• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Marx Dies Earlier and it’s effect on Socialism?

This is tangential but I do think people tend to overestimate what the Uganda Scheme was.

Like it was literally just the UK offering willing jewish immigrants plots of land in the White Highlands, like thousands of other white immigrants were offered in OTL.

And the whole idea of the White Highlands was based on an underestimation of african population based on severe famines and diseases making the land seem far emptier than it usually was and so the idea was that a single masaii reserve could be established and the rest of the land was free real estate where new towns could be established uncontested.

The British would have preferred that the Kenyan Highlands was entirely white english middle class people, one of the governors attempted to make it that way. But this wasn't Rhodesia, where there were strict immigration requirements to keep out the poor and non british, this was Kenya where common soldiers could get their own land and it was much more of a dumping ground, see also the many tens of thousands of indians and arabs who became landowners in Kenya during this time.

Like the very area mentioned as a possible site for a jewish town became an afrikaaner town five years later. I'm not really convinced a jewish presence changes the concreted Kenyan government effort to purchase this land in OTL that meant most of the white and asian settlers left the country.

Fundamentally the problem with imagining an Israel in Kenya is I don't believe the Zionists have the blood in the game in that scenario. Once the Mau Mau rebellion kicks off, would the people who fought for Jerusalem be as willing to fight for Nairobi? Or would they just leave like most white kenyans did otl?
 
I think one think to mention is that the Poale Zion group which was collection of Labour Zionists and Marxists probably wouldn't exist in a similar fashion. For example, Ber Borochov used Marxism and Dialetics as a way to help explain and call for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Whilst I'm not saying this wouldn't happen, I could see without Marx, the Labour Zionist movement could possibly be more splintered maybe?

Depends, the labour zionists who orient towards Social Democracy are likely to be less of a threat yes. The ones who were really far left and would go with the internationale here though... Well, exile to Russia is preferable to prison.

Ugandan Zionist Bundism vs. Russian Bundism is an idea and a half I have to say

Maybe Uganda Social Democratic With Colonial Characteristics Zionism versus Russian Revolutionary Internationale Bundism?

With the left having to contend with the problematic nature of the former in the future when it ends up clashing a lot with the natives and tied up in a generally white supremacist colonial state?

Of course it's possible they say no, too, and pro British Zionists just end up in Palestine as OTL. This leads to a weaker Israel due to no Holocaust (haven't charted Germany's future but I expect that doesn't happen due to butterflies) and less immigration from non British Jews, so they accept a settlement to get parts of the coast and either an international Jerusalem or a Jewish quarter connected to their coastal land, and without continued influx of immigrants, their attempts at further settlements get smacked down but the British intervene to stop them being rolled over entirely due to them being useful power projection in the middle east?
 
Last edited:
Fundamentally the problem with imagining an Israel in Kenya is I don't believe the Zionists have the blood in the game in that scenario. Once the Mau Mau rebellion kicks off, would the people who fought for Jerusalem be as willing to fight for Nairobi? Or would they just leave like most white kenyans did otl?

Good question. I get the feeling a lot would dig in, if there's recently been a Holocaust ITTL - "look what happened when we couldn't fight back and didn't have a land of our own."
 
Good question. I get the feeling a lot would dig in, if there's recently been a Holocaust ITTL - "look what happened when we couldn't fight back and didn't have a land of our own."

Well yeah but that's a big if.

No Marx means a very different German Social Democracy and that means even if we go with the same WW1, I can't see the same Weimar happening.
 
Good question. I get the feeling a lot would dig in, if there's recently been a Holocaust ITTL - "look what happened when we couldn't fight back and didn't have a land of our own."

Yeah, but is it a land of their own? In 1903 you weren't looking at self government, you were looking at migration. It wouldn't be a jewish state unless they won their independence themselves, even the balfour declaration never actually promised self rule.

I feel like this is so far from the original question that it might it's own thread 'what if the uganda scheme happened' but it is I think an interesting scenario.

