WI: Socialism failed to take over Russia, but was established in Germany?

[NiGHTS]

So, say that the Bolsheviks failed to take over Russia and as a result the USSR ,and it's influence on Socialism, is butterflied away leaving no (awful Soviet) model for other countries to follow, which means different types of socialism can come to fruition.

However, in Germany, let's say that after a loss in World War 1, like OTL, instead of the Nazis taking over, it's the socialists. How does German Socialism look like? What does it do? What are it's goals? And how do other nations react to it? This Socialism should look very different from OTL established socialist nations as Germany is already an industrialized state, of the likes that Karl Marx said were ideal for socialism. He said ,iirc, first Primitives Communism, then feudalistic, then mercantilism, then capitalism, then socialism, and finally Communism, or something along those degrees.

 

[Mackus]

Hmmm. Awful soviet model? Don't blame Bolsheviks, socialist regimes didn't need any help to be awful, they came up with same insanities and cruelties independently of each other.
With Cheka butterflied away, someone else would figure out that fastest way to deal with "reactionaries, kulaks, and saboteurs" is to kill them.

 

[NiGHTS]

Hmmm. Awful soviet model? Don't blame Bolsheviks, socialist regimes didn't need any help to be awful, they came up with same insanities and cruelties independently of each other.
With Cheka butterflied away, someone else would figure out that fastest way to deal with "reactionaries, kulaks, and saboteurs" is to kill them.

I was thinking of the awful economic and political model.

 

[Mackus]

I was thinking of the awful economic and political model.

Awful economic and political model are essence of socialism.
Once you decide that wealth isn't created by capitalists and labourers cooperating by voluntarily exchanging money and labour, but is stolen and kept away from proletariat by capitalist exploiters, you'll keep killing people until wealth comes out, but prosperity mysteriously fails to materialise.
And if you compromise and say that capitalists are doing important job for the society but should be heavily taxed (as opposed to wanting them expropriated or/and killed), you're no longer socialist in early XX century sense. Other socialist will hurl stones at you and call you uncle Tom for the bourgeoise.

 

[NiGHTS]

Awful economic and political model are essence of socialism.
Once you decide that wealth isn't created by capitalists and labourers cooperating by voluntarily exchanging money and labour, but is stolen and kept away from proletariat by capitalist exploiters, you'll keep killing people until wealth comes out, but prosperity mysteriously fails to materialise.
And if you compromise and say that capitalists are doing important job for the society but should be heavily taxed (as opposed to wanting them expropriated or/and killed), you're no longer socialist in early XX century sense. Other socialist will hurl stones at you and call you uncle Tom for the bourgeoise.

Well, that was the model of socialism that the Soviets created, but how would Germany, without Soviet influences on Socialism, create a different form of it? Like, how would Germany socialism look like? And don't give off the no true Scotsman fallacy as there are literally dozens of different forms of socialism. I am fully expecting that a Red Germany will have it's socialism completely different from what the Soviets made and promoted. Marxism-Leninism doesn't exist in the TL. Don't expect Red Germany to have the same exact results Of the USSR.

 

[Mackus]

Well, I do expect it. You asked for opinions/predictions what would happen. And I predicted this outcome.

 

[Isaac Beach]

Well. I'm not an expert on Socialism but I'd expect less mass graves of a country that doesn't have to crash course it's industrialisation with starving workers. I think regearing the economy, and actually managing to survive whilst surrounded by vengeful conservatives, will be this Germany's biggest problem.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Hmmm. Awful soviet model? Don't blame Bolsheviks, socialist regimes didn't need any help to be awful, they came up with same insanities and cruelties independently of each other.
With Cheka butterflied away, someone else would figure out that fastest way to deal with "reactionaries, kulaks, and saboteurs" is to kill them.

The model for Communism in other nations was based on Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks crushed their political opponents, including other Socialist/Communist parties. Every nation that adopted Communism did so not independently based on Marx, but based on the Bolshevik model.

 

[TRH]

Awful economic and political model are essence of socialism.
Once you decide that wealth isn't created by capitalists and labourers cooperating by voluntarily exchanging money and labour, but is stolen and kept away from proletariat by capitalist exploiters, you'll keep killing people until wealth comes out, but prosperity mysteriously fails to materialise.
And if you compromise and say that capitalists are doing important job for the society but should be heavily taxed (as opposed to wanting them expropriated or/and killed), you're no longer socialist in early XX century sense. Other socialist will hurl stones at you and call you uncle Tom for the bourgeoise.

Okay, so Socialism has to involve arbitrarily killing people...because a method that doesn't involve arbitrarily killing people wouldn't be Socialism. Got it.

In answer to the OP, I don't think anyone to the left of the SPD ever had a chance in Germany. When even Ebert was willing to make concessions to the Freikorps to stop the Spartacists, you'd need a situation where the Social Democrats had worn out their own legitimacy with workers for something more radical to be attractive. And that would take a lot of time.

 

[GiantMonkeyMan]

In answer to the OP, I don't think anyone to the left of the SPD ever had a chance in Germany. When even Ebert was willing to make concessions to the Freikorps to stop the Spartacists, you'd need a situation where the Social Democrats had worn out their own legitimacy with workers for something more radical to be attractive. And that would take a lot of time.

