USA more likely to fall to communism or facism?

POD of 1900 onwards, what, given what we know of America and its history over the last 120 years or so, is more likely to happen.

Is American more likely to fall to facism (led by someone like Lindburgh, William Dudley Pelley) or Communism (led by someone like Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas).
 

Md139115

Banned
POD of 1900 onwards, what, given what we know of America and its history over the last 120 years or so, is more likely to happen.

Is American more likely to fall to facism (led by someone like Lindburgh, William Dudley Pelley) or Communism (led by someone like Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas).

Both. At once. Probably along the Mason-Dixon Line.
 
Facism...the US political system and parties are already more to the “right” than other developed nations, cultural conservatism runs high in parts like the Bible Belt and Communism was ever saw as a foreign and evil force
 

Md139115

Banned

Just give the communists a small head start in the industrial belt (say a Great Depression with no New Deal) to the point where it looks like "the North might go Red," and the South will immediately riot and move to protect itself under the benevolent gage of [insert stereotypical Southern Democrat politician]
 
Communism, if only because the primary cause for left-wing militancy would be a major economic crisis: which the US is vulnerable to, where as the primary cause for right-wing militancy is a broader social or external threat crisis; the later of which the US is in too robust a position to be brought into barring the afformentioned major economic crisis, and the former we have a too atomized/compartmentalized society that's accepting of a broad enough range of social norms for one faction to get the influence to overpower the others.
 
@Spens1 It would depend on what we are defining as Communism and Fascism both being very misunderstood ideologies, the later more so than the former.

By Communism I am assuming you mean Marxism but are you aiming for that of Marx or something that is more Leninist or Luxemburgist in nature/thought? What about Social Democracy, non-Marxist Socialism of which does exist America or something that is generally highly Leftist but not exactly Socialist? How about something a bit beyond that, something that is left wing but capitalistic (think Anarcho-Capitalism) or even Anarchism in generally that has had a long history of cooperation and association with "Communism".

As for Fascism do you mean that of Mussolini or Mosely both being Fascist 'proper' or Franco and Falangism or that of National Socialism of which requires further definition. Do you mean Hitlerite, Rockwellian or Strasserist National Socialism? Or you are you referring to a more blind understanding in being anything that is authoritarian, conservative and liberal (economically) to which various forms of Fascism in terms of pure ideology can fall into one of them, two (never all three as liberal economics and legitimate ideological fascism are incompatible) or of which I am sure I will get flak for stating, none at all. I am certain you not going to include those who are the image of Hollywood's "Neo-Nazi's" who are just militant thugs with no real ideology and embody next to nothing or Fascism, National Socialism or another other related school of thought.
 
@Spens1 It would depend on what we are defining as Communism and Fascism both being very misunderstood ideologies, the later more so than the former.

By Communism I am assuming you mean Marxism but are you aiming for that of Marx or something that is more Leninist or Luxemburgist in nature/thought? What about Social Democracy, non-Marxist Socialism of which does exist America or something that is generally highly Leftist but not exactly Socialist? How about something a bit beyond that, something that is left wing but capitalistic (think Anarcho-Capitalism) or even Anarchism in generally that has had a long history of cooperation and association with "Communism".

As for Fascism do you mean that of Mussolini or Mosely both being Fascist 'proper' or Franco and Falangism or that of National Socialism of which requires further definition. Do you mean Hitlerite, Rockwellian or Strasserist National Socialism? Or you are you referring to a more blind understanding in being anything that is authoritarian, conservative and liberal (economically) to which various forms of Fascism in terms of pure ideology can fall into one of them, two (never all three as liberal economics and legitimate ideological fascism are incompatible) or of which I am sure I will get flak for stating, none at all. I am certain you not going to include those who are the image of Hollywood's "Neo-Nazi's" who are just militant thugs with no real ideology and embody next to nothing or Fascism, National Socialism or another other related school of thought.

for communism, i'm not talking social democracy, i'm talking actual communism (so probably leninist or marxism, not sure which the american socialist party falls into).

as for facism, either or really. Pelley i guess and what he was after in terms of facism or whoever where the main facist leaders at the time (so probably something closer to rockwellian since he was american).

Anyway facist-authoritarian in any form or communism/socialism of any form, not merely just social democracy or authoritarianism. I mean the actual democratic institutions falling more or less.
 

Driftless

Donor
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Often attributed to Sinclair Lewis, though no written record carries that quote.
 
