power struggle 3a

• ideology and the nature of leadership

  Lenin's death in 1924 created a power vacuum, opening up into a power struggle within central communist leadership. the succession was made more complex by the marxist-lenin ideology, wherein power was supposed to be shared via collective leadership and not held by one leader so there was no mechanism for a leader to be chosen / appointed
• ideology and the nature of leadership

  many in the party thought it was time to abandon single leadership in favour of Lenin's supposed collective leadership with a committee of equals. single central leadership could be justified earlier in bolshevik history by necessity of the civil war and establishment of power, but couldn't be any longer
• ideology and the nature of leadership

  lenins dictatorial style and pride, refusing to admit wrongs, had strengthened his own authority but also a concept within the party that they could never be wrong. the 1921 ban on faction cemented this idea that there should be a central leader who is obeyed/ people are loyal to. but this clashed ideologically with those in the party who believed in democracy, creating debates within the party elites.
• ideology and the nature of leadership

  trotsky and his supporters were for party democracy, stalin and others like him wanted to avoid factionalism and maintain party unity. lenin seemed to be an irreplaceable figure leading to major concerns for future leadership
• ideology and the nature of leadership

  • unsolved future policy included the extent to which party democracy should replace the centralised control and state bureaucracy from under lenin
  • the organisation of the economy
  • future foreign relations
• ideology and the nature of leadership- power vacuum

  it didnt appear suddenly, it began in 1922, two years before lenins death when lenin fell ill after his first troke. in 1922 a Triumvirate made up of zinoviev kamenev and stalin formed to block trotskys ambitions since he was feared to be the most popular / likely successor to lenin. Bukharin was also influential in countering the leftist Triumvirate (not stalin he was centrist).
• ideology and the nature of leadership- Lenin's testament


  Lenin's attempt to guide the transition to new leadership as ambitions and rivalry began to grow in the party, a political will of sorts, setting out his view on future dangers and an assessment of his colleagues. it was written in December 1922 for the most part and was meant to be read at the party congress after his death
• Lenin's Testament- Stalin


  • "having become general secretary, has immeasurable power concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure that he always knows how to use it with sufficient caution"
  • and a postscript added in January 1923 -"Stalin is too rude, I propose the comrades find a way to remove Stalin from that post and replace him with someone else who differs from Stalin in all respects, someone more patient, loyal, polite, considerate" this was after Stalin had worked to crush dissent in Georgia and insulted Lenin's wife Krupskaya
• Lenin's Testament- Trotsky


  "is distinguished not only by his outstanding ability but has displayed excessive self-assurance"

  • a mostly positive look on trotsky, but criticises his well known arrogance
• Lenin's testament- Zinoviev and Kamenev


  "recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was no accident"

  • Zinoviev and Kamenev had both voted against the October revolution, Lenin seemingly wasn't quite over that betrayal
• Lenin's Testament- Bukharin


  "rightly considered a favourite of the whole Party; but his theoretical views can only with the very greatest doubt be regarded as fully Marxist"

  • saying he's a good man/ party leader but too right leaning to be considered marxist
• ideology and the nature of leadership- Lenin's testament

  nothing in the testament could be seen to endorse anyone as his successor but the comments, especially the more negative ones, could have massive political implications for party leaders. the testament was due to be made public in the 1924 Party Congress but it didn't happen as the Triumvirate, who were heavily criticised within it managed to persuade their colleagues not to publish it
• ideology and the nature of leadership- Lenin's Funeral

  • Lenin's death led to mass public grief, even people who disliked the communist regime seem to have liked Lenin, similar to how many grieved the tsars family. three and a half million people queued to walk past his body.
• ideology and the nature of leadership- Lenin's Funeral


  • stalin utilised lenins funeral to advance his position in the party and outmanoeuvre trotsky who fell sick before the funeral (he was chronically ill) and had gone away to rest, stalin told him he wouldnt be able to get back in time to attend, so he didnt and looked as though he did not care damaging his previous prestigious reputation. stalin acted as a pallbearer and made a speech upholding leninism, setting himself up as lenins disciple who would carry on his work
• ideology and the nature of leadership- Lenin's Funeral


  the lenin cult began after the assassination attempt in 1918, a sort of quasi religion in Lenin's name. lenin and Krupskaya were against it but Stalin had lenin embalmed and his tomb turned into a shrine, Petrograd was renamed Leningrad and statues were raised all over the USSR. furthermore after Stalin's assumption of complete power, the matter of Lenin's brain was turned over to a scientist to be studied.
• Contenders for power- Stalin

