes*.  Here is what we find in his
 latest theses:....  This is *a real theoretical muddle.  It is all wrong*....
     The fourth point is disciplinary courts.  I hope Comrade Bukharin
 will not take offence if I say that without disciplinary courts the
of the trade unions in industry, 'industrial democracy,' is a mere
 But the fact it that there is nothing at all about this in your theses.
 *"Great grief!' is therefore the only thing that can be said about
Trotsky's theses and Bukharin's attitude, from the standpoint of
principle, theory and practice*.
     I am confirmed in this conclusion when I say to myself: *yours is
not a Marxist approach to the question.*  This quite apart from the
 fact that there are a number of theoretical mistakes in the theses. 
It is not a Marxist approach to the evaluation of the 'role and tasks
of the trade unions,' because such a broad subject cannot be
 tackled without giving thought to the peculiar political aspects of
the present situation.  After all, Comrade Bukharin and I did say
in the resolution...on trade unions that politics is the most
 concentrated statement of economics.
     ...Comrade Trotsky says in his theses that on the question of
workers' democracy it remains for the Congress to 'enter it
unanimously in the record.'  That is not correct.  There is more to
it than an entry in the record; an entry in the record fixes what has
 been fully weighed and measured, whereas the question of
industrial democracy is from having been fully weighed, tried
and tested.  Just think how the masses may interpret this slogan
 of 'industrial democracy.'
     ...*Trotsky's theses, whatever his intentions, do not tend to
play up the best, but the worst in military experience*.  It must
 be borne in mind that a political leader is responsible not only
 for his own policy but also for the acts of those he leads.
     ...The last thing I want to tell you about--something I called
 myself a fool for yesterday--is that I had altogether overlooked
 Comrade Rudzutak's theses.  His weak point is that he does
 not speak in ringing tones; he is not an impressive or eloquent
 speaker.  He is liable to be overlooked.  Unable to attend the
meetings yesterday, I went through my material and found his
leaflet called: 'The Tasks of the Trade Unions in Production'.
 Let me read it to you, it is not long....  (Lenin then read
Rudzutak's pamphlet and says,--Ed.), I hope you see not why
I called myself names.  There you have a platform, and *it is
 much better than the one Comrade Trotsky wrote after a great
deal of thinking*, and the one Comrade Bukharin wrote without
 any thinking at all.  All of us members of the Central Committee
 who have been out of touch with the trade union movement for
 many years would profit from Comrade Rudzutak's experience,
 and this also goes for Comrade Trotsky and Comrade Bukharin.
  The trade unions have adopted this platform.
     (Lenin concludes his article on the trade unions by saying--Ed.)
The net result is that *there are a number of theoretical mistakes
in Trotsky's and Bukharin's theses*: they contain a number of
 things that are wrong in principle.  Politically, the whole approach
 to the matter is utterly tactless.  *Comrade Trotsky's 'theses' are
 politically harmful*.  The sum and substance of his policy is
 bureaucratic harassment of the trade unions.  Our Party
Congress will, I am sure, condemn and reject it."

     At the Second All-Russia Congress of Miners in 1921 Lenin
     "The morbid character of the question of the role and tasks
of the trade unions is due to the fact that it took the form of a
factional struggle much too soon.  This vast, boundless question
 should not have been taken up in such haste, as it was done
here, and *I put the chief blame on Comrade Trotsky for all
this fumbling haste and precipitation*.
     To illustrate my point, and to proceed at once to the heart
of the matter, let me read you the chief of Trotsky's theses. 
(Lenin then reads Trotsky's short statement--Ed.).  I could quote
many similar passages from Trotsky's pamphlet.  I ask, by way
of factional statement: Is it becoming for such an influential
person, such a prominent leader, to attack his Party comrades
 in this way?  I am sure that 99% of the comrades, excepting
 those involved in the quarrel, will say that this should not be done.
     ...What sort of talk is this?  Is it the right kind of language?
Is it
 the right approach?  I had earlier said that I might succeed in
acting as a 'buffer' and staying out of the discussion, because it
is harmful to fight with Trotsky--it does the Republic, the Party,
 and all of us a lot of harm--but when this pamphlet came out, I
 felt I had to speak up.
     ...Even if there is a spirit of hostility for the new men, one
should not say a thing like that.  *Trotsky accuses Lozovsky
and Tomsky of bureaucratic practices.  I would say the reverse
is true*.
     ...Even the best workers make mistakes....  Comrade Trotsky
 says that Comrades Tomsky and Lozovsky--trade unionists
 both--are guilty of cultivating in their midst a spirit of hostility
for the new men.  *But this is monstrous.  Only someone in the
 lunatic fringe can say a thing like that*.
     That is just why *Trotsky's whole approach is wrong*.  I
could have analyzed any one of his theses, but it would take
 me hours, and you would all be bored to death.  *Every thesis
 reveals the same thoroughly wrong approach*....

