The Effects of a Right Opposition/Bukharinist lead Soviet Union?

[Time Enough]

So per say Stalin died in the early 1920s and Trotsky was ousted for Bonapartistism by the late 20s and we would probably get a Right Opposition/Bukharinist Soviet Union by the Early 1930s, so what would be the effects of that?

I think if Economic Decentralisation/NEP was to best established without causing the Soviet Union to crash and burn it would probably be the 1930s where the Government was still Centralised enough to push and keep a handle on the economy.

The Right Opposition would still be Authoritarian but you probably wouldn't see the totalitarianism of Stalin's Soviet Union, I could see the continuation of the idea of Lenin's 'Rational State' of Modernisation. I would also say that we probably not see a purge of the 'Bourgeoise Engineers' meaning you don't get raise of Engineers and Technocrats like Nikita Khrushchev and the effects that would have on the Soviet Union during the 1950s and 60s.

 

[Creekmench]

I think without the purges of engineers, and the rational state I could see a red technocrat wing spring up cooperating with the CPSU, and the workers councils. You'd have a balanced economy without the Stalinist hyperfixation on heavy industry, but you've got the scissors crisis to deal with.

 

[Time Enough]

I think without the purges of engineers, and the rational state I could see a red technocrat wing spring up cooperating with the CPSU, and the workers councils.

Oh god, you could see NEPers advocating for Market Liberalisation versus the Red Technocrats who believe in Planned Economy's etc.

Actually, if the Soviet Union has a semi-planned economy this would actually effect thought outside the Soviet Union. What Fabian Socialism became in the 1940s and 50s was inspired by visits that academics took to the Soviet Union during Stalin’s early years. So if you have a Soviet Union that’s in awe to the NEP, then Fabian Socialism is already different.

 

[Creekmench]

Oh god, you could see NEPers advocating for Market Liberalisation versus the Red Technocrats who believe in Planned Economy's etc.

Actually, if the Soviet Union has a semi-planned economy this would actually effect thought outside the Soviet Union. What Fabian Socialism became in the 1940s and 50s was inspired by visits that academics took to the Soviet Union during Stalin’s early years. So if you have a Soviet Union that’s in awe to the NEP, then Fabian Socialism is already different.

Plus, a shitton of people in foreign communist parties don't bite the bullet like in Iran like the surviving ones in Iran were chucked in prison by Reza Shah, while the ones in moscow were shot by Stalin. Plus a lot of Iranians want to control their countries resources, like I'd think Iran would be a flashpoint in this TL. In China, I would think like the first United Front would be different, and with no dissolving of the CPC into the KMT and no Great Purge by Jiang there is no rise of Mao. TTL's Northern expedition would be a grind since I would think the British, US, and Japan don't want a bunch of Pinkos upending the status quo or something which affects East Asian history to a large degree.

Yeah I could see some Soviet NEPers saying that capitalism and socialism could converge and become one, like some CCP members were saying in the 80s. Culturally, I don't think you are going to get the socialist realism style to be mandatory or the curtailing of social progress under Stalin nor the ending of koreniyzation or the weird quasi-russian Nationalism like under Stalin.

 

[Time Enough]

Plus, a shitton of people in foreign communist parties don't bite the bullet like in Iran like the surviving ones in Iran were chucked in prison by Reza Shah, while the ones in moscow were shot by Stalin. Plus a lot of Iranians want to control their countries resources, like I'd think Iran would be a flashpoint in this TL. In China, I would think like the first United Front would be different, and with no dissolving of the CPC into the KMT and no Great Purge by Jiang there is no rise of Mao. TTL's Northern expedition would be a grind since I would think the British, US, and Japan don't want a bunch of Pinkos upending the status quo or something which affects East Asian history to a large degree.

