The Fire Never Dies, Part II: The Red Colossus

How is Marxism viewed ITTL? America seems to be working under a market socialist system in the long-haul, which seems to indicate that Marxism isn't that big a thing here. In Reds, of course, the general ideology of that America was mostly Marxist with a dash of anarchism. What's the ideological situation in this America like? Are most people in agreement that a statist market socialist society is, if not ideal, then what is practical? Is there a significant undercurrent of anarchists, Marxists, etc. who want to push further, but the status quo is upheld because of disagreement about goals? What sort of alt ideologies, counter-cultures, etc. will develop, in the context of this society? These are pretty big questions so I don't really expect an answer, but I thought they would be interesting questions to bring up when considering the future.

Well, iirc DeLeon considered himself a Marxist, and The SLP has stuck pretty close to his ideology for the most part and is the dominant political party at the current point of the TL
^^^^
I figure the difference between "reformist" and "radical" socialism is going to be extremely muddled compared to OTL without the sheer ideological dominance of Marxism-Leninism and the SPD not having the chance to send in right wing death squads to slaughter revolutionaries.
Indeed. Instead, Marxism-DeLeonism will be the dominant socialist ideology.
 
What happened to John Jack Silas Reed?
Jack Reed participated in the Manhattan Uprising, briefly serving in the Army of Manhattan before transferring to the nascent Red Navy. He was the XO on the cruiser Seattle during the Mutiny and later served on Admiral Strauss' staff. After the war, he spent a year at Annapolis undergoing some much-needed remedial education. He briefly commanded the cruiser Salem before being reassigned to ASR headquarters in Havana. He's currently a captain on Adjutant-General Pancho Villa's staff, who remembered Reed from when he spent time covering Villa's campaigns in Mexico prior to the Revolution.

Reed's career actually highlights an ongoing issue in the Red Navy. Unlike most navies, the Red Navy's officer corps are divided by their origins, forming three broad cliques. The first are the revolutionaries, people like Reed who joined early in the Revolution. Some were organizers in maritime unions, others (like Reed) were Red Army officers brought in for their (limited) combat experience. The second category are the mutineers, the junior officers and NCOs who participated in the Great Mutiny and were subsequently promoted (in many cases filling the positions of the men they'd killed). This clique includes both Strauss and King. Finally, there are the Pacificers, officers who were with the US Asiatic or Pacific Fleet and only joined the Red Navy after the Treaty of Colon. This includes people like John McCain.

Of these three cliques, the mutineers are by far the dominant one. They view the revolutionaries as amateurs and the Pacificers as disloyal. While the Pacificers have overwhelmingly remained with the Navy (a lot of them are driven purely by love of the Navy at this point), a lot of the revolutionaries have chosen to leave the Navy entirely, often seeking political careers. King in particular has encouraged this. Ironically, while Reed has remained in the Navy, he is being eyed for a political office. Specifically, Benjamin Hanford wants Reed to become Ambassador to Mexico if Villa wins the 1926 election (which he probably will given that Zapata will be ineligible for a second term). Unfortunately for King, Hanford would really prefer it if Reed were an admiral when that happens, lest some Mexicans take offense at New York sending them a mere captain, even if it's a captain their Premier really likes. So he's putting pressure on King to fast-track Reed to admiral.
 
11. The Five Year Plan
…On June 7, 1920, Debs gave his first State of the Union speech. Much was made of this, the first such speech in the ASU. Progressive and RSP media outlets expected it to be a retread of his inaugural address. Instead, Debs focused on the practical. His first State of the Union would be best remembered not for its lofty ideals, but for the introduction of the Five Year Plan…

…Between the ravages of war and the shock of a sudden transition to socialism, the American economy was in utter chaos. The retention of wartime economic measures (particularly price-fixing) was preventing a collapse, but confusion over how things worked and what should be done was rampant. The Five Year Plan was intended to stabilize the situation by providing a guiding light, a set of objectives everyone could work towards…

…Naturally, the primary focus of the Five Year Plan was on recovering from the damage of the war. Federal funds would be made available for devastated cities and towns to rebuild. Cooperatives in war-torn areas would be eligible for tax breaks, particularly those in construction, transportation, or other related sectors which could directly aid in rebuilding. In areas that had suffered extreme devastation, such as Salt Lake City or the Potomac Basin, the government would directly step in to pay for reconstruction…

…The Five Year Plan was marked by controversy. To Debs’ relief, it wasn’t over whether the plan should even exist. Even the Federalists were in support in principle, although Debs’ inclusion of Washington as a target for rebuilding was probably what tipped the balance. The devil, naturally, was in the details. The Progressives wanted to limit direct government involvement, while the RSP wanted the government to closely oversee the entire affair. Some RSP representatives were unhappy that so much of the effort would be spent on the South. This was about more than reconstruction. How the Five Year Plan was implemented would have a massive influence on how the ASU’s economy worked…

