Social Democracy: Petrograd 1917

The Duma was formed after a great massacre: the embittered Tsar wanted to see if we could do it better. Now that a catastrophic world war has annihilated our countrymen on an unprecedented scale, we’ve demonstrably proven we can do it better, so the Tsar is deposed.

Now the question of awkwardly reorganizing our state affairs, given that the Tsar can no longer be blamed for them. There are several areas of concern. First, of course, the catastrophic world war annihilating our countrymen on an unprecedented scale. The soldiers are complaining, which only shows they were not the soldiers who should have been complaining. We must give them something, I suppose, since we’re running out of rifles. What are the proposals? “There will be elected soldiers’ committees, which will control the distribution of weapons.” This will be a disaster. The army will collapse if the distribution of weapons is the charge of those who discharge them. Soon, they’ll be demanding control of the distribution of orders! What happened to the patriotic old days, when you told such and so a village, go forth into their main column and all of you die, so the cavalry can achieve a victory? These revolutionaries profess they believe in collective action, yet not one of them is willing to join the great unifying slaughter in No Man’s Land. “Soldiers can no longer be verbally abused by the officers, and they must be addressed by respectful terms.” This will be a disaster. The utter indignity of politely being asked your opinion regarding the upkeep of the latrine. Aleksander Ivanych, please dear heart, you know that by every hair of my moustache I am fond of your kisses, could you please beloved one crawl like a worm rooting round hell under mortars and machine guns through the mud and wire and corpses, and should you then still breathe, launch yourself into their nest with this grenade? “Soldiers will have the same rights as ordinary citizens when off-duty, including the right to participate in elections.” Yes, of course, this is fine. Soldiers ought to be guaranteed every right that should pertain to when they are no longer soldiers, we all take immense solace in the afterlife.

Now onto labor. The people are convinced they’ve seized power, so we must convince them of this. “Support the strikes rhetorically.” This will be a disaster. For workers to have rights, they must first become workers. We will never emancipate the proletariat if there is no lower class to emancipate. “The Soviet should support the workers’ demands for higher wages and improved working conditions.” This will be a disaster. The wages are fine, of course, every year we will raise everyone’s wages by precisely the increase in prices, so the Soviet will become a champion of economic progress, dramatically increasing the supply of rubles. It is rather the improved working conditions that are intolerable, because these cannot be increased universally, but only through individualist seizures of collectivist efficiencies into petit demesnes of production according to one’s own rights. Improving working conditions is a counterrevolutionary subversion of dialectical materialism, which states that material conditions can only improve by improvements to the material of conditions, and it is this material foundation which we must improve to improve conditions, which is in fact the Soviet, so that we must all expend our patriotic energies to the utmost to improve the Soviet, which is identical to the improvement in working conditions. “The Soviet should convince the workers to stop striking.” This will be a disaster. Any dialogue between the Soviet and the workers would imply a separation between the Soviet and the workers, which is not the case. It is the radical embodiment of the Soviet that is the strike as dialectic, such that we, as workers, must radically, through the power of our Soviet, collectively empower ourselves to proceed beyond the strike towards our goal, which has already been achieved, as indeed it is through our collectivization of the means of production that we’ve realized our greatest advancement in labor: “Give women equal legal rights to men.” Now we may all victoriously return to the factories.

Finally, the most pressing matter. Now that the Tsar is gone, who is to blame? The easiest answer: “The only enemies should be the Germans!” This will be a disaster. If our only enemies are the Germans, then we will have to win the war, which is impossible, then who do we blame for that? “The Kadets and other bourgeois parties.” This will be a disaster. If we declare the bourgeois to be the eternal enemy of our revolution, then yes, we can kill the Kadets and the like, but then we must blame the bourgeois, and who then is the bourgeois? Fine, they are all killed, but then who is the bourgeois? We must learn from Robespierre. “Counterrevolutionary forces, Black Hundreds, and the like.” This will be a disaster. These revolutionaries grow in the thousands, and they’re each compelled to some kind of creed. We’ll have to inquisitate every heresy every time, which will only expose the damned to options. We’ll allocate our precious resources endlessly explaining which revolution is the revolution that properly revolves, by the very thought I’ve become dizzy. “Bolsheviks and anarchists, who seek to subvert the revolution from within.” Excellent, only when we can blame the revolutionaries will the revolution truly go unquestioned.

