Power Struggle

Question 1

Competing Visions

Answer 1

• By the early 1920s, Trotsky believed Bolshevik policies were gravitaing more closely to “beuracratism” and adopting a more “top down” approach rather yhan the ultimate goal of Marxist society where the working class controls the means of production. This was deemed the growing “volokita” of the Party, meaning “red tape”. Ultimately, Trotsky believed that the role of the Vanguard was becoming increasingly prominent rather than obsolete, and worried a capitalist restoration could take place.
• This directly contributed to the power struggle in the 1920s. Trotsky’s concerns allowed Stalin to position him as a hypocrite claiming he had supported the centralisation of the decision making and was himself an elite. Stalin argued this bureaucratic approach was completely justified within a context of evolving socialism. - Similarly the 10th Party Congress (1921) debate over NEP, also revealed the role of Bolshevik ideology in shaping the power struggle in the 1920s. While Trotsky favoured War Communism to continue, in line with his belief that Bolshevik ideology should ultimately engender permanent revolution, the right side of the Party disagreed. Bukharin and Stalin similarly agreed that the correct domestic conditions for permanent revolution were to be established before pursuing permanent revolution. This directly shaped the power struggle as it allowed Stalin to accuse Trotsky of factionalism.
• 14th Party congress (1925). Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, supported by left Party members such as Zinoviev, suggested there were no national solutions to global problem of capitalism. Thus, they favoured the Orthodox Marxist view than an international revolution was essential to the success of socialism in the USSR. Comparatively, socialism in one country, promulgated by Stalin and Bukharin, acknowledge the practical and geopolitical context of the 1920s and the “capitalist encirclement” of the USSR. It believed that the USSR could succeed in constructing socialism internally, developing a powerful economy that could support revolutions abroad. These differing ideological visions for the economic structuring of the USSR indeed yielded a significant impact on the power struggle.
• Still recovering from the devastations of war communism, citizens favoured socialism in one country as a relatively, more moderate policy. This can be abbetted by historian Stephen Kotkin who notes, “Socialism in one country revealed Stalin as a ‘geostrategic thinker’”.

Question 2

Mistakes of political opponents

Answer 2

• Trotsky’s arrogance and overbearing nature were deeply off putting character traits when amplifying fears that he would create a personal dictatorship within the USSR. Furthermore, he often had difficulties reading the context in which he was operating. Trotsky misread or underestimated the fears and aspirations of the Party which led to a series of crucial mistakes in the mid-1920s.
• Trotsky’s self assurance made him less inclined to compromise in comparison to other leading officials such as Stalin. This exposed him to criticism and distrust soon after the Bolsheviks seized power. In addition, his battles with Lenin over the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918 in concomitance with his persistent criticisms of bureaucracy and open calls for permanent revolution placed him on the outside of the Party at points throughout his career.
• By way of Trotsky’s insistence on permanent revolution, Stalin was able to pursue this as a mechanism by which he could be perceived as an outlier and uncooperative member of the Party.
• In addition, Trotsky’s flamboyant, individualistic and divisive character also offered Stalin an opportunity to paint Trotsky as someone who viewed himself as an equal to Lenin, especially considering Stalin was building himself a profile as Lenin’s humble heir.
• Zinoviev and Kamenev both had obvious political skill and reasonable strong power bases within the Party. They attempted to make moves against Stalin in 1923 but were frustrated by the greater threat posed by Trotsky. In this way, as both resided towards the left side of the party, opposing Stalin’s rightist policies, indeed Bolshevik ideology underwrote the power struggle.
• Furthermore, Bukharin was a strong theorist, but lacked the political skill to deflect the attack when Stalin began to turn on him. Bukharin had a strong relationship with Stalin in the mid-1920s, yet the policy debates and increasing aggresion towards the peasants in 1928 worried Bukharin.
• In July 1928, Bukharin met with the disgraced Kamenev and Zinoviev, seeking their support against Stalin’s radical new policies (collectivisation and rapid industrialisation). However, as historian Sheila Fitzpacktrick contends, this was an “incredible political folly”, and quickly discovered by Stalin to be cast as a betrayal. It set in motion Stalin’s determination to publicly denounce right oppostion and destroy it with political force within the Party.

