American anti-Communism if America had become Communist

[theev]

I agree. Being a moderate social democrat, I am to your left but I share you belief that communism can't work. History has repeatedly shown that.

I hate to be a stickler here but social democracy’s ideological end goal is to supposedly create a communist society

 

[frustrated progressive]

I hate to be a stickler here but social democracy’s ideological end goal is to supposedly create a communist society

Is it?
Like, this isn't me joking about social democrats being insincere,I just thought that most social democratic ideologies planned to achieve a socialist state for its own sake, and believe not in the withering away of the state and final emergence of a Marxist utopia.

 

[theev]

Is it?
Like, this isn't me joking about social democrats being insincere,I just thought that most social democratic ideologies planned to achieve a socialist state for its own sake, and believe not in the withering away of the state and final emergence of a Marxist utopia.

Social democracy was created by Marxists.

 

[Catalunya]

I hate to be a stickler here but social democracy’s ideological end goal is to supposedly create a communist society

Social democracy was created by Marxists.

You’re partially right, but most contemporary social democrats aren’t trying to create a communist society.

 

[Hendryk]

Are you chaps familiar with The Stomach of Man Under Socialism by @JesterBL ? It's a great and highly original ground-level exploration of an alternate US that, at an unspecified point in the early 1900s, set up a Marxist regime. It may or may not meet the OP's definition of communism, but it's a rare work that fleshes out what American society might look like if it ditched capitalism altogether, and it may help thinking about who its domestic opponents would be.

 

[frustrated progressive]

Are you chaps familiar with The Stomach of Man Under Socialism by @JesterBL ? It's a great and highly original ground-level exploration of an alternate US that, at an unspecified point in the early 1900s, set up a Marxist regime. It may or may not meet the OP's definition of communism, but it's a rare work that fleshes out what American society might look like if it ditched capitalism altogether, and it may help thinking about who its domestic opponents would be.

This is amazing!
Thanks for sharing.

 

[frustrated progressive]

Social democracy was created by Marxists.

Yes, but I meant more recent variations.

 

[SpanishSpy]

I think there's a lot to be said about the South here, and particularly interesting is whether the Communists side with Southern blacks or whites.

This was the period of horrifying mob violence, where any black man seen as transgressing the racial caste system, oftentimes simply by being successful, was descended upon by a white mob who would subsequently dismember him, burn him, and distribute his organs as souvenirs.

This is going to put any communist government into a bind - any attempt at elevating the status of Southern blacks is going to call down mob violence that could run any attempt at redistribution out of town.

If the revolutionaries attempt to elevate the black populace, I'd reckon the institutions of white supremacy become quasi-fascist with groups like the Ku Klux Klan as their armed paramilitary. Expect a level of viciousness comparable to violence between Ukrainians and Poles in Volhynia during OTL World War II, led by a Dixiecrat Bandera. Both of these figures would be too old, but I'd expect someone like Benjamin Tillman (a man who openly boasted of participating in more lynchings than his opponent in an election campaign in his home state of South Carolina) or James Vardaman to have that inglorious title. I would not be surprised if the former Confederacy breaks off in this case, with nasty partisan warfare backed covertly by the Communist government. The South would be 'White America' in both ways.

But it must be said that the likes of Tillman or Vardaman were quite populist for white workers; I've seen them argued as predecessors to the New Deal. I feel there is a possibility where the Communists side with them over African-Americans as they are the larger numbers. In this case, expect the security apparatus of the communist government to fully appropriate groups like the Klan as 'proletarian militias,' and black groups treated with the viciousness that the Red Army did the Basmachis in our world. I also wouldn't be surprised if they starved the Black Belt like Ukraine to punish them for their disobedience.

 

[Mumby]

Are you chaps familiar with The Stomach of Man Under Socialism by @JesterBL ? It's a great and highly original ground-level exploration of an alternate US that, at an unspecified point in the early 1900s, set up a Marxist regime. It may or may not meet the OP's definition of communism, but it's a rare work that fleshes out what American society might look like if it ditched capitalism altogether, and it may help thinking about who its domestic opponents would be.

Literally what I had in mind when talking about a Wobbly Revolution

 

[theev]

On the particular point of the trade unions, I would further remind you that despite a significant role played by trade unions in helping both the Russian and Chinese Communist parties obtain power

I always read that Chinese and Russian trade unions were extraordinarily underdeveloped, and notable in lacking independence from political parties.

After all, if I were to ask you to imagine, say, a world that runs on, Objectivism or Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, I'm quite sure that you would similarly be unable to conceive of a version of it that wouldn't be a complete dystopia. If someone were to say "We can do better" to that, well, I think your honest reaction would be, "No, this is what Objectivism and anarcho-capitalism inevitably leads to, and there's just no getting away from that."