…The debate over the Five Year Plan raged for months. In September, fresh from the Gatineau Conference, Debs called a meeting of party leaders at Wall Street. His goal was to come up with a compromise that would allow him to pass the Five Year Plan with a wide margin, ensuring that it wouldn’t be a target for repeals. Unfortunately for him and his dreams of government by consensus, he failed. Both sides demanded concessions that would have infuriated large portions of the SLP itself, potentially leading to schism in his own party. As it was, Debs had to do a decent amount of horse trading to ensure that the SLP’s entire membership voted in favor, given the razor-thin margin the SLP held in the House…

…On October 21, the Chamber of Labor Delegates passed the Five Year Plan. The House of People’s Representatives followed on November 16, and it was ratified by the Central Committee on November 18. There was a silver lining, however. While the RSP and Federalists were uniformly opposed, a handful of Progressives – all of them Rayburnites – broke ranks and voted in favor of the plan, while Sam Rayburn himself abstained…

- From A New Union: A Political History of the American Socialist Union by Hillary Rodham
 
The Progressives wanted to limit direct government involvement, while the RSP wanted the government to closely oversee the entire affair.
Isn’t the RSP a mixture of more radical socialists held together by opposition to the status quo, including anarchists or anarchist-leaning people? While the Trotskyists would likely support more government intervention, this passage makes the RSP seem more unified, and authoritarian, than previous descriptions about it suggest.
 
Isn’t the RSP a mixture of more radical socialists held together by opposition to the status quo, including anarchists or anarchist-leaning people? While the Trotskyists would likely support more government intervention, this passage makes the RSP seem more unified, and authoritarian, than previous descriptions about it suggest.
The thing is, most of the anarchists in the RSP have reconciled them to some level of government for now. There are anarchists who oppose any engagement with the political system, but they generally don't run for federal office. Some anarchists (generally those who lean towards syndicalism) are in the SLP, largely out of distaste for the RSP's authoritarian tendencies.

Under most circumstances, the RSP would probably be even closer to fracture than the Progressive Party. However, they have one thing the Progressives don't: Leon Bronstein, the second most popular figure in American politics. His reputation as the general who led the Red Army to victory carries a lot of sway with voters. Furthermore, Bronstein has begun to try and meld his own ideology with anarchism. The basic idea is that the state is a necessary tool to defend the revolution until it is completed. Part of his justification for the doctrine of permanent revolution is that the longer a socialist state has to coexist with capitalists, the more difficult it will be to dismantle when it is no longer needed. He also suggests that given the difficulties with bringing even DeLeonist-style socialism to America, strong measures may be needed to ensure that anarchism is effectively implemented.

There is definitely tension behind the scenes. Bronstein has assured Emma Goldman and the other RSP anarchists that if the RSP takes power, he will implement some anarchist policies immediately. That's enough for them to stick around, especially since Debs won't be able to run for re-election in 1925 and their chances of getting Bronstein into Wall Street are good. But if Bronstein got hit by a bus tomorrow, the RSP would fall apart before his body was cold.
 
Some RSP representatives were unhappy that so much of the effort would be spent on the South. This was about more than reconstruction. How the Five Year Plan was implemented would have a massive influence on how the ASU’s economy worked…
I get where they are coming from, but like it or not leaving the South to rot would be a net drain on the ASU's economy where pushing money at the more firmly anti-Wilsonite southerners will have political and economic benefits.

There is definitely tension behind the scenes. Bronstein has assured Emma Goldman and the other RSP anarchists that if the RSP takes power, he will implement some anarchist policies immediately. That's enough for them to stick around, especially since Debs won't be able to run for re-election in 1925 and their chances of getting Bronstein into Wall Street are good. But if Bronstein got hit by a bus tomorrow, the RSP would fall apart before his body was cold.
Just be glad the ASU and SLP is not going to fall into the 'Kill off political opponents' trap. Right?

RIGHT?
 
I get where they are coming from, but like it or not leaving the South to rot would be a net drain on the ASU's economy where pushing money at the more firmly anti-Wilsonite southerners will have political and economic benefits.
There's no serious push against it, just a few loudmouthed idiots.
Just be glad the ASU and SLP is not going to fall into the 'Kill off political opponents' trap. Right?

RIGHT?
Don't worry. American politics ITTL are no more lethal than IOTL.
 
Will American Anarchism evolve into more centralized as time goes on? Maybe some version of Council Anarchism?
It will. Council anarchism is a decent descriptor for the anarchists in the SLP.
...That doesn't fill me with confidence...
I do genuinely mean that statement. There will be assassinations here and there, just as there are in the OTL USA. But those will be the exception. I can promise you right now that Leon Bronstein will live to a ripe old age.
 
But he won't be Premier? Cuz he will end democracy if he becomes Premier.
Leaving aside that he wouldn't have the ability to do so, he wouldn't want to. Bronstein has lived in America for over a decade now and his ideology has changed. He does believe in a strong central government, but he won't end American democracy.
 
