A Red Dawn: American Revolution and Rebirth

[The Sandman]

One quick thought, in re Hawaii and the Caribbean territories/Cuba:

I see them as being hotbeds of support for the Revolution. Lots of agricultural workers, most of whom weren't white, is going to spell radicalization in a TL like this one, especially since the UASR and the Worker's Party that proceeded it were openly supportive of minority rights in addition to being the only political entity that would appear to have been standing up to the bosses (and the sugar industry wasn't particularly nice even in OTL).

The US exiles may well initially flee to Cuba, but I don't see them remaining there, especially since ITTL the USAR acquired most of the old USN and its personnel intact. They probably end up somewhere in South America; one particularly amusing possibility would be "Fordlandia" becoming a reality ITTL when the Brazilians offer that land to the US exiles in exchange for monetary and technical assistance.

[eschaton]

One thing I don't think I saw in the synopsis of the cultural revolution is the UASR's policies towards Native Americans. What's going on there?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by The Sandman

One quick thought, in re Hawaii and the Caribbean territories/Cuba:

I see them as being hotbeds of support for the Revolution. Lots of agricultural workers, most of whom weren't white, is going to spell radicalization in a TL like this one, especially since the UASR and the Worker's Party that proceeded it were openly supportive of minority rights in addition to being the only political entity that would appear to have been standing up to the bosses (and the sugar industry wasn't particularly nice even in OTL).

The US exiles may well initially flee to Cuba, but I don't see them remaining there, especially since ITTL the USAR acquired most of the old USN and its personnel intact. They probably end up somewhere in South America; one particularly amusing possibility would be "Fordlandia" becoming a reality ITTL when the Brazilians offer that land to the US exiles in exchange for monetary and technical assistance.

I'd tend to agree with you. Cuba was lurching to the left IOTL with a series of unstable governments until Batista (who himself started out as a pro-labor populist). With the UASR first existing as an example, and later no doubt at least through espionage providing aid to Cuban revolutionaries, I don't see the American rule lasting - especially because Americans at most probably make up 5%-10% of the population.

However, the American junta will have to some degree learned the lessons of their loss. I would guess they'll invest a considerable amount of time and money into developing the Cuban economy - probably breaking the power of the historical economic elite in the process intentionally, in order to curry the favor they need as outsiders for continued rule. They'd still be doomed of course, but they could forestall it a generation if they played their cards right.

[Kate]

ITTL Cuba could become an "American Taiwan", or, better yet, an "American Miami", playing out several historical ironies. The USA gov't may make Cuba a "state" and have ROC style "elections" with Senate and Congressional seats reserved for the other 49 states.

Two other people I can't help wonder about. Does CLR James play a role ITTL? Is he involved in the ANC?

Also-I know its a few years down the line but it would be cool if ITTL Waler Benjamin does not OD on morphine and makes it to the UASR. I could see him playing a role in a future American counterculture.

[The Sandman]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'd tend to agree with you. Cuba was lurching to the left IOTL with a series of unstable governments until Batista (who himself started out as a pro-labor populist). With the UASR first existing as an example, and later no doubt at least through espionage providing aid to Cuban revolutionaries, I don't see the American rule lasting - especially because Americans at most probably make up 5%-10% of the population.

However, the American junta will have to some degree learned the lessons of their loss. I would guess they'll invest a considerable amount of time and money into developing the Cuban economy - probably breaking the power of the historical economic elite in the process intentionally, in order to curry the favor they need as outsiders for continued rule. They'd still be doomed of course, but they could forestall it a generation if they played their cards right.

My assumption, however, is that the American junta simply won't have the time to consolidate its rule in Cuba. Partly because the Cubans are going to be hostile to the USA-in-exile, partly because with the US Navy in the hands of the USAR and Cuba only 90 miles from Florida, the USAR is going to be able to invade almost immediately. At best, they use Cuba as a base to reorganize before moving farther south, out of reach of the USAR; there might even be a split in the USA-in-exile between a minority that wants to reclaim the US from Cuba and a majority that wants to rebuild where the USAR can't touch them before launching the Reconquista.

[Aranfan]

Originally Posted by The Sandman

My assumption, however, is that the American junta simply won't have the time to consolidate its rule in Cuba. Partly because the Cubans are going to be hostile to the USA-in-exile, partly because with the US Navy in the hands of the USAR and Cuba only 90 miles from Florida, the USAR is going to be able to invade almost immediately. At best, they use Cuba as a base to reorganize before moving farther south, out of reach of the USAR; there might even be a split in the USA-in-exile between a minority that wants to reclaim the US from Cuba and a majority that wants to rebuild where the USAR can't touch them before launching the Reconquista.

Problem with that is how Castro is still in charge there in OTL. By the time the USA gets it's shit together, it will have entrenched itself too much. And the UASR isn't going to invade, because the Depression is on.

[The Sandman]

Originally Posted by Aranfan

Problem with that is how Castro is still in charge there in OTL. By the time the USA gets it's shit together, it will have entrenched itself too much. And the UASR isn't going to invade, because the Depression is on.

It's a continuation of the Second Civil War in this case, though. It's something that probably would have happened immediately, barring the Royal Navy stepping in to prevent it. Which would be considered a very hostile act by the USAR government, and rightly so.

On a different subject, I suspect that Jane Jacobs is going to have a fascinating career ITTL, and that "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" might well become the guide for urban planning in the 1960s. Which in my opinion can only be a good thing.

Public transportation will of course be a major feature of both *American cities and the countryside, the latter of which would be served by a network of buses and short-hop flights, covering those areas that the rail network doesn't serve. The rail network itself doesn't need to expand, given the sheer amount of track already in place; more likely, you'll see a continuous series of upgrades to the rail net aimed at increasing the speed and efficiency of the lines. Long-distance air travel is likely to be confined to transcontinental or international trips, or urgent business at distances just long enough for high-speed rail to not be as efficient.

I would also expect that at least one or two years of national service in some capacity would be a standard part of the education system. Partly as a way of making sure that all citizens have at least some experience with life outside of their hometown, partly to provide a guaranteed source of manpower for everything from the military to the *CCC and *WPA.

As for WWII ITTL, I think it's going to be a complicated "everyone against everyone" mess. Britain and France are, at least initially, going to see the Germans and Italians as less threatening than the Red Tide of revolution, and will gladly sell Eastern Europe and the Balkans down the river if it keeps the Nazis and Fascists pointed towards the Commies. Germany will put revenge against France as a second priority to destroying the Soviet Union, and Italy can content itself with an endless quagmire in the Balkans.

The Japanese will still go after China, but won't have any reason to head South; not at first. Instead, they'll probably go north shortly after the Germans invade the Soviet Union, after the Soviets start shipping Siberian units west to stall the Germans short of Moscow. This would prompt the UASR to sever ties with Japan, or potentially to go to war with them. Whether the Japanese try to go south at some point depends entirely on their own resource situation or whether they see an opportunity to grab territory for minimal risk.

When the Soviet Union is forced to sue for peace with the Germans (and absent a second front in the west, it will be), the Germans will turn and backstab the British and French. At that point, Britain and France will find themselves uneasy allies with the UASR against Nazi aggression; this diplomatic shift becomes far more complicated if the Franco-British Entente was actively at war with the UASR and Soviet Union, instead of just giving the Nazis all support short of war.

Ultimately, the "Second World War" might well end up as something more akin to the Napoleonic Wars, in so far as that the only constant feature of each phase would be that Hitler and Germany would be at war with somebody. The USAR would probably find itself playing the role that Britain did in the Napoleonic Wars, as the only consistent enemy of the Nazis.

[Whanztastic]

I think the USAR gave up claim to Cuba and some other territories, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico and the Philippines IIRC. If the USAR wished to attempt to reclaim the territories, I imagine it being a Taiwan situation, with a British-French naval coalition standing in the way. Plus the whole Hitler question may get be more important in the short term, thus distracting the USAR for long enough for the US-in-exile to gain more permanent status.

A few thoughts - the legal status of drugs, esp. marijuana? I imagine hemp being a good crop for many collectives, and now that there is no timber lobby in Debs, D.C. (Washington) there is less chance of criminalization, plus, add an aborted prohibition movement. (run on much?)

Also - beverages. Tea vs. coffee? I imagine that coffee may get frowned upon as a capitalist tool, possibly. Or is this all replaced by soft drinks? Or are soft drinks more constrained to the south due to seemingly increased cultural differences?

I imagine beer, cider, whiskey, bourbon etc. being more popular compared to wine, brandy, gin etc due to class differences. Also, rum should be very popular in the US exile. Furthermore, vodka should be much more popular in the US, compared to its recent rise to popularity.


Also, a closer connections with Russia and Mexico should mean greater influx of Russian foods and a quicker influx beyond the southwest.

EDIT: I just realized that I shouldn't post hungry.

Could not excommunicated/dissatisfied Catholics turn to the Episcopalian church?

I read through the TLs today and those were some of my cultural thoughts. But I'm very excited for this!

[TNF]

I get the feeling that the political situation in Cuba is going to very similar to OTL's Taiwan, with the GOP as the KMT analogue and a pro-Cuban independence party similar to the DPP rising up in an environment that's probably hostile to the Democratic Party (what, with the GOP having lead the coup and all and the Democrats having supported the UASR gov't).

[The Sandman]

Originally Posted by Whanztastic

I think the USAR gave up claim to Cuba and some other territories, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico and the Philippines IIRC. If the USAR wished to attempt to reclaim the territories, I imagine it being a Taiwan situation, with a British-French naval coalition standing in the way. Plus the whole Hitler question may get be more important in the short term, thus distracting the USAR for long enough for the US-in-exile to gain more permanent status.

My feeling on that is that the UASR would find it politically difficult to simply abandon Cuba, Hawaii and Puerto Rico to capitalist control when all three of those territories are a) likely to be hotbeds of revolutionary sentiment and b) fairly populous. Guam, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands are extremely minor in importance to the post-Revolution US, Alaska doesn't appear to be worth the effort it would take to keep it, and the Philippines would want outright independence, so the UASR can easily cut those territories loose. But the other three? Not so much.

A few thoughts - the legal status of drugs, esp. marijuana? I imagine hemp being a good crop for many collectives, and now that there is no timber lobby in Debs, D.C. (Washington) there is less chance of criminalization, plus, add an aborted prohibition movement. (run on much?)

Makes sense to me. Hard drugs would probably be heavily discouraged through information campaigns and social pressure, but couldn't be outlawed in the new political environment even if people want to. Marijuana? At most, gets the same treatment in educational campaigns and the Health Department as alcohol and tobacco, and maybe not even that much.

Also - beverages. Tea vs. coffee? I imagine that coffee may get frowned upon as a capitalist tool, possibly. Or is this all replaced by soft drinks? Or are soft drinks more constrained to the south due to seemingly increased cultural differences?

It depends. If Hawaii and Cuba do end up part of the UASR after all, local coffee co-ops are going to have a wide market to distribute to. Tea might become bigger simply because it can be grown in a much larger portion of the US than coffee can. The political situation in Latin America would affect how much coffee was being produced under conditions acceptable to the UASR.

I imagine beer, cider, whiskey, bourbon etc. being more popular compared to wine, brandy, gin etc due to class differences. Also, rum should be very popular in the US exile. Furthermore, vodka should be much more popular in the US, compared to its recent rise to popularity.

American wines are going to be a big thing much earlier, because some people are simply going to prefer the flavor of wine to other alternatives and are going to want a properly socialist winery to purchase from. The liquors most likely to benefit, though, are things like applejack, calvados, Grand Marnier, and other fruit-based alcohols; all of those collective farms with distilleries are going to put them to use on whatever they produce, and a lot of them are going to produce fruit. Although vodka will also do well just from the potato farms...

Also, a closer connections with Russia and Mexico should mean greater influx of Russian foods and a quicker influx beyond the southwest.

That would be fascinating, given the degree to which French cuisine influenced post-war America's culinary culture. Some Asian cuisines may also show up earlier; Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Malayan and Indian are all going to benefit from association with the inevitably socialist liberation movements in those nations.

Originally Posted by The New Freedom

I get the feeling that the political situation in Cuba is going to very similar to OTL's Taiwan, with the GOP as the KMT analogue and a pro-Cuban independence party similar to the DPP rising up in an environment that's probably hostile to the Democratic Party (what, with the GOP having lead the coup and all and the Democrats having supported the UASR gov't).

The large number of radicalized agricultural workers on the antebellum Cuban plantations would be an interesting wrinkle in the political situation. Without a bloody crackdown, the exiled junta won't be able to retain power, but a bloody crackdown on Cuban socialists would guarantee a UASR intervention that the USA-in-exile has no way of surviving.

[Kate]

The junta in Cuba could make itself a going concern depending on finances and military power. Finances would depend on how much gold from Ft. Knox and elsewhere they can get out, also if their foreign currency reserves,bonds and other securities don't lose value. This would probably serve to closely tie the junta in with the City of London. The junta also needs to maintain control over "American interests"-plantations and other holdings in Central America and the Caribbean and to keep local elites in line.

The KMT were originally intensely unpopular in Taiwan,a rebellion was bloodily suppressed in 46. The KMT were supported by the US. Mainlanders and the US provided capital but a boom didn't begin until the late 60s, IOTL. Ideologically the ROC regime presented itself as a "democracy" struggling against a totalitarian Mainland dictatorship.

Militarily in the short run the US junta would have most of the US Marines, some of the army and the conservative officer corps.W/out a navy they would need either the British or the Germans. The Brits already had a large economic presence in South America, this may be a means to extend it, although British support will risk a war w/the UASR..

Ideologically, despite atrocities and some repression, the UASR appears to be a functioning democracy, allowing opposition parties and free elections, so it may not be as easy (but not impossible) for the junta to "stand as a beacon of freedom". The First Cultural Revolution in America was not as destructive as the one in China.

[eschaton]

Sandman,

I think you're forgetting that, at least initially the anti-imperialist elements of socialism will be at the forefront of the revolution. Yes, that means the UASR will oppose other nations imperialist gambits, but it also means it will take some time and deformation of the revolution to get America comfortable with extraterritorial wars which aren't in self defense. Of course, helping indigenous revolutionary movements with arms and logistical support is another thing...

Also, Hawaii was given to the UK to essentially buy off their neutrality, so realpolitik trumped anything there.

Kate,

The one big difference between Taiwan and TTL's America/Cuba is Taiwan was majority ethnic Chinese, although there were some divisions between the older settlers ("natives") and the post-civil-war refugees.

Cuba will have a small economic and political elite which speaks a different language, and to a certain degree is racially separate from the majority of the populace. I think a better parallel here will be French Algeria or South Africa. Thus, I see a collapse essentially inevitable by TTL's 1980s at the latest, when presumably anti-colonialist movements have reached their culmination. Their best-case scenario for the old American elite is enough refugees came to create an Israel-like deadlock and a state of permanent militarization, but that seems unlikely from what we know about the number of people who came (IIRC, it was somewhere in the range of 300,000 to 500,000).

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

Originally Posted by The Sandman

As for WWII ITTL, I think it's going to be a complicated "everyone against everyone" mess. Britain and France are, at least initially, going to see the Germans and Italians as less threatening than the Red Tide of revolution, and will gladly sell Eastern Europe and the Balkans down the river if it keeps the Nazis and Fascists pointed towards the Commies. Germany will put revenge against France as a second priority to destroying the Soviet Union, and Italy can content itself with an endless quagmire in the Balkans.