Interesting but yeah, a lot of folks who would have been purged certainly wouldn’t. Also the Soviets would support the Communists in Iran and Non-Communist Iranian Socialists as a way to gain an oil supply. I think Popular Fronts would probably be more of a thing, since the Right Opposition probably wouldn’t be as bothered with uniting with Social Democrats against Fascists.

Though I could see Trotskyism also being targeted too given everything that would have happened. There probably would be purges of ‘Left’ opponents though not in the Stalinist manner.

Yeah I could see some Soviet NEPers saying that capitalism and socialism could converge and become one, like some CCP members were saying in the 80s.

Which is great for Market Socialists I guess. It would be interesting to see how Capitalist countries react to a nation that proclaims a Socialist version of there model.

Culturally, I don't think you are going to get the socialist realism style to be mandatory or the curtailing of social progress under Stalin nor the ending of koreniyzation or the weird quasi-russian Nationalism like under Stalin.

Futurism and Constructivism would still be invoke. It would be interesting seeing the effect of a Soviet Union that didn’t repeal there laws and allowed LGBT culture to ‘flourish’ (as much as a state managed system would allow LGBT culture to flourish, e.g. East Germany for example).

 

[Time Enough]

Someone said somewhere else where I posted this that the Right Opposition would be liquidated by starving urban workers, due to famines caused by the scissors crisis.

Would that be possible? I doubt it but it would be very Soviet for the NEPers to be killed by starving factory workers.

 

[Creekmench]

Someone said somewhere else where I posted this that the Right Opposition would be liquidated by starving urban workers, due to famines caused by the scissors crisis.

Would that be possible? I doubt it but it would be very Soviet for the NEPers to be killed by starving factory workers.

I don't know about that but the scissors crisis needs to be solved.

 

[Nyvis]

Oh god, you could see NEPers advocating for Market Liberalisation versus the Red Technocrats who believe in Planned Economy's etc.

Actually, if the Soviet Union has a semi-planned economy this would actually effect thought outside the Soviet Union. What Fabian Socialism became in the 1940s and 50s was inspired by visits that academics took to the Soviet Union during Stalin’s early years. So if you have a Soviet Union that’s in awe to the NEP, then Fabian Socialism is already different.

It's worth remembering that everyone advocating for the NEP did so on the basis of it as temporary, even arch-NEPer Bukharin. What Bukharin wanted was a gradual phase out rather than Stalin's crash collectivization.

I could see the lesson taken abroad being "maybe don't nationalize if you don't need state control of it". Some sort of mixed socialist economy would be much healthier for parliamentary socialists to attempt.

Though I could see Trotskyism also being targeted too given everything that would have happened. There probably would be purges of ‘Left’ opponents though not in the Stalinist manner.

Trotskyism is going to stand for return to war communism and permanent revolution. Yeah I could see that being popular with Ultras.

It will probably lead to purges of figures judged too adventurist. Otherwise, Bukharin had broad support and legitimacy so he wouldn't need to purge much.

Interesting but yeah, a lot of folks who would have been purged certainly wouldn’t. Also the Soviets would support the Communists in Iran and Non-Communist Iranian Socialists as a way to gain an oil supply. I think Popular Fronts would probably be more of a thing, since the Right Opposition probably wouldn’t be as bothered with uniting with Social Democrats against Fascists.

It's worth remembering that in countries where the Social Democrats didn't use Fascists to suppress their left, popular fronts did happen.

France will still have them, as well as Spain. Spain might fare better with a non Stalinized PCE. They may win a tangle with the right if a popular front force them into action. In France, the PCF is likely to do even better than OTL considering the friction of Stalinization hurt their growth and sent a lot of their initial enthusiastic membership back to the SFIO. Initially, the SFIO did overwhelmingly (3/4 of it) vote to join the 3rd internationale, leaving the party to form the SFIC. But they bled back in as that proved to be less than free.

