Reverse Cold War: Differences In Capitalism and Communism

[Zyobot]

Every Reverse Cold War scenario that I've seen features one main, overriding theme: a communist United States combating a capitalist Russia in a global, decades-long standoff marked by proxy wars, realpolitik, and an apocalyptic nuclear arms race--all along the lines of OTL's Cold War.

While this is certainly a given of any Reverse Cold War scenario, when I first got down to anything more specific than just that obvious theme, I soon came to the consensus that it all mirrors OTL far too much.

Although it might (and that's a huge might) have the potential to adopt capitalism and industrialize, it'd be exceedingly hard to make Russia nearly as democratic as the OTL West. Likewise, a communist America would inherit a culture that prizes liberty and individual autonomy, unlike the long-standing authoritarianism that the USSR embraced ITTL. Because they're taking shape in different societies, cultures, and precise causes to begin with, it's only fair to assume that both capitalism and communism would evolve much differently, too.

So, in a scenario where America goes from ruled by robber barons to champion of the Proletariat, while an invigorated, now-modernized Russia transforms into capitalism central, what unalike forms would these two ideologies take instead?

Just as an example, would Western communism lend more support to democracy and human rights? Or, perhaps, Eastern capitalism be more outright imperialistic, expansionist and right-wing?

My first Reverse Cold War thread can be found here, if interested: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/reverse-cold-war-overview-of-various-nations.442518/

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

EDIT: I forgot to ask what sort of realistic PoDs would lead to a Reverse Cold War happening. Do you believe that it can be done in the 20th Century, or would it require a different 1800s to do the job?

 

[Zyobot]

I imagine that American communism would probably be closer to Trotskyism, with democratic workers' counsels and permanent revolution, rather than Stalinist centralization and Socialism In One Country. Though it'd aggressively need to pull itself out of economic depression and civil war, the US would still have far superior industry and infrastructure to the early USSR, and thus, probably be more poised and faster-driven to trigger other revolutions sooner. I do wonder if authoritarian/totalitarian socialism could take shape in other communist nations ITTL, however.

Though it'd likely need (and have) a reform-minded Tsar with immense foresight at the helm, Russian capitalism would likely start off raw, untamed, and filled to the brim with excesses. Industrialization and ballooning their share of the world market at any price would be key. Business that start up shop and foreign powers that bother to invest would find an abundant supply of cheap labor in Russia's countless serfs and urban workers. Since they're far better accustomed to pitiful conditions than OTL Americans, they'd also be less demanding and (immediately) interested in Progressivism. This would probably change in the coming decades, though. Nonetheless, Russian, and by extension, Eastern capitalism would initially combine traditional imperialistic tendencies with Industrial Revolution-style laissez-fairism, before needing to face the music and reform in a more humane direction.

 

[Zyobot]

Do you believe that the UK would stay capitalistic and imperial ITTL?

If yes, than Russia might have a prominent foreign investor and backer, and the OTL US a more immediate, and obvious equivalent, should Russia or China never take the helm.

By my estimation, a capitalist and still-imperial UK would extol many of the same (albeit culturally adapted) main values and narratives that OTL US has: love for laissez-faire capitalism and industrialism, emphasis on entrepreneurship and making money, and being the world's bastion of "freedom, democracy, and Christian civilization". Heck, maybe these values would be even stronger there than in the OTL world, especially when considering pride in being the biggest empire ever and commitment to keeping the #1 spot. TTL Red Scare might be more extreme and longer-lasting in both the UK, and other conservative nations, exacerbated further by fear of colonies revolting. I bring all of this up, because these (hypothetical) British values would directly affect how capitalism develops and gets perceived ITTL. I personally believe that a capitalist UK is the most likely and overall desireable outcome, but I'm no expert on that.

