In a world where the October Revolution doesn't happen in Russia, what becomes of communism and socialisms? Does communism just become a curiosity?
How do socialism and communism do in a No October Revolution world?
- Thread starter sampleswift
- Start date
it's weird. the economic theories are probably a bit worse off, since they don't have a proof of concept to refine the systems or a superpower to promote them, but they're probably a bit less necessary since the red scare meant a lot of otherwise popular ideas like universal healthcare were shut down for being affiliated with communism
Communism would certainly not become a curiosity.
If economic decline became abrupt in Germany or western Europe as it did during the Great Depression, working classes that already supported Communism might have had the chance to established it in an advanced industrialised country. According to Marxist theory, unless a revolution occurs in an advanced industrialised country and spreads internationally, there is no hope of it not being defeated by an external or internal (as Tony Cliff saw Stalin’s rise to power) counter-revolution.
What the development of the sort of direct socialist democracy advocated today by groups like Socialist Alternative, the International Socialist Organisation, et.al. would actually produce if it were carried out is not clear. It would certainly involve a much longer fight than even the socialists themselves imagine to overthrow capitalism, and I have always heard that the sort of coordination radical Trotskyists view as natural to the international working class is actually very difficult at the global level they see as essential.
If economic decline became abrupt in Germany or western Europe as it did during the Great Depression, working classes that already supported Communism might have had the chance to established it in an advanced industrialised country. According to Marxist theory, unless a revolution occurs in an advanced industrialised country and spreads internationally, there is no hope of it not being defeated by an external or internal (as Tony Cliff saw Stalin’s rise to power) counter-revolution.
What the development of the sort of direct socialist democracy advocated today by groups like Socialist Alternative, the International Socialist Organisation, et.al. would actually produce if it were carried out is not clear. It would certainly involve a much longer fight than even the socialists themselves imagine to overthrow capitalism, and I have always heard that the sort of coordination radical Trotskyists view as natural to the international working class is actually very difficult at the global level they see as essential.
I'm trying to play out this idea in my TL.
Generally, as others have noted, just because there is no October Revolution does not mean that a "socialist" or "communist" revolution occurs nowhere.
So, there are three macro-possibilities:
A) a successful revolution somewhere else or
B) no radical revolution of the labour movement anywhere or
C) some other form of socialist revolution in Russia which is significantly different from OTL October and does not call itself communist.
If A) is the case, then the question of where that revolution or those revolutions happen is very important. I'll discuss just three of the more likely options:
1) Germany 1918/19: No October Revolution COULD facilitate a better co-operation of SPD and USPD, certainly no KPD breaking away from the USPD, and more confidence in the revolution by the SPD leadership, hence no Ebert-Groener-Pact. Thus, the transformation of Germany in November 1918 (or maybe a little earlier if *Russia stays in the war because of no Bolshevik Revolution) would be more profound, and include some degree of nationalisation of key industries and finance and a permanent role for the workers' councils. It would not mean a single-party dictatorship, but probably socialist achievements enshrined in the *Weimar constitution. If this happens in Germany, a similar development is likely in Vienna, too. This revolution would remain within the context of the Second Internationale, so immediately in other European countries the discussion would break out if the "German path" applied to their country, too, because they also lived in an oppressive system, or not; either way, what the German labour movement has achieved would be a threshold its comrades in other countries would strive towards, too, whether by parliamentarian or by revolutionary means. This is probably best called "Radical Social-Democracy establisehd through a revolution".
2) Italy 1919/20: No October Revolution AND no socialist hegemony in the German Revolution makes an Italian revolution less likely, but not impossible. If it is, by whatever previous PoD which makes this plausible, the Biennio Rosso which ends up creating the first successful revolution of the labour movement, then we have a context in which syndicalism and Marxist socialism are both strong strands, so perhaps economic transformations happen more along the lines of syndicalisation here? Also, a land reform would probably have to be on the agenda if the revolution is to succeed. Some violent conflict is not unlikely, and the big question is if this leads to a hardening of the fronts and an exclusion of non-socialist parties from the political game, which would mean a violent dictatorship because e.g. the Catholic Popular Party of Don Sturzo was a force to be reckoned with, or whether multi-party rule remains and is merely being redefined, e.g. through a socialist-Catholic pact.
