Trotskyite Soviet Union

Thande · Nov 19, 2007

An old saw, but given the other Trotsky thread, thought I'd bring it up.

Let's say Trotsky becomes Lenin's successor instead of Stalin (who presumably dies in the Civil War or something). What would such a Soviet Union look like by 1941?

Given Trotsky's more internationalist tendencies, would this hypothetical USSR be less avowedly Russian, perhaps annexing allied regimes such as Tannu-Tuva and Mongolia, seeing itself as a prototype socialist world government?

I could also see things like the Communist calendar being retained for longer.

Presumably such a USSR will have a much more active COMINTERN, perhaps leading the West to see Hitler (assuming the Nazis still gain power) as the lesser of two evils...?

Thande · Nov 19, 2007

Hmm, 33 views and no comments.

Emperor Qianlong · Nov 19, 2007

Hmmm, what would be interesting is if Thälmann had gained power in Germany in 1933, and Germany subsequently became communist, and that communist Germany would side with the Trotskyite Soviet Union... frightening!

Thande · Nov 19, 2007

Emperor Qianlong said:
Hmmm, what would be interesting is if Thälmann had gained power in Germany in 1933, and Germany subsequently became communist, and that communist Germany would side with the Trotskyite Soviet Union... frightening!

Ah, but not necessarily so. If the history of communism teaches us anything, it's that minor differences in doctrine between two Marxist states are usually more worth going to war over than the vast gulf with capitalist states.

Yet more evidence that communism is essentially a religion...

Emperor Qianlong · Nov 19, 2007

Thande said:
Ah, but not necessarily so. If the history of communism teaches us anything, it's that minor differences in doctrine between two Marxist states are usually more worth going to war over than the vast gulf with capitalist states. Yet more evidence that communism is essentially a religion...

Actually, that'd be interesting. Even more interesting. Especially, some kind of counterpart to OTL's Sino-Soviet split.

Thande · Nov 19, 2007

Emperor Qianlong said:
Actually, that'd be interesting. Even more interesting. Especially, some kind of counterpart to OTL's Sino-Soviet split.

I wonder what the effects on left-wing philosophies (and right-) in the West would be if a war as bloody as OTL's Eastern Front was fought over a minor difference of opinion...

Of course, this isn't a given - they might side with each other as you suggested, though I think Trotsky would want a single international state encompassing both, and Thaelmann would probably resist that.

If the Spanish Civil War takes place, the Republicans are probably going to win in TTL.

Emperor Qianlong · Nov 19, 2007

How about having them play along at first, and then have some Sino-Soviet -alike split occur later on?

And state statement about "Yet more evidence that communism is essentially a religion..." is simply hilarious!

richie42 · Nov 19, 2007

Thande said:
Yet more evidence that communism is essentially a religion...

Irony!!!!!

Anyways, what if Germany still went Nazi, and WWII simply took its normal cours?

Johnrankins · Nov 19, 2007

richie42 said:
Irony!!!!!

Anyways, what if Germany still went Nazi, and WWII simply took its normal cours?

He is largely correct. Marxism is still being taught even though it has failed everywhere it has been tried, Marx himself is very little questioned by many of them and when the theory fails against reality it is claimed that it is not "true" Marxism.

Anyways I doubt it would last until WWII as Trotsky's agressiveness would be considered such a threat by Western powers that they would gang-tackle it.

Peter Hillock · Nov 19, 2007

I posted some thoughts on the pre-1900 "No Stalin" thread along these lines.

Two of the things Stalin did beyond (IMHO) anyone else's capacity was:

(1) Remake the USSR, by ethnic cleansing and liquidation of whole ethnic groups (especially the non-Russians in the Party and state hierarchy), to essentially be a Russian national project. The fact that Stalin was ethnically Georgian doesn't change this.

(2) Enforce a conformist, puritan Soviet culture and wipe away the "freak show" (by 1920s standards) atmosphere that communism seemed to allow at first. Artistic experiments, free love, etc., went by the boards.

These made the Soviet state a much more pliable and usable instrument of power than it would have been under Trotsky and like-minded figures. Better for developing dams and A-Bombs, worse for human beings.

Doctor Haider · Nov 20, 2007

Peter Hillock said:
I posted some thoughts on the pre-1900 "No Stalin" thread along these lines.

Two of the things Stalin did beyond (IMHO) anyone else's capacity was:

(1) Remake the USSR, by ethnic cleansing and liquidation of whole ethnic groups (especially the non-Russians in the Party and state hierarchy), to essentially be a Russian national project. The fact that Stalin was ethnically Georgian doesn't change this.
.

Fully mistaken perspective.

Hendryk · Nov 20, 2007

Thande said:
Ah, but not necessarily so. If the history of communism teaches us anything, it's that minor differences in doctrine between two Marxist states are usually more worth going to war over than the vast gulf with capitalist states. Yet more evidence that communism is essentially a religion...

Quite so. Communism is essentially a heretical form of Christianity in which God has been replaced by historical determinism. All the rest is there down to the doctrinal hairsplitting and the obsession with dogmatic orthodoxy.

And it is indeed likely that Trotsky wouldn't renounce the internationalist tenet of Marxism-Leninism as easily as Stalin did.

