Leaving aside exiled Trosky retoric, in which ways would his soviet union be different than Stalin's one? Would be even more militarised in economy (if that is even posible)? Would the SSRs be organised differently?
I see, what internal politics would he put foward? Especially regarding the USSR nations and ethnic groups?The biggest difference would be foreign policy. Stalin tried to establish positive diplomatic relations with Capitalist nations. If Trotsky was in power he’d be much more belligerent. Funding Communist Parties through the world much more than Stalin did. We might see Trotsky invade China during the Chinese Civil War to establish a CCP victory. This would probably fail though.
About, if not more, harsh than Stalin. Forced collectivisation and mass industrialisation were Trotsky’s policies that then became implemented by Stalin. Labour policy would be far more violent. Trotsky wanted the ‘militarisation of labour’ by which he meant putting military discipline into the factories. He believed people were innately lazy and needed to be forced to work properly. So yeah, that’d be unpleasant.I see, what internal politics would he put foward? Especially regarding the USSR nations and ethnic groups?
I guessed the same, but I wonder what ramifications could that create. Would he share Stalin's notion of territorial nationalities or maybe he could import the austro marxist idea of non territorial nationalities (being himself a jew)?About, if not more, harsh than Stalin. Forced collectivisation and mass industrialisation were Trotsky’s policies that then became implemented by Stalin. Labour policy would be far more violent. Trotsky wanted the ‘militarisation of labour’ by which he meant putting military discipline into the factories. He believed people were innately lazy and needed to be forced to work properly. So yeah, that’d be unpleasant.
On the plus side Jewish people are treated far better within the USSR, but elsewhere probably face even more discrimination than OTL because the ‘judeo-bolshivik’ version of anti-semitism would be more convincing with an actual Jewish person leading the Soviet Union.
I’m not sure of his policy regarding the Republics.
Highly unlikely again for the reasons mentioned above. Trotsky was, for lack of a better word, a douchebag. Nobody liked him and he wasn't at all politically savvy. A brilliant theoretician and strategist and orator, yes, but an even somewhat skilled politician, no. He alienated pretty much everybody because "I'm right and here's why, so listen to me, you idiot."
Again, Stalin was good at organizing the anti-Trotskyism. It still existed and just because Stalin isn't there doesn't mean it won't manifest itself. Zinoviev would probably be able to organize it, though he probably wouldn't be able to make himself top dog like Stalin did.
The idea that Trotsky could take over the Soviet Union is a particularly annoying canard, I find. He had the popularity of a genital carbuncle.
First things first -- as the title says, the Trotskyist (or member of the Left Opposition OTL, however you want to say it) in question is likely not Trotsky. I am now all too aware of the man's faults (being a politically incapable douchbag) so he's not the top candidate; feel free to kill him at will following the PoD, which can be anytime in 1923 (Lenin's last year) or after (or, if need really be, prior).
Second, let me quote the (on this subject) venerable Wolfpaw on what would likely be the main objection to this challenge.
Now, my thought here is -- why couldn't somebody else do what Stalin did, in terms of purging the opposition, only this time starting with Stalin and his supporters (Molotov, et el) and moving their way until the right (or left, I suppose) man takes complete power in the USSR by 1930 (and can certainly be earlier). I don't think this is that much of a stretch -- especially considering it was Trotsky, at least initially, who called for a more authoritarian structure to the new state.Wolfpaw said:Well, the main thing here is to somehow neutralize/get rid of Stalin. But then that gets messy because Stalin really was the guy who established the "absolute ruler" precedent/position in the USSR. Without him, you would have seen that more democratic-at-the-top process evolve, or at least not the blatant autocracy...
Without a thorough Stalinistic purge/conversion of every oppositionist, there's never going to be an absolute ruler.
The one element of Trotskyism that the OP requires be adapted is the International Revolution -- the idea that "the revolution must quickly spread to capitalist countries, bringing about a socialist revolution which must spread worldwide". Preferably the ruler in question would do so with use of the Red Army. I also understand if this idea needs to be seen as less of a failure as practiced. (Given this, it may have crossover with this idea)
So there you have the goal -- an absolute ruler dedicating his nation to sweeping the Revolution across the capitalist European continent,.
Only on this subject? Not venerable in general? Why do you heap such slights upon my reverend character, sirrah?
But seriously, the best candidate is Ivan Nikitch Smirnov. He was very active in upper levels Soviet government from the get-go, a war hero, not at all shy about using the Cheka, and a strong Trotskyist who commanded respect.
World Revolution will become foreign policy goal #1 if Khristian Rakovsky is made foreign minister. Expect lots of Soviet-sponsored agitation in Romania.
I suppose a good way to get the Trotskyists into power would perhaps be Stalin trying to purge them too early and alienating enough people that there's a fierce anti-Stalinist backlash that sees him and his cronies either internally exiled or shot. If things turn bloody (they likely will since the Cheka may very well be divided on who to with Dzerzhinsky dead, Menzhinsky ineffectual, and Yagoda's loyalty more or less up in the air (remember that Yagoda was always uncomfortable with the Purges IOTL, so he may not be so hot on listening to Stalin).
So things are basically in a state of emergency, the Stalinists (ITTL historiography they'll be called "Stalinites") are beaten back and purged themselves. Rykov, Bukharin, and Tomsky will likely be purged since they'll be backing Stalin.
If they survive, this leaves Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Trotsky in charge but things are still rather messed up, so they decide that a strong central authority figure is needed. Since Kamenev and Zinoviev don't care for Trotsky and he returns the feelings, they turn to a compromise candidate: Ivan Nikitich Smirnov, a close associate of both Zinoviev and Trotsky and a guy who's got a lot going for him in general.
So now we've got Smirnov acting as dictator (in the Roman sense) of the USSR. Things maybe get ugly in the post-abortive Stalinite coup as the chaos caused by the upper-echelon purges will throw much of the country into turmoil and meanwhile suspicion turns upon Zinoviev and Kamenev for having been allied to Stalin in the early '20s, so maybe their supporters are (bloodlessly) purged and they're split up (of course) and sent to godforsaken corners of Kazakhstan and Siberia. Zinoviev probably lasts longer than Kamenev due to his closeness with Smirnov, but eventually mounting pressure forces Smirnov to allow Zinoviev to be sidelined and packed off.
Now, at this point there's really not a whole lot of Party leadership left to oppose Trotsky, but we ought to remember that he's still a pedantic superdouche and a Jew to boot.
So here's the ruling troika, so to speak. Smirnov as General Secretary/Premier; Trotsky as Defense Commissar; Rakovsky as Foreign Commissar.
Now let's make some things clear; this is going to be a very different authoritarianism than Stalin's. There will be no hyper-bureaucratization or hyper-centralization in a Trotskyist USSR. Centralization, yes, but nowhere near Stalinist levels. They're also going to shoot for as little bureaucracy as possible. The various constituent republics (or at least [and especially] the Ukraine) will be given much more autonomy.
There will also be a dichotomy at the top; Smirnov and Trotsky. Now, Smirnov was an independent-minded individual, so he'll likely not cotton to whatever criticisms or general boundary-crossing that Trotsky might commit. The best Trotsky can hope for here is to be an éminence grise due to his aforementioned flaws. If he really starts getting on everybody's nerves (by no means out of the question), he could go the same way as Zinoviev and Kamenev or made ambassador to Haiti or something (actually, that could have some interesting butterflies).
So what do we have now? A popular Roman-style dictator who may not be all that sympathetic to giving up power (especially if Stalinites and Rykov-Bukharinites become the paranoia-inspiring bugbear-pariah "wreckers" that Trotskyites were IOTL), who's not afraid to use the Cheka or stand up for his principles, and who actively supports his World Revolution-preaching Foreign Commissar.
That's all I've got for now.
Oh, and...
Voilà!
![]()
This video assumes that the USSR would be invaded and Communism destroyed by an international coalition if Trotsky came to power. Which is pretty likely. However this video think that will happen AFTER the USSR invades and conquers Poland and Germany. If both Russia and Germany are Communist, their is no kicking Communism out of Europe, if Trotsky was able to get this far, all of Europe would be under his thumb.
[snip]
Man, this takes me back:
Ok, that was insighful, honestly I only asked because Trosky is the meme of the 20 century, and I was wondering about minor aspects of his rule (imposible in otl, I know, just change his personallity a bit or better change him with other troskyist, as suggested) especially the internal organization of the SSRs, border drawing of those, treatment of the jews, etc., compared to Stalin. Also there is an ironic pleasure of seeing the man that criticized Stalin so fiercely and who's followers even today look up as if was an angel on earth, do the same thing as Stalin when put in the same position, but I wondered about the real differences in such divergence. Also the morbosity of seeing what would the antisemitic do or say about a jew ruling the USSR.The problem with wolfpaw’s speculation is of course the domestic economy. Namely the prices of agricultural staples and manufactured consumption goods (including canned food and textiles). Namely the withdrawal of peasant, rural proletarian, [genuine] kulak and rural petite-bourgeois marketeer economic activity, in that order of significance. That is the social crisis known as the scissors crisis. A crisis for which the party’s response could only be defeat, or collectivisation-forced industrialisation which mobilised the proletariat, subjugated the peasantry as a rural proletariat, starved a number of million people due to the destruction of market based logistics, castrated the industrial proletariat as it swelled in its adolecence leaving a political and social unic, and (for party members) so divided the party primarily on competence but secondarily on personality faction or politics that the party had to purge itself somehow to survive. Oh and incidentally labour re-educate a shit load of workers and peasants.
Now this can vary between the grossly incompetent gulag of the 1930s, the liquidation of the closed camps and forced starvation of 1941-1947, or Dzherzhinsky’s (when he could exercise effective control) humane hell. Given that I am a historical materialist, should Dzherzhinsky survive under a Z-K-T left line, not even he could restrain the camps from becoming incompetent volume maximization hellholes. Not he could restrain the economic crimes of gleaning or going slow. Millions of workers and peasants will necessarily win fabulous prizes because peasants could not be mollified in the 1920s with the pathetic consumer goods outputs. And a couple of hundred thousand party members minimum. Could a man who opposed Gulag have reduced the historical gulag’s level of awful? Yes. ****And necessarily the converse.**** The closed camps were liquidated in 1941 historically: imagine if the camps with rights of correspondence were also liquidated based on an economic analysis of gulag’s drain on the economy. So a Dzherzhinsky may have rationalized the suffering economically or even reduced it once peasants and workers were in the camp system. Sure. But not even the Radek constitution prevented the logic of the party’s need to politically and then socially remove the fruitful capacities of peasants and workers and then shove them down those people’s throats claiming it was appropriate meat. Two great and blooming classes were force fed their own flourescence. Trotsky can’t change that class relation in the value-form. Neither can Stalin. Neither could your choice of libdem, fa, or reactionary.
You’re looking for a different line of retreat than the historical NEP. Maybe the militant godless seizing the tithes, with the bloody expectations, could have kept the social surplus extracted from peasants at 1913 proportions of output. Of course this is just the other version of the Ural-Siberian method, as eventually columns of peasants march on the cities.
Trotsky Lenin Stalin; The Left SRs, the Right SRs; the Cadets; Baron Ungern-Sternberg. Nobody is going to be able to resolve the economic problem of the price differential of agricultural and industrial goods without blood or horrific suffering.
And Z-K-T or the Trotskyist opposition frankly lack the Balls, just as the Stalin line did, to do anything but tail end the emiserated urban workers demand for cheap bread at the cost of their own and the rural workers freedom.
Yours,
Sam R.
I’d suggest the OP’s suggestion at best results in A British Raj. At worst in the extermination of most Eastern Europeans and most central Asians in the former USSR.
[edited to expand contractions and correct phone posting]
Seems familiar...Other, weirder, ideas that Trotsky had that are often overlooked:
- Chewing gum is banned!