How Far Was Lenin Responsible for Stalin’s Rise to Power?

How far was Lenin responsible for Stalin’s rise to power? [30] June 2016

        Following Vladamir Ilich Lenin’s death in 1924, there was dispute over who was to succeed him as the leader of the USSR. Prior to his death, the Politburo was set up in order to manage the Bolshevik Revolution that took in 1917. The seven-man leading committee consisting of Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky, and Joseph Stalin (the Bolsheviks), publicly announced a collective leadership after Lenin’s death. However, the seven men were all privately in individual competition for leadership. Stalin, however, was in a more promising position than others, as his work for Lenin proved to be highly significant. Lenin’s patronage, his testament, and his funeral are all significant reasons for Stalin’s victory, amongst other factors that Lenin is not responsible for that caused Stalin to be victorious in 1929.

        Firstly, Lenin was responsible for Stalin’s rise to power due to his patronage. The government of Soviet Russia, as it had developed by 1924, had two main features being the Council of Peoples’ Commissars and the Secretariat. Both of which were staffed and controlled by the Bolshevik Party. As the government grew in scope, certain posts, which initially had not been considered especially significant, began to provide their holders with the levers of power. Lenin appointed Stalin to several of these posts, which proved to be a vital part of his later victory. For example, as the People’s Commissar for Nationalities, Stalin was in charge of all of the officials in the entirety of the many regions and republics that made up the USSR. As the Liaison Officer between Politburo and Orgburo, Stalin had a unique position to monitor both the Party’s policy and the Party’s personnel. Therefore, Lenin effectively gave him the power to monitor all legislative work being produced by the government, as well as the power to closely monitor the people who worked for it. This gave Stalin the experience in policy making as it was his job to monitor what was being done by government. It was as if he were part of both the Cabinet and Civil Service. Further, Lenin appointed Stalin as the Head of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate. This position entitled him to oversee the work of all government departments thus he gained the knowledge and understanding of how each department is run as well as the work they produce - this experience proved invaluable to him in the future. As well as this, Lenin made Stalin  General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1922. Stalin had to recorded and conveyed Party policy, enabling him to build up personal files on all the members of the party and there was nothing of note that happened that Stalin did not know about. Lenin’s patronage made Stalin an indispensable link in the chain of command in the Communist Party and the Soviet Government. Additionally, these posts themselves gave Stalin the powers of patronage. Stalin placed his own supporters in key positions as he could count on their support in the voting of the various committees which made up the organisation of the party and government. He (unknowingly to others) became increasingly powerful and therefore it is evident that Lenin’s patronage made him responsible for Stalin’s rise to power.

        Moreover, Lenin’s testament played a significant role in Stalin’s rise to power. However, this was not because Lenin’s testament stated he wished Stalin to be his successor - in fact, quite the contrary. Despite is undeniable loyalty to Lenin, Stalin had angered him on two particular occasions. After the Civil War, Stalin, despite being a Georgian himself, was highly dismissive with the Georgians during their discussions, so much so that Lenin had to personally intervene in order to prevent them from being angered further causing Lenin to somewhat lose his faith and truth in Stalin. Moreover, Stalin personally angered Lenin during this incident, as Lenin’s wife informed him that Stalin had subjected her to “a storm of the coarsest abuse”, telling her to stay out of State Affairs, and calling her a “whore”. It was for this reason that on the exact day his wife told him, Lenin wrote his testament (in direct response to Stalin’s indiscretions). Whereas one would assume his testament helped Stalin due to it praising him and expressing his trust in him, Lenin was understandably very rude about Stalin and criticised him greatly, as he did not believe he could be trusted with his power. He even went as far to urge comrades to think about ways of removing Stalin from his position. When Lenin died, what he wrote about would resonate far more with the party than if he said it when he was alive, so he didn’t do it publicly and he wrote it for it to be read when he died. Luckily for Stalin, he found the testament before it was made public, and convinced the Politburo that they would not want to read it because it would embarrass both Lenin and them as Lenin was rude about them and he did not wish to ruin his legacy. This helped Stalin’s rise to power, as he manipulated the Bolsheviks to believe that Lenin didn't think they were individually worthy enough to lead the USSR. Had someone else found the testament before Stalin, his political career would have been over, therefore the finding of the testament was a tool he used to rise to power. However, it is highly arguable whether Lenin can take responsibility for this, as he did not give it to Stalin himself and it was simply luck that he found it before it was publicised. Therefore, it was Stalin’s use of Lenin’s testament that caused his rise to power, as opposed to Lenin’s testament itself, as Lenin would most likely not have left it in the hands of Stalin if he were alive.

        Furthermore, Lenin’s funeral somewhat assisted Stalin’s rise to power. This is due to the political opportunity the funeral gave Stalin. When Lenin died and the Politburo agreed to a collective leadership, his funeral put Stalin ahead of their private individual competition with one another. Prior to Lenin’s death, Stalin was not a public figure, however by delivering the oration at Lenin’s funeral, he was seen as the leading mourner thus creating as sense of continuity between them. It was expected that Trotsky would deliver the oration, however, he was not even present at the funeral. This showed his lack of dedication and loyalty to Lenin, harming his name greatly and putting Stalin in a more favourable position in their competition. Blaming Stalin for his absence, Trotsky continued with his planned journey on holiday, turning down the opportunity to deliver the oration and failing to even attend the ceremony. The actions of Trotsky were odd, as he was wholly aware of the danger Stalin represented and predicted himself that Stalin would become ‘the dictator of the USSR’. Trotsky should not have allowed Stalin to deliver the oration if he acknowledged how he had made a significant part of the party reliant on him. Had Trotsky delivered the oration, circumstances may have been different, as significant State leadership transitions can be highly distressing for the public and a public figure to stand for them was necessary. This person ended up being Stalin, and the way he portrayed himself could have been enough to ease the fears of the public, as the sense of continuity he showed at the funeral would’ve imaginably given the people hope. However, although it was Lenin’s funeral, this does not mean to say that he himself was responsible for this step up in Stalin’s political career. Lenin cannot take responsibility for his as being dead meant it was obviously beyond his control. Although, one could argue that had Lenin not died, there would not have been this political opportunity for Stalin, however, there would not have actually been a reason for a successor in the first place.