I’m more of a “history doesn’t tolerate subjunctive mood” person.
Each of the top candidates had issues, and I’m not too deep into the history of every single Committee member to suggest entirely different options.
Still, if you want my opinion, I think history proves Lenin’s aversion to “administrative” leaders is a bit overstated. Pyatakov, for example, could likely reform Soviet economy in a more planned, predictable and efficient manner without much of the issues (and horrors) associated with Stalin’s rule. However, if he would extend his rule as far as Stalin did, this would certainly cause major issues, too.
What I fully agree on with Lenin is that power shouldn’t have concentrated in the hands of a single leader in the first place, no matter who said leader would be. Back then, however, workers were not as experienced in the destructive ways of authoritarian power, which has lead us where we are.
Lenin would like for Soviets to be Soviets, worker’s councils to have local power and for the party to make collective decisions that would genuinely benefit the country and the Communist International.
Sverdlov was the most likely candidate due to his skills with politics and administration. After his and Lenin’s deaths, that pretty much left Trotsky and Stalin, and the former was ideologically lacking and prone to menshevist tendencies, while Stalin was theoretically and practically more competent, so he was chosen.
Ultimately, though, the USSR was run collectively. Stalin had a major impact, but the idea that problems he faced would not be faced by Trotksy is essentially Great Man Theory. Trots try to imagine a perfect USSR with Trotsky at the helm, and thus smear Stalin because that fanfiction isn’t reality.
who do you think would’ve made a great successor to lenin, other than bukharin or trotsky?
I’m more of a “history doesn’t tolerate subjunctive mood” person.
Each of the top candidates had issues, and I’m not too deep into the history of every single Committee member to suggest entirely different options.
Still, if you want my opinion, I think history proves Lenin’s aversion to “administrative” leaders is a bit overstated. Pyatakov, for example, could likely reform Soviet economy in a more planned, predictable and efficient manner without much of the issues (and horrors) associated with Stalin’s rule. However, if he would extend his rule as far as Stalin did, this would certainly cause major issues, too.
What I fully agree on with Lenin is that power shouldn’t have concentrated in the hands of a single leader in the first place, no matter who said leader would be. Back then, however, workers were not as experienced in the destructive ways of authoritarian power, which has lead us where we are.
so lenin would prefer a troika instead?
Lenin would like for Soviets to be Soviets, worker’s councils to have local power and for the party to make collective decisions that would genuinely benefit the country and the Communist International.
so who would lenin want as a successor if NOT stalin, bukharin, trotsky or the person you mentioned?
Sverdlov was the most likely candidate due to his skills with politics and administration. After his and Lenin’s deaths, that pretty much left Trotsky and Stalin, and the former was ideologically lacking and prone to menshevist tendencies, while Stalin was theoretically and practically more competent, so he was chosen.
Ultimately, though, the USSR was run collectively. Stalin had a major impact, but the idea that problems he faced would not be faced by Trotksy is essentially Great Man Theory. Trots try to imagine a perfect USSR with Trotsky at the helm, and thus smear Stalin because that fanfiction isn’t reality.