AHC: An avowed "Trotskyite" regime ruling over one or more countries (but not USSR)

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Here are the conditions:

A) The ruler need not be Trotsky

B) The Trotskyite influence cannot be merely ephemeral, rather the constitution is developed by Trotskyites

C) Stalin must still be ruler of the USSR from 1927 through WWII

D) The regime must clearly identify itself as Trotskyite, either being establishing after his exile and further articulation of theory, or, if established as a Leninist regime before his exile, it must identify its sympathy with Trotsky's theories within a decade of "Trotskyism" becoming a political sin in the USSR.
 
"So here is my PoD for having an outright control of Sri Lanka by
Trotskyites (rather than their mere participation in a coalition government
like Mrs. Bandaranaike's in OTL): Have S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike decide not
to form a new party (the Sri Lanka Freedom Party or SLFP) in the early
1950's but to stay with the then-dominant United National Party. In OTL,
the SLFP, which portrayed itself as both a non-Leninist socialist party and
a champion of the rights of the Sinhalese, overtook the Trotskyite Lanka
Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) as the second largest party in 1952. The rise of
the SLFP presented the LSSP with all sorts of opportunities for electoral
"deals" and eventually for participation in a coalition government--but it
also pretty much eliminated the possibility of the LSSP winning power on
its own. (In particular, as a party that wanted to appeal to both
Sinhalese and Tamil workers the LSSP could not compete with the SLFP in
communal appeals to the Sinhalese--although it ultimately did go along with
making Sinhalese the only official language.) For a while after the
assassination of Bandaranaike and the ensuing political chaos of 1959-60
the LSSP seemed to think it could regain dominance on the Left but in the
end it reached electoral deals with the SLFP (now led by Bandaranaike's
widow) and the Communists. Eventually it joined Mrs. Bandaranaike's
government and was thereafter regarded by the Fourth International as no
longer being a Trotskyite party because of its participation in a
"bourgeois government."

"So assume that there's no SLFP, and that public dissatisfaction with the
UNP leads voters to choose the LSSP as the major alternative. The LSSP
either wins an outright majority in parliament or at least does well enough
to get a dominant position in a left-wing government. What effect does the
world's first Trotskyite government have on both Sri Lanka and other
countries? It is not enough to note that the LSSP as a coalition partner
in OTL was not terribly radical; after all, its power to take radical
action under the circumstances was limited. Still, one does get the
impression that after decades of making election contests and trade union
action their major field of activity, a lot of people in the LSSP were no
longer really revolutionaries (if they had ever been) and had no particular
desire to be, and that this might be true whether or not they had full
control of the government.

"In any event, the history of the LSSP does suggest an interesting
possibility: if there *had* been stronger Trotskyite parties in other
countries as well, such parties might have been de-radicalized and tamed in
the same way that first Social Democratic and later Stalinist parties were
in OTL. In other words, the more "revolutionary" posture of the
Trotskyites may be at least partially a function of their lack of power..."

https://www.alternatehistory.com/shwi/WI Trotskyite Sri Lanka.txt
 
Jean-Marie Le Pen vs. a Trotskyist in the second round of the French presidential race of 2002? Not totally inconceivable. The three Trotskyist candidates--Arlette Laguiller of the Lutte Ouvriere, Olivier Besancenot of the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire, and Daniel Gluckstein of the Parti des Travailleurs--got a combined 10.44 percent of the vote, not *that* far behind Jospin (16.18%) and Le Pen (16.88%) and Chirac (19.88%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002 Even if the Trotskyists, so notorious for their splits, had been able to unite, it is unlikely their candidate would make it to the second round, but not impossible--let's say Chirac is even more tarnished with scandal than in OTL and Jospin is even more unpopular, and maybe also for some reason don't have the left-wing Euroskeptic Chevenement run, with the Trotskyists picking up some of his support.

So Le Pen and a Trotskyist make it to the second round. If this were *Marine* Le Pen, I think the Trotskyist would lose, but this is her much more strident father. If in OTL "vote for the crook [Chirac], not the fascist" prevailed, could "vote for the Trotskyist, not the fascist" do so in this ATL?
 
Last edited:
Trotskyism was by some measures the strongest communist current within the Viet Minh national front at the time of the 1945 August Revolution. Vietnam was unique in that Marxist-Leninists were willing to work with Trotskyites. But that ended in September 1945 when Ho Chi Minh had most of the Vietnamese Trotskyites killed on Stalin's orders. Have the Trotskyites me more successful at coopting the August Revolution and have them be somewhat more powerful in the North, and you could have a Trotskyite Vietnam. It'd be interesting to see if the Soviets and Chinese would still be willing to support them against French/American imperialism.
 
Jean-Marie Le Pen vs. a Trotskyist in the second round of the French presidential race of 2002? Not totally inconceivable. The three Trotskyist candidates--Arlette Laguiller of the Lutte Ouvriere, Olivier Besancenot of the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire, and Daniel Gluckstein of the Parti des Travailleurs--got a combined 10.44 percent of the vote, not *that* far behind Jospin (16.18%) and Le Pen (16.88%). and Chirac (19.88%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002 Even if the Trotskyists, so notorious for their splits, had been able to unite, it is unlikely their candidate would make it to the second round, but not impossible--let's say Chirac is even more tarnished with scandal than in OTL and Jospin is even more unpopular, and maybe also for some reason don't have the left-wing Euroskeptic Chevenement run, with the Trotskyists picking up some of his support.