The situation settles nicely. We flatly refuse to join the government: first the Provisional Government, then we storm out of the Soviet. We flatly refuse to allow any ideological resolution among the SRs. We allow conditions to develop naturally: a quarter of a million die in the latest offensive, the workers and peasants are in constant revolt, the economy is collapsing. The only effort we make in response to the prevailing distress is to organize among the peasants and crack down on all the black markets supplying the cities with food. The situation deteriorates. General Kornilov besieges Petrograd to stage a coup, we flatly refuse to assist in the defense. “The war continues unabated. / Over the course of the war and revolution, the problem of hunger has worsened.” Russia enters another civil war. Chaos reigns under heaven, the situation is excellent.

I should preface this by saying that this game (and the game it’s a sequel to, set in Germany) are fantastic educational tools. My school’s IB history teacher plans on using them for assignments next year.

This game is a card-based simulation game where you take control of one faction of the new Russian government directly after the overthrow of the aristocracy.

You track stats like party support for all the parties, resources and budget, and so on. You can place ministers in different positions. You can affect food supply, propaganda, the war effort and more. You also react to frequent new events.

I think this is a fantastic game. My only reason for four stars instead of five is that even on easy setting the game is pretty overwhelming; with the German game I had some idea of the background and events but coming into this cold I felt confronted by a mass of new people and parties and policies, and it was hard to know what to do. My people starved and revolted and the Bolsheviks won.

I feel like the game is fair, and that repeated play would make what’s going on apparent, but I did like the emotional impact of seeing my empire crumble and it made me imagine the stress and fear early Russian officials must have felt.

Note: This review was written during Spring Thing 2025, and originally posted in the intfiction forum on 29 April 2025.

On to this alternative history simulation of 1917 Russia, and the political machinations between Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutionary, Kadet and Bolshevik parties. Note I’m going into this with very little knowledge of the period. Also I have not played the Social Democracy game from 2024.

I played for about 40 minutes, right through, in easy mode. I chose to control the Socialist-Revolutionary party, and pushed for agricultural reform and an end to the war. That strategy did not ultimately go well, though it was fascinating to follow, week by week, as the multitude of factors interacted. Not towards a good end for my goals.

Not being familiar enough with the different Russian political parties then, I found it hard to differentiate between them clearly as I played and made decisions. I focused on the single party I was personally controlling, the party of the peasants, and tried to keep a clear idea in my head of what I wanted to achieve. But I was still rather overwhelmed by the other factions manoeuvring. And felt out of control. Which is probably not unrealistic for the situation being simulated.

The interface was nice. Even worked on my low resolution massive font view on the browser. On the left panel I had stats appearing (rising inflation aarrgghh!). Then on the mid/right area the game text would appear as I interacted. In addition I could draw cards, seemingly at random, for each organisation or institution I controlled, which would then let me choose what to interact with. The randomness of the cards - or seeming randomness anyway! - was fun, and added unpredictability. But it also made things frustrating. For example I’d want to change the food policy, or taxation, and it seemed to be pot luck whether those cards would appear.

It’s not a game I would want to replay soon, but I think I may well come back to it in 6 months or a year. And I would very much like to play its precursor game from last year.

The game has prompted me to want to learn more about the period though. I know quite a lot about the Romanov side of things, but less about the various political parties and their activities in this period of Russian history. And I would like to read more about that. It might have been nice to see a recommended reading list at the end from the author, or tips about useful resources to go to.

I’m an academic historian but this absolutely isn’t my historical period or context. So I’m totally unqualified to judge or assess the game’s accuracy in historical terms, or how good a simulation it is. But as a player I found it captivating to play through, albeit somewhat overwhelming.

Definitely recommended.

Postscript: Just had another play through of Social Democracy: Petrograd 1917, and discovered a few more options. Further down the screen - off my screen, with my huge font and low resolution - there were extra advisor options I could select. So more to do. But still as unsuccessful an outcome as before!

It is a fascinating game though. I really look forward to reading any post mortem / after competition thoughts from the author.