The Glowing Dream: A history of Socialist America

If both Russia and the US both end up going Red then no way will Germany be allowed to do so as well. I see the Entente assisting the Germans rather than risk losing everything east of the Rhine to the Reds.

I'd also say that it would be a US and Germany Red alliance with Russia managing to win their own civil war but I feel as though with an 1898 POD they're still on the fast track towards the Romanovs and the Whites losing TTL's Russian Civil War.
 
Even as a Leftists, who would love nothing else than a truly democratic and socially libertine Comintern win, I cannot see the ITTL Entente not invading/intervening Germany enmass if the Reds are about to win. It is literally across the border of France and with America going Red...well, in this timeline the US goes Red, Germany going Red would cause France going Red instantly. This is why Germany+America+Russia going Red doesn't make sense in a WW2 scenario...because there wouldn't be even a WW2 to begin with. I would have called it The Long Containment and Dissolution of the British Empire At Our Leisure.
 
Last edited:
Well, I actually see the chance for UK and France to go to war against Red Germany and Red Russia. Either if Red America goes in or not, I guess it won't be as destructive and large scale as OTL WW2.
 

Taimur500

Banned
Me too. Just that the idea of "we must have a ww2 type conflict at any cost in story even if I must pull author fiat to make it so against all existing established plot logic" doesnt sit right with me.
I was going to say something along these lines tbh.
 
After binging the entire TL in a couple of days, I must congratulate you. It's excellent. Your writing is very good, and you convey very well the slow, tortuous and bloody descent of the United States into violence, fraud, and ultimately, Revolution. I'm at the edge of my seat, waiting for the Revolution to start, but I also appreciate how you explain everything with so much detail. Otherwise, it would not be realistic, but as you portray it is scarily close to something that might have happened. Keep up the good work!
 
After binging the entire TL in a couple of days, I must congratulate you. It's excellent. Your writing is very good, and you convey very well the slow, tortuous and bloody descent of the United States into violence, fraud, and ultimately, Revolution. I'm at the edge of my seat, waiting for the Revolution to start, but I also appreciate how you explain everything with so much detail. Otherwise, it would not be realistic, but as you portray it is scarily close to something that might have happened. Keep up the good work!
I guess you would know about a slow and bloody descent into Violence and Radicalization
 
I guess you would know about a slow and bloody descent into Violence and Radicalization

Yeah I would guess so lol. To be frank, when reading this TL I sometimes find myself saying "damn, that's good, why didn't I think of that?". At times I am even considering asking to borrow some quotes for the future.
 
Yeah I would guess so lol. To be frank, when reading this TL I sometimes find myself saying "damn, that's good, why didn't I think of that?". At times I am even considering asking to borrow some quotes for the future.
hopefully you can take some inspiration from this timeline and I love your timeline yours and this on are currently competing to be my favorite
 
hopefully you can take some inspiration from this timeline and I love your timeline yours and this on are currently competing to be my favorite

Yes. Like that scene of a Populist "threatening" a Black man into voting for the Populists, as if he would consider voting for anyone else. It's simply brilliant, and I was going to ask I can include a similar scene in my own TL. And thank you very! I appreciate that you like my TL so much :)
 
hopefully Trotsky never rises to power as well because there was only to 3 differences between Stalin and Trotsky: 1 Trotsky was a zealot, 2 Stalin knew how to read a room and 3 Stalin won.

Stalin was a zealot too.

We're talking about a guy who really and truly thought the only way his enlightened ideas for the Soviet Union could be producing the realities he was seeing was if malicious wreckers were sabotaging his perfect vision and that after WW2 the Soviet Union should position itself to take advantage of the UK-US world war that would follow the world war against Germany (because capitalism must self destruct).

fasquardon
 
Stalin was a zealot too.

