WI: Soviet Union gets democratic socialism?

Suppose that the revolution and it's aftermath weren't so bloody after, so that Lenins red terror wasn't necessary. Followed by a far more sane successor of Lenin (Putting Stalin out of the way), who this would have been, the Soviet Union transforms into a peaceful, democratic, socialist state.

But what consequences would this have had on the USSR?

- Maybe no rapid industrialisation (Since there was no Stalin to push it)?
- Far less militaristic?
- Even more fond of "Socialism in one country", or even more fond of "liberating the world from oppressive fascism and capitalism"?
- With less militarism, would Nazi Germany have an easier game in Russia, or would the Germans have it had even more difficult (Since more people would fight for a democratic Soviet Union)?
 

Hnau

Banned
That's the topic of my timeline, though it is in its early stages.

Industrialization would have been slower without the formulation of such a huge initiative under Stalin, but there would have been more people. We can look at pre-Soviet Russia and also maybe at the NEP period, to see what the more gradual industrialization rate was and apply that to our scenario. I have yet to go through this link, but I think it offers a treasure of insight on the economic development of the country before the Great War and the revolution, and that it could be used to create a pretty good guess as to how things might have happened without a command economy. One thing that article shows is that a lot of economic growth in pre-Soviet Russia was fueled by the rapid growth of the population, so we could apply that to divergent population growth.

It would be less militaristic, I would think, without the experience of the Civil War and the more radical Marxist ideology. I would think "Socialism in one country" would be more popular as a result. If Nazism arises in Germany, they might just defeat Russia easier, but who knows... after all, the United States was a very non-militaristic country in terms of personnel and preparedness, had a large population, democracy, and they did very well when they started up a war machine. If Nazi Germany started looking aggressive, the alt-USSR would start building up an army, air force, and everything just like the US did, and maybe it wouldn't be too late when Hitler invaded.
 
Suppose that the revolution and it's aftermath weren't so bloody after, so that Lenins red terror wasn't necessary. Followed by a far more sane successor of Lenin (Putting Stalin out of the way), who this would have been, the Soviet Union transforms into a peaceful, democratic, socialist state.

But what consequences would this have had on the USSR?

- Maybe no rapid industrialisation (Since there was no Stalin to push it)?
- Far less militaristic?
- Even more fond of "Socialism in one country", or even more fond of "liberating the world from oppressive fascism and capitalism"?
- With less militarism, would Nazi Germany have an easier game in Russia, or would the Germans have it had even more difficult (Since more people would fight for a democratic Soviet Union)?

File it under ASB. Trotsky was intent on abandoning the NEP and wanted "rapid industrialisation at the expense of the peasantry"
 
That's the topic of my timeline, though it is in its early stages.

It would be less militaristic, I would think, without the experience of the Civil War and the more radical Marxist ideology. I would think "Socialism in one country" would be more popular as a result. If Nazism arises in Germany, they might just defeat Russia easier, but who knows... after all, the United States was a very non-militaristic country in terms of personnel and preparedness, had a large population, democracy, and they did very well when they started up a war machine. If Nazi Germany started looking aggressive, the alt-USSR would start building up an army, air force, and everything just like the US did, and maybe it wouldn't be too late when Hitler invaded.

Well, the US has one thing your alt-USSR wouldn't have - the world's largest industrial base. OTOH, with a less radical USSR, it's more likely to come to an agreement with the Allies, putting Hitler into a two-front war from the beginning, and probably securing a cuttoff of Romanian oil.

BTW, why do we need the "Soviet Union?" There were other leftist groups, powerful ones, in the revolution - if we weaken the Bolsheviks, say by keeping Lenin off the train, we might end up with a leftist coalition led by the Social-Revolutionaries, which would be in a stronger position re popular support when the fairly inevitable clash with the olde regime supporters came. (I am doubtful that some sort of civil war can be avoided: too many men with armed followers and incompatible political ideas).Trotsky might be willing to come on board, given that according to ideology Russia really wasn't ready for a proper Communist revolution anyway.

Bruce
 
The Soviet Union could possibly end up with Council Communism, which would have unions, factories, and regions have democratic worker's councils, which would elect delegates and send them to a national assembly. This would basically be a national worker's democracy. It would still be called the Soviet Union since Soviet = Council. How to get this system up and running, though...
 

Hnau

Banned
BTW, why do we need the "Soviet Union?" There were other leftist groups, powerful ones, in the revolution - if we weaken the Bolsheviks, say by keeping Lenin off the train, we might end up with a leftist coalition led by the Social-Revolutionaries

Well, exactly the premise of my timeline. Instead of the Soviet Union under the Bolshies, you get the People's Federation (Federation of People's Republics in long form) under the Esers.
 
