Reds! A Revolutionary Timeline

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Constitutions can be used poorly, I fully agree. However, many times they are in fact there to protect the workers from those with power. If a Constitution requires too many votes to change, it can become a problem, but if its too easy to change, its not worth the papers it's printed on. People are communal creatures, we we also require some amount of stability and security in their lives. The rule of law is an important one there. And people get pissed if the laws change all the time.
 
Last edited:
Constitutions can be used poorly, I fully agree. However, many times they are in fact there to protect the workers from those with power. If a Constitution requires too many votes to change, it can become a problem, but if its too easy to change, its not worth the papers it's printed on. People are communal creatures, we we also require some amount of stability and security in their lives. The rule of law is an important one there. And people get pissed if the laws change all the time.

I don't see how a constitution can protect the workers when the people who read it and apply it are broadly not part of the working class struggle.

If people don't want change, they can vote for no change.

This whole logic of rights protecting the poor from the rich is purely a capitalistic safety valve, anyway. If your worker state need that kind of logic, you've fucked up on the path to socialism and what the worker need isn't a constitution, it's another round of revolution.
 
UASR's Basic Law already can be changed by majority vote anyway, so they lean to flexible constitution of the Left Fraction (rather than the cumbersome, pre-Revolution esque constitutional concept of DFLP's socialist wing). Right socialist impact is more seen in economic reconstruction (see coops and the market distribution-worker ownership-state planning collaboration), mainly because of post 2ACW pragmatism. Most of the socially libertine safeguards against bigotry (as does many ITTL American civil rights safeguards) in the Declaration of Rights are LeftCom championed.
Edit:
@Antix_Shadows
For the Left Fraction's and anarchist contributions in civil rights and political foundations (the political side has some contributions by the fellow-travelers and borderline reformists):
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen
Basic Law of the Union of American Socialist Republics
Essentially the more rigid constitutionalism you think of isn't a thing, to prevent pre-2ACW recurring troubles w/it. Recall votes for all level of government + One Big Labor Union are weapons to tackle government shenanigans w/the Basic Law.

For the compromises to the revolutions' fellow travelers and perhaps also right-socialists to the econ is form here. Critically supported by some of the Left Fraction mainly because of post-war recovery reasons.

Ofc, you likely have read them, so probably an unnecessary refresher :V
 
Last edited:
The Public Broadcasting System
The Public Broadcasting Service

By the time of the Revolution, there were two national radio networks: The National Broadcasting Company (NBC), owned by the Marconi Wireless Music Company ( whose American operations were partially co-owned by General Electric and AT&T, in addition to the Marconi Company in Britain)[1] and the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), owned by William Paley, along with independent regional and local stations. Most of these stations were supported by advertising, made possible under the Wood and Hoover administrations, and to avoid interference with each other and with Canadian broadcasts, the Radio Act of 1927 established the Federal Radio Commission to regulate frequencies. One of their earliest achievements was General Order 40, which formed specific Clear, Regional, and local channels, and assigned AM frequencies to them, to prevent interference. In addition, NBC had two primary networks: "Red" (focused on entertainment) and "Blue" (focused on education and news.)[2]
The first attempt at a post-revolution radio network was the Mutual Broadcasting System, formed in late 1934. An attempt at a cooperatively owned radio network formed from stations in Newark, Chicago, Boston, Detroit and Cincinnati, it had an early victory in acquiring the much of the NBC Red Network. In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, MBS would be the biggest radio network in the nation, with nationally syndicated shows. However, due to limited resources and increasing strain, they were unable to expand or collectivize much of the other stations, especially on the West Coast. There was a need for a larger radio network, that could handle the larger load.
In the aftermath of the Revolution, both the former MWMC (including NBC) and CBS were nationalized, and their assets seized with the express purpose of using their nationwide reach to create a government radio station. After two years of negotiations between the Congress of Soviets, workers within the nationalized RCA and CBS, and various stations around the country, the Public Broadcasting Act was passed on September 10th, 1936, formally establishing the Public Broadcasting Service, which would answer to a council with members elected by the Secretariat of Culture and the Academy of Arts and Sciences. Built primarily off the NBC Blue Network and CBS, it would largely use the rules and zones established by General Order 40, and most station frequencies would remain as they were pre-revolution, (stations in the Southwest had to change to avoid interference from Mexican broadcasters).
Through its first few years of existence, PBS would focus on news, education, and culture. Exiled Italian composer Arturo Touscanini would lead an in-house Orchestra in regular broadcasts of "The PBS Symphony Orchestra". The Mercury Theatre on the Air, led by director Orson Welles, would produce adaptations of classic literary works, often with modifications for modern audiences. News was handled on a local level, though with a national broadcast recorded for all stations.
The biggest addition was the American School of the Air. Originally an Ohio State University program later acquired by CBS, under the PBS system, it would expand in terms of topics, with topics such as history, science, industry, and mathematics taught on the air. Music programs under Alan Lomax would help the Folk movement gain more currency. It would be heard in schools across the nation, and help guide the lesson plans. The IBF would rebroadcast many of its programs in South America (often translated).
Despite the new major PBS station, MBS would continue on, managing to gain some more stations. They sustained themselves by becoming the entertainment channel, producing a variety of programming, from adaptations of popular novels and films to long original serials. With advertising a non-factor, much of their entertainment was experimental and raunchy, often exploring a wide range of genres and deconstruction. As a result, a minor friendly rivalry emerged between the more sophisticated PBS and the entertainment driven MBS, with ribbing on both sides being common. Despite this, MBS would rely on PBS news and cultural broadcasts for some of its distant markets.