So Le Pen and a Trotskyist make it to the second round. If this were *Marine* Le Pen, I think the Trotskyist would lose, but this is her much more strident father. If in OTL "vote for the crook [Chirac], not the fascist" prevailed, could "vote for the Trotskyist, not the fascist" do so in this ATL?

I want to see an ATL based on this!

And I had no idea Trotskyism was still so strong in France...

fasquardon
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Have the Trotskyites me more successful at coopting the August Revolution and have them be somewhat more powerful in the North, and you could have a Trotskyite Vietnam. It'd be interesting to see if the Soviets and Chinese would still be willing to support them against French/American imperialism.

At a guess, I would estimate that Stalin would have nothing positive to do with a Trotskyite Viet Minh, and he would probably take the attitude towards Ho of "If you do not kill the Trotskyites, you *are* a Trotskyite." So, if the Trotskyite are too popular or powerful to purge, or Ho doesn't want to, or something happens to how and the Trotskyites are the best positioned successors, Stalin will cut them off. At this stage in their careers, 1945 or 1946, I would bet Mao and Tito would go right along with Stalin's line. Of course, perhaps as dangerously the French Communist Party would go happily anti-Viet Minh

Stalin's casting out of the Viet Minh would be impossible to miss in the US and UK.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Viet Minh would, to the US in this ATL, be clearly distinct from monolithic communism. The Americans had enough nuance to recognize the Tito split when it occurred just a few years later, and Trotskyism is even more anathema to the USSR, and could be seen as another club to beat the USSR with.

At the same time, the US would want to avoid being seen in France as actively sabotaging the French effort.

I wonder what amount of support Trotskyists in *France* had in the late 40s early 50s. I am not suggesting at all any Trotskyist takeover, but wondering if they were represented in parliament enough to be crucial voters on any policies towards Indochina.

Probably the result through 1954 is that the US is uninterested in directly subsidizing or support France in Indochina, but the US will still be supporting France in Europe, so the French could do alot to sustain themselves by shifting around their own funding lines internally. At the same time however, the Trotskyite Communist rebels in Viet Nam will not be getting a bonanza of Chinese Communist aid from 1949 that was so helpful to them.

While the Soviet objection to tactical accommodation with Trotskyite parties internationally may wane eventually, it would only happen after Stalin's death. Meanwhile, Mao would have made an early investment in a refusal to support Vietnamese Trotskyites. Of course, given enough time and mood swings, especially after the split with the USSR, Mao could eventually change his tune (like he did with the US) but alot will probably have happened by then.
 
If Ho Chi Minh was a Trotskyite expect Stalin to send assassins after him. They may well not succeed but they will be sent.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Didn't Stalin try to assassinate Ho Chi Minh in OTL anyway?

fasquardon

I have never seen such a thing, and I've read a few biographies of each of the two men. Strikes me as a rumor started by somebody who was riffing aggressively off the theme of paranoid Stalin.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Trotsky would have led a militarist state that would have been a constant transformation from anarcho-Communism to something more like a caudillo who shuns bureaucracy and uses ideological propaganda to justify his wars and militarism. Napoleon without the crown, basically.

I don't see how you get that to be a state, anywhere, really.

As for movements that claim to be Trotskyite, I can't really say I understand what their doctrine is, other than "muh true socialism not tainted by Stalin". But if I was to make a guess where you'd find one, look at Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe. Leninism was the official doctrine of ZANU-PF, but there never was a strong ideological tie to the Soviets, with the movement being far more about anti-white sentiment and a desire for land reform. Therefore, you might be able to nudge the party towards Trotskyism if the Soviets should in some way alienate them.
 
There are a number of reasons why a Trotskyist Vietnam is very unlikely, even though in the 1930's Vietnam had one of the world's stronger Trotskyist movments (admittedly, that's not saying much) and one of the few where there was actually a Stalinist-Trotskyist united front for a while in the 1930's:

(1) The rightward turn in France after the Popular Front, and then the Japanese invasion and the need to turn to clandestine operations favored the Stalinists. This was partly because they were able to retreat across the border into China and get aid from both the Chinese and the Americans, and partly because they had already been retreating to clandestinity as early as 1938, according to John Sharpe. https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/icl-spartacists/vietnam/trotskyism.html Anyway, the Comintern had an expertise in clandestine operations the Trotskyists simply could not match. The Stalinists therefore had a head start over the Trotskyists in 1945.

(2) Almost from the moment the Japanese collapsed in 1945, the Stalinists gained control of the North through their domination of the Viet Minh. It was *only* in the South, especially in Saigon, where the Trotskyists had any real revival (though some Struggle Group members in Hanoi as well as the South initially were given some representation in the Viet Minh--but of course no positions with any real power).

(3) Even in the South, the power of the Trotskyists was limited for several reasons. First, as usual the Trotskyists were not united. They were divided into the Struggle Group and the International Communist League. More important, the Stalinists in the Viet Minh quickly took over the police and public buildings, and within months arrested and killed the leaders of both the ICL and the Struggle Group. When British troops under General Gracey landed in Saigon in September the leadership of the Viet Minh welcomed them, while the ICL denounced the Stalinists for "treason." For obvious reasons, the Allies were unlikely to protect the Trotskyists from Stalinist repression.

(4) In any event, what ultimately allowed the Viet Minh to win the war was the arrival of the Chinese Communists at the border--and the CCP was certainly not going to back the Trotksyists (who in any event were weak in the North form the beginning, as I noted.)
 
Top