I’m more of a “history doesn’t tolerate subjunctive mood” person.
Each of the top candidates had issues, and I’m not too deep into the history of every single Committee member to suggest entirely different options.
Still, if you want my opinion, I think history proves Lenin’s aversion to “administrative” leaders is a bit overstated. Pyatakov, for example, could likely reform Soviet economy in a more planned, predictable and efficient manner without much of the issues (and horrors) associated with Stalin’s rule. However, if he would extend his rule as far as Stalin did, this would certainly cause major issues, too.
What I fully agree on with Lenin is that power shouldn’t have concentrated in the hands of a single leader in the first place, no matter who said leader would be. Back then, however, workers were not as experienced in the destructive ways of authoritarian power, which has lead us where we are.
Lenin would like for Soviets to be Soviets, worker’s councils to have local power and for the party to make collective decisions that would genuinely benefit the country and the Communist International.
Do we think that the level of development of the local Soviets and the higher order Soviets was sufficient enough to coordinate the necessary response to the threat of the Third Reich? As far as I understand it, even with Stalin’s significant control he still had opposition to the idea that Germany would be such a near-term threat and such a massive one. Maybe I am wrong about that.
The military command was fairly solid, although Stalin indeed played an important role there.
It’s hard to assess properly, not in least part because Stalin was in office for almost 20 years when Hitler invaded USSR and plenty could go differently in that timeframe, but I believe USSR would win regardless, first because of other important people in the chain of command, second because allies lended significant help pressuring the Reich on other fronts (and also conducting joint operations with USSR) and third because plenty of people did understand the risks.
Either way, it would be very devastating, even if someone else properly reinforced the Soviet troops ahead of time. Stalin did what he could, given the circumstances.
It was an industrial war. Yes, the command was critical. Yes allies were critical. But Stalin directed the economy on the basis of a prediction of the war in a way that I don’t think any other economic thinker at the time would have
Sverdlov was the most likely candidate due to his skills with politics and administration. After his and Lenin’s deaths, that pretty much left Trotsky and Stalin, and the former was ideologically lacking and prone to menshevist tendencies, while Stalin was theoretically and practically more competent, so he was chosen.
Ultimately, though, the USSR was run collectively. Stalin had a major impact, but the idea that problems he faced would not be faced by Trotksy is essentially Great Man Theory. Trots try to imagine a perfect USSR with Trotsky at the helm, and thus smear Stalin because that fanfiction isn’t reality.
No; in fact, Lenin himself was very critical of Stalin, even though he appreciated Stalin’s revolutionary efforts and his role in Soviet politics.
Most prominently, it was mentioned in the Lenin’s Testament, particularly the postscript, but it is also present through other pieces of evidence.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol02/no01/lenin.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin’s_Testament
Besides, every Soviet leader brought ideological changes, so it’s natural that you might follow through with one but not the other.
Any evidence that goes against my beliefs is a fraud…
who do you think would’ve made a great successor to lenin, other than bukharin or trotsky?
I’m more of a “history doesn’t tolerate subjunctive mood” person.
Each of the top candidates had issues, and I’m not too deep into the history of every single Committee member to suggest entirely different options.
Still, if you want my opinion, I think history proves Lenin’s aversion to “administrative” leaders is a bit overstated. Pyatakov, for example, could likely reform Soviet economy in a more planned, predictable and efficient manner without much of the issues (and horrors) associated with Stalin’s rule. However, if he would extend his rule as far as Stalin did, this would certainly cause major issues, too.
What I fully agree on with Lenin is that power shouldn’t have concentrated in the hands of a single leader in the first place, no matter who said leader would be. Back then, however, workers were not as experienced in the destructive ways of authoritarian power, which has lead us where we are.
so lenin would prefer a troika instead?
Lenin would like for Soviets to be Soviets, worker’s councils to have local power and for the party to make collective decisions that would genuinely benefit the country and the Communist International.
Do we think that the level of development of the local Soviets and the higher order Soviets was sufficient enough to coordinate the necessary response to the threat of the Third Reich? As far as I understand it, even with Stalin’s significant control he still had opposition to the idea that Germany would be such a near-term threat and such a massive one. Maybe I am wrong about that.
The military command was fairly solid, although Stalin indeed played an important role there.
It’s hard to assess properly, not in least part because Stalin was in office for almost 20 years when Hitler invaded USSR and plenty could go differently in that timeframe, but I believe USSR would win regardless, first because of other important people in the chain of command, second because allies lended significant help pressuring the Reich on other fronts (and also conducting joint operations with USSR) and third because plenty of people did understand the risks.
Either way, it would be very devastating, even if someone else properly reinforced the Soviet troops ahead of time. Stalin did what he could, given the circumstances.
It was an industrial war. Yes, the command was critical. Yes allies were critical. But Stalin directed the economy on the basis of a prediction of the war in a way that I don’t think any other economic thinker at the time would have
so who would lenin want as a successor if NOT stalin, bukharin, trotsky or the person you mentioned?
Sverdlov was the most likely candidate due to his skills with politics and administration. After his and Lenin’s deaths, that pretty much left Trotsky and Stalin, and the former was ideologically lacking and prone to menshevist tendencies, while Stalin was theoretically and practically more competent, so he was chosen.
Ultimately, though, the USSR was run collectively. Stalin had a major impact, but the idea that problems he faced would not be faced by Trotksy is essentially Great Man Theory. Trots try to imagine a perfect USSR with Trotsky at the helm, and thus smear Stalin because that fanfiction isn’t reality.