Excerpt from "The Environmental Legacy of the First Cultural Revolution", article published in the People's Geographic Magazine, May 1967 issue
The National Geographic Society was rocked by the Revolution, much as the rest of the nation was. Some of its board members had been openly sympathetic to MacArthur and his cause, necessitating their exit (either on-board one of the White ships to Cuba or to prison), but President Gilbert Hovey Grosvenor stayed neutral, and resumed operations when he could reenter Washington (now DeLeon City). To show some degree of cooperation with the new government, the decision was made by the board in 1935 to change the name to the "People's Geographic Society". For the most part, though, the Society and its publication were left alone, primarily because of the burgeoning WFRA relied on National Geographic maps to help with international operations.
Joe Schillinger points to a patch of forest in the distance. "When I started, every day, I'd go to that patch of that land. I wanted to see if the wolves would come out. I would come and rest on the ground, wait for them to come out. Some days, I'd be disappointed, but other days, I'd get lucky. Eventually, we got used to each other enough that one day I brought a camera, and took some photos of them."
Schilinger has many of these photos, and others of bears, bison, salmon, geysers, hanging on his cabin, where he has lived since becoming a park ranger in 1926. "It was the bad old days of the Roaring Twenties. I would battle bootleggers, car thieves, the whole lot. We would have to ensure the peace by any means." Still, Schilinger was passionate about wildlife, and he was determined to be a model ranger, helping lead vacationers to campsites and helping them. "I'd go shoot coyotes for them or set up their tents. Once, I was asked to pose with a bear."
In 1933, Schilinger got word that President Hoover had declared a state of emergency, and Secretary of War Douglas MacArthur was given emergency power. Out in distant Wyoming, it didn't mean much to the park ranger, who was told by his superior to simply keep doing his job protecting Yellowstone. "Maybe pick up a Red. I think he mentioned it."
Then came the shooting.
"A few of the rangers would be walking by the road when you'd hear guns out in the distance. They'd go to investigate, and end up in the middle of a skirmish. A lot of my friends died that way"
Most of the fighting in Wyoming largely centered on the oil fields, but it would spill over to Yellowstone as retreating White forces attempted to resist capture by advancing Red forces. Many would try to start forest fires or put landmines to slow their advance . Many of the Rangers joined the Whites, showing them places to hide or escape.
Schilinger? "Frankly, I didn't give a damn about Bolshevikism or capitalism or any of that. I cared that forest fires were being started by a bunch of crooks. The Reds cared about that as well. So, we had a common enemy." Indeed, despite technically still being government employees, armed Rangers would confront White camps preparing attacks that could cause damage to the park. When the Whites refused to stand down and resisted, the Rangers were forced to ally with the Red Guards to bring them into submission.
This was repeated in many of the national parks from Yosemite to Acadia, with the National Park Service rangers split between White sympathizers who joined the fighting or helped their comrades through their position, and an alliance of Red sympathizers or neutral Rangers simply determined to keep the peace in their area.
As the war wound down, White forces fleeing into National Parks were either killed or captured. However, the damage was already done, with large acres of forest burned and the former prestigious national parks now riddled with landmines and battle damage.
"I saw a buffalo that landed on a landmine." Schilinger sighs. "It's not pretty."
