Why does the USA go communist if McKinley lives?

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Alright, this has been bothering me a lot lately.

It seems like if McKinley lives and serves out his second term, that the USA eventually undergoes a second Civil War, a communist revolution, or both.

Is there a specific reason for this, or am I missing something?

 

[Vingilótë]

I'm not entirely certain; but you might say that the butterflying of Roosevelt and the Progressive movement would lead to a lack of necessary reforms in America, causing a stronger Communist movement.

 

[Enigmajones]

THE reason for it is that Jello Biafara used as the POD for Reds! And ever since, Communist lovers have been using it as the POD for a Communist America.

Odd to think that if it were true, that Leon Czolgosz is the guardian of democracy.

 

[Aelita]

THE reason for it is that Jello Biafara used as the POD for Reds! And ever since, Communist lovers have been using it as the POD for a Communist America.

Odd to think that if it were true, that Leon Czolgosz is the guardian of democracy.

Well, to be perfectly honest, it's low hanging fruit. It's a relatively small event that has dramatic, long-lasting consequences. Theodore Roosevelt was given the VP almost as a form of political castration, placating reformers in the party but ultimately ensuring that this particular reformer would likely go no further in his career.

A single person, who might have easily changed his mind, or be stopped from his plot entirely by happenstance, ended up putting Roosevelt in the White House, and with that kick off the "main sequence" of the Progressive Era.

 

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

I'm not entirely certain; but you might say that the butterflying of Roosevelt and the Progressive movement would lead to a lack of necessary reforms in America, causing a stronger Communist movement.

At the same time though, would it really reach the point where a communist movement would be strong enough, or the union weak enough, to cause another Civil war?

THE reason for it is that Jello Biafara used as the POD for Reds! And ever since, Communist lovers have been using it as the POD for a Communist America.

Odd to think that if it were true, that Leon Czolgosz is the guardian of democracy.

If that's really it, then I'm...underwhelmed.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

THE reason for it is that Jello Biafara used as the POD for Reds! And ever since, Communist lovers have been using it as the POD for a Communist America.

Odd to think that if it were true, that Leon Czolgosz is the guardian of democracy.

^

This pretty much sums it up. Successful, well-written, popular timeline combined with fulfilling the ideological desires of the forum far left.

Personally, I am kind of ambivalent about the whole thing. Social movements and reformist efforts are not built by one man, they are built by general trends in society. Plus, it bears mentioning that the Progressive Movement was *quite* radical by the standards of mainstream US politics: it utterly opposed the traditional Gilded Age policy of not getting itself involved in business regulation, and supported significant concessions in favor of labor over management that would have been politically unthinkable in previous years.

The United States is historically an immensely conservative country, and it also tends to co-opt major social movements into the political system as opposed to say, having a revolution. Even assuming there was a serious chance at a major leftist movement, I don't see why the anarchists and/or socialists wouldn't have just become the reformist wing of the Republican Party, or at best supplanted an existing party and been a standard American political machine a few election cycles later.

 

[Petike]

Because AH clichés are oh-so fun.

 

[Aelita]

At the same time though, would it really reach the point where a communist movement would be strong enough, or the union weak enough, to cause another Civil war?

As the writer of the timeline in question, all I know is my gut says "maybe".

There were a lot of other little PODs and butterflies that I felt were plausible, but certainly not the only possible outcome.

For example, one was a one vote swing in the landmark Supreme Court case Northern Securities Co. v. United States, which resulted in the Sherman Antitrust Act being overturned, and strongly so, effectively making it impossible for the federal government to enact any sort of effective "competition" law.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

The turn of the century was a defining time in the history of the US. Things could have gone quite differently as result of small changes. America could have gone much further to the left or to the right.

Though I am not a Communist I admit Reds! is very well written.

 

[ATL Czar]

At the same time though, would it really reach the point where a communist movement would be strong enough, or the union weak enough, to cause another Civil war?

It would depend on what type of Communism it is. It would probably be more a sort of hard-line socialism than communist as we know it, and would be viewed on as a form of hard-line socialism, ergo no real need for a revolution, and would likely come to power by popular vote during the Great Depression.

 

[Dom Pedro III]

As the writer of the timeline in question, all I know is my gut says "maybe".

Should have called it Beiges! then.

 

[Superman]

Because McKinley was clearly a communist sympathizer and his survival would have destroyed the Union, freedom and life as we know it.

But seriously, I haven't read Reds yet, but I suspect that that's the reason. I mean, if a TL is successful and well written enough, it's bound to have at least some elements be copied by others, isn't it?

 

[Kaiser K]

I'm not entirely certain; but you might say that the butterflying of Roosevelt and the Progressive movement would lead to a lack of necessary reforms in America, causing a stronger Communist movement.

This is the exact reason I chose McKinley living as a POD for my Timeline, Reverse Cold War.


now, I had no idea I had the same POD as Reds!! when I started my timeline, Reverse Cold War, but when I was looking for a POD McKinley living seemed like a good point, butterflying the Progressive Movement and thus the US never getting needed reforms, worse rights for worker's, stronger Communist movement, and so on and so on.


I know it is a cliché but it seemed like the best POD for my TL.

 

[The Kiat]

THE reason for it is that Jello Biafara used as the POD for Reds! And ever since, Communist lovers have been using it as the POD for a Communist America.

Yet another Leftist fantasy. As long as the regime isn't so far Left that it's Right.

 

[Aelita]

Yet another Leftist fantasy. As long as the regime isn't so far Left that it's Right.

I'm not quite sure I get your meaning.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

been a standard American political machine a few election cycles later.

Unions could have worked as a political machine. I would love to read a TL where Socialists become major, but end up fairly standard. Nobody wrote one, really.

 

[Wendell]

I think it's a combination of things, but it is a trope as others have said with little in the way of solid foundation. Realistically, the twentieth century is too late for a POD that sends the U.S. in a Communist direction short of Soviet occupation/indirect control, which is likely ASB.

 

[The Red]

After much thought, and moral support from several members on the board, I'm now officially in the process of writing a TL where President Czolgosz is assassinated by William McKinley.

 

[Aelita]

I think it's a combination of things, but it is a trope as others have said with little in the way of solid foundation. Realistically, the twentieth century is too late for a POD that sends the U.S. in a Communist direction short of Soviet occupation/indirect control, which is likely ASB.

And I'm gonna have to disagree. The US had one of the most vibrant, fasted growing, and radical socialist movements. It was steadily gaining support, even among native born Americans, all the way through WWI, and was only decisively broken by the Red Scare, the mass deportation of radicals, and the tightening of voting and citizenship requirements that broke the left, and ultimately led to its long term co-opting.

This only occurred because of very well thought up publicity campaigns, highly extensive systems of propaganda that were almost unheard of in the rest of the world until the rise of fascism, and of course more than a healthy amount of violence.

If there was any country that had the most raw disposition for socialism, it was the US. Which is, paradoxically, why it didn't happen. Because it was all too obvious what a threat it was to the highly class conscious American political establishment. They knew, a whole lot better than their European counterparts, that it was necessary to establish the legitimacy of the current system in a fundamentally new way. Whereas, in Europe, the long legacy of the ancien regime meant they relied upon the failing old traditions of Church and traditional authority to keep people from joining unions, or from voting for socialist candidates.

In America, you had a population of people, many of whom were radicals fleeing oppression in Europe, whether for ethnic or religious reasons. You have a native population that is deeply suspicious of the growing industrial establishment, and is strongly egalitarian in its ethos. They believe in living by the sweat of their brow, and they resent what they see as the parasitical nature of big business.

 

[Wendell]

And I'm gonna have to disagree. The US had one of the most vibrant, fasted growing, and radical socialist movements. It was steadily gaining support, even among native born Americans, all the way through WWI, and was only decisively broken by the Red Scare, the mass deportation of radicals, and the tightening of voting and citizenship requirements that broke the left, and ultimately led to its long term co-opting.

This only occurred because of very well thought up publicity campaigns, highly extensive systems of propaganda that were almost unheard of in the rest of the world until the rise of fascism, and of course more than a healthy amount of violence.

If there was any country that had the most raw disposition for socialism, it was the US. Which is, paradoxically, why it didn't happen. Because it was all too obvious what a threat it was to the highly class conscious American political establishment. They knew, a whole lot better than their European counterparts, that it was necessary to establish the legitimacy of the current system in a fundamentally new way. Whereas, in Europe, the long legacy of the ancien regime meant they relied upon the failing old traditions of Church and traditional authority to keep people from joining unions, or from voting for socialist candidates.

In America, you had a population of people, many of whom were radicals fleeing oppression in Europe, whether for ethnic or religious reasons. You have a native population that is deeply suspicious of the growing industrial establishment, and is strongly egalitarian in its ethos. They believe in living by the sweat of their brow, and they resent what they see as the parasitical nature of big business.

Americans also have a belief that they can transcend class, whereas a European born poor in 1910 was likely to die poor, and the hereditary nobility presented a fixed, rather than ever-changing upper class.