Active Users:1100 Time:22/11/2024 10:22:12 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
That is hardly the only way to kill; in Lenins condition, neglect would have sufficed. Joel Send a noteboard - 11/10/2011 06:28:31 AM
Stalin was certainly not in a position to take over, either. There is a surviving letter that Stalin sent to Lenin's widow in 1923, suggesting that perhaps he should, for the sake of the country, be euthanized, but it is clear that Stalin had neither the access to Lenin (or his doctors) nor the power to make it happen.

If you say so I will not dispute your undoubtedly greater knowledge of that subject, but cannot help noting Wikipedia quoting his "testament" as saying, Stalin already had "unlimited authority" that he should not and urging "comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post." Wikipedia does not provide a specific citation for that, however, nor its claim that Lenin used the language "Сталин слишком груб," which Wikipedia further claims "implies 'personal rudeness, unnecessary roughness, lack of finesse', flaws 'intolerable in a Secretary-General.'"" If any of that is even somewhat accurate, and in conjunction with the letter you referenced, I would argue that if Stalin did not murder Lenin or have him murdered it is only because he could not.

He did help delay the telegram to Trotsky after Lenin's death and sped up the funeral, so that Trotsky would be conspicuous by his absence, but Stalin had help from Kamenev and Zinoviev in that, and neither of them would have helped in murdering Lenin.

Perhaps I am being unduly suspicious again. Wikipedia also attributes the following statement on Lenin to Churchill:

"[Russias] worst misfortune was his birth... their next worst his death."

In Stalins case, just the opposite was true, though, once again, motive is not means or opportunity, much less proof.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Is communism the true economy of democracies? MrFarstrider - 10/10/2011 01:35:24 AM 775 Views
Sorry, not following this..... trzaska2000 - 10/10/2011 03:33:11 AM 596 Views
Re: Sorry, not following this..... MrFarstrider - 10/10/2011 03:54:45 AM 510 Views
Um, a LOT of places have mixed "free" market and state rule. Joel - 10/10/2011 05:43:49 AM 619 Views
WTF? Canada, Western Europe, and Japan are democracies, not state-rule like China - *NM* trzaska2000 - 10/10/2011 05:53:17 PM 227 Views
Think he means we all have public sector enterprise. Stephen - 10/10/2011 06:24:10 PM 447 Views
Yeah, I thought it was clear as well. Tom - 10/10/2011 06:32:02 PM 484 Views
Yeah, Stephen pretty much covered it. Joel - 11/10/2011 06:10:38 AM 523 Views
They are not similar. MightyYT - 10/10/2011 04:01:59 AM 468 Views
Re: They are not similar. MrFarstrider - 10/10/2011 04:47:26 AM 546 Views
That's why Lenin came up with the soviets, though that was pretty naïve, too. Joel - 10/10/2011 05:54:37 AM 417 Views
Lenin died in 1924. The Civil War was over in 1920. He died after several strokes. *NM* Tom - 10/10/2011 05:30:58 PM 197 Views
Sorry, did not realize he survived it that long. Joel - 11/10/2011 04:21:05 AM 524 Views
There is no evidence that Lenin was poisoned. Tom - 11/10/2011 04:50:28 AM 451 Views
That is hardly the only way to kill; in Lenins condition, neglect would have sufficed. Joel - 11/10/2011 06:28:31 AM 483 Views
Let's see...you're asking if property theft by the state is compatible with freedom? No. Tom - 10/10/2011 04:58:14 AM 463 Views
I'm curious how you distinguish "full socialism" from "full communism." Joel - 10/10/2011 05:32:53 AM 434 Views
You obviously don't understand the definitions of socialism and communism. Tom - 10/10/2011 02:41:39 PM 517 Views
OK, I see what you mean now, thanks. Joel - 11/10/2011 04:29:35 AM 450 Views
In theory, but economics is not politics, making social contracts a bit more dubious. Joel - 10/10/2011 05:18:39 AM 600 Views
No, but socialism is. Dannymac - 10/10/2011 06:09:55 AM 521 Views
No. A thousand times no. Vodalus - 10/10/2011 07:46:22 AM 604 Views
Guess I count myself among those fools, though I pretty much agree with Danny. Joel - 10/10/2011 10:52:11 AM 511 Views
I don't usually answer your scattershot rants, Joel, but you have overextended yourself. Tom - 10/10/2011 05:28:07 PM 549 Views
That still looks like Stalin and Mao rationalizing away the impossibility of their stated goals. Joel - 11/10/2011 05:59:06 AM 563 Views
No time to today, but you're very wrong. Tom - 11/10/2011 02:32:38 PM 445 Views
OK. Joel - 11/10/2011 03:08:17 PM 433 Views
You really should read more about the Soviet Union. Tom - 11/10/2011 03:19:32 PM 513 Views
Not sure it would change my perceptions. Joel - 11/10/2011 03:41:08 PM 419 Views
In a single word: No. A Deathwatch Guard - 11/10/2011 08:26:36 AM 439 Views
Nope, because free-market democracy totally permits communism already Isaac - 12/10/2011 12:50:36 AM 507 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes