AHC: Make the Soviet Union more Liberterian Socialist and less Totalitarian

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Nah, you actually need the opposite. The left-SRs did side with the Bolsheviks, but turned against them when the Bolsheviks revealed their true colors (See Kronstadt and Tambov rebellions). If the ultra-reactionaries in the White Movement like Kolchak were sidelined and all the SRs joined the Whites then that is the best bet for a liberal democratic left-wing Russia.

The left SR 'revolt' happened in 1918, two years before the Tambov uprising and three before Kronstadt. The left SRs split with the Bolsheviks over the Bolsheviks' attempts to force peace at any cost, ie Brest-Litovsk, although significant sections of the left SRs ended up joining the Bolsheviks regardless during this period. Most of the soldier left SRs joined with the Bolsheviks, certainly. Perhaps the inheritor of the 'democratic' SR movement could perhaps be found in the Komuch, or the SR government in Samsara and the surrounding area first held by the Czechoslovak legion. They banned the soviets but the urban workers still organised according to the Soviet's orders, they reversed the land reform but the peasantry still took over and distributed the land, they tried to call upon a volunteer army but had to rely on conscription as they could only muster a few thousand from refugees and the unemployed. They organised an election to the Duma in August of 1918 comprising of all the territories they held. Two thirds of the population didn't even bother to vote with only 15% of the population supporting the government of the SRs. It doesn't follow that it was the right-wing reactionaries that killed the SR democratic movement but the SRs themselves and their failure to understand the conditions they were inhabiting.

I don't have much to say other than that i'm eagerly waiting for more installments of your interpretation of this scenario

I've had a little writers block but hopefully I can get a few chapters out before Christmas.

 

[ETGalaxy]

Nah, you actually need the opposite. The left-SRs did side with the Bolsheviks, but turned against them when the Bolsheviks revealed their true colors (See Kronstadt and Tambov rebellions). If the ultra-reactionaries in the White Movement like Kolchak were sidelined and all the SRs joined the Whites then that is the best bet for a liberal democratic left-wing Russia.

So make the Russian Civil War a conflict between reactionary forces and an alliance of left-wing movements? That could certainly work, although if you want to get a completely communist Russia the SRP will need to adhere to communism, or at the very least be willing to establish a Marxist state of some kind. Otherwise, you'll just be getting a more far left Russian Republic.

 

[BigBlueBox]

So make the Russian Civil War a conflict between reactionary forces and an alliance of left-wing movements? That could certainly work, although if you want to get a completely communist Russia the SRP will need to adhere to communism, or at the very least be willing to establish a Marxist state of some kind. Otherwise, you'll just be getting a more far left Russian Republic.

Depends on what you mean by “communist”. SR-led Russia would redistribute land to peasants instead of collectivizing it and would nationalize natural resources, transportation, critical infrastructure, and military factories, and maybe heavy industry and other commanding heights. Free enterprise would be allowed, but formation of unions would be encouraged. Worker cooperatives would probably also be encouraged. The government would be a parliamentary system. Anything more radical than this would run into some serious conflicts with the Kadets and other moderate factions of the White Movement. In other words, SR-led Russia would be a reformist social democracy. Without the Bolshevik victory though, the split between social democrats and hardline Marxists would never occur, so the SR leadership will at least claim to be paving the way to “true socialism” instead of merely reforming capitalism like modern social democrats.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

So make the Russian Civil War a conflict between reactionary forces and an alliance of left-wing movements? That could certainly work, although if you want to get a completely communist Russia the SRP will need to adhere to communism, or at the very least be willing to establish a Marxist state of some kind. Otherwise, you'll just be getting a more far left Russian Republic.

Well it could establish a leftist only multi-party state. A state where socialist parties are allowed to work freely and compete for influence and power, while all other parties are outlawed as counter-revolutionary. Could that work?

 

[ETGalaxy]

Well it could establish a leftist only multi-party state. A state where socialist parties are allowed to work freely and compete for influence and power, while all other parties are outlawed as counter-revolutionary. Could that work?

That's definitely a good start, and multiple parties would be necessary, however, a far-left Russia isn't necessarily a communist Russia, if that makes sense.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

That's definitely a good start, and multiple parties would be necessary, however, a far-left Russia isn't necessarily a communist Russia, if that makes sense.

A one-party state that allows open debate within the party and has fair intra-party elections would already be very different than USSR of our timeline. amd one that allows more local autonomy. Multi-party would change it from a Communist state to a more general Socialist state I guess.

 

[ETGalaxy]

A one-party state that allows open debate within the party and has fair intra-party elections would already be very different than USSR of our timeline. amd one that allows more local autonomy. Multi-party would change it from a Communist state to a more general Socialist state I guess.

In my opinion, a multi-party communist state could still exist, communist ideals would just be implemented into the constitution and economic system of governance.