If I asked any political question (even against the hated Objectivists and anarcho-capitalists) and the answer I received was bolstered by "that's just what always happens" I would assume the person I asked was a charlatan. And I hold that scrutiny to "thinkers" regardless of ideology.

Anyways, just to chime in to the thread at large:

I think an analysis is at least somewhat lacking if it acts like stalinism is the inevitable consequence of believing in something radical. I think it's ludicrous to think that the IWW-aligned and anarcho-syndicalist inspired Eugene V. "I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition." Debs would - upon declaring the Second American Revolution - drink revolution-juice and turn into a maniac and name DC "Debsgrad" and do an Americanized version of the Volga Famine and the Cultural Revolution before being succeeded by Al Capone or John Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde.

There was significant disagreement between Lenin and Debs while they were both still alive. Debs' clearly disagreed with the vanguardism of Leninism. While many are aware of Debs' support of the Russian Revolution in his famous Canton Speech, far fewer know that he condemned Lenin's purges - joining the likes of Karl Kautsky as a critic of bolshevism.

Every time I've read through threads that trod this ground, they always cover the same tired talking points I'll find on twitter. "If the state is empowered it will become tyrannical" (conveniently ignoring existing state police and security powers in the so-called free world today), "Centralizing the state will make it tyrannical" (conveniently ignoring that autocrats of all stripes have in some cases preferred decentralized model, I think I'd find few on this site who believe that the doctrine of "states' rights" or cryptocurrency fantasies are truly liberating), "A revolution is so inherently violent that it will inevitable become tyrannical" (conveniently ignoring nearly every other form of state or political violence; after all the United States currently imprisons a greater proportion of its population than the Soviet Union did at the height of Stalin's brutal purges, should we turn back the clock on the American Revolution as well?) and so on, and so on.

I think it's very lazy as Alt-Historians to assert that the OTL Soviet Union is the inevitable consequence of left-wing or Marxist ideology. I think many here would disagree if I said that the contemporary United States was the inevitable consequence of any attempt at liberal capitalism. The kind of hand-waving required to act like any radical (no matter how noble or libertarian their beliefs) will violently lash out once in power distinctly reminds me of a David Horowitz quote: "Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out." And I would hope that not many on this site would hold a figure like Horowitz in high regard.

 

[Ricardolindo]

I hate to be a stickler here but social democracy’s ideological end goal is to supposedly create a communist society

Social democracy was created by Marxists.

The Marxists who created social democracy were revisionists. Did Bernstein actually have communism as end goal? Either way, almost all social democrats have dropped communism as end goal.

 

[Ricardolindo]

I always read that Chinese and Russian trade unions were extraordinarily underdeveloped, and notable in lacking independence from political parties.



If I asked any political question (even against the hated Objectivists and anarcho-capitalists) and the answer I received was bolstered by "that's just what always happens" I would assume the person I asked was a charlatan. And I hold that scrutiny to "thinkers" regardless of ideology.

Anyways, just to chime in to the thread at large:

I think an analysis is at least somewhat lacking if it acts like stalinism is the inevitable consequence of believing in something radical. I think it's ludicrous to think that the IWW-aligned and anarcho-syndicalist inspired Eugene V. "I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition." Debs would - upon declaring the Second American Revolution - drink revolution-juice and turn into a maniac and name DC "Debsgrad" and do an Americanized version of the Volga Famine and the Cultural Revolution before being succeeded by Al Capone or John Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde.

There was significant disagreement between Lenin and Debs while they were both still alive. Debs' clearly disagreed with the vanguardism of Leninism. While many are aware of Debs' support of the Russian Revolution in his famous Canton Speech, far fewer know that he condemned Lenin's purges - joining the likes of Karl Kautsky as a critic of bolshevism.

Every time I've read through threads that trod this ground, they always cover the same tired talking points I'll find on twitter. "If the state is empowered it will become tyrannical" (conveniently ignoring existing state police and security powers in the so-called free world today), "Centralizing the state will make it tyrannical" (conveniently ignoring that autocrats of all stripes have in some cases preferred decentralized model, I think I'd find few on this site who believe that the doctrine of "states' rights" or cryptocurrency fantasies are truly liberating), "A revolution is so inherently violent that it will inevitable become tyrannical" (conveniently ignoring nearly every other form of state or political violence; after all the United States currently imprisons a greater proportion of its population than the Soviet Union did at the height of Stalin's brutal purges, should we turn back the clock on the American Revolution as well?) and so on, and so on.

