It didnt happen here. Why didnt socialism prosper in the USA in the period from 1865 to 1919?

by bluenose1 (student)

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

1HIS419

Modern America

Richard Voke

ID: 13658225

“It didn’t happen here”. Why didn’t socialism prosper in the USA in the period from 1865 to 1919?

“The country that is more developed industrially shows to the less developed the image of their

future.” [1]

The above quote from Karl Marx (1818-1883) [2] gives us an idea of how contemporary socialists

thought of America in the years preceding the 1917 Russian Revolutions. Traditional Marxist theory

expounds that a proletariat revolution was an inevitable stage of social evolution [3] and that the

United States of America, which by approximately 1880 had become the largest economy in the

world [4], would therefore be the first Marxist state. This was a widely held belief among socialists

throughout the latter half of the 19th century [5]. The fact that this didn't happen has been a source of

debate among political and social commentators ever since, and in 1906 German economist and

sociologist Werner Sombart (1853-1941)[6] attempted to explain this with his seminal essay Why is

there no socialism in the United States?[7]. The reasons given in this work, and in later publications

such as Failure of a Dream?: Essays in the History of American Socialism by John H M Laslett [8]

and It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States by Seymour Lipsett and

Gary Marks [9] are varied, and in this essay I will expand on these reasons with my own thoughts as

to the defining factors of socialism's failure within the US.

During the years 1865-1919, there were two main socialist parties in America. The Socialist Labour

Party (SLP) was the first American socialist party [10], established in 1876 as the “Workingmens

Party” , a Marxist party with the goal of “classless society based on collective ownership and

control of the industries and social services... through a Socialist Industrial Union government”

[11]. The SLP nominated a candidate, Simon Wing (1827-1911) for Presidential Election in 1892

(despite wishing to abolish the office of President) and he received 21000 votes [12]. However, by

1901 the Socialist Party of America (SPA), formed in part by disaffected members of the SLP [13],

had become the dominant socialist party in America and was essentially a “democratic socialist”

party, which advocated change through the ballot box, not revolution. In 1910, Victor L Berger

(1860-1929) became the first SPA (and socialist) congressman [14] , and in 1912, SPA presidential

nomination Eugene V Debs (1855-1926) [15] received over 900,000 votes [16], still the most

successful candidate to run on a socialist ticket in the United States.

In order to understand the failures of socialism in the United States of America, we must first look

at what sort of society socialism was attempting to ingratiate itself into. The USA never

experienced a feudal system, and with an ever expanding immigrant population from a multitude of

countries lacked many of the traditional institutions, the aristocracy and class orders of the 'Old

World' [17], which helped contribute to the idea of American exceptional ism. In America everyone

was an immigrant, and as a Republic [18], Americans were all equal citizens under the law. While

of course in reality this was often not the case, (for example the Jim Crow Laws 1876>) [19], in

terms of democratic freedom and the potential for social and economic mobility, a 19th century

working class American was in a better position than his European counterparts. The consequent

disparity in how European and American workers viewed labour disputes was summarised in the

newspaper 'The Nation' in 1867 by E L Godkin (2/10/1831 – 21/5/1902) [20], an American

journalist; “There {Europe} the workingman on a strike is not simply a labourer who wants more

wages: he is a member of a distinct order in society, engaged in a sort of legal war with the other

orders”[21]

The more egalitarian nature of American society was also evident in that (white) men achieved the

right to a democratic vote much earlier than comparative European states [22], which meant that

traditional socialist supporters – disenfranchised working men, were much less apparent. Indeed,

historian Alan Dawley [23] states “The ballot box was the coffin of class consciousness {in

America}”. [24]

This lack of a class conscious was confounded by the great economic expansion and prosperity in

America after the American Civil War (1861-1865) [25]. The average annual income of non-

agricultural workers in the USA (adjusted for inflation) increased by 75% between 1865 and 1900

[26], coal extraction increased by 800% [27], and by 1900 the per capita income of the average

American was twice that of the French or German worker [28]. Not only was the American worker

better off, but the concept of the frontier and 'free land' meant that any individual could 'go west'

and essentially create a new life for themselves, for example under the Homestead Act of 1862 [29].

This was of course rooted in private property ownership, antipathy to socialists [30]. Personally, I

feel this is a great contributing factor to the failure of socialism in the USA. To an immigrant from

the widespread poverty and squalor of many industrial ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

American was twice that of the French or German worker [28]. Not only was the American worker

better off, but the concept of the frontier and 'free land' meant that any individual could 'go west'

and essentially create a new life for themselves, for example under the Homestead Act of 1862 [29].

This was of course rooted in private property ownership, antipathy to socialists [30]. Personally, I

feel this is a great contributing factor to the failure of socialism in the USA. To an immigrant from

the widespread poverty and squalor of many industrial age European cities, where generations had

been effectively serfs, the prospect of heading out to find and work their own titled land or make

their fortune, free from European state and aristocratic repression, would surely have been a more

attractive proposition than joining the socialist struggle. It is not surprising that Russia, an

economically and socially backward and politically repressive autocratic state would be the first to

witness a Marxist revolution [31]. Werner Sombart put it more succinctly as “All socialist utopia’s

come to nothing on roast beef and apple pie”[32].

Without the mass movements for suffrage or the extreme poverty common in parts of Europe, the

working classes as a whole lacked a common goal to rally together for, and instead maintained close

ties within their own ethnic or racial communities [33], and within organised religion. The freedoms

guaranteed by the first amendment of the United States constitution [34], coupled with diverse

demographics(0) saw the emergence of a much broader range of social and political institutions in

comparison with Europe. America was a melting pot of different ethnicities and more importantly

people with different ideas and ideologies, many of which specifically came to America to escape

persecution in their home countries. The various 'Anabaptist' [35]groups, such as the Amish and the

Hutterites are one example of this, as were the Ashkanazi Jews. The post civil war era saw the

“Third Great Awakening” [36], a large increase in evangelical protestantism with an emphasis on

pietism – applying strict Christian values to your everyday life [37]. This was characterised by the

“Social Gospel Movement”, an intellectual viewpoint that dealt with social issues through Christian

ethics[38], and whose influence is clear on social policy groups such as the “Woman's Christian

Temperance Union” formed in 1873 [39]. These religious groups play an important role in

socialism's failure in the USA for two distinct reasons. The first is the basic fact that Marxism and

religion are incompatible philosophically, and secondly both the SLP's and the SPA's inherent

idealogical rigidity and subsequent inability to form alliances or organise non-partisan movements.

This was not only the case with religious groups, but crucially with the organised labour groups

present in America at the time.

In terms of labour organisation, Americans embraced pluralist democracy through the widespread

uptake of 'craft unionism' [40] in America from the 1830's onwards. These small unions, such as

the “International Molders Union of America (1859) and The Tailors Union of America (1883),

often based upon a single vocation or a small sector of industry (similar to craftsmen's Guilds in

Europe) were a direct opponent to traditional socialist trade unionism and again highlight the

individualism inherent in American political culture [41]. Many American workers felt that they

were better of in skill specific representative groups which used collective bargaining as a tool for

its own members, than in a general union. The largest and arguably the most influential union in

America up until 1935 was the American Federation of Labour (AF of L), founded in 1881 [42] by

craft unions disaffected with the autocratic leadership of the Knights of Labour (K of L) (1869)

[43], who were open to all workers, including black and female workers. The AF of L only

represented skilled workers who were in a better position to bargain than unskilled workers and

consisted of smaller affiliated unions who remained autonomous within their respective associations

[44]. The AF of L were not Marxist or revolutionary socialist, being more interested in gaining

labour's fair share of profits within the capitalist system, and recognised reconciliation as a means to

achieve this aims [45]. The Knights of Labour (1869-1949) had a large Catholic base [46] and

openly rejected Marxist socialism. Even the National Labour Union (NLU), founded in 1865 as the

first nationwide labour federation favoured arbitration over militant strike action [47]. The AF of L

supported progressive groups and the women's suffrage movement , as well as being integral to the

creation of the “Clayton Anti-trust Act (1914) [48]. Despite sizeable support amongst ordinary

union members, the AF of L leadership opposed the more radical SPA, who in turn had more in

common with the syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) (1905) [49], and in 1906 the

AF of L allied itself politically to the Democratic Party [50]. Many union leaders viewed organised

labour as a pragmatic way to increase their economic prosperity through higher wages and for safer

and better working conditions, not as a tool of the masses to achieve revolutionary political goals,

sometimes referred to as “business unionism”[51], and a key factor in the disconnect between

organised labour and political socialism

The rapid economic expansion during the post-reconstruction era, referred to by Mark Twain (1835-

1910) [52] as “The Gilded Age” [53] also brought with it problems, highlighted by the increasing

disparity between the top and the bottom of society, with 10% of the population controlling 90% of

the wealth. By the end of the 18th century, a small class of “super-rich” had been created in

America, who owned corporations outright or through trusts. For example in 1901 J P Morgan [54]

purchased and amalgamated the Carnegie Steel Company, The Federal Steel Company and the

National Steel Company and created the first billion dollar corporation [55]. The 14th Amendment

of the United States [56] granted these corporations the legal status of a person which helped them

to dominate their respective industries in an under-regulated economy using monopoly power to

restrict competition. Many corporations used borrowed capital to buy out suppliers and smaller

competitors, allowing them to control their product or service from raw material to completed

product, an anti-competition practice known as vertical integration [57]. This was helped by

successive waves of immigrants who essentially undercut the migrants before them in terms of the

wages and hours they would work for, which coupled with the lack of competition between

employers meant that for many workers wages remained low, hours long and the working

conditions poor, but generated maximum profit for the owners. Dangerous working conditions were

common; according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics [58] America had a national death rate of 61

workers per 100,000 in 1913 [59]. Basic public regulations regarding housing, food production,

sanitation and health were either unenforced or non-existent after the civil war, as were working regulations and checks on corporate power.

Many of the most successful businessmen of the day, who justified there wealth as the product of

“Social Darwinism” [60]`, were maligned by many as “Robber Barons” who profited through

immoral or illegal work practices and who exploited employees. While these sentiments were

reflected in increasing union membership during the 1880's and 1890's, so that by 1904 over

2,000,000 workers were unionised across the USA [61], the overall percentage of workers with

union membership remained low. Strike action within labour disputes increased towards the end of

the 19th century, with some notable successes such as the 1892 New Orleans General Strike [62].

There were many failures as well however, at least in part due to the repressive policies that were

often used by the authorities in dealing with strikes. Strikebreakers were commonly employed to

undercut union power , and hired muscle such as the “Pinkerton Detectives” [63], often physically

assaulted workers. The closeness of many top businessmen to politicians meant that the police and

even the state militia were sometimes used to end industrial disputes in the owner's favour.

The 1892 Homestead Strike [64], organised by The Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel

Workers [65] in which 16 people were killed is a good example of not only the violence used but

the political and legal power of the big business opposed to the unions. Governor Patterson of

Pennsylvania, who had been backed in his election by Andrew Carnegie, owner of the Homestead

Steelworks, used 4000 State Militia men to break the strike, after 300 Pinkerton detectives had

failed. Disregard for the law was especially prevalent when the authorities or the media connected

more extreme left wing, “Un-American” groups like anarchists and communists with strikers, such

as with the Seattle General Strike of 1919 [66].

Another example of the corruption in America at this time is that of Franklin B Gowen (1836-1889)

, president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad [67], and "the wealthiest anthracite coal mine

owner in the world”. Gowen believed that a secretive group of Irish immigrant miners, called the

“Molly Maguires” had infiltrated his company and were involved in criminal activity against their

employers [68]. He hired a private detective, James McParland(1843-1919) from the Pinkerton

Detective Agency to work undercover as a miner and infiltrate the Molly Maguires. In the

subsequent trial, Gowen himself was the chief prosecutor, with McParland as the main, and

sometimes only, witness. 10 miners were sentenced to death and executed, and this episode was

later described by Carbon County Judge John P Lavelle as "a surrender of state sovereignty. A

private corporation initiated the investigation through a private detective agency. A private police

force arrested the alleged defenders, and private attorneys for the coal companies prosecuted them.

The state provided only the courtroom and the gallows”.

During this period there was a successful radical element in American political culture – but this

came in the form of populism and progressivism, movements which incorporated similar ideas as

socialism but were reformist, as opposed to revolutionary, in nature. The electoral college system of

presidential candidate selection and the first-past-the-post election of state representatives has

resulted in a 2 party system [69] which limits the power of smaller which can be seen as a wasted

vote. In the 1912 Presidential election in which Eugene Debs achieved 6% of the vote, the

Progressive Party(1912) candidate Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) gained 27% and the

Democrat Party nominee Woodrow Wilson(1856-1924), running on a progressive ticket, was

elected the 29th President of the United States with 41.8% of the vote[70]. The 8 hour day in heavy

industry, maximum 10hour day for women and children and better pay and conditions were socialist

goals achieved more through reconciliation and political pressure from progressive groups as

opposed to militant strike action from socialist unions. Crucially, progressive movements were able

to encompass a broad range of support from different groups, for example the Sherman Anti-Trust

Act (1890)[71] was supported both by the AF of L and the Farmers Alliance [72]. The National

Child Labour committee (1904) and the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906), as well as compensation

for industrial accidents being (partly) introduced from 1908 were progressive initiatives that

undercut socialist ideals – if capitalist economic growth could be regulated enough to allow all

members of society to benefit, why risk socialism with all its possible downfalls. Andrew Carnegie

(1835-1919) put it as “better this great irregularity than universal squalor” [73]

In conclusion, socialism failed to prosper in the USA between 1865-1919 through a combination of

three major factors. Firstly, the ethnic, racial and religious diversity of the American workforce

prohibited a single class consciousness. Secondly, the opportunities and rewards available in

America under a capitalist system were too strong for socialist rhetoric to overcome. Lastly, the

Progressive movement encompassed many of the reformist ideas of socialism but without the rigid,

all encompassing ideology or the 'un-American' revolutionary sentiment, making progressive

groups more attractive to voters, many of whom would otherwise have been potential socialist

supporters.

