WI: A Reformed USSR

Alright, so let's say that the USSR reformed at some point between 1935-1970 into a democracy, not just politically, but actually instituted worker's democracy to the full extent and generally respected civil liberties, with the exception of 'dealing' with extremists, like militant capitalists.

How would this change the world, would it allow the USSR and West to become closer, would the USSR still be around today, and if not, how would a period of atleast twenty years of democratic rule affect the post-soviet republics?
 
First order of business--No Stalin;
Second order of business--the promises made by the starry eyed revolutionaries in the civil war will need to be honored on the ground, as they largely weren't even before Stalin.

I guess the question is how to get the Soviet Union to go "Left-Wing Radical" instead of going "Stalinist", and I think it could be done with some of the moderates in charge. If Stalin fell down a flight of stairs in 1935 and as a result somehow regained his humanity, perhaps he could play a big role in it.

Another problem is the PoD is after mustached Corporal comes to power in Das Reich and something is going to need to be done about him.

All things considered, it is possible pre-1935, but it would totally change everything if the Soviets wind up "moderate".
 
I actually thought about (before I posted this) two theoretical ways to have ti happen, one before Stalin and one after.

Before: Have Trotsky, or a Trotskyist come to power. Trotsky's famously quoted as saying 'Communism needs Democracy like the Human body needs Oxygen.'.
After: Have a reformist come to power who wanted to completely remove everything Stalinist all the way to the political, though this would require something of an internal party coup or revolution to some extent.
 
I actually thought about (before I posted this) two theoretical ways to have ti happen, one before Stalin and one after.

Before: Have Trotsky, or a Trotskyist come to power. Trotsky's famously quoted as saying 'Communism needs Democracy like the Human body needs Oxygen.'.
After: Have a reformist come to power who wanted to completely remove everything Stalinist all the way to the political, though this would require something of an internal party coup or revolution to some extent.

I have sometimes thought that if there was no WWII, the Stalinist regime wouldn't have the legitimacy that came from the victory over the Germans and the massive expansion of Communism 1945-1949, and the principal legacy of Stalin would be piling up enough corpses to circle the Equator if laid head-to-head. Under such circumstances, there might have been a substantially stronger repudiation of his policies than there was OTL under Kruschev.

Bruce
 
I have sometimes thought that if there was no WWII, the Stalinist regime wouldn't have the legitimacy that came from the victory over the Germans and the massive expansion of Communism 1945-1949, and the principal legacy of Stalin would be piling up enough corpses to circle the Equator if laid head-to-head. Under such circumstances, there might have been a substantially stronger repudiation of his policies than there was OTL under Kruschev.

Bruce

Eh, I'd say Stalinist legitimacy came from other sources too, besides legitimacy is a transitory thing it depends on the circumstances, a highly unpopular goverment can still have legitimacy.


On the other hand Stalin screwed the pooch by making his pact with Hitler (which would’ve a good idea if France had held off the Germans) and his army was nearly wiped out as a result of poor decision making. The USSR was ravaged by war and it’s economy was also badly effected perhaps permanently so. Really WW2 if looked at a certain way breaks about even.

With no WW2 the Soviet economy will be far stronger and it’s Russian/Slavic population will be much bigger the militarising of the economy/society will be on a much lesser scale. with more scope for agriculture/consumer goods getting investment.


On topic I will say muliti-party elections seem unlikely, through multi-candidate elections are a possibly (people may scoff at that, but a system with two parties who are near identical isn’t much better). That'll improve accountably and reduce corruption.
 
On topic I will say muliti-party elections seem unlikely, through multi-candidate elections are a possibly (people may scoff at that, but a system with two parties who are near identical isn’t much better). That'll improve accountably and reduce corruption.

Like the way George Washington wanted for the US? The trouble is that if "party discipline" remains in place, nobody will get a nod as a candidate who doesn't follow the party line, leading to tweedle-dee/tweedle-dum elections: if party discipline breaks down, different factions will gather behind one candidate or another, leading to an effective multi-party system, although they may for a while still refer to themselves as members of the Communist party - just "left wing" or "right wing" or "traditionalist" or...

