The "Paranoid Stalin" theory

[Robespierre Richard]

There was another thread on this but it's on the question of whether Stalin was paranoid or not.

Let's assume Stalin was in fact really paranoid. Why didn't Trotsky use this to work with him and subvert him? Because really controlling paranoid people is one of the easiest things in the world. Why not just let Stalin think he has control and then use that to suggest that various elements are after him?

In retrospect it makes absolutely no sense that Trotsky went against Stalin as hard as he did, because all he did is build a wall around himself that made it impossible to ever make it back into relevance in the Soviet political scene. He could have instead made amends and served as an ally to Stalin all the while weakening the actual people that support him and strengthening his own power base, which has happened many times in history. He could have worked his way into Stalin's clique and been an "adviser" to him on who is trying to undermine him, as he already knew a lot about undermining Stalin in his political career up to that point. All it would require is for him to give up his ego for a bit and look like he gave up on his ideas to deceive the paranoid Stalin. Instead, he continued attacking Stalin and going against him both within the system and as an outsider when he got deported.

If Stalin was in fact paranoid, Trotsky just seems like a very unintelligent renegade who valued his own ego more than the future of the USSR or the revolution.

[Astarte]

There was another thread on this but it's on the question of whether Stalin was paranoid or not.

Let's assume Stalin was in fact really paranoid. Why didn't Trotsky use this to work with him and subvert him? Because really controlling paranoid people is one of the easiest things in the world. Why not just let Stalin think he has control and then use that to suggest that various elements are after him?

In retrospect it makes absolutely no sense that Trotsky went against Stalin as hard as he did, because all he did is build a wall around himself that made it impossible to ever make it back into relevance in the Soviet political scene. He could have instead made amends and served as an ally to Stalin all the while weakening the actual people that support him and strengthening his own power base, which has happened many times in history. He could have worked his way into Stalin's clique and been an "adviser" to him on who is trying to undermine him, as he already knew a lot about undermining Stalin in his political career up to that point. All it would require is for him to give up his ego for a bit and look like he gave up on his ideas to deceive the paranoid Stalin. Instead, he continued attacking Stalin and going against him both within the system and as an outsider when he got deported.

If Stalin was in fact paranoid, Trotsky just seems like a very unintelligent renegade who valued his own ego more than the future of the USSR or the revolution.

I am pretty sure the reason Trotsky could not out maneuver Stalin after Lenin's death is that early on for like the whole year of 1925 the guy was mad sick, and kind of out of the loop, even losing command of the Red Army... I am pretty sure his sickness left him politically at a disadvantage from which he couldn't recover.

Seems to me the tactic you are describing was attempted by Zinoviev and Kamenev on Stalin in the Troika, but instead accumulation of power for the Troika was directed against Trotsky since ... well, Zinoviev really didn't like Trotsky for a long time...

[Robespierre Richard]

I am pretty sure the reason Trotsky could not out maneuver Stalin after Lenin's death is that early on for like the whole year of 1925 the guy was mad sick, and kind of out of the loop, even losing command of the Red Army... I am pretty sure his sickness left him politically at a disadvantage from which he couldn't recover.

Seems to me the tactic you are describing was attempted by Zinoviev and Kamenev on Stalin in the Troika, but instead accumulation of power for the Troika was directed against Trotsky since ... well, Zinoviev really didn't like Trotsky for a long time...

Yeah, because Trotsky decided to isolate himself politically, which he really didn't need to do if he wanted political power because it's a pretty dumb thing to do.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Stalin even offered himself to step down from the political scene. SUCH A PARANOID!!

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

who cares? some worker's state, where bureaucrats 'subvert' their rivals to take control. that hypothetical scenario has even less to do with socialism than the ussr did as it was, which wasn't a lot. and stalin should have been paranoid, as any head of a repressive state should be.

[Robespierre Richard]

who cares? some worker's state, where bureaucrats 'subvert' their rivals to take control. that hypothetical scenario has even less to do with socialism than the ussr did as it was, which wasn't a lot.

Nobody plays fair, and nobody ever will. If you're smart you make do with what you've got. If you're not, you stay jeering on the sidelines of history. With that in mind, I think Trotsky's position was very stupid, and today he remains a martyr of some sort of perfect communist movement that never existed and never will. By analogy Stalin is the Pontius Pilate/Judas who pops out of FUCKING NOWHERE and ruins everything. I think that is a very funny mythology.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Nobody plays fair, and nobody ever will. If you're smart you make do with what you've got. If you're not, you stay jeering on the sidelines of history. With that in mind, I think Trotsky's position was very stupid, and today he remains a martyr of some sort of perfect communist movement that never existed and never will.

i agree with the latter to some extent. however, this whole bullshit drama between trotsky and stalin is an example of why soviet 'socialism' was not an example to work from. socialism is not about bourgeois leaders and their bickering, but the working-class, hence why this debate is useless and hence why the soviet model should be seen as a mistake in how it was set up. also that trotsky could say what he wanted but maybe it was that centralised set-up that lead to repression. as you can gather i am neither a stalinist nor a trot.

