WI: Eugene Debs Never Becomes a Socialist

Amadeus

Today, Debs is remembered for his role in the 1894 Pullman Strike and his activities as a Socialist politician during the Progressive era. But he was originally a Democrat and a capitalist who served one term in the Indiana General Assembly. It wasn't until reading Socialist literature after being imprisoned for his role in the Pullman Strike that Debs became a Socialist. But what if he never had? Could he maintain some influence in mainstream politics and labor activism? How would this affect the 1912 election, where Debs received 6% of the vote? Would US Socialism be even less significant than in OTL?
 
Last edited:

catalfalque

It would be highly likely he doesn't end up in politics as he would lack the kick to do it

I would need to look up the history of the US socialist party to know whether he took over a fully running engine, or galvanised a lacklustre one, or resucissitated a dying one etc

Maybe history would give La Follette something more to do with the Progressives
 
DanMcCollum

DanMcCollum

catalfalque said:
It would be highly likely he doesn't end up in politics as he would lack the kick to do it

I would need to look up the history of the US socialist party to know whether he took over a fully running engine, or galvanised a lacklustre one, or resucissitated a dying one etc

Maybe history would give La Follette something more to do with the Progressives
Click to expand...

Debs was actually rather active in politics prior to his officially joining the Socialists. He was a popular member of the Populists' labor wing and had served as a Democrat in the Indiana State government where he gained a reputation as an up and comer.

As for the US's Social Democretic Party, even though ithout Debs they have a number of strong leaders including Victor Berger who pretty much helped establish the party's ideology in the early years (long before he took his seat in Congress). In fact the contest of wills/on-again-off-again friendship betwrrn Berger and Debs is one of the underlying currents in the history of the party during this period.

I'm not sure if not having Debs arpund will impact the career of LaFollette at all. But any timeline where there is a President LaFollette is, by definition, far superior to our own :)
 

Amadeus

DanMcCollum said:
I'm not sure if not having Debs arpund will impact the career of LaFollette at all. But any timeline where there is a President LaFollette is, by definition, far superior to our own :)
Click to expand...

LaFollette ran with the support of the Socialists in 1924, after Wilson's crackdown and Debs had gone to jail. Flash back to 1912, and without Debs the Socialists would have less support than 6%. I don't think they would support TR (Roosevelt considered New Nationalism the "antidote" to socialism), but they may give some support to Progressives in House races or more local races. So Progressives could do better, but still lose that year and again in 1924.
 
DanMcCollum

DanMcCollum

Amadeus said:
LaFollette ran with the support of the Socialists in 1924, after Wilson's crackdown and Debs had gone to jail. Flash back to 1912, and without Debs the Socialists would have less support than 6%. I don't think they would support TR (Roosevelt considered New Nationalism the "antidote" to socialism), but they may give some support to Progressives in House races or more local races. So Progressives could do better, but still lose that year and again in 1924.
Click to expand...

True, but that's all assuming that Debs was essential to Socialist growth in the United States, and I'm not entirely sure that that is the case. He was certainly important and he did a lot to try to Americanize Socialism to make it palpable to the American electoral system, but he wasn't the only one doing this (and, as previously mentioned, Victor Berger was possibly far more influential - both on the local level in Milwaukee, but also throughout the nation. And, for all of his strength, Debs actually made some moves that harmed the party, such as his support for the creation of the IWW. Its entirely possible, that an alternative leader would have actually strengthened the party.

As for LaFollette, yes, he did have Socialist support in '24 (and for that matter, in his runs for the Senate as well). I'm not sure if Debs' absence would help or hinder his run in '24 - though I actually suspect that butterflies of a lack of Debs would lead to a very different playing field by the time that election rolls around. Hell, Debs moving back to the Democrats after the collapse of Populism might lead to him getting the Dems nomination in 08, 12, or any other year. I believe @David T wrote about just such a possibility back in the SHWI days. Not to hijack the thread, but LaFollette's best chance to the presidency was in 08 or 12 in any case :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top