AH PC: Communist Argentina by the 1940s

I actually read about this idea on Reddit this morning and it got me thinking through the day, but I’m not sure how to make it plausible (hence the plausibility check). In any case, I’d thought I’d share it here, since this forum would generate a far better discussion.

While the idea is intriguing (how would a Red Argentina during the Cold War change the region? How would Red Argentina develop? How would the relationship with the USA be? How would Red Argentina manage the fall of the USSR? Which differences would Argentine communism have with other countries?) there are two major stumbling blocks:

The first one is how to turn Argentina into a communist country and make it stick, at least for a few decades.

The second one is how to avoid a direct American invasion. Cuba managed to avoid it, but that was because they were backed by a nuclear armed USSR.

And specially regarding the second issue, I feel a timeframe in which the USSR is capable to put Red Argentina under its nuclear umbrella is too late for a communist Argentina. While my knowledge of Argentina’s history through the interwar period isn’t as large as other people here, my understanding is that there was significant social conflict regarding worker’s rights… but socialism, anarchism and communism weren’t “ticking” with the younger generation of immigrant sons – the first generation Argentines in their families – because they were perceived as foreign. IIRC, there was a rise in nationalistic sentiment through the 1930s and Peronism was able to ride into that for added popularity, even before the “Braden or Peron” deal.

So, an Avant-Garde of enlightened Europhiles isn’t going to cut it to make communism popular in Argentina. But also, with social conflict brewing, waiting until the 1960s (so the TL gets Soviet nuclear protection) doesn’t work: either things were going to erupt sooner or later, or some accommodation (like Peronism IOTL) was to be achieved. So, if some compromise is achieved, we get something like OTL: communism fails to get large popular support because most of the people is content with the Welfare State. And if no compromise is achieved, then things can escalate to violent uprisings and even a low level civil war at some point during the 1940s or 1950s.

And that’s also the other catch with Argentina turning communist: if it’s attempted through a revolution, communism loses. Not only there is the very serious problem of the Argentine generals and admirals quietly accepting that their rich buddies (and maybe themselves) are about to lose their property, any antirevolutionary army/militia would enjoy plenty of support from both the USA and the neighboring countries while the communist revolutionaries simply wouldn’t be able to receive a similar level of support from foreign sources: the USSR is too far and facing too many problems (especially during WWII!) to deliver enough weapons and training. In the long run, the communist lose.

So, just to get started, we need a communist ideology adapted to the local conditions. Then that vernacular communist ideology must win democratic elections (because it will lose a violent struggle) and the military must accept it – and maybe even defend it. Talk about a challenge!

First, I think someone must think and convince his fellow communists about the need of developing a nationalistic communism in order to reach a larger audience. Such a communism, for instance, not only accuses the local oligarchy of being evil bourgeois exploiters, but also of being anti-nationalists Europhile sepoys. That in itself should improve the appeal of this vernacular communist party among the young voters of the 1930s and 1940s. The other catch: in a highly religious society, you can’t get popularity by going against the Catholic Church like the communism normally goes. Claim you’ll abolish the Church and you’ll be a minority party forever. So I guess this Argentine Communism would go this way:

“Eight-hour long work days! Paid sick leave! Health care! Maternity leave! Get paid in cash instead of tokens!”

“Yeahhh!!!!”

“The means of production for the workers” (pro tip: they are lying. They'd be going to the State)

“Yeahhh!!!!!”

“And about the churches… we’ll leave them alone!!!!”

“Yeahhh!!!” “Wait, what, no, no, I go to mass every Sunday, I’m not stopping!” “No worries, you can keep going” “Yeahhhh!!!!”

“And we’ll do it for our sons!”

“Yeahhh!!!!”

“And for the Fatherland!!!”

“For the Fatherland!!!!”

“To arms vote!!!”

“To vote!!!”


But not only there would be attempts at electoral fraud, would the Army allow it at all?

I was thinking about a POD in which the far-right terrorist group Liga Patriótica Argentina becomes seriously strangled with the Radical Party far before the 1930 coup to the point where the Radicals purge the Armed Forces of officers supportive of far-right terrorism and even use the Army to fight it. If the Radical Party doesn’t endear itself to the working class anyway, we can end up with a growing communist working class party plus an Army that’s either apolitical or whose leadership has been severed from the upper classes.

The Armed Forces may also decide to intervene to control the worker’s movement at some point, but then we have Peronism, or something close to it. But if the Armed Forces leadership no longer feels part of the upper class, and there is a rising nationalistic, religiously tolerant communism which may also be supportive of the growing desire for a local military-industrial hub (communism tends to favor heavy industry and, in any case, a Red Argentina would need to be as much self-reliant in defense matters as possible), could it be that the Armed Forces wouldn’t challenge a democratic rise to power of such a communist party?


But, even if it wins national elections, is it plausible for such a party to consolidate its power and remain in power for decades?


Thoughts? Opinions? Things where you think I’m mistaken? It is an interesting scenario, from an AH perspective (not to live in!), but seems a hard one to achieve.
 
Last edited:
You need a POD going way, way back to the 19th century, including a form of communism that doesn't freak out the world powers the way Bolshevism did.
Yeah, but if you include "seize the property of the rich" the rich will freak out. And if you exclude "seize the property of the rich", then you don't have communism. A middle ground becomes, pretty much, a welfare State
 
Top