thats a short window you provide there, socialism didn't really catch on until the 1870s/1880s
Hello lads and lasses,
I have another question to post to the board: when is the earliest, with a POD no earlier than the 1830s, that the US could reasonably go either socialist or communist before 1895?
Well, TBH, it's about as plausible as slavery thriving in a speculative future DoD America circa 2000, or Nazi Germany conquering the entire continents of Europe and Asia by 1945, or an egalitarian medieval Saxon England.....which is, to say, not at all, unfortunately.
However, though, you could perhaps make the socialist movement more noticeable thru more activism, and a good reputation. After all, Milwaukee, Wis. had a total of 3 Socialist mayors IOTL, and that wasn't a particularly far-left town as far as I know. So it's certainly not impossible for cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Detroit, or even Los Angeles, to have a notable presence of Socialists, or even a mayor or two from that party.
I think the biggest challenges could possibly be fundraising and dealing with any 'Red Scares' that might come along.
Say whaaaa? Just avoid the Red Scares and you're set. A socialist America is far from ASB.
A Social Democrat America is definitely doable, especially with the elimination of the Red Scares. But a purely Leninist America wouldn't be feasible, as too much of the country's economy does depend on free enterprise and such.
I say we go with the real definition -- government ownership of the means of production. All other definitions are arbitrary and usually just concocted for purposes of criticism, anyway.Different people mean different things when they say "socialist". What exactly is your definition?