We're talking about a guy who really and truly thought the only way his enlightened ideas for the Soviet Union could be producing the realities he was seeing was if malicious wreckers were sabotaging his perfect vision and that after WW2 the Soviet Union should position itself to take advantage of the UK-US world war that would follow the world war against Germany (because capitalism must self destruct).

fasquardon
Stalin did was best for Stalin and That just happened to be Revolutionary
 
Sorry to dredge up old posts and whatever, but it's all fresh to me since I just binged this over the last two days.
Meanwhile, Chinese communism is a hodgepodge that was never really free of Chinese nationalism and exceptionalism.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Mao had more clout among national liberation movements rather than more doctrinaire socialists. The particulars of revolution in underdeveloped (industrially) states demand a different basis for the theory and opposition to the power structure than what you'd get in Europe. That's only logical, but the consequence of that that usually goes unspoken is the need to fall back on more (for lack of a better term) antiquated grievances (peace, bread, land) and modes of thought. Nationalism would be biggest one, but also just basic class animosities without any further theory behind it could definitely work.
Someone brought up a Zapata quote earlier in the thread and I think that's a very good example of how under-articulated class grievances would be expressed. That's how you can get illiterate peasants to kill their landlords as well as get Bourgeois Assemblymen in France to start seizing estates.

You don't necessarily need revolutionary theory to prosecute revolution, I would argue. France alone shows that it's perfectly possible to do under older worldviews that more orthodox leftists would turn their noses at as immature or even reactionary.
And I don't know whether Maoism is a compromise with that reality or a synthesis of ideologically conscious revolt. It's just a thought I had, and I haven't read enough theory to know up from down with this.
In many places, especially the south, the populists and socialists (and occasionally even the Republicans) ran on joint-tickets—though they were not necessarily in perfect accord. The growing base of the SLP was industrial laborers in the cities of the north and miners in the west, many of these men recent immigrants who often spoke little English. That of the populists was farmers in the south and Midwest, most of them old-stock Americans with a deep-rooted attachment to the land and soil. But for the moment, they stuck by each other and tempered any simmering criticisms, more than aware there remained two goliaths to be struck down.
It's been very interesting to see this dynamic play out, and I'm honestly surprised at how well this dynamic has played out so far.
I originally pulled this quote because it reminded me of the dynamic between Russian Social Democrats and the SR's, and given the way things worked out between those two strains of politics in Russia, that any sort of collusion in the US has worked out over these two decades is very heartening.
Though obviously once you build your revolution on unions, they're going to take a big part in the new society.
The Worker's Opposition in the USSR would like to have a word.
The young reactionary anti-Semite and future head of Action Française, Charles Maurras agreed, and saw in it a ‘Jewish element’, the same he saw at work in France, behind Jacobinism, socialism, and the republic itself.
As he dove behind the cover of a donkey cart, Robbins heard one of his comrades shout; “Damned niggers!”. But he himself was quite sure all of their opponents were, at least those he could see, white men.
I know that it's funny how ridiculous these sorts of paranoid because I chuckled at both of these lines when they came up. These sorts of people could find the devil in a patch of petunias, they are farcical.
But there is definitely something to out-and-out delusional nature to these prejudices and the political and social consequences of them.

Like with the Populist-Socialist fusion, I'm honestly surprised at how mild the political landscape is in this TL. The Paramilitary wing of the proto-fascists only just now disappeared someone. The Republicans acted with a great deal of restraint during McKinley's administration and while there's ongoing violence all of the country, we've yet to see any blatant pogroms. Despite the rhetoric and disposition of either side, eliminationism doesn't seem to have picked up as much steam. (Though the antecedents to that kind of violence are definitely there if one of the richest men on the planet can get murdered in broad daylight and the Socialist Party gets even more support in the ensuing chaos).

Generally speaking, most of the bloodshed that's happened so far has been either been higher-scale conflict between active combatants with those that are unarmed only being collateral damage, or low-scale tit-for-tats with a murder here and a murder there.
Honestly, the violence in the south reads like an Indian War. Lots of isolated instances of viciousness between partisans and civilians alike with very rare but culturally significant higher profile engagements.

