The debate over modernisation was a critical factor in the struggle for

party leadership after the death of Lenin in 1924

To what extent is this statement true?
Only to an extent can it be said that the need to modernise Russia was a crucial
in determining Lenins successor. Although Russia was modernised under Stalin,
who initiated his five year plans in 1928, it was not the underlying reason for his
success. Rather, it was a number of factors which contributed to Stalin obtaining
leadership of the Bolshevik Party. Stalins introspective Revolution in One
Country ideology opposed to Trotskys ideology, his bureaucratisation and
centralisation of the Party structure and his strategic alliances were central to
him achieving success. Hence, it can be asserted that modernisation was
not a critical factor in the struggle for party leadership following
Lenins death. Rather, it was a number of internal political issues which
ultimately decided Lenins successor.
Modernisation through the New Economic Policy was seen by Lenin to be crucial
to the development of Russias economy, but more importantly, to appease the
number of discontent citizens. It was a factor in determining the outcome of the
power struggle. Hence, after his death in 1924, the next leader of the Bolshevik
Party needed to continue to follow the path to modernisation. E H Carr claims
that this issue was of the utmost importance for any prospective leader. This
issue was integral to the success of Stalin and the failure of Trotsky to obtain
leadership of the Bolsheviks, who differed in their vision for a modernised Russia.
Trotskys belief in Permanent World Revolution emphasised his idea for Russia,
the empowerment of the global proletariat to create a continuing global
revolution. However, this diverted monetary resources away from Russia and
instead, according to Campling, built the foundations of the Communist model
on air emphasising the idealistic nature of Bolshevism under Trotsky and
asserting that Russia would be left in the wake of a developed Europe, a
consequence of not prioritising modernism in a rapidly changing political climate.
This led to his alienation in the Politburo, and contributed to his waning influence,
culminating in his expulsion from the Soviet Union in 1929. In contrast, Stalin
outlined his plan for Socialism in One Country. This was inwardly focused with
the intention of internal consolidation of Bolshevik power as well as his own. He
aimed to stimulate the industrial production and output of Russian Industry,
leading to a more modernised economy. As a result, his support base increased
within the Bolsheviks, gradually increasing his power base until he gradually
assumed leadership from the mid 1920s following Lenins poor health. Hence,
this demonstrates that; although modernising Russia was a factor which
determined Lenins successor, it was not decisive in enabling Stalin to determine
leadership of the Bolshevik Party in 1924.
More crucial to Stalin establishing himself as the successor of Lenin was the
manipulation of Bolshevik Party organisation. His centralisation of the Party
power structure enabled his influence as the head of the secretariat to increase
at the expense of the Politburo. This allowed him to, as described by Taylor,
weed out his opponents enabling him to effectively gain a holistic leadership of
the party. In doing this, he alienated members whose ideas for Russia differed
from his, including Trotsky. By removing the initial founders of the Bolshevik
party, Stalin strategically recruited individuals to the Politburo and Sovnarkom
who were indebted to Stalin and to him they owed their alliance. This subtle
manipulation of the Bolshevik system of government enabled him to head an

The debate over modernisation was a critical factor in the struggle for
party leadership after the death of Lenin in 1924
To what extent is this statement true?
institution described as a puppet- organisation. In contrast, Trotskys idealist
nature and factionalist tendencies alienated him from the party core which
proved a hindrance to his political motivations. He failed to understand the
practicalities of politics and was outmanoeuvred by Stalin. As factions were
removed, Trotsky was left without supporters in the Sovnarkom which alienated
the efficacy of his ideas. As a result of Stalins manipulation, Trotsky gradually
lost the admiration

and power that he had gained prior to the death of Lenin and was no longer a
member of the Bolshevik Party. Although it was the need to modernise Russia
that, to some extent, determined Lenins successor, Stalin emerged as his
successor as a result of his political manipulation, which was of greater
significance than the need for modernisation.
A critical factor which determined the leadership of the Bolshevik Party was the
forging of a strategic political alliance. Stalin used the failure of the German
Revolution in 1919 to discredit Trotskys World Revolution theory. Hence, his
alliance with far left members Zinoviev and Kamenev who wanted limited
capitalist influence in Russia. This demonstrates that it was not just
modernisation that played a role in determining Lenins successor. However, as a
result of the grain shortage in 1927, Stalin then aligned himself with Rykov and
Bukharin who supported a rapid program of collectivisation and industrialisation.
It can be seen that political alliances were crucial in determining the outcome of
the struggle for party leadership. Hence, rather than the sole need to modernise,
it was a combination of many critical factors which determined the result of the
struggle for party leadership after the death of Lenin in 1924.
In conclusion, only to an extent can it be said that modernisation was a key
factor in determining the outcome of the struggle for party leadership after
Lenins death. Equally, or more importantly, the clashing ideologies of Stalin and
Trotsky, the control of the Politburo and Sovnarkom, and the forming of strategic
alliances were all critical factors in the struggle for party leadership.