Is this argument Viable? (1 Viewer)

[LoanWoolfq]

This argument is for a reason for stalins rise to power by 1929...is it viable or weak? Unlike his counterparts, Stalin leveraged the public sentiment, reflecting the mood of the country, therefore elevating his political authority and social appeal. Created and exploited the cult around Lenin to elevate his political authority. He placed Lenin’s body in Red Square, and renamed Petrograd, ‘Leningrad’ As well, he wrote many works which were simple translations of Marxist theory from Lenin Significant as it à appealed the less-wider population, but also consolidated is image as a successor, for example, Foundations of Leninism. Gave credence to platforms like Socialism in One Country which won popular support. Having emerged from the Civil War in 1922, society was radically transformed. Those that survived the civil war, 1/3 left the cities to go back to rural life, causing the threat of urban decline to major Russian cities. This decrease had a major impact on Trotsky, as they made a large % of his supporters. Unlike Permanent revolution which his political rival Trotsky championed, Stalin instead focused on the empowerment of socialism within Russia. This was significant as it appealed to Russian nationalism as-well as the people’s desire for stability A more practical plan given the lack of international revolution. Trotsky’s ideology advocating further conflict on an international scale seemed impractical and unpopular in a sphere of discontent. Stalin’s pragmatic alternative of socialism in one country offered stability and peace, objectives which were well received by the war-weary populace. Stalin’s school of thought gained traction amongst nationalist groups as it suggested that the Russian people were strong enough to transition to communism on their own and did not need to rely on foreign intervention and aid. This nationalist sentiment was exploited by Stalin, as he accused Trotsky as lacking faith in the Russian people, further alienating him from society. Further, by his insidious manipulation, Stalin suggested that Lenin himself was in favor of his ideology rather than Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. Stalin was able to exaggerate the intricate differences between Trotsky’s and Lenin’s ideology, thereby simultaneously cloaking the radical differences of his own.

“Trotsky lost to Stalin because, at the time, the social force he represented – the working class- were weaker than the social force Stalin represented – the rising bureaucracy”. Molyneux This was well received by the war-weary who “did not want to wait till the world was Bolshevik.” (service). “A triumph not of reason but of organization.” Carr

 

[dasfas]

Unlike his counterparts, Stalin leveraged the public sentiment, reflecting the mood of the country, therefore elevating his political authority and social appeal.

Lenin did it too. Also wdym reflecting the mood of the country? He wasn't reflecting it, he was constructing an identity.

 

[LoanWoolfq]

Thats awesome can u explain that more?

He wasn't reflecting it, he was constructing an identity.