Based on Article VII of the Fundamental Principles of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ("Land, water, forests, minerals, and wildlife shall be common property. All private property in these areas is prohibited. Title shall be granted based on use, but all holders shall be protected from arbitrary revocation of this right)", the Land and Natural Resource Trust was established with ensuring the use of land for the purposes of the common good. It was the de jure successor to the National Park Service, in addition to other departments dealing with issues under its purview. As part of that legacy, it would co-manage the various national parks with local republic governments. The park rangers were folded in, along with Public Safety Groups, and kept their general jobs protecting new land, albeit with new responsibilities, including removing bullets from trees, helping injured animals, and removing landmines.
A number of new national parks were also designated around the country, including Grand Tetons and Jackson Hole in Wyoming, the Petrified Forest in Arizona, and the Everglades in Florida, using the same criteria as the old National Parks Service.
Schilinger lead the disarming of landmines in Yellowstone, but was met with difficulty. "I regularly called up my superior to ask for more resources. Ways to disarm the mines or veterinarian help for injured animals. I'd make a claim, and I wouldn't hear from them." Schilinger's story is just one of many stories of requests and complaints ending up trapped in a large web of bureaucracy, including landmines killing animals and visitors.
Several potential national parks were reduced in size from their initial proposals on the grounds of "necessary development", as was the case when the King Canyon region of California was in the middle of hydroelectric dam development.
Schilinger also began to notice that bird eggs were softer, and the number of birds seemed to be smaller, and a spat of strange illnesses in animals. He and a local biologist eventually determined that DDT levels were increasing in the rivers and it was affecting the health of the animals.
Contamination became the "silent problem" (as naturalist Rachel Carson would later put it in her eponymous book) in many of the natural parks, as pollution from new factories and pesticides from large farming initiatives gradually made their way into the rivers. Naturalists noted that many plants and animals had mysterious sicknesses, and early analysis showed pesticides being used by the Secretariat of Agriculture had been consumed.
As a result of this and poor enforcement of hunting and laws, animals such as bison and wolves began to experience population decline as the 30's and 40's went on. Several of Schilinger's beloved wolves fell victim to a sickness and an armed farmer. Still, again, the complaints were lost within the bureaucracy of the Trust. Some were rejected on the grounds that "DDT is not directly harmful to humans.", or stonewalled by some in Agriculture. Schilinger would spend years attempting to get the Trust and AgSec [Agriculture Secretariat] to look into the issue with little success. Nature societies, including the Audubon Society, as well as animal welfare groups also attempted to raise attention to the problem throughout the First Cultural Revolution period, with little action from the Congress of Soviets.
Overall, however, Schilinger largely remains the same as when he started in 1926. He still goes to that patch of forest and with his new portable camera, he photographs wolves, and keeps them on his wall. In spite of his experiences of the early Revolutionary period, Schilinger is very hopeful because of the events of the past ten years. Natural parks have now been cleared of landmines and new environmentalist laws have expanded their reach and better protected them and their denizens. Naturalists like Carson managed to campaign to have DDT banned as a pesticide. Pollution has also been curtailed by new laws and new state restrictions. Still, Schilinger says there is still work to do.
"We are still handling a large problem of air and water pollution worldwide, so we need strong, comprehensive, firm pollution policies to ensure the health of life on Earth."

