What do you think of the possible dictators of a communist USA?

I know this is a long shot, but... how ‘bout Ernest Hemingway
In Back in the USSA, Hemingway (I think, been three years since I last read it), Jack London, John Reed, Upton Sinclair, and other progressive authors were actually the heart of the socialist revolution in the second American Revolution. They fell out of power by the mid 20s when Al Capone took control. If Hemingway can prove efficient and ruthless enough, he could take power or keep it.
 
Revolutions turn authoritarian when they come under threat. France at the peak of the Terror was literally being attacked by almost every European Great Power and facing insurgency from within, and even then you could fill a single cemetery with all the people killed in the Terror. It'd take a lot more to fill the graves of people killed in the *millennia of feudalism that came before it*

As for the Russian Revolution, they got it even worse than France did: Russia had eight foreign great powers trying to strangle Bolshevism in the cradle. Every revolt that rose up in solidarity was crushed except for places that flat out didn't matter for Russia's position like Mongolia, and even fellow leftists broke with the Bolsheviks at critical moments. If you still cling to power despite all that but are basically completely alone in the world... is it really that surprising the USSR turned out like it did?

Even the American Revolution cracked down hard on deserters, and yet you'll never hear handwringing about how authoritarian the founding fathers were.

In comparison the revolution in Reds! is much less severe: no significant foreign powers intervening, the wars over in a few months and it's a very decisive victory rather than a slow bloodbath. Even then the TL authors have made it clear up until shortly after WW2 it's debatable exactly how democratic the UASR is and it's not supposed to be an ideal polity by any means.
How many graves a goverment can fill is not a way of telling how democratic it is. The entire issue with the French Revolution is the fact that it led to increasingly radical and extreme governments who were completely fine with killing their political rivals. The whole reason they faced an insurgency is because they had tried to drive the church out. That was mainly due to the increasingly radicalized revolutionaries in Paris. These violent revolutions tend to hand power to the most extreme and violent of the revolutionaries, and those radicals tend to prefer to kill their political opponents and all those pesky dissidents.

In regard to the Soviet Union, despite all of those outside threats, Lenin still considered the Left-opposition (Edit: Wrong term, I meant anarchists or other socialist parties) to be the greatest threat. And the USSR could have never been embraced by the international community due to the fact that it’s ideology endorsed the destruction of most other governments and the rest of the world’s economic system. And if I remember correctly, the USAR was also opposed by the British and French.

The fact that the Great Depression is worse in Reds! is enough to convince me that any revolution would become extremely authoritarian in nature. Even in OTL, an alarming amount of people called for FDR to be granted “extraordinary powers” to bypass Congress and save the country. Many admired Mussolini and his “achievements”. A socialist revolution would even more destabilizing a top of that.
 
Last edited:
None of them, of course. Browder and Foster were the ideal Communist leaders for a country where the Communists had no chance of coming to power.

What an absolutely perfect description of the typical American "third party"! Provides the platform for some self proclaimed messiah to spread his bullshit around and maybe divert some of the contributions to his own bank account without ever worrying about having to deliver. My nomination for best post of the day...
 
How many graves a goverment can fill is not a way of telling how democratic it is. The entire issue with the French Revolution is the fact that it led to increasingly radical and extreme governments who were completely fine with killing their political rivals. The whole reason they faced an insurgency is because they had tried to drive the church out. That was mainly due to the increasingly radicalized revolutionaries in Paris. These violent revolutions tend to hand power to the most extreme and violent of the revolutionaries, and those radicals tend to prefer to kill their political opponents and all those pesky dissidents.

My point wasn't to claim that revolutionary states are always more democratic or better than the states that proceeded them. My point is that revolutionary states engage in state terror when they feel threatened by external or internal actors. States in general don't decide to clamp down on dissidents because they just feel particularly autocratic that morning. More often than not, states prefer the threat of violence than it's actual exercise: violence is messy, unpredictable and most importantly: can result in backlash. Now of course, whether you feel if that threat is actually justified or not, that's up to you, but states, especially revolutionary ones, do not have the benefit of hindsight: if they feel threatened, they will act accordingly.

Also: for the ten year period most people identify as the "French Revolution", the Jacobins were only in power for two of them: most of that time France was either a constitutional monarchy or a counter-revolutionary autocracy, which led directly to the take over of Napoleon. I'd hardly call that "handing power to the most extreme and violent of the revolutionaries."

In regard to the Soviet Union, despite all of those outside threats, Lenin still considered the Left-opposition to be the greatest threat. And the USSR could have never been embraced by the international community due to the fact that it’s ideology endorsed the destruction of most other governments and the rest of the world’s economic system. And if I remember correctly, the USAR was also opposed by the British and French.

The Left-Opposition didn't exist until after Lenin fell ill a year before he died, unless you're referring to other left wing parties in which case... eh? Most of the left wing parties either broke with the Bolshevik parties first or were integrated entirely. And even the Bolsheviks weren't a monopoly in that regard: there were Bolsheviks who wanted to preserve Soviet/multi-party democracy.

Depends how you mean "opposed": Both endorsed the White government and sent military observers but other than that they couldn't really do much for various reasons: The Russian Civil War had already shown intervention doesn't turn out well for you, these countries have their own leftist movements to contend with and have social democratic governments, and they were not in any real position to intervene even if they wanted to.