Germany though? Unless Bukharin magically show up in Berlin to stop the Spartakus uprising and its repression, the well is thoroughly poisoned. No Stalinization means the KPD will be more competent and will see the threat of Hitler, but the SPD will still outlaw their militia for daring to fight back and never use their own as the Nazis intimidate everyone on the streets.

Someone said somewhere else where I posted this that the Right Opposition would be liquidated by starving urban workers, due to famines caused by the scissors crisis.

Would that be possible? I doubt it but it would be very Soviet for the NEPers to be killed by starving factory workers.

Probably forces Bukharin into compromising on the NEP line actually. I'm pretty sure more intervention will be the answer to market failure no matter who's in charge.

It's worth remembering that Bukharin was pro-NEP mostly because he cared about maintaining the alliance with the peasantry, with the NEP aiming at satisfying their pre revolution aspirations. He was far from the market ideologue some market socialists would like to make him out to be. In fact he was initially a pretty big supporter of war communism, like most Bolsheviks. His support for the NEP was one of political concern, not really economic belief in its superiority.

He'll want out of it, just more gradually, which means anything built to replace it won't be as much of a shoddily built nightmare.

 

[Time Enough]

It's worth remembering that everyone advocating for the NEP did so on the basis of it as temporary, even arch-NEPer Bukharin. What Bukharin wanted was a gradual phase out rather than Stalin's crash collectivization.

I could see the lesson taken abroad being "maybe don't nationalize if you don't need state control of it". Some sort of mixed socialist economy would be much healthier for parliamentary socialists to attempt.

That does make sense, I think Bukharin would probably lead to a Mixed style Economy in the long run which probably means a healthier Soviet Union as you don't get the little fiefdoms pop up across the various agencies. A slow phasing out of the old school agriculture also means we ain't likely to see the Famines that occurred under Stalin. Also healthier international Left, since you won't have Sidney Webb rambling about Planned Economies to every person he sees.

Trotskyism is going to stand for return to war communism and permanent revolution. Yeah I could see that being popular with Ultras.

It will probably lead to purges of figures judged too adventurist. Otherwise, Bukharin had broad support and legitimacy so he wouldn't need to purge much.

Any purges I do see occurring will be more like the later ones in a way where political opponents were sent to mental institutes or work camps instead of outright shot. Though there probably will be some show trails and executions on occasion but certainly less than Stalin (and probably less than Lenin).

France will still have them, as well as Spain. Spain might fare better with a non Stalinized PCE. They may win a tangle with the right if a popular front force them into action. In France, the PCF is likely to do even better than OTL considering the friction of Stalinization hurt their growth and sent a lot of their initial enthusiastic membership back to the SFIO. Initially, the SFIO did overwhelmingly (3/4 of it) vote to join the 3rd internationale, leaving the party to form the SFIC. But they bled back in as that proved to be less than free.

I do see France and Spain having more active and productive Popular Fronts. If Spain does have a Civil War, you probably won't see the NKVD helping purge Non-Soviet Communists/Socialists etc which means the Popular Front may be able to succeed.

Germany though? Unless Bukharin magically show up in Berlin to stop the Spartakus uprising and its repression, the well is thoroughly poisoned. No Stalinization means the KPD will be more competent and will see the threat of Hitler, but the SPD will still outlaw their militia for daring to fight back and never use their own as the Nazis intimidate everyone on the streets.

Yeah, Germany is buggered, though not putting all there eggs into fighting the Social Democrats too probably helps the resistance against the Nazi's in the long run I guess. Also Bukharin would probably not do a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the West may be less afraid of the Communists which could mean dealing with the Nazi's occurs earlier.

It's worth remembering that Bukharin was pro-NEP mostly because he cared about maintaining the alliance with the peasantry, with the NEP aiming at satisfying their pre revolution aspirations. He was far from the market ideologue some market socialists would like to make him out to be. In fact he was initially a pretty big supporter of war communism, like most Bolsheviks. His support for the NEP was one of political concern, not really economic belief in its superiority.