 

[Garetor]

I don't think communism necessitates a single party state. In fact, the point originally was that there would be no state at all, so I don't see how there's no ideological space for a multiple parties, even if there are laws restricting them to Marxist ideology.

 

[markus meecham]

SR government in Samsara

Uphold marxism-leninism-vaishnavism

 

[jerseyguy]

I think the best bet is to keep Stalin from getting any position of authority.

The idea that a revolution can be stopped mid-way is less likely than the Russian revolution never happening. It's the same story as the French revolution where the new government attempts to export its system to other countries, and/or becomes paranoid about being encircled or subverted by foreign powers and domestic fifth columns.

Eventually the revolutionary party purity spirals until a reign of terror begins and anyone who is insufficiently radical becomes an "enemy of the revolution". Yezhov and Beria are the Russian incarnations of Robespierre, and Stalin is the Russian Napoleon.

 

[jerseyguy]

I think the problem for a democrat-communist USSR is not communism, it's Russia. Most of Russians have no idea of how a democracy works, Russia as we know it is a huge Moscovia, and the only way for Ubermoscovia to keep it's lands together is to be despotic. When Catherine the Great summoned an Assembly of free people (1/10 of Russia was represented) they didn't do anything but find her a honorary title "The Great" ... and they were the educated 1/10.

The problem is that if Russians don't know how to handle a democracy before a bloodbath, they won't be more experienced after. The same thing happened with French Revolution.

So my pick would be a Constitutionnal monarchy in Russia, more and more democratic, and then a Tsar that we'll call Ivan Stupidovitch starts being a horrible ruler and gets kicked out of the throne

Almost any non-communist Russia would probably be better off without 70 years of Bolshevik rule. Countries like Brazil and Argentina have had nasty dictators that tortured and killed dissidents, but an opportunistic or non-ideological authoritarian regime has no way to sustain itself for 70 consecutive years or ideological reason to rebuild the economic system from scratch.

Thailand, for instance, has had major problems moving from an absolute monarchy to a consolidated democracy, its had 12 military coups since the '30s. But the combined death toll from all twelve juntas is probably less than a slow period during the purges or collectivization.

 

[Garetor]

There have been plenty of revolutions that did not spiral into massacres and purity testing. Saying it's absolutely inevitable no matter how we fiddle with the PODs leading to the USSR is rather fatalistic.

 

[GeographyDude]

I think the problem for a democrat-communist USSR is not communism, it's Russia. . .

. . . The same thing happened with French Revolution. . .

I think the problem is just people, not the Russians, not the French.

Just that people in general are not all that good at democracy, especially at the beginning.

 

[jerseyguy]

There have been plenty of revolutions that did not spiral into massacres and purity testing. Saying it's absolutely inevitable no matter how we fiddle with the PODs leading to the USSR is rather fatalistic.

It's possible to have a less heavy-handed but still socialist state, but it would require a more conventional democracy dominated by the mensheviks and PODs in 1917 or before. It's very easy to condemn the excesses of stalinism, but it's a mistake to view his rise to power as anything some kind of aberration from what came before him. The nucleus of the gulag system system was established under Lenin, there was no democratic potential in bolshevik rule betrayed or subverted by stalin.
During the constituent assembly's elections the bolsheviks only got around a quarter of the vote, a reign of terror was the only way they could enforce their rule onto the rest of the population. It's impossible to say for certain what Russia under Menshevik rule would have looked like, but it probably be closer to PRI Mexico than the Soviet Union of OTL

 

[ragnarokalok]

The easiest POD I can think of that doesn't butterfly the whole thing away is to have the left SRs survive your atl October Revolution. There were a fair number of them who sided with the bolsheviks, but not enough, and they didn't have the party apparatus with them. Coalition government, if it can be maintained, will inherently instill a certain amount of democracy. The soviet system seems pretty unstable, but its (over)responsiveness to swings in public opinion could lead in a strongly libertarian direction if it got the chance to last.

Moving back a little, if you replace the Kerensky offensive with a commitment to stay in the war, but solely stand on the defensive, that could buy Russia enough breathing room to work out its politics without the invasions and intervention that led to Brest-Litovsk and the civil war. Without something else, its unlikely the Russian masses, Russian elites, Russia's allies, or the German military would accept such a stance, but its possible. If the western allies could be made to understand how close Russia was to completely falling apart, they'd be less insistent on offensive participation in the war. Perhaps some American troops could be found to shore up the Russia front?

Lastly, if the reds win the Finnish Civil War it'd have a lot of positive butterflies for the socialist efforts to their east.

 

[fasquardon]

Another option would be to have Lenin's Testament come out by Stalin failing to suppress it for whatever reason, sending both Stalin and Trotsky into the political wilderness while some kind of collective leadership emerges. The USSR would most likely be a repressive place to live, but the madness of the Holodomor and the Purges are avoided and we possibly even get the NEP to persist if Bukharin emerges as "first among equals."

