AH Challenge. A Marxist State in the US.

[NapoleonXIV]

We're always seeing some US state called "the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts" or somesuch.

Given a POD after 1918 have that actually happen. That is, have Marxists (or Marxist-Leninists, or maybe even Stalinists or Maoists etc.) take over a state and change the govt to a "Soviet" model, at least as far as one can while staying within the Constitution, (which is pretty wide in what it allows State govts to be, since some have Unicameral legislatures and other odd practices for Republics etc.)

My first candidate, Louisana under the Kingfish, if he lives and his Presidential ambitions are snuffed.

[KJPedersen]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

... (which is pretty wide in what it allows State govts to be, since some have Unicameral legislatures and other odd practices for Republics etc) ...

There is nothing odd at all about a republic having an unicameral legislature. The only reason a bicameral legislature might be necessary is because the republic in question is a federation. In a unitary state, as all of the American states are, a unicameral legislature makes a great deal more sense.

As for having a Socialist state within the United States ... that would be difficult considering the fact that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

[NapoleonXIV]

Originally Posted by KJPedersen

There is nothing odd at all about a republic having an unicameral legislature. The only reason a bicameral legislature might be necessary is because the republic in question is a federation. In a unitary state, as all of the American states are, a unicameral legislature makes a great deal more sense.

As for having a Socialist state within the United States ... that would be difficult considering the fact that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The states are unitary, not federations of counties, or parishes etc..

Point taken, tho (and I remember the first one to point this out to me was the esteemed political scholar Jessie 'the body' Ventura). I didn't mean odd in like weird or anything but more just to illustrate there's a wide latitude.

OK, so you have Interstate Commerce, there's also the Uniform Commercial Code. I don't see how they prevent one state from being a good deal more Socialist than the rest.

[KJPedersen]

I merely said that it would be difficult.

It's interesting that you should mention a federation of counties and municipalities. That's a real possibility. Now, if this "Marxist" state was imbued with certain anarchistic values, then you probably would see a federation of counties and municipalities.

I could see such a democratic workers' republic founded upon both Marxism and radical Jeffersonian democracy. Namely, the center of political activity would center around "ward republics."

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by KJPedersen

There is nothing odd at all about a republic having an unicameral legislature. The only reason a bicameral legislature might be necessary is because the republic in question is a federation. In a unitary state, as all of the American states are, a unicameral legislature makes a great deal more sense.

As for having a Socialist state within the United States ... that would be difficult considering the fact that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Unicameral legislatures? As a citizen of the great state of Nebraska, I should be an expert in them!

There couldn't be too many radical changes, though, since the states have to have a republican form of government.

[KJPedersen]

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

Unicameral legislatures? As a citizen of the great state of Nebraska, I should be an expert in them!

There couldn't be too many radical changes, though, since the states have to have a republican form of government.

The only thing that rules out then is Scandihoovian social democracy as it presently stands, under a monarch.

Shall we have the Grand Texan Union of Socialist Soviet Republics ... nah.

A People's Republic of Kansas ... no.

A Federal Socialist Republic of California ... meh.

[1940LaSalle]

Getting back to the original topic: forget Louisiana; Huey Long would have been far more likely to bring a sort of fascism to that state than socialism. On the other hand, Minnesota and North Dakota in the 1930s were sufficiently left-wing so that it might not have taken much to push either into the socialist column (in fact, to this day, in Minnesota, the party of Hubert Humphrey is the DFL, which stands for Democrat-Farmer-Labor). Would it have been possible to enact full-blown Soviet-style government? I doubt it, especially the part about state ownership of production. That would have been tied up in courts for years.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by 1940LaSalle

Getting back to the original topic: forget Louisiana; Huey Long would have been far more likely to bring a sort of fascism to that state than socialism. On the other hand, Minnesota and North Dakota in the 1930s were sufficiently left-wing so that it might not have taken much to push either into the socialist column (in fact, to this day, in Minnesota, the party of Hubert Humphrey is the DFL, which stands for Democrat-Farmer-Labor). Would it have been possible to enact full-blown Soviet-style government? I doubt it, especially the part about state ownership of production. That would have been tied up in courts for years.

Impossible as the government can't sieze land without paying for it. Besides even in the 1930s far too many people owned land to do so.

