AHC least oppressive USSR

Assuming no Stalin and possibly earlier Lenin death. How socially progressive could they be. Stronger rights for women? Possibly less oppression of gay people?

Could Farming be changed in ways that allows high productivity and satisfies peasants and the USSR still industrialise

My fantasy has Krupskaya being the compromise leader.
 
Less oppressive USSR could happen if ITTL there is Stalin analogue, who is really fully pragmatic (Stalin was not as pragmatic as some people claims-he was driven by ideology, just not as much as Trotsky ) and doesn't belive in communism himself, so he allows NEP to continue, does not enforce collectivisation, dooes not presecute kulaks and so on.
 
Sounds like a National Socialism with a human face... Soviet style communism was dependant on oppression, without oppresion there would not be Dictatorship of the Proletariat, without dictatorship no communism... Of course if the populatio is subdued enough a lower level of oppression will do.
 
Sounds like a National Socialism with a human face... Soviet style communism was dependant on oppression, without oppresion there would not be Dictatorship of the Proletariat, without dictatorship no communism... Of course if the populatio is subdued enough a lower level of oppression will do.

OP not say that it should be Western democracy. Just lesser oppressive.

But perhaps best case is longer living Lenin (perhaps to early 1930's) and someone non-Stalinist successor for him. So no Stalin and probably ratherly no Trotsky too.
 
Sounds like a National Socialism with a human face... Soviet style communism was dependant on oppression, without oppresion there would not be Dictatorship of the Proletariat, without dictatorship no communism... Of course if the populatio is subdued enough a lower level of oppression will do.

Not to come off as a Soviet Union apologist, mate, but I don't think you understand what Karl Marx meant by dictatorship of the proletariat. "Dictatorship" didn't have the same connotations when Marx was writing as it does now, meaning something closer to "directorate." The capitalist system could be called a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" as the capitalist class is the controlling force in society, determines the economic relations of said society, and suppresses the power of the proletariat.

A dictatorship of the proletariat according to Marx is simply the lower stage of communism (or socialism, I don't think that early Marxists distinguished between the two things.) Class distinctions in society would still exist (if disappearing), but the working class instead of the monied classes are the ones in the director's chair; determining the nature of economic relations and government. One could have a syndicalist or some other socialist system that achieves the dictatorship of the proletariat while being democratic (i.e: not dictatorial in the modern sense.) By all means, go after Marxism as a theory, but I do think it's quite silly that people still misuse the dictatorship of the proletariat thing. The Cold War is over, y'all, you can read Capital now :winkytongue:

Back to your regularly scheduled Soviet Union speculation!
 
Not to come off as a Soviet Union apologist, mate, but I don't think you understand what Karl Marx meant by dictatorship of the proletariat. "Dictatorship" didn't have the same connotations when Marx was writing as it does now, meaning something closer to "directorate." The capitalist system could be called a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" as the capitalist class is the controlling force in society, determines the economic relations of said society, and suppresses the power of the proletariat.!

I'm not criticizing Marx, I'm criticizing Soviet style communism, which is quite different species from original Marxist thought. Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Soviet style sense meant an entitled, self-reinforcing (?) elite, "cadre" which in later Soviet years also had strong nepotist tendencies. As a system it cannot survive with at least some level of oppression.
 
I'm not criticizing Marx, I'm criticizing Soviet style communism, which is quite different species from original Marxist thought. Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Soviet style sense meant an entitled, self-reinforcing elite, "cadre" which in later Soviet years also had strong nepotist tendencies.

Oh, sorry then! In that case, you're entirely correct. The Soviet Union's DotP was indeed a bunch of gerontocrats working double time to keep themselves in power and shaft other gerontocrats.
 
IMO you need Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky to die as soon as.

Stalin was a thug, but an effective thug. As long as he is around, its hard to not get him in charge.

Trotsky IMO was better than Stalin (after having read young Stalin, I am convinced of this) but ultimately an eternal war economy is going to be harsh.

Lenin also sucked, and his dealing with the Kronstadt sailors was realistically the final nail in the coffin for any hope of a decent USSR. Having all 3 die right at the end of the civil war means that Lenin can be somewhat of a martyr whilst groups he had previously endorsed (like the Kronstadt sailors) would be what his succesors would naturally have to look towards in fulfilling a "Leninist ideal".
 
A leftist Soviet coalition government - i.e. the initial alliances between the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs, some Mensheviks and the Makhnovist Anarchists being maintained - would greatly help making the USSR less oppressive.
 
