A Martian stranded on Earth (revised)

As a side note, I already intended to give Gramsci a happier ending. His ideas of hegemony are after all very close to Bogdanov's ideas about the importance of culture (hence his work with proletkult in OTL). My neo-gramscian friend would also never forgive me if I let Gramsci waste away as OTL :).

And this fills me with joy! :):cool:

Now, I can't obviously know what you're going to write about the future of countries that, like Italy, are bound to overthrow their right-wing dictatorships somewhere in your future updates (good luck with your work on them btw!) but the fact you've decided to give a happier ending to one of the finest minds of political thinking is in itself a great reward! :eek:
 
Deciphering the Code of Life
1967

The discovery of DNA happened slowly over a long time until it ended in the overtly dramatic named "DNA Race" a close competition for the honor to be the first to unravel the structure of the DNA.
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was first isolated by the Swiss physician Friedrich Miescher who, in 1869, discovered a microscopic substance in the pus of discarded surgical bandages. As it resided in the nuclei of cells, he called it "nuclein". In 1878, Albrecht Kossel isolated the non-protein component of "nuclein", nucleic acid, and later isolated its five primary nucleobases.
In 1919, the Lithuanian American Phoebus Levene identified the base, sugar and phosphate nucleotide unit. He is best known today for his "tetranucleotide hypothesis" (formulated around 1910) which first proposed that DNA was made up of equal amounts of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.

eeO4J.jpg

Picture of proposed “tetranculteotid”

For the next decades it was widely thought that DNA was organized into constantly repeating "tetranucleotides" which therefore could not carry genetic information. Instead, the protein component of chromosomes was thought to be the basis of heredity; most research on the physical nature of the gene focused on proteins, and particularly enzymes and viruses.

Speculations

In 1927 during 3rd Congress of zoologists, anatomists and histologists, Nikolai Koltsov presented his theory that changed the understanding of genetics. He proclaimed his thesis of the existence of “hereditary molecules”, giant protein macromolecules, assembling axial genetically active structure of chromosomes or, according to Koltsov's terminology, “genoneme”. Koltsov suggests genetic information was coded in the highly polymeric protein chains. These chains would be two mirror strands that would replicate in a semi-conservative fashion using each strand as a template. His predictions were correct with the exception that it was the DNA and not the proteins that carried the information. As mentioned above at the time it was thought that the DNA was only some sort of structural element that provided stiffening for chromosomes.

LRuN3.png

Picture of Koltsov's “hereditary molecule”

In order to make significant progress Levene's mistake had to be recognized and the research focus had to be shifted from proteins to DNA. The experiment which would pave the way for this change of direction happened just one year later.

DNA as the Carrier of Genetic Information

During the Great War Fredrick Griffith began working for the UK government as part of the Ministry of Health's Pathological Laboratory. The government spent money sparingly on the laboratory, which remained very basic, though Griffith and his colleague, William M. Scott, "could do more with a kerosene tin and a primus stove than most men could do with a palace". Griffith was sent pneumococci samples taken from patients throughout the country, amassed a large number, and typed (classified) each pneumococci sample to search for patterns of pneumonia epidemiology. During his work he found that multiple types, some virulent and some non-virulent, were often present over the course of a clinical case of pneumonia, and thought that one type might change into another, rather than simply multiple types being present all along (the scientific consensus at the time).

Following this observation he conducted the most important experiment in his career in 1928. The result of one of his tests suggested that bacteria were capable of transferring genetic information through a process now known as transformation. For his experiment Griffith used two strains of pneumococcus a rough and smooth form. The smooth form was virulent because of its slippery polysaccharide coat which allowed the bacteria to withstand the host's immune system. Mice injected with smooth form bacteria succumbed to pneumonia and death within a couple of days. The rough form of the bacteria however, lacked a protecting capsule and the mice immune system was able to prevail over the disease.

Unlike other scientists, who believed that these types were fixed and unchangeable from one generation to another, Griffith thought that they could exchange genetic information. To test his hypothesis he took bacteria from the smooth strain, killed them with heat, and added their remains to rough strain bacteria. While neither alone harmed his lab mice, the combination was able to kill its host. Griffith was also able to isolate both live rough and live smooth strains of pneumococcus from the blood of these dead mice.
He concluded that the rough types had been "transformed" into the lethal smooth strain by a "transforming principle" that was somehow part of the dead smooth strain bacteria. The "transforming principle" Griffith observed was the DNA of the smooth strain bacteria. While the bacteria had been killed, the DNA had survived the heating process and was taken up by the rough strain bacteria. The smooth strain DNA contained the genes that form the protective polysaccharide capsule. Equipped with this gene, the former rough strain bacteria were now protected from the host's immune system and could kill the host.

QApBf.png


America's most prominent pneumococcus expert, Oswald Avery working in New York at the Rockefeller Hospital, which opened in 1910 on the Rockefeller Institute's campus, initially explained that Griffith's experiments must have been poorly conducted and succumbed to contamination. But Avery's associate Martin Dawson who was working at the Rockefeller Hospital confirmed each of Griffith's reported findings. Even before Griffith's publication, Fred Neufeld, of Germany's Robert Koch Institute, who had visited Griffith's laboratory and had been told of Griffith's findings had confirmed them as well.

The Rockefeller Institute researchers continued to study the transformation process in the following years. Martin Henry Dawson developed a method of transforming bacteria in vitro (in a test tube) rather than in vivo (in a living organism) as Griffith had done. The next years they worked on purifying the solutions in order to find what part was responsible for transferring the information. After Dawson's departure from the Institute in 1930, James Alloway took up the work.

Being able to repeat the experiment without mice, allowed for a better controlled environment (a test tube instead of a mouse). Chemical analysis showed that the proportions of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the active portion of the bacteria solution were consistent with the chemical composition of DNA. In order to to show that it was indeed the DNA that was responsible for the transformation and not RNA, protein, or some other cell component Alloway and his colleagues used a number of biochemical tests.
They found that trypsin, chymotrypsin and ribonuclease (enzymes that break apart proteins or RNA) did not affect the solution, but an enzyme preparation of "deoxyribonucleodepolymerase" (a crude preparation, obtainable from a number of animal sources, that could break down DNA) destroyed the extract's transforming power.