If no (meaning that the UK somehow goes communist), then capitalism loses lots of the key leverage that it needs to compete ITTL. Unless Russia, and possibly China, undergo Stalinspeed industrialization (but far more capitalistic and consumerist), then they're in for an uphill war against a developed, communist West. Even OTL Soviet industrialization required some foreign help from already-industrialized countries (that happened to be capitalist) to start out. Without ITTL Russia or China getting it from somewhere else, which I don't know of, they're likely to lose the Cold War in the long run. If their likely authoritarian bent isn't balanced out by British democracy, that therefore causes Eastern capitalism to go a much different route than the Western one that we're familiar with. That, and just as a small nitpick, the world loses a nation with a rich history, culture, and legacy surrounding capitalism as OTL US does. Again, I think that a communist UK (which would no longer be the UK) is the least likely of the two options that I listed, but this is what I think would happen from there if by some chance, it did.

Perhaps someone might write a Reverse Cold War timeline where the UK goes one way, before making a spinoff in which it goes the other one. Just a thought.

 

[20thCenturyBoy]

I’m not sure if that could happen. But if it did, it would be toned down if achieved. I’m not sure about the U.K.

 

[Pax]

I think it depends on Russia. Kerensky's government was a moderate social democratic force that could have turned Russia into a more European style parliamentary system, albeit more socially conservative than even the US IOTL. I also see them having a more mixed economy than the US IOTL if only for industrialization efforts.

Now, I have to disagree with how some people envision a Communist US. I think it'd turn out more oppressive than even the USSR under Lenin (maybe not Stalin levels though). There are a lot of people in the US, many of whom would want nothing to do with urban proletarian Communists and their dreams of Marxism. You'd very quickly get a civil war on your hand and, unlike in Russia, these anti-Communists would enjoy a considerably higher degree of organization (as you wouldn't have the splits of the White Army) and likely the US military to back them up. Considering that many of the agricultural regions of the US are also the ones more opposed to Communism, you could see famines develop in Communist controlled cities, especially if the non-Communists are able to gain effective control of the central US. We haven't even gotten to the gun part yet, and back then like now there's a lot of them in the US, many (most?) of which are in the hand of anti-Communists. You also have to remember that at that time religion played a key role in many people's lives, and many people would be suspicious of anyone having to do with Karl Marx and his whole "Communists are against established religion, religion is the opiate of the masses" (paraphrased from the Communist Manifesto). Sure the Americoms could claim they're okay with religion, but would anyone believe them? Then on top of that property ownership in the US is so immensely engrained in our society and mindset that it's borderline ASB for anyone claiming to be against that, or even just aligning to an ideology that's against it, that no matter what the Americoms say, I just can not see a large enough population of the US support them. With all of this in mind it's incredibly likely the Communists would end up resorting to extreme violence in many areas to keep a grip on power, basically a Red Terror but on a larger scale. It doesn't matter if it's worker's councils in the US vs. Soviet centralization, because no matter what fancy language you use, the underlying ideology driving these people ITTL is still in some way Communist/Marxist, and that is just not something easily supported by the majority of American citizens.

 

[Zyobot]

I think it depends on Russia. Kerensky's government was a moderate social democratic force that could have turned Russia into a more European style parliamentary system, albeit more socially conservative than even the US IOTL. I also see them having a more mixed economy than the US IOTL if only for industrialization efforts.

