• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"Debates about party policy were more important than personalities in deciding the outcome of the struggle for power in the USSR in the years 1924 to 1929." Assess the validity of this judgement

Extracts from this document...


"Debates about party policy were more important than personalities in deciding the outcome of the struggle for power in the USSR in the years 1924 to 1929." Assess the validity of this judgement. [20 marks] The incidence, expression and outcomes of debates about party policy were decided primarily by the personalities and decisions of their participants (for example, Trotsky's reluctance and refusal to take up Lenin's recommendations on the Georgian question against Stalin, which meant a missed opportunity to oppose him publicly), rather than the functional content of the debates themselves. The debates about party policy were less important in themselves than the loyalties and power relations they represented - Stalin's attacks on "Comrade Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution" were not meant to discredit the theory (much less were the attacks, for example, by Trotsky upon Zinoviev and Kamenev's record especially concerning the October Revolution, being attacks on people rather than their arguments), but were meant to discredit the person. ...read more.


There being no concrete mechanism for determining leadership, the administrative arm of the party became a de facto determinant, and the concentration of power in Stalin's hands created a focal point of power to be fought for. The vacuum left behind by Lenin not only left the party without a definite leader on policy (while policy was still debated hotly when Lenin was in power, he still to an extent represented an authority), but without a natural political leader. This personality vacuum would have increased the importance of personality in deciding the outcome of the leadership struggle - the party was not missing its primary strategist; other members could form policy ideas, etc; it was missing its primary polemicist, its primary figurehead. However, it is not the case that debates about party policy were completely irrelevant to the power struggle. Given that one who disagreed with the party line could be tarred with the factionalist brush, the event of diverging from the party line put one at a severe disadvantage when it came to finding a contender. ...read more.


So debates about party policy were important not in the sense that certain figures had better policy ideas than others and thus were more successful in the party, but in the sense that debates about party policy led to party splits and dynamics which worked more in the favour of centrists who espoused (and later, especially when it came to the defeat of the Right, e.g. Bukharin, defined) the party line, that is - Stalin; and less in the favour of outspoken and heterodox figures like Trotsky. Overall, the judgement has some validity - debates about party policy were of importance in deciding the outcome of the power struggle between 1924 and 1929. However, it may not be the case that they were more important, appearing as they do to be subsumed under a larger landscape in which structures of power and dynamics of personality had more sway in deciding even the outcome of those policy debates, as well as the power struggle itself. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Napoleon Bonaparte.

    He would go up to him as if he recognized him, address him by his name and say 'Oh! So you are here! You are a brave fellow- I saw you at Aboukir- how is your old father?10 This would make soldiers feel important and that their leader knows them personally.

  2. "War became inevitable by 1939 and, when it came, it was a surprise to ...

    It is also the case that the German forces were not at this point nearly strong enough to adequately defend Germany from a military response by France and/or Britain. Had such a united response occurred it is conceivable that Germany would have remained weakened and deterred from acquiring or even asserting any more of its demands, particularly territorial ones.

  1. Palmerston's Foriegn Policy and Advantageous Pragmatic Behaviour

    This deemed that Mohammed Ali would be independent ruler of Egypt and that he would gain half of Syria. But Mohammed Ali rejected the deal and received military help from the French. With the prospect of French support for Mohammed Ali there was a clear prospect of a European war.

  2. The struggle

    * By Autumn, inroads of the secret police alarmed him and among party members and efforts to weaken his control of the war commissariat, Trotsky decided to strike out against the party leadership. * . A massive propaganda counterattack against Trotsky and his supporters on grounds of factionalism and opportunism.

  1. How important was war in Lenin's securing and consolidation of power in the USSR.

    On the 3rd April, Lenin finally arrived in Petrograd. He spoke to the Social Democrats the next day and ordered there to be no co-operation with the Provisional Government at all. He remarked that Russia should "not be a parliamentary republic,... but a republic of Soviets of Workers', Agricultural Labourers' and Peasants' Deputies throughout the whole country from top to bottom."

  2. The Impact of Stalins Leadership in the USSR, 1924 1941. Extensive notes

    Bukharin?s advantages in the power struggle: 1. Popular within the party. 2. Close to Lenin. 3. Intelligent and regarded as the best thinker in the party. 4. Close ally of Stalin for many years and respected by him. 5. Stalin relied on Bukharin?s knowledge of economics.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work