We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
It is not surprising that the United States produced a Socialist Party; it would be astonishing if one had not developed. American history is filled with radical and protest parties, ranging through every shade of the political spectrum and sharing the conviction that the major parties did not or would not represent their particular interests.
1 With some justification Norman Thomas declared that “to the considerable extent that capitalism has delivered more than seemed possible a generation ago … it has done so by accepting things it used to denounce as Socialism”; quoted in Daniel Bell, “The Background and Development of Marxian Socialism in the United States”, in Egbert, D. D. et al. , Socialism and American Life (Princeton, 1952), I, 404Google Scholar. It is doubtful that in 1928, in Thomas' first presidential campaign, he foresaw within less than a generation the legislative enactment of many of the planks in his program and their acceptance by the two major parties. These planks included old-age pensions, public housing, unemployment insurance, labor's right to organize, a universal eight-hour day, flood control, government insurance against weather damage to crops, and the recognition of the Soviet Union.
2 Shannon, David A., The Socialist Party of America (New York, 1955), p. 258Google Scholar.
3 “The Background and Development of Marxian Socialism in the United States”, p. 217. Yet, Shannon, David A. noted that unions with Socialist and Communist leaders in practice were fundamentally like other American unions — at least in economic matters; “Socialism and Labor”, in Woodward, C. Vann (ed.), The Comparative Approach to American History (New York, 1968), p. 240Google Scholar.
4 The Socialist Party of America, pp. 262, 268.
5 See Eastman, Max, Marxism: Is It a Science? (New York, 1940), p. 15Google Scholar.
6 Benedict, Bertram, The Larger Socialism (New York, 1921), p. 192Google Scholar.
7 Mitchell, Broadus, “Socialism American Style”, in Alfred, Helen (ed.), Toward a Socialist America (New York, 1958), p. 75Google Scholar. Mitchell believed that America exhibits, contrary to Marxian doctrine, “further development of a socialism born, not of desperation, but of opportunity, nursed not in bitterness but in calm expectation”, p. 79.
8 Ibid., p. 76.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., pp. 77–79.
11 The Larger Socialism (New York, 1921), p. 192Google Scholar. Curiously, in the light of Benedict's comments, the Socialist Party often achieved its greatest electoral “victories” in the western agricultural and mining areas; see Key, V. O. Jr., Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups (New York. 1953), pp. 290–292Google Scholar.
12 Benedict, , The Larger Socialism, pp. 191–192Google Scholar.
13 Ibid., p. 193.
14 See, for example, Thomas, Norman, “Liberty and Democracy”, Saturday Review of Literature, VI (06 7, 1930), 1101–1103Google Scholar.
15 Again it may fairly be asked; given its basic premises, could the Socialist Party have acted otherwise without compromising those premises?
16 Quoted from Debs, Eugene V., Writings and Speeches of Eugene V. Debs (New York, 1954), p. 335Google Scholar (this statement was written in 1911).
17 Ibid., pp. 334–335.
18 See Thomas, Norman, America's Way Out (New York, 1931), pp. 288–289Google Scholar.
19 Norman Thomas readily admitted that his own disillusionment with the possibility of a united front with communism was not complete until these events (the Spanish Civil War and the Moscow purge trials) took place. See Thomas, Norman, A Socialist's Faith (New York, 1951), pp. 311–312Google Scholar.
20 Ibid., p. 4.
21 The Socialist Party of America (New York, 1955), p. 258Google Scholar. See also Shannon's, essay, “Socialism and Labor”, in Woodward, C. Vann (ed.), The Comparative Approach to American History (New York, 1968), pp. 242 ffGoogle Scholar.
22 Quoted in Daniel Bell, “The Background and Development of Marxian Socialism in the United States”, in Egbert, Donald Drew et al. , Socialism, and American Life (Princeton, 1952), I, 216Google Scholar. See also Shannon, , op. cit., pp. 264–265Google Scholar.
23 See Bell, loc. cit.
24 Spargo, John and Arner, G. D. L., Elements of Socialism (New York, 1912), p. 5Google Scholar.
25 A Socialist's Faith, pp. 88–89.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Shannon, , op. cit., pp. 264–265Google Scholar.
29 In a public opinion survey in 1940 to determine the class status of Americans, Elmo Roper found that 27.5% did not know to which class they belonged. Of the total sample polled 79% considered themselves to be members of the middle class, including 70% of those on a very low economic level. Only 15% thought themselves of the lower classes. See Fortune, “The People of the U.S.A. — A Self Portrait”, XXI (1940), 14 ffGoogle Scholar.