3) Spain somewhere in the 1920s or 1930s: The country was ripe for some sort of systemic conflict and transformation, and while a peaceful democratic transition is perfectly possible, there might as well be a Revolution here, too. But if it is the first, i.e. if Russia, Germany, Italy etc. all walk on non-revolutionary paths, then you can expect Anarchism to play the dominant role and provide the general framework for the revolution of the Spanish labour movement. Interesting implications.
Just three very rough ideas which lead to very different outcomes.
And then there is B. In contrast to what @KingOnTheEdge said, I am not sure if a complete absence of a successful revolution of a party emerged from the labour movement really helps things like universal healthcare etc. Many advance in welfare etc. were indeed advocated by Radical Liberals (or implemented by conservatives like Bismarck) before the Great War, but there was also a massive surge in such measures in reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution in order to pacify one's own labour movement, and many countries would not have seen such a quick surge in leftist forces which were then elected into parliaments etc. and exerted pressure from the streets and workshops and infiltrated unions etc. to push forward radical demands for improvements for the working classes, if no equivalent to the October Revolution had happened and had brought forth something like the Comintern. Advance in labour welfare along Progressive / Radical / defensive reform-conservative lines would have been more piecemeal and reluctant, I think.
As for C, check my TL if you're interested in one possible scenario.
Generally, as others have noted, just because there is no October Revolution does not mean that a "socialist" or "communist" revolution occurs nowhere.
So, there are three macro-possibilities:
A) a successful revolution somewhere else or
B) no radical revolution of the labour movement anywhere or
C) some other form of socialist revolution in Russia which is significantly different from OTL October and does not call itself communist.
If A) is the case, then the question of where that revolution or those revolutions happen is very important. I'll discuss just three of the more likely options:
1) Germany 1918/19: No October Revolution COULD facilitate a better co-operation of SPD and USPD, certainly no KPD breaking away from the USPD, and more confidence in the revolution by the SPD leadership, hence no Ebert-Groener-Pact. Thus, the transformation of Germany in November 1918 (or maybe a little earlier if *Russia stays in the war because of no Bolshevik Revolution) would be more profound, and include some degree of nationalisation of key industries and finance and a permanent role for the workers' councils. It would not mean a single-party dictatorship, but probably socialist achievements enshrined in the *Weimar constitution. If this happens in Germany, a similar development is likely in Vienna, too. This revolution would remain within the context of the Second Internationale, so immediately in other European countries the discussion would break out if the "German path" applied to their country, too, because they also lived in an oppressive system, or not; either way, what the German labour movement has achieved would be a threshold its comrades in other countries would strive towards, too, whether by parliamentarian or by revolutionary means. This is probably best called "Radical Social-Democracy establisehd through a revolution".
2) Italy 1919/20: No October Revolution AND no socialist hegemony in the German Revolution makes an Italian revolution less likely, but not impossible. If it is, by whatever previous PoD which makes this plausible, the Biennio Rosso which ends up creating the first successful revolution of the labour movement, then we have a context in which syndicalism and Marxist socialism are both strong strands, so perhaps economic transformations happen more along the lines of syndicalisation here? Also, a land reform would probably have to be on the agenda if the revolution is to succeed. Some violent conflict is not unlikely, and the big question is if this leads to a hardening of the fronts and an exclusion of non-socialist parties from the political game, which would mean a violent dictatorship because e.g. the Catholic Popular Party of Don Sturzo was a force to be reckoned with, or whether multi-party rule remains and is merely being redefined, e.g. through a socialist-Catholic pact.
