Why didn't Trotsky take over the USSR after Lenin?
video description
Lenin didn't like the New Economic Policy- he, and many other Bolsheviks, considered it a necessary evil that would be abolished later on (because the NEP was basically capitalism-lite ); the very name New Economic Policy is Lenin grudgingly conceding that the Old economic policy of War Communism hadn't worked as well as he'd hoped. The argument was that Trotsky wanted to abolish the NEP immediately while others wanted to wait a while.
Lenin liked Stalin a lot and supported him throughout his lengthy Bolshevik career; they fell out after Lenin got ill and Stalin took control of his care, and Stalin did things like build up a personality cult around Lenin (though Lenin wasn't entirely innocent of that either) and disrespected Lenin's wife amongst other things- it's possible that Lenin's wife had some influence on the letter that demanded Stalin be removed from the Politburo due to her dislike of the man.
Most historians now agree that Stalin was a fanatical True Believer and wasn't simply a power-hungry sociopath with no real beliefs whatsoever; he was someone who married genuine ideological commitment with a belief that Unlimited Power was required to achieve it, and he didn't trust anyone else to bring the revolution about once Lenin was gone. But his commitment to Lenin and Marxism and Socialism was likely genuine as he'd been involved in radical politics since his youth and to the very end of his life he was always quoting and reading and invoking Marx and Lenin.
Date: 2023-01-27
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 14
Czarface
Little disappionted in this one as it feels a little misleading or at least relying on older (cold war era) sources?
Lenin did not openly oppose Stalin as a potential leader and indeed towards the end of his life would lean on Stalin increasigly to get things done, as few had the Georgian's work ethic and he knew that Stalin was reliable (he would do stuff even if he disagreed with Lenin.
The 'last testament' letter, that I assume is what you're referring to, was and remains of dubious origins - Lenin could not speak or write towards the end of his life. All correspondents were written by his wife who could, apparently, intimate his grunts and gestures. oh, and she happened to hate Stalin. Make of that what you will. Although it would always haunt Stalin's tenure it was no more damaging than, say, his opposition to launching the October revolution.
Further to that the only other specific point I would contend is the so called opposition movement. who met precisely once, didn't agree on anything and would immediately repudiate the idea for fear of being accused of factionalism.
Trotsky would always blame anti jewish sentiment for his ousting but the fact is he was a braggard know-it-all that seemed to enjoy rubbing people up the wrong way, he could hardly be surprised when people he routinely talked down to and about were not very keen on making him a leader.
reply
Little disappionted in this one as it feels a little misleading or at least relying on older (cold war era) sources?
Lenin did not openly oppose Stalin as a potential leader and indeed towards the end of his life would lean on Stalin increasigly to get things done, as few had the Georgian's work ethic and he knew that Stalin was reliable (he would do stuff even if he disagreed with Lenin.
The 'last testament' letter, that I assume is what you're referring to, was and remains of dubious origins - Lenin could not speak or write towards the end of his life. All correspondents were written by his wife who could, apparently, intimate his grunts and gestures. oh, and she happened to hate Stalin. Make of that what you will. Although it would always haunt Stalin's tenure it was no more damaging than, say, his opposition to launching the October revolution.
Further to that the only other specific point I would contend is the so called opposition movement. who met precisely once, didn't agree on anything and would immediately repudiate the idea for fear of being accused of factionalism.
Trotsky would always blame anti jewish sentiment for his ousting but the fact is he was a braggard know-it-all that seemed to enjoy rubbing people up the wrong way, he could hardly be surprised when people he routinely talked down to and about were not very keen on making him a leader.
reply
Anders
I would say this video is about half true, and misleading for what it leaves out. Stalin may have been a master of the dirty underside of politics, but his faction had something else too: Socialism in One Country, an idea that people genuinely got behind. Whereas Trotsky wanted world revolution ASAP even if it meant total war until the whole world was under the red banner. Stalin's faction was particularly popular among new party members, and it isn't hard to see why: After years of grueling civil war, would you rather have more of the same, or actually get on with actually building the promised communist utopia at home? Stalin's faction's rise to power took place through the democratic processes within the party, and gained power through the actual constitutional process in place. Not just through cloak and dagger scheming. Though Stalin then pulled a dirty one and used his newfound power to make sure he couldn't be democratically unelected.