30 Shannon, , op. cit., p. 266Google Scholar.
31 A Socialist's Faith, pp. 95–96.
32 Ibid., p. 95.
33 Samson, Leon, Toward a United Front: A Philosophy for American Workers (New York, 1933), Chapter IGoogle Scholar.
34 “The Philosophical Basis of Marxian Socialism in the United States”, in Egbert, Donald Drew et al. , Socialism and American Life (Princeton, 1952), I, 450–451Google Scholar.
35 Beard, Charles, The American Party Struggle (New York, 1928), p. 102Google Scholar.
36 Thomas, Norman, A Socialist's Faith, p. 87Google Scholar.
37 Ibid., p. 88; see pages 86–95 for Thomas's full explanation of the economic, sociological, and political factors that militated against the development of American socialism.
38 Quoted in Bell, Daniel, “The Background and Development of Marxian Socialism in the United States”, in Egbert, , Socialism and American Life, I, 216Google Scholar.
39 Ibid. For an analysis of the relation of liberalism to socialism and of both to America's social heritage see NcNaught, Kenneth, “American Progressives and the Great Society”, Journal of American History, LIII (12 1966), 504–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 On the two-party tradition in this country, Norman Thomas wrote: “My vote in 1932 and Henry Wallace's in 1948 (and Debs's in 1920 when he ran against the mediocrities Harding and Cox) can only be explained (as over against the popular interest in our campaigns) by this obsession of the voters with the two-party system”; A Socialist's Faith, p. 91.
41 Politics in America (New York, 1954), p. 72Google Scholar.
42 Ibid.See also Brogan's, The American Character (New York, 1944)Google Scholar, especially chapter I, for his analysis of the development of the American political and social personality.
43 Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups (New York, 1953), p. 303Google Scholar.
44 America's Way Out (New York, 1931), p. 282Google Scholar. See also pp. 281–285. Despite great legal difficulties the Socialist Party usually was able by hard work, good organization, and sometimes hard-won court battles to get on the ballot of most states.
45 Politics in America, p. 72.
46 “The Third Party Tradition in American Politics”, Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XX (1933), 3–28Google Scholar.
47 See Thomas, Norman, The Choice Before Us (New York, 1934), p. 92Google Scholar; see also A Socialist's Faith, p. 101.
48 Page, Kirby, Individualism and Socialism (New York, 1933), p. 299Google Scholar.
49 A Socialist's Faith, p. 98.
50 Ibid., p. 95.
51 Thomas, as well as other socialists, was quick to point out the incompatibility of the New Deal with true socialist principles. “… even in immediate demands”, Thomas said, “the Roosevelt Revolution only distantly approximated what Socialists had asked … the essential thing about the Socialist platforms has always been its purpose and its goal rather than its immediate demands.… The Roosevelt program, makes concessions to workers in order to keep them quiet a while longer and so stabilize the power of private owners”; The Choice Before Us, p. 93.
52 See Douglas, Paul H., The Coming of a New Party (New York, 1932), pp. 121 ffGoogle Scholar.
53 Although the Turner thesis has largely been modified or reevaluated in recent years, it is still useful in understanding the influence that the frontier played in the development of the American personality.
54 “The Background and Development of Marxian Socialism in the United States”, in Egbert, Donald Drew et al. , Socialism and American Life (Princeton, 1953), I, 216–217Google Scholar.
55 Ibid.
58 Ibid., p. 403.
57 “The Philosophical Basis of Marxian Socialism in the United States”, in Egbert, , Socialism and American Life, I, 451Google Scholar.
58 Key, V. O. Jr., Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups (New York, 1953), p. 303Google Scholar.
59 Some of these proposals for the future role of the Socialist Party in American life were advanced by Norman Thomas in an address before the Ethical Culture Society, Teaneck, N. J., on April 29, 1960.
60 McNaught, Kenneth suggests that American liberalism and socialism have been weakened by the lack of an artistocratic legacy, which “lead to the extinction of party-based dissent not because American society was essentially liberal but because that society lacked an aristocratic tradition of eccentricity and intellectual discipline”; “American Progressives and the Great Society”, Journal of American History, LIII (12 1966), 508Google Scholar.
61 Indeed, David A. Shannon believes that the labor movement in the United States has had a greater Marxist and socialist influence than most people realize, while socialist and labor groups abroad often act more like American “business unions” than like ideologically oriented socialist organizations; “Socialism and Labor”, in Woodward, C. Vann (ed.), The Comparative Approach to American History (New York, 1968), p. 239Google Scholar.