He'll want out of it, just more gradually, which means anything built to replace it won't be as much of a shoddily built nightmare.

I could see something less Centralised/less Fiefdom and more Decentralised/Mixed Economy appearing in the long run which is good, means a healthier Soviet state in the long run. Bukharin does seem like a pragmatist so he would probably organise efforts against Famine and stuff.

 

[Nyvis]

Any purges I do see occurring will be more like the later ones in a way where political opponents were sent to mental institutes or work camps instead of outright shot. Though there probably will be some show trails and executions on occasion but certainly less than Stalin (and probably less than Lenin).

Bukharin is noted as not really having a hard edge by Lenin himself. A lot of problematic party members will probably just get an assignment in a backwater managing something inconsequential or early retirement.

I wonder what this means for culture, actually. Probably not as straight edge soviet realist as Stalin.

I do see France and Spain having more active and productive Popular Fronts. If Spain does have a Civil War, you probably won't see the NKVD helping purge Non-Soviet Communists/Socialists etc which means the Popular Front may be able to succeed.

This isn't the only reason why Spain failed though. In fact, doctrinaire adherence to a popular front is part of it. Spain had the potential for an actual united front, as in without relying on liberals. But Stalin ordered the PCE to prop up the republic (which had completely failed to act against the coup they knew was coming), which resulted in them fighting on the side of the liberals against the other socialists. Bukharin is likely to recognize that you have to pick between popular or united front depending on the circumstances.

Yeah, Germany is buggered, though not putting all there eggs into fighting the Social Democrats too probably helps the resistance against the Nazi's in the long run I guess. Also Bukharin would probably not do a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the West may be less afraid of the Communists which could mean dealing with the Nazi's occurs earlier.

The KPD's militias were in fact the only ones fighting the Nazi, towards the end. They definitely weren't only focused on the Social Democrats, even if they misunderstood the Nazi threat. Molotov-Ribbentrop is probably not happening. The Winter War might not happen either, which would help reduce fear, though otherwise I'm not sure anything else will. Stalin was actually extremely pragmatic abroad.

I could see something less Centralised/less Fiefdom and more Decentralised/Mixed Economy appearing in the long run which is good, means a healthier Soviet state in the long run. Bukharin does seem like a pragmatist so he would probably organise efforts against Famine and stuff.

The problems with the Stalinist centralized economy did stem from his ironclad party control and the climate of fear he instigated easily as much as it did from it being centralized in the first place. That's definitely not happening. Decentralized might happen for light industries and services, but I think Bukharin would still have centralized heavy industry. Agriculture will probably move at different stages of integration depending on where we're talking about.

Another interesting thing to think about is that Bukharin is not an antisemite so we will probably see a better treatment of Jews in the union. In fact, they could probably take in a lot of refugees fleeing Germany when other powers refuse them entrance like they did OTL. Down the line that could either mean very lefty Zionism or anti Zionist Soviet Jews who want to make a home in the union.

Similarly on social issues, he's unlikely to attempt reconciliation with the church the way Stalin did, so we're probably not bringing back the homosexuality ban, and the strong women liberation elements of the union will keep going.

 

[Time Enough]

I wonder what this means for culture, actually. Probably not as straight edge soviet realist as Stalin.

Probably a lot of the Constructivists get to continue doing work, you have experimentation with ‘Rational Music’ and I could see the possibility of more Western influence (Soviet Swing?).

Bukharin is likely to recognize that you have to pick between popular or united front depending on the circumstances.

True, I think Bukharin would take a ‘Country by Country’ approach. I could see Bukharin doing something similar to Socialism in One Country in a way, but investing more in Communists trying to win in Liberal Democracy’s maybe?

The problems with the Stalinist centralized economy did stem from his ironclad party control and the climate of fear he instigated easily as much as it did from it being centralized in the first place. That's definitely not happening. Decentralized might happen for light industries and services, but I think Bukharin would still have centralized heavy industry. Agriculture will probably move at different stages of integration depending on where we're talking about.

