Failure of the Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin troika
Posted: 2010-06-30 08:53am
Historically, the Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin troika served integral to Stalin's rise to power. Although Stalin had some support in the party prior to this (that's how he got on the Central Committee and became GenSec, after all), their triumvirate allowed Stalin to marginalize Trotsky and the Trotskyists and place his own supporters in their place. This troika was not a stable thing, either. IIRC, Kamenev (normally pretty timid) made a comment to the effect of "people call it our troika, but it is really more Stalin's troika." The only thing that kept it together was the threat of Trotsky, a threat which was renewed in autumn of 1924 with the publishing of The Lessons of October, where Trotsky (showing once again his godawful political skills) brought up Zinoviev and Kamenev's reluctance to get behind the October Revolution in 1917.
Suppose for a moment that Trotsky wisely leaves this out, and as a consequence, the troika falls apart. Without Stalin having already entrenched himself, Bukharin (as the only other political force) rises to power. Zinoviev and Trotsky (and their supporters), having just been at each other's throats, do not instantly make peace, but will eventually do so for the same reasons they did historically. With his opposition in three parts which mostly hate each other and controlling his own troika, Bukharin easily maneuvers himself to a position as top dog, at least temporarily.
What would occur as a result? It seems likely that Bukharin would not have even begun to approach Stalin's repression, and he had a lot more pro-peasant position. On the other hand, by 1928 NEP was coming apart and failure to respond on the part of Bukharin played a role in his fall from power. It seems likely the same conditions would have occurred with a politically marginalized Stalin, and Zinovievites/Trotskyites had solutions which were much closer to Stalin's historical solution (rationalize agricultural production in the countryside by collectivization). Preobrazhensky comes to mind in particular.
Suppose for a moment that Trotsky wisely leaves this out, and as a consequence, the troika falls apart. Without Stalin having already entrenched himself, Bukharin (as the only other political force) rises to power. Zinoviev and Trotsky (and their supporters), having just been at each other's throats, do not instantly make peace, but will eventually do so for the same reasons they did historically. With his opposition in three parts which mostly hate each other and controlling his own troika, Bukharin easily maneuvers himself to a position as top dog, at least temporarily.
What would occur as a result? It seems likely that Bukharin would not have even begun to approach Stalin's repression, and he had a lot more pro-peasant position. On the other hand, by 1928 NEP was coming apart and failure to respond on the part of Bukharin played a role in his fall from power. It seems likely the same conditions would have occurred with a politically marginalized Stalin, and Zinovievites/Trotskyites had solutions which were much closer to Stalin's historical solution (rationalize agricultural production in the countryside by collectivization). Preobrazhensky comes to mind in particular.