The Rise and Fall of the American Proletariat: The Emergence of American Socialism

This TL focuses on making the US a social democracy and a welfare state akin to those of Europe. This post will act as a table of contents for the TL.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The Rise and Fall of the American Proletariat
The Emergence of American Socialism

Created by fjihr

Part I: The Rise of Bipartisan Consensus

Chapter I: An Overview of American Politics, 1901

Chapter II: The Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902
 
Last edited:
Part I: The Rise of Bipartisan Consensus​

Chapter I: An Overview of Politics, 1901


For good reason, the period of American history from the election of conservative Republican William McKinley in 1896 to the election of the Progressive-Socialist Party in 1928 is generally known as the Conservative Age, or to political historians as the Fourth Party System. It is generally known as a dark epoch, one in which any attempt by workers to gain their natural rights was met by failure and ignored by the government and in which coalitions of businesses, or trusts, controlled prices and formed monopolies on various industries and refused to let competition and corporate selection lead to improvement of products and efficiency. It is known as being an era in which wealth was concentrated amongst a few businessmen such as J.P. Morgan or John D. Rockefeller who earned literally one million times the wage of an average worker and no attempts to reform this flawed pure capitalism was able to succeed or even come to prominence. Despite the emergence of a class system and simmering discontent, many considered this age to be a great era and the beginning of a powerful USA in more than just economic power. The American victory in the Spanish–American War, which merely lasted for just over three years before Spain sued for peace after being beaten like a drum and having its colonial empire – or rather what remained of it after the Latin American Revolutions – taken by the US, led many to believe that perhaps the twentieth century would be just as dominated by America as the nineteenth was dominated by Britain.

The election of 1896 was a realigning election. The conservative Republican candidate William McKinley formed a coalition of fellow conservatives and the bourgeoisie to oppose populist Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan. He would not only win, but he won in a landslide, the likes of which were unseen since Reconstruction, breaking the deadlock seen from the previous elections. The successful three-month Spanish – American War in 1898 – which led to the US asserting itself as an international hegemon and gaining huge amounts of land and proving its military prowess – led to McKinley seeing even greater popularity than before and winning reelection in another landslide against Bryan, bringing the Republicans to political domination unseen since Reconstruction.


William_McKinley_by_Courtney_Art_Studio%2C_1896.jpg

William McKinley, President of the United States (1897-1905)​

But not all was good in the US. Urbanization led to the majority of the peasantry going to work in urban areas and becoming members of the slightly more educated proletariat. Those workers began to realize how bad their lives were and fought with the upper classes and bourgeoisie to gain what was rightfully theirs. In the US, this movement began to threaten the power of the bourgeoisie and as a result the ruling classes were working towards crushing any workers’ movements. It is commonly believed that nearly everyone in government at the time turned a blind eye towards the proletariat.

However, this assertion that everyone in government other than a few minor politicians ignored the plight of the average worker is false. As a matter of fact, in both the of the two major parties of the time, there were major bourgeoisie reformist movements. Although it most certainly was true that these movements had ulterior motives, they did attempt to improve the lives of the workers.

The Democratic Party was populated by large numbers of populists, who focused more on the farmer than the worker, while the Republican Party was populated by large numbers of progressives, who focused on issues faced by the industrial workers. The populists were generally anti-establishment and would briefly become a major political party, peaking in 1894 when they captured ten percent of the vote before endorsing Bryan in 1896 before being absorbed into the Democratic Party, while the progressives were pro-establishment and would form largely within the Republican Party. However, both of these movements only formed a minority in their respective parties and their efforts were stymied by the establishment, who saw both of these movements as threats to their power.

Both populists and progressives gained tremendous amounts of support. On the populist side, the notable politician William Jennings Bryan reached a great following and would ultimately clinch the Democratic candidate in 1896. However, as a result of the Panic of 1893 that would result in the Long Depression occurring under the Democrat Grover Cleveland, he would lose 1896 in a realigning landslide that began the Conservative Era. Bryan would try to run for president again in 1900 but he would lose once more in a landslide to the Republicans.

