Why did Zinoviev and Kamenev form a bloc with Stalin against Trotsky?

[Jacob Cliff]

From my own (very little) knowledge of socialism's history, Zinoviev and Kamenev both supported Leon Trotsky's idea of "Permanent Revolution." Was the reason from keeping him from power out of personal animosity (Trotsky being quite arrogant and reclusive, of course), or was there a significant break in their theories on how Communism should be constructed in the USSR, or what? I'm confused as to why they would side with Josef Stalin, who came out with his idea "Socialism in One Country" in 1924, which Kamenev and Zinoviev both, of course, rejected.

And on a side note, who was to "become leader" (I know this isn't an accurate statement) if not Trotsky or Stalin? Collective rule by the Party?

If so, would this be nothing but an oligarchy ruling over the proletariat, or is this not the case? How were Party members chosen -- were they elected? Was the Central Committee chosen by the Congress of Soviets?

[Jacob Cliff]

And to all people who will answer this question in advance, I apologize for "repeating the same questions" on the site. For one I've been using a rather screwed up phone to use it with and RevLeft isn't exactly user-friendly on phone version. Many times the answers to questions were bogged-down with tendency arguments on a totally different note, so I usually started ignoring them.

[Prof. Oblivion]

They were professional bureaucrats and saw an opportunity to ally with Stalin to consolidate their power.

[Destroyer of Illusions]

They were professional bureaucrats and saw an opportunity to ally with Stalin to consolidate their power.

As if Trotsky wasn't a bureaucrat ! :grin:

[Destroyer of Illusions]

If so, would this be nothing but an oligarchy ruling over the proletariat, or is this not the case?

“What old and familiar rubbish! What ‘Left-wing’ childishness! ..The mere presentation of the question—“dictatorship of the party or dictatorship of the class; dictatorship (party) of the leaders, or dictatorship (party) of the masses?”—testifies to most incredibly and hopelessly muddled thinking. These people want to invent something quite out of the ordinary, and, in their effort to be clever, make themselves ridiculous. It is common knowledge that the masses are divided into classes, that the masses can be contrasted with classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, regardless of division according to status in the social system of production, with categories holding a definite status in the social system of production; that as a rule and in most cases—at least in present-day civilised countries—classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions, and are called leaders.

To go so far, in this connection, as to contrast, in general, the dictatorship of the masses with a dictatorship of the leaders is ridiculously absurd, and stupid."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm

[Art Vandelay]

In my opinion it would not be accurate to say that Kamanev and Zinoviev were supporters of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, despite their brief history with the Left Opposition. Kamanev and Zinoviev strike me as some of the most opportunistic characters of the early history of the Soviet Union, regardless of their strengths as revolutionaries.

In 1917 Kamanev's & Zinoviev's line, along with Stalin, was support for the provisional government. They opposed Lenin's 'April Theses' and the Bolshevik seizure of state power (the only two central committee members to do so). After publically releasing a letter expounding on their line, Lenin sought their expulsion from the party. Not until Adolph Joffe (Military Revolutionary Committee) and Trotsky (Petrograd Soviet) staged the uprising, did they fall in line. Rifts between them and Trotsky and Lenin resurfaced in November over a railroad strike and given their actions (resigning from their positions) Lenin characterized them as 'deserters.'

Kamanev was Trotsky's brother in law and while they originally had a good relationship, it certainly soured after 1920. For the majority of his political career Kamanev was closest politically and personally with Zinoviev. They allied with Stalin and formed the ruling troika in the party and successfully marganalized Trotsky. After Trotsky published 'Lessons of Otober' the factional struggle began again. The alliance of Kamanev & Zinoviev with Stalin was always of a fragile nature and after helping him retain his position as general secretary, Stalin turned on them. As a side note, it is not Stalin who is the originator of the theory of socialism in one country, but rather Bukharin.

After Kamanev and Zinoviev briefly joined the Left Opposition, they almost immediately capitulated and it is pretty well known the end they met. The cause of it all strikes me as some opportunistic and shady political convictions, when the battle lines were drawn and the most important political issue of the 1920's was playing out in the Bolshevik party, they wavered numerous times.

[Prof. Oblivion]

As if Trotsky wasn't a bureaucrat ! :grin:

Trotsky wasn't really ever good at being a bureaucrat. He tried, but he failed pretty miserably at it, which is why he (and the Left Opposition) were so easily isolated. They weren't adept at navigating the new bureaucratic landscape and there was no base of popular support to fall back upon. Politics by this time had largely become a game of bureaucratic positioning, which was vastly different than Trotsky's experience with politicking.

[Destroyer of Illusions]

Then if everyone was a bureaucrat what can your previous phrase explane?


They were professional bureaucrats and saw an opportunity to ally with Stalin to consolidate their power.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Then if everyone was a bureaucrat what can your previous phrase explane?

What?

They understood the new political landscape better than Trotsky and the left opposition. They realized where power was and where it was going and positioned themselves to be closer to it. Trotsky, on the other hand, had been living in the past and had still seen such notions as "party discipline" and politicking as valid tools, which in reality they were outdated. Writing an open letter to the Politburo lambasting the state of democracy in the party was a fools errand, a useless act performed years too late. Indeed Trotsky was a bureaucrat, as were Kamenev and Zinoviev, however he was just terrible at it because he didn't understand it. Zinoviev and Kamenev were much more astute bureaucrats, which is why they formed the troika with Stalin; unfortunately, they had considered being close to Stalin as a form of protection when in reality it had sealed their fate.