There was quiet a strong criticism of the conclusion as well as the experiments since the results went against all conventional knowledge. But this didn't prevent a soveta research group from doing their own experiment in order to confirm or at least disprove Dawson/Alloway's theory and findings. Starting in 1938 Nikolay Timofeev-Ressovsky an expert in physiological and genetic effects of radiation working for the Institute for Experimental Biology joined George Eliava, who already made an important contribution to evolutionary science with his work on Phage Therapy (d'Hergelle-Eliava Test), to test two competing hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that DNA was the genetic material, the other hypothesis was that it were proteins that carried the genetic information.

Viruses were known to be made up of a protein shell and DNA, so the team chose two elemental isotopes to label each of these parts uniquely. This allowed each to be observed and analyzed separately. Since DNA contains phosphorus but amino acids don't, radioactive phosphorus-32 was used to label the DNA contained in the T2 phage. Radioactive sulfur-35 was used to label the protein sections of the T2 phage, because while some amino acids contain sulfur DNA doesn't.
They accomplished the incorporation of the radioactive elements into the bacteriophages by adding the isotopes into separate media and allowing bacteria to grow in these media for 4 hours before introducing the bacteriophages. When the bacteriophages infected the bacteria, the progeny (virus “offspring”) contained the radioactive isotopes in their structures. This was done once for the sulfur labeled phages and once for phosphorus-labeled phages.

The labeled progeny were then allowed to infect unlabeled bacteria. The phage coats remain on the outside of the bacteria, while the genetic material entered inside. Centrifugation allowed for the separation of the phage coats from the bacteria. These bacteria were lysed (dissolved from the inside by the phages) to release the progeny. The progeny of the phages that were originally labeled with 32P remained labeled, while the progeny of the phages originally labeled with 35S were unlabeled. Thus, the Ressovsky-Eliava experiment helped confirm that DNA, not protein, is the genetic material.

eVWrB.jpg


Radioactive Marker and the Cyclotron

The Ressovsky-Eliava experiment was only possible thanks to discoveries and invention of George Charles de Hevesy. He was a Hungarian radiochemist who played a key role in the development of radioactive tracers to study chemical processes such as the metabolism of animals. By replacing part of stable isotopes with small quantities of the radioactive isotopes he was able to trace chemicals in living bodies. In 1923, Hevesy published the first study on the use of the naturally radioactive 212Pb as radioactive tracer to follow the absorption and translocation in the roots, stems and leaves of Vicia faba, also known as the broad bean.

Isotopes of a chemical element differ only in the mass number. The reason is that an atom is defined by its number of protons and electrons. The simplest atom is hydrogen which is made of one proton and one electron. But the number of neutrons, who are also part of the atom may vary without changing its fundamental nature of the atom. For example, the isotopes of hydrogen can be written as 1H, 2H and 3H, with the mass number at top left giving away how many neutrons this hydrogen atom contains. If the atomic nucleus of an isotope is unstable (“wrong” number of neutrons), compounds containing this isotope are radioactive.

When the Vernadsky Radium Institute headed by Vladimir Verdansky begun the planning and construction of Europe's first cyclotron, radioactive tracing had already gained ground in the scientific/medical community. The planning for the cyclotron started in 1932 and it went operational in 1937. This meant that it was possible to domestically produce the necessary amount of radioactive Isotopes when Ressovsky and Eliava decided to cooperate on their experiment. The markers used by them had short half lives and did not occur in nature. Phosphorus-32 half-life is 14.29 days before it decays into sulfur-32. Its short half-life means that useful quantities had and have to be produced synthetically. This was and is done via artificial nuclear reactions in which neutrons are added to the atom's core.

Phosphorus-32 found use already in 1935 when Hevesy and a colleague at the Bohr's institute for theoretical physics fed rats 32P. They first measured the hot phosphorus in the feces of the rats and later dissected them. This way they discovered, among other things, that bone is a dynamic tissue.
All this happened on the background of a general radioactive-mania. For example at roughly the same same time Ressovsky and Eliava published their finding in 1939, the ship "University Explorer," announced the arrival of radioactive fertilizer in Hawaii. A professor at the University there had imported 32P from Berkeley by Pan American clipper to test its power on pineapples. He was being cited in a local newspaper "The influence of the cyclotron has been felt in so many different fields of science that no one can predict its ultimate value to mankind." While the idea of radioactive fertilizer would fall into obscurity and ridicule the mass production of isotopes for biological experiments in general did indeed change our understanding of life itself.

The composition of DNA

Miriam Michael Stimson was a devout catholic, a nun and responsible for advancing our knowledge of genetics. While working at the all female Siena Hights College, Stimson discovered two rules that helped lead to the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA and ending Levene's tetranucleotide hypothesis.

Miriam had studied the ultraviolet absorption of the purnines (adenine and guanine) and pyrimidines (cystosine and thymine) while graduating. She became interested in them because of their association with cancer experiments conducted in the Institutum Divi Thomae, where she received her higher education. However during the accumulation of this information for biochemical purpose, Miriam developed an academic interest in the spectral qualities per se of both substances.
In her function as a researcher at the College (one of many different obligations) Miriam researched them by using a Hilger quartz spectrograph in conjunction with a Spekker photometer and a paper chromatograph. This entailed photographing the UV spectrum and plotting by hand. Using this instrument, she published a series of papers on the UV absorption of purines and pyrimidines starting with adenine in 1940.

This procedure was painfully slow but she was able to discover the first of two main rules both later named after her. Stimson's first rule was her best known achievement. She showed that in natural DNA the number of guanine units equals the number of cytosine units and the number of adenine units equals the number of thymine units. In human DNA, for example, the four bases are present in these percentages: A=30.9% and T=29.4%; G=19.9% and C=19.8%. This strongly hinted towards the base pair makeup of the DNA. Miriam disproved Levene's hypothesis that DNA was composed of a large number of repeats of GACT since in such a case one should find an equal distribution of A=25 %; T=25%; G=25% and C=25%. Most researchers had previously assumed that deviations of the "correct" ratio in their experiments were due to experimental error, but Miriam documented that the variation was real.

D07G5.jpg

Sister Miriam in her laboratory

The second of Stimson's rules is that the composition of DNA varies from one species to another, in particular in the relative amounts of A, G, T, and C bases. Such evidence of molecular diversity, which had been presumed absent from DNA, made DNA a much more credible candidate for the genetic material than before. Miriam had to wait for the invention of the ultraviolet spectrophotometer which was invented and improved in the early forties. As an early adapter for new laboratory equipment, she was one of the first to buy the new Beckman DU spectrophotometer. Much like her male historical counterpart Gregor Mendel, Miriam saw no contradiction between her work on genetics and her religious duty. In her mind learning to understand God's creation could be as much as a religious exercise as praying. She even came out in favor of evolution and organized a symposium on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Omega Point theory in 1964.

