I hate to bring Marxist analysis into this, but the KAPD was very close to Peopleism around 1921, and Marxism supplies better analytical tools to examine people’s movements in general. Probably because Marxism has always been a minor scholarly current rather than a successful people’s organizing tool
with the Left SR’s taking power in the All-Union Congress afterwards.
Yes the “Left-SRs” took power. In 1920 ¾ of those “Left-SRs” were actually Mensheviks anarchists bolsheviks or independents. The Left *hegemonised* the political intelligentsia and the organizational force of the movement from necessity. Lefts in charge? Join the lefts. It didn’t hurt that they were fluid ideologically.
even when the lefts purged people during the mispricing recession in the 20s and 30s the lefts purged people on competence or gross corruption but not on ideology. Lenin’s purism stuff means that the bolsheviks will be different. You know, apart from having put down the revolution and clinging to power as counter revolutionary bosses.
There were a lot of Bolsheviks, though, and any of them could be Premier. Bukarin seems like the most likely from my reading.
who? How do you even get this level of study of obscure failed Russian parties? Do you read Russian? Are you like “a Leninist”? Are there even Leninist parties?
From what I understand Georgism was in vogue for a long while even before the USSR started supporting partisans in that country so the CCP was probably always going to come down closer to the Narodnik position than a Bolshevist one.
Who supplies the guns supplies the politics
