It stands to reason that 1934 was a crucial year, and with Lenin's retirement in a state of countdown, the struggle between the various princes should become more and more intense. But the fact is the opposite, after entering 1934, the Soviet political arena fell into a strange calm, Trotsky, who had always liked to make trouble, was unprecedentedly calm, and he seemed to be completely unconcerned about who would succeed Lenin after his retirement.

Trotsky did not make any move, but Stalin wanted to make some movement, and at the beginning of the year he continued to make high-pitched statements on the question of collective farms, constantly accusing the local cadres of not fully implementing the spirit of the Central Committee, and demanding that the vast majority of peasant households in the Soviet Union be required to join the collective farms within the current year.

Speaking from the heart, it was Trotsky who had been an active advocate of agricultural collectivization, and he was the most zealous on this issue, but why did Stalin, who had always been "concerned" about agriculture and "sympathetic" for the peasants, suddenly become in agreement with Trotsky on this issue?

The reason is simple: there were contradictions between Stalin and Bukharin, and the cooperation between the two sides tended to be divided. The main reason for this split was the rapid industrialization that was taking place in the Soviet Union.

As I said before, industrialization requires foreign exchange, and foreign exchange cannot fall from the sky, and the main way for the Soviet Union to obtain foreign exchange was to export agricultural products, and to put it bluntly, the state came forward to exploit the peasants (this is a fact, and it is also the pain of backward countries to embark on industrialization and modernization, and basically no one can avoid it).

The most important reason why Stalin and Bukharin were able to walk together before was against Trotsky. And with Lenin's attitude gradually became apparent. As Lenin also supported the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union. At this time, it was not good for Stalin to still stand in a trench with Bukharin, who did not know the current affairs.

In fact, from the beginning of industrialization, Lenin constantly beat Bukharin to keep him in line with the Central Committee, instead of constantly speaking for the proponents of the small peasant economy. In Lenin's view, reducing the burden on the peasants and reducing industrial input would certainly make the peasants less opposed, but in the long run it would be detrimental to the state-building of the Soviet Union.

on the international market. The Soviet Union could not always be a "big country" exporting primary products and agricultural products, and could not be sheared by the developed countries forever, right? And the only way to change this situation is industrialization, only after the completion of industrialization, the Soviet Union will not be exploited, and only after the completion of industrialization, the Soviet Union can defend the fire and fruits of the revolution.

Under these circumstances, Bukharin naturally could not get much favor from Lenin, and even the tutor felt that he was too ignorant of current affairs. Especially into the second half of 1933, on the question of collective farms. Bukharin fiercely contradicted the Central Committee and never cooperated with the premise. The mentor had to start thinking about whether Bukharin, an economic theorist, was really suited to remain in the top leadership.

Especially in the second half of 1933, after the outbreak of large-scale massacres of livestock by peasants in Ukraine because they refused to join the collective farms, Bukharin began to strongly criticize the policy of collectivization of agriculture, and completely stood in opposition to the center, and neither Lenin nor Trotsky could hardly tolerate Bukharin.

As a politically sensitive man, Stalin naturally observed Lenin's impatience with Bukharin, and he immediately realized that if he continued to maintain an alliance with Bukharin, the final result would probably be led by this old friend. Aware of this danger, it is normal for a politician to take decisive action to draw a line with Bukharin.

It has to be said that steel is still very good at seeing the wind and steering the rudder, and his approach was strongly condemned by Bukharin, who wrote in his diary: "...... I had always thought that Stalin was as strong as his name, that he was a man of genuine sympathy for the peasant brothers, but this time I understood that he had always been just taking advantage of the peasant brothers. When the peasant brother loses its usefulness, he will discard it mercilessly......"

If Li Xiaofeng had seen Bukharin's diary at that time, he would have laughed and laughed at Bukharin's naivety. The difference between steel and Bukharin: one is a political theorist, the other is just a political theorist. What is 政zhì家? It is necessary to judge the situation and see the wind to make the rudder, those who commit crimes against the wind are fools, if they can't even save their own lives, what else can they talk about to realize the political ideal? Confucius said this point very thoroughly: a gentleman does not stand under a dangerous wall.

And it is clear that Bukharin is now at the wall, no, he is at the epicenter, and soon an earthquake will tear him to pieces. Going back to the collectivization of agriculture, is this policy good or bad?

Judging from the current situation of agriculture in the Soviet Union from 1930 to 1932, this policy was absolutely problematic, not only did it not achieve the goal of liberating agricultural productivity, but on the contrary, it plunged Soviet agriculture into a quagmire, and this quagmire never came out of the Soviet Union as soon as it stepped into it.

So Bukharin is right when he says that the collectivization of agriculture is a very bad thing that should be resolutely criticized and resisted?

Not really. Why did Stalin carry out the collectivization of agriculture, and why did Trotsky before him do so? Stalin's theoretical level is okay, Trotsky's theoretical level is very high, is Trotsky wrong?

