[HoniSoit]

If I can indulge in a little counterfactual history, I will be very interested to hear what people think would happen if working-class, socialist revolutions indeed broke out in Western Europe (more prominently in Germany, but also in Britain and France), say, in 1918 as the Bolsheviks had hoped they would to 'rescue' the Russian Revolution. Would the new socialist countries of Western Europe be able to rescue the Russian Revolution from its retreat into Socialism in One Country and degeneration into Stalinism? What factors would be preventing such a rescue e.g. some sorts of nationalism or national interests that may not be overcome? And what could these Western European socialist countries do concretely to rescue the Soviet Union?

[Cookie Monster]

I speculate that,

If Germany, France and Britain had revolutions and if socialist states had been established in these countries, then the prospect of a socialist revolution all over Europe would have been an important factor. I am not sure how the socialist states could resolve their differences on what difference this would make in the development of the socialist state in Russia, but they could settle to disagree while concentrating on spreading the socialist revolution to southern Europe and Scandinavia. This would mean war and possibly the United States might choose to support the capitalist states and prolong the war. The United States would also focus on establishing a pacific alliance against socialism/communism. During or after the war(s), I am not sure were the political gravity of an alliance or union of these socialist states would be, Berlin seems more likely.

[HoniSoit]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Cookie Monster.

This tremendous uncertainty is what I was thinking about as well. It is often assumed by socialists who agreeing with the Bolsheviks think had socialist revolutions broke out or even succeeded in West Europe it would be able to save the Russia Revolution from its later distortions and degenerations as well as the isolation and hostility it faced. However, it would seem quite simplistic to assume that this is necessarily case when there are a great deal of uncertainties.

[Cookie Monster]

Revolutions and their outcome is hard to predict. Even assuming a certain outcome of these revolutions, there are simply too many variables to predict the course of the Soviet Union in these settings. I think it has more to do with the wish that the Soviet Union did not experience Stalinism. If that is the case, then we can speculate on a much smaller question for an alternative history: "who wanted and could have killed Stalin before Lenin's stroke/death?"

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Possibly a one party continent for 20 or so years and then a gradual "balkanisation" (Sp?) as various countries put there own needs ahead of the Central Committee. After all, what a French communist wanted would have been different to an Italian or a German and no great doctrine could override 2000 years of ethnic history however altruistic the plan. People would still act the same with there petty bickering's and national/ethnic ingrained behaviour.

I really don't see how any thing would be too different from what happened apart from the lack of Nazis.

[FallenRaptor]

Why would a socialist Europe necessarily had been a one party state? Originally, several left wing parties participated in the soviets, and the one party state in Soviet Russia was mainly a consequence of the civil war. Also, the Soviet Union was founded on the principle of international federalism, ie. countries still had some sovereignty and could leave the union voluntarily.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

I am running on the assumption that the Russians beat the Poles and the absorbed a helpless Germany. That would have left a weary and leftish France. It's alternative history. I guess we need to choose the what the parameters are before we can discuss the points.

the Soviet Union was founded on the principle of international federalism, ie. countries still had some sovereignty and could leave the union voluntarily.

When?

[FallenRaptor]

I am running on the assumption that the Russians beat the Poles and the absorbed a helpless Germany. That would have left a weary and leftish France. It's alternative history. I guess we need to choose the what the parameters are before we can discuss the points.

The goal of the Soviet invasion of Poland wasn't to absorb Germany per se, but to assist the communist revolution there.

When?

This principle wasn't put into practice much until the the 80s when ethnic and national tensions increased within the Union and Ukraine voted for secession. This was one of the many causes that led to the USSR's dissolution.

[sans-culotte]

This principle wasn't put into practice much until the the 80s when ethnic and national tensions increased within the Union and Ukraine voted for secession. This was one of the many causes that led to the USSR's dissolution.

Sure it was - Finland, Baltics, east Poland all left voluntarily

[Fasces]

Stalin's often ruthless and tyrannical methods, however, prepared the Soviet Union for war in ways I fear less authoritarian institutions would have failed to do. If we accept first that the states did not splinter as leftist factions are wont to do, and that they refrained from Stalinist tactics for industrialization, how successful would these states have been in not only quelling internal dissent (Franco and others, for example), but preventing external influence by the United States and Japan on Europe and Asia? In addition, with Europe gone as a potential trading partner, could we see Brazil rising up to its eternal potential, being recruited as an ally, as well as the Ottoman Empire?

[The Immortal Goon]

I'm not sure one could say that the US would have necessarily have been an antagonist more than anyone else in Europe. Had there been successful revolutions in Europe, I'm guessing that a lot of the "socialist in one country" and "third period" theories would not have been proposed. It's likely that Stalin would not have come to power as the Bolshevik Right - on which he initially leaned - probably would not have had a lot of standing. Trotsky may not have been an option either, necessarily, as he'd be remembered as a military man in founding the Red Army. It's quite possible that there'd be no NEP and the soviet government would have quietly retreated to its pre-Civil War days, safe behind soviet Germany, Soviet France, and Soviet Spain and Britain.

The Chinese probably would have had their revolution considerably quicker and in the US - if we are to assume that things are spreading this quickly - even former militants like the Bonus Army would have seen a viable alternative in the soviet system. Robbed of its largest trading partners, the depression Stateside probably would have gotten worse and only one viable alternative would have been visible on the world stage.