Suppose that the revolution and it's aftermath weren't so bloody after, so that Lenins red terror wasn't necessary. Followed by a far more sane successor of Lenin (Putting Stalin out of the way), who this would have been, the Soviet Union transforms into a peaceful, democratic, socialist state.

The premise is sound but I question the PoD. Undemocratic socialism was Bolshevism. They were an organisation of avowed putschists. As has been pointed out, you want a differant strain of left-wing thought to prevail in Russia.

But what consequences would this have had on the USSR?

- Maybe no rapid industrialisation (Since there was no Stalin to push it)?

I can only echo Hnau, who is the man in the know.

- Far less militaristic?

You'd certainly think so?

- Even more fond of "Socialism in one country", or even more fond of "liberating the world from oppressive fascism and capitalism"?

Socialism in one country is, in its way, more democratic than world revolution. Its about the people of individual countries making the choice, assuming, of course, that they actually do. And of course its just a way more sensible policy.

- With less militarism, would Nazi Germany have an easier game in Russia, or would the Germans have it had even more difficult (Since more people would fight for a democratic Soviet Union)?

But the butterflies!

Anyway, putting up the butterfly net, just about every... well, east Slav at any rate, I don't know about the other SSRs was willing to fight to save themselves themselves from national extermination or slavery as it was. I will say that a democrqatic country has no reason to murder a large part of its officer corps.
 
File it under ASB. Trotsky was intent on abandoning the NEP and wanted "rapid industrialisation at the expense of the peasantry"

The POD is less bloody civil war so the "Red Army" Trotsky doesn't exist, and instead we get the far more Menshivik 1905 Trotsky.

I guess the Bolsheviks instead of having to fight the Whites all across Russia instead simply seize power much quicker. Lenin in this case feels more secure in his power and doesn't need the Red Terror.

I think the rapid industrialization program of Trotsky will really depend on how Brest-Livosk goes. If the treaty ends better for Russia, Lenin's successor would feel more secure and have better relations with Germany. If the need for industrialization was a defensive response to foreign threats than in this TL the authoritarian nature of industrialization wouldn't come about.

On Socialism in one country vs. World revolution I think that World Revolution would be definitely be the outcome of a more peaceful SU. The thing is that this would be characterised by overall more internationalism and better relations with the West. I think the Soviets would likely sign on to the Wilsonian ideal of disarmament and a new international system. This is because of the lack of foreign involvement in the Civil War the Soviets would be much more friendly. I still think the Soviets would help the Communist Parties of Europe and continue to push for more revolutions. Internationalism OTL as a part of Socialism has been more pronounced under Social Democratic Regimes than Stalinist or Authoritarian Regimes.

Overall I think the Bolshevik Party would not be totally open to democracy, I think it would continue to guide the nation. I think that maybe something like the Iranian, semi-authoritarianism would exist. Giving up power would be too difficult for the bolshevists.
 
The POD is less bloody civil war so the "Red Army" Trotsky doesn't exist, and instead we get the far more Menshivik 1905 Trotsky.

I guess the Bolsheviks instead of having to fight the Whites all across Russia instead simply seize power much quicker. Lenin in this case feels more secure in his power and doesn't need the Red Terror.

I think the rapid industrialization program of Trotsky will really depend on how Brest-Livosk goes. If the treaty ends better for Russia, Lenin's successor would feel more secure and have better relations with Germany. If the need for industrialization was a defensive response to foreign threats than in this TL the authoritarian nature of industrialization wouldn't come about.

On Socialism in one country vs. World revolution I think that World Revolution would be definitely be the outcome of a more peaceful SU. The thing is that this would be characterised by overall more internationalism and better relations with the West. I think the Soviets would likely sign on to the Wilsonian ideal of disarmament and a new international system. This is because of the lack of foreign involvement in the Civil War the Soviets would be much more friendly. I still think the Soviets would help the Communist Parties of Europe and continue to push for more revolutions. Internationalism OTL as a part of Socialism has been more pronounced under Social Democratic Regimes than Stalinist or Authoritarian Regimes.

Overall I think the Bolshevik Party would not be totally open to democracy, I think it would continue to guide the nation. I think that maybe something like the Iranian, semi-authoritarianism would exist. Giving up power would be too difficult for the bolshevists.

No. This would require a pre february revolution in place. I think it may even have to go back to pre 1903 during the bolshevik menshevik split.

No, no , no, no. International Revolution would have meant every nation on EARTH (namely, Britain, France, America, Canada, Japan as well as others) invading Russia at the first Whiff of internal subversion.

If lenin intended for a social democratic russia, then why did he ban all other parties after the winter palace coup?

Communism would have been resisted by every western nation.

There was NO way Marxist-leninism could be applied to democratic socialism. Lenin intended on ditching the NEP.

The Russian civil war brought about War Communism, which lenin intended to return to anyway.
 