Let's put it this way, the starting point of the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union was good, and its fundamental purpose was to change the problems of extensive, backward, and overly scattered and inefficient agricultural production in the Soviet Union. It should be said that the purpose was good, but the means of implementation and the lack of thorough consideration of the situation of the Soviet Union, coupled with the unscrupulous bureaucracy, led to a tragic result.

From the point of view of national conditions, the Soviet Union was actually very close to the Celestial Empire, and when it won the victory of the revolution, it was both poor and white, both were backward agricultural countries, and the efficiency of agricultural production was low, and it was simply a small peasant economic country.

Later, the Celestial Empire also learned from Big Brother to engage in communization, but the result was also miserable, and the problems encountered by the Celestial Empire were actually similar to those of Big Brother. It discouraged the peasants. Eat a big pot of rice and engage in absolute egalitarianism. There was no room for the peasants to stretch or contract. Naturally, neither collectivization nor communalization can be accomplished.

The difference, however, was that the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union met with considerable resistance from the outset, and most of the peasants opposed joining the collective farms, even directly destroying farm implements, slaughtering livestock, and destroying grain stocks. However, the Celestial Empire's initial cooperative groups and primary cooperatives were actually successful.

Why was there so much resistance to collectivization in the Soviet Union? Then we have to start with the civil war, didn't the civil war engage in wartime communism? Isn't there a surplus grain collection system? The damage to agricultural production was unprecedented, and when it became too much to continue, Lenin used the NEP to save the day, loosening the rope around the peasantry's neck.

Later, when evaluating the New Economic Policy. Most books say how good this policy is and how many problems it solves. But why was this policy finally outlawed? If this policy is really that good, why not use it forever?

Most people say that Stalin went against Lenin's ideas, deviated from Lenin's line, and did bad things in pursuit of high-speed industrialization. Is this answer accurate? The abolition of the NEP was indeed due to rapid industrialization, and it was indeed the main reason, but the indirect reason was that the NEP could not be carried out at that time.

Why can't it be done? The reason is very simple, the core of the new economic policy is to allow the free circulation and trading of commodities, to put it bluntly, a low-end market economy. The market economy is regulated and controlled by the market itself, and the dominance of the state is reduced.

And what was the state of Soviet agriculture at that time? The peasants were frightened enough by the previous system of collecting surplus grain and famine. Most of the food produced is stored, which means that most of the food is not turned into commodities and circulated on the market.

There is no grain in the market. The labor of both the worker and the small craftsman cannot be fed. Even if the Soviet Union repeatedly ordered the peasants to sell grain with the will of the state, the frightened peasants would not listen to them. Commodities can't be circulated, so there is a Mao market economy, and everyone can't afford not to eat, right?

Feeling the small-scale peasant mentality of the peasants, and also feeling the backwardness of Russia, and even more worried about a new round of imperialist intervention in the future, the solution that Trotsky or Stalin could come up with was the collectivization and rapid industrialization of agriculture.

The collectivization of agriculture in Tongguò broke the shackles of the small-scale peasant economy, increased production efficiency, and allowed the state to control the uncooperative peasants. Producing more food, on the one hand, can meet the needs of society, on the other hand, it can also exchange foreign exchange for industrialization, how do you look at this is a good thing in one fell swoop, why not do it?

I have to say that war communism was really a double-edged sword, and it did help the Bolsheviks open up the situation under extremely difficult conditions, but at the same time, this account must be paid in the future, but the price of repaying this account is too high.

Later, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainians had a stomach for this agricultural collectivization and Holodomor, believing that the Soviet government was deliberately committing genocide, objectively saying that Ukraine was indeed miserable, but the purposeful and selective genocide like the Nazis was somewhat sensational.

It should be said that the Soviet government, which was very bureaucratic at that time, probably really had the intention of teaching the disobedient mud legs a good lesson, and a little bit wanted to show them some color, so that they could become honest and obedient to join the collective farms. After all, it was not only the Ukrainians who starved to death in the Great Famine in those years, but the entire Soviet Union was miserable, but the agricultural population of Ukraine, where the agricultural economy accounted for the majority, was more and suffered the most.

Stalin's change of flag dealt a heavy blow to Bukharin, and from the spring of 1934, a round of criticism against Bukharin, which broke out suddenly, and after a period of hard support, Bukharin's downfall was abrupt. In February, he was dismissed from his posts as head of the Central Propaganda Department and chairman of the Central Supervisory Commission at the just-concluded plenary session of the Central Committee, and Bukharin, with the exception of an empty alternate member of the Politburo, became an idler.

At the same time, several other rising political stars came to the fore, and Kuibyshev, with his radical agricultural and industrial policies, won the admiration of Lenin and Trotsky, and became chairman of the Central Supervisory Commission and chairman of the Supreme Council of National Economy.

Another leap to the top was Kirov, who was co-opted as a member of the Central Committee at this plenary session. And became the secretary of the Leningrad Region Party Committee. Truth be told, this rise seems incredible to many. Because Kirov really didn't make eye-catching feats and careers before. It was a miracle that he was able to run the Leningrad region.

