Following Lenin’s death on 21st January 1924 there was a long struggle for power due to his failure to appoint a successor. Key candidates included victor Stalin as well as Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev and there were several separate fights with constant changing of alliances and sides. Stalin, who was able to manipulate the party machine, use the weakness of opposition to his advantage be pragmatic with his policies and ideology and employ a certain element of luck was victorious and despite this array of methods he used, his manipulation of the party machine was key to his success in the leadership struggle as he was able to combine his devious personality and powerful positions in the party to emerge triumphant.
Stalin’s ability …show more content…
Most importantly he used dirty devious tactics throughout the leadership battle for instance when he told Trotsky the wrong date for Lenin’s funeral causing him to not come back from Caucasus in time and miss it. This was important in Stalin’s success as it meant those inside or outside of the party saw Trosky as not truly Leninist and is an example of Stalin manipulating the party machine as he purposefully lied to and manipulated Trotsky and Trotsky would have trusted him to know the date due to his position of power. Of slightly lesser importance in his success was Stalin’s pragmatism. He would change his views and actions in order to gain support which is an example of him manipulating the party machine. For instance, in February 1928 he backed down after campaigning against Bukharin’s followers after realising this was unpopular. This was important in his success as it gained him support from the public, however you could argue that this was an ideological tactic rather than an example of him manipulating the party machine thus illustrating the importance of ideology. A less important way in which he manipulated the party machine and was able to succeed was through his debating tactics. He refused to take part in damaging debates in order to maintain his reputation. This …show more content…
Most importantly, the opposition were always severely lacking in power and support. When Stalin faced Trotsky, Trotsky refused to use his followers to gain support and lacked in support at the thirteenth party congress. This was important in Stalin’s success as he was more supported than his opponents meaning he was more liely to become leader. Of next most importance was the poor ideologies of his opponents. Stalin was pragmatic and always managed to back the most widely supported ideology however his opponents did not do the same. For example, he stopped supporting the NEP when it began to fail whereas Bukharin remained loyal to it. This was important in his success as it gained him support and demonstrated that he knew what he was doing. However, this may be considered an example of him manipulating the party machine as he did not stand for many real things but instead made it seem to those at the top that he did. Similarly, but of least importance were his contenders poor tactics and personalities. Bukharin was less devious and tactful than Stalin and when he did try to be deceitful and use Lenin’s testament, this backfired. This was important in Stalin’s success as it meant his opposition looked bad despite it being him who was most manipulative. In summary, the weakness of opposition was important in Stalin’s
Stalin’s ability …show more content…
Most importantly he used dirty devious tactics throughout the leadership battle for instance when he told Trotsky the wrong date for Lenin’s funeral causing him to not come back from Caucasus in time and miss it. This was important in Stalin’s success as it meant those inside or outside of the party saw Trosky as not truly Leninist and is an example of Stalin manipulating the party machine as he purposefully lied to and manipulated Trotsky and Trotsky would have trusted him to know the date due to his position of power. Of slightly lesser importance in his success was Stalin’s pragmatism. He would change his views and actions in order to gain support which is an example of him manipulating the party machine. For instance, in February 1928 he backed down after campaigning against Bukharin’s followers after realising this was unpopular. This was important in his success as it gained him support from the public, however you could argue that this was an ideological tactic rather than an example of him manipulating the party machine thus illustrating the importance of ideology. A less important way in which he manipulated the party machine and was able to succeed was through his debating tactics. He refused to take part in damaging debates in order to maintain his reputation. This …show more content…
Most importantly, the opposition were always severely lacking in power and support. When Stalin faced Trotsky, Trotsky refused to use his followers to gain support and lacked in support at the thirteenth party congress. This was important in Stalin’s success as he was more supported than his opponents meaning he was more liely to become leader. Of next most importance was the poor ideologies of his opponents. Stalin was pragmatic and always managed to back the most widely supported ideology however his opponents did not do the same. For example, he stopped supporting the NEP when it began to fail whereas Bukharin remained loyal to it. This was important in his success as it gained him support and demonstrated that he knew what he was doing. However, this may be considered an example of him manipulating the party machine as he did not stand for many real things but instead made it seem to those at the top that he did. Similarly, but of least importance were his contenders poor tactics and personalities. Bukharin was less devious and tactful than Stalin and when he did try to be deceitful and use Lenin’s testament, this backfired. This was important in Stalin’s success as it meant his opposition looked bad despite it being him who was most manipulative. In summary, the weakness of opposition was important in Stalin’s