Why was every following soviet leader weaker than previous one?

>>2757811
Pretty much.
>Have authoritarian dictatorship in fact if not name.
>All strong, competent personalities are potential threats to the current leader's power.
>They get purged if they get into any position of authority which can be leveraged into a move against the leader
>Only survivors in senior governmental positions are the people who can be trusted to not rock the boat, i.e., weaker than the incumbant.
>Eventual successor is pulled from that pool.
>Rinse and repeat.

Brezhnev > Khrushchev

>>2757811

Stalin was way more powerful than Lenin ever was though.

>>2757848
I think Lenin was stronger as a leader. Stalin took power over his party, but Lenin took power over an entire country. He wasn't as powerful as Stalin, as the ruler, but stronger in the other ways.

>>2757811
It's less a fault in the party system and more of a fault in the practice of killing off anyone competent and politically savvy enough to become a threat to the current leader (granted no other Soviet leader took the practice to the extreme that Stalin did) so while you have extremely effective administrators (such as Beria) or good/decent politicians (such as Kruschev) a second Lenin or even a second Stalin would not be allowed to survive.
An alternate hypothesis is that a closed society based upon secrets is really really bad at creating a climate where you get effective leaders, but that's probably incorrect.

>>2758257
Stalin however expanded fluently and ingeniously into the rest of the world. Lenin just fought a very winnable war against a massively unpopular government

>>2757814
sounds like imperial rome

File: memes.png (105KB, 350x3576px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 350x3576px

>>2758564
> very winnable war against a massively unpopular government
It wasn't that simple.