[1] Update (3/9/21): OTL The American branch of Marconi was split off from the main company by the Navy in order to avoid a resource like radio falling into the hands of a foreign corporation. Said branch was reorganized into the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) and on the Navy's request, sold to American General Electric. TTL, with the Bienno Rosso, it was decided to compromise and have the American branch instead majority co-owned by two big American corporations, with the rest continued to be held by the Marconi Company, at least until the Revolution.
[2] OTL, in 1943, the Blue Network would be divested from NBC after an anti-trust suit, and renamed the American Broadcasting Company (ABC)
 
Last edited:
I assume after MBS & PBS being the big ones on the most major ones on the national scene, there are independent local stations (like, say, anarchist ones?). Parties & union newspapers being A Thing (IIRC), wonder if there'd be large broadcast stations owned by each.

also, that subsection on environment makes me interested on the ITTL progression of socialist & anarchist green activism within Comintern
 
I assume after MBS & PBS being the big ones on the most major ones on the national scene, there are independent local stations (like, say, anarchist ones?). Parties & union newspapers being A Thing (IIRC), wonder if there'd be large broadcast stations owned by each.
Yeah, there are a lot of smaller syndicates and local stations that are independent. Party and Union radio is interesting.

also, that subsection on environment makes me interested on the ITTL progression of socialist & anarchist green activism within Comintern
Stay Tuned.
 
What kind of 'modifications'?

Probably setting updates to make things more relevant to the general public, and the other usual sorts of adaptational changes. Taking something like Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors and set it in Great Migration-era Harlem, to take a concept I heard of a while back that I could see getting made ITTL.
 
Also, some classic works probably get any unfortunate ethnic stereotypes rewritten to be less offensive, and maybe have their roles and characterisation expanded.
 
Are the True Democrats (or even the Democratic-Republicans) still a viable political party even a generation after the Revolution? Because I'm really scratching my head as to how they could remain viable without (as I've said before) being riven with statesec agents looking to bag some counter-revolutionaries. Like, their platform is explicitly reactionary and seeking to roll back the new government, and has effectively zero chance of ever being elected to office. It kind've raises the question as to why the government even keeps them around, except (again) as a honey trap for counter-revolutionaries to out themselves.

That, plus the fact that any counter-revolutionaries are stripped of the franchise raise some interesting ethical questions for the UASR - namely, could the country be truly called democratic if one party wins all the time? How would the other parties continue or remain viable if they always lose? Eventually, you'd most likely end up with a one party state with multiple competing wings that are just the vestiges of the DFLP or D-R parties whose members got tired of losing and gave entryism a shot.
 
As far as I can tell the DRP sticks around as a small but still viable party centered around Mutualism and market socialism and is considered right-wing economically. As for the True Dems I think they eventually wind up like CPUSA did OTL, a honey trap used by the government to spy on capitalists that's less than worthless politically.
 
Are the True Democrats (or even the Democratic-Republicans) still a viable political party even a generation after the Revolution? Because I'm really scratching my head as to how they could remain viable without (as I've said before) being riven with statesec agents looking to bag some counter-revolutionaries. Like, their platform is explicitly reactionary and seeking to roll back the new government, and has effectively zero chance of ever being elected to office. It kind've raises the question as to why the government even keeps them around, except (again) as a honey trap for counter-revolutionaries to out themselves.

That, plus the fact that any counter-revolutionaries are stripped of the franchise raise some interesting ethical questions for the UASR - namely, could the country be truly called democratic if one party wins all the time? How would the other parties continue or remain viable if they always lose? Eventually, you'd most likely end up with a one party state with multiple competing wings that are just the vestiges of the DFLP or D-R parties whose members got tired of losing and gave entryism a shot.

I think one thing that this doesn't illustrate well enough is that this isn't a purely unitary central government. Just like in the US, you could lose all your federal elections and still be relevant if you consistently won state, county and municipal races. The DFLP probably does very well in a bunch of rural races that do not amount to a federal majority but give it a lot to keep itself busy and show results for its voters.

