Challenge: Soviet Democracy As Early As Possible

Your challenge is to have the Soviet Union turn into a real democracy as early as possible after its founding. How could this be done?
 

wormyguy

Banned
Well, it's kind of hard to have a state that is by its very own self-definition a one-party state while simultaneously being a "real democracy."

In terms of "democracy within a socialist context," ASBs could make Kerensky and the Menshevik/Socialist Revolutionaries win the Russian civil war, but it is highly unlikely that they would call their state the Soviet Union.

If the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 wasn't suppressed fast enough by the Soviets, it's possible it could have spread to the Soviet Union, although that is highly unlikely, and once again, the new state wouldn't be called the Soviet Union.

The US and SU could go to war in 1945, with a total US victory, but, once again, the new state that takes the SU's place wouldn't be the SU.

I think your best chance is to have Khruschev in power longer. He was beginning to introduce economic reform, and may well have been planning to introduce some political reforms too, before he was ousted in a military coup.
 
POD: Lenins letter condeming Stalin is read earlier on.This leads to the Stalinist faction weakening and Trotsky taking power.


In the 20s Trotsky allows for small privatisation as well as an expansion of science.His more moderate 5 year plans are more succesful.

In the 30s the Soviet Union flourishes after it begins to trade with other nations,the Republicans win the Spanish Civie dies in his sleepl War,Hitler rises to power.

In the 40s a better prepared Soviet Union is able to better defend itself as Barbarossa,Germans are stopped at Kiev and pushed back,by the end of 1943 the Soviets have taken Berlin,end of WW2,Trotsky alows democratic elections in liberated nations.

In the 50s the Soviet Union and the west are a lot friendlier,as trade increases as does the Soviet private sector.The Soviet people experience western culture on a large scale.

In the 60s there are large protests in Moscow for democratisation,the Soviet people have an excellent standard of living and have experienced Capitalism on a large scale,now they want to truly be free.


1965:Trotsky agrees to elections instead of putting down protests with his old beleif thatdemocracy is the true dictatorship of the proletariat.He wins the Nobel Peace Prize that year.2 years later he dies in his sleep and is remebered as one of the greatest men the world has ever seen.


(I know its really blunt and short,might make a timeline to make it more understandable.)
 
I think your best chance is to have Khruschev in power longer. He was beginning to introduce economic reform, and may well have been planning to introduce some political reforms too, before he was ousted in a military coup.

I agree, and the best way to keep Khrushchev in power is by avoiding the U2 incident. He had been on relatively good terms with the US, and it allowed him to focus more on domestic policies and less on countering American threats. Since he'd no longer be going around acting uncouth and embarrassing on an international stage, he'd probably be able to stay in office until he died, and his successes would make it more likely that the next leader chosen would be a reformer.

On a side note, in this TL you would likely have negotiated settlements to the Cuba and Turkey questions, and possibly have a joint Soviet/US space program.
 
Your challenge is to have the Soviet Union turn into a real democracy as early as possible after its founding. How could this be done?
"Soviets without Communists" was a popular battlecry of several movements during Civil War, including Kronstadt Rebellion. However, post-1922 requirement for POD makes it inadmissible. I would say that Beria's leadership could have been the key to 1953 POD. There are hints that he was planning to "pull Deng", letting substantial private sector be. Chinese experience proves that it could actually strengthen Communist political dictatorship, but I don't believe it is inevitable consequence (CCP probably owns more of it's support to nationalist feeling and fear of warlordism, deeply stricken into soul of ordinary Chinese).
 
I think that this is difficult to do without a substantial transformation of the Soviet state along the way. For example, I'm not sure how competitive multiparty elections would be in a reforming, undefeated USSR.
 
I think that this is difficult to do without a substantial transformation of the Soviet state along the way. For example, I'm not sure how competitive multiparty elections would be in a reforming, undefeated USSR.

I only said that the Soviet Union had to be a democracy, not that certain things can't be changed...

;):D:p
 
POD: Lenins letter condeming Stalin is read earlier on.This leads to the Stalinist faction weakening and Trotsky taking power.


In the 20s Trotsky allows for small privatisation as well as an expansion of science.His more moderate 5 year plans are more succesful.

In our time line Trosky argued against precisely this. He was opposed to small scale private enterprise in Lenins New Economic policy, and favoured a more ambitious industrialisation plan.

He also argued for world revolution as fast as possible.
 
A lot of people here are confusing democracy with free enterprise. The two are not synonymous, and correlation between the two is sketchy at best.

The best bet for "Soviet Democracy" (I assume by this you mean democracy in the USSR) is the Kronstadt revolt in 1921.

Though the civil war had been won, there was significant agitation all across the union for a change of leadership. The Bolshevik regime was skating on thin ice then, and Kronstadt nearly unseated them. Workers everywhere wanted to return power back to the soviets (worker councils), and that was foremost demand of the Kronstadt revolters.

The Red Army was in a virtual state of mutiny at the time. Leaders from the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks themselves had to personally lead the assault on the fortress, and the core of the units used to put down the revolt were officer cadets from the military academy, because the rank and file soldiers could not be trusted.

The mutiny could have very easily spread and led to general strikes all accross the USSR, most likely toppling the Bolshevik one party states.
 
Hmm...America puts spy planes over Germany in 1940. They spot the harrement of Jewish people,and oder it stopped. Germany refuses,so war comes early.
Germany is unperpared,and the Soviets join in for a land grab.
American and Soviet troops meet in Berlin in 1944. They get drunk and sing American and Russian sogs together. This leads to a frienship between the armies.
Stalin attends FDR's funeral and Truman Stalin's. Dwight opens up friendleness with the Reds,and the Soviet Union opens up looser trade on it's country.
By 1970,they switch to a soclist republic,then full fledged democracy by 1979.
 
How could USA possibly put spy planes over Germany in 1940? Its nearly 100% impossible without ASBs.

You would have to avoid Stalin at all costs to achieve what OP demands. No single strong ruler. Maybe the Lenin's letter. Stalin looses chances of power, and remaining party leadership see that putting too much power into anyone's hands creates existential threat to themselves. Cheka or whatever its called in 1924. gets de-fanged and de-toothed quickly. Decentralized polycephall party leadership.

There should be some major incident before WWII where leadership realizes that any tolerance of corruption on lower levels will be fatal for the ecconomy. Also NEP continues and evolves, some realist sees that only way to feed the people is by allowing limited private ownership. Its all just transitional and temporary of course. :rolleyes:

Ideally one would want private ownership and businesses comparable to 1960es Yugoslavia by 1940. With less corruption and much lesser agricultural collectivization famine of '30es is greatly averted. Marxism should be accepted as a philosophy and ideology and not as science, that was in irony, completely locked in dogma. Internal party elections have meaning and make people change functions and prosper. Either party and state are fully unified or a purpose and meaning is given to nominal parliament and delegate system.

Without purges and with much healthier ecconomy WWII can be won without Stalin's ruthlessness. It is unlikely that any sane person would help Hitler's Germany as much as Soviets did in LOT, and again be completely unprepared for German attack.

Maybe leadership decides to play fair with West and decide on joint effort against Germany around Munchen or at Poland. No efforts to spread communism by force. Use the fact that it was crucial to stop as diabolical regieme as Hitlers as a propaganda point.

Crucial in all timelines. Soviet Union needs propagandists as competent as Goebells and Rihtensstal if it wants to prosper.
 
Top