reply
I would say this video is about half true, and misleading for what it leaves out. Stalin may have been a master of the dirty underside of politics, but his faction had something else too: Socialism in One Country, an idea that people genuinely got behind. Whereas Trotsky wanted world revolution ASAP even if it meant total war until the whole world was under the red banner. Stalin's faction was particularly popular among new party members, and it isn't hard to see why: After years of grueling civil war, would you rather have more of the same, or actually get on with actually building the promised communist utopia at home? Stalin's faction's rise to power took place through the democratic processes within the party, and gained power through the actual constitutional process in place. Not just through cloak and dagger scheming. Though Stalin then pulled a dirty one and used his newfound power to make sure he couldn't be democratically unelected.
reply
Qwilfish
It is principally a social problem. Trotsky being on power while nothing else would have been different would not have changed the issues of USSR. The main reason of the stalinisation of USSR is the fact that it was isolated, surrounded by the imperialists, heavily damaged from the two wars and that it was a poor region of the world contrary to imperialist countries such as Germany (in fact during the civil war all hopes were based on a German Revolution as it was considered impossible to achieve socialism in one country especially in USSR. As a result of the civil war the working class lost its most conscious elements and the soviets could not really fulfill their politcal and administrative roles anymore. So these tasks which were collective were taken by a minority who would eventually form the soviet bureaucracy. (and Stalin was the main representative of it)
reply
It is principally a social problem. Trotsky being on power while nothing else would have been different would not have changed the issues of USSR. The main reason of the stalinisation of USSR is the fact that it was isolated, surrounded by the imperialists, heavily damaged from the two wars and that it was a poor region of the world contrary to imperialist countries such as Germany (in fact during the civil war all hopes were based on a German Revolution as it was considered impossible to achieve socialism in one country especially in USSR. As a result of the civil war the working class lost its most conscious elements and the soviets could not really fulfill their politcal and administrative roles anymore. So these tasks which were collective were taken by a minority who would eventually form the soviet bureaucracy. (and Stalin was the main representative of it)
reply
Glen
Stalin was granted the seat of general secretary by Lenin. Purely viewed as a administrative role but which held way more power. It was Stalin who vetted and put forward candidates for party positions and thereby who ruled what. It made him able to pick only those that would in the future ally with him. Further he had oversight and control of communication and transcripts during party meetings. Making him free to edit who said what as he pleased while also knowing full well each members stance on him and others.
During Lenin's time the nr 1 spot in the Soviet government was the chairman followed by the premier. As Lenin's time ended both posts were superseded by the general secretary which was Stalin, a title and post he kept throughout his reign.
reply
Stalin was granted the seat of general secretary by Lenin. Purely viewed as a administrative role but which held way more power. It was Stalin who vetted and put forward candidates for party positions and thereby who ruled what. It made him able to pick only those that would in the future ally with him. Further he had oversight and control of communication and transcripts during party meetings. Making him free to edit who said what as he pleased while also knowing full well each members stance on him and others.
During Lenin's time the nr 1 spot in the Soviet government was the chairman followed by the premier. As Lenin's time ended both posts were superseded by the general secretary which was Stalin, a title and post he kept throughout his reign.
reply
25ilu
two things
1: Trotsky had recognized the necessity of the NEP in 1920, since he thought the time for grain requisitions and War Communism was over. his later opposition to the NEP was on the grounds that he saw it as no longer necessary, and that small private enterprise was driving a wedge between the peasantry and the workers and slowing down industry (which he and others called the Scissor Problem)
2: while he was not blameless for the outcome of the Polish-Soviet war, the biggest reason for the failure at Warsaw was a lack of consolidation of the Red Army, which was due to Stalin trying to secure Lviv and Krakow instead of redirecting north to help Trotsky and Tukhachevsky.
