A Major American Socialist Party

How can a socialist party in America become a major political party and what effect would it have on the rest of history?
 
How can a socialist party in America become a major political party and what effect would it have on the rest of history?

William McKinley isn't shot, Theodore Roosevelt is never President, Progressivism never becomes main stream, by 1910's Eugene Debs's Socialist Party of America is worming it's way up to being America's newest Party


(by the way, how would people classify the Populist Party?)
 
Debs won six percent of the vote in the early 20th century, I'd say that is pretty major. Better than Ron Paul, in any case.
 
As America never had a conservative[1] strain, they never had a socialist strain.

Simple as that. Keep some conservatives in the US and, like Canada or Europe, you'll eventually develop socialism.

Arguably New England or perhaps the Mid-Atlantic/Great Lakes belt is the best place, as that'd be most amiable to Radical / Disraeli Tories and hence a hop skip and a jump to socialism.



[1 ]Burkean conservatives. All of US political ideology is basically tightly defined versions of classical liberalism, with some European derived social democracy entering with FDR's New Deal.
 
Well, an extreme POD, but avoid the Cold War, don't have any sort of anti-Communist backlash, maybe society in general's views will be more left wing...
 
Well, an extreme POD, but avoid the Cold War, don't have any sort of anti-Communist backlash, maybe society in general's views will be more left wing...

It's not about America being left-wing or right-wing—it's simply that America does not have the ideology of conservatism and hence it lacks socialism. Up until the New Deal America only had various strains of classical liberalism, and all the New Deal did was introduce European echoes of socialism in the form of social democracy (but, note, that American social democracy is heavily influenced by classical liberalism while elsewhere social democracy is the reluctantly capitalist version of socialism).


Keep a fairly large group of conservatives around in the States (delay/alter the Revolution? Loyalists don't flee?) and you'll eventually get socialists. Simple as that.

The problem is that conservatism is about group rights and community, while America was explicitly founded on individual rights. If one could alter the form of the revolution so that is not the case, we could have something to work with later on.
 
Classical liberalism is so deeply ingrained in American culture that most Americans have trouble understanding other theories of how society operates. For socialism to take off, the POD has to be way before the cold war: Socialism became a dirty word in America because of the Russian Revolution. Socialism would only thrive in America if it were wrapped in an American flag and served up with a heavy dose of Christianity. The Southern Populists of the early 20th century came close, but weren't quite.
 
It's not about America being left-wing or right-wing—it's simply that America does not have the ideology of conservatism and hence it lacks socialism. Up until the New Deal America only had various strains of classical liberalism, and all the New Deal did was introduce European echoes of socialism in the form of social democracy (but, note, that American social democracy is heavily influenced by classical liberalism while elsewhere social democracy is the reluctantly capitalist version of socialism). <<snip>>
The problem is that conservatism is about group rights and community, while America was explicitly founded on individual rights. If one could alter the form of the revolution so that is not the case, we could have something to work with later on.

I'm not really convinced of the entirety of the notion 1) that conservatism is about group rights and community (multicultrualism?) and 2) that America lacks such a notion. For one, the former is a prima facie description of Southern fire-eaters and States' Rights.

I think it's important to dig a little deeper: because of the western frontier, a mobile society, and a unique imbalance in the relative price of land and labor, America lacked a wealthy class which sought to retain political privilege. When you did have such a class weilding power, it rarely agreed and never really had any entrenched privleges as a class. Plus there were just so many other divisions that were most gripping to an American--race, geography, nationality, etc.

Now, I agree, that a successful American socialism will be a lot different than any form of European or Asian socialism. Indeed, one reason I think socialism faired so poorly is that it had few American intellectual champions (hence, Turtledove in order to create a Socialist party had to turn Lincoln into America's Marx). Secondly, American political parties have never turned on ideologies (and still don't no matter what CNN tells you). Thirdly, you'd need to keep American Socialism from embracing atheism (though some forms of Christian Socialism might do quite well).

All of the above means that where a European worker might be convinced to take political action to take control of the means of production, the American worker harbors deep hopes of one day controling those means himself (even and sometimes especially in immigrants). However, that is largely due to the peculiar circumstance of America's relative price of land and labor.
 
I'm basically arguing Louis Hartz's fragment theory here, from his book: The Liberal Tradition in America.

Essentially whenever a colonial nation broke free of Europe—that's their political ideology.

Restoration, Not Renovation: A Fresh Start for Hartz-Horowitz might also be interesting reading.

(Horowitz is the guy that applied Hartz's theories to Canada and, incidentially, coined the term "Red Tory" so the Conservative "Tory" Party post-WWII could be seen both as American imported (and business elites of Montreal and Toronto) classical liberals "Blue Tories" and the old One-Nation Conservatism "Red Tories". Charles Taylor came up with my preferred term (as I am one): "Radical Tory". Eventually, of course, us Radical Tories lost entirely to the classical liberals.)