Bruce
 
Like the way George Washington wanted for the US? The trouble is that if "party discipline" remains in place, nobody will get a nod as a candidate who doesn't follow the party line, leading to tweedle-dee/tweedle-dum elections: if party discipline breaks down, different factions will gather behind one candidate or another, leading to an effective multi-party system, although they may for a while still refer to themselves as members of the Communist party - just "left wing" or "right wing" or "traditionalist" or...

Bruce

True people who differ radicallyfrom the broad party line will be booted out, but the same is true in any party through you may still have a few ‘’mavericks’’.

However such a massive party as the CPSU, will have factions anyway parties always do that doesn’t enviably lead to splits particularly if party splits are illegal. Also I’m not thinking of presidential system when it comes to elections more parliamentary one. Where the people choose their ‘’MP’’ or whatever then those ''MP' choose the ‘’PM’’ and his Politburo from amongst themselves.

So long as there's not a half-corrupt election system where candidates need to rise money from donors, and the candidates list is kinda broad and isnt fully controled by the top leaders it can work after a fashon.

This isnt perfect but it’s ok, and may fulfil it’s purpose of giving the people a degree of control and accountably without destabilizing the system.
 
No, I would'nt think they'd adopt a multi-party system, I had'nt even considered that really.

More I was thinking they may adopt, and actually use the Cuban system, that is, officially candidates can not be members of political parties, nor can they receive resources from them, rather they have to run based on their beliefs and meritocratic value.
 
You need to somehow convince Bolshevik leadership that foreign invasion isn't going to happen at 1st opportunity. And this is quite a task after the Civil War and accompanying invasions by 14 foreign armies from Americans to Greeks. All fraction in post-CW Bolshevik leaderships were security paranoics.
 
I actually thought about (before I posted this) two theoretical ways to have ti happen, one before Stalin and one after.

Before: Have Trotsky, or a Trotskyist come to power. Trotsky's famously quoted as saying 'Communism needs Democracy like the Human body needs Oxygen.'.
After: Have a reformist come to power who wanted to completely remove everything Stalinist all the way to the political, though this would require something of an internal party coup or revolution to some extent.

Trotsky only said that because he was not in Stalin's position. Consider his role in the Civil War as creator of the Red Army and the order to kill the families of deserters.

I think Canadian Goose is right. The Bolsheviks came to power by the gun and they intended to keep power by the gun.
 
This all seems to go against some key founding principles of the USSR. Firstly, the ban on factionalism/Democratic Centralism, which means the idea of factions within the CPSU is pretty unlikely, as anyone in a strong position at the top (ie like Stalin in the mid-1920s) can easily dictate what equals the party line and what ocunts as deviation.

Then you have vanguardism, the basis of Marxist-Leninism, the idea that the Bolsheviks are crucial to socialism taking root in society, such an idea pretty much kills off any real chance of industrial democracy. Even post-Stalin this was central. Look at the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, during the more ambiguous days of the crisis when Kruschev was weighing whether or not to crush the new 'reformed' socialist government, one of the things that appalled him was that factories had thrown off Communist overseers and shock workers and organised apolitical coops, a good Bolshevik such a set-up was anathema to him.

Also decentralisation is not on the cards, definately not with Trotsky (people forget Stalin pinched his ideas for rapid industrialisation and collectivisation). Got to remember the 1920s/1930s were a high period of technocratic ideas and Lenin was heavily influenced by corporate scructure and Fordism, he looked to Detroit for examples of how to build an efficient, top-down modern economy.

To create such a system your best bet is with the Socialist Revolutionary Party who non-Marxist, and saw the peasant commune as the basis for a socialist society, I can imagine they would encourage something similar in the factories. Meanwhile given their electoral results in 1917 and if they pull off land distribution well enough they might end up the rulers of a one-party democracy ala India, Japan and Ireland.
 
Top