The DRP may have some councils they hold from districts where they're administrating things competently or are just dominated by the coop economy. They're still technically loyal to the revolutionary state so they probably aren't that much of a target for statesec. They could also show up as a protest vote following local corruption issues, or as a more socially progressive option for people who would never vote WCP.


The True Democrats are fucked. They're way too connected to the reactionary movement even if they expel the ones directly participating in it, and are straight up advocating for going backward.

Concerning democratic standards... The striping of the franchise seem dumb to me because it's likely to be largely unnecessary. There's not enough bourgeois to matter without their wealth. But it will only last a generation anyway.

The WCP is also a pretty big tent so I imagine some votes cross party lines, giving the DFLP a shot at doing stuff on the union level.
 
Are the True Democrats (or even the Democratic-Republicans) still a viable political party even a generation after the Revolution? Because I'm really scratching my head as to how they could remain viable without (as I've said before) being riven with statesec agents looking to bag some counter-revolutionaries. Like, their platform is explicitly reactionary and seeking to roll back the new government, and has effectively zero chance of ever being elected to office.

The DFLP and the DRP probably win at the local level, especially in more religious areas (for the DFLP) and lots of coops (for the DRP).
It kind've raises the question as to why the government even keeps them around, except (again) as a honey trap for counter-revolutionaries to out themselves.
The True dems are the UASR's version of a OTL european communist party except even smaller. Without the wealthy bankrolling it and having systemic opposition, the reactionaires' lak of appeal and obvious dishonesty absolutely cripples them. Even the Internet could not save them, due to systemic opposition and (hopefully) lack of rigged algorythms giving reactionaires the ability to reach millions.
That, plus the fact that any counter-revolutionaries are stripped of the franchise raise some interesting ethical questions for the UASR - namely, could the country be truly called democratic if one party wins all the time?

Aparently the WCP is going to collapse after WWII, becoming Liberation and Labor parties- the left and right wings of the WCP respectively.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, so there's gonna be 4 major parties after WW2.

Liberation - internationalist socialism
Labor - Conservative 'status quo' socialism
Farmer-Labor - Religious Left socialism, I can imagine them spreading out from Christian only to the being the Big Tent for the religious left.
Democratic-Republican - Market socialism and cooperatives

Some parties that would develop later on based on the original:
Social Green - Environmentalist socialism
Something about transhumanism?

I'm surprised there's no actual major anarcho-collectivist party tbh.
 
Hmm, so there's gonna be 4 major parties after WW2.

Liberation - internationalist socialism
Labor - Conservative 'status quo' socialism
Farmer-Labor - Religious Left socialism, I can imagine them spreading out from Christian only to the being the Big Tent for the religious left.
Democratic-Republican - Market socialism and cooperatives

Some parties that would develop later on based on the original:
Social Green - Environmentalist socialism
Something about transhumanism?

I'm surprised there's no actual major anarcho-collectivist party tbh.
Not an anarchist "party", but there is a large platformist group/faction that exerts a fair deal of social and labour influence but remains in a non-electoral/extra-parliamentary position. Also, the greens, when they form, have quite a lot of anarchist pedigree within their ranks.
 
Are the True Democrats (or even the Democratic-Republicans) still a viable political party even a generation after the Revolution? Because I'm really scratching my head as to how they could remain viable without (as I've said before) being riven with statesec agents looking to bag some counter-revolutionaries. Like, their platform is explicitly reactionary and seeking to roll back the new government, and has effectively zero chance of ever being elected to office. It kind've raises the question as to why the government even keeps them around, except (again) as a honey trap for counter-revolutionaries to out themselves.

That, plus the fact that any counter-revolutionaries are stripped of the franchise raise some interesting ethical questions for the UASR - namely, could the country be truly called democratic if one party wins all the time? How would the other parties continue or remain viable if they always lose? Eventually, you'd most likely end up with a one party state with multiple competing wings that are just the vestiges of the DFLP or D-R parties whose members got tired of losing and gave entryism a shot.
Viable as a major party? No. The only real thing that keeps them going is their presence in exile communities. But there's a difference between something being impossible and people believing it's impossible. There are some people who will never accommodate to the new order, but their organizations will age, wither and die with them.

