AH Challenge: Softer, More Popular Communism

[Silverite]

What POD (Post-1900, of course) would be needed for a 'softer' (ie. less authoritarianism, more rights...) Communism that is more popular and sucessful than OTL's?

[Aozhouhuaren]

What POD (Post-1900, of course) would be needed for a 'softer' (ie. less authoritarianism, more rights...) Communism that is more popular and sucessful than OTL's?

What do you mean? From the very beginning and from when Communism first took hold of power in any country?

Because you already have Soft Communism, in Vietnam, in China (not the best example, but conditions aren't as oppressive as say 20 years ago), you had it in the USSR near the end of its fall in the form of glasnost and perestroika, you could say India for a while was a semi-communist nation and I'm sure there have been many other nations that have experienced Soft communism.

[Thande]

Isn't that basically just [Barbican Man] social democracy with all the democracy taken oot? [/Barbican Man]? ;)

[Agentdark]

Would India be an example of a Soft Communist State?

[Thande]

Would India be an example of a Soft Communist State?
No. India has a Communist Party, which is certainly 'soft' compared to some (democratic, for a start) but it's only in power in some of the states of India. :confused:

[Silverite]

What do you mean? From the very beginning and from when Communism first took hold of power in any country?

Because you already have Soft Communism, in Vietnam, in China (not the best example, but conditions aren't as oppressive as say 20 years ago), you had it in the USSR near the end of its fall in the form of glasnost and perestroika, you could say India for a while was a semi-communist nation and I'm sure there have been many other nations that have experienced Soft communism.
I was thinking early on, right after the Russian Revolution, sorry for being unspecific. :o

[B_Munro]

But would a "softer" communism necessarily be more popular? One of the appeals of Communism OTL was that it was seen as a radical alternative, something truly different and superior to Capitalism. The way of the fuuuuture. If it's simply a more muscular Social Democracy, will it have the almost millenial air Communism had in its early decades? Millions of otherwise intelligent people worldwide did not go gaga over the USSR because it had a good single-payer health plan.

Bruce

[Mike Stearns]

In order to get soft Communism, one of two things has to happen, either Lenin doesn't die or he dies but his successor builds on his New Economic Policy.

[KJPedersen]

By Communism do you mean any sort of communism? Or radical Marxism? Or Bolshevism?

[Mike Stearns]

By Communism do you mean any sort of communism? Or radical Marxism? Or Bolshevism?

I think he means Communism that can still be called communism, but not say Stalinist style communism for example.

[Susano]

I think Leninism itself already is the problem. The idea of a vanguard party has the basework for a dictatorship already inbuilt. So if maybe another version of Marxism had come to the forefront...

[Hnau]

Just go with the Mensheviks, or some more radical, but not Bolshevik, Mensheviks. (Did that make sense?) :confused:

[KJPedersen]

I think he means Communism that can still be called communism, but not say Stalinist style communism for example.

Okay. I'll take that to mean radical Marxism, but not Bolshevism, Anarchist Communism, Christian Communism, the Mormon "United Order," Israel's kibbutzim, etc.

[Grand_Panjandrum]

Yugoslavia was pretty soft as socialist states go, but that was a special case. Perhaps, Dubcek's Socialism with a Human Face isn't crushed?

[galanx]

Keep Lenin alive longer to keep the NEP going, then get rid of Stalin, whom Lenin was pretty disillusioned with, and Trotsky- everybody gangs up on the natural successor. Bukharin maybe? - though he was pretty hard left on the economic question, and had been pretty ruthless during the Civil War.

[Max Sinister]

The Menshevik-Bolshevik split goes the other way round: Now the less radical Socialists (who'd be called Bolsheviks ITTL, because it means "majority wing") would be stronger, and the more radical ones (ITTL Mensheviks) would be weaker. The Mensheviks might be destroyed, but the Bolsheviks take over, but are otherwise less radical. (That's the question: Would less radical Bolsheviks be willing to make a second revolution?)

[Michel Van]

you need "softer" communism ?

Kill Stalin befor he get to Power 1922 and
make Leo Trotzki to general secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party

other
Nikita Khrushchev stay longer in Power until he dies in 1971.

[Wendell]

Softer Communism? Have the Revolution occur in some country in the West rather than in Russia.

[Silverite]

I think he means Communism that can still be called communism, but not say Stalinist style communism for example.
Exactly
Softer Communism? Have the Revolution occur in some country in the West rather than in Russia.
Germany, perhaps?

[Wendell]

Exactly

Germany, perhaps?

I was thinking Austria-Hungary, but Germany, or even France, perhaps.

[KJPedersen]

Agreed, Grand Panjandrum. Yugoslavia was a softer, less-authoritarian communist regime.

Possibility No. 1:

As I recall, in 1920, the Swedish Social Democrats won a majority of seats, and Hjalmar Branting was called upon, by the king, to meet. The king told Branting that he would be allowed to form a government if there was no republic and no socialism. Branting accepted and the social democrats turned to reform and have implemented a policy of social liberalism (infused, albeit, with socialist rhetoric) ever since.