other than that, great stuff 5/5
reply
two things
1: Trotsky had recognized the necessity of the NEP in 1920, since he thought the time for grain requisitions and War Communism was over. his later opposition to the NEP was on the grounds that he saw it as no longer necessary, and that small private enterprise was driving a wedge between the peasantry and the workers and slowing down industry (which he and others called the Scissor Problem)
2: while he was not blameless for the outcome of the Polish-Soviet war, the biggest reason for the failure at Warsaw was a lack of consolidation of the Red Army, which was due to Stalin trying to secure Lviv and Krakow instead of redirecting north to help Trotsky and Tukhachevsky.
other than that, great stuff 5/5
reply
Hugo
Bruh, usually I find History Matters stuff to be fairly good but this is just bad. So much of what he described in the video either didn t happen or wasn t done for the reasons you prescribed them.
The relationships between the members of the party wasn t at all the way he described it either.
Considering not a single source is referenced I find this to be a pretty bad video for anyone trying to learn history. The transfer of power and the relationship between these people are surprisingly well documented and I recommend everyone do their own research
reply
Bruh, usually I find History Matters stuff to be fairly good but this is just bad. So much of what he described in the video either didn t happen or wasn t done for the reasons you prescribed them.
The relationships between the members of the party wasn t at all the way he described it either.
Considering not a single source is referenced I find this to be a pretty bad video for anyone trying to learn history. The transfer of power and the relationship between these people are surprisingly well documented and I recommend everyone do their own research
reply
M rton
I think Stalin was right in many things, but the whole Trotsky thing, he was not right about him in many ways. The NEP actually sucked and Trotsky knew this and criticised it, he was right about the whole NEP thing. Also, he was never willing to give up on the classic, true, always communist thought while Stalin, not so much. He put self interest ahead of communism. Which is obviously not right for a communist. But in the end, Stalin was right about more things then Trotsky and thus, he became the leader. Or idk, this is how I see it as a communist
reply
I think Stalin was right in many things, but the whole Trotsky thing, he was not right about him in many ways. The NEP actually sucked and Trotsky knew this and criticised it, he was right about the whole NEP thing. Also, he was never willing to give up on the classic, true, always communist thought while Stalin, not so much. He put self interest ahead of communism. Which is obviously not right for a communist. But in the end, Stalin was right about more things then Trotsky and thus, he became the leader. Or idk, this is how I see it as a communist
reply
AudieHolland
There's a famous propaganda painting depicting Lenin giving his speech while behind him are Trotsky, Stalin and Bukharin.
In the years following Lenin's death, Stalin had all paintings with the same theme edited so that only Lenin, Stalin and Bukharin remained.
Of course, Bukharin was also executed as a 'traitor' and thus only Lenin giving his speech with Stalin behind him remaining, remained.
I bet that if Stalin had lived one or two decades longer, he would have had the image edited for one last time, leaving only Stalin.
reply
There's a famous propaganda painting depicting Lenin giving his speech while behind him are Trotsky, Stalin and Bukharin.
In the years following Lenin's death, Stalin had all paintings with the same theme edited so that only Lenin, Stalin and Bukharin remained.
Of course, Bukharin was also executed as a 'traitor' and thus only Lenin giving his speech with Stalin behind him remaining, remained.
I bet that if Stalin had lived one or two decades longer, he would have had the image edited for one last time, leaving only Stalin.
reply
GigaChad
Another reason being that Trotsky came from a wealthy family and was highly educated, whereas other members of the party were mostly from proletariat backgrounds. He especially failed to see the threat Stalin posed since he considered him to be nothing but a brainless brute. And that was exactly where he was wrong. Stalin was a very shrewd and intelligent politician. All of his actions and alliances which he made with other party members and decisively sidelined Trostsky are it's ultimate proof.
reply
Another reason being that Trotsky came from a wealthy family and was highly educated, whereas other members of the party were mostly from proletariat backgrounds. He especially failed to see the threat Stalin posed since he considered him to be nothing but a brainless brute. And that was exactly where he was wrong. Stalin was a very shrewd and intelligent politician. All of his actions and alliances which he made with other party members and decisively sidelined Trostsky are it's ultimate proof.
reply
Generic
New research shows that Lenin was not mentally aware of his surroundings when he supposedly denounced Stalin. When he wrote the infamous letter known as Lenin's Testament, due to a crippling stroke, Lenin was not physically able to write or speak at the time when his letter was supposedly dictated to his wife, Krupskaya. Krupskaya was the only person who had access to Lenin and she despised Stalin.
