 |
Back
to Great Debates
Why
did the socialist movement fail in the United States?
Many arguments have been advanced
to explain why the United States has been less conducive to radicalism
and socialism than any other advanced industrial nation. One explanation
that has been offered focuses on the relatively egalitarian character
of American life. American society lacked the sharply defined
pre-industrial social groups--aristocrats, peasants, guilds--which
gave European society intense class consciousness. Indeed, a lack
of class consciousness continues today. Throughout American history,
Americans have rarely defined themselves as "workers."
Adult white male workers were
"born free"--that is, adult white male workers
possessed the vote from the early nineteenth century. In Europe,
it was the working class struggle for the vote that laid the foundation
for socialist parties. American workers never had to struggle
for the right to vote. Also in sharp contrast to Europe, there
were no formal barriers to educational opportunity or economic
mobility. The illusion of mobility proved to be a powerful force
undercutting the appeal of radicalism.
A second explanation that has
been advanced to explain the weakness of radicalism in the United
States is affluence, the so-called "roast beef and apple
pie" explanation. American workers' standard of living was
much higher than that in most European countries. Still, it must
be emphasized, most American workingmen and working women combined
low wages and long hours.
Yet another explanation involves
the nature of the American working class. Despite the early timing
of American industrialization, the United States was one of the
last countries to develop a permanent native born male factory
work force. During the nineteenth century, American industry relied
upon teenagers, unmarried women, and immigrants. American society
appeared to be divided along the supposedly "natural lines
of age, gender, and ethnicity rather than class.
The widespread acceptance of the
"American" ideology of individualism, democracy, and
opportunity has also undermined the appeal of radicalism. Americans
have rarely been willing to define themselves as workers. Even
radicals have traditionally been hostile toward bureaucracies
and institutions, making it difficult for radical movements to
maintain themselves over time.
Material prosperity, social mobility,
the division of the working class into conflicting ethnic groups,
the inhospitality of the political system to third parties--all
have contributed to the weakness of radicalism in America.
It is not true, however, that
the United States never had a vigorous socialist movement. Early
in this century, a broad-based socialist movement flourished,
attracting support from Oklahoma tenant farmers and miners, lumberjacks
from the Pacific North West, Texas populists, Yiddish-speaking
Jewish immigrants in New York, radical members of the International
Workers of the World, and many German Americans living in Wisconsin.
The movement had an eloquent, charismatic leader named Eugene
V. Debs, who strong made a strong religious appeal to many native
born Protestants. In the 1912 election, the Socialist party polled
nearly six percent of the Presidential vote and elected 1,200
socialists to office, including one Congressman and 79 mayors.
Two million subscribers received some 323 socialist publications.
And yet by 1921, the American
Socialist party had largely disappeared, swept into the dust bin
of history along with other extinct political parties such as
the Anti-Masons, the Know Nothings, and the American Independent
Party.
What happened? The answer lies
in World War I. The party denounced American intervention in the
war as "a crime against the people" and called for opposition
to the military draft. The party's antiwar position generated
support from many Americans of German ancestry, but the government
response was swift and stern. "Disloyalty," Woodrow
Wilson had promised, "will be dealt with the firm hand of
repression." Eugene Debs was imprisoned along with Victor
Berger, a Socialist congressman from Milwaukee. The government
jailed or deported the party's first and second rank leadership;
banned socialist publications; raided party headquarters; and
broke up socialist meetings.
Ironically, the success of the
Bolshevik revolution in Russia created additional problems. Prior
to 1917, there was no actual example of a communist or socialist
state. Socialism was an idea open to experiment and redefinition.
After 1917, there was a concrete example of socialism in the world,
and many individuals were put off by what they saw. Increasingly,
party discipline, centralization of authority, and doctrinal rigidity
were the values associated with socialism.
The success of the Russian revolution
also accelerated a split between English speaking and foreign
language members of the Socialist party. Many Slavic immigrants,
enthusiastic over the Russian Revolution, joined the socialist
party, but many native born Americans, particularly those from
the Southwest, dropped out. The result was that the party lost
its broad-based, heterogeneous character. In 1912, only 15 percent
of the party were foreign born; by 1919, immigrants made up a
clear majority.
It was during the 1920s that the
socialist left acquired the features that have characterized it
until this day: division into narrow factions and hostile sects.
Today, the largest American radical party, the American Communist
Party, consists of just 2,400 members. The second largest, the
Socialist Workers Party, has just 1,800 members.
Questions to
think about:
1. How would
you account for the appeal of socialism in early twentieth century
America?
2. Which
explanations for the weakness of radicalism in twentieth century
America do you find most compelling?
|
|