12. The 1921 Election
…Of all the accusations and slurs that have been thrown at me, the one I most resented was that after my defeat in the 1920 election I considered launching a military coup against Premier Debs. Leaving aside the ridiculousness of the idea that such a coup would have been possible, to do so against the clear will of the American people would have been a betrayal of everything I had fought for. I had my disagreements with Debs, enough that I broke with the SLP and ran against him, but he was no less devoted to the Revolution than I…

…Three days after Debs was inaugurated, I came to see him at Wall Street. After I congratulated him again on his victory and we exchanged pleasantries, I explained that I had no desire to sit idle after losing the election. I wanted to show my loyalty to the new government by returning to the Red Army, having resigned as its commander only in order to focus on the campaign…

…Debs began his reply by assuring me that he was not concerned about my loyalty. However, he felt that it would be unseemly for a senior military commander to be head of the opposition. One of the few strengths of the old United States had been the apolitical nature of the military. Retired generals might seek political office, but as it was a given that I would continue to coordinate my political activity, it would be inappropriate for me to return to active duty…

…I considered promising to refrain from interfering in politics, but I held my tongue. I could not promise that. Anyone who has ever met me knows that I cannot help but speak my mind on any topic that comes up. Debs certainly knew it and would not have accepted my promise even if I had offered it. I only asked for his assurance that if a great war were to threaten the American Socialist Union, I would be allowed to return to active duty. Debs gave me that assurance, and we parted on good terms. The scenario I envisioned did eventually come to pass, although Debs would not live to see it…

- From My Life by General Leon Bronstein



…The 1921 election is sometimes called the first “regular” election of the ASU. The 1920 election was fought over broad statements about the future of the American Socialist Union. No one knew what a socialist government or nation would actually look like. But by the end of 1920, the picture was clearer. The practical relationships between the Premier, the Central Committee, the House, the Chamber, the industrial unions, and the commonwealths were taking shape. And there had been plenty of actual politicking for people to run on or against…

…A total of 100[1] seats in the Chamber were up for reelection, along with a single House seat formerly held by William Vincent Allen[2] (P-NE), who died in January 1921 of pneumonia. A significant number of Chamber Delegates who had served these abbreviated terms declined to seek reelection, often citing dissatisfaction with political life. Unsurprisingly, many who ran to replace them were candidates who had been defeated in 1920. This category included Leon Bronstein, who successfully sought a seat representing the Military and Defense Workers. His former running mate, Vincent St. John, made a similar run but was defeated by Arthur E. Reimer[3], in part due to Reimer’s support among arms industry workers…

…The 1921 election did not produce any massive shifts. Most seats were won either by incumbents or another member of their own party. The SLP increased their majority from 187 to 191, winning five seats from the Progressives but losing one to the RSP…

- From A New Union: A Political History of the American Socialist Union by Hillary Rodham

[1] The Chamber of Labor Delegates has 300 delegates total, while the House of People’s Representatives has 500.

[2] IOTL, Allen (who served two terms as a Populist senator from Nebraska) died in 1924. His earlier death is due to butterflies.

[3] IOTL, Reimer was a member of the IWW and the SLP’s presidential candidate in 1912. ITTL, he was a brigadier general in the Revolution.
 
Good on Lev that he is on board with accepting the democratic process. Looking forward to seeing how the Second World War plays out with him returned to command.
 
With how the Thai Navy IOTL purchased coast defense ships from Japan, any chance ITTL, with how navies are off-loading obsolete battleships to lesser powers, the Japanese hand over an old dreadnought to serve as the flagship of the Thai Navy? And speaking of which, how has the South American dreadnought race been affected by how navies are off-loading old battleships? Any old battleships finding new careers in Latin America?
 
With how the Thai Navy IOTL purchased coast defense ships from Japan, any chance ITTL, with how navies are off-loading obsolete battleships to lesser powers, the Japanese hand over an old dreadnought to serve as the flagship of the Thai Navy? And speaking of which, how has the South American dreadnought race been affected by how navies are off-loading old battleships? Any old battleships finding new careers in Latin America?
Yes and yes.
 
Random Geopolitical thought:

The Anglo-Japanese Alliance was only really dropped OTL because of pressure from Canada, wanting to keep good relations with the US. So it'll probably be maintained ITTL.
 
Random Geopolitical thought:

The Anglo-Japanese Alliance was only really dropped OTL because of pressure from Canada, wanting to keep good relations with the US. So it'll probably be maintained ITTL.
Which has certain implications for TTL's equivalent to the Second World War, especially with not!fascist Britain and all that. And speaking of which, maybe not!fascism in Britain could have even crazier factions than the ones who eventually take power similar to how the Toseiha which eventually took over Japan IOTL were the "moderates" in the militarist faction, at least compared to the insanity of the Kodoha.
 
Top