The two parts of equipment she used had very different histories which shall be summarized here:

Chromatography was invented by the Russian botanist Mikhail Tsvet in 1903 during his research on plant pigments. Chromatography later developed into a widely used method to separate various components of a substance from one another. He first used the term "chromatography" in print in 1906 in his two papers about chlorophyll in the German botanical journal, Berichte der Deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft. In 1907 he demonstrated his chromatograph for the German Botanical Society. For two main reasons, Tsvet's work was ignored internationally until the Sovetoj came to power in the former Russian Empire.

Tsvet originally published only in Russian (making his results largely inaccessible to western scientists), and there was an article cycling around denying Tsvet's findings. Willstater and Stoll tried to repeat Tsvet's experiments, but because they used an overly aggressive adsorbent (destroying the chlorophyll), were not able to do so. They published their results and Tsvet's chromatography method fell into obscurity in the West until its reintroduction due to the use of Lingua Internacia in sovetaj scientific journals, which made them more accessible to the rest of the world. An adjusted version of Tsvet's chromatograph, the paper chromatograph allowed Miriam to make his discovery.

Paper chromatography is an analytical method technique for separating and identifying mixtures that are or can be colored, especially pigments. In paper chromatography, substances are distributed between a stationary phase and a mobile phase. The stationary phase is usually a piece of high quality filter paper. The mobile phase is a developing solution that travels up the stationary phase, carrying the samples with it. Components of the sample will separate readily according to how strongly they adsorb on the stationary phase versus how readily they dissolve in the mobile phase.

When a colored chemical sample is placed on a filter paper, the colors separate from the sample by placing one end of the paper in a solvent. The solvent diffuses up the paper, dissolving the various molecules in the sample according to the polarities of the molecules and the solvent. If the sample contains more than one color, that means it must have more than one kind of molecule. Because of the different chemical structures of each kind of molecule, the chances are very high that each molecule will have at least a slightly different polarity, giving each molecule a different solubility in the solvent. The unequal solubilities cause the various color molecules to leave solution at different places as the solvent continues to move up the paper. The more soluble a molecule is, the higher it will migrate up the paper.

vXFtT.gif

Paper Chromatography

The analytical method of ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy refers to absorption or reflectance spectroscopy in the ultraviolet-visible spectral region. This means it uses light in the visible and adjacent near-UV and near-infrared ranges. It either measures the intensity of light passing through a sample and compares it to the intensity of light before it passes through the sample or the reflectance is measured. In the later case, the spectrophotometer measures the intensity of light reflected from a sample and compares it to the intensity of light reflected from a reference material, such as a white tile.

In Miriam's experiment the chromatograph was used to separate the different nucleotides (ACGT). They could be seen as different spots on the filter paper. They were then irradiated with the ultraviolet light to measure their exact quantity.

The DNA Race

All this evidence combined sparked the so-called “race” to discover the structure of DNA in the early forties culminating in it revelation in 1945. The contestants were on one side the American scientist Linus Pauling and on the other side the pair of the soveta scientists Alexander Oparin and John Desmond Bernal. Both sides utilized remarkably similar approaches in attempting to solve the riddle of the genetic material's structure. Since all other scientific powerhouses were destroying themselves in the Depression War, only the USS and the USA had the time, peace and resources to invest into researching the problem.

Although there were a variety of reasons behind Bernal and Oparin success, a good portion of it can be attributed to the relative superiority of resources available to them. Bernal and Oparin obviously had each other to keep themselves in check, but they also benefited from other voices of criticism such as the entire biochemical scientific community in the USS. Linus Pauling also shared his ideas with his colleagues as well, but none of them were very familiar with DNA, and therefore couldn’t offer much feedback. They were also largely ignored even when they did offer criticisms of Pauling’s structure.

Another vital resource available to Bernal and Oparin was an excellent X-ray crystallography pattern, a photo, taken by Bernal himself. Although, Bernal in all likelihood would have allowed Pauling to see the photo if he had asked, in the end Pauling settled on using blurry patterns published by William T. Astbury in 1937. X-ray crystallography, also sometimes known as X-ray diffraction, is used to determine the arrangement of atoms within a crystalline molecule. It is a rather complicated procedure, and the photos taken in the process can be interpreted only by a person with significant training.

Because the process of X-ray crystallography is so cumbersome, there are many opportunities for mistakes, which might have led to the poor quality of Astbury’s photographs. But Astbury’s was an excellent techniques, an experienced crystallographer. He had achieved great success in his earlier work with X-ray diffraction on substances such as keratin and as it turns out, Astbury’s photos were only of poor quality because of the DNA sample he was using. In late 1939 working together with Bernal, Oparin had discovered that DNA came in two forms, a dry condensed form and a wet extended form. Astbury’s DNA sample was well prepared from calf thymus, but it contained a mixture of the two forms. This turned out to be the major reason why Astbury’s photographs were rather blurry.

It is also important to note that, even if Astbury had known he was using a poor crystalline sample of DNA, he probably still wouldn’t have been able to compete with the quality of Bernal’s photos. In 1940, three years after Astbury’s images were published Bernal, who was a pioneer in the field of pioneer in X-ray crystallography build a much improved machine.

Bernal started applying his crystallographic techniques to organic molecules, as early as 1929. While still at Cambridge, he analyzed vitamin B1 (1933), pepsin (1934), vitamin D2 (1935), the sterols (1936). It was in his research group in Cambridge that he met his future wife and research colleague Dorothy Hodgkin. Together, in 1934, they took the first X-ray photographs of hydrated protein crystals using the trick of bathing the crystals in their mother liquor, giving one of the first glimpses of the world of molecular structure that underlies living things.

After their immigration to the USS Bernal became known as one of the “Red Samurai” a group of Anglo-Soveta researches and proponents of the unrestricted scientific avant-garde. They were most (in-)famous for their advocacy of Eugenics. Bernal and Oparin also developed together a way to obtain much better X-ray patterns of DNA through the use of a solution of sodium thymonucleate in 1940. This solution was highly viscous, and Bernal found that thin strands could be drawn out by gently dipping a glass stirring rod into a sample and slowly pulling it out. These thin strands were pure DNA, and Bernal was able to get excellent X-ray patterns from them. Eventually, he developed photo 41, which would become the basis for his and Oparin's deciphering work.