I'm not really convinced of the entirety of the notion 1) that conservatism is about group rights and community (multicultrualism?) and 2) that America lacks such a notion. For one, the former is a prima facie description of Southern fire-eaters and States' Rights.

Not multiculturalism, surely, in Canada at least that's the invention of Trudeau. Before 1967 Canada's policy was, as I like to call it, a tapestry: you didn't have to assimilate American style, you were not allowed to set up your own independent enclaves that multiculturalism has wound up being, and in the end your culture became a piece of the broader Canadian culture.

And of course the South had the greatest number of Loyalists, and hence the greatest number of conservatives. You can trace people like Governor Huckabee back to that, albeit with a far stronger religious flavour than conservatism in other countries and deeply contaminated by the predominant American classical liberalism.


In the broadest possible sense a conservative thinks: group rights are more important than individual rights (communitarianism & collectivism)[1], change should be slow, the government is a force for good and the free market is important.

In the broadest possible sense a liberal thinks: individual rights are more important than group rights, change should be as fast as they feel like it, and the government is inferior to the free market.

In the broadest possible sense a socialist thinks: group rights are more important than individual rights, change should be fast, and the government is a force for good while the free market sucks.


[1] To answer your question think of it this way: "if one person plays loud music, for the good of the community should he be forced to stop?". Conservatives and socialist would say yes, a liberal would argue he has a right to play his music loud. It's not in the sense of different cultures (though, certainly, neither the UK nor Canada followed the American melting pot model), but more in the sense of, say, a small town as a whole having rights over the people living in it beyond the legal ones.


Now, I agree, that a successful American socialism will be a lot different than any form of European or Asian socialism. Indeed, one reason I think socialism faired so poorly is that it had few American intellectual champions (hence, Turtledove in order to create a Socialist party had to turn Lincoln into America's Marx). Secondly, American political parties have never turned on ideologies (and still don't no matter what CNN tells you). Thirdly, you'd need to keep American Socialism from embracing atheism (though some forms of Christian Socialism might do quite well).

While, American political parties didn't turn on ideology because they're all classical liberal until FDR's introduction of European-imported social democracy and because post-Civil War pre-Nixon the South being Democratic and the Republicans needing progressives forced both parties to be broad tents.

Pretty clearly they've shaken out so the Democrats are moderate (i.e. government-market balance) classical liberals trending towards social democracy while the Republicans are free market classical liberals leavened with a weird blend of libertarians and social conservatives (lately social conservatives plus neo-conservatives have kinda obscured the old smaller government thing of Newt and co., or Reagan).

Social conservatives being some of the last pieces of the old Southern Loyalists, of course, and as you pointed it the South is the only piece of the US that could be called conservative…*albeit weirdly altered by being set in a dominant classical liberal setting, over-reliant on religion, and torn apart by the race issue. Which is why they don't much resemble conservative elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
So... anyone have any ideas? The POD would probably have to be as early as possible, maybe change the make-up of original settlers?
 

HueyLong

Banned
In the broadest possible sense a conservative thinks: group rights are more important than individual rights (communitarianism & collectivism)[1], change should be slow, the government is a force for good and the free market is important.

In the broadest possible sense a liberal thinks: individual rights are more important than group rights, change should be as fast as they feel like it, and the government is inferior to the free market.

In the broadest possible sense a socialist thinks: group rights are more important than individual rights, change should be fast, and the government is a force for good while the free market sucks.


[1] To answer your question think of it this way: "if one person plays loud music, for the good of the community should he be forced to stop?". Conservatives and socialist would say yes, a liberal would argue he has a right to play his music loud. It's not in the sense of different cultures (though, certainly, neither the UK nor Canada followed the American melting pot model), but more in the sense of, say, a small town as a whole having rights over the people living in it beyond the legal ones.

I think you're pretty clearly ignoring broad trends in American history. The Federalists and Whigs both fit your definition of conservative, even if they were broad tents (less so the Federalists). Post Civil War, the Republicans were much the same, culminating in TR and Taft's progressivism and ending after Wilson.

Even "progressive" trends share some of the conservative ideals you posted. Look at Prohibition, for example.

America has had conservatism outside of the South and it was one of our founding ideologies. In fact, I would argue that the South carried a lot more classical liberal ideas than the North did, despite their Loyalist heritage (and their, I think you're ignoring large Loyalist populations in places like New York.)
 
I think you're pretty clearly ignoring broad trends in American history. The Federalists and Whigs both fit your definition of conservative, even if they were broad tents (less so the Federalists). Post Civil War, the Republicans were much the same, culminating in TR and Taft's progressivism and ending after Wilson.