I gotta be honest, I don't think Lenin gets the "credit" he deserves. Before Lenin came back to Russia and convinced the Bolsheviks they should launch a coup, the Bolsheviks who'd spent the war in internal exile, including poster-boy evil guy Stalin, were cooperating with the Mensheviks and the SRs and were waiting for the elections to bring the soviets (the real soviets, the bodies that the Bolsheviks stole power from and stole the name of their state from) to power and allow them to shape Russia for the benefit of the working class.

Now Stalin was capable of being a terror without Lenin's ground work. But I suspect he'd be much less of a terror had he been working in some sort of real soviet-based democracy, rather than a Leninist dictatorship.

He is a contender with Hitler and Condrad von Hotzendorf (the man who started WW1) as one of the greatest enablers of mass killing in history.

So ya, Lenin coming home late or not at all is my favourite entry for this.

Zionovev is the least blood thirsty of the lot. He has relatively flexible ideas about personal relationships.

And Zinoviev has at least some chance of gaining power, unlike Trotsky. Likely in a diarchy with Kamenev.

How was he flexible in his ideas about personal relationships?

fasquardon
 
He was willing to tolerate if not openly embrace Gays. "Sexual relations are no concern of Party discipline. It is bourgeoisie religion based class traitors who force monogamy."
\New world publishing Moscow 1928.
 
Mess up the succession after Lenin and you could get a USSR wiling to go full-on postwar liberalism for women and gays. Of course, part of the package would be a militarist revolutionary foreign policy, combined with Cultural Revolution-style purges.
 
One way to get it done is Lenin's will coming out despite Stalin's attempt to shove it under the carpet. The result is that both Stalin and Trotsky are damaged politically and are out in the political wilderness for god knows how long. Without those two, the practices of democratic centralism and collective leadership will survive. Instead of a single leader, you get cliques vying for power, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. The NEP may well survive, resulting in "market socialism" developing in the USSR over time. The result is that Stalinist forced collectivization and requisition of agricultural produce don't happen, therefore avoiding the Holodomor that killed anywhere between 2 and 10 million people depending on who you believe. The Purge is also avoided, leaving a lot of intellectuals, useful personnel, capable politicians and military officers in place so the Soviet economy may well be more efficient long term while the Red Army performs better if a WW 2 analogue still happens (it might well not, since the Komintern may well change course to allow communist parties to cooperate with social-democratic ones to block the fascists' road to power). Stalin rolled back a number of the policies to improve the position of women, which is something I also don't see a collective leadership doing, so better women's rights in the USSR is a likely result.
 
Last edited:
I tend to think something like Stalinism is inevitable without a large enough industrial output of goods-in-kind for peasants (hence you stumble into "scissors crises" and the like, and thus fears of peasants sitting on their grain while the cities explode): you'd need a German Revolution. Doesn't mean a utopia but it'd probably mean surviving democratic-participatory political elements and certainly less brutality.
 
A leftist Soviet coalition government - i.e. the initial alliances between the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs, some Mensheviks and the Makhnovist Anarchists being maintained - would greatly help making the USSR less oppressive.
It is the contention of Victor Serge that the dissolution of the Soviet Alliance was the true beginning of the drive down the path towards Stalinism. "The end of the Soviet alliance produces in its’ wake a formidable concentration of power. Up till this time, the dictatorship was in a way democratic; constitutional forms were spelt out within its structure. The multiplicity of local activity, the existence of parties and groups, the demands of public opinion, the democratic traditions of revolutionaries trained in the school of Western democracy, and the weakness of the central authority all worked in this direction. The debates within the Bolshevik party, too, have shown us the vitality of its internal democracy. But everything changes at this point. The Allied intervention, striking simultaneously with the rebellion of the kulaks and the collapse of the Soviet alliance, poses an unmistakable threat to the survival of the Republic. The proletarian dictatorship is forced to throw off its democratic paraphernalia forthwith. Famine and local anarchy compel a rigorous concentration of powers in the hands of the appropriate Commissariats. The catastrophe of the transport system compels a recourse to draconic methods of authority on the railways. The war, the total encirclement of the revolution and the inadequacy of spontaneous foci of resistance compel the establishment of a regular army, to supplement and supplant the guerrilla formations. Bankruptcy compels the centralization of financial policy. Conspiracy compels the introduction of a powerful apparatus of interior defence. Assassinations, peasant risings and the mortal danger compel the use of terror. The outlawing of the Socialists of counter-revolution and the split with the anarchists and Left S-Rs have as their consequence the political monopoly of the Communist party and the extinction, for practical purposes, of the constitution. With the disappearance of political debates between parties representing different social interests through the various shades of their opinion, Soviet institutions, beginning with the local Soviets and ending with the Vee-Tsik and the Council of People’s Commissars, manned solely by Communists, now function in a vacuum: since all the decisions are taken by the party, all they can do is give them the official rubber-stamp." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/ch08.htm

