Zimmerwald1915
Banned
Okay, here's why. In 1924, you have the Soviet leadership dominating the Comintern, because they have greater practical experience and thus greater legitimacy, whereas their ideological rivals in Central and Western Europe have only theory on which to base their opposition. Furthermore, Central and Western European Communists are too busy working in their own countries to vie for the leadership of the Soviet Union (though Bordiga at one point proposed that the Comintern take over the government of the Soviet Union, this was not accepted). This essentially leads to a situation where the only plausible leadership must come from Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia, or the Caucuses.I'm assuming that the Soviet Union doesn't change it's course of history, im simply using stalin as an example of totalitarialisum; if you think he won't come to power in TTL explain why. But as far as I can see stalin came to power because he ruthlessly eliminated his opposition, and the cult of personality etc not because of the economic climate. Maybe with a more liberal western communisum this wont happen![]()
In this situation, if you are powerful in the Bolshevik Party, you are powerful in the Soviet Union. Stalin was able to rise to the position of General Secretary because of his support among the Party functionaries, and because he was able to make and break Machiavellian alliances when he had to (Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, etc.).
The situation described in the OP, however, is radically different. Even assuming a Marxist-Syndicalist split (which, though likely, is not a given), you no longer have a situation where if you are powerful in the Bolshevik Party, you are powerful in the whole Marxist bloc. Assuming the integration of Germany and Poland into the Soviet Union, you have either three sister parties sharing power, with the Comintern as a mediary, or you have the Comintern taking power to itself and the atrophy of the national parties. Whatever happens, you're going to see a vastly increased role for the Comintern compared to OTL. IOTL, when the Comintern was essentially a creature of the Russian party, it was possible for someone who dominated the Russian party to dominate the Comintern as well. ITTL, with a more powerful Comintern and a Russian party whose claim to legitimacy is equalled by that of the German and Polish parties, this won't be the case. Stalin, for instance, was at this time not well known internationally and had virtually no involvement in the Comintern.
IOTL, Stalin was able to rise to power because the stage was small enough for him. He only had to operate in the Russian party. ITTL, you would see much greater influence in the hands of people well-known and powerful in the Comintern, including Wijnkoop, Radek, Gorter, Luxemburg (assuming she's not killed off), Zinoviev, and Trotsky.
Claro?