I'm speaking optimistically, of course, as we're assuming Europe embraces the idea. In reality, even if Germany fell to communism, France and the UK probably would have intervened drawing the US in. They might not have won, however. Pre-Franco Spain had a healthy worker's movement, the Paresian citizens would have to be controlled, and Ireland had set up soviets and sent delegates to Russia before anyone had heard of the Spartikans.

So who the fuck knows?

If you're interested, CLR James conceptualizes many of the movements at the time as a single World Revolution that's largely cut down by the right-ward turn of the Bolsheviks.

[Kman]

Communism always ends up in oppression and tyranny because in order to enforce communism on people then you need tyrannical and oppressive bureaucrats, because of that its always evil people that rise to the top.

It doesnt matter whether it was the US, the UK, Germany, Vietnam, Korea or Russia that adopted it, it would lead to the same result which is a tyrannical state.

[Donna]

It doesnt matter whether it was the US, the UK, Germany, Vietnam, Korea or Russia that adopted it, it would lead to the same result which is a tyrannical state.

I'm not sure if you are talking about the 'tyranny' of abolishing private property or that of Stalinisn. TIG is probably correct though that Stalin and right-wing Bolshevism may not have emerged if the Soviet Union was insulated by a Soviet Germany, or better, revolutions through out the rest of Europe.

I would like to think that a Soviet Europe would have spelled the demise of capitalism through out the course of the 20th century, weakening the capitalist class in the rest of world, ushering world socialism, etc., but I think we can either assume that the success of socialism was tragically crushed at a time of great class consciousness, or more objectively, capitalism had simply not run its course yet, and had plenty of productive expansion left to realize (like creating and destroying a healthy middle class) before transitioning to socialism.

[Cookie Monster]

It doesnt matter whether it was the US, the UK, Germany, Vietnam, Korea or Russia that adopted it, it would lead to the same result which is a tyrannical state.

All forms of state have the potential to be tyrannical. By defenition, states are authoritarian.

I'm not sure if you are talking about the 'tyranny' of abolishing private property or that of Stalinisn. TIG is probably correct though that Stalin and right-wing Bolshevism may not have emerged if the Soviet Union was insulated by a Soviet Germany, or better, revolutions through out the rest of Europe.

It's likely that Stalin would not have come to power as the Bolshevik Right - on which he initially leaned - probably would not have had a lot of standing. Trotsky may not have been an option either, necessarily, as he'd be remembered as a military man in founding the Red Army. It's quite possible that there'd be no NEP and the soviet government would have quietly retreated to its pre-Civil War days, safe behind soviet Germany, Soviet France, and Soviet Spain and Britain.

Why woudn't Stalin come to power. I don't think his rise to power was because of right-wing Bolshevism, it seems more likely due to his successful usurpation and accumulation of power and how ruthlessly he neutralised all contenders.

[The Immortal Goon]

For one thing, the conflicts that Stalin relied upon to consolidate power wouldn't have existed in the same way. If we were to take your interpretation, we still have trouble as his successful usurpation and accumulation of power is said to have been playing one against the other. Those factions would not have been the same, and in reality, the structure of the party at that period probably would have been altered (or not altered to what it was depending on how you look at it).

[Cookie Monster]

But do you think that no ruler, like Stalin, would accumulate the powers of the bolshevik party and state?

[The Immortal Goon]

Hard to say - which is the problem with alternate histories is that so many things have to be tied up in order to be remotely accurate. But I think if we are to go with the most optimistic interpretation on the side of the soviets, the various reforms that were made to strengthen the party and see it through the Civil War would have been dropped as the fear of capitalist encirclement wouldn't have created any kind of enthusiasm about the idea at all.

[Cookie Monster]

Yeah, thinking about alternate history is like ballet on ice. You can figure out the choreography beautifully, but every detail can make it go horribly wrong. It's pointless I guess.

[Oxymoron]

America takes advantage of the Pacifist fever in Europe and gobbles up all the colonies, and becomes a supreme power.

[soron]

Oxymoron wrote:
America takes advantage of the Pacifist fever in Europe and gobbles up all the colonies, and becomes a supreme power.

I doubt that back in 1918 they would have had the manpower or the political will to start taking colonies from the European states. Doing that they would instantly have become the main antagonist of the European powers. So this could just as easily have backfired if the Europeans would have decided to liberate the American worker from their burgeois oppressors.

One thing I never quiet understood about Americans is their almost pathologic fear of anything 'communist' or 'socialist' - although the underlying theories, simplyfied, say that good things should happen to ALL people, not just a few. This is both agreeable to the evangelical types as well as it is 'democratic' - meaning the majority (-> a large part of ALL people).

Nevertheless Socialism has been antagonized, painted as a demon and detroyer of civilization - why ? I would speculate that the US was never so much in fear of a 'Red Dawn', but much more of a cultural revolution which might establish Socialist ideas and legislation.
This is why until this day there isn't any real 'left' in the US (although the US rightwingers love to talk about leftists all day long) but rather a mix of rightwing and centrist ideas.

So back in 1918, the US might well have feared that the same might happen to them as happened in Russia and Germany: that workers and soldiers would show solidarity with the people they were supposed to attack, not an unlikely scenario: In Russia and in Germany it was the crews of the great warships who embraced the socialist ideas most of all (Wilhelmshaven mutiny, Russian cruiser Aurora).
Sending the USN would have been a very risky proposal and might have brought home the very spark of revolution they would have been sent to exploit.