Besides Russia, which countries could go socialist?

Bonus: Which of these is more likely to go socialist?

  • Britain

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • France

    Votes: 39 72.2%
  • Spain

    Votes: 12 22.2%

  • Total voters
    54
Like from every continent, which country(s), with the exception of Germany since it's so common mentioned, in the late 19th century/early 21st century would turn to socialism. And could the Various "socialisms" of each country vary from place to place, or would they be dominated by the first/most powerful socialist country.
 
Last edited:
I think Britain is likely to dominate something akin to the Social Democracy, or the Soviet Union period of NEP. Spain - radical Marxism, anarcho-communism. France - non-Marxist socialism, a far-left currents (eg Trotskyism).
 
Sweden usually has a socialist government.
Germany often does
Britain, too.

All OTL.

If you meant Communist, or Marxist, you should have said so.

Social democracy is not socialism. It's a renamed welfare state, effectively.

Lenin's USSR (and Stalin's if you stretch the meaning) were socialist.
 
China. Post May Fourth Movement, have Japan start a war in China. It might get beaten down by the Western powers really quickly (this is the 1920s - Japan hasn't had years of military buildup, and the western powers are still pretty strong).

Without a threat from the Japanese, Sun is able to root out the warlords. Meanwhile, Sun is this huge proponent of social revolution (I'm pretty sure he's a socialist).
 
Pre-1900, I don't think you're likely to see too much revolution. If Russia messes up (like in 1905), maybe one of the leftist groups could claw their way to the top of the resulting power struggle. Speaking of 19th century Russian leftism, something in me would love to see Sergey Nechayev in a prominent role for a post-revolutionary Russia (avert his death in prison to start). But most realistically, a much more extreme capitalism and conservative/liberal groups that refuse reform for reason or another would be able to provoke something, although they'd be most likely to produce results post 1900. That's pretty hard, considering the circumstances in the late 19th century. If they do so, then that leaves Britain and France as the most likely centers of revolution, as in, turn the Paris Commune national, or produce an event like it soon enough after with the utter failure of the Third Republic or any alternative. Britain might do so too if they mess up enough, but France seems more likely for some reason. Either way, their socialism will be different than what we saw in Russia in 1917-1991 and leave a far different mark on workers' movements than what the Soviet Union (for better or worse) did.

Other less likely nations are Germany and Italy. These countries have nationalism and revanchism as an outlet, as well as emigration--look at all the left-wing Italian and German immigrants. Scandinavia seems more likely to reform as a social democracy (as OTL), although once again, it has emigration as a good outlet--many Scandinavians were loyal Socialist Party members in the US (Finns most especially, but in that time period they were of course Russian technically) and helped the Great Plains be an important part of Socialist activity in the US.

I mention the US, but the US will need Progressivism and other movements fail on the ground combined with, as in Europe, capitalists acting worse and worse. That's really, really hard, considering how awful people suffered under their system until they got some manner of reform--seriously, talk to Americans who vote solid Republican, and many of them will admit the system was flawed in that era. So the key is to keep it flawed and let the tension associate in the Socialist Party which will drift to the left. But that will take a while--the US still has the vast frontier, which was still being settled, and that helps as an outlet. I'd really say that's a factor until the early 1930s with the Dust Bowl, which helped immensely to kill the idea that no matter who you are (an immigrant, whoever), you can get your own land and be your own master on the "frontier"--there were other events in the early 20th century. But in the 19th century, that idea was alive.

I think Britain is likely to dominate something akin to the Social Democracy, or the Soviet Union period of NEP. Spain - radical Marxism, anarcho-communism. France - non-Marxist socialism, a far-left currents (eg Trotskyism).

Could Spain really go communist without the help of an external influence, like the Soviets? Sure, the Second Republic was pretty radical, but not a communist state. And the Spanish far-left was split between communists and anarchists, with anarchists dominating the earlier you go.

British communism is very interesting. It'll be more democratic, without a doubt. What that will lead to I'm not sure. If Russian communism was some mirror of Tsarism, would British communism be a mirror of the British Empire before it? Likewise with French communism, which will have a huge dose of French Revolutionary tradition to fall back upon (for instance, the French Revolution calendar will come back, as it did in the Paris commune, guaranteed). Granted, all non-monarchist French idolised the French Revolution to some degree or another, but French socialists will find quite a bit in it. There's also the non-Marxian socialist tradition in France to consider--Trotskyism I doubt, since that still owes a lot to Leninism which in turn is too Russian to originate independently in France.
 
