The 'Right' wins the post-Lenin power struggle

This has been alluded to several times in various, Bukarin takes power, No Stalin threads and the like.

However they tend to get bogged down at the starting ground. So take the simple route, Lenin publicly denounces Stalin as a danger prior to his death, Trotsky remains a loner between the Old Bolshevik Left and the Right of Rykov and Bukharin. Trotsky is killed, exiled, sent to run a tractor factory, what ever.

Let's say we have a Right-dominated Politburo oligarchy take shape by the late 1920s. Economically, socially, and geopolitically how do things change? No forced colletivisation is the obvious one, so a more agrarian, populous USSR that never becomes the mass grain importer of OTL.

Other things:
Relationship with other nations, Communist parties and the left in general

Industrialisation: Would the Right implement strigent 5 Year Plans? Would the lack of collectivisation actually help industrialisation due to a larger population, healthier economy etc.

Foreign investment: Even under Stalin foriegn investment in Soviet industry was high, how would this be effected.

'The Party': Without Stalin's machinations how would the CPSU and state by proxy look? Would it be a far more elitist group. Would the Cheka's role be lessened?
 
Let's say we have a Right-dominated Politburo oligarchy take shape by the late 1920s.
You need to remember that "Right" definition need to be applied very sparingly here. They were still communists. I would place them significantly left of Deng.

No forced colletivisation is the obvious one, so a more agrarian, populous USSR that never becomes the mass grain importer of OTL.
You look too far. Before sorting out what would happen 30-40 years down the road one would need to understand what would happen in 1939-1941, as by mid-1920s political processes that spawned Nazis and Drang Nach East are well and truly underway and 1st question is "Would Rykov's USSR survive Barbarossa?" Besides, any analysis of reasons of Soviet grain import without looking at Khrushchev's maize fiasco is travesty.

Relationship with other nations, Communist parties and the left in general
Likely more warm than IOTL (i.e. more "Bolshevist subversions abroad"), as Stalin, if my memory serves me well, was the only one among Politbyuro members who believed in building socialism in a single country. Everybody else saw world Socialist revolution as necessary and considered USSR to be temporary step toward glorious World Revolution.

Industrialisation: Would the Right implement strigent 5 Year Plans? Would the lack of collectivisation actually help industrialisation due to a larger population, healthier economy etc.
Collectivization was bankrolled by robbing agriculture, a.k.a. "collectivization". Without collectivization USSR would have no foreign currency to buy Western equipment, which means significantly delayed industrial development.

Foreign investment: Even under Stalin foriegn investment in Soviet industry was high, how would this be effected.
Foreign investments in industrialization are very easily to calculate. They were zip, zilch, zero, they did not exist. After defaulting on Imperial debt USSR was shut out of world capital markets completely. All equipment purchases were on "100% payment in advance" basis. I don't see why would Rykov's USSR have more favourable conditions.

'The Party': Without Stalin's machinations how would the CPSU and state by proxy look? Would it be a far more elitist group.
Elitist? Possibly. Stalin was very keen on swelling party ranks with barely literate opportunist, as it greatly increased his weight as main party's executive. Rykov's party would likely be smaller and more educated (and therefore more receptive of internal discussions).

Would the Cheka's role be lessened?
Likely, without Stalin's paranoia. However, it was this very paranoia which allowed him to rule for decades and die in pretty advanced age (although rumors are very strong that his death wasn't natural). Cocky Beria, who wasn't paranoid, ruled for mere months.
 
You look too far. Before sorting out what would happen 30-40 years down the road one would need to understand what would happen in 1939-1941, as by mid-1920s political processes that spawned Nazis and Drang Nach East are well and truly underway and 1st question is "Would Rykov's USSR survive Barbarossa?"
The process, mayhap, but that doesn't mean the Nazis would come to power. For one thing, this different Soviet Union would, almost certainly, affect the KPD, which would in turn have an effect upon the rest of Germany's politics... by extension, even if the Nazis come to power, it may not be in the same time and same exact way as OTL, and that would have its influence on the likelihood of Barbarossa (that is, an invasion of Russia roughly similar to the OTL one), as well.
 
Foreign investments in industrialization are very easily to calculate. They were zip, zilch, zero, they did not exist. After defaulting on Imperial debt USSR was shut out of world capital markets completely. All equipment purchases were on "100% payment in advance" basis. I don't see why would Rykov's USSR have more favourable conditions.

I wont pretend to know a lot about this, but I recall reading about Ford dealing with the Soviets and building factories in Russia, this seems to be something.

Also in reference to Barbarossa, I'm quite wary of the 'Stalin was nessecary' debate. Collectivisation and the rush to industrialise, not to mention the purges weakened the USSR in many ways. Collectivisation saw people flock from the cities in search of food, hardly positive when trying to fill new factories, while the death toll lost the Red Army millions of potential soldiers, and the purges greatly weakened its ability to operate in the field.

Thats all without taking into account the butterflies and change in Soviet policy that would effect Nazism and 'Drag nacht Osten'. Bukharin in particular was a strong advocate for Popular Front tactics, in stark comparison to Stalin's 'social-fascist' slant that he swiftly changed after Hitler's rise to power. If the KPD and SPD could at least stop assaulting each other and focus on the right-wingers and nationalists, it would no doubt have a major impact on Nazi success both at the ballot box and in their street fighting. An actual Popular Front strikes me as too far given the ingrained dislike between the Communists and Socialists, unless the thr eatof possible Nazi takeover pushes them into each others arms
 
I wont pretend to know a lot about this, but I recall reading about Ford dealing with the Soviets and building factories in Russia, this seems to be something.
Oh yes, Ford built factories in USSR big time. However, it was on "100% pre-payment" basis. So no "investments", just some technology purchases.

Also in reference to Barbarossa, I'm quite wary of the 'Stalin was nessecary' debate.
Me too, but, having this kind of knowledge (Barbarossa is coming and what kind of struggle would it be), it is kind of debate almost impossible to avoid.

Collectivisation saw people flock from the cities in search of food
Exactly opposite. Farmers were trying to get to cities at all costs, as cities had food rationing system, which guaranteed certain amount of feed. Government had to set up Red Army roadblocks to prevent hungry farmers to get into cities.

while the death toll lost the Red Army millions of potential soldiers
Yes, it did cost USSR about a million soldiers (do remember about difference between population and available soldiers)

and the purges greatly weakened its ability to operate in the field.
Debatable. A lot of purged officers were really Civil War partisans in disguise, ill suited to command in modern battle.

Thats all without taking into account the butterflies and change in Soviet policy that would effect Nazism and 'Drag nacht Osten'.
Yes, but I see "let's handwave all problems Stalin had to deal with away and explain sunny skies of non-Stalin universe by butterflies of history" approach as bigger risk. Versailles and toxic German revanchism would exist in all world with post-1920 POD. Fear of communism and desire to built Anti-Communist bullwark isn't going to go away too, Stalin or no Stalin (as I said, almost any alternative Soviet leader is going to conduct more vigorous campaign to fan the flames of World Revolution than Stalin did). Bukharin might or might not reutralize influence of those factors.
If the KPD and SPD could at least stop assaulting each other and focus on the right-wingers and nationalists, it would no doubt have a major impact on Nazi success both at the ballot box and in their street fighting. An actual Popular Front strikes me as too far given the ingrained dislike between the Communists and Socialists, unless the thr eatof possible Nazi takeover pushes them into each others arms
Well, you are up to something here.
 
Top