Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
Challenge: Have Christian Socialism become popular in the United States of America.
AHC: Christian Socialism popular in the USA
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
Why no entry into WW1? That's a war that showed the USA how bad war could be which might fit in well with a socialist message wouldn't it?
Easier yet (If you are counting it as US territory) have the CSA win the war and then have a revolution break out 20-30 years later.
The Socialist Party's opposition to the US' entry in the First World War led to the government passing the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.
OK, I wasn't sure of the rules but it was the easiest way I could think of for at least part of the area that constitutes the US to become Christian Socialist.
katchen
Banned
Whatever the rules, then in a different timeline or today OTL, perhaps the best pathway to a socially democratic United States would be to permit the Southern States to secede and go their own unequal way. As Katznelson has pointed out in his study of the New Deal, "Fear Itself", the South shaped the New Deal and severely limited how far New Deal reforms were permitted to go. Social Security, for example, could not pass Congress --could not even get voted out of committee, without amendments that would a) exempt farm and domestic labor--the very jobs Afican Americans were limited to in the South and b) provided for local (read White in the South) administration to make sure that African Americans were denied those benefits. Similarly, GI Benefits after WWII had to be administered locally, again to keep them away from African-Americans and keep African-Americans out of white schools or any schools out of state. And when African-Americans threatened to unite with poor whites in unions, Southern Senators and Congresspeople crossed the line to vote with the Repubicans to pass the Taft Hartley Act over President Truman's veto in 1945, which severely limited union's strongest collective bargaining tools, such as wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes, secondary boycotts, ect. and enabled states to pass "right to work" laws, banning "closed shops. As one Southern Senator said "I don't want any white man to have to call a N.*** brother".
Which is why I believe that without the South and it's traditions of both inequality and "individualism" (or is it pseudo-individualism?) the rest of the United States would have moved a lot farther down the road to European style social democracy--what we Americans are fond of calling "socialism". The remaining American states would be more like Canada and would no more dream of welcoming the CSA back into the Union than they would dream of welcoming Mexico into the United States ITTL. (Not the least of which because --in the height of racial hypocrisy--the remaining United States would have no more desire to admit any more African-Americans than the United States OTTL wishes to admit very many Haitians).
Check out
www.aigts.com.au/userfiles/File/manufacturing2.pdf
to see what an industtry wide collective bargaining agreement in a socially democratic country actually looks like--and what we in the United States are missing out on. IOTL.
Which is why I believe that without the South and it's traditions of both inequality and "individualism" (or is it pseudo-individualism?) the rest of the United States would have moved a lot farther down the road to European style social democracy--what we Americans are fond of calling "socialism". The remaining American states would be more like Canada and would no more dream of welcoming the CSA back into the Union than they would dream of welcoming Mexico into the United States ITTL. (Not the least of which because --in the height of racial hypocrisy--the remaining United States would have no more desire to admit any more African-Americans than the United States OTTL wishes to admit very many Haitians).
Check out
www.aigts.com.au/userfiles/File/manufacturing2.pdf
to see what an industtry wide collective bargaining agreement in a socially democratic country actually looks like--and what we in the United States are missing out on. IOTL.
E.Ransom
Banned
Christian socialism is a non-starter in itself.
I'm not talking about the "Christian Democratic" parties of Europe, but of the full-blown socialist parties calling themselves "Christians". Socialism has an in-build contempt for Christianity, and all other religion, as the famed "opiate of the masses", and "Christian socialism" is so obviously nothing more than socialism trying to pull off using Christianity as a means, in much the same way that other totalitarian ideologies have tried to do ("deutsche Christen", anyone?).
Also, from what I know of the history of how America came to be, we would need a very early POD that I do not know what is, in order to make the "mindset" of Americans more susceptible to this strange mix of religion and politics.
For one, America was build upon "every man is his own fortune". For most of its history, there was very, very little, if any, help available for the millions of immigrants who build the US. You either stood or fell on your own merit. No one held you back, and no one helped you. That tends to make a people that thinks very little about "big government" and "handouts".
For this reason alone (though I could name others), I believe that especially in America (and elsewhere too - the movement isn't very popular at all outside of Latin America in the 70s) "Christian socialism" is a non-starter.
If you want socialism in America, you'll need to do a Bolshevik-style revolution: A few demagogues at the head of an organized movement, with some support from the Army. The Depression is probably the best time to try and pull that one off, though I honestly don't know anything about socialist sympathies in the armed forces at the time.
I'm not talking about the "Christian Democratic" parties of Europe, but of the full-blown socialist parties calling themselves "Christians". Socialism has an in-build contempt for Christianity, and all other religion, as the famed "opiate of the masses", and "Christian socialism" is so obviously nothing more than socialism trying to pull off using Christianity as a means, in much the same way that other totalitarian ideologies have tried to do ("deutsche Christen", anyone?).
Also, from what I know of the history of how America came to be, we would need a very early POD that I do not know what is, in order to make the "mindset" of Americans more susceptible to this strange mix of religion and politics.
For one, America was build upon "every man is his own fortune". For most of its history, there was very, very little, if any, help available for the millions of immigrants who build the US. You either stood or fell on your own merit. No one held you back, and no one helped you. That tends to make a people that thinks very little about "big government" and "handouts".
For this reason alone (though I could name others), I believe that especially in America (and elsewhere too - the movement isn't very popular at all outside of Latin America in the 70s) "Christian socialism" is a non-starter.
If you want socialism in America, you'll need to do a Bolshevik-style revolution: A few demagogues at the head of an organized movement, with some support from the Army. The Depression is probably the best time to try and pull that one off, though I honestly don't know anything about socialist sympathies in the armed forces at the time.