4wtP7.jpg

Crystallographic photo of Sodium Thymonucleate, Type B. "Photo 41." Taken by John Desmond Bernal.
 
Last edited:
And this fills me with joy! :):cool:
Now, I can't obviously know what you're going to write about the future of countries that, like Italy, are bound to overthrow their right-wing dictatorships somewhere in your future updates (good luck with your work on them btw!) but the fact you've decided to give a happier ending to one of the finest minds of political thinking is in itself a great reward! :eek:

I changed the A new path towards socialism? post to integrate the Italian Revolution into the timeline. There will still be inconsistencies but at least the most glaring one is now removed. While doing a little bit of research for the new post I also found out where your user name comes from :).
 
Oh Marx!

This is the first time a TL author has amended his creature because I had offered a suggestion... I'd like to say I'm flattered but instead I'll type

So.Damn.Epic!

Your kindness, the last update and the whole timeline!

I'm just a little confused... Why "Red Samurai" if they're English/Britons transplanted in the USS? Why a Japanese term? Is it because they developed a version of the Bushido for transhumanist scientists?:p

P.S. Really, you didn't know about The(real)Berlinguer? The Communist leader that even the staunchest Italian apoliticals (and there's a lot) respect?
And I'm happy to notice you inserted Tito as well. A little less happy to see he's his exactly OTL self but whatever...
 
This is the first time a TL author has amended his creature because I had offered a suggestion... I'd like to say I'm flattered but instead I'll type...

Well, it was a good idea and valid criticism. From the beginning I tried to incorporate good suggestions. For example shevek23's comments helped me a lot in getting the timeline on the right track.

I'm just a little confused... Why "Red Samurai" if they're English/Britons transplanted in the USS? Why a Japanese term? Is it because they developed a version of the Bushido for transhumanist scientists?

Not quiet. The nickname Red Samurai references the Essay „A Modern Utopia" written by H. G. Wells in 1905. I will go into much more detail when I'll make a post about the "Red Samurai" but for everybody who is curious and can't wait here is the whole essay:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hgwells/1905/modern-utopia/ch09.htm

P.S. Really, you didn't know about The(real)Berlinguer? The Communist leader that even the staunchest Italian apoliticals (and there's a lot) respect?

No, I didn't know about him before I began changing the timeline. I am sure he is famous in Italy and maybe in active socialist circles, however my previous knowledge is mostly restricted to internationally famous Communists, as well as lesser known German ones.

So.Damn.Epic!

Thank you. I do my best :)
 
A short history of Cosmism

1970
(This is a guest column in some American college newspaper written by an exchange student from the USS)

In my time here in America, I had the opportunity to meet people of many different faith and people from all over the political spectrum. I often found myself in arguments about the merits of the socialist economic system since then and it is a fascinating intellectual exerciser. If you are in a position to defend and explain what you took for granted for so long you really learn to appreciate it on a whole new level.

There is one exception thou. I would like to say the same about reactions concerning my church but somehow decades of misinformation manged to twist the picture of Cosmism in the public mind into something very ugly, not resembling reality in the slightest. While disheartening it is understandable that reactionaries might be willing to listen to their demagogues but it was most shocking that some of the most hostile people I met were other Socialists. Seeing so many members of the student movement falling for Comrade Mao's propaganda was one of the most disturbing experiences I had so far.
Although some might say hoping to convince them or you may be futile task, but I still believe that any one who considers himself a Socialist or Progressive will sooner or later find approach issues with an open mind. So please let me tell you and them the history of Cosmism, so you may judge yourself and exercise the inquisitive parts of your mind.


God Seeker and God Builder (I)

The history of Cosmism, although being only a fairly young “religion” (*1), is a very complex one. Indeed an entire library of microfiche is filled with the intricacies of Cosmist thought and history.
This little series of articles therefore doesn't make any claims to completeness. They are only short, cliff-note introductions giving an overview of the historical development of Cosmism. At the end of each article I'll add a list of interesting material for those who want to go into the depth of the topic.
In this first chapter I'll give an inside into the earliest stage of Cosmism, before it even had its name or a clearly defined identity.

It all began in the Russian Empire with the Religious-Philosophical Meetings which took place from 1901 onwards. These meetings were the result of ideas formulated by Zinaida Nikolaevna Gippius and her so called “New Church” concept. Like many religious reform movements before (protestantism would be a prominent example), it was a reaction to the old, orthodox church, which as Gippius put in her own words had proven "...to be imperfect and prone to stagnation".
This philosophical society was organized by her husband Dmitry Sergeyevich Merezhkovsky and his companions. They claimed their meetings were "a tribune for free discussion of questions concerning religious and cultural problems", serving to promote "neo-Christianity, social organization and whatever serves perfecting the human nature".

Merezhkovskys thought that the new society should have its own outlet. He started the publication of a magazine which would serve as a means of "bringing the thinking religious community together".
In July 1902, in association with Pyotr Pertzov and with a little help of some senior officials including ministers Dmitry Sypiagin and Vyacheslav von Pleve, the society opened its own magazine under the name of Novy Put (New Path). The groups popularity grew and some socialist thinkers, first and foremost Anatoly Lunacharsky regarded it as necessary to find an socialist answer to the God-seeker movement, as it became known.

466px-Anatoly_Lunacharsky.jpg

Anatoly Lunacharsky

This answer was the God-building (Bogostroitel'stvo) movement. In its earliest stage God-building was much more shaped trough the critical dialog with the idealistic, God-seekers and a lot less by discussions with the entrenched, materialistic, radically, atheist Marxist, who were in favor of a strict state enforced atheism (2*) such as Vladimir Lenin or Zinoviev.
Aside form Lunacharsky, the other main proponent of adding a religious (yet still scientific) component to socialism was Vladimir Bazarov (Rudnev). Both men were later joined by Maxim Gorky and most importantly by the future revolutionary leader and statesman Alexander Bogdanov.

Inspired by the the Empiriocriticism of Ernst Mach and R. Avenarius, Bogdanov wished to modify Marxism. His goal was to put a greater emphasis on the superstructure, the culture rather than simply seeing it as just the “shallow” result of the prevalent economic structure.
In Bogdanov's eyes breaking the knowledge monopoly of the ruling class, was at least as important as changing the relations of production, i.e nationalizing the ruling class's property. During the years of the Great War and the Revolution he somewhat shifted in his actual policy a little more to the late Lenin's strongly economic position but more out of necessity than anything else. Bogdanov was willing to somewhat postpone but absolutely not to abandon his focus on the cultural transformation of society.