Sure, the Second Republic was pretty radical, but not a communist state.

I'm not great at the Spanish Civil War, but I do know that Catalonia during the time was anarcho-syndicalist, which is as close to actual communism as anyone has ever gotten, and they were very successful with it.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
I'm not great at the Spanish Civil War, but I do know that Catalonia during the time was anarcho-syndicalist, which is as close to actual communism as anyone has ever gotten, and they were very successful with it.
Were they actually successful with it? The internal conflicts in 1937 and the later military defeat indicates that there was a failure to keep that going, and success here is difficult to define. I don't count repression of religion and private property as successes, but as far as eliminating all hierarchies, perhaps they tried that and succeeded. I just find myself skeptical.
 
Were they actually successful with it? The internal conflicts in 1937 and the later military defeat indicates that there was a failure to keep that going, and success here is difficult to define. I don't count repression of religion and private property as successes, but as far as eliminating all hierarchies, perhaps they tried that and succeeded. I just find myself skeptical.

I mean factory and agricultural production increased by 50% despite work technically being mostly voluntary, and they were the last parts of the country to surrender to the fascists.


If anything it proves that anarchism is possible and could defend against its adversaries, and that the idea that anarchism=anarchy isn't true.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
You might have a populist, Jeffersonian-Jacksonian state or party emerge, but you need to utterly ravage the US - especially the pre-20th century US - to make it turn red.
Jeffersonian being the key word here. Private property and the support of small landholders was the backbone of the populist movements in the US, with a focus on rural interests. Urban interests through the Socialist Party were always removed from those of rural landholders in the Populist, Greenback, and Progressive Parties. Its hard to get industrial workers to back lowering tariffs and soft money. The few areas where a coalition existed between the two, in the Great Lakes States, it was always tenuous.

The best way to get more viable American Socialists is for them to back off on communal property, and to have the Democrats take a hard turn towards Bourbonism, perhaps after a more popular and successful Cleveland Presidency, rather than their deviation towards Populism under William Jennings Bryan. The Southern wing of the party took a hard turn towards populism because the populists were more racist and charismatic than the Bourbons. Having the Bourbons in the South be more racist or the Populists more likely to abandon the party and join up with the biracial coalitions of Greenbacks and Republicans could help bring this about.
 
In 19th century, various European countries could have gone Socialist in Marxist fashion.

Italy for example at the height of the campaign of the thousand. If Garibaldi after the battle of Volturno accepted the invitation of Mazzini to march Rome... Which would have been an uphill march, but what if:

- the red shirts faced and defeated the Piedmontan army and captured or killed Vittorio Emanuele III... All of North Italy would likely proclaim in favour of Garibaldi. Cavour wouldn't be able to hold the ground, maybe he would escape in France...
- Nappy III would forcibly intervene sending an army and leading it, especially if the red shirts would defeat the Zuaves in Latium (without chassepots and in numerical inferiority, they would not habe much chances) but if Garibaldi would pull a Sedan... Well you can imagine total chaos in France. And maybe the going to be formed Italian Republic would seize as warprize Nice, Corsica and Savoy.
- The fate of the Papacy would depend from the decisions of Pius IX. He would escape again? Or secluding himself in Vatican? And in this case, Garibaldi would arrest him? Considering the strong anti-clericalism of the general, and the memories of '48, things can turn nasty in Rome... But I guess he would force an exile on him in the end.
- Now, a newborn Italian republic can turn red? Well likely also depending if Garibaldi will not act as a new Cincinnatus and stay at the helm, plus if he would give ear to the influence of the International. I can totally see radicals from all Europe settling in Italy. Bakunin would even play a big role, he knew the country, Italian anarchism OTL even if not large was extremely influential, I am not saying Italy could become an Anarchist nation, but an Italian Anarchic party would be really strong in a situation like this.
- and to juice things, if Garibaldi would soon be charmed by the prospect of a people's dictatorship, Mazzini would in the end be at odds of him and forced to going in exile as opposition voice, becoming an 19th century Italian Trotsky, hem.
 
Top