Talk:Nikolai Bukharin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A little mistake about a letter of Romain Rolland[edit]

I am a french reader of this article on Bukharin and I have seen a misunderstanding in a quotation of a book of Edvard Radzinsky (Stalin, p. 384). Romain Rolland had writen only one letter to Stalin about Bukharin. It was soon after the arrest of NB, on 18 march 1937. The two sentences quoted are in this letter. You can find the letters to Stalin writen by R. Rolland (about others peoples)in the reviw of the Fondation Gabriel Péri, n°3/4, 2006, p. 273. You can see also the french article on Boukharine (based on the english article, but expanded) where the cotation is corrected. My english, as you can see, is not strong enough to suggest a change in the text. I hope that somebody can do the job.

If it is necessary, I shall try (addition in january 2011)--Maurice Andreu (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Maurice Andreu--Maurice Andreu (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


All the other criticisms are just picking fleas off a rabid dog until this article gets a listing of the guy's writings. That is, after all, what he's famous for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Old talk[edit]

Shouldnt we talk about his wife Anna Larina for a small bit?

This page has no emotional content, why are you so boring? Who what where?

Bukarin's Political Views

Far more credit should be given to Bukharin for the development of Marxist theories of imperialism; his book, Imperialism and World Economy, was a major major source when Lenin's wrote his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism just a year later, and thus Bukharin deserves far more credit for his place in the development of Classic Marxist theories of imperialist.



I'm sure this article could be expanded, but is it in any more need of expansion than 90% of articles? Do we really need an expand tag here? -- Danny Yee 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this article is to be expanded, then perhaps there should be a short discussion of his later book Philosophical Arabesques, which he wrote in prison.--JimFarm 14:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm....i just opened this page and theres a giant picture of a penis.........?

this link and the link posted above show different death dates. Please correct.

Is there a citation for the note that Bukharin supposedly wrote Stalin using his pseudonym "Koba"? I've never heard of this and neither has my professor of Russian History. -- 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, your Russian History professor is a fool; it is widely known that Bukharin addressed Stalin directly during his trial (though Stalin was not present) and addressed him as 'Koba' in addition to their documented correspondence in which he did the same. Cohen's book, among others, documents this and cites primary sources. -- Tcallahan 23:31 5 November 2009 (UTC-5)

Hardly a mention of Trotsky here.

Also I believe that the main character in Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon (one of the major anti Communist works by a Western intellectual along with Animal Farm by George Orwell)is based upon Bukharin. (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I once read in conservative magazine "National Review" that Arthur Koestler's Darkness At Noon was partially based on the downfall of Bukharin at the hands of Stalin, does anyone if there is any truth to that?

Yes, Koestler's Darkness at Noon is based on the trial of Bukharin. -- Tcallahan 23:31 5 November 2009 (UTC-5)

Confusing part. Need rewriting.[edit]

"Two days later, Bukharin was shot."

OK, two days after what? That throws the entire point into disarray and confuses the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlightlyInsane (talkcontribs) 13:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The "execution" part never even mentions an execution. It just mentions that he was politically unpopular. Polital unpopularity is vastly different than execution in most political systems. Are we trying to hide that Stalin killed people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing this's not even sourced anywhere Seektrue (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who were the Kulaks??[edit]

this article appears to written by a communist. There were no Kulaks. ie rich peasant farmers. Plus Bukharin appears to have sprung out under a rock. Was he jewish descent ? orthodox ,we don't know!! Poorly written and poorly executed typical crappy pedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have an idea how to improve the article, by all means contribute. Otherwise it just sounds like you are complaining about something you don't agree with --MercZ (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Some peasants were richer than others. Some owned more land than they could work and employed others. Some owned no land and worked for these. Kulak was a commonly used term for the former, dating from before 1917. Sure the term was misused as a smear for anyone the USSR didn't like to justify their oppression (much like the word 'communist' in the US), and it was fairly general to start with, but that doesn't make it meaningless. I suggest the NPOV dispute tag be removed.