3) Spain somewhere in the 1920s or 1930s: The country was ripe for some sort of systemic conflict and transformation, and while a peaceful democratic transition is perfectly possible, there might as well be a Revolution here, too. But if it is the first, i.e. if Russia, Germany, Italy etc. all walk on non-revolutionary paths, then you can expect Anarchism to play the dominant role and provide the general framework for the revolution of the Spanish labour movement. Interesting implications.
Just three very rough ideas which lead to very different outcomes.
And then there is B. In contrast to what @KingOnTheEdge said, I am not sure if a complete absence of a successful revolution of a party emerged from the labour movement really helps things like universal healthcare etc. Many advance in welfare etc. were indeed advocated by Radical Liberals (or implemented by conservatives like Bismarck) before the Great War, but there was also a massive surge in such measures in reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution in order to pacify one's own labour movement, and many countries would not have seen such a quick surge in leftist forces which were then elected into parliaments etc. and exerted pressure from the streets and workshops and infiltrated unions etc. to push forward radical demands for improvements for the working classes, if no equivalent to the October Revolution had happened and had brought forth something like the Comintern. Advance in labour welfare along Progressive / Radical / defensive reform-conservative lines would have been more piecemeal and reluctant, I think.
As for C, check my TL if you're interested in one possible scenario.
My own view is that without the Russian Revolution, socialism would be much stronger in the West. The first red scare in the US pretty well destroyed the US socialist party, red scare and a schism between the democratic minded socialists and those who wished to imitate the Bolsheviks in France that broke the Socialist party of France for a decade, Bela Kun's regime in Hungary with Red Terror followed by worse White Terror and a disastrous war against Romania... All of these wouldn't have happened without the Bolshevik revolution. Without the apparent success of Lenin's poisonous ideas, what we call "Communism" would not have emerged as an ideology. And the great revolution of the age would likely have been Russia's February revolution, which would either have resulted in a democratic socialist Russia dominated by the SRs and a united Bolshevik and Menshevik party or a liberal democracy with liberal nationalists and the SRs dominating affairs.
Without the October revolution, there may never be anything we call "Communism" that becomes mainstream. However, I think Marxist historical theory and Marxist socialism would still play major roles. Though perhaps without the success of Bolshevism other forms of socialism might be more important.
fasquardon
Agreed.
The doctrinal splits after the Revolution forced a very diverse and fractious array of political inclinations to defend themselves in a world where there was now a singularly definable and self-sustained path to power.
The greatest growth of Socialism happened in a world where there was no surefire (at least perceived that way) way to achieve it. After the Bolsheviks played their hand, suddenly everyone had to make their choices, change their minds or otherwise lose heart with the movement.
It was a cultural moment that pushed for something that few were ultimately willing to fight for in the broader west, and it only got worse from there. They were the perfect scapegoat, the perfect excuse to cut down all the problem children in the US and Germany and so on.
It's sad.
Not that I think things were bound to be different without the revolution, but it'd be less likely to be so thorough.
In the short run, socialism might be worse off, due to the lack of a source of inspiration for the various socialist movements in the world; however, in the long run, socialism might be better off, since sensible ideas about the quality of life and the rights of each and every individual would not be tainted by the shadow of the USSR's authoritarian and murderous endeavours.
while intresting i think
i dont think there is a single case of a comunist /socialist revolution succeding a devolpted nation as the middle class are important do not support the radical idea of redestribution since they have much to loose if they do win.
despite the sittation in 1918 germany (assuming they loose) is not in the horrible sittuation of 1923
so yeah the main socialist revoutionaries are frige educated elite and peasents who after the revolution succeds get ignored , devolped nations usually went for rigth dictadorships when they went totalitarian .
I dont see how that trend would not aplly here , what i can see tho is changes passing many reforms that the left or socialist wanted to prevent another revolt or the invetable social changes that the socialist or the left in part demanded , so comunisim /socialisim etc would not likely succed via revolution it can less radicial socialist policies can very possibly be implemented or heck a less extreme socialist movoment migth be elected in to power in these nations.