On the progressive side, businesses would be threatened by the progressive message of reform. They achieved far more support from the people than the populists did and as a result they were supported by more politicians. The most popular progressive was a politician named Theodore Roosevelt. Despite being a war hero in the Spanish-American War, he was considered by many to be a threat to the establishment.

As a result, he was selected to be McKinley’s running mate in 1900 and after McKinley used Machiavellian cunning to establish a bourgeois coalition amongst those that had concentrated the rich wealth of the worker, Roosevelt became Vice President, an almost useless post that had a tendency to stagnate political careers. His only role was to act as “back-up” if McKinley were to die. However, the likelihood of such an event occurring was low and it looked like Roosevelt’s political career was over. However, he would have been thrust into the presidency if a single event went another way.

On September 14, 1901, an anarchist by the name of Leon Czolgoz almost killed President McKinley at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York, but he missed and killed a bystander(1). He would be arrested and executed soon after, as anarchism was – and still is – a controversial political ideology that is considered evil. If the bullet had hit its mark, Theodore Roosevelt would have become President and he would most likely bring about many reforms done by the Socialists and those reforms would avoid the collapse of the Democratic – Republican Party system. But tragically, the shot missed, and the proletariat lost this missed opportunity to achieve many of their rights much earlier than they did in our world.

However, it did not and it took a unified effort of Socialists almost three decades after this near-assassination to destroy this conservative party system and give workers what was rightfully theirs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

1 – This is the POD for this TL.  
 
This looks interesting. I'll be watching.

This looks quite good. :D Subscribed.

Thanks for your support.

American Socialism was radical. I wonder how you're going to "water it down" to democratic socialism.

German socialism was also very radical. It was gradually "watered down" and by the time the Social Democrats came to power, they were essentially liberals. Similar things happened to the British Labour Party and the French socialists. As socialist movements come to power in democratic states, the lose their radical nature.
 
Thanks for your support.



German socialism was also very radical. It was gradually "watered down" and by the time the Social Democrats came to power, they were essentially liberals. Similar things happened to the British Labour Party and the French socialists. As socialist movements come to power in democratic states, the lose their radical nature.

yeah just a little sideways stint with that whole national socialism thing .. butt yeah.. good times with the germans ;)

but I also look forward to this! American Socialism was quite the thing .. even thought highly of by their peers over here :)
 
German socialism was also very radical. It was gradually "watered down" and by the time the Social Democrats came to power, they were essentially liberals. Similar things happened to the British Labour Party and the French socialists. As socialist movements come to power in democratic states, the lose their radical nature.
Yeah, but I hear American socialism was one of the most militant versions.
 
The most important thing, I think, is that the SPA has to stick to a single development path.

From 1901 to 1912, the party was largely committed to a "German" model, based off the SPD. It was Marxist of the Kautsy-Bernstein mold, and committed to a strategy of mass worker's mobilization through creating a sort of state-within-a-state. The large number of language affinity groups among immigrant populations were part of this strategy, as were alliances with the IWW, and attempts to bore-within the AFL.

This was never uncontroversial. After 1912, the leadership changed hands significantly, even while the party mass remained highly radical. The "Yellow Socialist" types wanted to move to strategies more akin to the British Labour Party. They wanted to eventually dissolve the SPA into a broad based Labor Party of America with Progressives.

The key is to pick one early and not change horses midstream. The ruin of the change of strategy came in the 1917-8 conventions, where the Yellow Socialists expelled between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the party's membership.
 
yeah just a little sideways stint with that whole national socialism thing .. butt yeah.. good times with the germans ;)

but I also look forward to this! American Socialism was quite the thing .. even thought highly of by their peers over here :)
By socialists, I meant the SPD. I always thought the name "National Socialism" was oxymoronic and that Hitler needed a better way to brand his ideology. :D
Yeah, but I hear American socialism was one of the most militant versions.
It depends who you are talking about. Upton Sinclair, for instance, was very moderate and joined the Democrats after the socialists were proven to be going nowhere. He was no militant, nor was he a radical.
The most important thing, I think, is that the SPA has to stick to a single development path.

