The Great Crusade (Reds! Part 3)

Are the UASR party descriptions from the old thread still canon? (Aside from name changes--I believe the Socialist Party is now the Communist Unity Party and the Left Democrats are now the DFLP, but correct me if I'm wrong).
Do most citizens belong to a party, or are there plenty of independents? Are people who refuse to join a party looked down on as "antisocial"?
I remember the African National Congress is confirmed canon, but is it still existent/relevant in present-day politics? Is it affiliated with any of the major 5 parties? I assume that a majority of the UASR's African population must live outside the Black ASR(s) for it to be significant on the national level.
I remember something about a Native American party, but that may not be canon anymore. What about a Jewish Party (possibly evocative of the Bund)?
 
Are the UASR party descriptions from the old thread still canon? (Aside from name changes--I believe the Socialist Party is now the Communist Unity Party and the Left Democrats are now the DFLP, but correct me if I'm wrong).
Do most citizens belong to a party, or are there plenty of independents? Are people who refuse to join a party looked down on as "antisocial"?
I remember the African National Congress is confirmed canon, but is it still existent/relevant in present-day politics? Is it affiliated with any of the major 5 parties? I assume that a majority of the UASR's African population must live outside the Black ASR(s) for it to be significant on the national level.
I remember something about a Native American party, but that may not be canon anymore. What about a Jewish Party (possibly evocative of the Bund)?
Things have evolved a bit.

From left to right, the modern American political groups:
Social Ecology Union (founded ~1970s, broad tent for greens, libertarian marxists and social anarchists)
Liberation (In Reds 1.0, they were the Socialists. Retconned to Communist Unity Party. Final version, they're Liberation. Post WPA splinter, founded as Liberation Communist Party. They're Left Communist world revolutionists with a strong libertine streak)
Communist Labor (Reds 1.0, they were the Progressive Labor Party. Post WPA splinter, they're "pure and simple" Marxists, more statist and centrist on social issues.)
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (Reds 101, the Left Democrats. They're often joined at the hip with the CLP. Less pure Marxism, more Christian socialism, left-wing nationalism, and localism)
Democratic-Republican Party (Name has stayed the same, but back story has evolved. They're a catchall for the progressive bourgeois, and they approach socialism from a Georgist, mutualist perspective. Markets and limited property relations.)
True Democrats: (The designated traitor party. The drain trap that catches everything that won't accomodate to the revolution, the mirror image of Western communist parties IOTL)

Other groups like the ANC, Jewish Labor Bund, American Indian Movement, etc., are factions/think tanks/civic organizations that operated within the Workers Party. Some, like the ANC in particular, become part of the nucleus that forms the SEU.
 
Democratic-Republican Party (Name has stayed the same, but back story has evolved. They're a catchall for the progressive bourgeois, and they approach socialism from a Georgist, mutualist perspective. Markets and limited property relations.)

Odd Question: Is Ron Paul still the head of this party?
 
Would love like in-depth mini updates of the inner workings of each party. Realize this is would be a big endeavor, probably like a post-TL mini-update sorta deal.
 
Democratic-Republican Party (Name has stayed the same, but back story has evolved. They're a catchall for the progressive bourgeois, and they approach socialism from a Georgist, mutualist perspective. Markets and limited property relations.)

True Democrats: (The designated traitor party. The drain trap that catches everything that won't accomodate to the revolution, the mirror image of Western communist parties IOTL)

1) Bourgeoisie in a socialist society? Or are you using that term in a different sense? Limited property relations - as in supporting a sort of NEP type set up?

2) If I understand correctly, campaigning for any kind of capitalist system isn't actually illegal (at least later on, if it is at first) in the UASR it's just you're not going to get many (if any) votes and it would be unconstitutional to try to implement any of your ideas (though if you somehow win I think the constitution will be having an interesting time)?
 
Democratic-Republican Party (Name has stayed the same, but back story has evolved. They're a catchall for the progressive bourgeois, and they approach socialism from a Georgist, mutualist perspective. Markets and limited property relations.)
True Democrats: (The designated traitor party. The drain trap that catches everything that won't accomodate to the revolution, the mirror image of Western communist parties IOTL)

Other groups like the ANC, Jewish Labor Bund, American Indian Movement, etc., are factions/think tanks/civic organizations that operated within the Workers Party. Some, like the ANC in particular, become part of the nucleus that forms the SEU.

How does the Democratic Republican Party maintain itself long term? It seems like without a bourgeois leadership around anymore the actual forces which supported the Democratic and Republican parties would simply melt into other parties. DFLP could easily pick up their base of people suspicious of Marxism itself but willing to accept the revolution with caveats, the Communist Labor would almost certainly end up accumulating the careerist politicians, and ironically the more mutualist and intellectual membership could see themselves drifting towards Liberation (mutualism isn't exactly a common viewpoint anywhere, and their more libertine leanings could easily see them becoming the right wing of Liberation). I realize the point is to draw a parralel between the social democrats existing within capitalist countries throughout the cold war and these guys. But the problem there is that while a working class party attempting to influence capitalist politics makes sense inliberal capitalist democracy, a bourgeois party continuing doesn't make nearly as much considering the entire class it's founded upon as a social base doesn't exist anymore.

I have less trouble with the True Democrats, if only because their function fits far more into this whole view if only because complete white counter revolutionaries have more of a reason to exist in the framework of this system than the progressive bourgeois. A phenomenon I generally think of as purely developing out of capitalism.
 
2) If I understand correctly, campaigning for any kind of capitalist system isn't actually illegal (at least later on, if it is at first) in the UASR it's just you're not going to get many (if any) votes and it would be unconstitutional to try to implement any of your ideas (though if you somehow win I think the constitution will be having an interesting time)?

It's not illegal, but the True Democrats being allowed to exist during the revolution was in part just to keep the counterrevolutionaries relatively in the open rather than totally letting them embrace terrorism as their exclusive means of political expression. They probably only have significant support in those white parts of the south which are still bitter about the revolution.
 
Would love like in-depth mini updates of the inner workings of each party. Realize this is would be a big endeavor, probably like a post-TL mini-update sorta deal.

Considering what we know of their views as it stands, I'm going to say the Communist Labor Party and the DFLP are likely to be common coalition partners and for their early years be a sort of "natural party of government", with all the professional respectable sometimes careerist baggage that entails. Which probably continues even after they get unseated from that role in government. With Liberation and Social Ecology Union being two collections of tendencies (with liberation more explicitly Trotskyist than anything else, and SEU being super diverse). Probably another default coalition pairing by the time they're both challenging Labor and the DFLP.

And the two bourgeoise parties will definitely be a mess. Whatever else they are that is certain. Facing constant low level police intervention in their activities punctuated with some not so low level incidences. The true democrats are always on the edge of being banned, and often are either totally worm eaten by infiltration, or acting as a legitimate face to what is essentially the voice of organized crime and unreconstructed racism.

Oh. One big question. What is a the political situation of Canada? It's a far more recent addition to the UASR, basically only 30 years old. In a much smaller but similar vein, how do Americas parties relate to the indigenous people of America and Canada? I can easily see the SEU monopolizing their politics (green politics, indigenous activism, and antiracism combine together into groupings fairly often).
 
Wait Canada joined the uasr?

More like Canada collapsed and the UASR invaded, although its more complicated than that. ITL the Canadian left decided that the best course of action was for Canada to resemble its southern neighbor, contrary to OTL where the Canadian left decided that it was best if Canada had little with common with the US.

Coupled with the fact that Canada's didn't have a national identity and it was a recipe for disaster.
 
It's not illegal, but the True Democrats being allowed to exist during the revolution was in part just to keep the counterrevolutionaries relatively in the open rather than totally letting them embrace terrorism as their exclusive means of political expression. They probably only have significant support in those white parts of the south which are still bitter about the revolution.

It wouldn't surprise me if they are about as relevant as Britain First in OTL and are only really relevant when people pay attention to them.

teg
 
A few quick questions -

1) Given that Trotskyism won't be a thing ITTL, where do most of the OTL Trotskyists end up? I mean obviously they're going to be in the WCPA but I'm interested in seeing where they'll split after the breakup of the party in the mid-1940s. I know in the original draft Progressive Labor (now Communist Labor) was hostile to the Soviets, so that would probably draw in the Schachtmanite wing of the US Trotskyist movement, although I don't know if that works, given that it would seem Communist Labor in the rewrite is closer to the Soviets than before, or maybe I misreading the whole thing. I guess what I'm really asking is, where do the UASR parties stand with regard to the USSR? Given the far less rapid denigration of the USSR into a bureaucratic nightmare, I would think that even many of those who were of the 'State Capitalism' persuasion wouldn't be ITTL.

