Lenin's successor: neither Stalin nor Trotzky

[Max Sinister]

The topic tells it all: WI Trotzky and Stalin both hadn't become new leaders of the Soviet Union, but someone else? Maybe a compromise candidate, since the party left didn't like Stalin and the party right didn't like Trotzky. Who could be that Mr X? Bucharin was a rightist, Sinoviev and Kamenev were leftists, so they aren't possible.

 

[wkwillis]

The topic tells it all: WI Trotzky and Stalin both hadn't become new leaders of the Soviet Union, but someone else? Maybe a compromise candidate, since the party left didn't like Stalin and the party right didn't like Trotzky. Who could be that Mr X? Bucharin was a rightist, Sinoviev and Kamenev were leftists, so they aren't possible.

A bomb kills the correct people, one of the above takes over be default.

 

[Matthew Craw]

If Sverdlov hadn't died in 1919 I think it's safe to assume that he would have been Lenin's successor. He was Chairman of the Central Executive Committee, with effective control over the party apparatus, and was arguably the predominant voice in civil administration as well. Filling essentially the same role that Stalin came to occupy after his death. Moreover, Lenin really liked him, apparently having none of the reservations he had about every other senior Bolsheviks, so it's quite likely he would have endorsed him as a successor in his testament.

 

[Straha]

if the mensheviks take power the USSR is the dominant power in 2005. Russia's resources and manpower just needed an effective leader and they could have been THE superpower and not the US if they had only gotten their act in shape

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

The topic tells it all: WI Trotzky and Stalin both hadn't become new leaders of the Soviet Union, but someone else? Maybe a compromise candidate, since the party left didn't like Stalin and the party right didn't like Trotzky. Who could be that Mr X? Bucharin was a rightist, Sinoviev and Kamenev were leftists, so they aren't possible.

Well, the fact that we don't really hear much about anyone else during the whole succession period doesn't really fill me with much confidence. Granted, there could be some people who did great things and got shoved into the night by Stalin's P.R. commissariat, but the impression I get of most of the other Bolsheviks is of "ideologically correct dullards."

Anyway, Stalin tended to bounce back and forth between the "left" and "right" wings of the party during this period, generally to secure a place in the organization for himself.

Straha, I wouldn't bother looking towards the Mensheviks as a possible successor to Lenin. These guys had been on his shit list since 1905 at least. After 1921, with the Bolshevik victory in the RCW, the Mensheviks were another of those leftist parties who, along with Socialist Revolutionaries and the eight surviving liberal democrats, were the target of Cheka housecleaning operations.

 

[Max Sinister]

Sverdlov could be a good choice. Let's say, he survives, becomes Lenin's successor and is accepted by both wings of the Bolshies. Not necessarily an easy job, since both sides constantly watch him, a bit like the proverbial pogostick-tester in the minefield, but still... since neither side wants the other one in power, they both support him.

Back to the story. It's 1924, Lenin is dead, Sverdlov reigns, the left wing demands supporting other Communist parties to make successful revolutions in their countries, Stalin and others want to develop communism in Russia. What next?

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Sverdlov could be a good choice. Let's say, he survives, becomes Lenin's successor and is accepted by both wings of the Bolshies. Not necessarily an easy job, since both sides constantly watch him, a bit like the proverbial pogostick-tester in the minefield, but still... since neither side wants the other one in power, they both support him.

Back to the story. It's 1924, Lenin is dead, Sverdlov reigns, the left wing demands supporting other Communist parties to make successful revolutions in their countries, Stalin and others want to develop communism in Russia. What next?

That's the problem. I don't know anything about Sverdlov, or what his opinions were on the various issues of the day. I haven't started exploring him in my reading yet. Given, however, that he was in a group of people with similar mind-set, you could expect him to do some broadly Stalinist things (centralize the economy, probably collectivise agriculture, maybe a light purge to two, and so on). As for details, I don't know.

 

[hammo1j]

Think the topic ought to be changed to who could make a success of SU after Lenin. I think George Washington would have had problems because he was surrounded by like minded people.

Possibly Stalin was the exception and the SU just got unlucky but I think he was the rule. The mental level of the SU demanded it be ruled by a ruthless peasant with intelligence just like Hitler took Germany.

