Account for the political defeat of Trotsky

        Lenin’s Testament, which was written in December 1922, contained his own opinions and ideas in regard to the contestants that were battling to be his heir. This testament is of extreme importance since it provides us with invaluable information about the outcome of this struggle for power. According to the testament; ‘Stalin had accumulated enormous powers as General Secretary of the Party, but might not always use those powers with sufficient caution’.  Lenin went even further on to say that Stalin was too rude and should be removed from his position of General Secretary. One might suggest therefore that prospects of Stalin becoming Soviet leader were diminishing by the day. With these publications about his personality and Lenin’s claim that he should be removed from his current position, suggestion was that it was going to be an easy ride for Trotsky.  As per usual and extremely useful in this situation we should never judge a book by its cover. Although Stalin appeared to lack all the qualities of a true leader he was still, although no one at the time perceived apart from Lenin, one of the main contenders. It was this position of obscurity that enabled Stalin to gain a head advantage among other contenders. Because Stalin wasn’t looked upon in a favorable light by Lenin, as well as other leading Bolsheviks protagonists of the struggle for power, the testament was dismissed as a non publishable material. That basically meant that the Testament wouldn’t affect the struggle by any means (This blatantly pictures Trotsky’s absence of political infighting as he could have used Lenin’s testament to throw Stalin out of the competition) Trotsky, on the other hand, was viewed in a slightly more favorable way. Although Lenin still accentuated Comrade’s Trotsky’s deficiencies, the other leading players believed that Trotsky was the main threat among them and must be dealt with. Lenin goes on to describe Trotsky as ‘arrogant and incapable of getting along with people’. This is evident at the time of Lenin’s death. Instead of rushing at once to Moscow, as Stalin did, he idled away his time at a southern spa where he had gone in order to cure an indisposition’. This clearly exposes the lack of political timing on Trotsky’s behalf and accentuates the determination of the Stalin to associate himself as close as possible to Lenin when he stood at the funeral posing as Lenin’s true heir.

        The characteristic’s displayed above play great influence in determining the fate of the power vacuum left by Lenin, as observed in several situations. The first situation explored by Stalin and completely ignored by Trotsky was the formation of the famous triumvirate (Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev). To makes matter’s worse, even before the struggle for power began; Trotsky was advised and offered by Lenin to ‘bloc against bureaucratism in general and the Orgburo in particular’ . This would have been of crucial value to Trotsky in order to survive the attack launched against him by the triumvirate. According to McCauley, ‘such was Trotsky lack of perception that it took him a long time to realize that a triumvirate was operating against him’. Whilst obviously demonstrating Trotsky’s ineffectiveness, this also shows us Stalin’s flexibility, clear thinking and cunningness. By aligning himself with Kamenev and Zinoviev, who chaired Politburo’s meeting on behalf of Lenin’s absence, he foresaw the opportunity of defeating Trotsky on any issue inside the Politburo given the fact that the triumvirate only needed one extra vote to accomplish this. This in turn, was once again facilitated by Stalin’s current position in the party. As General Secretary he was able to appoint and sack members of the party with extreme ease. By sacking Trotsky’s supporters and replacing them with his own supporter’s it is arguable that Stalin created a party within the own party. This political move also affected Kamenev and Zinoviev to a great extent and showed their innocence on political grounds. McCauley, once again, ironically claims that Kamenev and Zinoviev ‘had no objection to Stalin removing Trotsky’s supporters in the party apparat and anywhere for that matter and replacing them ‘his’ men, who must surely also be ‘their’ men.’

        Another issue that is usually forgotten or at least not dwelled upon is the nature of the Bolshevik party. Democracy was not in tune with the Soviet political system at all. Historian Robert Service claimed that the Bolshevik party was used to the absolute rule of a narrow ‘oligarchy’. Even Lenin, who was already detached from active leadership started to express his concerns in regard to the Politburo, ‘which he began to describe as oligarchy’. The argument Robert Service provides goes on to say that had the party been democratic chances were that Stalin would have never reached Soviet leadership because sooner or later he would have been thrown out of the competition and would have been brought down by a democratic process. Unfortunately for Trotsky this was not the case and Stalin walked calmly in the direction of future heir. Also, because Trotsky was such a firm believer of the party, it would have been considered a heresy if Trotsky verbally expressed his dissent against the party’s structure. Therefore, in a sense, it is plausible that Trotsky’s complaint’s and allegation’s against Comrade Stalin was severely restricted due to this fact.