Hell, the theory of 'State Capitalism' as being one explaining the USSR probably won't have much circulation outside of the 2.5 International, where it sort of originated with Kautsky before being adopted by (some) Left Communists and ex-Trotskyists/Third Camp types.

2) Going off of the previous question, what's the status of the rest of the world labor movement? I know the Comintern will survive here, but given the depth and scope of the American Revolution, it seems inevitable that the centrist current that emerged following the Russian Revolution will probably also continue to exist for a time, at least until its membership can shuffle about between the social democratic right and communist left.

Concerning the social democratic right, I remember a previous update (concerning FBU political parties) noting that the Labour Party was more or less pro-UASR/USSR (unless I'm remembering that incorrectly). Is that a recent (i.e. post-1970s) development? Even with a strong upsurge of the left resulting from the American Revolution, I have a hard time seeing the dominant right-wing of the Labour Party not still trying to paint the revolution as some kind of orgy of godlessness and baby-eating. Does Labour, and in general, do European Social Democratic parties, undergo other splits in the 1930s and 1940s as a result of the American Revolution? And are these splits from the right-wing, or the left?

3) We know that the Comintern more or less didn't undergo 'Bolshevization', i.e. dissidents weren't expelled here, or at least, if they were, it wasn't to the extent that turned it entirely into a Stalinist agent as IOTL. What are the other Comintern communist parties like? I can already see the Italian and Dutch parties, given their history of Left Communism, being decidedly in the American camp.

4) Concerning Germany, you noted that the KPD ITTL isn't going to take Hitler's ascension to power lying down. Does this imply a full-on civil war? And if so, how long does it last? Would the UASR be born in time to send arms and ammunition to the embittered German communists?

5) How are the leading Russian Revolutionaries viewed in the modern UASR? Obviously with Trotsky relocating there I can see him having an almost 'Marquis de Lafayette' in reverse reputation, a revolutionary hero from another country who settled in to help build another revolution, etc. Lenin would probably have a fairly good rap too, aside from some segments of the Social Ecology Union, which probably wouldn't look too fondly on him. I can definitely see Alexandra Kollontai having a spot of high regard within the Liberation Communist Party as well.
 
I think the OTL Trotskyists and Trotsky himself are going to end up with the Liberation side of the split given their libertine social belies, their preference for permanent revolution (a trait rolled into the Liberation party after revisions). Labor will likely get the more Schachtmanite wings of the tradition. Possible some of the advocates of the French Turn given how ITTL that doesn't happen.
 

bookmark95

Banned
Assuming he's still born ITTL, what do you think Bernie Sanders would be up to in the UASR? Would he still be a politician? A university professor? Living on a kibbutz?

Speaking of kibbutzim, I imagine many early ones would be ethnically homogenous, especially in the South. Would there be a later drive to desegregate communes and kibbutzim? What about neighborhoods in cities? Remember, "just add socialism" does not erase racial prejudices.

Does the Soviet Union eventually start treating its Jewish population better? (Perhaps after democratization)

I know Sinclair was an ardent vegetarian (at least partially due to his research for The Jungle), and he'd probably use his position as President to promote it, but is vegetarianism/veganism widespread in the present day UASR? Has agriculture shifted to a more plant- or insect-based diet? What is the status of animal rights in America?

Personally, I think Bernie Sanders would be political moderate in this environment.

In an earlier post, George Orwell writes about how there is still plenty of Jim Crow prejudice in the South. I don't think desegregation will occur until maybe after the second world war.
 
Personally, I think Bernie Sanders would be political moderate in this environment.

I actually think that Bernie can play a role of a contemporary transformational figure as a SEU leader in Vermont. I actually see Vermont as a SEU stronghold.

In an earlier post, George Orwell writes about how there is still plenty of Jim Crow prejudice in the South. I don't think desegregation will occur until maybe after the second world war.

The George Orwell update is no longer cannon since that's a long time ago back in Red Dawn. Most of it is now under a very thorough revision and the latest updates talked of massive developments in the New South, including desegregation, at least de jure. Racial prejudice is still there, including lingering elements of Jim Crow, but Jim Crow itself is gone. Institutional racism is no longer around. It doesn't mean though that the New South, as stated in the last update, is already a picture of racial harmony since de facto pillarisation and semi-segregation measures were all there. Electoral suppression were around though outside the black majority regions but I think there's a de facto racial compromise about this in exchange of whites keeping the moderate gains of the Cultural Revolution for blacks in the New South especially for the black majority regions. It's going to take a generational shift before there will be real changes and without the Old South, the shift will happen more smoothly than OTL.
 