Lenin Denounces Trotsky


     In another 1921 article on the same topic entitled "Once Again on
 the Trade Unions" Lenin states,
     "*Comrade Trotsky's theses have landed him in a mess*.  That part
of them which is correct is not new and, what is more, turns against
 him.  That which is new is all wrong.  I have written out Comrade
Trotsky's correct propositions.  They turn against him not only on the
point in thesis 23 but on the others as well.
     ...Can it be denied that, even if Trotsky's 'new tasks and methods'
were as sound as they are in fact unsound, *his very approach would
 be damaging to himself, the Party, the trade union movement, the
 training of millions of trade union members and the Republic*?
     ...I decided there and then that policy lay at the root of the controversy,
 and that Comrade Trotsky, with his 'shake-up' policy against Comrade
Tomsky, was entirely in the wrong.
     ...But 'shake-up' is a real 'catchword', not only in the sense that after
 being uttered by Comrade Trotsky at the Fifth All-Russia Conference
 of Trade Unions it has, you might say, 'caught on' throughout the Party
 and the trade unions.  Unfortunately, it remains true even today in the
 much more profound sense that it alone epitomizes the whole spirit, the
 whole trend of the platform pamphlet entitled The Role and Tasks of the
 Trade Unions.  Comrade Trotsky's platform pamphlet is shot through
with the spirit of the 'shake-up-from-above' policy.
     ...but after its publication we had to say: *Comrade Trotsky is
 essentially wrong on all his new points*.
     This is most evident from a comparison of his theses with
which were adopted....  They are fuller and more correct than Trotsky's,
and *wherever the latter differs from Rudzutak, he is wrong*.
     ...The fourth point is that 'industrial democracy' is a term that lends
 itself to misinterpretation.  It may be read as a repudiation of dictatorship
 and individual authority.  It may be read as a suspension of ordinary
democracy or a pretext for evading it.  Both readings are harmful, and
cannot be avoided without long special commentaries.
     ...Trotsky's 'production atmosphere' is even wider of the mark, and
Zinoviev had good reason to laugh at it....  Comrade Trotsky's 'production
 atmosphere' has essentially the same meaning as production
 propaganda, but such expressions must be avoided when production
 propaganda is addressed to the workers at large.  The term is an
example of how not to carry it on among the masses.
     ...Defence or camouflage of the political mistake expressed in the
shake-up policy, which runs through the whole of Trotsky's platform
pamphlet, and which, unless it is admitted and corrected, *leads to
the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat*.
     ...That is where Zinoviev and myself, on the one hand, and Trotsky
 and Bukharin, on the other, actually stand on this question of politics
and economics.
     I could not help smiling, therefore, when I read Comrade Trotsky's
 objection in his speech....  Comrade Trotsky thought these words
were 'very much to the point.'  Actually, however, *they reveal a
 terrible confusion of ideas, a truly hopeless 'ideological confusion*.'
 ...Comrade Trotsky's political mistakes, aggravated by Comrade
Bukharin, distract our Party's attention from economic tasks and
'production' work, and, unfortunately, make us waste time on
correcting them and arguing it out with the syndicalist deviation
(which leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat), 
objecting to the incorrect approach to the trade union movement
 (which leads to the collapse of the Soviet power), and debating
general 'theses' instead of having a practical and business-like
'economic' discussion.... 
     Once again we find political mistakes distracting attention from
economic tasks.  I was against this 'broad' discussion, and I
 believed, and still do, that it was a mistake--a political mistake--on
Comrade Trotsky's part to disrupt the work of the trade union
 commission, which ought to have held a business-like discussion.
     *For Trotsky has made the Party waste time on a discussion of
 words and bad theses*....
     We who are breaking new ground must put in a long, persistent
 and patient effort to retrain men and change the old habits which
have come down to us from capitalism, but this can only be done
little by little.  *Trotsky's approach is quite wrong*.  In his December
 30th speech he exclaimed: 'Do or do not our workers, Party and trade
 union functionaries have any production training?  Yes or no?
 I say: No.  This is a ridiculous approach.  It is like asking whether
a division has enough felt boots: Yes or no?
     It is safe to say that even ten years from now we shall have to
that all our Party and trade union functionaries do not have enough
 production training....
     ...And it is this rule that Comrade Trotsky has broken by his
and approach.  *All his theses, his entire platform pamphlet, are so
wrong that they have diverted the Party's attention and resources
