A Red Dawn: American Revolution and Rebirth

[Kate]

Originally Posted by Jello_Biafra

About the religious question, one thing that must be realized is that religious belief needs to be separated from institutions of religion.

.

IOTL there were a fair number of "Christian socialists" thoughout the Midwest.
In Oklahoma and Kansas evangelical Christianity was and is dominant. Before it was destroyed by the First World War the socialist movement was huge in Oklahoma and Kansas. The two movements were originally enemies but gradually began to merge. Micheal Harrington quotes an Oklahoma Baptist preacher who says something like, "the liberation I got when I accepted Jesus as my Saviour is similar to the feeling of liberation I got when I first read "Capital" by Marx."
On the surface the churches and the socialist movements were in opposition, but there seemed to be some crossover. Norman Thomas started as a Presbyterian minister. AG Mustie, sometime Trotskyist, became a Presbyterian minister.There was Mary Daly and Dorothy Day in the Catholic Workers movement and others.

[Kate]

What are the terms of address in the UASR? My guess would be that in New York, Chicago, and other cities people call each other "comrade" while in the South, Midwest and rural areas the traditional "Mr.m Mrs., Miss, Sir, and Ma'am" are still used. Comrade (meaning a participant in common political struggle) would be reserved for gov't officials and people working on large projects, like the TVA equivalents.

"Ms." might come into use several decades before it did in OTL.

[King Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Jello_Biafra

You're welcome, Kate

I'm actually going to be covering architectural styles in the next few updates. But here's the cliff notes version, since you asked. The dominant architectural school will be inspired off of early Soviet constructivist architecture, and there's going to be a lot of Soviet-American cultural exchange over this, with a couple noted Soviet architects designing and planning important American buildings.

As Soviet architecture get's more neo-classical and Stalinized, there's basically going to be a reaction in America, and constructivist architecture synthesize with Frank Lloyd Wright style organic architecture, espescially in the post war world.

I've been thinking about that said subject matter a bit lately. I'd imagine that the cult of the skyscraper would be much more pronounce in this ATL. Sky scrappers are one of America's great contributions to architecture and urban construction. In a communist America Sky scrappers would stand as powerful symbols of progress. Not only do they encourage urban density and presumably egalitarianism, but skyscrapers stand as architectural triumphs of manufacturing, engineering and labor. The furthermore the state owned steel combines would have a field day with the inevitable overbuilding said policy would inspire.

As far as Wright goes, I'm certain that his disciples would be very infleuntial. I'm just not certain how eager Wright would be to spend the years immediately after the revolution in America. After all Wright was to say the least, fond of the good life. I wouldn't be suprised if he choose to spend much of the 30's and possible 40's working in self imposed exile in Japan.

In termsof urban planning, what paths due you see America pursuing? I'm afraid the modernists and rationalists would probably win again, given their ideology meshs well with the ideals of progress. After all why should the proletariat continue to live haphazardly zoned "slum" communities when they would be housed communal in modern tenement blocks. The damage that this would inflict would be somewhat mitigated by a weaker car culture. On the other hand would be Robert Moses' would have alot more coercive power at their disposal, and the South and West could easily emerge as testing grounds for both city planning/social engineering on the epic scale (Brazilla, or Chandigarh)

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

megacities?

[Aranfan]

Originally Posted by Jello_Biafra

Excerpts from Journeys in Red America, by George Orwell (London: Secker and Warburg, 1939)

Hmm, I'm having a bit of trouble parsing this. Is Orwell approving of Red America or disapproving?

Also, will Animal Farm and 1984 be written ITTL?

[Jello_Biafra]

Originally Posted by Aranfan

Hmm, I'm having a bit of trouble parsing this. Is Orwell approving of Red America or disapproving?

Also, will Animal Farm and 1984 be written ITTL?

He's in general approval, but he's cynical about the UASR's leadership and their cozying up to the the USSR.

Animal Farm will be written largely as it was IOTL, but I can't really say on 1984 as of yet. Hey may not be as willing to give such a pessimistic vision of the future ITTL.

[Aranfan]

There's something else that's been bugging me. The *Cold War. Communism is a very attractive ideology to the oppressed, and yet Capitalist America managed to keep a lid on it. With America gone Red, I'm having a hard time seeing Russia being able to even pretend to be able to keep up like in OTL.

[TNF]

Originally Posted by Aranfan

There's something else that's been bugging me. The *Cold War. Communism is a very attractive ideology to the oppressed, and yet Capitalist America managed to keep a lid on it. With America gone Red, I'm having a hard time seeing Russia being able to even pretend to be able to keep up like in OTL.

This has popped up in my head as of late, too. Will there be a 'Prague Spring' of sorts in the Eastern bloc of the Comintern?