The Japanese will still go after China, but won't have any reason to head South; not at first. Instead, they'll probably go north shortly after the Germans invade the Soviet Union, after the Soviets start shipping Siberian units west to stall the Germans short of Moscow. This would prompt the UASR to sever ties with Japan, or potentially to go to war with them. Whether the Japanese try to go south at some point depends entirely on their own resource situation or whether they see an opportunity to grab territory for minimal risk.

When the Soviet Union is forced to sue for peace with the Germans (and absent a second front in the west, it will be), the Germans will turn and backstab the British and French. At that point, Britain and France will find themselves uneasy allies with the UASR against Nazi aggression; this diplomatic shift becomes far more complicated if the Franco-British Entente was actively at war with the UASR and Soviet Union, instead of just giving the Nazis all support short of war.

Ultimately, the "Second World War" might well end up as something more akin to the Napoleonic Wars, in so far as that the only constant feature of each phase would be that Hitler and Germany would be at war with somebody. The USAR would probably find itself playing the role that Britain did in the Napoleonic Wars, as the only consistent enemy of the Nazis.

My guess would be an London/Paris/Tokyo alt-axis sitting out of WW2 but potentially taking Franco´s side to avoid an american foothold in western europe, trade Germany industry and technology for ressources.
Hitler would prepare Germany for a long instead of a short war, would go for total war from day 1.
He is still unable to win, unlike what many believes seizing Moscow wouldn´t result in an unconditional sovietic surrender or collapse, seizing the Caucasian oilfields would be feasible with correct preparations but then the Soviets would retreate to Iran (where oil ressources would be available too).
For a time, Germany and its allies might even be able to hold sovietic territories from Arkangelsk to Astrakhan but then the combined strenght of the UASR and CCCP would start pressing axis forces back.
Red storm rising, an army of 20 millions soldiers, falls uppon central and eastern europe.
20-40 millions refugees flee westward, eventually settles in the european colonies and in the post-war years assist in the fight against the independentist movements supported by the UASR and CCCP.

[snerfuplz]

Originally Posted by Whanztastic

A few thoughts - the legal status of drugs, esp. marijuana? I imagine hemp being a good crop for many collectives, and now that there is no timber lobby in Debs, D.C. (Washington) there is less chance of criminalization, plus, add an aborted prohibition movement. (run on much?)

Originally Posted by The Sandman

M
Hard drugs would probably be heavily discouraged through information campaigns and social pressure, but couldn't be outlawed in the new political environment even if people want to. Marijuana? At most, gets the same treatment in educational campaigns and the Health Department as alcohol and tobacco, and maybe not even that much.

Marijuana was legal in the United States till the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. With the revolution happening earlier it is still very possible marijuana is still legal especially with the Prohibition movement dying in its infancy.

[The Sandman]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Sandman,

I think you're forgetting that, at least initially the anti-imperialist elements of socialism will be at the forefront of the revolution. Yes, that means the UASR will oppose other nations imperialist gambits, but it also means it will take some time and deformation of the revolution to get America comfortable with extraterritorial wars which aren't in self defense. Of course, helping indigenous revolutionary movements with arms and logistical support is another thing...

Also, Hawaii was given to the UK to essentially buy off their neutrality, so realpolitik trumped anything there.

Granted. At the same time, there's going to be at least one major faction in the UASR government that's going to want to retake Hawaii and Cuba due to the high support for the Worker's Party in both pre-Revolution. Selling them out to Britain and the USA-in-exile isn't going to be seen as a "not our problem" thing, it's going to be seen as a betrayal of the members of the Worker's Party in both to the capitalists. Especially in Hawaii, because Hawaii is a de jure territory of the US instead of just a de facto one like Cuba.

In the Caribbean, the USA-in-exile isn't just going to be dealing with rebellion on Cuba; they're probably going to be trying to maintain control of Haiti and the Dominican Republic too.

South America is going to be a much bigger mess ITTL in the 1940s, with at least one major proxy war between the UASR and the right-wing European governments likely.

The Spanish Civil War probably goes to the Republicans, since the UASR is going to be helping them (and with slightly fewer strings attached than Stalin's "help"). On the other hand, France and Britain might actually support Franco ITTL, seeing him as the lesser of two evils in comparison.

China is going to be more chaotic too; the UASR and the Soviets are going to be competing for influence over Mao, and the Chinese Communists might end up splitting as a result.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by The Sandman

In the Caribbean, the USA-in-exile isn't just going to be dealing with rebellion on Cuba; they're probably going to be trying to maintain control of Haiti and the Dominican Republic too.

IOTL racism and fear of a Haitian style massacre (or at least what was perceived as such) played a role in Cuba and the Caribbean SA countries.Elites in Columbia and Venezuela were somewhat ambiguous about independence during the time of Bolivar. Popular culture in Cuba-literature and poetry was openly racist until the late 19th century, far later than elsewhere in LA.Anti-Spanish rebellions were not supported.Finally a Cuban demographic survey in the 1880s showed "whites" as the majority of the population, now it was "okay to kick out Spain" and Jose Marti's movement was supported.

Admittedly I don't know much about the dynamics of 1930s Cuba in IOTL,but it could be possible that Cuban elites might welcome several 100,000 people from El Norte.After a few massacres, the junta might be fairly progressive, carrying out left wing New Deal style reforms in Cuba.

Elites though out Central America were placed in power, or at least backed up, by the US Marines in the 20s, the "Banana Wars" The Somoza family in Nicaragua, the 9 Families in El Salvador, etc. These people would be terrified after a socialist revolution up north and would reach out to any conservative power willing to support them,.

The split in the Catholic Church in the UASR would play a role.Pope Pius XI would be bitterly anti-UASR . This could also work to ease the cultural divide between the gringo juntaists and the Cuban elite.

The British still had Jamaica-although w/unrest in the 30s, and presumably the Panama Canal Zone would be allied w/the Junta.

Traditional Latin American Communist Parties were not revolutionary. They usually wanted to be a part of the system. IOTL the Cuban CP supported Batista almost to the end. Revolutionary activity came w/the Guevarists, left Peronists, and left Catholics.Depending on relations w/Stalin, the CPs might play a conservative role.

I don't think a succesful Junta is likely , politically the UASR can't allow it, but if it manages to survive a year or two there is going to be a huge mess.This could influence or delay a UASR entry into the Second World War. Regardless, its safe to say that Cuba Libre will not be a popular drink among Junta members

Originally Posted by The Sandman

China is going to be more chaotic too; the UASR and the Soviets are going to be competing for influence over Mao, and the Chinese Communists might end up splitting as a result.

Possibly an urban based semi-Trotskyists movement led by Chen Duxiou?

[TNF]

Traditional Latin American Communist Parties were not revolutionary. They usually wanted to be a part of the system. IOTL the Cuban CP supported Batista almost to the end. Revolutionary activity came w/the Guevarists, left Peronists, and left Catholics.Depending on relations w/Stalin, the CPs might play a conservative role.

If that's the case, ITTL that would seem to me to mean they'd be much more likely to be allied with the democratic UASR, considering of course that TTL's Communist Party in the U.S. stayed within the boundaries of legal action and only ultimately pursued revolution when reaction kept them from taking their legal place in office.

[Aranfan]

How's this guy doing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUpTJg2EBpw

[Kate]

Originally Posted by The New Freedom

If that's the case, ITTL that would seem to me to mean they'd be much more likely to be allied with the democratic UASR, considering of course that TTL's Communist Party in the U.S. stayed within the boundaries of legal action and only ultimately pursued revolution when reaction kept them revolutionary movements not under their direct control, they often worked to sabotage or estroy them.from taking their legal place in office.

