As other comrades have already said, Stalin's work is simple. Reading Lenin, Marx, Engels, ect. is complicated and legnthy. Stalin's writings were mostly translating what the intelectuals wrote into the venacular. That being said, Stalin didn't have a major intelectual contribution (i.e. the vanguard party, the role of unions, ect.) like Lenin or Marx. I'm suprised that his works are more circulated in communists circles because of their readability.
"Don't hate on me bro" - Loz
Stalin didn't have the breadth of education or the speculative mind that Marx and Lenin possessed, but he had a knack for appropriating the most important points of the matter at hand and summarizing it in simple terms without losing any of the essence. Stalin never claimed to be anything but the preserver and continuator of Lenin's legacy. I see Stalin as more the faithful Peter in this story, whereas Trotsky was more the finicky, argumentative Paul figure.
That's an interesting analogy there, but I never found Trotsky obtuse or unnecessarily complicated. There is a literary descriptive quality in his work which comes across even in translations, but he's not hard to understand from my readings. Stalin can speak plainly, but it's interesting that he didn't let his love of poetry and literature come across in much of his revolutionary writings.
I don't find that kind of thing detracts from the work - it can make reading dry theoretical works a little more pleasurable.
If you label Stalin as uneducated criminal then you stand in solidarity with low-grade Russian liberals. Why are low-grade? Because they are low-grade anti-communist propagandists. Their target audience is people who are poorly versed in history. That's about as propagandists in the U.S. who call Guevara a murderer and a terrorist.
But I think that it's not so easy to find reliable materials on Stalin in English. Several historical articles to research on this topic were published in Russian. None of these historians who wrote these articles that I read can be considered pro-Stalinist. The articles even present negative evaluations such as one of them was written from the Orthodox perspective (Stalin promoted materialism and Marxism when he was in seminary but I have noticed that some comrades here even call him a "priest"). But all historians agree that he was well educated and he had high intellectual ability. It should be noted that he was well educated at the expense of self.
So I'm with Comrade proletarian there. Also I might add that Stalin was well versed in the national question and that his contribution (he was appointed to the post of Narkomnats - People's Commissar of Nationalities). Note that Guevara was a Stalinist and highly valued Stalin's works. Not to mention that Stalin's works were highly valued by Lenin.
Maybe you're confusing what other people have written about Stalin and Trotsky with what I am saying about them - I think they were both intelligent and well educated individuals.
Calling Stalin some third-rate ignoramus is indicative of ignorance itself.
You really need to read the actual works of both men to form proper evaluations of their contributions,.
Alternative Display:Mobile view