Stalin led the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as absolute dictator for twenty-four years. As a writer and editor at the Communist Party newspaper Pravda, as well as the author of books and articles, Stalin contributed to the body of works delineating Soviet ideology.
Isaac Deutscher Trotsky on Stalin Source: The contemporary reader cannot yet look either at the hero of this book or at its author in the perspective of history, and hence it is not easy to define its value as a document.
The train of events, to which the feud of the two men belongs, has not yet run its full course. The book was ready for publication in the United States as early as It was then withheld from print by the American publishers, in deference to the leader of a mighty allied nation.
It first saw the light in the United States only inafter the Foreign Secretaries of the former allies had fallen out, and opinion had made the remarkable swing from wartime admiration of Russia to acute peacetime suspicion.
Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli.
Imagine that Danton, after his conviction, had been given a lease of life which enabled him to write a biography of Robespierre. Yet it is doubtful whether posterity would have accepted that evidence wholly as it stood. Such an analogy — if an imaginary one — is as imperfect as any comparison drawn between two real and historic situations.
Stalin is, and is not, the Robespierre of Bolshevism. In the actual making of the revolution his role was incomparably slighter — the title of the Russian Robespierre goes not to Stalin but to Lenin. It is in the post-revolutionary era that Stalin has loomed just as large, or even larger, than Robespierre; he has even combined his traits with those of the First Consul.
Both represented the same type of revolutionary leadership, oratorical genius and tactical brilliance. Only a few years after his resounding triumphs the universally acclaimed tribune of the people was already the hunted leader of a new Conspiracy of Equals, raising the cry for the regeneration of the revolution and defying the implacable builders of a half-revolutionary and half-conservative empire.
The tide of history ran against Trotsky as powerfully as it had run against Babeuf.
It is a book that bears all the marks of the tremendous nervous pressure under which its author lived his last tragic years.
When he wrote it he had behind him more than ten years of a frustrating isolation from the world, ten years in the course of which he wandered uneasily, in constant danger of sudden death, from one uncertain asylum to another.
He was oppressed by the nightmare of the Moscow purge trials, in which he had been depicted as the centre of a most sinister conspiracy. Finally, while he was still working on this book, on 20 Augusthe was struck down by an assassin, who presumably was carrying out a verdict passed in Moscow.
Only the first seven chapters were finished by him. Small wonder, therefore, that this posthumous book lacks the sweep and brilliance which distinguished his monumental History of the Russian Revolution.
As a piece of writing it is disappointingly inchoate and at times incoherent. Even so, it must be said that many of its pages are illumined by flashes of genius, epigrams and sayings that may go down to history: But if he had acquired power, he would have represented the other eleven apostles as traitors, and also all the lesser apostles, whom Luke numbers as seventy.
And this is how Trotsky sums up his indictment of Stalin: Louis XIV identified himself only with the state. The Popes of Rome identified themselves with both the state and the church — but only during the epoch of temporal power.
The totalitarian state goes far beyond Caesaro-Papism, for it has encompassed the entire economy of the country as well. In the conflict of the two men, principles, ideas and policies were at stake; but the conflict of temperaments was not less important.
Two so extremely contrasting personalities would have clashed in any party, in any circumstances. Only in an atmosphere overcharged with revolution like that of Tsarist Russia could so cautious a mind as his be attracted by the Marxian doctrine. Where his actions have the sweep of the boldest social experimentation they reflect less the qualities of that mind than the extraordinary pressures of a revolution which compel a most circumspect leader to jump over precipices, in a neck-breaking manner.
As a rule, Stalin makes such jumps contre-coeur, when the situation in which he finds himself allows neither retreat nor advance by any normal way. Thus in many ways this most adventurous of contemporary statesmen at heart fears and abhors adventure. Feared by conservatives as the very embodiment of revolution, he himself has been a conservative in the revolution.
Revolution was his proper element. He had been drawn to it by his temperament and outlook. The dialectical philosophy, which views life as the continuous conflict of opposites, continuous change and movement, was to him not merely a doctrine to be intellectually absorbed — it permeated his instinctive behaviour.Trotsky was one of Stalin’s major competitors for the title of all ruling leader, however even he could not stop this man of steel, a name that Stalin quite fittingly gave to himself as he joined the party.
One of the main reasons as to why Stalin came to power and not Trotsky, was that Trotsky did not attend Lenin’s funeral. Aug 30, · Forget Trotsky if Kirov had come to ashio-midori.com there would have been one hell of a change. Stalin did not become a full-fledged dictator until .
Nov 19, · Trotsky fomenting revolution across Europe would have accelerated, not prevented, the rise of Nazism. Furthermore, he was insufferably arrogant and difficult to work with, which IOTL was what led to him being isolated and eliminated during the power struggle following Lenin's death.
Norman Pereira’s essay on Stalin’s rise to power in the USSR was a cautious attempt to challenge consensus. From the s onwards, under the influence of Trotsky’s autobiography, even most anti-Communists subscribed to a condescending analysis of how Stalin had won the struggle against his . Power Struggle Between Leon Trotsky And Joseph Stalin History Essay In , when Vladimir Lenin became incapacitated, there was a need of your successor for the Soviet Union. As he was little by little dying, a vitality struggle emerged between Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. Why Was It Stalin And Not Trotsky The One To Win The Power Struggle After Lenin's Death Revision The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our IB The Bolsheviks/Stalinism Outlines.
Why Stalin was Able to Win the Power Struggle with Trotsky Essay Why Stalin was Able to Win the Power Struggle with Trotsky The Bolsheviks, the ruling party of the Soviet Union, was lead by the Lenin.
The weakness of opposition also helped Stalin come to power, the fact that Kamenev and Zinoviev as well as the public where alarmed by the arrogance by Trotsky it helpt Stalin as it meant they doubted if Trotsky was really the right person to become head of state as they thought he wouldn’t be able to help Russia, as well as Trotsky’s.
Stalin did not renounce world revolution; Trotsky did not reject the chance of building socialism in Russia”.
Historians have acknowledged that Stalin made several efforts to attempt revolution in few states of Europe, but only failure greeted him.