But there has never been a miracle in politics, and it is clear that Kirov was able to ascend to the throne because of Stalin. Because Stalin's timely turn dealt a heavy blow to Bukharin, making it easier for the Central Committee to take down this unsociable thorn, and naturally both Lenin and Trotsky had to symbolically give Stalin a little sweetness, which can be regarded as praise!

Among Stalin's henchmen, Shao Wumian and Ordzhonikidze were both veterans. has long been on the throne, and Kirov, Mikoyan, and Zhdanov's qualifications and age are indeed a bit problematic, especially Mikoyan and Zhdanov, these two big brains are too young (one was born in 1895, the other was born in 1896) and there were no blind dogs as a certain immortal in the previous civil war, so naturally they can only wait.

And in Stalin's opinion, Kirov and Kaganovich are more stupid, easy to control, and it is more appropriate for them to take the position first.

Kirov picked up a basket and was smug about it, but his expression seemed ironic to Li Xiaofeng. If history is not wrong, the secretary of the Leningrad regional party committee of the new Klondon region will not have a few months to live. On December 1, 1934, Nikolaev would end his life with a revolver. And the assassination of this person in history also means the beginning of a bloody era.

Li Xiaofeng is now thinking about whether to save this idiot, to be honest, he is happy to see Kirov killed, as a hardcore follower of steel, although this thing is relatively stupid in politics, but it is very stubborn and troublesome, and he likes to find fault with him.

However, Li Xiaofeng has to consider the political influence, Lenin will retire in January next year, and if Kirov is killed in December, the impact will be very bad, maybe Stalin will seize the opportunity to make waves, at this time it seems that a smooth transition is the best policy?

"Andrei, what are you thinking, so distracted?"

Looking at Sverdlov, who was smiling and groaning, Li Xiaofeng felt strange for no reason, it stands to reason that after the plenary session of the Central Committee, Trotsky took over. This was really not a good result for Xiao Si and Stalin, and who knows what Trotsky would have been like when he came to power? It's hard to say what the future holds.

In this case, Xiao Si can still laugh, in addition to admiring his big heart, Li Xiaofeng can't help but guess, could it be that the mentor left Xiao Si some tips to ensure that Xiao Si can succeed smoothly in the future?

However, Li Xiaofeng was watched by everyone at this moment, and Li Xiaofeng could not open his mouth to ask questions, so he could only say haha: "I have been thinking about the issue of security recently, and as we have been communicating more and more closely with imperialist countries in recent years, I am afraid that quite a lot of foreign spies have already mixed into the country, and it is very likely that we have already won over a group of former counter-revolutionaries and comrades with weak will, and I am considering whether to strengthen this work." ”

Li Xiaofeng's answer surprised Xiao Si, in fact, he just asked casually, because he was not particularly sure about the future, because Lenin revealed very little, just very vaguely told him that the next government will be a more balanced and binding government.

The balance of power was more balanced, and it was clear that Lenin would not let Trotsky's family dominate, and that he and Stalin would probably gain more power than they did now, and that they would firmly restrain Trotsky's power and prevent him from coming.

However, Xiao Si does not know which aspect of power he will receive, only the government or the military? To tell the truth, Xiao Si wants to strengthen power in both aspects, if he doesn't control the government, he can't govern, and if he doesn't control the military power, he can't sit steadily, and he can't be lame in either aspect!

Of course, Xiao Si also knows very well that it is impossible to have both fish and bear's paws, and he and Stalin are probably one focusing on military affairs and the other focusing on government affairs. Judging by the current situation, he is more likely to be the deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars next year, in Trotsky's current position, and Stalin is likely to become chairman of the Military Council. In this way, the balance of power was balanced, and neither Trotsky nor he nor Stalin could leave the other two men alone.

Therefore, Xiao Si came to joke with Li Xiaofeng at this time, in fact, there is another meaning, it is likely that he will not be able to enter the Military Commission, so it is particularly important for him, a person who has a greater say in the Military Commission, whether someone can balance the expansion of the Stalin system in the Military Commission, it really depends on him.

To put it bluntly, Xiao Si wants to further bring the relationship between him and Li Xiaofeng, before he and someone were more like like-minded comrades, and now he wants the two sides to be like-minded brothers. In other words, this greeting is actually just a show of affection.

At this time, someone is talking about his own work seriously, which makes Xiao Si a little strange, is someone ready to sell at a price? Otherwise, why make it so formulaic? Why should their relationship be so formulaic?

If Li Xiaofeng knew Xiao Si's true thoughts, this thing would definitely slap his mouth, but fortunately, he soon found that Xiao Si's expression was not quite right, although he didn't understand what the specific reason was, but he knew that it was not like a good thing and had to be remedied.

"Comrade Yakov, I would like to talk to you about this security issue in detail, do you have time?" (To be continued......)

PS: Bow and thank you for the second kill Comrade Potato and Comrade Juventus!