Thanks a lot for the help 
I just don't get how you'd link the paragraphs to an affirmative response? Most of that seems to argue that Stalin had no "vision" because he was just undermining Trotsky using whatever means necessary (politicking, far-flung allies, etc). I thought Trotsky's vision was well-regarded among the proletariat and he was liked because he won the war. It seemed to work for Stalin in 1928 when combined with SiOC albeit after a few years to cool off from the war.
It also seems to assume that the people as a whole had some sort of say in how the party was run (if their receptiveness to Stalin's ideas enabled him to come to power)? I thought this wasn't the case particularly after Stalin became General Secretary - didn't Trotsky try to call for more democratisation?
I think we may have been taught the course slightly differently - which can happen and it not a bad thing! History is subjective. But this is how I learned the course, and my reasoning behind everything.
With the first paragraph, you link the decline in support for Trotsky's ideology, and the increase in support for Stalin's ideology to the social changes, and the way in which they reflected the needs of the society at the time. Stalin won because his ideology of Socialism in one country was better suited for society at the time, thus ideology was highly significant in determining his success
Stalin undermining Trotsky's ideology still demonstrates the significance of ideology, even if you were to argue (which you can) that Stalin was more focused on pragmatism than ideological consistency - Stalin using Trotsky's ideology against him still demonstrates the significance of ideology.
For the second paragraph, Trotsky's poor personality reflected badly on his ideology, which was now considered outdated. Trotsky's vision was well-liked before, but after the Civil War he lost a lot of popularity amongst the proletariat - the party liked him, but not really the people (tonnes of uprising against the Bolsheviks - almost one a day. Kronstadt Rebellion being the worst of all, which Trotsky brutally suppressed). Remember that the Proletariat severely declined as well - the Civil War was the most costly Civil War in history, with 9.5 million casualties, 8 million of which were civilian deaths, and almost 1/3 of surviving proletariat leaving the cities to go back to the farms - so even if they did like him, they weren't as powerful of a body anymore.
For the third, you are looking at how it was support for the ideology that enabled the success of Stalin and the decline of Trotsky. When Stalin's ideology was more favoured (yes, through his manipulation, but it was still the ideology they were discussing), and Trotsky tried to protest, he could invoke the ban on factionalism.
By the people do you mean the proletariat? Then yes, they did get a say to a certain extent, as the proletariat made up the party. The Communist Party wasn't small - it was a massive party (Communism is about big government), and through Lenin's levy they made it even bigger (the aim was to increase membership by 10 000 if I recall correctly?). I'm not sure about Trotsky calling for more democratisation - that isn't something that I learned, and I'd be surprised if he did as democracy and communism are opposing ideologies. He may have wanted more discussion near the end, when his ideology was becoming more favourable, but for the most part as far as I can recall he was pretty consistent.
But yes, that is my understanding of the content. If you have been taught different, go with what you were taught, as you don't want to try and learn a whole new way of understanding the content the day before the exam. But if this does actually relate to what you have learned, I hope this helps/explains what I meant better
Susie
Home
Help
Search
Login