In his “Empiriomonizm”, Bogdanov laid out the key assumptions and consequences of his worldview.
"Empiromonizm", monos (one), stood in opposition to the philosophical school of dualism (two). The physical and psychological world can't be strictly separated, as it was proposed by disciples of dualism, into the two factors mind and body. Both are way too dependent, related to each other.

In the same vein he criticized Marx premise that "Being determines consciousness" and replaced it with "Being is consciousness."
Bogdanov saw that humans aren't alone in the world and that everybody's individual, subjective experiences are therefore shaped to significant degree not only by their "physical", economic environment but also by their peers. Rules, role models and accessible knowledge, all influence how we perceive the world around us, or as Bogdanov said: "The objectivity of the physical bodies, which we come into contact with, in the end depends on the mutual assurance and harmonization in concert with other people's experiences.”

However he was not going so far as to marginalize the physical realm completely. After all “The mind is as much a product of the physical as it is of the psychological..." He recognized that people's imagination as well as their options of action are always constrained by the material world. The main result of his philosophical inquirers can be summed up as follows:
People's minds are structured by their social environment but at the same time they themselves participate in structuring their social environment as well. Depending on their position in their society and how well they understand the structuring process, their influence can vary drastically.

"Tectology" the universal science of organization was according to Bogdanov the tool to achieve an organized effort to reconstruct society and the world at large to the benefit of all humankind. Bogdanov explained that trough the "tectological approach" we get "the one, the only, the monistic understanding of the universe. It reveals itself to us in an unlimited, unfolding whole of forms, different kinds and stages of organization. It begins in the unknown elements of the ether and ends in the human collective, which will once it realizes its own power, spread across the across the stars."

Bogdanov from his early youth on was an atheist but also a believer in humanity. The right circumstances, which are entirely accidental, generated life on our planet. This might happen everywhere else in the universe as well. Life diversified over the next million of years but in humanity it became a self aware collective, a "supemind" or "over-growth" as he called it. Once humanity understands its role, its potential, it will overcome the artificial separation into classes, races, nations and all those limits currently constraining human ingenuity and cooperation won't exist anymore.
It is humanity's destiny to conquer space and sow the seed of life into the void of space. Once we reach the stars nothing will ever again be able to vanquish the Gospel of Progress.

Bogdanov saw religion as more important in prehistoric societies than modern ones but he was open to Lunacharsky's ideas. After all in his “The Psychology of Society” in 1904 he wrote “that the historical Monism, [as well as orthodox Marxism] (…) isn't satisfactory to us anymore (…).

To simplify Bogdanov after analyzing human society, saw the superstructure (culture) as important as the structure (distribution of resources and means of production). Religion might as well serve a organizational role in a future society. He also aside from that, generally had a high opinion on the potential of humankind. In his eyes we may develop into a godlike species of creators outgrowing our own home world.
While he reached this conclusion more from a scientific, analytical starting point, it was very much in sync with Lunacharsky's more “spiritual” approach of the matter.

“When we look at the success of the species of man, don't we say: “Who is the one that made nature his tool? (…) Don't we see him, the newborn God … humanity?”
In his essay “Birth of a new God” he wrote that “New priests will educate the masses, will perform socialist mystery plays revealing the power that lies dormant in the human collective. We will praise man and his work, in temples build by us and dedicated to us. The new proletarian priest, the proletarian artists will create the new religion of hope and progress."

Lunacharsky proposed that the new religious sentiment, which would be accommodating to the world-view of socialism and later communism, was not only compatible with science but necessary. The inborn, natural human desire for spirituality had to be shifted away form the supernatural and be placed on a firm, rational footing.
It became apparent to him, that Marx's purely materialistic world view lacked the emotional appeal to sustain, a society in the long run. “Socialism without religion is a gray, dry, stiff affair and doesn't speak to the heart of the proletariat, worse it often speaks above their heads.”
Some also interpret this comment, as a thinly veiled critic to the then party leader Lenin, who was not only a fierce critic of Lunacharsky's God-building but to an extend was perceived as being a gray, dry, stiff personality. Also as Krasin remarked later “both men [Lenin and Bogdanov] had a grand vision of a new socialist world, but while Bogdanov sought to teach the worker how to learn, Lenin wanted to teach them how to follow.”

Lunacharsky's efforts to counter the God-seeker led to the creation of the group "Forward" inside the RSDLP. There proclaimed goal was the synchronization of religion, science, and socialist economy, to create a new proletarian culture, proletarian science and development of the new proletarian philosophy. The group lectured students in the Capri school which had been founded in 1908. It included Lunacharsky and Bogdanov as well as F. Kalinin, (....) Alexinsky, Marat, Liadov and many more important party members.

The movement flourished, especially after Lenin's death which finally brought Bogdanov into the official leadership position of the party. “Forward” launched their vigorous campaign in the press to educate the Russian revolutionary movement with their ideas: Lunacharsky published two volumes of "Religion and Socialism" (1908), Vladimir Bazarov wrote his articles on "Mysticism and realism of our time" (1908) and "God-seeking, and God-Building" (1909).

The most prominent critic of their efforts was Georgi Plekhanov who wrote in his "On the so-called religious quest in Russia" that God-Building would be a "...break away from the fundamentals of Marxism …”. Plekhanov's opinion carried weight in socialist circles, after all he was founder of the Social-Democratic movement in Russia and was one of the first Russians to identify himself as a Marxist.
His opposition gave fodder to internal critics of Bogdanov and his comments became an important source of legitimacy for the Leninst fraction inside the Socialist Party. Even today Comrade Mao is using Plekahnov and his critic of Cosmism and Idealism to persuade members of the Tria Internacia and members of the Western Student movements to follow his path of “doctrinally pure Marxism”.

38l1j.png

Cosmist Jesus Icon

Indeed both Bogdanov and Lunacharsky weren't shy of criticizing Marx and rightly so. Bogdanov noted that Marx vastly underestimated the importance of the superstructure, Lunacharsky only remarked how regrettable it was that Marx “didn't incorporate more ideas of the great German Idealists such as Fichte, Schelling and Hegel.” into his works.
Another important German philosopher Marx had a rather ambiguous relation to was Hegel's student Ludwig Feuerbach. Feuerbach laid the groundwork for the projection theory, explaining the development of religion in general. Early primitive civilizations were very vulnerable to the whims of their environment. Still they were as curious and intelligent as we are today, they just lacked the knowledge and infrastructure each subsequent generation would inherit from their predecessors.

