List of countries that could have gone Communist in 20th century

Most countries with industrial potential and some sense of shared identity could have become communist. That should mean that this list would go to include most countries. I tend to be of the opiion that the ountries least likely to go read are those firmly in the anglosphere, includig the United States (but not India).
 
I would count the Caribbean nations as being less than firmly in the Anglosphere.

Really? The majority of the people may be of African origin, but most of the culture and nearly all of the political structures come from the Brits, at least as far as the Anglophone West Indies go. Samuel Huntington would agree with you, but I've never really understood why.
 
I tend to be of the opiion that the ountries least likely to go read are those firmly in the anglosphere, includig the United States (but not India).

Agreed, except I would say that the nations least likely to go go communist include the Anglosphere AND the Islamic world.

I also find it difficult (though not impossible) to see nations which are viewed as 'firmly Western', ie all of Western Europe among others, going communist, in a long-term way.

I'm not sure if others would agree, but I remember reading somewhere else, some person (I think a sociologist or a political scientist, but can't remember exactly) saying that one (among many) reasons that no Western nation ever voluntarily went communist*, was because the individualistic values that underpin Western culture are so strong that communism, at least of the Marxist-Leninist variety, will never gain a strong foothold.

Also, any nation where the populace is are STRONG believers in an Abrahamic religion (ie USA, Islamic world, NOT Europe) is also almost impossible to go communist, because it is very easy for anti-communists to cultivate revulsion towards 'godless, atheistic communism'.




*Ie, not including the Warsaw Pact nations, that were under Soviet influence and didnt go 'voluntarily' communist.
 
Really? The majority of the people may be of African origin, but most of the culture and nearly all of the political structures come from the Brits, at least as far as the Anglophone West Indies go. Samuel Huntington would agree with you, but I've never really understood why.

Occasionally the question comes up on this site (often in Political Chat), 'What nations do you consider part of the West' or similar. Basically, this sort of question is a 'How long is a piece of string' question.

We all agree on nations such as UK, USA, France being Western, but it gets a bit more difficult to determine 'membership' at the margins.

The Anglophone Carribean is a particularly difficult area for classification, but then so are the Anglophone Pacific Islands.
 
But what if it is an odd RELIGIOUS communism?

I could see a weird mix of social conservatism AND a form of socialisming in Iran, by example.
 
Occasionally the question comes up on this site (often in Political Chat), 'What nations do you consider part of the West' or similar. Basically, this sort of question is a 'How long is a piece of string' question.

We all agree on nations such as UK, USA, France being Western, but it gets a bit more difficult to determine 'membership' at the margins.

The Anglophone Carribean is a particularly difficult area for classification, but then so are the Anglophone Pacific Islands.

What's weird about Huntington's classifications is that he deliberately separates the Anglophone Caribbean from the West, but he seems to place all of Oceania within the Western world... He doesn't actually address Polynesia in text, but his map shades the South Pacific islands the same color as North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.

I'd reverse it - The Caribbean islands at least speak English as the primary language and maintain many British cultural influences, while Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia have their own distinctive languages and cultures that developed far from the origins of Western civilization.
 
I want a TL in which South Africa goes communist!

That would be an EXTREMELY bloody revolution.
 
What's weird about Huntington's classifications is that he deliberately separates the Anglophone Caribbean from the West.

There are several things that are weird about Huntington's classifications. I must admit when I first read The clash Of Civilisations I was quite taken aback when I read that he didn't class Israel as a member of the West (although I have read some interestings comments on AH.com before, that Israel is BECOMING a non-Western nation, due to demographic changes to the Jewish population there).

I think it would correct to say that even most Westerners who aren't particularly pro-Israel, still in a tribalistic sense would consider Israelis one of 'us', so to speak (though arguably this is possibly because of the widespread misconception that Israelis are the same as American Jews).



He doesn't actually address Polynesia in text, but his map shades the South Pacific islands the same color as North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.

I'd reverse it - The Caribbean islands at least speak English as the primary language and maintain many British cultural influences, while Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia have their own distinctive languages and cultures that developed far from the origins of Western civilization

I agree as such the to the extent that the Carribean and the Pacific Islands have a claim to be Western, the Anglophone Carribean has the better claim for the reasons you suggested.

I included the Pacific Islands as another example, as I think they along with the Carribean are probably the most thoroughly culturally Westernised former British colonies (well, apart from the settler colonies such as Australia of course). I think most Australians and Britons would feel more culturally comfortable in either of those places than for example in Africa.
 
Australia?

What about that government that the CIA toppled in Australia in the 70s? I can't remember many details but know that it was supposedly too left leaning
 
I'd say Austria after 45 - main population was well within Russian occupation zone, so with a "rigged" election... - or a divided Austria (like Germany and Eastern Germany)...

And inter war Hungary - there was a red movement... - would have changed the history considerably - Hungary provided a valuable ally to Nazi Germany - if communist, It could grab a chunk of Romania with Russian help when Russia took Bessarabia from Romania...
 
What about that government that the CIA toppled in Australia in the 70s? I can't remember many details but know that it was supposedly too left leaning

a.) Gough Whitlam's government wasn't toppled by the CIA it was toppled by it's own massive incompetence and not having a majority in Parliament.

b.) Gough Whitlam was a massive incompetent but he wasn't a commie, in fact he booted all the commies out of the ALP.
 
Really? The majority of the people may be of African origin, but most of the culture and nearly all of the political structures come from the Brits, at least as far as the Anglophone West Indies go. Samuel Huntington would agree with you, but I've never really understood why.

The biggest obvious differences are economics and homogeneity. The anglophone East Caribbean would lack economies if it was not for tourism. Furthermore, excluding Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago, the anglophone Carribbean is relatively homogenous, and still feature concentrations of wealth at the very top that is not present to the same extent elsewhere in the English-speaking world.
 
There are several things that are weird about Huntington's classifications. I must admit when I first read The clash Of Civilisations I was quite taken aback when I read that he didn't class Israel as a member of the West (although I have read some interestings comments on AH.com before, that Israel is BECOMING a non-Western nation, due to demographic changes to the Jewish population there).

I think it would correct to say that even most Westerners who aren't particularly pro-Israel, still in a tribalistic sense would consider Israelis one of 'us', so to speak (though arguably this is possibly because of the widespread misconception that Israelis are the same as American Jews).

I can see both sides of the case of Israel as a non-Western country. On one hand, a large, influential portion of Israeli Jews descend from Western Europe (and to a lesser extent, North America and the Southern Cone), bringing with them the strong influences of post-Enlightenment thought. On the other hand, many of Israel's Jews do come from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and elsewhere, and even those Western-derived Jews, by nature of their Judaism, have deep-rooted cultural traditions that distinguish them from the Christian-influenced, Western mainstream. ...Of course, there's not much to distinguish the huge and growing population of secular Jews from their secular gentile counterparts in any cultural sense.
 
Top