Communism, if only because the primary cause for left-wing militancy would be a major economic crisis: which the US is vulnerable to, where as the primary cause for right-wing militancy is a broader social or external threat crisis; the later of which the US is in too robust a position to be brought into barring the afformentioned major economic crisis, and the former we have a too atomized/compartmentalized society that's accepting of a broad enough range of social norms for one faction to get the influence to overpower the others.

I'd actually argue the reverse; outside of the Nordics and the United States, most nations moved to the Right as a result of the Great Depression. In more recent history, the 2008 Recession birthed the Tea Party, which fundamentally changed American politics, while Occupy Wall Street disappeared within a few months and failed to leave any real impact.
 
If we are talking about a super-wanked Great Depression ( US unemployment goes +40% rather than OTL 25%, for example), a breakup of the US might go like this:

1)Union of American Socialist Republics(UASR; heavily socialist,borderline communist): Maine, Mass, RI, CT, NH, VT, NY, Delaware, NJ, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, WVirginia

2)Confederate States of America(CSA; far right fascist plutocracy, heavily slanted to religious fundamentalism): all the original CSA states + Kentucky

3)Workers' and Farmers' Union of the Grange(WFUG; known in common speech simply as The Grange Union; democratic socialism or the "Nordic Model"): Wisconsin, Minnesota, ND, SD, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Ok

4) The Rocky Mountain Free States(RMFS; right Libertarian, a confederation style central gov that handles defense/foreign policy, everything else handled at local level): Montana, Wy, Idaho, Colorado

5) The Republic of Deseret (simply "Deseret"; right wing Mormon near-theocracy, elections overseen by the Quorom of the Twelve): Utah

6) The Western States of America (WSA; federal republic with constitution almost identical to the USA): NM, Arizona, NV, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii
 
POD of 1900 onwards, what, given what we know of America and its history over the last 120 years or so, is more likely to happen.

Is American more likely to fall to facism (led by someone like Lindburgh, William Dudley Pelley) or Communism (led by someone like Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas).
Thomas actually opposed communism
 
Before WWII,I'd say Communism or some form of egalitarian socialism. After WWII... Simply said, all of Western Europe, Germany included - Germany especially, had 5 years of Nazi occupation so it settled in their psyche to have a holy fear of everything that smells remotely fascist and to avoid it at all cost. Even if this means sometimes flirting with Communism. Meanwhile the US apparently got invaded by Communists for five years, or may be just by people who's native country got invaded by communists. So they now have a holy fear of everything that smells remotely like Marx and try to avoid that at all costs. Even if this means sometimes flirting with Fascism.

No, jokes aside now. Before WWII, many people in the US still saw socialism/communism as a viable alternative. After WWII, and especially after Korea, Communism had squandered all its legitimacy with the American public, but right-wing anticommunism made its debut and has been experiencing a comeback every couple of years















.
 
More or less.

As I've often remarked, of the five leasing presidential candidates in 1948--Truman, Dewey, Wallace, Thurmond, and Thomas--Thomas was the only one who was really critical of the Soviet Union during World War II.

And of course the Soviets and their American fan club reciprocated. Israel Amter wrote in *The Communist* in 1942:

"Mussolini was a “socialist,” Laval was a “socialist,” Norman Thomas, too, is a "Socialist." He offers the world only one kind of peace—-the peace of a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Laval...Norman Thomas, fifth columnist and spearhead of fascism, still has access to the radio and spews forth his traitorous program. It is a distinct disservice to our country to allow this worker for fascism to use the air in order to spread disunity and hatred for our allies. Let us not allow ourselves a repetition of the fate of France, where the fascists were permitted to carry on their work. Let us rather adopt the methods of the Soviet Union..." http://www.unz.org/Pub/Communist-1942jun-00450
 
fascism since, depending on who you talk to, some would argue that it's already happened IOTL

Authoritarian? Yes. Oligarchic and corporatist? Probably yes. Rendered a lame duck from partisanship and polarization decades in the making? Unfortunately, yes.

In the throes of anything comparable to 20th-century fascism? Definitely not.
 
Authoritarian? Yes. Oligarchic and corporatist? Probably yes. Rendered a lame duck from partisanship and polarization decades in the making? Unfortunately, yes.

In the throes of anything comparable to 20th-century fascism? Definitely not.
like i said, depending on who you talk to ;) of course, if you listen to other people then you'd swear America was a radical theocracy, an atheist dictatorship, and the second coming of the Soviet Union all at once :p it's times like...well, the present-day IOTL that i'm glad we have such a strong democratic tradition
 
Top