Especially as the actions of President Frick are radicalizing former moderates.I wonder what Sam Johnson (LBJ’s dad) down in the Texan Black Hills is up to…
Very fun timeline. Although personally I was hoping for the Socialists to win power without a revolution sometimes needs must.
The Glowing Dream: A history of Socialist America
- Thread starter Iggies
- Start date
Oh absolutely. The main difference between Lenin and Stalin is that the former actually believed in the ideal and wanted to both spread it around and make sure it worked well, while the latter was in just for the power. Better or worse can only be truly seen in hindsight and even there is much subjectivity, but undoubtedly had things followed Lenin's ideas the course of history would have been very very different.
tukaram bhakt
Banned
Lenin was an intellectual unlike stalin.
He knows how to read the situation in the ground and the fact that he was in siege perhaps worsened by his own actions but still the USSR was an island.
If another colossus of a country comes along, and hopefully an european power and some periferic nations, the whole situation changes so much.
I dont think that any of them are exect parallels. But London always strikes me as the Lenninest figure. On democratic process. You might have competing socialist factions serving as parties. Or yeah the populists hang on,or maybe even a rump democratic and republican parties.
I would say this is most likely, either in the form of the Socialist Labour Party being the sole party with intra-party democracy or the SLP splintering into various parties in the aftermath of victory in the Revolution.
Seems like a poor strategic move to mass arrest a ton of Socialists and then eventually release most of them anyways. It sends a message and will probably intimidate a lot of people into leaving, but it also shakes out the less committed and makes the core of the Socialist movement much more radical/stronger willed. I imagine a lot of connections were made in jail cells following Frick's election that will be valuable for the Socialists going forward.
If the definition of socialism is "no private ownership of the means of production" being enshrined in the Constitution, the rest can be fully democratic (determining social issues, creating Federal programs). Even the debate of government intervention or not could still happen ITTL.
Not sure what you mean by the Supreme Soviet, as that was only established in 1936.
The Bolsheviks didn't lose the soviets. Throughout July to November 1917 the Bolshevik-Left SR alliance won majorities in the various soviets, leading to the former having an outright majority in Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets when it convened in November. The Constituent Assembly, in which the Bolsheviks came second, beat the Mensheviks by 20% of the vote, and won majorities or pluralities in the urban constituencies (thus confirming their results from soviet elections), was abolished because the urban working class wanted a soviet government. The soviets remained the basis of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Soviet Union until it's collapse.
Quantum Immortal
Banned
Same as the destruction of all other culture. Similar to how capitalism passively eliminates culture that doesn't feed it through unprofitability, so did USSR-style communism destroy culture that didn't actively feed the system.
They all shot Jews for being Jews, just at different times and with different excuses. I don't see that happening ITTL though.
My point is that the American socialists would be like the Bolsheviks with all of the dictatorship and democracy gone.
Oh yeah, but I meant by the Socialists themselves. As a socialist Jew who's saddened by blind spot the left has to their own antisemitism, I have high hopes for TTL.
Because since dictatorship is imposed, and the moderates are out, it does mean the political party would operate in a conspirational style with no compromise and no dialogue. If they are against the Frick dictatorship, does it have any guarantee that the American socialists would bring democracy back themselves, by themselves for everyone else? If you operate in a conspiracy and secretive way, you need to establish cells and a form of democratic centralism to stifle debate to quickly organize and move along. When they do not compromise, what about the moderates and others who had nothing to do with the dictatorship, the non-worker/non-socialist political parties?