Interesting point. the terms "revolutionary", "communist", "socialist" have had widely differing, sometimes directly opposing, meanings. Traditionally "Stalinist" CPs around the world subordinated their policies to the foreign policy goals of the Soviet Union. "What's good for the Soviet Union is good for the Revolution". this often made for bizarre zig-zags in CP policies around the world.

After an ultra-left "Third Period" (1928-1935)Stalin was desperate to placate Britain and France and downplayed foreign revolutions.During the Spanish Civil War/ Spanish Revolution the Soviet backed CP (to the surprise of many) played a "conservative" role-they opposed land collectivization, worker's coops, etc. The Ken Loach film "Land and Freedom" points this out.

Related to this Marxist-Leninist and Maoist philosophy also traditionally follows a "two stage" theory of revolution-first an alliance of progressive classes, than socialism. This has led CPs to actually play a conservative role in many places. Revolutionary movements were often pushed in a more "reformist" direction.The dictatorial nature of the Soviet leadership also led them to distrust movements not under their direct control and worked to sabotage and destroy them.Amadeo Bordiga , an Italian "ultra-leftist", called Stalin (to his face) the "gravedigger of the revolution" at a Comintern meeting and surprisingly lived to tell about it.

Central America/Cuba basically had a semi-feudalist systen based on single crop economies.I could see the UASR, with a more open, democratic system with free elections, being more of a challenge to these elites than USSR allied CPs.

[Jello_Biafra]

Architecture in the UASR

The architectural style of the UASR's early years was heavily influenced by the Soviet constructivist school, which was influential in the USSR from the 1921 to 1932. With opportunities for cultural exchange opened up by the technical exchange programs between America and the Soviet Union, many disaffected Soviet architects from the now disfavored constructivist school would find opportunities for their work to flourish in America. They, along with their American colleagues and students, would greatly influence the architectural style of the Cultural Revolution and the post-war world.

Constructivist architecture combined a thorough appreciation of the most advanced science and engineering with an explicitly Communist social purpose. Constructivists sought to make the design of buildings, whether they served as living or working arrangements, be conducive to an egalitarian social and economic existence. It's popularity in early America came in no large part to the futurist rationalism it professed: that humans could with their intellect and their labor build a better existence for themselves and one another. It also reflected a certain reverence among many politically conscious Americans for their Soviet comrades; as the popular imagination had constructed it, they had led the way to the future, America's overwhelming economic and scientific dominance notwithstanding. Constructivism in its formative stages was a part of the same "Soviet chic" mileau as Russian loanwords were in educated converstion, or as socialist realism was in arts and literature.

Some of the earliest expressions of constructivism are found in the many government ministries constructed early in this era. Among these, the Secretariat for Heavy Industry was no doubt one of the most striking and important statements of the style. Based on the emigre Vesnin brothers' (rejected) designs for a building of similar function in Moscow, the "Big Bill" Haywood Center, as it was christened, stands on the Potomac River in Debs, D.C., as a potent symbol of America's new dawn.(1)

One of Vesnin's early sketches of the Heavy Industry Secretariat, while it was still a Soviet project.The finished building differs very little.

Constructivism was, for obvious reasons, the stylistic choice for the many monuments constructed during the Cultural Revolution. Many, such as the Temple of the Revolution in the National Mall, would offer a subtle deconstruction of the neo-classical motifs of other monuments in the city. The Temple of the Revolution would incorporate the pillars and bright marble of the neo-classical style, inverting its purpose to serve as a shrine not to great men, but to a whole class of people. It's murals and statues have no names. They come from all races and creeds, and from all trades. They are united as workers and as human beings, no one before another as a master or leader.


Brooklyn, New York's Palace of Science and Technology, another exemplar of the style

The influence of constructivism extended far beyond government buildings and monuments. Communal dwellings and workplaces designed and constructed in this era were most often designed by students of the constructivist school. In keeping with constructivist philosophy, the high-rise communal apartments of urban renewal projects, and the centers of life in the rural kibbutzim embodied a commitment to social living. Most dwellings were designed around central kitchen and living spaces, balancing community with privacy.