 

[B_Munro]

if the mensheviks take power the USSR is the dominant power in 2005. Russia's resources and manpower just needed an effective leader and they could have been THE superpower and not the US if they had only gotten their act in shape

MIGHT be the dominant superpower, Democracy does not guarantee good economic policy, especially if you are starting out with a country with no democratic tradition, a population mostly composed of illiterate and impoverished peasants, a weak entrepreneurial class, and a considerable suspicion of capitalism. Look at much of Latin America. (although, admittedly, a Russia with an economy as developed as Mexico's would still be richer than today's Russia).

Even if Russia succeeds in modernizing, it's not necessarily going to be MORE of a superpower than the US, at least economically. Russia isn't going to have that much of a population advantage over the US, especially since as a _democratic_ country it is likely to shed large chunks of the old Russian empire, and as a _successfully modernizing_ country it will go through the demographic transition well before the end of the century. Add to that the fact that it is going to have trouble matching the US in GNP/capita (low, low starting point, well behind even Italy or Ireland in 1914, and _no_ large European country has managed to do so. Italy has only about 63%, France 76%, even Germany 80%. The only large country to manage that is Japan, and I really don't see Russia as another japan), I would bet good money on the US still having a bigger economy than even the most successful modernizing Russia in 2005.

OTOH, it might be a _more influencial_ power than the US, if a US never stirred out of isolationism by Nazis and the Cold War follows a policy of "free trade, otherwise ignore" re Eurasia...

best,
Bruce

 

[MarkA]

MIGHT be the dominant superpower, Democracy does not guarantee good economic policy, especially if you are starting out with a country with no democratic tradition, a population mostly composed of illiterate and impoverished peasants, a weak entrepreneurial class, and a considerable suspicion of capitalism. Look at much of Latin America. (although, admittedly, a Russia with an economy as developed as Mexico's would still be richer than today's Russia).

Even if Russia succeeds in modernizing, it's not necessarily going to be MORE of a superpower than the US, at least economically. Russia isn't going to have that much of a population advantage over the US, especially since as a _democratic_ country it is likely to shed large chunks of the old Russian empire, and as a _successfully modernizing_ country it will go through the demographic transition well before the end of the century. Add to that the fact that it is going to have trouble matching the US in GNP/capita (low, low starting point, well behind even Italy or Ireland in 1914, and _no_ large European country has managed to do so. Italy has only about 63%, France 76%, even Germany 80%. The only large country to manage that is Japan, and I really don't see Russia as another japan), I would bet good money on the US still having a bigger economy than even the most successful modernizing Russia in 2005.

OTOH, it might be a _more influencial_ power than the US, if a US never stirred out of isolationism by Nazis and the Cold War follows a policy of "free trade, otherwise ignore" re Eurasia...

best,
Bruce

Very interesting. I agree that democracy is not necessary to achieve economic ascendency. However, it seems more than a mere coincidence that the nations who inherited the ancient germanic traditions of democracy are the most advanced economically, socially and politically. Perhaps if Kievian Rus survived..?

Marxism is of course a western concept so if the successor to Lenin managed to placate the inherent factional tensions within the Bolshevik Party and allowed the state to become more of a facilitator rather than an arbitrator, then perhaps it may have been more economically powerful. On the other hand another civil war may have broken out and the destruction of the USSR was the consequence.

Stalin was not an aberration but another successor would have been. How long could such a leader survive? Bolshevism was NOT socialism, as any contemporary western socialist repeatedly said and as any modern socialist would also recognise. The Bolshevik coup would have to fail before a significant change in political philosophy and therefore leadership could occur.

 

[Max Sinister]

Why germanic traditions of democracy? AFAIK democracy was invented by Greeks and later practised by Romans, before the Swiss re-discovered it many centuries later...

 

[MarkA]

Why germanic traditions of democracy? AFAIK democracy was invented by Greeks and later practised by Romans, before the Swiss re-discovered it many centuries later...

There is no unbroken tradition of Athenian democratic tradition in western culture. An argument may be made that a small amount of Roman democratic practice has been passed on, but in my opinion it was quashed completely by the Romans themselves.

All the german kingships after they set up in the ruins of the western empire were elective. The folk had certain inaliable rights that they exercised. As late as the Norman conquest the English peasants invoked their ancient rights and were oppressed by the invader. Indeed, the Isle of Man today has some remnent of what these assemblies must have been like.

 

[Flocculencio]

Why germanic traditions of democracy? AFAIK democracy was invented by Greeks and later practised by Romans, before the Swiss re-discovered it many centuries later...

Not in it's modern form. As MarkA points out, most modern forms of democracy are derived from Germanic traditions one of the most influential of which has been the Anglo-Saxon one.