Stalin did not betray Lenin's ideals

I thank you for your counterarguments.However, I must still say that I am not any less convinced that Stalin has 'abberated' the Leninist values. Leninist values, at least in the early days of Bolshevik rule, is vague but held with almost divine devotion within the party. Even references to Lenin's words was enough to make one's argument legitimate. In fact, the person who used references to 'Great Lenin' the most in legitimising his arguments, and ultimately seize control was of course, Stalin. Furthermore, Leninism is defined as having: -vanguard political party-dictatorship of the proletariatAlso, Lenin is not as peaceful as many thought he is. According to Marxist-Leninist theory, the workers must rise up in a violent revolution against the bourgeois. The vanguard party is responsible for preparing the masses for the ultimate struggle, and the Social-Democrats/Bolsheviks, although officially renounced violence, still practices terrorism, which was amplified after the revolution in the form of the Red Terror. Here is an extract from Lenin's What Is To Be Done? : 'As soon as our available forces permit, we must without fail devote the most serious attention to propaganda and agitation among soldiers and officers, and to the creation of “military organisations” affiliated to our Party...' (ref: V.I. Lenin, What is to be Done? , IV The Primitiveness of the Economists and Organisation of Revolutionaries)Furthermore, a very 'Russian' Civil War actually spilled to Poland- Lenin and Trotsky wanted to spread their Revolution to the rest of Europe. In fact, although Russia was a backward agrarian country, the socialist Revolution still took place, because Lenin believe that Russia was 'the weakest link', where its fall to socialism will set off a chain of revolutions abroad. But returning to Poland, although the Polish sought to destroy the new revolutionary Russia by allying with the nationalist Ukrainians and attacked Russia, the Bolsheviks not only pushed them back but actually became the aggressor and attacked Poland.The extract from Encyclopaedia Britannica described how the Russians turned from 'self-defence' to 'spreading revolution': '...Soviet forces advanced through Poland to the outskirts of Warsaw (early August). The western European powers, fearing that the Russians might succeed in establishing a Soviet government in Poland and perhaps proceed to Germany, sent a military mission.'Source: http://www.britannica.com...;Now Stalin's invasion of Lithuania, Lativia, Finland, Estonia and Poland in the late 1930s and the 1940s were also a mixture of 'liberation' and 'self defense' against Nazi Germany, (but of course also part of the agreement terms in the Nazi-Soviet pact). Furthermore, I might add that the Korean war was not started by Stalin (or Mao for that matter). Kim Il Sung of North Korea was always 'his own man'. Kim Il Sung desperately wanted to reunite Korea under his rule, but Stalin was reluctant to give assistance at first because he fears US reprisals. Kim Il Sung launched the invasion himself on 25th June, 1950. According to most modern academic works on North Korea, from Nuclear Showdown by Gordon Chang to The Cleanest Race by B.R.Myers, the cause of the Korean war was Kim's own ambition, not Stalin's orders.Returning to the topic of Lenin and Stalin, I must emphasise that War Communism, which many early Communists viewed as genuine a socialist practice, was very similar to Stalin's Five Year Plans (Pyatletka). Economically Lenin and indeed Trotsky, both received the idea of the centrally planned economy from a Marxist Russian economist by the name of Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, who argued that private enterprise in the countryside should be abolished in the countryside so that the surplus generated by the peasants could be used by the planning authorities so that the USSR can industrialise (H.J.Chang, 23 Things They Didn't Tell You About Capitalism). It is truly ironic how his plan was appropriated by Stalin, then he was executed in 1937, and that he fiercely opposed the NEP as 'regression to capitalism'. But there are a few things to consider- Gosplan, and indeed War Communism and the whole Marxist-Leninist economic system were created under Lenin's orders, and that except for the second one (though under a different name), the other 'visions' of Lenin, from the top-down Gosplan economy to the 'Prolekult' which he has created were continued and glorified under the Stalinist regime. Again, to reiterate, the practice of War Communism on Lenin's orders created the same genus of Stalinist planning, which was 'genuine' socialist practice of central planning to fulfill needs. Some argue that Lenin implemented the NEP, but in Lenin's own words, who was in fact reluctant to 'regress to capitalism', said 'two steps forward, one step backward.' Lenin's ultimate goal was to implement the planned economy, although he admitted that the peasants cannot be converted overnight but 'over generations but not centuries'.Source: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...;One could thererfore argue that Stalin did indeed achieve Lenin's long term goal as well as to retain features of the Leninist state e.g. the police state, by introducing centralised control of the economy. Moreover, Lenin's goals may not have fully materialised. Lenin's promise of 'peace, land and bread' were ultimately partial fulfilled by Stalin in the most abominous ways, although Lenin's instruction of how to deliver the three needs were faithfully practiced by Stalin's Communist officials.Also, although Lenin does not view Stalin as a faithful revolutionary, Stalin indeed admired, followed and obeyed Lenin's Command. To quote Montefiore's Young Stalin again, Stalin was an important figure within the party- although Lenin officially condemns Stalin's brutal crimes, in secret Lenin knows that he needs Stalin for funding, organisation, keep company etc. The Testament of 1922 was really Lenin's worry that Stalin had concentrated too much power (not whether Stalin was a traitor to the party) in his hands, though by no means did Lenin have no responsibility in this, who in fact appointed Stalin to become the General Secretary, People's Commissar of Nationalities, Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate etc. (source: Michael Lynch, Stalin's Russia, 1924 1953 fourth edition, Hodder Education, p15). Lenin viewed Stalin as a trustworthy man (though he did later regret it), and Stalin joined the Bolsheviks because he was enthused by Lenin's ideas and 'spirit' (S.S.Montefiore, Young Stalin). To add to that point, Stalin was a commited Communist who believe capitalism is doomed (Adam Ulam), just as Lenin would have.Source: http://www.archten.croydon.sch.uk...;Lastly, the Stalin cult was heavily depedent on the Lenin cult. Lenin's cult of personality created a fog of infallibility around Lenin- making his ideals 'invincible'. Stalin's personality cult would not have came about had he not paid respect to Lenin, thus Stalin's success heavily depended on his early loyalty to Lenin, his acknowledgement of Leninist credibility etc. whether or not he did so for his own interest is not important- whatever it was, the Stalinist system followed, and derived, from Lenin's cult of personality. Stalin can be seen as 'Lenin's stooge', but because Stalin was shown to be the natural successor to Lenin shows that he genuinely believed that he followed Lenin's footsteps, whether he was idealistic, delusional or selfish. A similar phenomenon can be seen in China, for although China's economic system differs dramatically to the Cultural Revolutionary days, the Chinese Communist Party cannot afford to reject Maoism (which is still an official ideology of the CCP), and they even actively practice Maoist ideas for control (though Stalin practiced Leninism for the sake of the revolution).I now await your argument...