I suppose that question can be asked of OTL's Japan, which does not have competitive elections, overenfranchises rural landowners at the expense of city dwellers, and most political contests have ultimately been which faction of revolving door technocrats will control the state. People tend to look the other way on these things when it is convenient for them.
The DFLP and the DRP probably win at the local level, especially in more religious areas (for the DFLP) and lots of coops (for the DRP).

The True dems are the UASR's version of a OTL european communist party except even smaller. Without the wealthy bankrolling it and having systemic opposition, the reactionaires' lak of appeal and obvious dishonesty absolutely cripples them. Even the Internet could not save them, due to systemic opposition and (hopefully) lack of rigged algorythms giving reactionaires the ability to reach millions.


Aparently the WCP is going to collapse after WWII, becoming Liberation and Labor parties- the left and right wings of the WCP respectively.
Besides the multiple levels of federalism, there's some other very important things to consider. There are multiple fractions within the Workers' Party that are engaged in struggle to regroup the party around their platform. There's also the robust system of participatory democracy in the local governments, whose deputies cannot exist merely as apparatchiks for a distant central government. They local soviets and workers' councils are working bodies with a direct connection to the populace. Deputies are routinely recalled, and many people only serve short terms in any given office before moving on or out of government.

Additionally, the nature of the bureaucratic apparatus is much different from what we're used to. There isn't a hard separation between local, state and federal government, they form a continuum. Things that would be part of the remote federal bureaucracy in OTL, like say Housing and Urban Development projects, are funded from the federal budget but controlled by the local governments.

Also the split in the WCP doesn't correspond to a left and right wing of the party, it's much more complicated than that but spoilers
 
Last edited:
So we can assume that the WCP is interpreting the doctrine of democratic centralism differently than the VKP(b), or did they drop it altogether at some point?
Yes, they're interpreting it differently. The Resolution on Party Unity in 1921 TTL didn't ban factions outright, and such measures didn't become implemented until after Lenin's death.
 
So is race measured on the USAR census or do they pull a France? Also has there been a effort to make a African American language in the auntonomus region in the south? Is there a Cajun auntonomus region?
 
Last edited:
So is race measured on the USAR census or do they pull a France?
Extremely doubtful about the "pull a France" scenario. Race is just too important to US, and UASR, history and social relations for that kind of "colorblind" approach to work without negative consequences. Plus, it has been stated in previous versions of the TL that the UASR is more actively multilingual than OTL's US due to TTL's socialist movement taking active support from immigrant populations. So that's even less reason for race and ethnicity to be ignored or downplayed on stuff like the census.
Also has there been a effort to make a African American language in the auntonomus region in the south? Is there a Cajun auntonomus region?
African-American vernacular English has plenty of traits of its own. But it's still, well, part of the English language.

I guess such efforts if they do emerge could be inspired by developments like Esperanto becoming more popular within the UASR, as mentioned in this snippet from the 1927 post:


July 1: Elpin Aan (Ahn Usaeng) forms the Orienta Azia Esperanto-Instituto (East Asian Esperanto Institute) in Los Angeles. Following the tradition of learning Esperanto among East Asian socialists, Aan expands education by printing classes in newspapers and organizing committees to make the language more friendly for Sinosphere people to learn. Colloquially this reform effort is nicknamed "Shin Esperanto".
 
Last edited:
Extremely doubtful about the "pull a France" scenario. Race is just too important to US, and UASR, history and social relations for that kind of "colorblind" approach to work without negative consequences. Plus, it has been stated in previous versions of the TL that the UASR is more actively multilingual than OTL's US due to TTL's socialist movement taking active support from immigrant populations. So that's even less reason for race and ethnicity to be ignored or downplayed on stuff like the census.

The UASR literally has sub-parties on an ethnic (race is such a terrible word) basis, so yeah I agree colourblindness is never really going to be considered.

France is one of the most unitary states there is, and quite fanatical about integration, and without sugarcoating, erasing, of cultural differences.
 
Back
Top