«Lenin's Testament Explains the Ambiguity of the Struggle for Power», Historian Canfora Presents the Essay in Bari

"Testament" is an improper journalistic expression. What Lenin, tired and ill, wrote in installments is actually a letter intended for the Congress of the PCUS and to be made public only after his death in which, all things considered, all his possible successors were rejected. Starting with the two eternal rivals, the "crude" Stalin and the "non-Bolshevik" Trotsky. A substantial non-choice - disclosed by the New York Times, but also by the Corriere della Sera, by the journalist Salvatore Aponte - which, however, is burdened by the weight of possible posthumous manipulations. A mystery in a rather jagged story that the historian Luciano Canfora retraces in the very recent volume Lenin's testament. Story of an unsent letter (Fuori Scena, pp. 272, euro 18.50), which will be presented this afternoon at the Feltrinelli bookshop in Bari (at 6 pm) in a dialogue between the author and the journalist Fulvio Colucci.

Professor, let's start from the end. What does the story of Lenin's testamentary letter tell us about the problem of succession to power?

«It pushes us to ask ourselves whether at the top of a modern political movement it makes sense for succession to be decided by a very few».

And does it make sense?

"My answer is an observation: it always happens like this everywhere. Nancy Pelosi decided that Biden could not be a candidate for the US presidential elections last November and the incumbent president stepped aside. Napolitano also dismissed Berlusconi in a few hours, proceeding with the lightning-fast nomination of Monti: from private citizen to senator for life to prime minister."

What's the moral?

«Roberto Michels explains it to us in the book Sociology of the Political Party of 1912, describing the character of the oligarchic or aristocratic elite of any political formation. It is not something for cruel Bolsheviks, it is the iron law of oligarchies».

It must also be said that leaders do not always have an "eye" when choosing...

"The only truly brilliant person in the operation of choosing a successor was Julius Caesar. The case of Octavian is an extraordinary feat. A genius who identifies another genius."

And Caesar aside?

«A disaster starting with Stalin who identified Malenkov, eliminated shortly after. But we could say the same about Cavour and D'Azeglio, Eisenhower and the "shirt maker" Truman, De Gaulle and the banker Pompidou. Even De Gasperi had problems of this kind. The Piedmontese Pella came out. He had never thought of Fanfani, however».

And now we come to Lenin's will. Was it manipulated?

«The author struggled to work intellectually and was surrounded by a secretariat, although necessary, which acted under the supervision of the party secretary, that is, Stalin, who had the task of supervising Lenin's health and the behavior of the secretaries, one of whom was his wife».

The suspicion arises but is there evidence?

«The evidence has recently emerged thanks to a Russian scholar, Buranov, who found a fragment of the autograph and was able to compare it with the printed text, thus noting some differences».

What is the critical point?

«Lenin liquidates all the heirs. But the point remains Trotsky's "non-Bolshevism" in the ambiguity of an expression that can underline the need to continue to reproach him or, on the contrary, the invitation to stop doing so».

Stalin certainly used the letter well, his rival a little less so.

«The accusations of crudeness were turned by Stalin to his own advantage: “It is true, I am brutal with the enemies of the people”. On the other hand, Trotsky, endowed with an overflowing ego, continued to maintain that Lenin had designated him successor when the letter actually contained other accusations, in addition to the alleged non-Bolshevism: a too bureaucratic view of the problems and excessive self-confidence».

The truth is that nothing emerges clearly. In the end, professor, Lenin could have done better, or not?

"Certainly, to the point of deciding not to forward it and to make it known only after his death. The doubts about the quality and effectiveness of that text tormented him until the end."