In truth the Left-SRs as a party were a fluid, nebulous organisation which remained closely linked with the greater SR organisation and had only really existed for a few months before October. In order to create a Left-SR organisation you would need the Left-SRs to emerge as a distinct party long before October in order to truly provide a counter-balance to the Bolsheviks. Considering that the Bolsheviks went from a party of a few thousand to the strongest party in the Soviets, I would say that the conditions of Russia would definitely allow such a possibility. I had a rough plan regarding a continuation of the Soviet Alliance which would start with having Mark Natanson and a section of the SRs in Switzerland arrange with Lenin and Fritz Platten to get the same train through Germany as the Bolsheviks. The reality of the situation of the Russian exiles returning to Russia was that there were three 'sealed trains' through Germany from Switzerland with Natanson getting on the second train but people only remember Lenin's because it was used as 'proof' of Lenin's links with German imperialism.

Thus during the chaotic events of the July Days the accusations of Lenin as a German agent are muddied and it also distances Natanson from the SRs earlier. Maybe the process of sharing the train journey with Lenin also develops a situation where Natanson and Lenin are more willing to communicate and work together. Regardless, it leads to a situation where the Left-SRs split from the main SR party sooner and thus are a distinct organisation when the preparations for the Constituent Assembly are arranged and firmly established as a party when October comes around.

The situation in the Soviets would immediately be different. The Bolsheviks, whilst probably remaining the most energetic and organised grouping, would have to temper their actions to take into account the Left-SRs straight away. It would potentially lead to a different relationship with the peasantry - the Bolsheviks felt, in the crises immediately following the revolution, that grain requisitions were a necessity in order to supply the cities. The Left-SRs protested these harsh measures, laying the groundwork for their break with the Bolsheviks, but in this scenario the Left-SRs actually have the power to do something about it. I could potentially see a situation of the urban worker soviets developing a trade system with the peasant soviets - a system that happened in real life but that the Bolsheviks distrusted due to its nature as petty profiteering leading to state requisitions. Perhaps this would lead to a co-operative style trading system or perhaps it would collapse into famine like the Bolsheviks' policy but regardless it would be a sharp difference to the OTL origins of the Bolsheviks' harsh relationship with the peasantry.

Then we have the Constituent Assembly elections. With the Left-SRs as a distinct organisation, it's potentially very likely that the Soviet Constitution gets ratified in the opening sessions of the CA. Even the anti-Bolshevik scholars of the CA admit that the SR voting block would have been split if the Left-SRs had been a distinct party. The Bolsheviks and the Left-SRs together, even giving conservative estimates, could have had a majority in the CA elections. This situation could have led to the maintenance of the CA as a legislating organisation distinct from the soviets with little power (as power shifted to the soviets where the Soviet Alliance would have had more control). Although it would have been largely superseded by the Soviet Congresses, the CA would nonetheless act as a counter-balance somewhat to the Bolshevik concentration of power we saw in OTL. It would have also shot any talks of 'legitimacy' from the right-wing SRs out of the water - potentially it could have seen other grouping like the Mensheviks as 'willing' to work more with the Soviet Alliance as well (potentially leading to an interesting situation in Menshevik Georgia).

The linchpin of the break in the Soviet Alliance was the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Ultimately the situation on the front was untenable and the Russian army was dissolving through desertion and a lack of supplies but the Bolsheviks almost voted in support of a revolutionary continuation of the war - if the regular army dissolved, the left communists wanted to engage in guerilla warfare which was a similar position to the Left-SRs who felt the treaty was making the soviets the puppets of Germany. Maybe the negotiations go differently with the power-bloc of the Soviet Alliance adding more weight to the negotiations thus leading to a peace treaty far more favourable than Brest-Litovsk. Maybe there's enough support for a continuation of the war on revolutionary terms that we have a tentative resistance to German occupation - this situation would be interesting as it would have kept the Soviets in the same camp as the French and British as 'co-belligerents' of a sort, potentially preventing Allied intervention in Soviet Russia. It would have also cut into the support of White reaction as many joined the Whites thinking that the Bolsheviks were essentially giving up Russian territory to the Germans. Ultimately, it could have led to a far different Civil War where a more stable soviet government would have been able to assert its power sooner.

