CanadianGoose
Banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_SR_Uprising
In short: Left Socialist-Revolutionaries were left wing of non-Marxist Socialist-Revolutionary Party. They joined Bolsheviks in almost unconditional alliance leading to October revolution, but grew unhappy with Brest-Litovsk and attempted to overthrow Bolsheviks. Their attempt had been half-assed and failed. Now, obvious POD is: WI Left SR did not revolt?
Some remarks to start a discussion: Left SRs weren't liberal "good guys" who fought Bolshevik "bad guys". They were radical socialists, who waged ruthless urban guerilla war against Tsarist administration. In fact, it were Bolsheviks who were considered "soft sissies", SRs (split between left and right wings happened in 1917) were real tough fighters, who wholeheartedly embraced terrorism. Maoism owes much more to SRs than to Marx. So their survival would not mean turning revolution into some kind of "market democracy Russia". But what would it mean? They were junior partners in Soviet coalition, but partners nonetheless (all in all, they controlled about 1/3 of Soviets). However, they didn't have either leader or organization structure comparable to that of Bolsheviks, so their survival as "junior brother" isn't too likely. But mere fact of their existence could prevent Russian Socialism from growing into rigid one-party state of OTL. And wouldn't "socialism is result of left-wing alliance" mindset butterfly Nazi victory away (KPD allying with SPD to stop NSDAP rise to power)? Also, would Mao consider himself "marxist" or "socialist revolutionary" ITTL?
In short: Left Socialist-Revolutionaries were left wing of non-Marxist Socialist-Revolutionary Party. They joined Bolsheviks in almost unconditional alliance leading to October revolution, but grew unhappy with Brest-Litovsk and attempted to overthrow Bolsheviks. Their attempt had been half-assed and failed. Now, obvious POD is: WI Left SR did not revolt?
Some remarks to start a discussion: Left SRs weren't liberal "good guys" who fought Bolshevik "bad guys". They were radical socialists, who waged ruthless urban guerilla war against Tsarist administration. In fact, it were Bolsheviks who were considered "soft sissies", SRs (split between left and right wings happened in 1917) were real tough fighters, who wholeheartedly embraced terrorism. Maoism owes much more to SRs than to Marx. So their survival would not mean turning revolution into some kind of "market democracy Russia". But what would it mean? They were junior partners in Soviet coalition, but partners nonetheless (all in all, they controlled about 1/3 of Soviets). However, they didn't have either leader or organization structure comparable to that of Bolsheviks, so their survival as "junior brother" isn't too likely. But mere fact of their existence could prevent Russian Socialism from growing into rigid one-party state of OTL. And wouldn't "socialism is result of left-wing alliance" mindset butterfly Nazi victory away (KPD allying with SPD to stop NSDAP rise to power)? Also, would Mao consider himself "marxist" or "socialist revolutionary" ITTL?
Last edited: