Perhaps over time becoming more of a mainstream social democratic party. My ideas that I previously discussed in other threads centered around a stronger union movement and socialists who were more willing to work with other parties in Congress (and hence seen as less of a threat). Let me know what else would be necessary.
AHC: Turn the Socialist Party of America into a major party.
- Thread starter Hayatgheibi
- Start date
You'd have to do something to mitigate or neutralize the Red Scares the United States had in the past. Even then they would likely have to rebrand to something like the American Labor Party or Union Party get rid of the red banners as a symbol though bread and roses could still work as imagery and a slogan especially when times get hard. The most important thing they would need to do is start something at the local level. Pick a county or city and start campaigning there like crazy at every level of municipal government. Once they have a stronghold it's time to consider expansion. If they can get a region they might be able to become king makers on the national level and forming coalitions with the Democrats or Republicans. "Want our vote/support we're going to need some Socialist/Labor men in the cabinet or sure we could help you but only if you support this legislation coming up."
That is what they accomplished most notably in Milwaukee, where more moderate "sewer socialists" were in charge.
The party had a strong heyday in the first decade of the 20th century. Debs’ 6% of the vote and growing in 1912 was nothing to sneeze at. It’s very much possible if, among other things, the First World War doesn’t break out.
Possible based on what? Aren't the mainstream parties just going to shift leftward on labor issues if the public sentiment does?
It’s certainly possible and likely. The way I interpreted the question asked wasn’t about how to get the Socialist Party to win a presidential election, but to make it become a mainstay with enough infrastructure as an institution to remain competitive on local and state levels for a significant period of time. The Socialist Party was already fielding a wide range of candidates in 1912 and was beginning to build city-based political machines like with the election of Berger in Wisconsin. In Oklahoma, it was becoming a significant force in state politics as well. World War One introduced pressures that would severely depress its membership and eventually break it into competing factions, but absent those pressures I see this process continuing. Even if it isn’t a party that is getting 50% of the vote nationally, I think it’s plausible to have it replicate the successes of Minnesota’s Farmer-Labor Party and become a fixture of multiple states in the country. Eventually they would probably get subsumed by one of the two major parties like how Farmer-Labor did during the New Deal, but I don’t think that end result contradicts the requirement of having it become a major party. And besides, the Whigs are an example of a major party failing to address serious contradictions in their voting base and being swamped by an up-and-coming third party. Even if the Socialist Party remains only regionally relevant into the 1920s, the stresses of the Depression and lack of a coherent response from either party could cause groundswell support for the Socialist Party that displaces the Democrats in key regions. Even if it isn’t likely, it’s possible. Impossible was the term I was objecting to.
Last edited:
They only got that big because of WW1 and the revolution across Europe. After the Red Scare communism became more a patriotic nationalist ideology. Communism only becomes popular when an unpopular war occurs and people get pissed. When things calm down they just become conservatives or liberals.
The Socialist Party collapsed because of World War One and the Red Scare. Its prime was before the war. The Wikipedia page could be helpful as an overview.
I'm referring to American Communism in general. Which yes peaked because WW1 was unpopular and criticism of the war literally landed people in jail. People that voted him probably weren't even communists.
Then why would you quote a comment of mine talking about the popularity of the Socialist Party before the war and then talk about American communism and lead with “they only got that big because of WW1”? American communism isn’t really relevant to what I was discussing. And yes, the people that voted for Debs were generally not communists. I’m not sure how that’s relevant either.
If you’re trying to argue that the Socialist Party peaked in their vote share because of war-related repression, then that’s not true either. Election results are a quick measure of that. In 1912, the Socialist Party received 901,000 votes totaling around 6% of all votes in that election. In 1916, their support cratered to a mere 590,000. The wave of postwar discontent merely bumped them back up to their 1912 numbers with around 913,000 votes. That 913,000 was only 3.4% of votes cast though so proportionally it was only half of what they had achieved before the war. By any metric, the Socialist Party was stronger and had more prospect for cementing itself politically before the war than after it. They weren’t buoyed on the back of some brief wartime resentment which dissipated into standard liberalism or conservatism after.
If they are smart they will. But smart is never automatic. The Republican Party got so out of step with the voters Roosevelt was able to split the Republican Vote and turn what should have been a sound victory into a unearned Democratic Party victory. Something similar occurred in 1860. Lincoln never should have won, but the Democratic Party failed to read the tea leaves correctly with a resulting split and loss.
Had Roosevelt & a few others seized the vision they might have been able to bring the bulk of the socialist voters into a Progressive coalition built on the wreckage of the Republican party.
Both of the two major parties were stagnating at the State and local levels. The inability of many state governments to cope with the Mississippi flows of 1925 & 1927 were one illustration of the problem. OTL the reformers, liberals, progressives took over portions of the two main parties & eventually the Democrats, at least the Northern portion emerged as the socially activist party. A strong socially liberal and activist party emerging 1910-1920 could displace either of the other two.
I mean this is just another way for the mainstream parties to re-arrange themselves and effectively shift leftward. You might argue this might be a weird interpretation but I'd assume you are pretty much detaching the left wings of both parties and creating a new one, not exactly making a complete outside force like the socialists take over.
The Democratic/ Republican duopoly was established in the 1870s and 1880s. It was reinforced by partisan control of election officials. To get a party instead of the duopoly, you need a pre-1900 POD, or find some event to break the duopoly, which would have far reaching implications, more far reaching than the emergence of a particular successor party.
That said, the United States entering World War I against Germany, and then managing to lose it anyway, could be enough of a POD.
That said, the United States entering World War I against Germany, and then managing to lose it anyway, could be enough of a POD.
Kill the democrats somehow. IMO if cleveland didn't win 84, then the democrats are out of the WH for now nearly 30 years since the civil war; that is rough for a major party. federal level infrastructure would be struggling. it seems likely that the socialist party would be better positioned if they were campaigning in the south ala the populists. they spend the 1890s replacing the republicans down south before they work on becoming a national party, and from there they're in the money.
Not weird at all in my view
Yep. If the Socialist party is to grow its going to have to acquire voters from the existing party. This is one of several ways to do it.
What if the Socialist Party at least partially supported the war like many similar parties in Europe?