I tell you who'd benefit the most from it, mind. The beta Israel will have a much easier Aliyah.
 
I feel like this is so far from the original question that it might it's own thread 'what if the uganda scheme happened' but it is I think an interesting scenario.

Agreed. Let's assume the ones who don't like revolutionary internationale bundism either stay where they are or go to Palestine as OTL when the British decide to open that up?
 
One person we didn't mention is Sorel.

I think this could affect WW1 perception in France, he was stridently opposed to the war and union sacrée.

His direct action and anti statist views would probably fit very well with the revolutionary internationale. Maybe this also means French syndicalists drift towards his thoughts and away from French social democracy, which would be tainted by its association with the war?
 
His direct action and anti statist views would probably fit very well with the revolutionary internationale. Maybe this also means French syndicalists drift towards his thoughts and away from French social democracy, which would be tainted by its association with the war?
Hmm, hadn’t considered Sorel. I see him being popular with the more revolutionary members particularly if a war causes France to do as badly or worse than OTL.

I could see a split between French Social Democrats and Syndicalists over this. Maybe there’s a stronger Anarchist movement too.

Hmm, Sorel would work well with Blanq’s idea’s too. Blanquist-Sorelism becoming the revolutionary idea of choice?
 
Hmm, hadn’t considered Sorel. I see him being popular with the more revolutionary members particularly if a war causes France to do as badly or worse than OTL.

I could see a split between French Social Democrats and Syndicalists over this. Maybe there’s a stronger Anarchist movement too.

Hmm, Sorel would work well with Blanq’s idea’s too. Blanquist-Sorelism becoming the revolutionary idea of choice?

I don't think French syndicalists would be as welded to social democracy in the first place, our unions were pretty independent minded. Which would give French revolutionaries a pretty solid non-electoral base, while their social democrats mess around with being in government during the war.

Of course, Sorel is more of a theoretician than a leader, and cooler heads would also prevail at times, so I can see the revolutionary movement in France making tactical use of strikes and direct action instead of going all in, at least until they see an opening.

It could be interesting if more direct action against the war (Sorel was rabidly anti WW1) results in a stall rather than a French victory. Peace of exhaustion maybe, as Germany crumbles internally but France lacks the ability to exploit it and do the final push.

It's also possible the French social democrats start as pro war (as OTL, most socialists joined the war government) but sours on it as repression ramp up to maintain the war effort and losses keep mounting, culminating with them joining the revolutionaries in bringing it to a halt? At which point it's likely to end up a lot like Weimar, with the social democrats seizing upon the state in the wake of the peace and turning against the left. Except here the revolutionaries wouldn't be caught flat footed because they were never friends. On the other hand, this greater readiness means they could also be in position to negotiate with each other in a more equal manner, so that's also a way this could take.

Meanwhile, Germany would have its own regime change as I expect social democrats to step in and negotiate the peace as OTL. But contrary to France where the revolutionaries would have been distinct and rooted in the syndicalist movement, I think the debate over what to do next would be found within the broad tent of social democracy, with the internationale revolutionaries relegated to provoking unrest from the outside. A peace of exhaustion would also discredit the war government just as much without enabling a stab in the back myth to the same degree as the new republic doesn't suffer Versailles' dictats. The Engels wing of social democracy is likely to contest elections rather than boycott it like the embryo of the KPD did, and that plus not repudiating all ties to the rest of social democracy probably gives them more room to manoever, while they'd also isolate the adventurists of the revolutionary interntionale who would invite crackdown. I guess the result would be a patchwork Germany disputed between moderate parliamentarians and more radically transformative social democrats, but with both more willing to work together to keep reaction out in places where it requires their combined forces, and with Weimar not headed for the abyss with a better peace. Maybe they settle on a more decentralized Germany with both sides participating in constituent assembly elections, leaving room for their different programs at the state level.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top