 from practical 'production' work to a lot of empty talk*.
     ...Trotsky's mistake is 'insufficient support for the school-of-communism
     ...Whether you take it in the form it assumed at the Fifth
Conference of Trade Unions, or as it was presented and slanted by
 Trotsky himself in his platform pamphlet of December 25th, you will
 find that his whole approach is quite wrong and that he has gone off
at a tangent.  He has failed to understand that the trade unions can
 and must be viewed as a school  both when raising the question
of 'Soviet trade-unionism,' and when speaking of production
 propaganda in general....  On this last point, as it is presented in
Trotsky's platform pamphlet, the mistake lies in his failure to grasp
 that the trade unions are a school of technical and administrative
 management of production.  ...the trade unions, whichever way you
look at them, are a school.  They are a school of unity, solidarity,
management and administration, where you learn how to protect
your interests.  Instead of making an effort to comprehend and
correct *Comrade Trotsky's fundamental mistake*, Comrade Bukharin
 has produced a funny little amendment.
     ...let me say that Comrade Trotsky's fundamental mistake is that
he treats (rather maltreats) the questions he himself had brought up
 in his platform pamphlet as administrative ones, whereas they could
 be and ought to be viewed only from the administrative angle....
     The state is a sphere of coercion.  *It would be madness to
coercion, especially in the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat*....
  The Party is the leader, the vanguard of the proletariat, which rules
 directly.  *It is not coercion but expulsion from the Party that is the
 specific means of influence and the means of purging and steeling
the vanguard.*  The trade unions are a reservoir of the state power, a
school of communism and a school of management.  The specific and
cardinal thing in this sphere is not administration but the 'ties' 'between
 the central state administration,' 'the national economy and the
 broad masses of the working people.
     The whole of Trotsky's platform pamphlet betrays an incorrect
 approach to the problem and a misunderstanding of this relationship.
     This is essentially a political question.  Because of the substance
of the case--this concrete, particular 'case'--*it is impossible to correct
 Trotsky's mistake by means of eclectic little amendments and
addenda*, as Bukharin has been trying to do, being moved undoubtedly
 by the most humane sentiments and intentions.
     *Trotsky and Bukharin have produced a hodgepodge of political
mistakes in approach*, breaks in the middle of the transmission belts,
 and unwarranted and futile attacks on 'administrative steerage.'  It is
now clear where the 'theoretical source of the mistake lies, since
Bukharin has taken up that aspect of it with his example of the tumbler.
 His theoretical mistake lies in his substitution of eclecticism for
dialectics.  His eclectic approach has confused him and has landed
 him in syndicalism.  **Trotsky's mistake is one-track thinking,
compulsiveness, exaggeration and obstinacy**. 
     ...Incidentally, Comrade Trotsky says in his theses that 'over the last
 period we have not made any headway towards the goal set forth in
 the Programme but have in fact retreated from it.'  That statement is
 unsupported, and, I think, wrong.
     ...And Trotsky has no one but himself to blame for having come
 out--after the November Plenary Meeting, which gave a clear-cut
 and theoretically correct solution--with a factional pamphlet on
 'the two trends' and proposed a formulation in his thesis 41
 which is wrong in economic terms.
     Today, January 25, it is exactly one month since Comrade
Trotsky's factional statement.  It is now patent that this pronouncement,
 inappropriate in form and wrong in essence, has diverted the Party
 from its practical economic and production effort into rectifying
 political and theoretical mistakes.  But it's an ill wind, as the old
saying goes.
     In this one month, Petrograd, Moscow and a number of provincial
 towns have shown that the Party responded to the discussion and
 *has rejected Comrade Trotsky's wrong line by an overwhelming
 majority*.  While there may have been some vacillation 'at the top'
and 'in the provinces', in the committees and in the offices, the
 rank-and-file membership--*the mass of Party workers--came out
 solidly against this wrong line*.
     ...In any case, his January 23 announcement shows that the Party,
without so much as mustering all its forces, and with only Petrograd,
Moscow and a minority of the provincial towns going on record, has
 *corrected Comrade Trotsky's mistake promptly and with
     The Party's enemies had rejoiced too soon.  They have not been
able--and will never be able--to take advantage of some of the
inevitable disagreements within the Party to inflict harm on it
and on the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia."