The average urban communal dwelling of this era tended to be designed to house four to five average families, or roughly two dozen single adults. A communal kitchen, equipped with the latest labor saving devices, would serve as the focal point of the dwelling. A dining room and a central living space, furnished for group activity or discussion, would be built around the kitchen space. And around the communal areas, smaller parlors for reading or study, bedrooms, bathrooms, etc., would be arrayed. Some atypical designs eschewed private bedrooms for communal sleeping arrangements, but these were not as popular, and tended to be utilized either by large extended families or by college students and young independent workers.


Iakov Cherkinov's overview sketch for the future of Harlem's skyline

Rustlin' Up Some Grub

One unexpected consequence of the America's political and social revolution was that the demands of time placed on the citizenry had greatly increased. The social expectation to participate in the radical democratic experiment was was quite powerful, and there were plenty of demands on everyone's time. The average worker was expected to participate in the bimonthly factory assemblies that ratified basic policy, participate in the discussion and election of the worker council that would serve as the assembly's steering committee, participate in the bimonthly public assembly of his neighborhood, participate in the policy debate and election of the ward council, and of the government of his city commune, along with his or her private life. That is a lot of time that has to be spent thinking about political issues, and a lot of time spent participating in democracy.

Where does one find the hours in the day? The answer had to be some sort of division of labor. Communal living would help alleviate some of the burdens of time and would rationalize the time and energy of the home. But that would not be enough. Not everyone could or wanted to live in a commune. Single dwellings would remain quite common, and for those people to participate in social and political life, there would still need to be a division of labor.

In many ways, this necessity had already been anticipated by the long working hours of the prior capitalist society. Many urban workers didn't have the time to tend to their own cooking or laundry, and so would patronize local restaurants and launderers to save time and energy. Many municipalities after the revolution took great care to promote this. Restaurants, laundries, and other such facilities would be collectivized, and subsidized by the municipality.

By the late 1940s, America would eventually surpass France in the world imagination as the nation of cafes and restaurants.

The American palette remained largely unchanged throughout the 30s. In urban areas, the same melting pot of ethnic cuisines, tailored to fill the bellies of men who worked long hours, would remain dominant. In rural communes, the same time tested formula of locally grown foods was on the menu, much the same as it had been for centuries. Bacon or sausage, fried eggs, and fried bread in the morning. Meat, potatoes and vegetables in the afternoon.

One particular change during the Cultural Revolution was drinking habits. Beer, wine and liquor had long been languishing under state level prohibition laws. In 1932, eighteen of the forty-eight states were totally dry, and more than a dozen more heavily restricted alcoholic beverages. The Revolution brought a new renaissance in brewing and distilling, and alcohol would become one of the staples of the kibbutzim's agro-industrial economies. Minimum drinking ages were effectively abolished in most provinces and municipalities, though heavy social pressure continues to exist against unsupervised or excessive drinking by minors.

The proliferation of new breweries, wineries and distilleries in this period brought a new explosion of styles and flavors in drinks. While soft drinks continued to grow in popularity as well in this era, beer as well grew considerably in popularity. Many different styles were experimented with, and new discernible drinking patterns emerged. In the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest, dark bitter ales and hoppy lagers were more popular. In the South, lighter, often fruitier lagers were more popular, as were many native wine varieties. In the Midwest, grain whiskeys and dry wines were most popular.

Coffees and teas are often discouraged, due to being imported most often from heavily exploitative capitalist states. However, as part of trade agreements with Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the UASR has arranged considerable investment for the creation of non-exploitative coffee collectives in these countries. As part of the "Good Neighbor" policy of foreign investment and modernization, these trade programs provided considerable relief and long-term economic stability to America's southern allies. Though this arrangement was strained by admission of Communist-led Haiti and the Dominican Republic into the UASR in 1941 and 47 respectively, the policy would ultimately endure for many decades before eventually being phased out.

1. It stands roughly where the Watergate complex stands IOTL.