Now, I have to disagree with how some people envision a Communist US. I think it'd turn out more oppressive than even the USSR under Lenin (maybe not Stalin levels though). There are a lot of people in the US, many of whom would want nothing to do with urban proletarian Communists and their dreams of Marxism. You'd very quickly get a civil war on your hand and, unlike in Russia, these anti-Communists would enjoy a considerably higher degree of organization (as you wouldn't have the splits of the White Army) and likely the US military to back them up. Considering that many of the agricultural regions of the US are also the ones more opposed to Communism, you could see famines develop in Communist controlled cities, especially if the non-Communists are able to gain effective control of the central US. We haven't even gotten to the gun part yet, and back then like now there's a lot of them in the US, many (most?) of which are in the hand of anti-Communists. You also have to remember that at that time religion played a key role in many people's lives, and many people would be suspicious of anyone having to do with Karl Marx and his whole "Communists are against established religion, religion is the opiate of the masses" (paraphrased from the Communist Manifesto). Sure the Americoms could claim they're okay with religion, but would anyone believe them? Then on top of that property ownership in the US is so immensely engrained in our society and mindset that it's borderline ASB for anyone claiming to be against that, or even just aligning to an ideology that's against it, that no matter what the Americoms say, I just can not see a large enough population of the US support them. With all of this in mind it's incredibly likely the Communists would end up resorting to extreme violence in many areas to keep a grip on power, basically a Red Terror but on a larger scale. It doesn't matter if it's worker's councils in the US vs. Soviet centralization, because no matter what fancy language you use, the underlying ideology driving these people ITTL is still in some way Communist/Marxist, and that is just not something easily supported by the majority of American citizens.

For most PoDs, I can see this being true.

Which people, specifically, would want nothing to do with the proletarian communists? And just how many/few Marxists existed in 1920s and 30s America?

I can also see nationwide opposition to a communist takeover at every level, since you pointed that out. Those agricultural regions you're referring to are the Great Plains, I'm guessing, which anticommunist forces would make a priority to defend. Those that the communists do capture, however, might face extreme retribution, perhaps even an American Holodomor or two.

The anticommunists have easy access to arms and munitions, as you pointed out. This would make for an overly-armed opposition that won't buy into the abolition of property or religion. When trying to transform laissez-faire central into communism's capital, lots of social engineering, especially the more extreme and ruthless kind, will be necessary (i.e. an American Red Terror).

What I'm looking for is probably best found in either a) so much corporate excess that Americans finally turn against capitalism, or b) some pre-1900 PODs, which I should've stated beforehand.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Zyobot]

I’m not sure if that could happen. But if it did, it would be toned down if achieved. I’m not sure about the U.K.

Which part are you unsure about? Capitalist Russia successfully industrializing? Or, something else?

What do you think would be toned down?

 

[Zyobot]

I think it depends on Russia. Kerensky's government was a moderate social democratic force that could have turned Russia into a more European style parliamentary system, albeit more socially conservative than even the US IOTL. I also see them having a more mixed economy than the US IOTL if only for industrialization efforts.

I forgot to ask something else. About a Kerensky-ruled Russia, do you think he'd launch New Deal-type programs or other government oversight of industrialization, before dissolving it and letting the private sector take over? Or, do you believe that Russia would be more economically left-wing than OTL US, but still obviously capitalist up until the present day?

 

[Toraach]

There is here a story about the communist USA, posted in the finished timelines section. This commieUSA is more nice than the USSR:
Reds! A Revolutionary Timeline

I imagine that American communism would probably be closer to Trotskyism, with democratic workers' counsels and permanent revolution, rather than Stalinist centralization and Socialism In One Country.

Trotsky as a nice guy Well certainly: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojna_polsko-bolszewicka#/media/File:Leon_Trotsky.JPG

 

[Zyobot]

There is here a story about the communist USA, posted in the finished timelines section. This commieUSA is more nice than the USSR:
Reds! A Revolutionary Timeline
Trotsky as a nice guy Well certainly: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojna_polsko-bolszewicka#/media/File:Leon_Trotsky.JPG

Oh yeah, I've seen Reds! before, interesting take on American communism, and more along the lines of what I'm looking for.

Thank you for the reminder, Toraach.

 

[Toraach]

Oh yeah, I've seen Reds! before, interesting take on American communism, and more along the lines of what I'm looking for.

Thank you for the reminder, Toraach.

Well, I'm not an american, but I'm going to write a story about commies rule in the USA. But that would be much diffrent than typical aproach for this topic, because americans lack a knowledge how daily life looked under commies.

 

[Pax]

I forgot to ask something else. About a Kerensky-ruled Russia, do you think he'd launch New Deal-type programs or other government oversight of industrialization, before dissolving it and letting the private sector take over? Or, do you believe that Russia would be more economically left-wing than OTL US, but still obviously capitalist up until the present day?