[BlackMage]

OK. Let's analyse this logically. The 1912 election was the highpoint of the Socialist Party, in terms of their vote--from there, it was all downhill. The Debs ticket gained their highest vote in:

• Oklahoma
• Nevada
• Montana
• Washington (state)
• Idaho

That is where a socialist movement is going to spring up--the strongholds of the old Populism. I place a particular focus upon Oklahoma. Other possibilities are Wisconsin and Minnesota, both of which had strong Socialist movements. An American socialist movement isn't going to be doctrinaire: rather, it's going to be like the Sewer Socialist movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_Socialism

So, with Oklahoma. It had the highest per capita membership of the Socialist Party in the nation, and, with the Green Corn rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Corn_Rebellion), had the closest America has had to anything like socialist subversion. It also played a key role in weakening the Socialist Party.

So, we have no Green Corn Rebellion as our first POD. A longer term for radical Democratic governor John Walton, who implemented progressive legislation, and a leftward trend in Oklahoma politics. A more mainstream Socialist Party as a result, maybe even a Socialist-Democratic alliance. Social Democrats?

So, by the time of the Great Depression, a Socialist demagogue can be elected to power in Oklahoma. We wouldn't have Soviet governance, but definitely more authoritarian than the norm--in the mould of the aforementioned Walton. Maybe an Article 48-style clause in the Oklahoma Constitution. One party dominance with the Social-Democrats of Oklahoma, even thought that's pretty much what happened anyway with the Democrats.

So this government lasts through the Depression and quite easily beyond, keeping to democratic norms--holding regular, gerrymandered elections, congressional debates--with a quasi-command economy and a veiled dictatorship.

[Dan1988]

Another possibility (I think) could be a mixture of two things: co-operatives and Israeli-style collective settlements - that is, the moshavim and the more-famous kibbutzim. These were intended to be part of a democracy, and as such I think that rural areas re-organized along those lines could potentially work. Also, co-operatives in practically everything could also alter US society a bit. Granted, we have co-ops now, but then? I would assume that it would be unheard of. Throw in social democracy and things could get pretty interesting.

And that is without Marxism.

[Dan1988]

Originally Posted by KJPedersen

The only thing that rules out then is Scandihoovian social democracy as it presently stands, under a monarch.

You could try Scandinavian-style social democracy without a monarch. The style of government should not be your limit.

[Max Sinister]

A Marxist state like in real existing Socialism, or ideal Marxism, whatever that means?

[snerfuplz]

If you had a worse depression in the 1930's than it could be possible. During the Great Depression, many people were responsive to Communism and Facisim. If the unemployment rate was higher or there was hyperinflation, than it could be possible.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Max Sinister

A Marxist state like in real existing Socialism, or ideal Marxism, whatever that means?

It would have to be a marxist state as in real socialism. Ideal socialism only happens once the state has been removed. With a nation, you could do that, but not with a state.

Personally, the closest you could easily get would be a real social democracy. Scandinavian politics would be a close analouge.

Huey Long a Fascist? Are you serious? He was sometimes close to totalitation in his methods, but he was never a fascist!!

[MerryPrankster]

Perhaps a state government builds its own electricity generators to compete with private businesses (and pressure them to keep prices down), or buys the lands of failing farmers and tries to establish its own collective farms?

Nobody's land is being grabbed or other private property interfered with, so I don't see how anyone would have any cause to sue, nor (should someone sue) the Supreme Court have cause to interfere.

[83gemini]

How Socialist is Socialist? The CCF ran Saskatchewan in the 1940s, was the official opposition in Ontario (briefly) in the 40s, and was briefly 2nd place federally in Canada. I could envision something CCF-like emerging in parts of the US.

The best example of "Commies runnin' loose!" is probably in Kerala. It's possibly the only place in the world Marxists have consistently been able to win fair and free elections.

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by 83gemini

How Socialist is Socialist? The CCF ran Saskatchewan in the 1940s, was the official opposition in Ontario (briefly) in the 40s, and was briefly 2nd place federally in Canada. I could envision something CCF-like emerging in parts of the US.

The best example of "Commies runnin' loose!" is probably in Kerala. It's possibly the only place in the world Marxists have consistently been able to win fair and free elections.

Didn't the CCF become the NDP?

[Dan1988]

In the 1960s yes, when certain sections of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) merged with the CCF.

[Demosthenes]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

We're always seeing some US state called "the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts" or somesuch.

Given a POD after 1918 have that actually happen. That is, have Marxists (or Marxist-Leninists, or maybe even Stalinists or Maoists etc.) take over a state and change the govt to a "Soviet" model, at least as far as one can while staying within the Constitution, (which is pretty wide in what it allows State govts to be, since some have Unicameral legislatures and other odd practices for Republics etc.)

My first candidate, Louisana under the Kingfish, if he lives and his Presidential ambitions are snuffed.

Sorry to inform you, but the Republican form of government allowed under the Constitution could possibly prohibit a Marxist state.

[Dan1988]

^ Actually it could allow a Marxist state to develop, even in a republican democracy.