Regardless of how these events play out it's clear that one thing would have happened if the Soviet Alliance was stronger and remained. The concentration of power into a single-party state could never have occurred and there would have been more democratic checks and balances to prevent any single individual accumulating power. The regime would have been more stable, had more 'legitimacy', and would have potentially had more organisational weight to prevent some of the elements of the famine and dissolution of the state mechanisms that caused so much chaos in the early years following October. This leads to an entirely different political situation in the Soviet Union and it would have been an environment that would never have allowed the likes of Stalin to rise to power.
 
It is the contention of Victor Serge that the dissolution of the Soviet Alliance was the true beginning of the drive down the path towards Stalinism.

I reckon he's right.

The linchpin of the break in the Soviet Alliance was the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Ultimately the situation on the front was untenable and the Russian army was dissolving through desertion and a lack of supplies but the Bolsheviks almost voted in support of a revolutionary continuation of the war - if the regular army dissolved, the left communists wanted to engage in guerilla warfare which was a similar position to the Left-SRs who felt the treaty was making the soviets the puppets of Germany.

A guerilla war against the Germans could be interesting.

Another interesting alternative is if there'd been no Kerensky offensive, meaning the Russian army was still in good enough shape to defend.

Certainly it's very interesting to consider how having Bolsheviks or a democratic Soviet regime in attendance would effect Versailles, Sevres and Trianon.

And if the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs hadn't split over B-L (for whatever reason) do you think they could have continued working together? Or would eventually there be some break and whatever remaining SRs would be absorbed into the Bolshevik party?

I had a rough plan regarding a continuation of the Soviet Alliance which would start with having Mark Natanson and a section of the SRs in Switzerland arrange with Lenin and Fritz Platten to get the same train through Germany as the Bolsheviks. The reality of the situation of the Russian exiles returning to Russia was that there were three 'sealed trains' through Germany from Switzerland with Natanson getting on the second train but people only remember Lenin's because it was used as 'proof' of Lenin's links with German imperialism.

Thus during the chaotic events of the July Days the accusations of Lenin as a German agent are muddied and it also distances Natanson from the SRs earlier. Maybe the process of sharing the train journey with Lenin also develops a situation where Natanson and Lenin are more willing to communicate and work together. Regardless, it leads to a situation where the Left-SRs split from the main SR party sooner and thus are a distinct organisation when the preparations for the Constituent Assembly are arranged and firmly established as a party when October comes around.

That's an interesting idea. Though from my reading, Lenin was pretty committed to the idea of launching his coup as soon as he thought the moment opportune. So unless Natanson can convince him the moments are never opportune...

It's also interesting to speculate about the impacts on Lenin not being given so much stick for the German connection. Though I don't really know enough to have any detailed conjectures about that.

fasquardon
 
And if the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs hadn't split over B-L (for whatever reason) do you think they could have continued working together? Or would eventually there be some break and whatever remaining SRs would be absorbed into the Bolshevik party?
A more coherent Left-SR organisation would have precluded any absorption into the Bolsheviks. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks' main goal was the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a sort of conception of power the Left-SRs didn't really share, so of course they would clash. However, the Left-SRs, unlike the right-wing SRs of the main party, were committed revolutionaries and committed to the revolutionary seizure of land and other such actions. They had as many differences as they had things in common that they could organise around. I kind of planned it with the Bolsheviks preparing, in a way, to seize power alone as their differences with the Left-SRs heat up but then the German Revolution fails/advance into Poland is halted and the Bolsheviks are somewhat demoralised so the two-party coalition lingers until it's impossible without reigniting the civil war.

That's an interesting idea. Though from my reading, Lenin was pretty committed to the idea of launching his coup as soon as he thought the moment opportune. So unless Natanson can convince him the moments are never opportune...
The Left-SRs supported the seizure of power even if they weren't a part of the organising for it - hence the Soviet Alliance's existence in the first place. As much as it often gets labelled a 'coup' the October Revolution was, in my mind, the culmination of popular discontent against the Provisional Government. The base membership of the soviets and the Bolshevik Party were actually to the left of Lenin as much as Lenin was to the left of some of the other leaders of the Party. In this scenario, the Left-SRs are more developed as an organisation but are still kept out of any planning for October. Regardless they don't recoil in horror like the right-wing SRs and join the new Soviet government as near equals - their own base membership being just as radical and supporting the seizure of power.
 
Top