There was a period where the USPD were the second largest party in Parliament with 5 million votes, second only to the SPD who had just over 6 million. The USPD ended up splitting over the 21 Conditions that were a prerequisite for joining the Comintern but, as the OP has stated, the Bolsheviks don't ever come to power - which definitely changes a lot of the situation. There's definitely enough room there to imagine butterflies where the revolutionary left builds a Räterepublik.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

I reckon Europe with a Communist Germany would look a lot like Europe during the Napoleonic Era except that the actual war will be dramatically delayed due to the rest of Europe being too tired due to WWI. However, by the 1940s or 50s expect an alt-WWII.

Ain't no one gonna want to live with a Communist State in the heart of Europe, let alone one controlling one of the most powerful states in Europe.

 

[Mackus]

The model for Communism in other nations was based on Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks crushed their political opponents, including other Socialist/Communist parties. Every nation that adopted Communism did so not independently based on Marx, but based on the Bolshevik model.

Anarchists in Catalonia were in opposition to Bolsheviks, were explicitly trying to create alternative to it, and ended up doing pretty much the same thing. They were simply faced with reality that people aren't willing to go along with them voluntarily. So they ended up using guns.

 

[Mackus]

There was a period where the USPD were the second largest party in Parliament with 5 million votes, second only to the SPD who had just over 6 million. The USPD ended up splitting over the 21 Conditions that were a prerequisite for joining the Comintern but, as the OP has stated, the Bolsheviks don't ever come to power - which definitely changes a lot of the situation. There's definitely enough room there to imagine butterflies where the revolutionary left builds a Räterepublik.

That does make a huge difference. Is it possible, that without Bolshevik Russia, USPD doesn't split off the SPD either, and radical faction of "greater" SPD marginalises moderates like Ebert, radicalises the party, and at some point seizes total power?

 

[Cregan]

Without the successful example of the Bolshevik Revolution, I think revolutionary socialism loses a lot of appeal in the West and reformist/parliamentary socialism gains even more popularity.

Revolutionary socialism can become popular in Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Latin America though.

 

[Mightyboosh5]

@Mackus do you have a source that suggests the anarchists in Catalonia committed anything near the crimes against humanity that the soviets committed.

Of course they killed many including members of the clergy and capitalist class who were definitely not all deserving however that was a far cry from organised mass incarceration forced starvation and execution of millions of innocents that was the case under Bolshevik rule.

Also a syndicalist system of organising Catalonia with a broad base of support within the cities and countryside is massively different from the one party dictatorship that occured under Lenin and Stalin.

(Edit- it was accidental saying "who were all deserving" it should have said "who were not all deserving" apologies that it made it seem as if I supported the killings.)

 

[Alex1guy]

@Mackus do you have a source that suggests the anarchists in Catalonia committed anything near the crimes against humanity that the soviets committed.

Of course they killed many including members of the clergy and capitalist class who were definitely all deserving however that was a far cry from organised mass incarceration forced starvation and execution of millions of innocents that was the case under Bolshevik rule.

Also a syndicalist system of organising Catalonia with a broad base of support within the cities and countryside is massively different from the one party dictatorship that occured under Lenin and Stalin.

If you have to kill lots of people to make them go along with your political beliefs, they are probably pretty shit or you're doing it wrong.

 

[NiGHTS]

I mostly hear positive things about Republican Catalonia. They were against the nationalists and would end up losing to them, leading to Franco's rule. George Orwell wrote positive things about them and he would become one of the Soviets biggest critics.

 

[NiGHTS]

If you have to kill lots of people to make them go along with your political beliefs, they are probably pretty shit or you're doing it wrong.

It must be noted that they came into existence during the Spanish civil war. You should read a Wikipedia article on them, much different from the Bolsheviks, more like modern day Rojava, but that's too current to talk about.

 

[Mightyboosh5]

@Alex1guy i mean by that logic all political beliefs and governments in history have been shitty or doing it wrong, literally all governments established even our liberal democracies have involved the use of force.

I mean this is besides the point it's acknowledged that anarchist Catalonia were far better in terms of killing
Innocents than the nationalists or even the other republican factions like the Stalinists .

 

[tuxer]

Awful economic and political model are essence of socialism.
Once you decide that wealth isn't created by capitalists and labourers cooperating by voluntarily exchanging money and labour, but is stolen and kept away from proletariat by capitalist exploiters, you'll keep killing people until wealth comes out, but prosperity mysteriously fails to materialise.

Cooperating? Voluntary? The threat of homelessness and death by starvation is not voluntary and the relationship between labor and capital is not cooperation- it's a parasidic relationship.

Anarchists in Catalonia were in opposition to Bolsheviks, were explicitly trying to create alternative to it, and ended up doing pretty much the same thing. They were simply faced with reality that people aren't willing to go along with them voluntarily. So they ended up using guns.

That is a half-lie. The origins of the Spanish Civil War rests with the 1936 election which the left won fair and square. Fascist and right-wing authoritarians like Franco did not like that people dared to choose the "wrong" party and overthrew the democratically elected government.

Yes, the anarchists did kill people- such as capitalists and members of the clergy- but this was in the midst of a civil war against psychotic thugs that wanted to turn back the clock and return to a golden age where the peasants did not challenge the systemic oppression of masses and the undeserved privilege wielded by a few.