In an earlier post, George Orwell writes about how there is still plenty of Jim Crow prejudice in the South. I don't think desegregation will occur until maybe after the second world war.

The cannon at this point is not so much that Jim Crow continued in the south as it is prejudice continued outside of black majority areas and areas where blacks didn't end up being the leading force of the local communist revolution. In the places where official Jim Crow reigned it was drowned in blood by Harry Haywood.

In the battle for history, no figure is as polarizing as Harry Haywood. One part theoretician, one part political leader, Haywood is the face of the African National Congress during the 30s, 40s and 50s. While other black leaders were often highly influential in this era, men like Langston Hughes and W.E.B. Dubois are more known for their role in the broader communist struggle. This often compromised their ability to take a decisive role in the black liberation struggle. Haywood, by contrast, is remembered as a leader of black liberation first, and all of the often adversarial implications therein.

And he was often in fierce political battles with fellow Party members. On three separate occaisions from 1934 to 1940, the Party Central Committee voted on expelling Haywood from the party, each time retaining him by narrow margins. The controversial nature of his leadership of the ANC is reflected in the differing opinions about him held by modern whites and blacks. To whites, he is a stern and uncompromising zealot for the cause of equal rights. Occasionally, they'll remember that his promotion of tactics of civil disobedience was a practical concern, not a moral principle. But for blacks, Haywood is remembered quite differently.

Haywood was the man most responsible for ending the terror of living in the South. It is entirely understandable that historically conscious black men and women are not as horrified as whites by Haywood's connection to the Red Terror, or the counterlynchings the ANC engaged in when the judicial system failed to act against white terrorism.

This was a role that Haywood had taken since the Civil War. As the leader of the Spartacus' League's Nat Turner Column, he cut a swath through the Fascist held territory in the Mississippi River valley. Vengeful poor whites as well as black sharecroppers joined in droves. Here in the Deep South, the class war was at its bloodiest. Thanks to Haywood's personal leadership, the thinly suppressed rage of poor whites and oppressed blacks was channeled into an effective instrument against reactionary institutions. He contained the worst of revolutionary excesses while ensuring that justice was still served. (Indeed, Haywood is fondly remembered in the women's movement for his harsh punishment of war rape as well as for his enduring alliance with the WLU).

After the Civil War, Haywood retired from his commission in the WFRA to serve as the chief administrator of the Deep South Reconstruction District as well as a member of the Politburo of the Workers Party. The cause of black self-determination won its early successes thanks in no small part to his passion for the project, and his respect among the new managerial class in the South.

The actual passage on the revolution in the south now.
 
I think the OTL Trotskyists and Trotsky himself are going to end up with the Liberation side of the split given their libertine social belies, their preference for permanent revolution (a trait rolled into the Liberation party after revisions). Labor will likely get the more Schachtmanite wings of the tradition. Possible some of the advocates of the French Turn given how ITTL that doesn't happen.

I lean towards believing this as well. I could see Trotsky as sort of an elder statesman within Liberation, perhaps even a chief ideological influence (given the confluence of the Left Communists and what would have been Trotskyism IOTL, the party could indeed look like a weird mix of Orthodox Trotskyism, Bordigism, and Platformism) or high ranking party official. It will certainly be interesting to see how 'the Prophet' will live out his days in a state that has more or less appropriated his key theoretical contribution to Marxist practice and made it state ideology.
 

E. Burke

Banned
I lean towards believing this as well. I could see Trotsky as sort of an elder statesman within Liberation, perhaps even a chief ideological influence (given the confluence of the Left Communists and what would have been Trotskyism IOTL, the party could indeed look like a weird mix of Orthodox Trotskyism, Bordigism, and Platformism) or high ranking party official. It will certainly be interesting to see how 'the Prophet' will live out his days in a state that has more or less appropriated his key theoretical contribution to Marxist practice and made it state ideology.

How old could Trotsky get if he doesn't have a nasty runin with an Ice pick. He was already 60, but I imagine that living as a leading politician in a developed socialist country isn't the same as hiding out in Russia.
 
Top