Furthermore, why would Lenin elevate Stalin to the Politburo if Lenin didn't trust him?
reply
New research shows that Lenin was not mentally aware of his surroundings when he supposedly denounced Stalin. When he wrote the infamous letter known as Lenin's Testament, due to a crippling stroke, Lenin was not physically able to write or speak at the time when his letter was supposedly dictated to his wife, Krupskaya. Krupskaya was the only person who had access to Lenin and she despised Stalin.
Furthermore, why would Lenin elevate Stalin to the Politburo if Lenin didn't trust him?
reply
Comrade
What s not often talked about is how Euro-centric Trotsky was, he believed that if Europe wasn t aligned to Communism the international socialist movement would fail. Comparatively, Stalin put far more emphasis on internal growth and relying on allied neighbours.
In this regard, Stalin was by far in the correct position. And if Khrushchev hadn t forged the Sino-Soviet Split and divided the USSR from its largest Communist neighbour, the Soviets would likely still be around today
reply
What s not often talked about is how Euro-centric Trotsky was, he believed that if Europe wasn t aligned to Communism the international socialist movement would fail. Comparatively, Stalin put far more emphasis on internal growth and relying on allied neighbours.
In this regard, Stalin was by far in the correct position. And if Khrushchev hadn t forged the Sino-Soviet Split and divided the USSR from its largest Communist neighbour, the Soviets would likely still be around today
reply
NotSoOtto
Fun fact: Stalin (or one of his mates) gave Trotsky the wrong date for Lenin's state funeral, making it seem like he opposed Lenin to the general public as he did not turn up while most other CCP members did.
Also, the politburo did not publicly disclose Lenin's Testament to the public that praised Trotsky and heavily critisized Stalin (asking for the removal of his powerful General Secretary position, which probably would have stopped Stalins rise to power.
reply
Fun fact: Stalin (or one of his mates) gave Trotsky the wrong date for Lenin's state funeral, making it seem like he opposed Lenin to the general public as he did not turn up while most other CCP members did.
Also, the politburo did not publicly disclose Lenin's Testament to the public that praised Trotsky and heavily critisized Stalin (asking for the removal of his powerful General Secretary position, which probably would have stopped Stalins rise to power.
reply
GbrElfunk
Actually there's no record of Lenin not wanting Stalin to succeed him. His so called testament is just a series of reflections on the attributes and flaws both of Stalin and Trotsky, and you can't draw any conclusion whatsoever on Lenin's preference. Besides that, let's remember he was practically rambling on his deathbed, being angry at Stalin for talking harshly to his wife. It's not a political reflection on his successors whatsoever.
reply
Actually there's no record of Lenin not wanting Stalin to succeed him. His so called testament is just a series of reflections on the attributes and flaws both of Stalin and Trotsky, and you can't draw any conclusion whatsoever on Lenin's preference. Besides that, let's remember he was practically rambling on his deathbed, being angry at Stalin for talking harshly to his wife. It's not a political reflection on his successors whatsoever.
reply
Rod
If Lenin disliked Stalin so much, why was he given so much power? Also Trotsky would have been no better than Stalin if this was the point of this video. Because Communism is a bad idea, that goes against human nature. Also people die or are put into gulags that Lenin started building BTW. The problem with communists is they run out of people to blame for communism not working.
reply
If Lenin disliked Stalin so much, why was he given so much power? Also Trotsky would have been no better than Stalin if this was the point of this video. Because Communism is a bad idea, that goes against human nature. Also people die or are put into gulags that Lenin started building BTW. The problem with communists is they run out of people to blame for communism not working.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
