Stalin’s various positions on the NEP during the mid to late 1920s and his decision to go for rapid industrialisation at the end of the 1920s were supported by the majority of party members.
Stalin adopted policies that were broadly approved by the majority of the Communist Party. He was responsive to the mood of the times. Stalin remained in the background pretending to be a moderate peacemaker so none of the other contenders really saw him as a threat to them. He outmanoeuvred his opponents turning them against each other.
Stalin was very scheming; he tricked Trotsky into not turning up for Lenin’s funeral so he could advance his position. Trotsky’s reputation was damaged within the party.
Secondly, Luck was on Stalin’s side as Lenin and Sverdlov died at the right time for Stalin and he was able to play to these strengths that favoured him. Trotsky was ill for most of the power struggle so Stalin had a huge advantage. It was also lucky for Stalin that Lenin’s testament was not read out. His testament favoured Trotsky saying that he was the better candidate. If it had been read out, Stalin’s political career would have been damaged permanently.
Furthermore, Stalin’s personal characteristics and qualities helped him become leader of the party. Stalin was less high-minded and more down to earth and practical than other leading Bolsheviks; he was ideally suited to managing the bureaucratic and centralised party that had developed. Stalin was a very loyal party member and was one of the few leaders with a working class background; it seemed he would not cause splits in the party.
Nobody really saw Stalin as a threat until it was too late. He was perceived as dull and mediocre – the ‘grey blur’. After he was tough and ruthless, he was determined to protect his power base and make sure that he was not ousted.
Moreover, Trotsky himself was responsible for his own downfall to a certain extent. He had weaknesses that made him unfit for the power struggle.
Trotsky had only joined the Bolsheviks in August 1917 and was not seen as loyal member of the party. Many Bolsheviks did not trust him therefore; Stalin had an edge over Trotsky. They thought that Trotsky might become a dictator.
Trotsky was too high minded, arrogant and dismissive of his colleagues. He didn’t have popular support. He was respected but did not engender affection of personal loyalty. He was seen as the person most likely to cause splits in the party.
Trotsky did not go out of his way to develop or build up his power base in the party and this allowe3d Stalin to erode the small one he already had. Stalin, again, had an advantage over Trotsky. Like the other contenders, he underestimated Stalin’s power and it cost him dearly.
Trotsky did not like getting involved in the “drudgery of politics”. He was no good at political intrigue, making alliances, and trade-offs. These are qualities needed for a good leader, which Trotsky did not possess.
Finally, Stalin had control over the party machine from his key positions in the Politburo, Orgburo and as General Secretary.
Stalin was able to appoint his own supporters to key positions in the party. He controlled the membership of the party, using his powers to expel members most likely to support Trotsky, which decreases Trotsky’s power base. He brought in new members likely to support him. This meant that Stalin was able to pass votes, as the majority of the party were his supporters. Other contenders wanted him on their side, as he could deliver votes in Congress.
It is obvious why Stalin became leader of the USSR rather than Trotsky. Stalin was clearly popular with the majority of the Communist Party, as he only his supporters into the party. Through the power struggle, luck favoured Stalin. Stalin’s personal qualities and political cunning meant he had the potential to be a strong leader.