I think Russia would maintain a more European style system than the US style one IOTL. Whether or not Kerensky initiates wide scale New Deal type stuff really comes down to the kind of Russia he's leading, how popular he is, who's involved in keeping him in power, etc.

The people most susceptible to Communist ideas IOTL US were probably urban workers and maybe some fringe black/immigrant groups, though again both of these are likely urban workers as well. Most of your anti-Communists are going to be in agrarian regions like the Plains, South, and elsewhere. People like to talk about how socialism and even some kind of Communist/Marxist ideas were prevalent in both groups, but they really weren't, and certainly they weren't widely held enough to translate into nationwide revolution. Having general anti-big business, populist beliefs isn't the same as revolutionary Marxism. At the end of the day they were still fairly religious, believed in owning private property, and in a democratic system of government like the US had, not revolutionary worker's councils and certainly not centralized control like under the Soviets (who, funny enough, got their start from worker's councils). I could see some urban regions if conditions got bad enough to maybe support some kind of Communisitic worker's council thing like has been proposed on this thread, but not only would those be ripe for a strongman to co-opt, but they wouldn't be popular outside of their individual little areas. Any sort of Communist revolution in the US would be met with a counterrevolution that would make Franco blush.

I did think of a sort of ASB TL a while ago (not on here, this was before I joined) where Lincoln survives and converts to a Marxist later in life after the presidency and makes Communism popular amongst some blacks, but even then it didn't end with a Communist revolution (it didn't even end, TBH. I never got past about 1920).

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Communist USA is very very difficult.

HOWEVER a kind of "managed democracy" democratic socialism with a strong self-perpetuating bureaucracy and an internal federal police that's basically all the shifty shadiness of Hoover's FBI but worse might be possible.

Basically combine court packing, a self-perpetuating bureaucracy unaccountable to democratic forces along the lines of the original plan for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (ignore the intention of the CFPB OTL and focus more on the structure of it), an aggressive FBI Equivalent, no term limits, a strong Socialist Political machine, and an education system that inculcates "proper values". Huey Long's Louisiana might also be a good source of inspiration.

The Republican Party was nearly destroyed OTL in the Great Depression. The US as a 1.5 party state (Democrats as the only party, largely being a "Democratic Socialist" Party, coupled with 4 or 5 scattered lesser parties like the Progressive Party, Farmer-Labour Party, Socialist Party, and Nonpartisan League as the only real alternatives) with all of the above thrown on top of it could be its own kind of interesting.


The Spanish Civil War might be a good opportunity for a "Democratic Socialist" United States to flex its muscles abroad.



As for who can oppose the US, I'm not sure. The British can't be a leading light of Liberal Capitalism if European history goes at OTL and they embrace the kind of economy they had post-WW2. A Kerenskyist Russia will be poorer than the USSR in the short run, although in the long-run I think it'd probably be richer (more agricultural surplus, fewer dead people, etc) but that'd not be until the 80s I think.

There's also the question of how you divide Europe if you don't have a WW2 as OTL. Maybe Spain and Republican Ireland as US footholds in the hemisphere could work, but that's much smaller than OTL's East Block.

Castro was an admirer of Franco and Mussolini OTL. Maybe he goes the Fascist route here and the US ends up in a war with Italy over Cuba. The US and Republican Spain (who is salty about Italy occupying Majorca and Ibiza) go to war with Italy, win, and establish socialist Republics in Italy and Albania.

 

[Zyobot]

I think Russia would maintain a more European style system than the US style one IOTL. Whether or not Kerensky initiates wide scale New Deal type stuff really comes down to the kind of Russia he's leading, how popular he is, who's involved in keeping him in power, etc.

