AHC/WI: "Socialism With a Human Face" is Successful

Alexander Dubcek was the Czechoslovakian Party Chairman in 1968. He sought to slightly democratize and liberalize in order to regain popular support for Communism. He never sought to leave the Eastern Bloc, merely reform it into something more palatable and less dystopian. IOTL his reforms set off the Prague Spring which was met with Soviet invasion. What if/How can he be successful in reforming Czechoslovakian politics and could these reforms spread throughout the Soviet bloc? Could this be the first step in a democratized socialism rather than the authoritarian bureaucracy IOTL?
 
Workers councils in Czechoslovakia in 1968 are not going to be “liberal” or supportive of bourgeois parliament. What they will ensure is a plurality of working class opinions and an elimination of police state apparatus.
 
If somehow the Soviets would let hem become succesfull he would become a Gorbachev: liberalization would lead to the abolition of communism.

The Czech people, given any amount of freedom, would never support staying communist if they had any real choice.

Dubcek would have to make a choice soon: either tighten rule and close the borders or abandoning communism altogether.
 
Workers councils in Czechoslovakia in 1968 are not going to be “liberal” or supportive of bourgeois parliament. What they will ensure is a plurality of working class opinions and an elimination of police state apparatus.
What do you think the eventual outcome would be? Same as OTL or simply a less authoritarian communism?

If somehow the Soviets would let hem become succesfull he would become a Gorbachev: liberalization would lead to the abolition of communism.

The Czech people, given any amount of freedom, would never support staying communist if they had any real choice.

Dubcek would have to make a choice soon: either tighten rule and close the borders or abandoning communism altogether.

The Czech people did legitimately vote the communists into power in 1946 though. They were perhaps the only Central/Eastern European country that had a (mostly) free election following WWII. From what I’ve read about things such as Charter 77 and some of Havel’s writings during and after the Prague Spring, most people weren’t really clamoring for capitalism or a parliamentary system, they just wanted representation and less political repression. I’ll admit that my understanding of the matter is not good enough to be confident in that though.
 
While I also think initially there would be broad support for a democratic socialism, the thing with democracy is that opinions swing, and there was enough well-founded resentment and hatred of communism, of course. At one point, the country, or the Soviets, would be faced with either tolerating reforms which threaten the country's alignment, or crush the whole thing.
Just look at how the US reacted when elections threatened to produce a socialist government somewhere.
 
If somehow the Soviets would let hem become succesfull he would become a Gorbachev: liberalization would lead to the abolition of communism.

The Czech people, given any amount of freedom, would never support staying communist if they had any real choice.

Dubcek would have to make a choice soon: either tighten rule and close the borders or abandoning communism altogether.

Considering that popular reformists elsewhere in the Soviet bloc (like Gomułka in Poland or Ceaușescu in Poland) became hated tyrants with the passage of time, I have no doubt Dubcek would face the same. Though I'd expect him to be closer to Gomułka in how he ruled (that is, not a tyrannical nutjob).

And I don't think liberalization itself would abolish communism, but only very kinds of specific liberalization - ending the Party's monopoly on power, for example.

Alexander Dubcek was the Czechoslovakian Party Chairman in 1968. He sought to slightly democratize and liberalize in order to regain popular support for Communism. He never sought to leave the Eastern Bloc, merely reform it into something more palatable and less dystopian. IOTL his reforms set off the Prague Spring which was met with Soviet invasion. What if/How can he be successful in reforming Czechoslovakian politics and could these reforms spread throughout the Soviet bloc? Could this be the first step in a democratized socialism rather than the authoritarian bureaucracy IOTL?

Interestingly, I found out that Suslov (famous for being a hardliner, overseeing the pacification of Lithuania after WW2 and for being the Communist version of the Pope between Stalin's death and his own death in the 80s) was an advocate of giving Dubcek a free hand. A surprisingly liberal position from the man. So the Soviet intervention not happening is entirely possible.

I think the trajectory of Dubcek's reforms really depends on 2 things:

1) Can he re-energize the Czechoslovak economy (which had been growing disappointingly slowly in the mid 60s)? If so, then Czechoslovakia will be seen as a useful case study for other Stalinist regimes trying to liberalize and re-energize their economies during the 70s. Especially among the E. European satellites, who were more alike to each-other economically than any other Stalinist regimes. If not, then he gets dismissed as another failed experimenter who might have some useful ideas, but is generally not someone to be emulated, just like the other attempted reformers.

2) Does the complete lack of censorship in Czechoslovakia lead to good things happening? Is it a valuable safety valve that strengthens the "socialist" society, even as it lets those who feel stifled create art to express their feelings in a thriving sub-culture? Or does it lead to humiliating mass-protests and rioting that push the regime to clamp down again?

fasquardon
 
What do you think the eventual outcome would be? Same as OTL or simply a less authoritarian communism?