And as we do now, they asked themselves the essential questions of why and how the world works. The big difference was their limited knowledge and tools to answer those questions properly. Thus their world was one of undefined spirits, roaming the plains and forests causing illness and natural disaster.
Once civilizations arose, complex hierarchies and political bodies emerged and people's gods became more bureaucratic as well. After all they were mythological reflections of the current society, constrained by people's imagination.

However seeing Gods as merely fantastically powerful humans was not satisfactory in the long run. Instead God became the generalized good, the pure, the eternal. Everything humans strives to be. On the flip side humans were viewed as sinful, distanced form paradise separated form God and therefore imperfect. Feuerbach described this notion this view on humanity with the old saying "homo homini lupus est", "man is man's wolf”.
Only the authority of “God” and the believe in the afterlife could keep humans in line. But instead of worshiping God as some foreign entity, as a intermediary that allows us to love our imperfect brother and sisters, we should find him, it, directly in our fellow human, or as Feuerbach called it “homo homini deus” man's God is man. Unfortunately as Marx commented "Philosophers [like Feuerbach] have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." A criticism Feuerbach took to heart as he joined the Social Democratic Party, turning to the world and doing his part (1).

The disagreement that Lunacharsky had with Marx analysis of religion was not that we shouldn't stop contemplating instead of acting but that Marx described region as the “opiate of the people”. In Lunacharsky's eyes religion wasn't a form of escapism that would wither away once people won't have to deal with the hardships of the capitalist society anymore. Quiet the opposite.
Religion is something eternal, inherit to the human nature itself. According to Lunacharsky even if the party successfully helped to create a materialistic utopia, a world without hunger, disease or rigid hierarchies, people still will desire to be part of a spiritual community, with more time at hand maybe even more so than now. In order not feel isolated, alone and helpless as individuals, they need to know, feel and experience that they are part of a bigger whole, that life has a deeper purpose.

Lunacharsky saw the desire, as well as the seed of self awareness of the human collective, in all major religions, but especially in the Abrahamic variety. Most strongly it is expressed in the creation myth which is stating that humanity shall “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
The more sophisticated our culture became the less important God turned out to be for us. The Judean God “evolved” from some semitic tribe's god of war, to the the less active law maker to the beloved universal father figure Jesus preached about and later to the no longer active creator, many Deist American founding father believed in.

Now it was time to take the last step and remove the last remnants of superstition out of religion all together. What is left are the inspiring tales and teachings of outstandingly charismatic proto-revolutionaries, shrouding their ideology of the united human community into religious sermon. The Socialist had and have to speak to the hearts of people as much as to their minds.
A lesson that became important in the years of the revolution and the next decades afterwards when the struggle for the soul of the USS was fought over then. A lesson that has lost nothing of its power since we are right now struggling for the soul of the international Socialist movement.


(1*)
In the USS we have to different words for religion. “religio” and “scienca religio/scireligio”. The latter means “scientific religion” differentiating Cosmism and the strictly philosophical from of Buddhism, who lack any supernatural elements, from traditional religions.

(2*)
They regarded anything resembling the religious worship as suspect, even if it only served as a communal bonding exercise and explicitly didn't involve any supernatural beings or afterlife.

Notes:

(1)
Feuerbach's legacy becomes evident in the first phrase of Cosmist Church's version of the Lord's Prayer: “Homo homini deus est. Sic itur ad astra sternendas nobis et vere immortal” or “Man to man is a god. Such is path to the stars and immortality paved for us.”This overdose of Latin in the early history of the Cosmist Church is partly responsible for the tendency of soveta institutions to give themselves classic motto and mythological themes.
Despite or because there was a general policy to overthrow the old order in any aspect of life, people were seeking the familiar, some form continuity, a connection to their roots. Using Latin as well and drawing form Orthodox Iconography helped people in the transition years to find this pillar of stability in their life.
 
Last edited:
Once again I will say, a most exquisite timeline! To tired to read it all now, but will certainly do.

Question 1: I might have missed it, about the whole head transplant deal, how do they possibly have ability to reconnect spinal cord in '30es? Stem cells or something else? Or pure authorial handwave? Just asking, no hard feelings please.

Observation: I don't see any way how can this world not go trough hard take off singularity by ATL 2012.
 
Once again I will say, a most exquisite timeline! To tired to read it all now, but will certainly do.

Thank you.

Question 1: I might have missed it, about the whole head transplant deal, how do they possibly have ability to reconnect spinal cord in '30es? Stem cells or something else? Or pure authorial handwave? Just asking, no hard feelings please.

Well, I usually don't handwave anything. The only exception is completely inconsequential stuff, like naming the algea cracker “Soylent Green” despite this being a fairly unlikely naming choice. But beyond any pop cultural references anything has to be possible by our current scientific knowledge and ideally be inspired by OTL ideas that just didn't quiet caught on.

Now on the specific situation of head transplants you are absolutely right. In fact the entire last paragraph of Will Head-Transplantion become a new front in the cultural war? (I) is dedicated to the problem that you can't connect the spinal cord, at least not in the late fifties when the new method is used for the first time. The Will Head..... post is deliberately written in the early seventies, before stem cell research or anything that might offer a plausible solution for the problem took off. Now in the future of the Martian timeline that might change leading to:

Observation: I don't see any way how can this world not go trough hard take off singularity by ATL 2012.

The further we go along ITL we will reach a point were technology outpaces OTL. I don't intend to turn this into a Future History timeline, so I won't write about anything I can't comfortably back up with OTL research results.
 
Hi,
when I wrote the comment above I was sure that stem cell research and therapy in the thirties would be ridiculous. But that got me thinking:

Is it really? How could I dismiss the idea without doing at least a little research before?

Well, what I found was that it is not only possible but in the internal logic of events ITL almost inevitable. But this also means that things get a little bit too ridiculously advanced even for my taste. Therefore I will slow done the development of space technology. No rockoon and satellite in the thirties, no lenticular vehicles or other too crazy stuff.
I also scratched Polzin from the latest (unposted) version of the timeline. Ayan Rand is the woman from OTL we all know and love/despise.The Leninist under Beria never became a real party of their own.
 
