Reply
Fri 5 Dec, 2003 04:33 am
Hey everyone:
I was wondering what your opinions are on the supposed 'struggle for power' between Trotsky and Stalin after Lenin's death, and what was the main cause of Stalin's 'victory', if there were a main cause.
Many people would argue that Trotsky's failure to seize power was due to the fact that Stalin was the better manipulator and political thinker; unlike Trotsky, he could 'watch his opponents dig their own graves, occasionally offering his spade to one or the other.' Although one cannot underestimate Stalin's political ability, the way that he used his position as General secretary to put in 'his men,' and the way that he used his image and the 'Lenin enrolment' to forge a powerbase, I feel that the main cause was not Stalin's strengths, but Trotsky's weaknesses. In a way, Stalin's strengths wereTrotsky's weaknesses. I feel that Trotsky rarely fought; he rarely lowered himself into the grimy world of politics, and once even said that the whole thing bored him. His lack of political foresight, which one can see in not taking the role as deputy, not furthering an inquiry into the Georgian question, resigning as Commissar for Military, not appearing in debates, and- most naïve of them all- not appearing at Lenin's funeral due to his 'illnesses', worsened this. His aloofness gave rivals the ability to change his outsidership into something different, Trotskyism; his ideal, permanent revolution, was turned into something that Lenin wouldn't have wanted, rather than would have.
What do you feel was the main reason for his losing the leadership struggle, if there were one? Do you think that Trotsky ever offered a credible alternative to Stalin? I'd really appreciate any opinions on the issue.
I thought it was because Stalin had Trotsky ice-picked before he got a chance to regroup.
Interesting question Drom
I'm sure there have been many academic studies on exactly that.
You've probably answered your own question. Trotsky was too much of an idealist, too much of a dreamer to get involved with the dirty business of building a power base to carry him through to the leadership.
If Trotsky had done so, I suspect the western powers would have joined with nazi Germany to destroy the USSR, and world history would have been very different.
Well, in adition to Steve's response, I think, that after 1929 Trotzki was more a symbol of opposition to Stalin as an active point for communist opponents worldwide. [That has been, cav, before he had been ice-picked :wink: ]
I agree there Walter. I was being flippant. I also agree with Steve, Trotsky was too much of an idealist to ever really be a political maven. What that says about Stalin, and to extrapolate, today's political leaders, is a whole other can of worms.
I always liked Trotzki's idea(s) that German (Stalinist) communists had to join together with the social democrats in fighting the nazis.
That really might have worked!
But the German Communists did not oppose Hitler (with any vigour) because of Stalin's policy of appeasement. Correct?
Seems to me the choices were
1. Trotsky - The world wide socialist revolution (which was never really attempted but would have failed anyway in the early years of the 20th century), and
2. Stalin - Socialism in one country. Buy time with foreign enemies. Seek the live and let live accommodation.
Thinking back to the 1920s and 30s perhaps Stalin made some perfectly logical choices.
Actually, the Nazi's came to power at least partially as the most dynamic opposition to the Communists who used similar strong-arm street tactics to seize power within Germany. The Nazis ultimately prevailed by being even more brutal and merciless than the Communists.
The two systems were implacable foes, until Hitler wanted to grab Poland without taking a chance of provoking a Soviet response. V. Pappen was sent to Moscow, and arranged a secret agreement with Stalin that divided Poland between the two dictatorships. Hitler faked a Polish raid on a border radio station, and sent his forced into Poland. The Soviets then moved westward, and poor Poland lost it's freedom for about 50 years. Of course, Poland was also the proximate cause for the general outbreak of wwii.
You say that Trotsky favored a world-wide communist revolution, while Stalin was dedicated to making bolshevism strong in the USSR. Well, sorta I guess. However, Stalin encouraged, supported, and fomented communism wherever he could. The Communist movement in Britain was strong, and produced a nest of spies in the government who passed secrets to the Kremlin at least until late in the century. In the US, the communists had a strong presence in the labor unions, and in the Federal Government. Communist organizers and spies who worked against the interests of this country did irreparable harm. During WWII the number of Soviet agents in the US grew at an alarming rate. The secrets of the Atomic bomb were stolen and made possible a Soviet Atom bomb years earlier than it would otherwise have been developed.
Long before Stalin died he was the God Father of Communist movements around the world. Mao, Kim, Castro and Ho'Chi Min all looked to Uncle Joe for approval and support of their own revolutionary agendas. Stalin did his best to make India and the nations of Southwest Asia dependant upon the Soviet Union. Soviet agents promoted Communism in Africa and Latin America both before and after Stalins death.
The two systems were implacable foes
never stopped them doing a deal if it suited both sides. Hitler avoided war on 2 fronts. Stalin bought time.
Do you think Russia would be in a better place now were it not were Stalin's aggressive tactics?
Remember it was Stalin who massacred his opponents, who demolished relgious symbols, who forced everyone to live in a socialist dictatorship.
Lenin and I suspect Trotsky as well supported a less aggressive, more inclusive approach to communism. I doubt that many of the atracoties associated with socialsim would've taken place with them in power. In fact, I suspect that Russia would've been no different from a Socialist Democracy. And not even a strictly socialist one at that, a freer one without such tight government regulation of all industries. In fact I sincerely doubt that communism would have ever died out if it was carried out in such principles. I suspect it might have prospered.
Stalin vs Trotsky
Well, I think that Trotsky didn't expect Stalin to be of any competition to him, and if he had used Lenin's diary properly He could easily have eliminated Stalin from the running. But, as it was Trotsky did not have the kind of support, references and contacts that Stalin did in 1924. Stalin had his hand in everything to do with everything in the Soviet/Communist party at that time, if you read about it you will see that he was part of everything going on and was in every part of the party, the Politburo, the Secretariat, the Orgburo, etc, and on top of all that he was the Commissar for Nationalities giving him contacts outside of the Russian parties and their votes. Being in some of these gave him advantages of which noone else could have, such as having access to people's files (for blackmail, and to see who to get on his side and how loyal they would be), and he basically ran the party, with help from a few others, of which most were probably persuaded in some way to run it his way.
Trotsky had none of this, he was an administrator and tended not to talk to many of his comrades and commissars, probably meaning that he wasn't much of a people person. Also, because he missed Lenin's funeral, due to Stalin tricking him, he lost a lot of support because people then thought he was disrespecting Lenin and showing his "true colours" after Lenin had been so close to him as a friend and an a comrade.
There are probably plenty more factors involved, there are quite probably hundreds known an even more not known today that are involved with Stalin succeeding Lenin, instead of Trotsky, but I have only scratched the surface as I have only been studying the subject of Communist Russia for a week at my new college. If anyone knows anymore or could enlighten me and help me out at all with this amazing subject I would be very grateful. Just PM me and we can chat about it.
Cheers, Eddy aka Super Squirrel
Wasn't Trotsky pick-iced in 1945 in Mexico.... Either way, communism would have murdered millions in the name of 'progress'.
Trotsky got a raw deal. He was minding his own buisness in mexico and BAM ! Dead. I seen it on T.V.
Well maybe for the better...
I always thought Trotsky was one of the more honourable bolsheviks. Are you a Stalinist?
Nice poem Letty
but whats it to do with Stalin, or Trotsky for that matter?
Unless its an analogy for Trotskys doomed internationalist perspective c.f. Stalin's state socialism?
from and Irish perspective of course
sorry Letty seriously nice poem dont be upset
sorry, all. Just looking at drom and Cav made me sad. Has nothing to do with Stalin nor Trotsky either.( except that Cav's grandfather was Russian) Thanks, Steve for trying to make it fit.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace