You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
When Lenin died in January 1924 he left no designated successor and no settled mechanism for transferring power — a problem the Romanovs had solved by heredity and the Bolsheviks had never solved at all. The contest to inherit his mantle, fought between 1924 and 1929, would determine the entire future direction of the Soviet Union. Its outcome was not inevitable. That Joseph Stalin — a man Lenin had explicitly recommended removing from his post as General Secretary — should emerge as the unchallenged leader by 1929, having defeated in turn the most brilliant theorists and the most celebrated revolutionaries of the party, is one of the most consequential and least predictable outcomes in modern history.
For a breadth study running from Lenin to Yeltsin, the succession struggle matters on two levels. First, it is a study in the nature of communist government: it reveals how power actually flowed in the one-party state the Bolsheviks had built — not through open election or popular mandate, but through control of the party apparatus, the manipulation of ideology, and the management of Lenin's legacy. The lesson that a Soviet leader was made by the machine, not by the masses, holds good for every later succession — after Stalin in 1953, after Khrushchev in 1964, and in the rapid turnover of the early 1980s. Second, the struggle was fought over a genuine economic question inherited from Lesson 2: the future of the NEP, and how a backward, isolated country should industrialise. The organising question is whether Stalin's victory was the product of structural advantage — the built-in power of his offices — or of personal cunning and his rivals' blunders. The best answers hold that structure and contingency worked together, and that judgement is the analytical heart of the lesson.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 1, Option 1E (Route E): "Russia, 1917–91: from Lenin to Yeltsin" — a breadth study assessed by extended analytical essays (Sections A and B) and by the evaluation of historians' interpretations (Section C). Within our teaching sequence it develops the nature of government thread by exposing how power was transferred and concentrated in the one-party state, and it carries forward the economy thread by showing how the argument over the NEP structured the whole contest.
Because Paper 1 is a breadth paper, examiners look for command of change over time and for judgements that connect this episode to the wider pattern of Soviet politics. Keep asking what the succession reveals about how communist rule actually worked. (For the precise assessment weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
Lenin suffered a series of strokes from May 1922 that progressively removed him from active leadership, so that the contest for the succession effectively began while he was still alive. In a series of dictated notes that became known as the Testament (December 1922 – January 1923), Lenin assessed the leading party figures and warned above all against a split between Trotsky and Stalin.
| Leader | Lenin's assessment (paraphrased) |
|---|---|
| Stalin | Had concentrated enormous power as General Secretary and might not use it with sufficient caution |
| Trotsky | The most able man in the Central Committee, but too self-confident and too preoccupied with the administrative side |
| Zinoviev and Kamenev | Their opposition to the October Revolution "was not accidental" — a pointed reminder of their wavering in 1917 |
| Bukharin | The party's most valuable theoretician, but his views were not fully reliable in theory |
In a postscript of January 1923, Lenin went further, recommending that the comrades find a way of removing Stalin from the General Secretaryship because he was "too rude" — a judgement prompted partly by Stalin's rudeness to Lenin's wife Krupskaya and their clash over the "Georgian affair," in which Stalin had handled the national question with a heavy hand. Had the Testament been published, it might have ended Stalin's career. Instead it was read privately to delegations at the Thirteenth Party Congress in May 1924 and then suppressed: Zinoviev and Kamenev, who feared Trotsky far more, argued that Lenin's fears about Stalin had not been borne out — a misjudgement they would both come to regret. (The document did not appear openly in the Soviet Union until Khrushchev quoted it in 1956, a later moment of de-Stalinisation that this course reaches in due course.) That the most damaging document in the party's possession could be neutralised in this way is itself powerful evidence of how the succession was really decided: not by Lenin's wishes or by open debate, but by the alignments and calculations of the party elite.
The deeper point is that the Bolsheviks had created a system with no legitimate, regular way of transferring supreme power. Under the autocracy the succession had passed by heredity; the Provisional Government had promised a Constituent Assembly; but the one-party state recognised no electorate and no constitutional procedure for choosing a leader. Power therefore passed through faction, intrigue and control of the apparatus — and the resulting instability at the death of a ruler is a recurring feature of the whole period. The chaotic succession of 1924 prefigures the collective-leadership manoeuvring after Stalin's death in 1953, the Politburo coup against Khrushchev in 1964, and the rapid turnover of ageing General Secretaries in the early 1980s. Fixing this structural flaw at the outset gives students a thread to follow across the entire course: the Soviet system never solved the problem of orderly succession that had helped destroy the dynasty it replaced.
The struggle was fought over both personal rivalry and genuine policy disagreement, above all the future of the NEP and the question of how a backward, isolated country should industrialise.
| Leader | Position | Policy stance |
|---|---|---|
| Stalin | General Secretary (from 1922) | Initially centrist; associated with "Socialism in One Country" |
| Trotsky | Commissar for War; creator of the Red Army | "Permanent Revolution"; rapid industrialisation and pressure on the peasantry |
| Zinoviev | Head of the Comintern; party boss in Leningrad | Allied first with Stalin against Trotsky, later against Stalin |
| Kamenev | Chairman of the Moscow Soviet | Allied with Zinoviev; initially protected Stalin |
| Bukharin | Editor of Pravda; leading theoretician | Defended the NEP and gradual industrialisation; urged the peasants to "enrich yourselves" |
The great ideological clash was between Trotsky's Permanent Revolution and Stalin's Socialism in One Country. Trotsky's doctrine held that socialism in Russia could not ultimately survive unless revolution spread to the advanced industrial countries — an argument that could be portrayed as defeatist about Russia's own prospects. Stalin countered with the reassuring claim that the Soviet Union could build socialism by its own efforts without waiting for a world revolution that showed no sign of arriving. The doctrine flattered national pride, gave demoralised party members a positive and attainable goal, and was tactically brilliant, because it cast Trotsky as a man who doubted Russia while casting Stalin as the champion of Soviet self-belief. This was ideology deployed as a weapon in a power struggle — a recurring feature of the nature of communist government that will reappear whenever a Soviet leader needs to clothe a political manoeuvre in doctrinal authority.
Running alongside this high-theoretical dispute was the more concrete argument over the peasantry and the pace of change. The Right, led by Bukharin, held that the NEP should continue: prosperity in the countryside would gradually generate the savings for industrial investment, and the peasants should be encouraged — Bukharin's notorious slogan was that they should "enrich yourselves" — rather than coerced. The Left, led by Trotsky and later the United Opposition, argued that the peasant-friendly NEP was too slow and too dangerous, and that the state must extract resources from the countryside to fund rapid industrialisation before a hostile capitalist world overwhelmed the isolated Soviet Union. This was not merely a clash of personalities but a genuine strategic disagreement about how a backward economy could be modernised — the same modernisation dilemma that Witte had faced under the Tsars and that Stalin would soon answer, with unprecedented violence, in the Five-Year Plans. Understanding that the succession struggle carried this real economic content is essential to avoiding the common error of reducing it to a mere contest of ambitions.
Why did the outcome matter so much? Because each contestant stood for a genuinely different Soviet future. A Trotsky victory might have meant a more internationalist regime staking everything on world revolution; a Bukharin victory might have preserved a mixed, gradualist economy and spared the countryside the catastrophe of forced collectivisation. Stalin's triumph committed the USSR to "Socialism in One Country," to the destruction of the NEP, and to the revolution from above that reshaped Soviet society for a generation. The succession of 1924–29 was therefore not a sideshow to the "real" history of the period but one of its decisive turning points, and a breadth answer should treat it as such.
Stalin's victory came in three stages, in each of which he allied with one grouping to destroy another, then turned on his allies.
Phase 1 (1923–1925): the defeat of Trotsky. Stalin allied with Zinoviev and Kamenev to form the Triumvirate (troika) against Trotsky, who was widely feared as a potential "Bonaparte" because of his command of the Red Army. Trotsky was attacked for Permanent Revolution and damaged himself badly: he failed to attend Lenin's funeral (having, he said, been misinformed about the date by Stalin), and his arrogance alienated potential allies. He was removed as Commissar for War in January 1925.
Phase 2 (1925–1927): the defeat of the Left Opposition. Alarmed by Stalin's growing power, Zinoviev and Kamenev broke with him and, in an extraordinary reversal, allied with their former enemy Trotsky to form the United Opposition. They demanded faster industrialisation, pressure on the kulaks, an end to the NEP's concessions and a restoration of inner-party democracy. Stalin now allied with Bukharin and the "Right," defended the NEP as the correct gradual road to socialism, and used the 1921 ban on factions to brand the Opposition as illegitimate. The United Opposition was crushed at the Fifteenth Party Congress in December 1927; Trotsky and Zinoviev were expelled, and Trotsky was exiled to Alma-Ata in 1928 and deported from the USSR in 1929 (he was murdered on Stalin's orders in Mexico in 1940).
Phase 3 (1928–1929): the defeat of the Right. Having destroyed the Left, Stalin abruptly adopted much of their economic programme — abandoning the NEP in favour of forced industrialisation and collectivisation, prompted by the 1927–28 grain procurement crisis. Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky protested that coercing the peasantry would be catastrophic, but they had no independent power base, were outmanoeuvred and were denounced as a "Right deviation." By 1929 — the year of Stalin's fiftieth-birthday celebrations and the launch of a full leader-cult — Stalin was the unchallenged master of the Soviet Union.
The economic backdrop to Phase 3 deserves emphasis, because it shows how the succession and the economy thread were fused. The NEP had recovered idle capacity but, once that restoration was complete around 1926–27, it struggled to generate the surpluses the leadership wanted for industrialisation. When peasants withheld grain from a state offering too little in return — the grain procurement crisis of 1927–28 — Stalin read the emergency as proof that the NEP had failed, and reached for coercion. The Right's defence of the NEP thus made Bukharin and his allies vulnerable at exactly the moment Stalin chose to abandon it: to defend gradualism was now to stand against the "general line" of the party Stalin controlled. The same policy reversal that launched the transformation of the Soviet economy (the subject of Lesson 4) doubled as the weapon that eliminated Stalin's last rivals — a striking illustration of how, in the Soviet system, economic policy and the struggle for power were never separable.
The swing of the party line across the three phases is itself the clearest evidence of Stalin's method. He moved from the centre-right (allied with Bukharin against the Left, 1925–27) to the far left of the economic spectrum (forced industrialisation, 1928–29) in barely two years, and at each stage he could present his current position as orthodox Leninism and his opponents' as deviation. Because he controlled the apparatus that defined orthodoxy, the "line" was whatever Stalin currently held — a demonstration of how ideological authority in the one-party state flowed from institutional power rather than from doctrine itself.
Stalin's triumph owed more to political skill and institutional power than to ideological brilliance — indeed Trotsky and Bukharin were the abler theorists.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.