Socialism in the United States

Socialism Socialism in the United States

Introduction to Socialism

The United States has never had a significant socialist party. The country’s failure to develop such a party has puzzled socialist theorists who wrongly assumed that industrialization would always be associated with a strong socialist movement. In general, the two-party system has held sway in American politics, and third parties have fared poorly.

The Socialist Labor Party (SLP) was founded in 1877 and ran its first candidate for president of the United States in 1892. Six years later, in 1898, labor leader Eugene V. Debs, newspaper publisher Victor Berger, and others organized the Social Democratic Party of America. The next year, in 1899, Morris Hillquit and a group of moderate socialists broke with the SLP leadership and joined in 1900 with the Social Democratic Party in running Debs for U.S. president. After the election, in which Debs won 100,000 votes, a unity convention was held in 1901 that resulted in the organization of the Socialist Party.

The Socialist Party supported Debs for president in 1904, 1908, and 1912, with Debs receiving 897,000 votes in 1912 as party membership grew. Berger was elected as representative from Wisconsin in 1911, becoming the first Socialist in the U.S. Congress. Disagreements among Socialists during the teens, especially during World War I (1914-1918), over the party’s antiwar and anti-Communist stands greatly reduced party membership, however. In 1917 Debs was sent to prison for an antiwar speech in Ohio, but in 1920 he received his largest vote-920,000-as a presidential candidate.

In 1924 the Socialists endorsed Wisconsin politician Robert M. La Follette for president on the Progressive Party ticket. Four years later, the Socialist Party nominated Norman Thomas. He received 267,000 votes, and in 1932, during the Great Depression, 885,000. During the next four years, however, the New Deal administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, enacted many social reforms. Roosevelt’s success in rallying much of the labor movement to him weakened the Socialists, and the party’s votes in subsequent elections declined steadily.

Several mergers occurred between socialist groups from the 1950s on, leading to the formation in 1982 of the Democratic Socialists of American (DSA). Although critical of Democratic Party leadership and the party’s corporate backing, the DSA has generally backed Democratic candidates in presidential elections.” (1)

Socialism in 1889

The following information about Socialism and Socialists is from the Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States by the Best American and European Writers:

“(…) it no doubt, at first sight. appears somewhat difficult to account for the fact that this desire for change should have grown up with the repeal of many unjust laws, with the remission of many burdensome taxes, with a great stimulus in the productive industry of the country, and with the more wide-spread desire among those who are in comfortable circumstances to be good, kind and charitable to the poor. But does not the fact that all these circumstances have been in operation without producing any more marked effect upon the general well-being of the people, suggest an explanation of the phenomenon which we are seeking to elucidate? Scarcely any other result can be expected than that there should arise a feeling of angry disappointment, unreasoning distrust and unjust suspicion when favorable agencies like those just mentioned are contrasted with such facts as those previously enumerated, which are only too truly typical of the social and economic condition of the country. For a long time the people were led to believe that the elevation of their class would be secured by bringing into operation various favorable material agencies.

At one period it was supposed that the application of steam to manufactures and the improvement of locomotion by the introduction of railways, would so stimulate production as to bring to the laborer an age of golden plenty. At another time it was confidently stated that by the abolition of protection the markets of the world would be thrown open to us, and the supplies of cheap food thus procured would yield an increased store of comfort to every humble home. In one respect these predictions have been fulfilled, in another respect they have been cruelly falsified. Production has been stimulated beyond the expectations of the most sanguine, and supplies of food have been obtained from even the most distant countries in much greater quantities than could have been anticipated. Still, however, so far as the laborer is concerned, the age of golden plenty seems as remote as ever, and in the humble homes of the poor a not less constant war has to be waged against penury and want. From the bitter disappointment thus engendered, there has not unnaturally arisen a feeling of deep distrust of the fundamental principles on which society is based. A wide-spread opinion has grown up that it is no use relying upon the old remedies and the old nostrums. Resort must be had to far more radical changes; the very foundations on which our social system rests must be altered. This feeling of unrest, this desire to do away with the existing order of things, is sure to arise when the mass of the people become dissatisfied with their condition. On many previous occasions they had more reason than now to attribute their misfortunes to political causes.

Unjust and vexatious taxation, combined with a reckless expenditure of a profligate and corrupt court, at length accumulated such misery upon the French people that an irresistible movement arose to sweep away every established institution. The first French revolution ought not consequently to be regarded as an uprising to substitute a republican for a monarchical form of government. The people, driven to a frenzy of despair by physical suffering, were not in a frame of mind calmly to reason upon well-devised schemes of relief. They wished to see everything changed, and they consequently waged an unrelenting war with the existing state of things. Again, the revolutionary movement in 1848, although it caused the fall of so many dynasties, was not so much a political as a social and economic movement. The dissatisfaction which prevailed at this period was not mainly due either to unjust laws or vexations taxation. It was the manifestation of an intense desire fundamentally to change the principles from which the vast Industrial system of the present time has been developed. Competition and the separation of capital from labor may be regarded as the most prominent characteristics of modern industry. It might, therefore, have been almost foreseen that these characteristics would be singled out for special reprobation, when the general condition of the industrial classes became unsatisfactory, and the great mass of the people in every country felt that they had to bear an undue amount of suffering, the hardest toil yielding to them a most inadequate share of comfort and enjoyment. There consequently arose a determination to substitute for the industrial system then existing one from which not only competition would be absent, but one in which capital and labor would be united, instead of being separated by the rivalry of hostile interests.

The industrial ideas which were thus sought to be carried into practical effect may be described under the general name of socialism or communism. The very mention of these words will no doubt to many minds suggest much that is ominous of danger, and much which is opposed to the well-being of society. Prejudice, however unfounded, often spreads so fast that it becomes most formidable to combat. To many, socialism and communism are supposed to be synonymous with confiscation and spoliation. A socialist exists vaguely in the minds of the comfortable classes as a sort of abandoned creature who wishes to live by robbing other people of their property, and who desires to see general pillage introduced. In the present state of mankind, socialism would do nothing to increase the well-being of the people, and the socialistic schemes which have been propounded would inevitably end in disastrous failure. But, although this may be fully proved, yet nothing can be more unjust than to throw aspersions upon the character of socialists, and to misinterpret their motives. They no doubt have been mistaken enthusiasts, but it is impossible to deny that their motives have been pure and their aims lofty. They have been animated by a desire which must have been felt by all who are not depraved by selfishness, to lighten poverty, to alleviate human suffering, and to diffuse more general happiness among mankind. The injustice which is so generally done to socialists will be perhaps more clearly perceived when attention is directed to the origin of the socialistic sentiment.”

Resources

Notes and References

• Information about Socialism in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia

Guide to Socialism

Socialism in the International Business Landscape

Definition of Socialism in the context of U.S. international business and public trade policy: A political doctrine emphasizing collective ownership of the means of production, ascribing a large role to the government in running the economy.

Socialism in the International Business Landscape

Definition of Socialism in the context of U.S. international business and public trade policy: A political philosophy advocating substantial public involvement, through government ownership, in the means of production and distribution.

Socialism in the International Business Landscape

Definition of Socialism in the context of U.S. international business and public trade policy: An economic system that would have the government or guilds of workers own and operate all means of production thus restricting, if not entirely eliminating, private enterprise.