The Czech people did legitimately vote the communists into power in 1946 though. They were perhaps the only Central/Eastern European country that had a (mostly) free election following WWII. From what I’ve read about things such as Charter 77 and some of Havel’s writings during and after the Prague Spring, most people weren’t really clamoring for capitalism or a parliamentary system, they just wanted representation and less political repression. I’ll admit that my understanding of the matter is not good enough to be confident in that though.
Now after whole generation under commies they know how bad communism is. And the fact, that they had limited goals was dictated by political rleaism.
 
Seizing the means and tools of production with democratic workers councils and forcing pluralism, even within the party, aren’t in any way minimal demands.

While exiting the Warsaw Pact was the eventual trigger for the second Soviet invasion in Hungary in 1956, the workers councils and socialist pluralism were also unacceptable to large fractions of the Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav and Italian parties, all of whom were consulted.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
While I also think initially there would be broad support for a democratic socialism, the thing with democracy is that opinions swing, and there was enough well-founded resentment and hatred of communism, of course. At one point, the country, or the Soviets, would be faced with either tolerating reforms which threaten the country's alignment, or crush the whole thing.
Just look at how the US reacted when elections threatened to produce a socialist government somewhere.

Like Labour in UK or Willy Brandt SPD in West Germany? ( not to speak of the Scandinavian countries....)
 
Like Labour in UK or Willy Brandt SPD in West Germany? ( not to speak of the Scandinavian countries....)
Latin America, were any form of economical nationalism or lukewarm socialdemocracy is accused of communism the moment the wishes of the embassy are not the nacional priority. There is a great difference between allies and puppets. The US could accept autonomous regimes in europe, but not in latin america, its backyard.
 
The wild card is the benign autocrat in the presidency. He has the confidence of moscow and the public at the same time.
 
In the beginning of the Prague Spring the Soviet leadership regarded Dubcek's reforms as a way of getting rid of the old stalinist guard within the Czechoslovak Communist Party in a non-bloody way and was willing to grant him some leeway in this regard, but as time went on and the demands for more democracy by certain elements both within and without the party, e.g. questioning the leading role of the communist party in both government and society, started to become bolder and even calls for Czechoslovakia to declare itself neutral in the Cold War began being voiced, they saw a line in the sand crossed. The main fear of the Soviet leadership was not that Czechoslovakia would become capitalist, but that it might follow Yugoslavia's example and become non-Moscow-aligned communist. And such fears were stoked by, among others of the old guard, East Germany's Walter Ulbricht, who, afraid he might get toppled just like Antonín Novotný in Czechoslovakia, had been clamoring incessantly throughout the spring and summer of 1968 that those counterrevolutionary activities in Czechoslavakia had to be snuffed out lest they spread to other WP countries.
 
You’d need to keep Brezhnev out of office, maybe have the party coup against Khrushchev fail

I've always thought that Khrushchev staying in power is an under-rated POD. If the plotters are a little less lucky or Khrushchev a little more careful, he can absolutely crush them, which gets very interesting because Suslov likely loses his job in this scenario, and you have perhaps another decade of Khrushchev-style economic management.

Suslov losing his job is interesting because he was the man most responsible for defining what Soviet Communism was at any given moment. He was also a liberalizing voice on issues between Communist countries - he didn't want troops to go into Czechoslovakia and was a big force for giving the satellite states more latitude - he was also a China dove for most of his life. He was also very anti-west. So if he's not there, the Soviets could end up with even worse relations with China, being even more dictatorial in Eastern Europe, but being more liberal internally and more open to the West.

And Khrushchev was VERY different from Brezhnev. The Soviet economy would not get the Brezhnev relaxation, but still have the enthusiastic, technophilic Khrushchev urging it to go faster, faster, faster or you can go manage a chemical factory in Siberia!

What if Kosygin emerged on top? He was a moderate reformer.

Kosygin doesn't have the necessary base of support. He's a manager in a government run by engineers. And he's a pretty lonely voice on many issues. Not many saw him as a safe pair of hands.

fasquardon
 
Latin America, were any form of economical nationalism or lukewarm socialdemocracy is accused of communism the moment the wishes of the embassy are not the nacional priority. There is a great difference between allies and puppets. The US could accept autonomous regimes in europe, but not in latin america, its backyard.
The president that was toppled in the '64 coup in Brazil was his home state's largest landowner.
How that translates to communism? Ask the CIA.
 
Death of Stalin reference?

No. That's how Khrushchev managed things.

Where Stalin would send people to the Gulag or to be shot for not meeting expectations, Khrushchev would demote them to some dead end place away from their friends and allies, technically not a prisoner, but still in internal exile.

One of Brezhnev's big ideas was that Stalin and Khrushchev (especially Khrushchev) had been too liberal in removing people when they didn't perform, and promised there would be stability. Under him it became extremely unusual for enterprise managers to be removed, so the manager class gained alot of power and corruption seems to have greatly increased as people became more entrenched in their jobs and thus more powerful in them.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
Top