[pranabjyoti]

The main question is how a paranoid man was in charge of newborn country and lead it through the toughest time of its history and make it a world superpower. If that's an act of paranoia, then I am madly asking for ways to be "paranoid".

[Robespierre Richard]

i agree with the latter to some extent. however, this whole bullshit drama between trotsky and stalin is an example of why soviet 'socialism' was not an example to work from. socialism is not about bourgeois leaders and their bickering, but the working-class, hence why this debate is useless and hence why the soviet model should be seen as a mistake in how it was set up. also that trotsky could say what he wanted but maybe it was that centralised set-up that lead to repression. as you can gather i am neither a stalinist nor a trot.

That's a valid point today, but in the historical perspective (this being the History forum) it seems to be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't really "care" about Stalin outside of agreeing with his theoretical contributions and mostly agreeing with his policies from what the perspective was at the time, so it's more of a question to history buffs and Trotsky sympathizers as to their opinion on the issue..

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

That's a valid point today, but in the historical perspective (this being the History forum) it seems to be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't really "care" about Stalin outside of agreeing with his theoretical contributions and mostly agreeing with his policies from what the perspective was at the time, so it's more of a question to history buffs and Trotsky sympathizers as to their opinion on the issue..

that's fair enough, i was merely offering the point of view that discussing feuds like trotsky v.s. stalin is useless. each their own and all that.

[Red_Struggle]

Stalin even offered himself to step down from the political scene.

Twice, actually.

But yeah, the guy wasn't paranoid. Most of the actions taken by him actually had a foundation, although he himself actually hesitated to initiate the 1937 purge, which went haywire thanks to Yezhov.

As for the Doctor's Plot, they were accused members of JOINT, and his daughter Svetlana points out that while she was beside Stalin on his deathbed, there were doctors there that she had never seen before, despite her being with her father most of the time.

[ComradeOm]

Most historians accept that Stalin's paranoia (which is different from simple ruthlessness towards political rivals) only manifested itself as a mental health issue in his later years. That would be at least a decade or two after the exile of Trotsky


Let's assume Stalin was in fact really paranoid. Why didn't Trotsky use this to work with him and subvert him? Because really controlling paranoid people is one of the easiest things in the world. Why not just let Stalin think he has control and then use that to suggest that various elements are after him?The obvious answer - aside from the fact that Stalin was not a malleable child - is that Trotsky presumably had little interest in gaining power by playing as some Machiavellian power behind the throne. This was not a clash of personalities. It was a debate as to the future course of the USSR. Which is something that is so often lost in the whole 'Trotsky v Stalin' nonsense

Perhaps, if you assume that Trotsky possessed some mad thirst for power and had little interest in ideology and was a master manipulator to Stalin's easily controllable dolt and the two were operating in a complete political vacuum, then, perhaps, your question would make more sense

[Robespierre Richard]

Most historians accept that Stalin's paranoia (which is different from simple ruthlessness towards political rivals) only manifested itself as a mental health issue in his later years. That would be at least a decade or two after the exile of Trotsky

The obvious answer - aside from the fact that Stalin was not a malleable child - is that Trotsky presumably had little interest in gaining power by playing as some Machiavellian power behind the throne. This was not a clash of personalities. It was a debate as to the future course of the USSR. Which is something that is so often lost in the whole 'Trotsky v Stalin' nonsense

Perhaps, if you assume that Trotsky possessed some mad thirst for power and had little interest in ideology and was a master manipulator to Stalin's easily controllable dolt and the two were operating in a complete political vacuum, then, perhaps, your question would make more sense

Well power is the ability to have people do what you want, which is exactly what Trotsky wanted: to achieve his own ends. Also I don't see how you got the political vacuum idea, when I explicitly talked about the role Trotsky could have played if he wanted to. Stalin and Trotsky demonstrated political differences that could easily be co-opted by Trotsky if he wanted to but instead he got played like a fool and and nothing he wanted came to fruition.

Also most people here pin Stalin's Paranoia to beginning in 1934 or even earlier in the 20s from what I gathered.

[Raubleaux]

The obvious answer - aside from the fact that Stalin was not a malleable child - is that Trotsky presumably had little interest in gaining power by playing as some Machiavellian power behind the throne. This was not a clash of personalities. It was a debate as to the future course of the USSR. Which is something that is so often lost in the whole 'Trotsky v Stalin' nonsense

Perhaps, if you assume that Trotsky possessed some mad thirst for power and had little interest in ideology and was a master manipulator to Stalin's easily controllable dolt and the two were operating in a complete political vacuum, then, perhaps, your question would make more sense

Trotsky's support for the CPSU did seem to be heavily contingent on his personal status within said organization..