The people most susceptible to Communist ideas IOTL US were probably urban workers and maybe some fringe black/immigrant groups, though again both of these are likely urban workers as well. Most of your anti-Communists are going to be in agrarian regions like the Plains, South, and elsewhere. People like to talk about how socialism and even some kind of Communist/Marxist ideas were prevalent in both groups, but they really weren't, and certainly they weren't widely held enough to translate into nationwide revolution. Having general anti-big business, populist beliefs isn't the same as revolutionary Marxism. At the end of the day they were still fairly religious, believed in owning private property, and in a democratic system of government like the US had, not revolutionary worker's councils and certainly not centralized control like under the Soviets (who, funny enough, got their start from worker's councils). I could see some urban regions if conditions got bad enough to maybe support some kind of Communisitic worker's council thing like has been proposed on this thread, but not only would those be ripe for a strongman to co-opt, but they wouldn't be popular outside of their individual little areas. Any sort of Communist revolution in the US would be met with a counterrevolution that would make Franco blush.

I did think of a sort of ASB TL a while ago (not on here, this was before I joined) where Lincoln survives and converts to a Marxist later in life after the presidency and makes Communism popular amongst some blacks, but even then it didn't end with a Communist revolution (it didn't even end, TBH. I never got past about 1920).

Hm, good to know. I suppose that a Reverse Cold War with a communist US and capitalist Russia that I'm discussing is most guaranteed by either a) some much earlier PoDs and/or b) a borderline, if not actually ASB 20th Century PoD(s) that's realistic from that point forwards.

Either way, I'm interested in seeing how capitalism and communism evolve differently than in OTL over the course of TTL.

Speaking of capitalism, I'd like to address Russia further. I can understand a big government to industrialize Russia initially, but what about their more European system? Why might they be further left than OTL US after their industrialization phase? I'm no expert, but imagined that growing out of a very right-wing authoritarian system that's combined with democratic reforms and a more brutal crackdown on “communist activity”, in circumstances where the government desperately needs to attract and keep backers to industrialize, TTL's modernized Russia would wind up at least as economically ring-wing as the OTL US. Maybe a vast, Eurasian equivalent to Cold War Chile for at least a few decades, if you will.

Where would the UK or China stand on the political and economic spectrum in TTL?

 

[Toraach]

Hm, good to know. I suppose that a Reverse Cold War with a communist US and capitalist Russia that I'm discussing is most guaranteed by either a) some much earlier PoDs and/or b) a borderline, if not actually ASB 20th Century PoD(s) that's realistic from that point forwards.

Either way, I'm interested in seeing how capitalism and communism evolve differently than in OTL over the course of TTL.

Speaking of capitalism, I'd like to address Russia further. I can understand a big government to industrialize Russia initially, but what about their more European system? Why might they be further left than OTL US after their industrialization phase? I'm no expert, but imagined that growing out of a very right-wing authoritarian system that's combined with democratic reforms, and in circumstances where the government desperately needs to attract and keep backers to industrialize, TTL's modernized Russia would wind up at least as economically ring-wing as the OTL US.

Where would the UK or China stand on the political and economic spectrum in TTL?

If you want really powerful Russia, the best way is to avoid 1WW at all. Around 1950 Russia would the economic powerhorse with population much higher than OTL USSR of that time. Before the Great War Russia was developing in a great pace, just like the US, but of course they needed more time, as they started later and from lower level. So there wasn't any need for big goverment and other heresies, just good ol'Nicky but with some facades of parliamentarism, and slowly evolving into real parliamentarism.

 

[Zyobot]

If you want really powerful Russia, the best way is to avoid 1WW at all. Around 1950 Russia would the economic powerhorse with population much higher than OTL USSR of that time. Before the Great War Russia was developing in a great pace, just like the US, but of course they needed more time, as they started later and from lower level. So there wasn't any need for big goverment and other heresies, just good ol'Nicky but with some facades of parliamentarism, and slowly evolving into real parliamentarism.

Yeah, I was thinking about avoiding World War One, too. Or, at least, minimizing Russian losses, if not keeping them out of of the bloodbath altogether.