Last edited:

Hnau

Banned
I can only echo Hnau, who is the man in the know.

Well, what I did say about industrialization... its inevitably more complicated than that, and depends on the circumstances of the timeline. The socialist government might still nationalize heavy industry, transportation, banks, so we should look more closely at the NEP period to see what would happen. There's also reconstruction and famine to worry about, regardless, and that'll keep industrial expansion low as well. Lots of factors could come into play, but the good thing is we have something of a general idea of how Russia would expand its industrial sector without the Five-Year Plans and other efforts. I still need to do more research on such specifics.
 
Ah, yes, here it is. Council Communism has some interesting traces of anarchism in it.
However, Lenin or a sucessor doing this is extremely unlikely. I can only see a POD in the 1900-1910 period working. Or before that. For that matter, most democratic USSR's should come before Lenin.
As far as industrialisation, it's an odd situation. While a more democratic USSR would not implement the measures of Stalin and thus wouldn't drive industry (especially in the north and east), a more open USSR could see more investment from foreigners. If we say that these trends are equal in volume, then the result is that industry is the same amount, but concentrated in better regions.
I do not know the effects of Communism on Europe, but I suspect there would still be some backlash agaimst it by the reactionaries and the elites. However, the middle class may not be as willing to accept fascism.
 
No. This would require a pre february revolution in place. I think it may even have to go back to pre 1903 during the bolshevik menshevik split.

No, no , no, no. International Revolution would have meant every nation on EARTH (namely, Britain, France, America, Canada, Japan as well as others) invading Russia at the first Whiff of internal subversion.

If lenin intended for a social democratic russia, then why did he ban all other parties after the winter palace coup?

Communism would have been resisted by every western nation.

There was NO way Marxist-leninism could be applied to democratic socialism. Lenin intended on ditching the NEP.

The Russian civil war brought about War Communism, which lenin intended to return to anyway.

I think the poster was proposing no War Communism in the first place. Trotsky was not necessarily a Bolshevik until and right up to armed uprising against Kerensky. During that fluid time it was not even obvious that the Bolsheviks were likely to be anything but a small corner of the political spectrum.

I don't think Lenin did intend to create a social-democratic Russia, however since there is no Civil War there is no extreme threat which led to greater extremism within Russia. The country as a whole will be richer, and the cry for democracy would be greater. The Bolsheviks would not be able to win the argument, we are ordering you around because of the threat of White Terror. The Russian people are not wed to authoritarianism as much as many think. Maybe this is idealistic, but the POD itself is idealistic.

Of course the Western Nations would not just roll over to the Communist Revolution, but there was a large number of sympathetic ears in the west that would be allies of a Social Democratic USSR. The Western Nations would still lock up communists and use them as scapegoats for more repressive legislation but considering the friendliness that some like FDR had with Stalin, imagine what kind of relationship the US would have with a far more democratic Russia.
 
I think the poster was proposing no War Communism in the first place. Trotsky was not necessarily a Bolshevik until and right up to armed uprising against Kerensky. During that fluid time it was not even obvious that the Bolsheviks were likely to be anything but a small corner of the political spectrum.

I don't think Lenin did intend to create a social-democratic Russia, however since there is no Civil War there is no extreme threat which led to greater extremism within Russia. The country as a whole will be richer, and the cry for democracy would be greater. The Bolsheviks would not be able to win the argument, we are ordering you around because of the threat of White Terror. The Russian people are not wed to authoritarianism as much as many think. Maybe this is idealistic, but the POD itself is idealistic.

Of course the Western Nations would not just roll over to the Communist Revolution, but there was a large number of sympathetic ears in the west that would be allies of a Social Democratic USSR. The Western Nations would still lock up communists and use them as scapegoats for more repressive legislation but considering the friendliness that some like FDR had with Stalin, imagine what kind of relationship the US would have with a far more democratic Russia.

I filed it under ASB becasue of the monarchists and others forming the White faction to fight the bolsheviks. This led to the white and red terrors.

This scenario of a swedenesque Russia is ASB. I can see the entire ASB race having to put every ounce of strength to make this scenario plausible.
 
The Russian people are not wed to authoritarianism as much as many think. Maybe this is idealistic, but the POD itself is idealistic.
I call shenanigans on that comment. Russian history is a series of cycles alternating between authoritarianism and anarchy stretching all the way back to the Golden Horde and the Time of Troubles up to Putin and Medvedev. In fact, the USSR was nothing more than a continuation of the Tsarist state in all but name (state owns everything, centralized government, secret police, single commanding figure). Democracy taking root would be the tougher pill to swallow. Think Weimar times 100.
 
