The problem with this is that Huey Long was just a radical Social Democrat with a strong distrust of big business, not a socialist.
OK, what if he was a socialist? Would it be that hard for Long to move left into actual socialism?
The problem with this is that Huey Long was just a radical Social Democrat with a strong distrust of big business, not a socialist.
I suppose not, as the rock that socialism has always broken against in the United States is its uncomfortable relationship with property rights, and a disregard for property rights often goes hand in hand with those who have an uncomfortable relationship with the rule of law, which was true for Huey Long.OK, what if he was a socialist? Would it be that hard for Long to move left into actual socialism?
I suppose not, as the rock that socialism has always broken against in the United States is its uncomfortable relationship with property rights, and a disregard for property rights often goes hand in hand with those who have an uncomfortable relationship with the rule of law, which was true for Huey Long.
But I think there is a difference between wealth redistribution and public administration of the means of production, and I don't think Huey Long ever really considered going to that degree.
I’m envisioning quite a bit more successful Reconstruction in which African-Americans win state legislature and congressional seats in the 1860s and ‘70s just as in OTL, but then instead of this being abruptly truncated, it rolls forward in a very positive way.. . . ethnic group at some point in history went to, say, Charleston, and subsequently Atlanta, rather than New York or Boston and subsequently Pittsburgh and Chicago. It'd have to be a white ethnic group, though, and one recognized as white under contemporary law. Perhaps it could be the Polish, or maybe the Scottish. . .
I guess it depends on your ideological perspective but I'm not sure that "progressive economics" would lead to a substantial difference in GDP growth. The South lacked investment, and that was its biggest issue, as well as genuine discrimination by the federal government on interstate matters like freight rates and federal contract bidding (and this persisted well into the 20th century).
The south started growing in the 20th century for two main reasons: one, was the advent of air conditioning which made population movement southwards and investment along with the people and businesses that moved south possible, and two, direct investment by the federal government, in many cases due to the tendency of Southern congressmen to last a very long time in their roles and benefit from the seniority system to direct funds homewards. The south needed investment, public and private both, to grow, and unions weren't going to make much of a difference.
What might have made a difference: if immigration flows had been directed southwards in the late 1800s to provide the kind of large scale labor necessary for industrial growth. That would be difficult, unless one particular ethnic group at some point in history went to, say, Charleston, and subsequently Atlanta, rather than New York or Boston and subsequently Pittsburgh and Chicago. It'd have to be a white ethnic group, though, and one recognized as white under contemporary law. Perhaps it could be the Polish, or maybe the Scottish.
I should also add that the fact that the American South's white demographic largely descends from two political cultures that have two distinct fashions of political heritage that are firmly right of centre.
Coastal areas saw the Royalist tradition from the English Civil War form the backbone of what would become the Bourbon faction of the Democratic Party; it was hierarchical, economically conservative, and buttressed the idea of social stratification. More inland areas of the American South were dominated by Scotch-Irish descendants, who were highly individualistic, militaristic, and economically populist. These traditions often fought each other at the local level but there was very little in either tradition that would form the kind of backbone for a socialist outlook.
I mean obviously it doesn't register down to an exact level, and events can change things as you mentioned.I’ve seen this sort of argument before and it intrigues me. Are we sure this is how people work? You see it sometimes applied in areas where the US has attempted nation-building as well, where folks talk about how democracy isn’t in the Iraqi....character/genes/culture/what have you.
How much was communism in the Chinese (what have you) in the 1920s? Or Russia in the 1890s? How strongly can (what have you) stand against more current pressures wrought by the world than habits formed centuries ago?
Lincoln wasn’t going to go through a radical reconstruction. He vetoed the Wade Davis Bill, and unlike Johnson radical republicans wouldn’t be willing to stand up to Lincoln. And even if Lincoln disbanded the Democratic Party, America isn’t gonna stay a 1 party state for 50 years. The Democratic Republicans collapsed 1 term after winning every single stateLet's define American Socialism as an ideology that adopts most if not all of the agenda the Socialist Party of AMerica held IOTL. How about something like this:
- Lincoln survives his assasination attempt.
- Lincoln leads a more comprehensive and radical reconstruction, which breaks up the power of the Southern states and enfranchises the Black population, blame the Democrats and force the party to disband.
- During the following decades, the United States essentially becomes a one-party state, with Republicans facing little opposition and winning every election between 1864 and 1912, with a very pro-business and anti-regulation platform that makes the gilded age even worse in terms of income distribution, but industrializes the South to a greater extent than IOTL.
- All during this period, a strong labor movement begins to take shape...
To me, that would be a feature and not a bug!@Shevek23
“ . . I've never seen syndicalism explained in a way that allows me to categorize it; . . ”
I entirely agree that the important thing is how well does something work, and ideology has got to just accommodate itself to explaining facts on the ground, rather than trying to force the facts to fit the theory.To me, that would be a feature and not a bug!
Meaning, I like spanning approaches which encompass several different things. For example, if we add transparency and channel capitalism so that it works as advertised, I’m going to count that as a victory. And maybe citizens occasionally vote for things like Tennessee Valley Authority (power generation), at times even to directly outcompete a couple of quasi-monopolies, well, is that capitalism or socialism?
And if something is working pretty well and we’re debating whether it’s capitalism or socialism, I’m going to count that as a very good thing.![]()