State of Socialism/Anarchism if no WW1?

Given how WW1 helped define a large part of the 20th century and its role in things such as the Russian Revolution, the First Red Scare, the Depression, WW2 and so forth, what state would various radical left movements be in if it had never happened? What movements may never have arisen (or alternatively, what ones may have taken off)? More successful? Less successful? Or impossible to tell?
 
The War made immanent a growing conflict within the parties of the Second International. To a great extent, I only think it hastened the inevitable.

That said, most of the parties of the Second International were continuing to grow in membership and support right up until the War. I expect this trend would continue until in Germany, the increasing disconnect between the level of electoral support between the Social Democrats enjoyed and their powerlessness against the anti-liberal nature of the German constitution would lead to a period of political instability and possibly even revolution.
 
A big part of this question is how volatile you expect the economy and social changes to be in the next 2-3 decades. The economic problems of the 1919 - 1939 era were aggravated by the Great War, but had other deep seated causes as well.
 
A big part of this question is how volatile you expect the economy and social changes to be in the next 2-3 decades. The economic problems of the 1919 - 1939 era were aggravated by the Great War, but had other deep seated causes as well.
Indeed, the pre-war arms races were a sort of military Keynesianism helping shore up the economy. But they couldn't continue forever at the pre-war pace.
 
A big part of this question is how volatile you expect the economy and social changes to be in the next 2-3 decades. The economic problems of the 1919 - 1939 era were aggravated by the Great War, but had other deep seated causes as well.

Can any effective predictions be made? Or only in general terms

The War made immanent a growing conflict within the parties of the Second International. To a great extent, I only think it hastened the inevitable.

That said, most of the parties of the Second International were continuing to grow in membership and support right up until the War. I expect this trend would continue until in Germany, the increasing disconnect between the level of electoral support between the Social Democrats enjoyed and their powerlessness against the anti-liberal nature of the German constitution would lead to a period of political instability and possibly even revolution.

Interesting. A socialist revolution or a more liberal kind (both in its intentions and outcome as it were)? Or just *insert socio-political change here* revolution?

That said, aren't there some views that an Anglo-German war was likely even if a world war wasn't? If so, wouldn't that have a similar effect on the German left the first world war did, if on a lesser scale?

What about socialism/anarchism in the US Jello? You seem to know fair bit on that topic. Any predictions (even rough ones) as to the outcome?


And anyone have any idea of the effect on anarchism? Or would that probably undergo similar effects to the other members of the radical left (nothing special in and off itself)?
 
In America at least the Socialist party and Industrial Workers of the World would've been much better off without the war. Considering the war was used as pretext to smash the organizations. It is conceivable that without WWI the Socialist Party could've come to power in America.
 
Can any effective predictions be made? Or only in general terms



Interesting. A socialist revolution or a more liberal kind (both in its intentions and outcome as it were)? Or just *insert socio-political change here* revolution?

That said, aren't there some views that an Anglo-German war was likely even if a world war wasn't? If so, wouldn't that have a similar effect on the German left the first world war did, if on a lesser scale?

What about socialism/anarchism in the US Jello? You seem to know fair bit on that topic. Any predictions (even rough ones) as to the outcome?


And anyone have any idea of the effect on anarchism? Or would that probably undergo similar effects to the other members of the radical left (nothing special in and off itself)?
It would probably start as a more liberal revolution, but I could see increasing radicalization espescially if the reactionaries dig in or it starts to get close to civil war. Ultimately, there will either be reform or a radical disruption in Germany, and with Kaiser Wilhelm II in the driver's seat, I do not know if he would bend before he broke.

In the US, the war's immediate effect before the US got involved was to take the wind out of the radical's sails. A lot of socialists got involved in making broad anti-war coalitions in 1916, and in this period the moderate Sewer Socialists solidified their control of the Socialist Party's leadership as the whole organization devoted much of its efforts to getting Wilson elected based on his anti-war promise.

Without this necessity, I'd say the SPA is going to have a big fight in 1916 about whether they want to be the SPD or Labour UK. My money is on the mass rank and file winning that conflict, and the party following a more German model of development. They had the numbers, the unofficial ties to the IWW, and the boring from within of the AF of L. I expect if Debs runs he increases his vote share in 1916, and perhaps again in 1920.

I don't expect any major intrusions into the House of Representatives until, at earliest, the 1918 midterms; the US economy was headed for recession until the war spurred up increased demand, but it would take time for that pay dividends; leftist groups usually start to increase their strength in recovery periods, not immediately during recession/depression.

The big thing is how the Republicans and Northern Democrats react. Northern democrats are hamstrung by the connection to the South, and the Republicans do have a wide variety of progressives. But on the whole I think those organizations are well primed to start shedding members to Socialists in the 20s absent WW1. It's pretty clear which side their bread was buttered.

Of course, this all possibility, not inevitability. I think it would be possible to have a 2 and a half party system develop, with the North and West being a Republican vs. Socialist confrontation, and the South being a primarily Republican vs. Democrat situation, though the socialists would be looking to make some inroads there too.
 

Ah I see. And there wouldn't be the Freikorps coming back from the front either or the heavy nationalism, nor the conflicts with the fascists either.

And the potential for a more left-leaning US political spectrum. I did suspect that could happen.

I see what you mean about possibility though. Given all the other effects WW1 had, trying to talk about the effects on the radical left is kind of hard since you don't know what effects it would have on everyone else. This is especially true once you get to mid-century and beyond, since things are so different.

What about Russia? Nicholas II wasn't the best leader (or even a good one) but was there still a chance for the Tsars to hold on either by force or through reforms (we have a bunch of autocratic monarchs today after all), in your view? I mean prior to WW1 the idea that the Bolsheviks would be in power by 1917 was laughable (I think Lenin said in 1916 he thought a revolution wouldn't happen).
 
Top