Even without Russia, the Great War, if it take place anyway, would still be a continental bloodbath of cataclysmic proportions. No matter who wins, the participants would still be infrastructurally, demographically, and economically ruined. If it’s truly bad enough, then I see opportunity for communists in Western Europe who campaign with the slogans, “peace, bread, and land”, and even manage to win in some places. Russia, which stays out of the War and doesn’t conceive the perfect storm that made it communist in OTL, is alarmed at the gains made by Western communists and experiences a Red Scare that makes Woodrow Wilson’s look like a slap on the convicted Marxists’ collective wrists.

Regarding your second point, I’m aware that Russia was developing industry (albeit slowly), but I’m doubtful that it was anywhere near how rapidly and rampantly the US was at the time. To make it a modernized power of the 20th Century, however, we need to somehow accelerate industrialization, preferably as much as Stalinist levels, but performed under an inarguably capitalist system and with less loss of human life.

 

[Toraach]

Yeah, I was thinking about avoiding World War One, too. Or, at least, minimizing Russian losses, if not keeping them out of of the bloodbath altogether.

Even without Russia, the Great War, if it take place anyway, would still be a continental bloodbath of cataclysmic proportions. No matter who wins, the participants would still be infrastructurally, demographically, and economically ruined. If it’s truly bad enough, then I see opportunity for communists in Western Europe who campaign with the slogans, “peace, bread, and land”, and even manage to win in some places. Russia, which stays out of the War and doesn’t conceive the perfect storm that made it communist in OTL, is alarmed at the gains made by Western communists and experiences a Red Scare that makes Woodrow Wilson’s look like a slap on the convicted Marxists’ collective wrists.

Regarding your second point, I’m aware that Russia was developing industry (albeit slowly), but I’m doubtful that it was anywhere near how rapidly and rampantly the US was at the time. To make it a modernized power of the 20th Century, however, we need to somehow accelerate industrialization, preferably as much as Stalinist levels, but performed under an inarguably capitalist system and with less loss of human life.

A scenario with commie countries in western Europe and normal Russia is interesting.

For Rusisan development before the Great War. It wasn't slow, it was gaining pace. And contrary to the stalinist industrialization it was a natural not forced process, which really benefited living conditions of common folks, not making them slaves. Agriculture was also slowly modernising, thanks to Stolypin's reform in Russia proper (interesting thing for you, in russian Poland peasants like my forefathers had been owners of their fields since 1864, without any strange mirs).

 

[Zyobot]

A scenario with commie countries in western Europe and normal Russia is interesting.

For Rusisan development before the Great War. It wasn't slow, it was gaining pace. And contrary to the stalinist industrialization it was a natural not forced process, which really benefited living conditions of common folks, not making them slaves. Agriculture was also slowly modernising, thanks to Stolypin's reform in Russia proper (interesting thing for you, in russian Poland peasants like my forefathers had been owners of their fields since 1864, without any strange mirs).

The second part is interesting to hear. Would you suppose that TTL Russia might experience something along the lines of a 20th Century Industrial Revolution, rather than the Five Year Plans of the OTL USSR?

Perhaps a Russia that takes the first approach would be just as technology-oriented, but far more capitalistic, consumerist, and entrepreneurial than the USSR ever was.

 

[Toraach]

The second part is interesting to hear. Would you suppose that TTL Russia might experience something along the lines of a 20th Century Industrial Revolution, rather than the Five Year Plans of the OTL USSR?

Russia was already during the industrial revolution. Example the city of Łódź in russian Poland had population of 100k in 1872, at the beggining of the Great War it was over 500k. That was one of centres of the cotton industry of the Empire.

 

[Zyobot]

Russia was already during the industrial revolution. Example the city of Łódź in russian Poland had population of 100k in 1872, at the beggining of the Great War it was over 500k. That was one of centres of the cotton industry of the Empire.

That’s interesting to hear about. How do think that a capitalist Russia would’ve industrialized in the 20th Century?

Could it perhaps be replicated in, say, China?