I don't make that comparison idly either. I would argue that American culture in times like these would produce a lot more escalation under these circumstances. When faced with Indigenous resistance, Americans always opted for the biggest reprisal possible. I don't see the sort of relative restraint that's taken place in this TL lasting long enough to make it another 2ish decades like it seems to be.
Cripple Creek seems pretty mild in the context we have.

Socialists damn near have a plurality in the Congress, assassinations and murders are going on everywhere. The system is feeling a mountain of stress.
Yet...there still seems to be something approaching order in a situation that should be actively degenerating every week.
In the backroom of the saloon, Haywood informed the committee that he had just come from Colorado City, where word was already that the MOA was begging Governor Peabody to have the militia called out.

“We ain’t even killed nobody yet,” one of the committee delegates protested.
I quoted this because I thought it was funny, but it definitely relates to my point above in the collapsed section.

Hysterical, Bloody, Instinctive and most of all Pre-Emptive overreaction is very much a part of US social maintenance.

You can see it with the Indian Wars, you can see it in Southern Secession. It's baked into the cake and disproportionate response is what I expect from US elites in a situation far far far more mild than what is at play currently in the TL.

But this might all be my prejudice speaking.
Frick was the polar opposite of Darrow in more ways than one. Darrow would never use one word where ten would do. Frick would never use one word where a frightful stare would suffice. His speeches were short and to the point, but they left his listeners convicted.
Some say that whenever a Socialist tires of hearing themselves talk, an essay is born.
To Frick’s consternation, most of his fellow titans of industry viewed the National Party and his presidential run as a bit of irresponsible adventurism.
Bourgeois class timidity is....odd to me. Though I would imagine that after Morgan was assassinated that this outlook is no longer the popular one.
 
The Worker's Opposition in the USSR would like to have a word.

Russia barely had a proletariat by the end of the civil war. In a lot of ways, even if Lenin didn't codify it like Mao did, the peasantry was still the revolutionary class in Russia, through sheer numbers. Which also explains why Bolshevik rule was such a mess.
 

marktaha

Banned
The congressional elections of 1900 were overshadowed by the thrilling presidential contest, but they presented a victory for the new heterodox movements, and a further disintegration of the hitherto firmly established two-party system.

In the House, the Socialists added 21 seats to the 34 they’d won in ’98, bringing their total to 54. Colorado, with its two representatives, became the first state to send a delegation to Washington composed entirely of Socialists. They also elected two from Louisiana, one from Florida, and one from Georgia. Indeed, gains were being made in the south. In Pennsylvania, they expanded their seven representatives to thirteen, coming just shy of a majority of the delegation. They also won one from Washington, two from Nebraska, and three from Missouri.

Most of these were poached from the Populists—however, the latter were benefitting greatly from the collapse of the Democratic Party, and so there was still not so much occasion for hostility between them and the SLP. Their own total rose from 70 to 89. This included six of nine North Carolinian representatives, and eight out of 11 Georgians. There were also three from Louisiana, and two each from Alabama and Mississippi.

The Republicans witnessed the worrying fall of their own majority to a very near plurality of 171. These were mostly lost to the Socialists or the Populists. But there was a new challenger on the scene.

Frick’s National Party, formed as it was only a few months before the election, had little time to prepare any candidates for congressional contests. Nevertheless, a number of galvanized anti-socialists eagerly joined the ranks of the party and stood for election. A fairly impressive 8 representatives managed to make it to office, four from Pennsylvania, three from California, and one from New York. A small presence, but a foreboding one. The Nationalists had their first taste of state power.

As for the Democrats, they dropped to 24, controlling outright only the delegations now of Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Arkansas.

So, as it stood when the 55th Congress was seated, there were 171 Republicans, 89 Populists, 54 Socialists, 24 Democrats, 8 Nationalists, and 15 Independents or members of smaller parties.

It was the most divided the House of Representatives had been in a very long time.

There were great changes in the Senate, as well.

