In the years before Lenin’s death and the years that followed. Stalin was seen to be in the weaker position than the seven other opponents, this being because he was doubted in his role in the revolution and therefore as his role of the leader of the party. I believe that the personalities of the contenders was significant in the power struggle but it was also several main factors that played a role in allowing Stalin to become victorious these being his ruthless personality and devious strategies which allowed him to tactfully defeat the others he saw as opponents. He accomplished this by manipulating his powerbase and ultimately emerging as the leader of the party in the year 1929, which thereby ended the struggle for leadership.
It was the personalities of each contender which played a role in establishing their position and reputation within the party and ultimately would either strengthen or weaken their chances of becoming the leader. Trotsky was seen as a vital member of the party, having the strongest revolutionary record of all opponents, this being with his leadership of the red army which had allowed the communists the seize power during the October revolution helping to enhance his reputation and leader of savnorkarm. Although he was labelled a traitor when he sided with the Mensheviks in 1903 and was noted in Lenin’s testament as being ‘arrogant’ as well as managing to gain enemies within the party as he was seen to have more of a westernised ideas than the others in the party.
Similarly Kamenev also allowed his unfavorable personality to ruin his appeal within the party this being because he was seen as very cautious and opposed the April theses, the October revolution and the creation of all communist- government and done no noticeable part in the civil war. There was also the fact that Lenin didn’t write anything about him in his testament which shows more than if he did, showing he didn’t see him as a contender. Kamenev was disloyal in the months of 1917, and didn’t have a big party appeal with his little personal ambition and the fact he was an uninspiring public speaker. But he was deputy of the sopucome and led the government during Lenin’s illness.
Bukharin did have a reasonable backing behind him with the fact he was a leading light in the Moscow communist party during the year 1917 and was also the editor of the party’s most important magazine/ newspapers and had influence over the education. Lenin also spoke fondly of Bukharin in his testament referring to him as ‘golden boy’ of the communist party and the favorite within the party. Although his views weren’t ideologically sound and got no votes for the pullet beauro.
Zinoviev was seen to be not very involved in any revolutions and during the civil war stayed in luxury hotels as well as opposing the October war, although Lenin’s and Zinoviev’s friendship was evident as they went into hiding together in mid-1917, but in Lenin’s testament he stated that he thought of him as disloyal to the party and to go into other groups of politics. Zinoviev was seen as the least appealing within the group because although he was a good speaker with a crowd but he was vain and wrongly ambitious. Zinoviev was head of comingterm and for spreading Marxist views as well as being the head of Petrograd and Moscow branches of government, so he had the support over the largest cities.
Kirov was seen as the biggest threat to Stalin in during the congress of victors because he topped the poll rather than Stalin as Kirov received 1,225 votes compared to Stalin 927 votes. This also followed the fact that an old group of Bolsheviks approached Kirov following the vote and tried to persuade him to stand for general secretary, and although Kirov refused Stalin found out about the plan and for Stalin these events showed evidence that he had to purge the party because they could no longer be trusted. Because of this Stalin and the party lied about the votes to keep Stalin on top and in position as well as the fact he felt unable to trust anyone within the communist party anymore and therefor acted to remove those he saw as a potential threat. And although Stalin was now the unchallenged leader of soviet Russia he believed he still had many enemies and the recent history of Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Bukharin who all held leading positions in the party falling from power made him anxious because he felt he could suffer the same fate.
Whereas Stalin during and after the years of the October revolution was made the committee member who was carrying out order rather than taking the initiative. He refused to accept Trotsky’s during the civil war which his presence in 1921 secured him a position at the highest level of government. Lenin before the October revolution came to rely on Stalin’s administration ability and loyalty as prior to the illness Stalin always backed Lenin on controversial issues but than once Lenin was ill Stalin began to oppose him. In Lenin’s testament he expressed concern that Stalin ‘concentrated an enormous amount of power in his hand and did not always use it wisely’. He also demanded that the other senior members of the party think about a way of removing Stalin and finding someone more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades and less capricious to take his place. Stalin managed to stop the testament coming out by convening the central committee that it would be bad for them so they didn’t publish it to the public.
Stalin also had the power to advance the careers of those within the communist party machine and was prepared to appeal to the national pride of those he sort to lead and appeared to be the voice of calm moderation. He was responsible for the various branches of the party bureaucracy and for interpreting positions was considered mundane by senior which he could use to make himself leader. Stalin could also manipulate his position as head of soviet government to gain great loyalty from those who was responsible for ensuring that the government workers who wanted to keep their jobs. Stalin was seen as safer than the other opponents because they were more radical then him.