This is completely ignorant of the history of socialism. Sure, Marx and his followers were highly contemptuous of religion, but Marxism and socialism are not the same thing. In Britain, for example, Marxism never made much headway, and British socialism is heavily intertwined with Christianity. That's not a surprise - much of their early support came from inner city working class Catholic communities. It's absurd to claim that early Christian socialists weren't true believing Christians. And it goes right up to modern times: Tony Blair considers himself a Christian socialist, I believe. I'm not a socialist but it certainly sits better with Christianity than the US religious right does. Stuff like the "prosperity gospel" goes against everything Jesus ever argued.
In response to the OP, your best hope is in the Irish communities in the industrial cities. Have some priest or another found a major network providing poor relief and combining it with Bible study. That network can then be the main infrastructure for when the working class become political organised.
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
And, not to intrude, but E. Ransom's words are insulting against the Christian Socialists that frequent this very site, such as EnglishCanuck.
there aren't many socialists that identify with Christianity (in Europe that is), not because they're socialists, but because they're secular (hence don't think that their religion should have anything to do with how they act 'on the stage') ... and they're secular not because they're socialists but because being loudly religous have a bad rep, specially in northern Europe ... while Socialism and Secularism tend to be strong the same places, but they're independent of each other and their cause in the other is somewhere between minor to nonexistent.
Not that I know that much about it, but isn't this pretty much a myth? Immigrants never are on their own, except the very first one, they form communities, stick together and help each other untill they can enter mainstream society. Think about the Irish, German, Polish,... communities. If you went to America there was nearly always someone you or your family knew from somewhere who could help you and later you would help new immigrants that had some kind of connection too you.
But to the OP: One of the thinks that makes this difficult is the amount of differen christian confessions in the US. You could make a case for a kind of christian socialism developing, but giving this movement a cross confessional appeal wiii be difficult.
E.Ransom
Banned
Communities, yes. Which is also why modern America is very much about "communities". What I meant, was that there was very little government help. I should have specified that more, my bad
But there is no tradition for it.I am not a full-blown "DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT!!!! TAX IS THEFT!!!"-libertarian. And I much prefer Denmark's system to America's. My main point, was that in order to have that kind of a system (it isn't socialist, btw), you'd need a very, very early POD, possibly back to the first settlement of the thirteen colonies. You'd need a much bigger dependence on England/Britain and much more benevolent involvement from England.
And that might butterfly away the Revolution.
Communities, yes. Which is also why modern America is very much about "communities". What I meant, was that there was very little government help. I should have specified that more, my bad
I am not a full-blown "DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT!!!! TAX IS THEFT!!!"-libertarian. And I much prefer Denmark's system to America's. My main point, was that in order to have that kind of a system (it isn't socialist, btw), you'd need a very, very early POD, possibly back to the first settlement of the thirteen colonies. You'd need a much bigger dependence on England/Britain and much more benevolent involvement from England.
And that might butterfly away the Revolution.
But can't you make these communities the starting point of some kind of socialism, in this case christian socialism?
It will be a very unorthodox unmarxian kind of socialism, but it could fit.
Of course achieving this will still be difficult, especially in the US. You would need some kind of government breakdown after which communities organise themselves in their christian churches and take over goverment functions.
It will get easier if there already is some kind big church built up on providing help for their poor members and huge amount of social work.
But the hard part is
1. The government breakdown.
2. Ensuring that this organization gains power, or at least infuses its ideology into the state.
Communities, yes. Which is also why modern America is very much about "communities". What I meant, was that there was very little government help. I should have specified that more, my bad
I am not a full-blown "DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT!!!! TAX IS THEFT!!!"-libertarian. And I much prefer Denmark's system to America's. My main point, was that in order to have that kind of a system (it isn't socialist, btw), you'd need a very, very early POD, possibly back to the first settlement of the thirteen colonies. You'd need a much bigger dependence on England/Britain and much more benevolent involvement from England.
And that might butterfly away the Revolution.
Not really, but you might need to make Marx less identified with Socialism. Maybe not even being born. Socialism is older than Marx and without him Socialism might well be more intertwined with Christianity.
Because the ideas of Socialism came out before Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto. What he did is popularize it among the intelligentsia and come out with a popular book. Marxism is just one branch of Socialism and by no means the oldest.
If you're looking for "Christian Marxism", then it isn't going to happen. In this regard, E. Ransom is correct. However, "socialism" is - IMHO - a much broader term than Marxism, and Christian Socialism can, and does, exist. If one looks at the many different leftist movements that coalesced into the Labour Party in Britain, there is a massive range. Outright communists, liberals who didn't think the Liberal Party was doing enough for the poor, those from the co-operative background, social democrats and christian socialists.
For the record, I consider myself to be a Christian Socialist, with Social Democrat leanings. Or a Christian Social Democrat, with Socialist leanings. Depends on the issue at times. Then again, my church was founded by a man who was annoyed that (amongst other grievances) the Methodists wouldn't let tramps into their halls to keep warm...
I agree with this.
Using the Irish may not be the best of ideas. Wasn't there some pretty strong anti-Irish sentiments in places?
For the record, I consider myself to be a Christian Socialist, with Social Democrat leanings. Or a Christian Social Democrat, with Socialist leanings. Depends on the issue at times. Then again, my church was founded by a man who was annoyed that (amongst other grievances) the Methodists wouldn't let tramps into their halls to keep warm...
Um, because it was espoused by other people before it was espoused by Marx?
Marx's socialist views only became public after he started writing as a low-level journalist in Cologne in 1842. Meanwhile, Proudhon had famously announced "Property is theft!" two years earlier. Robert Owen was putting his theories into practice in the 1820s, for God's sake...