AS FP3 : The power vacuum and struggle, Ideology and Lenin's testament Flashcards
(20 cards)
Conceptual Awareness
What was the situation at Lenin’s death?
Lenin died on the 21st January, 1924. Before he passed, Lenin had lost his ability to speak due to three strokes with the final being fatal. As a result, he had been unable to warn the party against Stalin.
Upon his death, Lenin did not leave clear instructions about how the country should be run after his death. The struggle thus became a matter of ideologies, it was much about keeping some people out of power as it was about remaining in power.
Ideology and the nature of leadership
What does Marxist-Leninist ideology dictate about the nature of leadership within the communist party?
In Marxist-Leninist ideology, power was supposed to be held by a collective leadership, not held by any single, dominant leader; there was, therefore, no mechanism for any such leader to be chosen.
Ideology and the nature of leadership
How did Lenin’s personality affect the leadership debate?
Lenin had provided a very forceful leader and it would be hard to imagine a party without him. Lenin’s dictatorial style and refusal to admit any error had strengthened his authority as leader and established the concept that the party could never be wrong. The 1921 ban on factions had cemented the idea of a leader who commanded loyalty and obedience to the party ; therefore, as a result of Lenin’s actions and force of personality - rendering him a dominant, seemingly unreplaceable figure and clouding his plans for the future - , major issues were unresolved.
Ideology and the nature of leadership
How did the nature of leadership affect the power struggle?
The ideological view of collective leadership was mainly advanced by those who feared Trotsky as a military dictator. Many party members feared the exploitation of the highly centralised government system which had occured during the civil war, and the subsequent emergance of a dictator.
Ideology and the nature of leadership
How did the nature of leadership affect the power struggle in regards to Trotsky?
The fear of a dictatory affected the decisions that party members took between 1924 and 1926 ; as commissar for war and commander of the Red Army, Trotksy was in a strong position to crush opposition, his arrogant manner and self-conviction seemd to confirm these fears. However, Trotsky had no intention of becoming a dictator and these fears were largely unfounded.
Ideology
What were the ideological debates that had emerged at Lenin’s death?
- Ban on factions vs party democracy - an end to the centralised control and bureaucracy that had emerged under Lenin?
- NEP vs Rapid Industrialisation
- Permanent Revolution vs Socialism in one country.
The NEP and Industrialisation debate
What was the debate surrounding the economic policy of Russia?
The issue which dominated party conferences in the mid-1930s but also played a hand in the power struggle, was whether to continue the NEP or make a move towards rapid industrialisation.
The NEP and Industrialisation debate
Why was Industrialisation important to the Bolshevik party?
Industrialisation was key to creating a large class of proletariat workers to build socialism.
The NEP and Industrialisation debate
What was the state of the economy upon Lenin’s death?
By the end of the 1920s the NEP had become increasingly unattractive and party members were concerned by its outward manifestations (ruch superclass, land speculation, gambling and prostitution). After 1925 there was a serious problem created by the scissory crisis, the high level of unemployment and low wages and the rising price of consumer goods.
The NEP and Industrialisation debate
Who supported rapid industrialisation?
Rapid industrialisation was supported by the Left-Wing of the party - Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev - they wanted rapid industrialisation which entailed the militirisation of labour, breaking the monopoly of the peasants on the economy and squeezing more grain out of them to pay for industrialisation.
The NEP and Industrialisation debate
Who supported the continuation of the NEP?
The NEP was supported by the Right and Bukharinists, they wanted to keep the NEP going and encourage the peasants to become richer so that they would spend more on consumer goods, which, in turn would lead to the growth of the manufacturing industry.
They believed that conflict with the peasants would lead to economic collapse and endanger the Communist State.
Permanent Revolution vs Socialism in One Country
What was the theory Permanent Revolution?
Trotsky believed in permanent revolution, he was convinced that the communist revolution in Russia could not really succeed because the Proletariat was too small and the economy underdeveloped, therefore it needed the support of the working class in more industrialised european countries.
Permanent Revolution vs Socialism in One Country
What did Permanent Revolution theory entail?
- Believed that Russia should invest time and effort into helping the other working classes stage their own revolutions.
- Commintern was set up to help achieve world-wide revolution.
- Trotsky also wanted to subject the USSR to a continuing revolutionary process that would move society in the direction of socialism, e.g measures of compulsory labout units organised along military lines and the collectivisation of agriculture.
Permanent Revolution vs Socialism in One Country
What is the theory of Socialism in one country?
At the end of 1924 Stalin put forward a different policy line that he called ‘Socialism in one country’. He said that the communists had to accept that world revolution had not happened and was not likley to take place in the immediate future. He proposed that the Russians build a socialist state in the USSR without help from outside influences and concentrate on consolidating the revolution internally.
Permanent Revolution vs Socialism in One Country
What did Socialism in One Country entail?
- Appealed to the nationalism and patriotism, unique position to show the world what socialism meant.
- Create a workers’ society that was superior to the West, playing on the Politburo’s nationalism and ideology to gain support.
- World leaders
- It was also a flexible doctrine because it meant that the leaders of the communist party could say what was the best way to achieve socialism at any particular moment in time.
The Power Vacuum
What was the ‘Triumverate’?
In 1922-1923, a Triumverate of Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin had formed to block the ambitions of Trotksy. Stalin, the general secretary at that time, was unpopular and underrated by his colleagues but he was central to these alliances.
The Power Vaccum
How was Lenin’s incapacity significant to the outcome of the power struggle?
In May 1922 Lenin suffered his first stroke, his second in December left him unable to speak and partially paralysed him, his third, in the same month, left him completely bed-ridden. Lenin was sidelined from politics but still influential. Stalin took advantage of the situation by trying to remain in personal contact with Lenin as much as possible, positioning him as his disciple.
Lenin’s testament
What was Lenin’s testament?
The ambitions and rivalries of those around him alarmed Lenin who tried to guide the position of power through his testament. It was a letter that was intended to be read at the party congress after his death, it was an assessment of his colleagues in the inner-circle of the party leadership ; casting doubt over the men who hoped to succeed him.
Lenin’s testament
What did Lenin criticise Stalin for in his testament?
Lenin criticised Stalin for “lies and rudeness” in regards to his brutal repression of Georgian independence in the Georgia Affair and his brutishly rude comments towards Krupskaya.
Lenin’s testament
What was the impact of Lenin’s testament on the power struggle?
Lenin’s testament didn’t just attack Stalin, nothing in his testament could be considered as an endorsement of any successor. He did not make his vision for leadership clear. Lenin’s verdicts were potentially explosive, therefore Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev convinced their colleagues not to publish it.
- No clear Successor was endorsed
- No instructions on how party policy and leadership should be developed
- Lenin’s criticisms were hidden and Stalin remained in a position of considerable power, despite Lenin attempting to warn of the consequences.
