When did Lenin contract syphilis?
I never heard that or if I did I forgot it!
It sure sounds like the kind of thing people very hostile to Bolshevism might make up. It might be true but I'd like to see some reference to the evidence!
From what I've read, the NEP came to an end because the program ended up generating economic problems in the time before the policy came to an end. It's been a while since I've studied the NEP, so unfortunately I cannot quiet remember what the precise issue was, though I think the problem had to do with the relative lack of industrialization and the unwillingness of the peasantry to participate in commerce with the newly established more industrial parts of the USSR. If I'm wrong, or simply misinformed I apologize, and don't quote me on that because there's a good chance I'm very off on the NEP.
The Bolsheviks called it "the scissors." Basically the industrial sector didn't progress fast enough to offer the farmers in the countryside enough goods of high enough quality to seem like a fair trade to them for their crops; they could have bought better goods and more on the world market.
Besides that, yes NEP was basically an emergency expedient they adopted much against their will, and people like Trotsky (and I think Lenin would have agreed with him) were very worried about the polarization of the peasantry. Some were becoming quite prosperous entrepreneurs, while others were sinking into being landless wage laborers. More radical Bolsheviks like Trotsky (and Lenin!) doubted very much that a socialist society could exist on such a basis, much less advance toward communism. They thought something had to be done.
Others were less pessimistic; IIRC Bukharin championed the market approach; he proposed that the state should indeed sell as much of the crops as the Soviet citizens themselves didn't need on the world market and use the money they got from that to buy goods to exchange to the farmers; then use anything left over for industrial expansion.
I don't think Lenin would have championed that approach. I know that Trotsky's proposals were pretty much as drastic as what Stalin did OTL, though his approach would have been somewhat different--he believed that the Bolsheviks could organize the propertyless peasants to force collectivization from below as it were. It's hard to say whether that would have simply been a fiasco, or simply tantamount to what Stalin actually did, or whether there might have been some benefit politically to doing it that way. Suppose for instance the pace were somewhat slower and meanwhile the industrial workers got their act together a bit better and delivered more to the peasants (whose expectations would be lowered to the levels the poor ones rather than the rich had) then the alliance between countryside and city might have been on a more solid basis.
The Bolsheviks were dealing with two things--one, they were trying to industrialize from a devastated basis after the Civil War; two the Soviet system certainly did give shelter to a lot of corruption in practice and there was no easy way to check that. Trotsky's approach in general was to try to bring the poorer people in politically and educate them to accept the Party's program and try and check corruption from below. Others were quite skeptical that could work; we don't know.
It's conventional wisdom in the capitalist West that of course it couldn't and I guess that's why so many people equate "more capitalism" with "more progress for Russia." Even if I am wrong that more radical approaches rather than less were workable and the better path, I think they are wrong in assuming that Russia could just follow the Western path. The thing is, the already developed Western nations were already there ahead of them on that path and they would have to make room for Russian competition. Which they had little interest in doing!
...Of course, Lenin is not Stalin, so any "purges" may be very different under Lenin.
I'd really like to think that Lenin, working with Trotsky, would have done it somewhat less brutally and even that they could have pulled it off more effectively. Say, setting more realistic and less grandiose nominal targets, but then more effectively making sure that those targets were actually met. There was a lot of gap between Stalin's Plans on paper and what was actually delivered; more modest targets actually coming close to being met might have meant more real progress across the board, and less development of the black market "on the left" underground economy. With most everything happening above board instead of in shadows planning might have delivered more impressive results sooner and more to the benefit of the masses whose support the Bolsheviks hoped to earn more than coerce.
Alas it could well be that they would just lose control politically and that it took someone like Stalin to do the job, sloppily and bloodily. Still, solid progress was made. If Russia effectively returned to the world capitalist fold I doubt even as much as what Stalin did accomplish would trickle down to the common working people.
By the way, I will defer to people who have studied the detailed relationship between Lenin and Trotsky more than I have, if they cite their evidence where I might be wrong, but my impression is that Lenin certainly didn't want to simply give Trotsky carte blanche but he did trust him as an intelligent advisor and solid supporter of the cause, and certainly would not want to do without his talents and perspective. And Trotsky was loyal to Lenin and would never undercut him, though he might interpret how to best carry out Lenin's intentions differently than others did. And I think Trotsky knew full well that he was not trusted by many Bolsheviks for a variety of related reasons.
For one thing, perhaps the most important single factor, he had not been a Bolshevik but a Menshevik, until the July Days when he joined with Lenin to support an insurrection. I think he clearly demonstrated in deeds as well as words that his conversion was sincere, total, and unswerving, but his new comrades were always skeptical. Second, as Lenin's lieutenant he wielded a lot of authority and took responsibility for many things, some of which did not go well. The performance of the Red Army under his leadership was a mixed bag--my impression is, given the terrible handicaps they worked under Trotsky did remarkably well and promoted solid leadership under him. But actually the more successful a general he was, the more anxious many Bolsheviks, who were on the lookout for the Napoleon to Lenin's Robespierre, got. A lot of people nowadays just say casually "Oh, Trotsky was a poor politician...Trotsky was just an obnoxious son of a bitch..." I think there is evidence that office politics was not his forte, but as for the latter I rank it with the Lenin's syphillis theory until someone shows the evidence! Finally of course Trotsky was Jewish. A number of other Bolsheviks were also Jewish to be sure, but I think they did tend to suffer disproportionately in purges and that most of them were better at avoiding looking too ambitious. Trotsky apparently was an
uppity Jew!
For all these reasons, aside from friendship and admiration for Lenin, I believe Trotsky was utterly loyal to Lenin, knowing that his position as Lenin's lieutenant was a far better prospect for him than trying to seize command for himself.
Thus, I think that as long as Lenin lived and was capable of exercising leadership, Trotsky would be by his side helping him do so. I think Lenin was also realistic about Trotsky's liabilities within the Bolshevik party, and would not want to groom him as heir apparent. Lenin did value a much more collegial approach to leadership than Stalin did, and would ideally want to see a collective leadership including Trotsky succeed him.