Lenin's Testament, which wasn't at all the anti-Stalin document that we generally treat it as? Stalin wasn't even the most heavily criticised of the old Bolsheviks.

Anyways, the way to avoid totalitarianism is to make the Russian Civil War less severe, so the Bolsheviks aren't so brutalised.

By focusing on the big leaders, like Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev - it's easy to forget that they had millions of accomplices. And the fears and the violently learned skills of those accomplices limited the options of their leaders. Much of what the Soviet Union became under Stalin was the lessons of "War Communism" writ large. It was an emergency crash program because there simply wasn't time to implement anything better with the enemy battering the gates. And after the crimes of the Russian Civil War, the Party couldn't let go - not without surrendering to a counter terror. These people had seen what counter-terrors had looked like.

Of course, Lenin bears alot responsibility for making the civil war as bad as it was. Not only were Lenin's ideas toxic, but their apparent success corrupted others. Two of the 3 greatest mass murderers of history were Lenin's good pupils. Before Lenin arrived back in Russia, Stalin was one of the strongest advocates in the Bolshevik leadership for building a broad-church movement with the SRs and the Mensheviks and other socialist parties. After Lenin died, Stalin had learned that success came not from broad-front alliances, but pure and focused vanguards. Which probably helped rationalize the purges considerably.

So my best answer to the challenge is: Lenin never makes it back to Russia in time, Stalin and the other Bolshevik and non-Bolshevik leaders on the spot build a broad socialist coalition that is able to win a less intense Russian Civil War and the regime that emerges has at least 3 political factions - the Bolshevik-Menshevik urban socialists, the left SRs and the right SRs.

fasquardon

 

[Sam R.]

And then the peasants destruction of tithes and dues mean they reduce output favouring leisure and any state gets a scissors crisis.

And so around 1929 either urban workers or rural workers and peasants will rise again. And the others will be stuffed.

 

[Mina-van-Mako]

I think the problem is just people, not the Russians, not the French.

Just that people in general are not all that good at democracy, especially at the beginning.

I wasn't saying that Russians are unable to do democratic stuff, neither are French people. They just had no experience, as you said. Still I'm not very sure about how Russia will be doing with a democratic political system.

 

[David T]

Kronstadt it is.

Kronstadt has somewhat diverted attention from the *other* rebellions that were taking place at the same time. There was actual armed rebellion by peasants, notably in Tambov (ultimately quelled by Tukhachevsky with the help of poison gas). For some reason, Tambov didn't become a cause celebre for the anti-Bolshevik left the way Kronstadt did. Presumably because peasants are seen as less "advanced" than sailors, especially the Kronstadt sailors, the "pride of the Revolution." Indeed, Trotsky and others were later to try to assimilate Kronstadt to the peasant "counterrevolution" by (falsely) claiming that the sailors of 1921 were not those of 1917, that proletarians had been replaced by "peasant lads in sailor suits" who were vulnerable to anarchist agitation, etc.--though in fact the Kronstadt rebels of 1921 were essentially the same as those of 1917. (One difference between the 1921 Kronstadters and the peasant rebels: Unlike the peasants who cried "Soviets without Communists!" the Kronstadt sailors were prepared to accept even Bolsheviks provided that the latter would renounce one-party dictatorship in favor of soviet democracy.)

Indeed, the situation in February 1921 looked like that of exactly four years earlier, with strikes in Moscow and Petrograd, and some soldiers refusing to fire on the strikers. Under these circumstances, as Orlando Figes writes, the Bolsheviks "could not wait for it [the Kronstadt uprising] to peter out. Revolts in other cities, such as Kazan and Niznhyi Novgorod, were already being inspired by it. The ice-packed Gulf of Finland, moreover, was about to thaw and this would make the fortress, with the whole of its fleet freed from the ice, virtually impregnable." (*A People's Tragedy*, p. 762) So an interesting POD would be the Gulf of Finland thawing a little early that year...

 

[DrakonFin]

The ice-packed Gulf of Finland, moreover, was about to thaw and this would make the fortress, with the whole of its fleet freed from the ice, virtually impregnable." (*A People's Tragedy*, p. 762) So an interesting POD would be the Gulf of Finland thawing a little early that year...

This idea comes up every once in a while, and this time I had to go and check the ice conditions on the Baltic Sea in the winter of 1920-21. It appears that it was a milder than average one as winters go up north.* Apart from ice statistics, my quick search also found several mentions on Finnish sites that the first months of 1921 were quite warm and that the spring rains came unexpectedly early. So, we can say that the Gulf of Finland did thaw early in 1921, in comparison to most winters (when the Gulf of Finland, at the time, was typically iced up until April).

What you are looking for, then, is an extraordinarily mild winter. On balance, I think a more likely POD might well be the rebellion taking place maybe a month or more later.


* See here (pg. 82, 84). The extent of the ice cover had last been as small (or smaller) as 1921 in 1913 and 1914 and would again be that in 1925 and 1930.