Lenin Denounces Trotsky
POST #10


     During a 1921 "Speech on the Trade Unions" Lenin stated,
     "Comrade Trotsky now laughs at my asking who started it all, and is
surprised that I should reproach him for refusing to serve on the
 commission.  I did it because this is very important Comrade Trotsky,
 very important, indeed; your refusal to serve on the trade union
commission was *a violation of Central Committee discipline*."

     In a 1922 article entitled "Reply to Remarks Concerning the Functions
 of the Deputy Chairmen of the Council of People's Commisars" Lenin
     "Some of Trotsky's remarks are likewise vague (for example, the
 'apprehensions' in paragraph 4) and do not require an answer; other
remarks made by him renew old disagreements, that we have
 repeatedly observed in the Political Bureau....
     As regards the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection, *Comrade
Trotsky is fundamentally wrong*....
     As regards the State Planning Commission, *Comrade Trotsky is
 not only absolutely wrong but is judging something on which he is
 amazingly ill-informed*.
     ...The second paper from Comrade Trotsky...contains, first, an
extremely excited but profoundly erroneous 'criticism' of the Political
 Bureau decree on setting up a financial triumvirate....
     Secondly, this paper flings the same fundamentally wrong and
 intrinsically untrue accusations of academic method at the State
Planning Commission, accusations which lead up to *the next
 incredibly uninformed statement by Comrade Trotsky*...."

     In a letter to Lyubimov written in 1909 Lenin stated,
     "As regards Trotsky, I must say that I shall be most vigorously
 opposed to helping him if he rejects (and he has already rejected it!)
 equality on the editorial board, proposed to him by a member of the
 C.C.  Without a settlement of this question by the Executive
Committee on the Bolshevik Centre, no steps to help Trotsky are

     In a letter to Alexandra Kollontai written in 1917 Lenin really
blasted Trotsky by saying,
     "Pleasant as it was to learn from you of the victory of N.Iv.
and Pavlov in Novy Mir (I get this newspaper devilishly
irregularly; was just as sad to read about the bloc between
Trotsky and the Right for the struggle against N. Iv.  *What a
 swine this Trotsky is*--Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right
against the Zimmerwald Left!!  He ought to be exposed (by you)
if only in a brief letter to the Social-Democrat!"

In another Letter to Kollontai written after August 1915 Lenin stated,
     "Roland-Holst, like Trotsky, in my opinion, are all
the most harmful 'Kautskians,' in the sense that all of them in various
forms are for unity with the opportunists, all in various forms
*embellish* opportunism, all of them (in various way) preach eclecticism
instead of revolutionary Marxism."

