Could the hate of J. P. Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller's corporate empires allowed for the CPUSA to gain a major foothold in American Politics?
Plausibility Check: CPUSA Major Party
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
You mean like Italy or France? Not without some drastic PODs very early in the century. It's difficult enough to make a social democratic major party in the US, honestly.
And said PODs are unlikely to create a recognizable CPUSA.
And said PODs are unlikely to create a recognizable CPUSA.
Under the American first-past-the-post system, the best the CPUSA can do is probably what it did in the Popular Front era of 1936-39 and again from June 22, 1941 until Browder's ouster in 1945. That is, become a sort of left wing of the New Deal; in states where third parties are strong (like the American Labor Party in New York or the Farmer Labor Party in Minnesota) maximize your influence in those parties; in other states, support "progressives" in the Democratic--or less frequently, Republican--primaries. In organized labor, build the left wing of the CIO, but try to maintain good relations with the "center" represented by people like Phil Murray.
This strategy did give the CPUSA a minor but not negligible role in US "progressive" politics during the 1930's and 1940's--and a considerable role in the CIO. Whether it could have been continued in the period of the Cold War is questionable, but Browder's successors William Z. Foster and Eugene Dennis certainly squandered the party's influence in mainstream politics and trade unionism, especially through their encouragement of Henry Wallace's quixotic third party candidacy in 1948. It is not actually clear that this was done on "orders from Moscow"; rather, the CPUSA leaders may have mistakenly thought that the formation of the Comintern and Zhdanov's tough "two camps" speech dictated the formation of a third party in the US. For evidence, that the CPUSA may have misinterpreted Moscow's wishes, see http://books.google.com/books?id=a8sbrXAKLB0C&pg=PA26
This strategy did give the CPUSA a minor but not negligible role in US "progressive" politics during the 1930's and 1940's--and a considerable role in the CIO. Whether it could have been continued in the period of the Cold War is questionable, but Browder's successors William Z. Foster and Eugene Dennis certainly squandered the party's influence in mainstream politics and trade unionism, especially through their encouragement of Henry Wallace's quixotic third party candidacy in 1948. It is not actually clear that this was done on "orders from Moscow"; rather, the CPUSA leaders may have mistakenly thought that the formation of the Comintern and Zhdanov's tough "two camps" speech dictated the formation of a third party in the US. For evidence, that the CPUSA may have misinterpreted Moscow's wishes, see http://books.google.com/books?id=a8sbrXAKLB0C&pg=PA26
IIRC the Communists were very active in the CIO, but found American workers were far more interested in bread-and-butter issues like wages than agitating for American recognition of the USSR and "orders from Moscow" issues.
(Source: Making a New Deal, which I read for graduate school.)
IIRC there was some kind of ideological current among Communists that a violent revolution might not be necessary in the United States, something that Stalin condemned. Maybe in reaction the CPUSA declares itself independent of Moscow's control and starts hyping up its 100% Americanism and denouncing the iniquities of the USSR?
Maybe some American Communist visits the USSR and Stalin gratuitously kills him? Or perhaps the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact is received EXTREMELY badly?
(Source: Making a New Deal, which I read for graduate school.)
IIRC there was some kind of ideological current among Communists that a violent revolution might not be necessary in the United States, something that Stalin condemned. Maybe in reaction the CPUSA declares itself independent of Moscow's control and starts hyping up its 100% Americanism and denouncing the iniquities of the USSR?
Maybe some American Communist visits the USSR and Stalin gratuitously kills him? Or perhaps the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact is received EXTREMELY badly?
Asami
Banned
Maybe if those American communists kind of play on patriotism, they could get support. Draw parallels between the people's struggle and the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord, paint Lincoln as some sort of early socialist, and just try to Americanize the ideology.
Realpolitik
Banned
I've always thought Communism just isn't a very good fit for the US, to be blunt. The individualistic history, the "freedom" stuff... in the 40s and 50s, many famed liberals and Civil Rights activists were highly anti-Communist, and this wasn't just because McCarthy was forcing them to be.
It's not impossible-few things truly are-but it'll take some serious work. First thing, as mentioned, is getting rid of any subservience to Moscow. That'll NEVER play. Americans, unlike most people around the world, are not used to taking orders from foreigners.
It's not impossible-few things truly are-but it'll take some serious work. First thing, as mentioned, is getting rid of any subservience to Moscow. That'll NEVER play. Americans, unlike most people around the world, are not used to taking orders from foreigners.
That would be the politically clever thing to do, but the impression I've got of the hard-left is that they tend to anti-nationalist, anti-patriotic, etc. That might make them feel better about themselves, but it contributes to their own marginalization.
Making the Battle of Blair Mountain into some kind of new Concord, claiming opposition to unionization by private parties is an economic attack on the "God-given" right of free association,* etc. would be the smart thing to do.
*Opponents of the McCarthyite blacklist already do this, but there're the people on the cultural left who have no issue with boycotts, pressuring TV networks to kick people off the air, etc.
I think you would have to somehow engineer a voting system of proportional representation in the US, and move the founding of the CPUSA back to the 1880s or so (not impossible: Marx had a strong interest in US politics during his lifetime). A viable CPUSA really has to pre-date the October Revolution though. Have it develop its own indigenous way, picking up steam through the economic downturn of the 1890s.
Once you hit 1917, it's really too late, since the ideology becomes so attached to Moscow.
Once you hit 1917, it's really too late, since the ideology becomes so attached to Moscow.
Details?
There's also the "orders from Moscow" issue that would make patriotic appeals ring somewhat hollow.
http://americancommissar.wordpress.com
This is a memoir by Sandor Voros, a Hungarian immigrant to the U.S who joined the Communist Party. Many of the chapters are about the constantly shifting "party line" and the generally authoritarian nature of the CP. The posters mentioning "orders from Moscow" are correct, if you believe Voros
The book The Haunted Wood, which is about Stalin-era Soviet espionage in the U.S., make two major points.
1. There was a sustained Soviet-controlled espionage presence of the U.S. that included an attempt to get a Soviet agent elected to Congress.
2. It was not particularly effective, for among other reasons Stalin in his paranoia recalling his spymasters in the US and killing them.
Gus Hall, the head of the CPUSA, went to the USSR on at least one occasion, and that was much later IIRC. Imagine the outrage of an American Nazi Party leader going to the Third Reich to commune with the master, or a Muslim political party in the U.S. taking orders from Tehran.
My favorite quote from Voros is that in the 1930's there was "but one group absolutely convinced of the impossibility of a Communist revolution in America--the members of the Communist Party."
Yep and how about adding Christian communism into the mix, make it so that Communism is portrayed as not against religion.
The market system doesn't need to be completely controlled by the state; by allowing private property and private enterprises, just like OTL China.