Even "progressive" trends share some of the conservative ideals you posted. Look at Prohibition, for example.

America has had conservatism outside of the South and it was one of our founding ideologies. In fact, I would argue that the South carried a lot more classical liberal ideas than the North did, despite their Loyalist heritage (and their, I think you're ignoring large Loyalist populations in places like New York.)

I quite agree. While EM's statement has a lot of general merit, I think it's less true on further analysis. There's a very odd strain of New England liberalism that is very socially conservative on some issues; in some ways, it's typified by John Adams, but it still exists. It's at the heart of blue blood culture and part of the core of the American revolution.

Furthermore, as much as the South partakes of more conservatism (or more correctly more perceived conservatism given the cultural proclivities), in the 19th century there was a profound populist tradition. While it produced John C. Calhoun and George Wallace, it also produced Harry Truman and Thomas Jefferson.

I'll refrain from a fuller critique because I haven't had time to look over EM's intellectual references. And because it seems slightly tangent to the topic at hand.
 

HueyLong

Banned
I imagine that an American socialist movement would resemble the Knights of Labor philosophy- cooperatives, worker-owned ventures and closed shops* being supported from on high, not support of nationalization (but nationalization of the rails and telegraphs are a possibility; the Populists had suggested it IOTL)

But its hard to say whether such a movement would fit a definition of "socialist".

As for how to get such a movement to develop, prolong the life and popularity of the KoL and have a bloody end to the organization. Maybe prevent the immigration restrictions of the late 19th century from passing, maybe get someone like Henry George as a prominent anti-party politician. There are a few ways to approach it that have not been mentioned.
 
The most powerful and influential american socialist movements were agrarian - and often explecitly Christian in outlook - which placed them at odds with the classic "socialism" popular among immigrant easter industrial workers. The US was more explicitly agrarian than Germany and Britain. A true US socialism would not be classic marxism. I would likely be based more on an urban-rural divide and be focused on supporting the rights of tenant farmers and breaking up large private farms - or some form of collectivization. A US socialism wouldbe more nativist and - like any succesful US reform movement - would have to draw heavily on religions values and rhetoric.
 

HueyLong

Banned
The most powerful and influential american socialist movements were agrarian - and often explecitly Christian in outlook - which placed them at odds with the classic "socialism" popular among immigrant easter industrial workers. The US was more explicitly agrarian than Germany and Britain. A true US socialism would not be classic marxism. I would likely be based more on an urban-rural divide and be focused on supporting the rights of tenant farmers and breaking up large private farms - or some form of collectivization. A US socialism wouldbe more nativist and - like any succesful US reform movement - would have to draw heavily on religions values and rhetoric.

But such a movement would not be socialist- even agrarian focused socialist movements have worked for the control of industry and for an immediate industrialization. An agrarian movement like what you proposed would not be socialist. That isn't to say a socialist movement in the US couldn't have agrarian policies, but it would have to be centered on industry and urban areas.

I agree wholeheartedly about religious rhetoric- but that was already employed in OTL by many socialist parties.
 
But such a movement would not be socialist- even agrarian focused socialist movements have worked for the control of industry and for an immediate industrialization. An agrarian movement like what you proposed would not be socialist. That isn't to say a socialist movement in the US couldn't have agrarian policies, but it would have to be centered on industry and urban areas.

I agree wholeheartedly about religious rhetoric- but that was already employed in OTL by many socialist parties.

Socialism and Marx aren't one and the same. Until the First International split Marxist Communists off from the "Anarchists" (ie all non-Marxists) European Agrarian Populism, Anarchism and Socialism all bled quite fluidly amongst various groups. The Georgists, Slavic Peasant Parties, English Diggers (going a lot further back admittedly) and Russian Social-Revolutionaries (the most popular party in Russia's various 1917 elections).

For an American Socialist Party of any description, I think Deb's Unions and the Populist movement/Farmer-Labour Party have to collaborate around the 1900-1910 mark. Not too difficult since Debs was very keen to emulate the British Labour Party's sudden rise by moderating and broadening his message. Such a collaboration would see a Christian-Socialist Party appear (much like Hardie's British Labour Party), and given the liberal connections I can see the "US Labor Party" being alot more obviously anti-Marxist than it took the Europeans to manage well into the later decades of the 20th Century.

Such a Party could become an interesting meeting point for social-conservative farmers seeking change, and blue-collar unionists looking for greater influence. (both solidly Christian groups). Such a group might steal much Teddy's progressive thunder while simply getting the Union's onside at this point in time would guarantee the US Labor Party a substantial base, jumping in beforce anarcho-syndicalism sent the Unions off into direct action, 'neutral' territory.
 
Top