From 1901 to 1912, the party was largely committed to a "German" model, based off the SPD. It was Marxist of the Kautsy-Bernstein mold, and committed to a strategy of mass worker's mobilization through creating a sort of state-within-a-state. The large number of language affinity groups among immigrant populations were part of this strategy, as were alliances with the IWW, and attempts to bore-within the AFL.

This was never uncontroversial. After 1912, the leadership changed hands significantly, even while the party mass remained highly radical. The "Yellow Socialist" types wanted to move to strategies more akin to the British Labour Party. They wanted to eventually dissolve the SPA into a broad based Labor Party of America with Progressives.

The key is to pick one early and not change horses midstream. The ruin of the change of strategy came in the 1917-8 conventions, where the Yellow Socialists expelled between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the party's membership.

So what you are saying is that the Russian Revolution divided rather than united American socialism? That's pretty interesting.
 
Chapter II: The Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902

In 1902, McKinley would see the beginning of the demands for workers’ rights that would shape the next two and a half decades. The Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902 in western Pennsylvania may simply be a footnote in history today, but it set the tone for the remainder of McKinley’s administration. When he cruelly put down the strike without any concerns for the workers or thinking about why they were striking in the first place(2), he would set an example for future American presidents in the Conservative Age.

Workers in the coal industry worked in some of the worst conditions known to man. They worked in mines, excavating coal – a necessity for city dwellers to keep warm in their homes during the winter. Despite this, they were paid many times less the value of the coal they were mining. However, nearly all workers in western Pennsylvania were unionized and those workers stroked several times before, unsuccessful in gaining their rights. It was here in 1902 that those workers would inadvertently set a precedence for strike-busting in this era.

Coal_miners_in_Hazleton_PA_1900.jpg

Coal workers in Western Pennsylvania, 1900

On May 12, 1902, workers under the United Mine Workers of America in the region – which were eighty percent of all workers in the area, meaning 100,000 workers went on strike – went on strike. They demanded better conditions and a wage increase. This meant that coal across the US was unable to be used unless they end the strike peacefully – or perhaps bloodily.

To that end, McKinley sent in workers from other parts of the nation so as to break the strike. When fights broke out amongst the strikers and strike-breakers, McKinley brought in the National Guard to protect the strike-breakers. This would successfully avoid bloodshed and save lives – or at least most lives.

In talks with the owners of the mine, McKinley was told that one hundred workers had died. So as to keep the strike from happening during winter – when coal was absolutely necessary to stay warm, the National Guard was told to force those workers to work. They brutally put down the strike, forcing workers to work and killing thousands in the process. As a result, the strike was over and now urban dwellers could have coal in their homes for the winter, but rather than having finished after the negotiation of a deal as it should have and would have in the modern world, it finished after the brutal putting down of the massive strike.

The effects of the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902 were obvious. It incited many towards the brutality of the bourgeoisie and increased fears of the establishment. It also resulted in many wrongly believing that it was impossible to go against the establishment and resulted in stagnation in union membership, at least for the time being. But most importantly, it would act as an example for future union busting in the decades to come.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

2 – The first effect from the POD. IOTL, Roosevelt, a progressive, negotiated with the union and reached a deal, but ITTL McKinley, a conservative, refused to reach a deal.
 
Well, from the title, the Reds fail in the end.

They don't. "The Fall of the Proletariat" is a reference to deindustrialization, which pushed and currently pushes workers from the manufacturing to the service sector, hence the proletariat shrinks. Such a push between sectors is still going to occur ITTL as well.
 
Top