Narodnichestvo as Russia's Maoism?

I was thinking about a TL with a different WWI where one effect is that the Socialist Revolutionaries take over Russia. One thing that stands out is that this movement was heavily influenced by the earlier Narodnik movement, where members of the Russian middle class "went to the people" -- which sounds pretty similar to what would later be pretty central to Mao's ideas, especially the Cultural Revolution. FWIG, the Socialist Revolutionaries were also, in general, much more popular among the Russian peasants, and a lot less singleminded about industrialization than the Bolsheviks in general were (to say nothing of Stalin).

For those who know, is this about right? If so, would a Revolutionary Socialist victory lead to Russia taking longer to emerge as a superpower? Are there other potential overlaps between Narodnichestvo and Maoism?
 
. FWIG, the Socialist Revolutionaries were also, in general, much more popular among the Russian peasants, and a lot less singleminded about industrialization than the Bolsheviks in general were (to say nothing of Stalin).

For those who know, is this about right? If so, would a Revolutionary Socialist victory lead to Russia taking longer to emerge as a superpower? Are there other potential overlaps between Narodnichestvo and Maoism?

They were more popular and their support was vital for Lenin during several key periods in Russian Revolution. And yes, their views toward industrialization, private property, land usage and foreign investment to Russian economy were a far cry from Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Russia ruled by PSR is an interesting and little used what-if, and parallers to Maoism are not totally off the mark. Yet their ideas were in many cases much more moderate than Maoist utopism.

"We firmly repudiate the notion that socialism can be introduced by armed force ... The revolution's appeal lies in the fact that we are striving not just to fill our hungry bellies but for a higher truth, the liberation of the individual. We shall win not by closing down bourgeois newspapers but because our programme and tactics express the interests of the broad toiling masses, because we can build up a solid coalition of soldiers, workers and peasants ... Lenin has told us about slanders put out by the bourgeois press ... We revolutionaries and socialists reply to these lies by telling the truth. The lies of the bourgeois press do not represent an authentic danger to the socialist movement ...
We Socialist-Revolutionaries were once prisoners of tsarism but we were never its slaves, and we don't want to establish slavery for anyone now."

A good summary of the subject can be found here. I've recently mentioned the idea of PSR-led Russia here, and the more I research this subject the more interesting it becomes.
 
^^Many thanks Karelin! Your linked post was esp. helpful.

Got me thinking about just who would be most likely to "lead" a PRS Russia -- Chernov, maybe?
 
You might want to check out Hnau's TL, "A Lenin-less World", its on hiatus, but has so far covered a Russian Revolution where the SRs come to dominate and the early post-war years. Its very interesting and deals with some of the SRs interesting personalities.

Would link but my search function is acting up.
 
Without armed force they'd lose. The Bolsheviks were right that laying down arms and ''telling the truth'' isnt really a winning tactic during a civil war.

Look at what happened in Spain where the anarchists were more concerned about ''rights'', than beating Franco...
 
Without armed force they'd lose. The Bolsheviks were right that laying down arms and ''telling the truth'' isnt really a winning tactic during a civil war.

Look at what happened in Spain where the anarchists were more concerned about ''rights'', than beating Franco...

You're saying the Republicans lost in Spain b/c they believed in a free press?
 
Well, a nice quote about freedom doesn't cover up the fact that in addition of being rural agrarian populist group, PSRs were also the oldest organized terrorist group in Russia by the time of February Revolution, specialized on high-profile assasinations.

And as for armed force, initially they were the most popular party on soldiers's soviets as well.
 
You're saying the Republicans lost in Spain b/c they believed in a free press?

No I’m saying they lost because they were more worried about ideological squabbling and concern over whose ideas were right, than the mundane practicalities’ of say beating Franco & winning the war.

The Bolsheviks were right in saying, that a certain extent ofarmed repression, is needed during a civil war. To subdue the other side and their supporters. Civil wars tend to be nasty and fratricidal there’s no getting around that basic fact.
 
You might want to check out Hnau's TL, "A Lenin-less World", its on hiatus, but has so far covered a Russian Revolution where the SRs come to dominate and the early post-war years. Its very interesting and deals with some of the SRs interesting personalities.

Just checked it out; some good stuff, though it only really goes through 1918...
 
Top