References

[1]

[2]

[3] http://herrnaphta.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/socialism-and-historical-inevitability/

[4] Dubofsky, M and Dulles, F R. Labor in America: A History (2004) p82

[5]

[6]

[7] ?

[8] Haslett, John H M (1984). Failure of a Dream?: Essays in the History of American Socialism.

[9] Lipsett, S M (1976). It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States. : W M

Norton and Company

[10] http://www.slp.org/facts.htm

[11] http://www.slp.org/history.htm

[12] Hillquit, M History of Socialism in the United States. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1903;

p 223

[13] Shannon, D The Socialist Party of America: A History. (1955)

[14]

[15] http://debsfoundation.org/

[16]

[17] Madsen, Deborah L. (1998). American Exceptionalism. University Press of Mississippi

[18]

[19] http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/history.htm

[20] Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "". (11th ed.).

Cambridge University Press

[21] Armstrong, William M. (1957). E.L. Godkin and American Foreign Policy, 1865-1900. New

York: Bookman

[22] http://www.crmvet.org/info/votehist.htm

[23]

[24] Alan Dawley (1976). Class and Community: The Industrial Revolution in Lynn.

[25]

[26] Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987) p 242.

[27] Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987) p 243.

[28] U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States (1976) series D726 and D736 pp 164-5

[29] http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Homestead.html

[30] http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/socphil/socphillectures/J.Marx2.pdf

[31] http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/index.htm

[32] Sombart, W, Why is there no socialism in the United States? (1906)

[33] Barrett, James R. Americanization from the Bottom, Up: Immigration and the Remaking of the American Working Class, 1880–1930 , Journal of American History 79

[34]

[35] Melton, G J , The Encyclopedia of American Religions

[36] Fishwick, Marshall W. Great Awakenings: Popular Religion and Popular Culture (1995)

[37]

[38] Batten, S Z (1911). The social task of Christianity: a summons to the new crusade

[39] http://www.wctu.org/

[40] Selig Perlman, A History of Trade Unionism In The United States, Forgotten Books, 1923/2011, pages 114-116

[41]

[42]

[43] Powderly, Terence Vincent (1889). . Excelsior publishing house

[44]

[45] Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States: Volume 2: From the Founding of the AFL to the Emergence of American Imperialism. New York: International Publishers, 1955; pp. 132-133

[46] Voss, Kim. The Making of American Exceptionalism: The Knights of Labor and Class Formation in the Nineteenth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994. Sociological study.

[47] Foner, P History of the Labor Movement in the United States. Vol. 1: From Colonial Times to the Founding of the American Federation of Labor. New York: International Publishers, 1947

[48]

[49] http://www.iww.org/

[50] Foner, P History of the Labor Movement in the United States: Volume 2, pg. 160.

[51] Mandel, B (1954). Gompers and Business Unionism, 1873-90. The Business History Review vol. 28.

[52]

[53]

[54] http://www.themorgan.org/home.asp

[55] http://www.steelonthenet.com/kb/history-us-steel.html

[56]

[57] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/verticalintegration.asp

[58] http://www.bls.gov/

[59] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm

[60]

[61]

[62] Rosenberg, New Orleans Dockworkers: Race, Labor, and Unionism, 1892-1923, 1988.

[63] http://www.securitas.com/pinkerton/en/About-Pinkerton/The-Pinkerton-Detective-Agency-Our-History/

[64]

[65]

[66] http://www.prole.info/texts/seattle1919.html

[67] Schlegel, Marvin Wilson, Ruler of the Reading: The Life of Franklin B. Gowen, Harrisburg: Archives Publishing Company of Pennsylvania

[68] http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/paw/paw-history.htm

[69]

[70] http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/elections/election1912.html

[71]

[72] Lawrence Goodwin. The Populist Moment: A Short History of Agrarian Revolt in America. Oxford University Press, 1978

[73] Carnegie, Andrew (1889). The Gospel of Wealth.