A Step to the Left.

I know this isn't THAT big of a thing I can do, but... *gives you an internet hug*. You have LOTS of creative ideas, you just need to filter them, then you can write something quite fascinating, I can assure you.

And once you manage to get the quasi-redux of this started, I'll look forward to it because that is TRULY an interesting and unique concept.
Thanks! That really helps.
 

d32123

Banned
Yeah, but due to the criticism, I lost all push to do any more. Self-depression and self-criticism started.

Keep in mind that people are criticizing the plausibility of the scenario, not your abilities as a writer or an althistorian. I don't think your scenario is as far-fetched as some have acted, and I'd like to see you explore either an American Labor Party or a surviving Populist party scenario (or both).
 
Keep in mind that people are criticizing the plausibility of the scenario, not your abilities as a writer or an althistorian. I don't think your scenario is as far-fetched as some have acted, and I'd like to see you explore either an American Labor Party or a surviving Populist party scenario (or both).
Hmm... Could you plausibly see a Populist Party and a Labor Party at the same time as major parties, or is that too far to the left, economically?
 

Japhy

Banned
Alright, Japhy. Detail a little more on your PoDs.

The point of them all is that they would serve to help develop larger membership and create political leadership cadres so that workers can organize. Its all rather strait forward.

Just because this project wasn't backed by historical evidence doesn't mean you should give up timeline writing, it means that you should go do research and develop something better. You want an American Labor Party, you can do it, you just have to work on it. There's no reason to take this as an attack on you even writing.
 
The point of them all is that they would serve to help develop larger membership and create political leadership cadres so that workers can organize. Its all rather strait forward.

Just because this project wasn't backed by historical evidence doesn't mean you should give up timeline writing, it means that you should go do research and develop something better. You want an American Labor Party, you can do it, you just have to work on it. There's no reason to take this as an attack on you even writing.
Alright. Thank you. I'll go and research stuff...
 
Yes I would agree, the early 1890's was a moment in US history where you have Labor on the march, organizing and growing strong, but the reaction to Homestead and the Pullman strike would delay Labor rights for decades to follow. If you go a different way, the same time the Populists are really gaining momentum, Urban workers will too, and the earlier you do that, the more "Labor" it gets rather then, as TB has noted she wanted to avoid "RevSoc".
I can't remember the exact date at the moment, but I believe it was 1892. Basically, the AFL voted on whether or not to form a labor party, and support candidates. The measure was defeated, largely over the concerns of how to really compete with machine politics.

There's some potential there if you can get them to bite the bullet.
 
I can't remember the exact date at the moment, but I believe it was 1892. Basically, the AFL voted on whether or not to form a labor party, and support candidates. The measure was defeated, largely over the concerns of how to really compete with machine politics.

There's some potential there if you can get them to bite the bullet.
Hmm... I'm taking that in account. What if Populism remained independent and Labor took off in the urban states? What would realistically happen?
 
He means both a Populist Party and a Labor Party running at the same time.

SHE asked whenether or not it is possible for Labor to take off in more urban states, e.g. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania etc, while the Populist Party remains popular in the more rural Midwest.
 
Personally, having seen the maps for this, you should keep it going, since it seems pretty clear that the Populists are less about being the core of the Labor party and more the catalyst for breaking the two-party system, ensuring temporary Republican dominance, and creating a better environment for the Labor Party to rise eventually. Japhy massively over assumed here.
 
Personally, having seen the maps for this, you should keep it going, since it seems pretty clear that the Populists are less about being the core of the Labor party and more the catalyst for breaking the two-party system, ensuring temporary Republican dominance, and creating a better environment for the Labor Party to rise eventually. Japhy massively over assumed here.
Actually the Populists do form the Labor Party with a lot of socialists... Japhy was right. However, Republican dominance does happen.
 
Top