The fact that the Great Depression is worse in Reds! is enough to convince me that any revolution would become extremely authoritarian in nature. Even in OTL, an alarming amount of people called for FDR to be granted “extraordinary powers” to bypass Congress and save the country. Many admired Mussolini and his “achievements”. A socialist revolution would even more destabilizing a top of that.

The revolution in Reds! occurs when a popular front alliance between the WCP and DFLP is democratically elected and overthrown. Anti-Putsch Republicans and Democrats cooperate with the Provisional Government which (at first anyway) seeks merely constitutional restoration and form a major party after the Revolution concludes in the Democratic-Republicans. The Civil War only turns explicitly revolutionary because the WCP's conciliatory right is murdered in the Putsch anyhow.

Why are you even mentioning Mussolini? He was by no means a revolutionary and hadn't been since he was expelled from the PSI in 1914: the Blackshirts were used as explicit counter revolutionaries by landlords and industrialists attacking workers who were going on strike in the Bienno Rosso.
 
My point wasn't to claim that revolutionary states are always more democratic or better than the states that proceeded them. My point is that revolutionary states engage in state terror when they feel threatened by external or internal actors. States in general don't decide to clamp down on dissidents because they just feel particularly autocratic that morning. More often than not, states prefer the threat of violence than it's actual exercise: violence is messy, unpredictable and most importantly: can result in backlash. Now of course, whether you feel if that threat is actually justified or not, that's up to you, but states, especially revolutionary ones, do not have the benefit of hindsight: if they feel threatened, they will act accordingly.
Also: for the ten year period most people identify as the "French Revolution", the Jacobins were only in power for two of them: most of that time France was either a constitutional monarchy or a counter-revolutionary autocracy, which led directly to the take over of Napoleon. I'd hardly call that "handing power to the most extreme and violent of the revolutionaries."
I concede, I didn’t really think about the Directory.
The Left-Opposition didn't exist until after Lenin fell ill a year before he died, unless you're referring to other left wing parties in which case... eh? Most of the left wing parties either broke with the Bolshevik parties first or were integrated entirely. And even the Bolsheviks weren't a monopoly in that regard: there were Bolsheviks who wanted to preserve Soviet/multi-party democracy.
I misclicked, I meant left-wing opposition, mostly I was referring to the Kronstadt Rebellion, basically the Bolshevik’s fear of an anarchist and other opposition groups.
Depends how you mean "opposed": Both endorsed the White government and sent military observers but other than that they couldn't really do much for various reasons: The Russian Civil War had already shown intervention doesn't turn out well for you, these countries have their own leftist movements to contend with and have social democratic governments, and they were not in any real position to intervene even if they wanted to.
But they did supply MacAuthur, no?
The revolution in Reds! occurs when a popular front alliance between the WCP and DFLP is democratically elected and overthrown. Anti-Putsch Republicans and Democrats cooperate with the Provisional Government which (at first anyway) seeks merely constitutional restoration and form a major party after the Revolution concludes in the Democratic-Republicans. The Civil War only turns explicitly revolutionary because the WCP's conciliatory right is murdered in the Putsch anyhow.
How would that stop them from becoming more authoritarian? Democratically elected governments become dictatorships quite often and banning other political parties isn’t even all that rare, even in democratic governments.
Why are you even mentioning Mussolini? He was by no means a revolutionary and hadn't been since he was expelled from the PSI in 1914: the Blackshirts were used as explicit counter revolutionaries by landlords and industrialists attacking workers who were going on strike in the Bienno Rosso.
I was using him as an example for how extreme people became in America in the face of an economic crisis.

And honestly, there isn’t many if any examples of a revolution turning into a stable democracy. (I’m not counting Wars of Independence, since those most often have no intentions of completely overthrowing the government ruling over them)
 
Huey Long. Not a communist dictatorship but a leftist populist dictatorship

Upton Sinclair? I could see him being more of a figurehead to a politburo

When is the dictatorship established? If it’s early enough we could see any charismatic politician like JFK or Reagan take over. Over a cunning throat splitter like Nixon or LBJ.

A dictatorship after 1945 is impossible. A good timeline is Reds!

I think a total communist dictatorship is impossible. Elections and land ownership is too ingrained in American heritage.
 
Many admired Mussolini and his “achievements”.

Tend to forget that sort of thing...as a child I remember being feted with tales of how, "He made the trains run on time." by my grandparents and their friends. About the only nice thing they had to say about him, and, they really, really hated the "Tedeschi" he stuck them with.
 
Huey Long. Not a communist dictatorship but a leftist populist dictatorship

Upton Sinclair? I could see him being more of a figurehead to a politburo

When is the dictatorship established? If it’s early enough we could see any charismatic politician like JFK or Reagan take over. Over a cunning throat splitter like Nixon or LBJ.

A dictatorship after 1945 is impossible. A good timeline is Reds!

I think a total communist dictatorship is impossible. Elections and land ownership is too ingrained in American heritage.
Nixon is actually a good one, his father/family was very left leaning. As he grew older he weirdly enough became less religious and more conservative. It actually makes a lot more sense for him to become a politician in a socialist America rather than what happened in OTL.
 
I agree with Nixon as well, as a later successor. I think he could do well in the power struggles of a Soviet-analogue system. Nixon as head of the Political Security Bureau (Polsec? Every good secret police needs a name like that--Cheka, Stasi, etc)?
 
Maybe Jimmy Hoffa? He seems like the dictator type. Perhaps he could could take power in a more syndicalist system.
 
Last edited:
Top