     In an equally powerful letter to Inessa Armand written about
 the same time Lenin states,
     "...Trotsky arrived, and *this scoundrel* at once ganged up
with the Right wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldist!
 That's it!!  *That's Trotsky for you!!   Always true to
swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can*...."

     In a 1911 article entitled "The State of Affairs of the Party"
Lenin stated,
     What is the attitude of the other factions abroad?  Trotsky, of
course, is solidly behind the liquidators....
     There are Party people, and liquidators who have broken away
 and set up a separate group.  Groups abroad, like those of Golos,
Trotsky, the Bund, and Vperyod, want to cover up the break-away
of the liquidators, help them to hide under the banner of the
R.S.D.L.P., and help them to thwart the rebuilding of the R.S.D.L.P.
  It is our task at all costs to rebuff the liquidators and, despite
opposition, recreate the R.S.D.L.P....
     The 'conciliators' put their trust in Trotsky, who has clearly
 executed a full turn towards the liquidators....
     We Bolsheviks have resolved on no account to repeat the error
of conciliationism today.  This would mean slowing down the rebuilding
 of the R.S.D.S.P, and entangling it in a new game with the Golos
 people (or *their lackeys, like Trotsky*), the Vperyodists and so forth."

     In 1911 Lenin stated in an article,
     "We know that there are people who, while recognizing the need
 to fight the liquidators, object to a complete break with them and
continue (even now!) to speak of 'conciliation' or 'agreement'. 
Among these people are not only *the 'loyal servitors' of Trotsky,
 whom very few people now take seriously*."

     In a 1912 "Report on the Work of the International Socialist
Bureau" Lenin stated,
     "I was no longer about able to talk to the Golos people and
looked at Trotsky with disapproval, especially over the letter."

     In a 1915 letter to Herman Gorter Lenin stated,
     "I congratulate you on your splendid attacks on opportunism
 and Kautsky.  Trotsky's principal mistake is that he does not attack
 this gang."

     In a letter to Kamenev Lenin stated,
     "What is the purpose of our policy now, at this precise moment?
 To build the Party core not on *the cheap phrases of Trotsky
and Co.* but on genuine ideological rapprochement between
the Plekhanovites and the Bolsheviks."

     In a March 1916 letter to Henriette Roland-Holst Lenin commented,
     "What are our differences with Trotsky?  This must probably
interest you.  *In brief--he is a Kautskyite*, that is, he stands for
 unity with the Kautskyites in the International and with Chkheidze's
 parliamentary group in Russia.  We are absolutely against such
unity....  Trotsky at present is against the Organizing Committee
 (Axelrod and Martov) but for unity with the Chkheidze Duma group!!
     We are decidedly against."

In a 1909 Letter to Zinoview Lenin stated,
     "As regards Pravda, have you read Trotsky's letter to Inok?  If you
have, I hope it has convinced you that Trotsky behaves like a despicable
careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-Co. type.  Either
equality on the editorial board, subordination to the CC and no one's
transfer to Paris except Trotsky's (the scoundrel, he wants to 'fix up'
the who rascally crew of Pravda at our expense!)--or break with this
swindler and and exposure of him in the CO.  He pays lip-service to the
Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists.

     In a 1916 letter to Zinoviev Lenin said,
     "We had better deal with Trotsky in Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata;
he has to be dealt with at greater length."

     And finally, in another letter to Zinoviev in the same year Lenin
     "...It's ghastly.  I don't know what to do.  Yet something has
still to
 be written about opportunism (I have 1/2 of it ready), about
 defeatism, and about Trotskyism (including the Duma group + P. S. D.)."

And we must certainly not forget the following opinions of Lenin
expressed by Trotsky in a 1913 Letter to Chkeidze in which he stated,
"The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand
at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the
Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire
edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within
itself the poisonous elements of its own decay."

LATTER BY A VOTE OF 740,000 T0 4,000.