I think you're way off base with your equivocation of the Bolshevik use of the term kulak with the US use of the word communist (even during the Red Scare). Being labeled a communist in the US was not a death sentence; the same can't be said for being branded a kulak in the USSR. The term kulak originally meant any middle or upper-middle class peasant who could afford to pay others for labor on his land. Lenin's official Bolshevik doctrine turned kulak into a catch-all term for "rich peasants", i.e- anybody who presented even the appearance of undo comfort or material superiority over anybody else. The smallest sign could and did result in condemnation and "liquidation". At one point Lenin actually advised extending the term to anybody who, upon inspection, had evidence of meat in his stew pot or more than one pair of boots. During the height of the Great Purge in the countryside, kulak lost even this semblance of meaning and became another genericized blanket charge, requiring no evidence at all (like wrecking) and used for no other purpose than to facilitate rapid rubber-stamp convictions in order to justify the conviction quotas demanded by Stalin and Yezhov. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting potential source[edit]

Just listened to a podcast of an interview with the author of a new book on Bukarhin by a scholar who spent some ten years in the Soviet archives. Based on the podcast, the (166 page) book sounds fascinating. The book is Politics, Murder, and Love in Stalin's Kremlin: The Story of Nikolai Bukharin and Anna Larina by Paul R. Gregory. The podcast totally humanized Bukharin for me, and gave me a fascinating glimpse into that 1920s-1930s period of Soviet life amongst the Bolshevik/Communist elite. There were some interesting revelations from the archives that don't appear to have been published elsewhere so the book may be a source for some important items that are not in the article today. I should note that the podcast link has a pretty serious academic-ish written summary of the interview that would point to a few of insights that might be gained. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This article requests a source for the Genghis Khan characterization. I found this at Wikiquote: Nikolai Bukharin, At a Secret Meeting (July 1928) , as quoted in Communist Russia Under Lenin and Stalin (2002) by Corin & Fiehn, p. 146 I'm not familiar with the book templates, so I haven't supplied it. Activist (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Bukharin and Lenin on imperialism[edit]

Bukharin's Imperialism and World Economy is said to have influenced Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and Lenin is said to have "freely borrowed from it." But Lenin's book was published in 1916, Bukharin's in 1918. This is confusing and needs to be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The book of Bukharin was writen in Switzerland in 1916, Lenin wrote a preface to this book in the same year. The type scripts of these two texts were lost in 1917, when Lenin and Bukharin came back in Russia. Lenin's book, writen after, was published first. The preface of Bukharin's book is found only in 1927 and published in the Pravda. --Maurice Andreu (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about the three wifes of N. I. Bukharin[edit]

Somebody believed that Bukharin met his third wife (Anna Larina)when he was aged of twenty years. Of course it is a mistake : Anna Larina is born in 1914 and Bukharin in 1888. It is impossible to meet a girl aged of (- 6) years...--Maurice Andreu (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Revisionism or unwitting fabrication?[edit]

Browsing this article in relation to common understandings about the alternative to Stalinism that Bukharin appeared to represent until his murder, I can't help being struck by the degree to which this article has been debased by supposition, unsubstantiated assertions, and outright falsehoods. Even some of the dates are questionable.

One must suppose that this is either a deliberate historical revisionism, or the article was someone's last minute high school history project. In any case, it is appalling that this nonsense is presented to the world as creditable information on Bukharin.

It seems likely that the neckbeard Wikipedia fraternity of paper-shufflers has so alienated creditable historians that such a resource is no longer available to the project. Nor am I inclined to clean up this doggerel gratis while the Wikipedia elders cry poor at the same time as enjoying an endless round of international junkets.

However, any of you who do actually like to work for nothing, and who think Wikipedia ought to be accurate, might do worse than getting hold of some creditable histories of the Soviet Union to at least straighten out the dates, if not also to remove the ridiculous conjecture.

Good night and good luck. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

General Secretary of ECCI[edit]

Hi, guys.

It appears that between the falling of Grigory Zinoviev in 1926 and the appointment of Georgi Dimitrov in 1934 the Ecsecutive Committee of Comintern did not have a formal head. Instead a number of political secretaries were formally in charge on rotational basis. See e.g. [1] or [2]. Bukharin might be in charge of the Comintern but he was not formally its general secretary (at least I cannot find sources for it). Thus, I am reverting the infobox change until the sources are provides Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Bukharin's appointment of the post of General Secretary of ECCI is clearly mentioned in Stephen Cohen's "Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution" , in the part about duumvirate. So I recommend adding back. --Aronlee90 (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I have inserted the reference Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


In the box on the right, only one wife is mentioned. In the text, Lukina is also mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


The Execution section doesn't actually contain anything about the execution. All it has is people's responses to it. Surely it should feature a few facts of the actual execution - where it took place, who participated, the method, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper (talkcontribs) 13:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)