In conclusion it was of Stalin’s ruthless personality and devious tactics such as telling Trotsky the wrong date of Lenin’s funeral and having Bukharin set up meetings which he then pronounced as secret, which allowed him to tactfully defeat the others that he saw as opponents. He done this by manipulating his powerbase and ultimately emerging as the leader of the party in the year 1929. The personalities just added to the power struggle which ended when Stalin become leader of the party 1929.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Evaluate the role of individuals in bringing about the changing influence of the Russian Communist Party, 1905-1945. – Jacob Marshall-Grint…
- 680 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The personalities of each individual contender played a role in establishing their position and reputation within the Party, which ultimately would strengthen or weaken their chances of becoming leader. Trotsky was a passionate member of the party and had the strongest Revolutionary record amongst all of his opponents. His leadership of the Red Army allowed the communists to seize power in the October Revolution, enhancing his reputation, despite being labeled a traitor when he sided with the Mensheviks in 1903. However, he was noted as ‘arrogant’ in Lenin’s testament and managed to gain many enemies within the party as he felt there was no need to endear himself to his colleagues and he therefore displayed little respect towards them. This made him very unpopular and a tyrant to compromise with as he believed in debate as a way of solving issues and adopted other western ideas, tainting his image. Similarly, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov allowed their unfavorable personalities to ruin their appeal within the party and all were criticised in Lenin’s testament, further diminishing their chances of success. Stalin also…
- 1220 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Trotsky however was the complete opposite to Stalin. He was popular, an orator and a talented theorist who stirred loyalty in his troops. His radical ideas made him well-liked with the young and idealistic members of the communist party. Lenin in his testament identified Trotsky as a “the most able in the present communist committee” he also remarked on Trotsky’s “too far reaching self-confidence”…
- 1502 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
In 1922, when Vladimir Lenin died, someone needed to step up and the Soviet Union. As he was slowly dying, a power struggle emerged between Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. Even though Trotsky “had been widely viewed as the heir of Lenin, it was relatively easy for Stalin to combine with the other Bolshevik leaders in order to head off this threat” (Paley 10). In Lenin’s “Final Testament”, Lenin could already see that Stalin was quickly and surreptitiously gaining power. Stalin’s position of General Secretary gave him the ability to appoint people to important positions. Lenin was also reluctant to see Stalin as his successor because he thought that Trotsky could do a much better job. Lenin believed that Trotsky was the best man in the central…
- 199 Words
- 1 Page
Good Essays -
To what extent did Stalin’s rule mar the key turning point in Russia’s political development 1856-1953?…
- 1037 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
The different beliefs in the revolution, this was a big part in the struggle as they all had different beliefs on how Russia would revolt and go into a new stage for Russia. Trotsky had his belief, this was of world revolution. Meaning that Trotsky didn’t believe that Russia could have a revolution on its own, as no socialist society could survive on its own. He didn’t believe that Russia had the economic resources or technological sophistication to complete the transition to socialism on its own. This meant that Trotsky relied on Western Europe and that they would have a revolution, he believed that the communist regimes in western…
- 1418 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
One of the main weaknesses of the left which benefitted Stalin majorly was Trotsky and his constant misjudge when it came to making decisions. Trotsky, being the leader of the left wing was an arrogant man who wasn’t trusted by his fellow party members due to his poor attitude towards the party, his late membership to the party and his control over the red army. Throughout his membership within the party he showed a lack of involvement and destroyed his reputation further when not attending Lenin’s funeral.…
- 882 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In the USSR at the time of Lenin’s death there was no voting system for power. Although the Communists were the party destined to lead the USSR and there was no dangerous rival for their authority, the…
- 813 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The 5 contenders to become leader all had different ideologies which I agree to some extent was an important factor in the struggle for power after Lenin’s death. However, there were also 3 other reasons that could have led to a struggle, for example, the fact that they all had different personalities which meant that they connected with Lenin differently and gained respect from other members of the party and people of the public in different ways, such as their revolutionary record, and to a different extent. I also believe that the power struggle was not solely based on logical differences between the contenders but maybe a struggle based on egos.…
- 1472 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
Lenin (the leader of the Bolsheviks) was very concerned that the brutal thug who had been very useful to the party when they were an underground, illegal organization, would prove to be a thuggish influence if given government office.…
- 445 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Even though Stalin’s victory in the power struggle was partly due to his popular policies, it was not just this that allowed Stalin also because of the mistakes made by other rivals and factors that played into his hands. For example Trotsky was a former menshevik which helped Stalin accuse him of not been a true Bolshevik.…
- 885 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
At the time, Stalin seemed like he was the greatest person on Earth. He made himself seem as if he was above everybody, both physically and mentally. After all of the revolts that were occurring in Russia, he just took over. He went into power right after Lenin had died and took his place, over Trotsky who also wanted to rule over Russia. Well he didn’t and we can’t change that. All we can do is remember Stalin and remember all of the things he did to make people support him and his cause to industrialize Russia.…
- 873 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
As he went up in ranks in his Democratic party, he soon became the “secretary general of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, a role that embedded him to appoint his allies to government jobs and grow a base of political support”(C). When Lenin, the first leader, died, Stalin was placed into power, where he then became the absolute ruler of Russia. As a leader, he was fierce, a go getter. No matter what the cost, he did whatever he needed to do for the revolution and went to jail more than 18 times. However, he adapted a personality that was rude, sullen, and many other characteristics that cause people to push him away and or shun him, “He became more dedicated because of this isolation”(C).…
- 893 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
It caused splits in the Communist Party – many Bolsheviks resigned. In his leadership struggle with Trotsky, Stalin was able to use these splits to seize power.…
- 1862 Words
- 8 Pages
Good Essays -
It can be noted that each of his opponents, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov and Bukharin each had their flaws in the struggle for power – some of them being prominent in their bid for power within the party. Trotsky was Stalin’s main opponent and always seemed to be a favourite of Lenin’s which would seems obvious why Stalin would have such a vendetta against him, not to mention that Stalin was denounced by Trotksy during the October Revolution which Lenin and Trotsky had planned together – and so viewed as one of the more heroic contenders within the party. Trotsky was a gifted theorist and excelled as the commentator, critic, and executor of policies and was noted to be an enthusiastic and influential orator – often inspiring the loyalty of his…
- 919 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays