WI: Effects of a *spartacist rebellion in the worldwide socialist movement

[Luciano]

So the october revolution divided the once strong and unified WW1-era socialist movements of various countries (like Brazil) in leninist and libertarian socialist/anarchist factions. Down the line the leninists (and their subsequent ideological progeny: stalinists, maoists, trotskyists etcetera) eventually became the dominant socialist tendency worldwide, whereas before 1917, the socialist "establishment" was a more libertarian, anti-authoritarian one.
Now if a russian Liebknecht had carried out the russian revolution, presumably favoring a form of socialism closer to the (then) international establishment, or if another world power like France had had the world's first major socialist revolution (again, presumably closer to the then standard anti-authoritarian standard) could that have prevented the aforementioned schisms in worldwide socialism?
Also, had a *spartacist revolution succeeded as the world's first major socialist revolution would that have led to a "domino effect" in other countries as their socialist movements would not have been divided but, instead, would have gained momentum?

 

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The division between anarchism and marxism sprung about during the era of the First International and the rift between Marx and Bakunin, not due to the October Revolution. And the major split of the socialist movement in the Great War period was the split between the reformists, who capitulated to national chauvinism and supported their various nations in the war, and the revolutionaries who took an internationalist stance, like Lenin, Luxemburg, Bordiga etc. There will always be a divide between anarchists and marxists, it's an irrevocable difference in theoretical and practical understanding of revolution. The 'authoritarian' and 'libertarian' dilemma is a false dichotomy, really, as Engels explained half a century before October:

A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.​

The Spartacists, like Luxemburg and Liebknecht, knew this and supported the Russian Revolution, even if they did recognise and criticise the excess to which the bolsheviks were willing to go in order to hold back counter-revolution. Liebkecht in a speech said "The failure of the Russian Socialist Republic will be the defeat of the proletariat of the whole world." The bolsheviks saw it as their Paris Commune moment and weren't willing to let themselves be lined up and shot. If a revolution had happened anywhere in the more advanced capitalist countries - Germany, Britain, France - it would have changed the dynamic of the Russian Revolution completely. The Russians were desperately holding out for the European revolution to support them but it never came and those tools they had created to suppress the reactionaries lingered far beyond their necessary time.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

May I just ask… how are the Spartacists going to win? They weren't exactly inches away from victory IOTL; their position was exceptionally poor and it was correspondingly exceptionally unlikely that they could have succeeded. With the German Social Democrats (law-abiding to a fault, even when the law was blatantly biased against them, as indeed it often was; I'm not exaggerating, look at the judicial system even under Weimar, let alone the Nazis' open contempt for them) firmly on the side of the authorities and with millions of angry, well-armed young men coming home who largely viewed revolutionaries as 'traitors' and 'rats' (!!!), how is a group of people who never managed to get much momentum going to overcome the forces of more-or-less the whole rest of the country and suddenly take power? Weimar was not Kerensky's Russian Republic; the situation was hugely different.

It's like all the threads that pop up every now and then about the Paris Commune succeeding; I'm sure it would have marvellously interesting consequences about the future direction of socialism, but at some point one does have to butt in and ask "How?"

 

[GiantMonkeyMan]

May I just ask… how are the Spartacists going to win?

That's not what Luciano was asking, though. They basically asked 'what if the Russian Revolution has been lead by someone like the Spartacist, Karl Liebknecht?'. I don't think much difference would have happened because the conditions in Russia forced the bolsheviks down paths they needed to take to suppress counter-revolution. A Russian 'Liebknect' would have been forced to do the same things Lenin was forced to do.

On the other hand, in order for a revolution to be successful in Germany is a different question but mainly I think the moribund SPD needs to be broken first.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

That's not what Luciano was asking, though. They basically asked 'what if the Russian Revolution has been lead by someone like the Spartacist, Karl Liebknecht?'. I don't think much difference would have happened because the conditions in Russia forced the bolsheviks down paths they needed to take to suppress counter-revolution. A Russian 'Liebknect' would have been forced to do the same things Lenin was forced to do.

I interpreted the phrase *spartacist revolution here

Also, had a *spartacist revolution succeeded as the world's first major socialist revolution

to mean a revolutionary movement in Germany similar to, but not the same as (hence the *), OTL's Spartacist movement. I didn't interpret it as the same premise as the previous paragraph, a Russian Karl Liebknecht/Rosa Luxemburg.

You're probably right, though.

On the other hand, in order for a revolution to be successful in Germany is a different question but mainly I think the moribund SPD needs to be broken first.

If you think that for a revolution to be successful in Germany there needs to be a PoD well, well before the revolution, we do not disagree.

 

[sciscisciortino]

How were the Bolsheviks not linked to the international socialist movement?