The 54th Congress had hosted 60 Republicans, for a solid majority. There were also 16 Democrats, 13 Populists, and 1 stubborn Free Silver Republican from Wyoming.

In 1900, the Populists rose to 25 seats. The Republicans fell to 51 seats, still maintaining their majority, though a slimmer one. The Democrats sank to 6 senators, fattening primarily the Populists with their loss.

Most importantly, in 1900 the Socialists sent their first ever representative to the Senate: none other than Pennsylvania’s James Maurer.

When he entered the Senate chamber for the first time on 4 May 1901, he found few but the Populists and a small smattering of (quickly dwindling) liberal-minded Republicans would so much as shake his hand.
Weren't Senators still elected by state legislatures?
 
Also. Something interesting I found. Multiple mentions of "Imperial University Publishing. Brisbane, 1963". So I gather there is no World Revolution by 1963 because there would be an effort to drop the 'Imperial' from the name.
Now, the question stands...is the 'Imperial' the British Empire...or the Japanese Empire and its Co-Prosperity Sphere.

I mean, imagine a Cold War between an Internationale/Red Block made up of all of Europe, Western Russia, West/Subsaharan Africa and the America's vs. a Blue Block/Co-Prosperity Sphere made up of the entire Middle East, Turkey, Persia, Egypt, South Africa, East Africa, Etiopia, Australia, all led by a triumvirate of an independent India, a united China, and a liberalized/Keynesian Japanese Empire.

Something like this (borrowed from Kaissereich):
NdtF0Qs.png


All the Industry vs All the Manpower: The Cold War Edition. Obviously, CPS will lose in the end when the headstart in industry, computing, technology, and automation of the Internationale rolls over it's over over-reliance on manpower even harder than what happened to the Soviet Block in OTL. But I think it could take much longer for such a Cold War to end, perhaps till the mid-21st century.

Also, both sides would rely heavily on navies unlike in OTL Cold War, the traditions of the old Imperial/Colonial fleets of the Western world fuel the Internationale's naval program vs. the quick learners that are the Japanese, Chinese, and Indians, all three who got force-'westernized' by the Anglo-Saxon naval powers of pre-revolutionary Great Britain and the old US.
 
Last edited:
Something interesting I found. Multiple mentions of "Imperial University Publishing. Brisbane, 1963". So there is no World Revolution by 1963
Not that I think it's going in that direction, but it's perfectly plausible for Australia to be a holdout for the British Empire even if the home island goes red.
 
Not that I think it's going in that direction, but it's perfectly plausible for Australia to be a holdout for the British Empire even if the home island goes red.
Australia alone cannot do it. It would fall within a year without the backing of a superpower government opposed to the COMINTERN. The only way how I can see Australia holding out, somehow, is them building a skyscraper-sized thermo-nuclear doomsday machine underneath the Australian Outback. The OTL Soviets never built it because they thought it was too insane. A Fascist/Reactionary dictator of the last holdout of Capitalism could theoretically build it. Also, the tone of that Imperial University is too conciliatory towards the US socialist movements in those snippet so I do not think Australia is full-on reactionary ITTL 1963. Which means some kind of Detente is in place like the OTL Cold War. Which means there is a balance of terro/power. AKA: There is an opponent Capitalist block on Earth.
 
Last edited:
Australia alone cannot do it. It would fall within a year without the backing of a superpower government opposed to the COMINTERN. The only way how I can see Australia holding out, somehow, is them building a skyscraper-sized thermo-nuclear doomsday machine underneath the Australian Outback. The OTL Soviets never built it because they thought it was too insane. A Fascist/Reactionary dictator of the last holdout of Capitalism could theoretically build it. Also, the tone of that Imperial University is too conciliatory towards the US socialist movements in those snippet so I do not think Australia is full-on reactionary ITTL 1963. Which means some kind of Detente is in place like the OTL Cold War. Which means there is a balance of terro/power. AKA: There is an opponent Capitalist block on Earth.

Stop. North Korea survived just fine without being the plot of a bad technotriller.
 
Top