[Aranfan]

Originally Posted by The New Freedom

This has popped up in my head as of late, too. Will there be a 'Prague Spring' of sorts in the Eastern bloc of the Comintern?

In fact, thinking about it, Communist Ideology is on America's side. Marx predicted that the Capitalist System would collapse, then The People would attempt to take control of the State and the Bourgeoisie would resist, resulting in violent revolution. Moreover, this was to happen in a heavily Industrialized nation, like Germany or America.

This is almost exactly what happened in America, and almost exactly what did not happen in Russia. In any ideological dispute, America has a much greater ability to say that Russia is doing it wrong.

[Aranfan]

I have made a map for this wonderful TL. I had a hard time deciding how to deal with the coloring of the UASR, until I realized that the Republic of China is almost certainly not going to survive without American backing (which it won't get ITTL). As such, the PRC has full claim to Chinese Green, leaving PRC pink for America.

Japan's presence in China is not shown because I have no idea what the lines were in 1935 and it is not really of any relation to the point of the TL (which is Communist America).

Edit: I have decided to change the color of the UASR to a different red so as to keep the PRC color for China

So, here's a map for 1935:

[Kate]

Originally Posted by The New Freedom

This has popped up in my head as of late, too. Will there be a 'Prague Spring' of sorts in the Eastern bloc of the Comintern?

A socialist America, with Trotsky,Stalin's chief demon (or at least some of his followers) in positions of influence, and with massive economic aid and cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union, would pretty much pull the rug out from under Uncle Joe.Stalin built his dictatorship, and the massive repression that went with it, on the need to rapidly "build socialism" in one country.His regime and the Soviet bureaucracy would now face a different paradigm.Also by the mid 30s IOTL the Comintern's foreign policy was in utter shambles and was discredited with disasters in China, Britain and, most importantly,Germany. The UASR would be in a good position to try to wrest control of the Comintern from Stalin

It does look like the UASR is rapidly moving towards a crisis itself. A quasi-Stalinist power hungry leadership, with a growing "libertarian socialist "grassroots element. People like Foster, Browder and J. Edgar Hoover running the state, Emma Goldman running the economy. Quantity becomes quality and vice versa.

[Kate]

Cool map. Is Mexico part of the UASR?

[Jello_Biafra]

Originally Posted by Kate

A socialist America, with Trotsky,Stalin's chief demon (or at least some of his followers) in positions of influence, and with massive economic aid and cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union, would pretty much pull the rug out from under Uncle Joe.Stalin built his dictatorship, and the massive repression that went with it, on the need to rapidly "build socialism" in one country.His regime and the Soviet bureaucracy would now face a different paradigm.

It does look like the UASR is rapidly moving towards a crisis itself. A quasi-Stalinist power hungry leadership, with a growing "libertarian socialist "grassroots element. People like Foster, Browder and J. Edgar Hoover running the state, Emma Goldman running the economy. Quantity becomes quality and vice versa.

That's pretty much the case. But bureacracies have their own inertia independent of ideology. While the control of the party over the state will greatly weaken, attempts to resist "American cultural imperialism" will be the focus of Soviet post-war policies. The shifting relation between the USSR and the UASR will drive the ebb and flow of the Cold War.

[Aranfan]

Originally Posted by Kate

It does look like the UASR is rapidly moving towards a crisis itself. A quasi-Stalinist power hungry leadership, with a growing "libertarian socialist "grassroots element. People like Foster, Browder and J. Edgar Hoover running the state, Emma Goldman running the economy. Quantity becomes quality and vice versa.

Actually, I don't think Foster's group is going to be as heavy handed as Stalin. America has a much, much, much stronger tradition of democracy than Russia, and the mere presence of the Left Democrats mean that any power-grab by Foster & Co would be political suicide (can you say MacArthur?).

Edit: Regarding China, probably, but Foster is still aligned with Moscow currently.

Originally Posted by Kate

Cool map. Mexico is part of the UASR?

Nope. Notice the white outline, by the UCS that means Mexico is technically independent, but is either a puppet or merely very heavily influenced.

[Kate]

A somewhat cheesy suggestion-could the UASR have a superhero? I don't mean in real life of course but in comic book form. IOTL superheros were a product of 1930s America. Superman was created in 1932 partly as anti-Nazi propaganda.The term "superman" itself is a spoof on Nietszche.

The idea of an individual superhero would be against the spirit of socialism, based on collective ownership of the means of production, but the UASR would want to do everything they can to reach young people.

Could there be a socialist Superman? In TTL Kypton would be destroyed because "the class struggle was not resolved by the victory of the proletarian and the bourgiose and the working class fought themselves to mutual destruction" as Marx predicted might happen.Superman came to Earth to make sure the same thing doesn't happen here.

This Superman would help German workers fight against the Nazis, would help peasants in India and Indochina fight against Franco-British imperialism, and would help peons and campesinos struggle against feudal landowners in Latin America.During the Cold War he would help "our erring comrades in China and Russia see the light"

Towards the early 40s Superman would have a kid sister, Octobriana.

http://www.reocities.com/SoHo/Studio...eginguide.html

Unlike IOTL this Octobriana would be a petit, brainy brunette, equally adept at Marxist theory and the new fangled ideas of Einstein and Freud. She would emerge as a role model for young girls in the 40s and 50s.

[ComradeFlyer]

Originally Posted by Kate

A somewhat cheesy suggestion-could the UASR have a superhero? I don't mean in real life of course but in comic book form. IOTL superheros were a product of 1930s America. Superman was created in 1932 partly as anti-Nazi propaganda.The term "superman" itself is a spoof on Nietszche.

The idea of an individual superhero would be against the spirit of socialism, based on collective ownership of the means of production, but the UASR would want to do everything they can to reach young people.

Could there be a socialist Superman? In TTL Kypton would be destroyed because "the class struggle was not resolved by the victory of the proletarian and the bourgiose and the working class fought themselves to mutual destruction" as Marx predicted might happen.Superman came to Earth to make sure the same thing doesn't happen here.

This Superman would help German workers fight against the Nazis, would help peasants in India and Indochina fight against Franco-British imperialism, and would help peons and campesinos struggle against feudal landowners in Latin America.During the Cold War he would help "our erring comrades in China and Russia see the light"

Towards the early 40s Superman would have a kid sister, Octobriana.

http://www.reocities.com/SoHo/Studio...eginguide.html

Unlike IOTL this Octobriana would be a petit, brainy brunette, equally adept at Marxist theory and the new fangled ideas of Einstein and Freud. She would emerge as a role model for young girls in the 40s and 50s.

[President Al Bundy]

Since I've been watching Rambo lately, I wonder how might Rambo (And other OTL movie franchises) be different from OTL? I doubt that First Blood might have even been made or written, because a stranger fighting against cops, because he's traumatized of war doesn't fit very much into a socialist culture. I can imagine however, that Rambo helps the Vietnamese people to fight against the French, making them an analogue of OTLs Soviets in the Rambo franchise. But again, I don't know if Sylvester Stallone might start an actual acting career, since his main roles (Rocky and Rambo) might have become obsolete. Okay, maybe Rocky could still exist ITTL, since it's a perfect story of a working-class outsider fighting against everything...wait a minute! Maybe you could merge Rocky I with Rocky IV, and depict Apollo Creed as the evil champion from Cuba.

You see, that I'm a bit obsessed with pop culture.

[Room 101]

I've been wondering this for a while, never asked for some though. If you don't mind giving away too much, how much of the world is purely Communist or Socialist in the 2000s and how much is Capitialist or Social Democratic a la Sweden IOTL, etc.?

[Sean Mulligan]

Strom Thurmond was only 30 years old and wouldn't have been considered a top leader of the Right Democrats at the time. In 1933 he was only the Edgefield County Superintendent of Education and a lawyers. Their would be no reason for twenty first century audiences to be familiar with him. With the Cultural Revolution, it will be unlikely for Margaret Mitchell would author a book like Gone With the Wind that glorified slavery. Maybe they could have a novel and movie about the struggles of slaves and their attempts to get equal rights during Reconstruction ala Roots. It would be interesting to see how famous actors and actresses of the thirties such as Shirley Temple, Bojangles Robinson, Clark Gable, Joan Crawford, Carole Lombard, and Joan Crawford adjust to the new Socialist Hollywood. Was Birth of a Nation made in your tl? That would probably be banned by the new government.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by Room 101

I've been wondering this for a while, never asked for some though. If you don't mind giving away too much, how much of the world is purely Communist or Socialist in the 2000s and how much is Capitialist or Social Democratic a la Sweden IOTL, etc.?

Capitalism and socialism (or any system that's not capitalist-feudalism, tribal societies) can't coexist, at least not for any length of time. Capitalism is a system based on constant growth and expansion. Capital, in order to be viable as capital, has to constantly be reinvested and expanded. If their capital doesn't reproduce and expand, individual investors and businessmen lose out to their competitors. Capitalism, by definition, can't accept barriers.

True, IOTL the USSR existed for 70 years and its satellites for 40 years, but only at the price of a huge costly military, decades of deadening repression, and an almost total lack of flexibility.Ironically the Soviet system itself may have been artificially prolonged by the Cold War.

Assuming there's a socialist revolution in the early 20th century, by 2000 or so the world would have to be either entirely capitalist or entirely socialist. IOTL its entirely capitalist.