I think it's very lazy as Alt-Historians to assert that the OTL Soviet Union is the inevitable consequence of left-wing or Marxist ideology. I think many here would disagree if I said that the contemporary United States was the inevitable consequence of any attempt at liberal capitalism. The kind of hand-waving required to act like any radical (no matter how noble or libertarian their beliefs) will violently lash out once in power distinctly reminds me of a David Horowitz quote: "Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out." And I would hope that not many on this site would hold a figure like Horowitz in high regard.

The fact remains that no Marxist country has thrived.

 

[Japhy]

The fact remains that no Marxist country has thrived.

They weren't thriving beforehand either. It's clearly a very different ballgame when you deal with a more developed country though. It's hard in many ways to even find commonalities between the Russian and US economies in any potential periods of revolution.

 

[theev]

The fact remains that no Marxist country has thrived.

The fact remains that no country has thrived.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I'm with @SpanishSpy that a very significant opposition force - after the usual suspects of foreign exiles, the churches & conservative groups, and discontented intellectuals & unions that lost out (even if this is a very nice communist state running on trade unions someone will be unhappy or lose out) - is going to be racial, because the communist state is going to have to pick a side there, either they're backing black workers or backing the legitimate concerns of certain white people. Undocumented immigrants might also be an issue, are they fellow workers to be accepted now they're there or are they foreigners? And do the Native Americans get left alone or are they told "guess what you're communists now too"?

 

[frustrated progressive]

And do the Native Americans get left alone or are they told "guess what you're communists now too"?

It'd be interesting if they tried to force some of the Indians back into "primitive communism" or something.

 

[Nyvis]

I'm with @SpanishSpy that a very significant opposition force - after the usual suspects of foreign exiles, the churches & conservative groups, and discontented intellectuals & unions that lost out (even if this is a very nice communist state running on trade unions someone will be unhappy or lose out) - is going to be racial, because the communist state is going to have to pick a side there, either they're backing black workers or backing the legitimate concerns of certain white people. Undocumented immigrants might also be an issue, are they fellow workers to be accepted now they're there or are they foreigners? And do the Native Americans get left alone or are they told "guess what you're communists now too"?

A lot of that will be determined by what groups participated in the revolution and the coalition building that happened to make it win. On race, I feel like white supremacy is just too useful to the reactionaries. If it's early enough, whiteness as a construct isn't even going to be what we know now. A lot of immigrant communities were excluded from it initially and may rally to a radical movement because of that. Black workers are never going to fit easy in the pre revolution system so it's likely they'll be reached out to. Which isn't to say all of the unions and organizations that also join in would be positive on the move, but it's a pool of people with grievances I can't see a revolutionary build up ignoring.

As for intellectuals, you'll probably get plenty who aren't against it either. Whether that's artists, students or victims of the reactionaries' own coalition building, which is likely to embrace the worst of the American right in search for fighters.

Actually, one adjacent problem the revolution would have more trouble with than academics is liberal professions. They'll probably have to give some concessions to keep doctors and the like around and integrate them into their system. Not that it's impossible, Britain managed to keep them on board despite the NHS being radical change for the profession. But definitely something to keep in mind.

On churches, a question could be what role more radical theology plays into conciliating religious people with the revolution. America has always had a streak of Christian socialism, and while Marxist orthodoxy is of course not invested in that as a solution, I can see that being part of any successful revolutionary coalition. This doesn't magically erase issues with churches even if it open paths to convincing believers, of course, and I still expect the more conservative churches to serve as rallying points for reaction, both during and after the revolution. The fact America doesn't have one hegemonic church organization like Russia or Spain means the revolution is more likely to be selective on what churches it opposes though, and how much opposing is needed will depend on areas. I'm especially thinking about white churches in the south, which would be a problem.

It'd be interesting if they tried to force some of the Indians back into "primitive communism" or something.

Why though, beyond projecting reflexive anti communism on the situation.

A big debate for the reservations and native populations in general will be the existing splits between community leadership and their population, since those don't always align. There's also the question of the communities that didn't have reservations before, and all those who were excluded by blood quanta laws. A common complaint is the inability to continue adoption practices communities had before being forced into the settlers' framework, and it's easy to see a communist revolution doing a full rewrite of the law, at which point they probably wouldn't reintroduce the same framework to police native identity.

 

[Oppo]

This is a minor factor, but what happens to Mormons in a communist America? I get the impression that they’d flee to Mexico…could we see temples and diaspora cities built throughout the rural parts of the country? How does this impact Mormon theology?

 

[Ricardolindo]

The fact remains that no country has thrived.

How so?

 

[theev]

How so?

Literally every country has had masses of poor, suffering, and exploited people. Hardly what I’d call thriving.