  • had a reputation as a violent and crude man, but also an imensly hard worker and an expert in bureaucratic organisation, hence his position as general secretary.
  • had a minimal role in the bolsehviks seizure of power in 1917,
  • didnt have the charisma of trotsky or popularity of bukharin.
  • he was georgian so seen as intellectually inferior and underrated by his colleagues, nicknamed "grey blur" and "comrade card index"
  • he was jealous of others but patient, able to keep hidden long term aims and wait for revenge
• Contenders for power- Stalin

  • had a series of positions, the most important being his role as general secretary which enabled him to gather information on party members and enact patronage being able to appoint his own supporters who then owed him so he could count on their loyalty. he also benefited the lenin enrolment where 600k workers joined the party as he vetted their applications.
  • feared trotsky, which caused him to create the triumvirate but his colleagues still knew lenin had turned against him in the testament
• Contenders for power- Trotsky


  • in 1924 Trotsky was the most important man in the party apart from lenin, he was a good orator and had charisma but was arrogant, aloof and thought less of others who weren't as clever. he was so able, his rivals were moving to restrict his influence, he was an organiser and a man of action.
  • he had very strong extremely left ideology and theory and could rival Lenin.
• Contenders for power- Trotsky


  • he held power and prestige from his previous achievement like planning the October revolution, and the civil war, there were fears that he would use the red army to seize power. But failed to build a support base of his own within the party as he preferred using his debate skills and written articles rather than making alliances.
  • He also suffered from attacks from an undiagnosed fever which meant he was occasionally absent from politburo votes. furthermore, he was jewish in a time of intense antisemitism which may have limited his confidence and popularity.
• Contenders for power- Kamenev


  • a capable and intelligent politican who worked closely with zonoviev, saw himself as an important player in collective leadership but can be questioned whether he was ambitious or rutheless and gained a reputation for being too ready to switch sides.
  • he was an "old bolshevik", a member before 1917, who heled form party policy and was close to lenin. he opposed the april theses on ideolgical ground and the details of the october revolution. he had a strong power base in moscow and was part of the triumvirate.
• Contenders for power- zinoviev

  • chairmen of the comintern congresses and part of the triumvirate.
  • an old bolshevik, commanded respect from colleagues and lenin called him his "best and most trusted assistant".
  • he was on the train with lenin as he returned after exile but opposed lenin over the armed uprising in october and favoured socialist coalation
  • he had a strong power base in leningrad and could be seen as a compromiser like kamenev and his philosophy's consistency was questioned.
  • not terribly popular as he was seen as vain, incompetent and cowardly
• Contenders for power- Bukharin


  • popular with his politburo colleagues and party members. lenin called him the "darling of the party".
  • he was an important theorist who argued with lenin about political strategy, had good relations with both stalin and trotsky.
  • had a leading role in the party newspaper, pravda and led the right wing opposition to the treaty of brest litovsk.
  • an expert on economics and agriculture during the time of concern over peasants,
  • he didnt have a powerbase but was supported by rykov and tomsky on the right of the party
• Contenders for power- Rykov


  • on the moderate wing of the party but alligned with tomsky and bukharin.
  • an old bolshevik, respected for being active in early revolutionary days
  • argued with lenin over revolutionary tactics in 1917 and showed administrative skill in implementing war communism and then in managing the NEP, of which he was a strong supporter
  • he was the chairman of the sovnarkom and lacked a powerbase, seen as a mediator
• Contenders for power- Tomsky


  • an old bolshevik
  • from a working class background with a long association with the trade unions
  • had a powerbase with the trade unions and was general secretary of the red international of the trade unions, was one of lenin's pallbearers
  • an ally of rykov and bukharin, hated trotsky
  • supported the nep
  • had a reputation for speaking plainly
• it wasn't obvious that stalin would become leader at the time, he was seen as a minor player. during the early stages of the power struggle it was more about topping other from getting to the top than getting there yourself. both contenders characters and the uppermost issues of the people at the time were what counted towards them gaining support.