So a mixed Economy of sorts would emerge? Probably does make things easier to manage in the long run, probably don’t get the weird Khrushchev style reforms in an effort to ‘compete’ with Capitalist countries later down the line.

Another interesting thing to think about is that Bukharin is not an antisemite so we will probably see a better treatment of Jews in the union. In fact, they could probably take in a lot of refugees fleeing Germany when other powers refuse them entrance like they did OTL. Down the line that could either mean very lefty Zionism or anti Zionist Soviet Jews who want to make a home in the union.

That’s interesting, given how a number of the early prominent Israeli’s were Communists or Socialists you could see a number become part of the Soviet Union. I think you would have a split between Zionists and Anti-Zionists after World War 2 of some sorts.

Similarly on social issues, he's unlikely to attempt reconciliation with the church the way Stalin did, so we're probably not bringing back the homosexuality ban, and the strong women liberation elements of the union will keep going.

On one hand, Feminist and LGBT+ discussions will likely advance several decades in an environment that partially accepts (particularly if the Scientific Humanitarian Committee can establish a base in Moscow).

On the other, Conservative authorities would use the excuse of ‘Communist Subversion’ and crackdown on Feminist and LGBT+ probably even more severely than in OTL (this isn’t to say this didn’t happen in OTL but more it’ll be easier to make the comparisons etc.)

And they’ll probably still be LGBT+ hate crime and discrimination. Just the culture won’t be driven underground and only really reappear in any prominence in the 1980s.

 

[Nyvis]

True, I think Bukharin would take a ‘Country by Country’ approach. I could see Bukharin doing something similar to Socialism in One Country in a way, but investing more in Communists trying to win in Liberal Democracy’s maybe?

Funny you mention that, because Bukharin is the one who coined Socialism In One Country. Stalin, as the grifter he is, stole it shamelessly, just like he stole Trotsky's economic policy. Of course Bukharin's approach was a bit different as you can expect.

So a mixed Economy of sorts would emerge? Probably does make things easier to manage in the long run, probably don’t get the weird Khrushchev style reforms in an effort to ‘compete’ with Capitalist countries later down the line.

You definitely don't get the Stalin to Krushchev whiplash. Stalin built an incompetent cowed bureaucracy and Krushchev couldn't cow it anymore, while failing to put a dent from its power, and it's all downhill from there.

Mixed economy of gradually abolished small private businesses, cooperatives where the state doesn't want to be directly, and large industries under state planning but probably with more union input is what I expect you'll see, yes.

On one hand, Feminist and LGBT+ discussions will likely advance several decades in an environment that partially accepts (particularly if the Scientific Humanitarian Committee can establish a base in Moscow).

On the other, Conservative authorities would use the excuse of ‘Communist Subversion’ and crackdown on Feminist and LGBT+ probably even more severely than in OTL (this isn’t to say this didn’t happen in OTL but more it’ll be easier to make the comparisons etc.)

And they’ll probably still be LGBT+ hate crime and discrimination. Just the culture won’t be driven underground and only really reappear in any prominence in the 1980s.

I don't think they'd crack down more than OTL. They never really needed the comparison to be accurate. Reactionaries just plain lie when reality isn't enough to demonize their targets. And it usually doesn't alter the repression's success much. Most people would have no way to check what's actually happening in the USSR.

On the other hand what'd change is the Comintern parties' stances, so yeah that may be used as an argument. On the other hand they probably don't lose touch with a younger more socially open base when the time comes. You probably don't have as much of an explicit New/Old left divide either, unless it happens on other lines, like Comintern parties being too conciliatory with liberal democracy.

Speaking of that, Bukharin is unlikely to disband the Comintern to appease international sensibilities. He's very much of the "we do socialism in one country as we wait for other revolutions" school, not of the Stalinist version that largely gave up on finding revolutionary friends.