Question 3

Political Positions

Answer 3

• Stalin’s amalgamation of authoritative positions, allowed him to falter his opponents and elucidate the struggle to herald him as a paramount leader. Being a member of the Politburo since 1917, Stalin was in an optimal position to be at the centre of Soviet politics amidst the most powerful leaders of the USSR.
• Stalin’s ability to take advantage of all connections and administrative opportunities which arose from this position, were highly influential in the power struggle throughout the 1920s.
• From 1917 to 1923, Stalin was given the position as People’s Commissar for Nationalities, allowing him the responsibility for the regions and republics during the civil war within the first Sovnarkom government. In addition, from 1919 to 1922, Stalin was given the administrative role overseeing the work of all government departments, as well as becoming a member of the Orgburo, allowing him to gain personal connections with influential government personnel.
• From this arose a unique position as a liaison between the Politburo and Orgburo, allowing Stalin to monitor Party decision making in the Politburo, giving the aspiring leader direct insight into the political climate of the Soviet Union at the time.
• From April 1922, he was given the position of the General Secretary of the Party, which he forged to be one of the most powerful individual positions within the entire Soviet system.
• These political roles did not necessarily make him powerful, but guaranteed his voice amidst party leadership, and an opportunity to bolster his reputation as hard working and organised especially in roles such as the Commissariat of Nationalities.
• According to historian Stephen Kotkin, “Unlike the secretariates before him, Stalin made more effective use of the combination of political and administrative roles to increase his personal influence”.
• Stalin’s ability to monitor the performance of Party members was enhanced from November 1923, when the nomenklature system was introduced to centralise appointments and promotions of over 4000 key positions across the USSR. Due to the mass reporting requirements, Stalin learned the concerns and aspirations of senior officials from across the USSR, holding him privy to the darker secrets of many leading Party officials.
• This position also allowed him to gauge how the Party at large may react to changes in policy, and this became increasingly useful as debates over key issues developed throughout the 1920s.
• By 1924 Stalin began to develop and promulgate his own ideas and policies to put forward with great confidence, as what Historian Moshe Lewin would describe “an unerring sense of the levers of power”, to effectively sow his aspirations for the USSR. By presenting all his ideas in terms that were built on the foundations of Leninism, he was able to be viewed as a humble heir of Lenin, striving to continue his goals for a Communist society.
• Socialism in one country is a key example of an important idea that showed Stalin’s ability to develop new strategic thinking that also appealed to the rank-and-file of the Party.
• Stalin was particularly skilled at seizing the middle ground in major debates and decisions that took place throughout the 1920s. In doing this, he was able to make his opponents appear to be on the edges of political debate, which left them open to accusations of factionalism.
• This also involved decisions to shift his policy positions when he sensed the mood within the Party changing. For example, in 1928, Stalin moved to the left on economic policy even though he had previously criticised the ideas of Trotsky and his allies. In all of this, it was crucial that Stalin appeared to be carrying forward Lenin’s vision and remaining true to the broad ideas of the Bolshevik revolution

Question 4

Political Rhetoric

Answer 4

• Stalin had a low public profile in the USSR in 1924, but was already known within the Party as an effective and dedicated revolutionary who had been loyal to Lenin for many years, devoted to making the new Soviet state operational.
• He excelled in portraying himself as a reasonable, balanced and cautious Politburo member who often played a stabilising role, in contrast to some of the more radical leaders such as Trotsky, appearing to be a more stable figure who was less likely to steer the USSR towards catastrophe. – Many leading Party members saw Stalin as a safer option as Lenin’s successor, as Historian Stephen Kotkin descirbes, “Naked careerism was one reason Party Members sought to attach themselves to the General Secretary, attracted to Stalin because of his tenacious dedication to the revolutionary cause and to the State’s power”.
• Stalin construed his political profile as a hard worker and Party loyalist by presenting himself as Lenin’s humble heir, actively supporting the development of the Lenin cult and contributed to its growth in many ways.
• He published works and gave lectures on the key writings of Lenin such as, The Foundations of Leninism in 1924 which claimed to set out logically the fundamental ideas of Leninism (and at the same time attack his opponents for deviating from Lenin’s key principles).
• Stalin claimed that Lenin was his ‘teacher’ in all things and Lenin became Stalin’s main reference point for all his ideas and decisions. In this sense, the fact that Stalin did not have an illustrious career as a Party theoretician worked in his favour. By contrast, Trotsky who had a long history of disagreement with Lenin prior to 1917 and in the later years of Lenin’s life provided powerful authority to Stalin’s profile and earned him great trust in certain sections of the Party.
• Moreover, the appeal of Stalin’s ideas did not come from a reputation as an intellectual or an orator, but the way he was able to intelligently debate key issues and published many articles, pamphlets and books. He was also capable of putting forward his ideas in ways that appealed to the broad rank and file of the Party.
• This was a crucial skill, especially after ‘Lenin Enrollment’ into the Communist Party in 1924-25. This brought in more than 400,000 new members to the Party mostly from the uneducated working class who were not well-versed in Marxist theory, Stalin’s ideas appeared easier to grasp for the average worker and Party member. Socialism in one country attracted support from the workers who did not always understand the complexities of Marxist internationalism but did understand the practical matters such as national security and patriotic sentiment.
• In comparison, the Rightists (such as Bukharin) who continued to defend NEP in 1928 through the theoretical discussion were seen as ‘elitists’ who had lost touch with the party grassroots.