Last edited:
The Physiological Collective II


(“Behind the Red Curtain: Life in the Sovetunio” written by an USS exchange student in America 1971)

Maximov the pioneer of stem cell therapy

Last time when I talked about the physiological collective we met Vladimir Shamov, the man who created the fundamentals for the blood research and transfusion in the USS. This time I want to introduce you another interesting man Alexander Maximov (1874 – 1928). He was responsible for the discovery that turned the strange but intriguing idea of a nation wide organized blood exchange into something truly amazing.

Maximov was born into an old and wealthy merchant family in Saint Petersburg in Russia. From 1882 onwards he was a pupil of Karl May German school in Saint Petersburg and in 1891 he entered the Imperial Military Medical Academy. During this time he completed his first scientific works, and he was awarded the Gold Medal for research on the "Histogenesis of experimentally induced amyloid degeneration of the liver in animals" published in the journal Russian Archives of pathology, clinical medicine and bacteriology. In 1896, he earned a degree as a medical doctor from the same institution. Subsequently, he studied for two years in Germany at Freiburg and Berlin. Returning to Saint Petersburg, he began his served as professor of histology and embryology 1903

While he could teach and pursue his research after the Russian Revolution Maximov was not sure if the could arrange himself with living in the Sovetunio. However when Vladimir Shamov asked him for his expertise in helping to establish his institute, Maximov was persuaded to postpone his decision, in the end infinitely. Maximov died in 1928 peacefully in his sleep.

From 1896 until 1902, Maximov authored numerous papers, concerning a variety of histologic problems, which established the background for his future work. In the later stages of his career, Maximov was primarily interested in the blood and the connective tissues. After demonstrating that all blood cells develop from a common precursor cell, Maximov confirmed the unitarian theory of hematopoiesis.

p4YK1.jpg

Alexander Maximov

Haematopoiesis derives from from the Ancient Greek words: αἷμα, "blood"; ποιεῖν "to make". Haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) reside in the medulla of the bone (bone marrow) and have the unique ability to give rise to all of the different mature blood cell types and tissues.

These mature blood cells are:

Red blood cells (erythrocytes) carry oxygen to the tissues.

Platelets or thrombocytes (derived from megakaryocytes) help prevent bleeding and aid in clotting of blood.

Granulocytes (neutrophils, basophils and eosinophils) and macrophages (collectively known as myeloid cells) fight infections from bacteria, fungi, and other parasites. They also remove dead cells and remodel tissue and bones.

B-lymphocytes produce antibodies, while T-lymphocytes can directly kill or isolate invading cells.

After Shamov's team discovered the benefits of infusing young blood in old mice (and the opposite if done vice versa) several theories were developed to explain the unexpected discovery. Maximov participated in this discussion and offered a hypothesis of his own. His idea for a possible explanation was the following.
All life begins with cells multiplying and specializing until a full human organism is formed. But some of these unspecialized cells, “stem cells” remain in the blood, even after birth. During a persons lifetime they become fewer and at some point degenerate, thus explaining why older blood is not only useless but can become downright harmful.

In order to confirm his hypothesis, Maximov devised a series of experiments. I will concentrate on the most important one. Assuming his theory was correct, than the blood of a newborn should have the highest possible concentration of stem cells. Unfortunately, parents couldn't be expect to be particularly cooperative when it came to their infants. To avoid possible arguments, Maximov decided to use the blood of the umbilical cord.
A medical assistant would cannulate the vein of the severed umbilical cord using a needle that is connected to a blood bag, and the cord blood would flow through the needle into the bag. On average, this technique enabled the collection of about 75 ml of cord blood.

Before this happened a group of laboratory rats had been divided into two test groups. Both had had artificially induced spinal cord injuries but only one group was treated with intravenously injected human infant blood.
The rats behavior was assessed one, two and three weeks after the treatment took place and those who had been treated with human cord blood showed a significant improvement compared to the untreated rats.
The results of this an similar experiments suggested that Maximov's hypothesis merited further investigation. In the following years several important observations were made highlighting the usefulness of umbilical cord blood and its ability to heal neurological damage, help repairing blood vessels and improving ventricular function after heart failure and overall prolonged the life of test animals.

For those that ask themselves the same question, yes these “xeno” transplants not only worked but they worked without the use of any immunosuppressives [These are all OTL results, see Notes].

The fight against “blood cancer”

One or the more important discoveries was however made nearly two decades later. In 1941 Hermann Joseph Muller (1890 –1967) conducted a study on the effects of extreme radioactive overexposure on rats and also orchestrated the search for a possible cure. Ever since Noddacks showed that was possible the idea of radioactive energy had gained ground making the work with radioactive material safer was a priority.

J8vaD.jpg

Josef Hermann Muller

Muller's team found that radioactivity could severely damage all organs in the body including the bone marrow. Now the fantastic healing properties of cord blood were well known at this point and the researcher infused the blood into the irradiated rats. While some improvements were expected, the results exceeded these expectations by far. The human cord blood administration not only produced a transplant but also accelerated endogenous marrow recovery.

Soon the idea of using radiation to kill off the bone marrow caught the attention of doctors specializing in the treatment of bone marrow failure disorders. It was reasoned that if a patient’s diseased bone marrow could be killed off by using controlled levels of radiation, healthy bone marrow might be regrown with the assistance of cord blood.
Some of those early tries indeed succeeded but it became apparent that there were two problems to be solved.
The first was that even if the blood was usually not rejected by patients, having your own blood transplanted was correctly estimated as being optimal. Second, there wasn't really enough blood in the cord to treat adults. Third, radiation therapy was extremely damaging to all organs, not just the bone marrow.

The first problem could be solved by Nikolai Fyodorov Institute of Immortality Research which found ways to freeze regular as well as cord blood. A way to solve the scarcity of cord blood was found when researcher discovered that placental blood is even more potent than the umbilical cord blood.
Harvesting wasn't more difficult as the doctor only had to aspirated with syringes contained anticoagulants or drain blood into a collection-bag by gravity.

The first patient successfully treated with a radiation therapy was the 10 year old Valentina
Dzhigit. She had a case of acute lymphocytic leukemia. Her bone marrow produced white blood cells that did not mature correctly. Normal healthy cells only reproduce when there is enough space for them. The body will regulate the production of cells by sending signals of when to stop production. Her cells did not respond to the signals telling them when to stop and when to produce cells, regardless of the available space.
This disease would have been certainly fatal a year before. But now carefully dosed radiation killed her defect bone marrow.
It was than replaced with her own, healthy stem cells in her umbilical cord blood which had been preserved in a frozen state in one of the state administered blood banks since her birth. She survived and is in fact still alive to this day.