I call shenanigans on that comment. Russian history is a series of cycles alternating between authoritarianism and anarchy stretching all the way back to the Golden Horde and the Time of Troubles up to Putin and Medvedev. In fact, the USSR was nothing more than a continuation of the Tsarist state in all but name (state owns everything, centralized government, secret police, single commanding figure). Democracy taking root would be the tougher pill to swallow. Think Weimar times 100.

This is all enormously debateable. Sure, Russia has been very unfortunate OTL, but this is a site about ATLs, and there are lots of places to give Russia a brighter future. Your "Weimar" comment seems to be based on a rather dubious and olf-fashioned view of interwar Germany.

And as for the idea that Soviet Union was a continuation of the Tsarist state... the Tsar's government most certainly did not "own everything". In any case both changed too much over their existence to be comapred discreetly. It was only with Alexander III that secret police activity became endemic, and the "single commanding figure" was often illusory in the 1700s, the time of palace revolutions finishing up in dramatic fashion with Paul I. And the centralised government thing is questionable. Both were run from one city, but so is France. Whereas the Soviets relied of local ethnic elites, which serves as just one illustration of the tremendous ideological differences between the two...
 

Hnau

Banned
I call shenanigans on that comment. Russian history is a series of cycles alternating between authoritarianism and anarchy stretching all the way back to the Golden Horde and the Time of Troubles up to Putin and Medvedev. In fact, the USSR was nothing more than a continuation of the Tsarist state in all but name (state owns everything, centralized government, secret police, single commanding figure). Democracy taking root would be the tougher pill to swallow. Think Weimar times 100.

That definitely has some merit. Russian culture favors much more authoritarian measures in government, but it also holds tradition of distrust, subversion of the government going back hundreds of years. However, its not as if there wasn't any progress throughout history. The emancipation of the serfs, the creation of an underground labor movement... all new developments that show that Russia was a place where historical progress was moving ahead, though not at the pace of Western Europe, but, then again, Russia had yet to industrialize extensively and the country belonged to a different, pre-industrial set of economic and social conditions.

Now, the Tsarist government most definitely did not own everything, that is an idea that has been refuted by recent evidence. The Soviet government increased state ownership, while during the Witte reforms there was a serious initiative made to drastically increase private ownership of land amongst the peasantry and the development of capitalism there. The Imperial government held it back, eventually, but the point is that the people didn't. When the NEP was instituted, capitalism was rampant, more so than probably even the Tsarist period, showing that in a short time that the Russian people could adapt and thrive in a capitalist economy. As for democracy, there was a tradition of democratic councils in the village commune, the mir, that was very old, many decades in fact... people were not strangers to democracy by any means.

So, the Russian people, and that's what matters, were not destined by any means to a fate that involved a continuation of the old. If anything, the Soviets enforced that by taking totalitarianism and the command economy to an extreme unlike anything found in the Romanov period. Might a strong man become popular and take power for a long time? Sure, look at what's happening with Putin, and his popularity. That's a very Russian thing, and it won't go away until some kind of Vietnam or Watergate experience. But he'll be elected, and he'd depend on popular representatives to pass through his measures. There'd be a legislative check of some kind against him, unlike the Stalinist period. Maybe, if the said strong man is crazy enough, he'll fight to cement a dictatorship, like Hitler in Germany, but, look at Faeelin's Stresemann timeline... not every strongman needs to lead a country into disaster.
 
I thought the Soviet Union originally retained the Duma but Lenin scrapped it when his party failed to win...
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I remember reading a very interesting essay as to what would have happened had the Germans not sent Lenin to Russia. Basically, the Russian Republic survives and Kerensky becomes a sort of Russian Atatürk. Russia's a much nicer place as a result.
 
Well, the USSR certainly was making progress. The Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian SFSR was created in 1990 and if I remember correctly, but the 1970s or 1980s the legislature wasn't simply a rubber-stamp thing.
 
I call shenanigans on that comment. Russian history is a series of cycles alternating between authoritarianism and anarchy stretching all the way back to the Golden Horde and the Time of Troubles up to Putin and Medvedev

You know, "alternating between anarchy and authoritarianism" pretty much sums up Spanish history between 1500 and the 1970s. When's the next Junta taking over? :D

Seriously, this sort of Richard Pipes "Russia is fundamentally undemocratic" stuff is rather dubious - most pre-modern societies aren't very democratic. Russia's problem in 1917 was not some inherent wrongness in the Russian character, but the fact that Russia was a backwards, mostly illiterate agrarian society with no history of democratic rule - say, like France in 1789. (Or, China. Doesn't seem to have prevented the Taiwanese from doing OK, although I suppose Hendryk will show up soon to explain to me just How Much More Civilized 1949 Chinese were compared to 1917 Russians. :) )

I imagine if the Third Reich had laster till the 90's before collapsing, the old chestnut about Germany's "special path" and the the way it's history conditioned it to dictatorship would be still very much in style...

Bruce
 
Top