Thande · Nov 20, 2007

Hendryk said:
Quite so. Communism is essentially a heretical form of Christianity in which God has been replaced by historical determinism. All the rest is there down to the doctrinal hairsplitting and the obsession with dogmatic orthodoxy.

I think it would be fairer to say that both Communism and what we commonly think of as Christianity are expressions of a "European" system of philosophy in which minor differences of opinion usually lead to violent clashes. The same could be said of modern science (which is basically a European invention) after the Scientific Revolution. By contrast, expressions of either Christianity or Communism or whatever that rose up in other areas of the world with different philosophical backgrounds (e.g. the Nestorians, the Thomasines and the Indian interpretation of Marxism) tend to be much more tolerant of differences of opinion.

Hendryk said:
And it is indeed likely that Trotsky wouldn't renounce the internationalist tenet of Marxism-Leninism as easily as Stalin did.

I think so, but the question is what effect it would have on concrete Soviet policy in real terms. I mean, Trotsky probably wants to unite all communist states into one big international federation, but is he idealistic enough to actually try and do it, by war if necessary?

Hendryk · Nov 20, 2007

Thande said:
By contrast, expressions of either Christianity or Communism or whatever that rose up in other areas of the world with different philosophical backgrounds (e.g. the Nestorians, the Thomasines and the Indian interpretation of Marxism) tend to be much more tolerant of differences of opinion.

Mmh, while I'll grant you the Indian example, the East Asian variants of Communism are hardly tolerant of ideological dissent. One reason I consider that any FH in which China becomes Christian would be a scary dystopia is because Christianity would in all likelihood be applied with the same ruthless dogmatic self-righteousness than Communism was in Mao's time (the Taiping also come to mind).

Which isn't to say that East Asian Communism can't do doctrinal saumersaults just like the European variant; it's just that once a given school of interpretation becomes canonical, all others must be suppressed.

alt_historian · Nov 20, 2007

Johnrankins said:
He is largely correct. Marxism is still being taught even though it has failed everywhere it has been tried, Marx himself is very little questioned by many of them and when the theory fails against reality it is claimed that it is not "true" Marxism.

Many of "them"? I assume you mean Marxists.
But it wasn't true Marxism...

Seriously though, has there ever been a country which is "truly" capitalist? I mean absolutely, completely free market? I can't think of one, but maybe you can.

Anyways I doubt it would last until WWII as Trotsky's aggressiveness would be considered such a threat by Western powers that they would gang-tackle it.

Probably so.

TimKeck84 · Nov 20, 2007

here's a question i didn't see posted in this thread....

How does Trotsky become the leader?

Does he convince Stalin to help him early on?
Or does he have him killed early on?

Does Lenin endorse Trotsky publicly for his successor?

Here's a fun idea...How do you get a USSR (After Lenin's death) with Trotsky running it and Stalin on the Politburo?

Hobelhouse · Nov 20, 2007

alt_historian said:
Many of "them"? I assume you mean Marxists.
But it wasn't true Marxism...
Seriously though, has there ever been a country which is "truly" capitalist? I mean absolutely, completely free market? I can't think of one, but maybe you can.

No government interference in the economy at all? Hmmm, how about Somalia?

Eh, I consider pure laissez faire capitalism to be on the same level as pure Communism. Both seem like they might work on paper, but utterly fail when applied to reality.

alt_historian · Nov 20, 2007

Hendryk said:
Mmh, while I'll grant you the Indian example, the East Asian variants of Communism are hardly tolerant of ideological dissent. One reason I consider that any FH in which China becomes Christian would be a scary dystopia is because Christianity would in all likelihood be applied with the same ruthless dogmatic self-righteousness than Communism was in Mao's time (the Taiping also come to mind).

That would be pretty scary... perhaps then the Christian Republic of China and the Christian States of America (one possible FH) would join forces to bring the rest of the world under God...

Whenever people mention the Taiping Rebellion, I can't help but think of a large mass of people, flinging carbon paper and typewriter ribbon at the police...

Which isn't to say that East Asian Communism can't do doctrinal somersaults just like the European variant; it's just that once a given school of interpretation becomes canonical, all others must be suppressed.

But... that's what happened in the USSR. Isn't it?

alt_historian · Nov 20, 2007

Hobelhouse said:
No government interference in the economy at all? Hmmm, how about Somalia?

Eh, I consider pure laissez faire capitalism to be on the same level as pure Communism. Both seem like they might work on paper, but utterly fail when applied to reality.

Well, that was essentially my point, so I agree.

Somalia? I'll have to look into that...

Shurik · Nov 20, 2007

Not so sure about Western thought, but according to Russian history, a big factor in Trotsky loosing out to Stalin was the very fact that he was less aggressive (read: politically ruthless).

Another interesting point is that it was Stalin, not Lenin who did away with private property. As such the large estates were broken up, but ownership of land was still the norm until Stalin.

Sure Stalin's purges made the Russian economy more malleable, under Trotsky, the purges probably wouldn't have happened, and so hence, the military wouldn't have been in the shambles it was at the outset of WWII.

I haven't studied this too much from Western (American/Western European) history books, so I'm very interested in your point of view.