Now, what if Branting had insisted that the victory of the social democrats was a popular mandate, and there would be both a republic and a socialist economy? What if he had urged the king to accept the new, popular order gracefully?

[Max Sinister]

I was thinking Austria-Hungary, but Germany, or even France, perhaps.

Why not Britain?

[Abc85]

you need "softer" communism ?

Kill Stalin befor he get to Power 1922 and
make Leo Trotzki to general secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party

other
Nikita Khrushchev stay longer in Power until he dies in 1971.

I don't think Lenin was that enthusiastic about "soft communism". Don't forget that he was also responsible for many murders and spoke of the NEP: "We are taking one step backward to later take two steps forward" So, I think soft communism, if there was any and/or one would consider NEP to be a part of, was only seen as temporary measures to boost grain production following the Civil War by Lenin. Lenin was probably in favor of terminating any capitalist elements in society eventually.

Trotsky was later a member of the Left opposition which, although anti-bureaucratic, could be considered far from the democracy one saw in Western Europe at the time. He was an advocate of advancing the Revolution in other countries to rapidly establish Communism and hand power to the "proletariat". I don't think it is remotely possible to achieve this literally, especially in a single lifetime. So, Trotsky would have probably relied on non-democratic means akin to Stalin's anti-Kulak policies and purges.

And Khrushchev was more of an economy experimenter than a democratic reformer. My grandfather worked in the press during the Khrushchev and Brezhnev era and noticed little difference. In fact, he was a close friend to Khrushchev son-in-law and was still unable to publish some works unedited. In foreign policies, one can compare the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (under Khrushchev) and the Czechoslovakian Prague Spring of 1968 (under Brezhnev) in their gore and chaos to realize that Khrushchev was in many ways still a disciple of Stalin (although its an oversimplification to blame everything on him as Konev commanded the tanks).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Khrushchev hater and Brezhnev lover! All I'm saying is that they are two very different personalities: Khrushchev was impulsive, experimental although somewhat short-sighted and perhaps scientifically uneducated (as exposed by his failed Virgin Lands and Corn campaigns) while Brezhnev was calm, submissive and loved being in the spotlight. Khrushchev was 12 years older than Brezhnev and that plays quite a role as well as Khrushchev conducted Stalin's purges in Ukraine and Moscow while Brezhnev was used to compliance and only rose to positions of high authority in the 1950s, largely thanks to Khrushchev who advised Stalin to assign Brezhnev to work in Moldova (along with a Politburo nomination).

[KJPedersen]

Some countries which have been led by a democratically-elected socialist governments:

Russia (1917) Kerensky's government proclaimed the Russian Republic. The Social Revolutionaries alone held the majority of seats in the Constituent Assembly, with other socialist parties — Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, the Jewish Labor Bund, etc. — all forming a great majority.

Germany (1919) the German revolution saw the formation of a ratesrepublik in Bavaria.

Sweden (1920) the Social Democrats form a government.

Spain (Feb. 1936) a "Popular Front" government is elected, but the socialists/communists are merely a plurality.

France (May 1936) a coalition socialist "Popular Front" government is formed.

U.K. (1945-51) the Labour Party forms a majority government.

Denmark (1967) the Social Democrats and Socialist People's party, together, form a majority government.

[Berra]

Neither Lenin nor Trotsky was good guys by any standard.

[Wendell]

Why not Britain?

That last experiment with abolishing the monarchy did not go so well;)

[Abc85]

Well a totalitarian regime doesn't necessarily require the abolition of the monarchy as long as the monarch remains a figurehead (e.g. Italy under Mussolini). However, the Labour's party election win of 1924 (albeit for a very brief moment) placated the worker's movement. The situation got quite flammable during the 1926 General Strike but I think that workers were not as angered as in Russia (where the factory owners and government were now allied in aiding the war front causing severe shortages at home for the workers). Also, there was at least some adequate representation and many were reluctant to act as they saw the devastation of the Russian revolution and subsequent civil war.

So, I don't think a Communist regime could have been established in the UK even in the 1920s but a Communist Party could possibly govern the country for a brief moment merely attempting to institute a social democracy. However, having the monarchy or not is quite irrelevant I think: a monarch could theoretically exist as a "guide" and "figurehead" without having the lavish riches he or she has but being rather like a "President". Needless to say, the USSR had a Chairman of the Supreme Presidium (shortly "President") who acted as a head of state but had no real voice. During Stalin's rule Mikhail Kalinin served as President. Mao also quit the post in 1959 and gave it to Liu Shaoqi (partially as a political move to avoid association with the failures of the Great Leap Forward).

[Johnrankins]

you need "softer" communism ?

Kill Stalin befor he get to Power 1922 and
make Leo Trotzki to general secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party

other
Nikita Khrushchev stay longer in Power until he dies in 1971.

That Trotsky would have been better then Stalin I take for granted as it is hard to imagine him as worse but he was hardly a Social Democrat and was not against using ruthless methods to promote Communism.