Roughly around the same time researches at the Yale University, in 1941 began testing alkylating agents as a potential weapon against cancer. Mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent during World War I and was discovered to be a potent suppressor of hematopoiesis (blood production).
The drugs tested at Yale were from a similar family of compounds known as nitrogen mustards. Following the sometimes dramatic but highly variable responses of experimental tumors in mice to treatment, these agents were first tested in humans late that year. Use of methyl bis (B-chloroethyl)emine hydrochloride (mechlorethamine, mustine) and tris (B-chloroethy) amine hydrochloride for Hodgkin's disease lymphosarcoma, leukemia, and other malignancies resulted in striking but temporary dissolution of tumor masses.
Because of secrecy surrounding the war gas program, these results were not published until 1946. These publications spurred rapid advancement in the previously non-existent field of cancer chemotherapy, and a wealth of new agents with therapeutic effect were discovered in the last decades.

The process was accelerated by the discovery of the DNA structure by Alexander Oparin and John Desmond Bernal in 1945.
Cancer is after all broad group of various diseases, involving unregulated cell growth. In cancer, cells divide and grow uncontrollably, forming malignant tumors. So all of the drugs we have today affect cell division hitting the fast-dividing cells of tumors especially hard. The downside of this mechanism is that other fast-dividing cells, such as those responsible for hair growth and for replacement of the intestinal epithelium (lining), are also often affected.
They do this in various way, all of them involving the DNA. For example Mustine, the first drug that came out of the Yale program worked by binding to DNA, crosslinking two strands and preventing cell duplication.

vIe6X.jpg

Josif Kassirsky

Right after the discovery of the new therapeutic option was disclosed by the US government, Prof. Josif Kassirsky (1898-1971), who had specialized among other things in Leukemia research began studying these agents. Three years later in 1949 he discovered/developed the nitrogen mustard cyclophosphamide, which killed off bone marrow without less of the harm observed in total body radiation patients and generally had strong anti-cancer properties.
For now this was the last really major discovery in this field, but I am sure the next big thing is right around the corner.

Notes:
(1) Human Umbilical Cord Blood Treatment of United States Soldiers following Neurological Injury www.smcaf.org/HUCB%20RxUS%20after%20NeuroInj.pdf

(2) The effects of human umbilical cord blood transplantation in rats with experimentally induced spinal cord injury. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20887153
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the latest update yet but it'll be done soon. Meanwhile...

no lenticular vehicles or other too crazy stuff.

Uff...:( I wished for TTL to become UFO-free...

"Then how do you explain all the flying saucer sightings?"
"Those are the new Soviet Tupolev Tu-115's, you dumbass!"

I also scratched Polzin from the latest (unposted) version of the timeline. Ayan Rand is the woman from OTL we all know and love/despise.The Leninist under Beria never became a real party of their own.

What a pity... Ayn Rand head of a Leninist movement was one of the most outrageous allohistorical ironies I'd ever found.:p
Soooo... A more important Beria in the latest revision? In this draft I remember him being at best an important figure in Soviet Georgia, with only limited relevance in national politics.
 
Uff...:( I wished for TTL to become UFO-free...

"Then how do you explain all the flying saucer sightings?"
"Those are the new Soviet Tupolev Tu-115's, you dumbass!"


If I find a really good reason for lenticulars I might keep them, we will see.

What a pity... Ayn Rand head of a Leninist movement was one of the most outrageous allohistorical ironies I'd ever found.:p
Soooo... A more important Beria in the latest revision? In this draft I remember him being at best an important figure in Soviet Georgia, with only limited relevance in national politics.


The thing is, not only is Ayn Rands role stretching it, but more importantly I realized that her voting base would not be big enough to justify an own party. Since the worker's opposition and Kollontai is never thrown under a bus, the USS turns into a socialist market economy in the 1920s.
The Radical Socialist Faction/Party, with a heavy influx from Spanish civil war refugees become a Anarcho-Syndicalist leaving. Thus the only people left form the Leninist are old Guards not quiet satisfied with Bogdanovs leadership who are dieng off and social conservatives.

As for the role of Beria. Nothing really changes, he mostly relies on his contacts and the fact that he kept people safe during the war. But without Polzin he is the “best” the Leninist have:

When Kamo stepped down from office in 1942 instead of appointing Beria as the new Director of the Stasek, he chose Polina Zhemchuzhina. This happened although Beria's organizational skills were a major factor in infiltrating all other security services in the world, even the top secret projects as Tube-Alloy and Manhattan which dealt with the development of atomic weapon. Beria felt unappreciated and began to make plans for a future in politics.
Zhemchuzhina who respected Beria and hoped for a good work relationship introduced him to her husband Vyacheslav Molotov who was a member of the Leninist, as well as Kamenev who she had worked with in the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. On the surface this reconciliation effort worked.
Beria continued his good work and didn't make any attempts to undermine Zhemchuzhina authority.


After Chairman Alexei Kosygin made it public that from now on other parties than the "Bolsheviks" would be able to candidate for the sovetoj and that in fact the Socialist Party itself would be split. Beria saw his time coming. He resigned from his post as deputy head of the Stasek and became the front running candidate for the Leninist Socialist Party.
 
When I started the first version of this timeline I had a humble goal, make the soviet Avant-garde a little more successful. I always planned to keep butterflies as contained as possible, have easily recognizable world.
But then I began reading about all kinds of topics, doing research and seeing connections, possibilities everywhere. Now I reached a point were I saw two possibilities, kill off anything silly, anything going too far, or make the world a totally different place. Build a world were the Revolution triumphs.
First I thought I should go with the limited option, but yesterday I came to the conclusion to go "full Avant-garde" to quote a great movie.

The new version of this timeline will start at the very beginning of the 20th century and will become a lot less recognizable after the second Great War. The new title picture gives a glimpse at what will happen in this new version of the timeline.

Link: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=259351

Nikola Tesla is very much going to be the man who invented the 20th century. Obviously the soviet Avant-garde and Bogdanov are still going to be the main drive behind many of the more wackier aspects of the timeline but unlike before the Revolution won't be contained. Europe and the world and at large will change, be very, very different.

L'imagination au pouvoir!
ComradeHuxley
 
Last edited:
Top