A Historian Considers American Socialism

A frequent contributor to History News Network, Dr. Bornet (Ph.D., Stanford, 1951) offers our readers a short distillation of his foundation funded research on Socialism—which was part of work on American Marxism, trade unions, and political parties. He speculates that the timing may be appropriate. When researching his doctoral project he used Norman Thomas and Socialist Party papers. 




As the 2016 Presidential election moves along through the coming conventions to Election Day itself, interest in “Socialism” has grown in our society somewhat in proportion to the apparent successes in the primaries of Bernie Sanders of Vermont, second term U.S. senator and 16 years a Socialist claiming congressman. Sanders is not the first Socialist to run for a major office in our country, not even the first to run for President. The name of Eugene V. Debs is well known as a Socialist who was fiery and got jailed in World War I—all long ago. His successors carry far less baggage and are more relevant for us. A serious campaign for President was mounted by Socialists and Communists alike in 1928, and Socialism was promoted through the New Deal years and beyond.

The hero of the movement, back then, was for years the educated and articulate Norman Thomas. Socialists campaigned seriously for mayorial offices in Milwaukee, Wis., Reading, Pa., and New York City—even governor of California (in 1934). The Socialist newspaper The New Leader (1924-2006) was a literate spokesman for the cause. We want to know what being a Socialist means. Bernie Sanders seems virtually mute on Socialism these days as he asks Democrats to help him get the nation’s top office. We should know more than we do about his professed ideology. In instinctive reaction, we won’t join those who say look to Sweden, Denmark or the British Labour Party. Analogy with us is troublesome. These countries are very unlike our giant and powerful United States with its Wall Street, its oil, that giant highway system, farms that are incorporated, and money that is the standard for the world.

We also have a giant Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Ours is, after all, a land 3,000 miles “coast to coast,” a giant place of mountains, valleys, lakes, deserts, coasts, cities, and a remarkable diversity of people. The 50 states have governments; so do those more than 3,000 counties and all those cities. Advocating real Socialism for America must be thought thorugh carefully. Oddly, the place to begin on what this country’s Socialists profess is with what they decided long ago to reject. They reject Lenin and Stalin and, on doctrine, Trotsky. Socialists totally reject membership in the Third International that emerged after World War I. And how did that happen?

Initially, Socialists wished the Soviet Union well, while watchfully waiting. When the Third International arrived after World War I, and it arrogantly tried to unify worldwide the wild and wooly revolutionary doctrine being spread from Moscow, American Socialists stepped back. Any leader could soon see that here was ruthless conspiracy, with a reliance on money and spies. In August,1920 the Second Congress of the Third International met in Moscow and drafted the uncompromisingly defiant “Twenty-one Demands”that would forever separate Socialists from Communists everywhere. (That many intellectuals seem never to have heard of the ultimatum just reflects on them. It could not be more important in the long history of planetary radicalism.)

The chief objective of the Demands (I once wrote) was “to isolate the Communists of the world from their previous mooring and develop purity of doctrine and practice within the party ranks.” Moreover, the document would make clear “who would be party members, what leaders might do, and how both might do it.” Harsh or not, it was reprinted at once in the N. Y. Times, Christian Science Monitor, and Current History; it was not secret. Stressed within its belligerent pages was the idea of unquestioning obedience, with the goal uniformity among international Communists. The Monitor thought it uncompromising.

The future Socialists of the world, including America, could see at once that compliance with any future demands of the Third International was going to be the sine qua non of Communist membership. Nor did those who drafted it expect compromise or surrender from Socialists. Reliability as to doctrine would be the watchword; groveling to the U.S.S.R appropriate. “Really revolutionary propaganda and agitation” was expected in the coming era of “intensified civil war.” Any who rejected the Conditions was to be expelled at once from the Third International. The word “Party” used by Communists had nothing in common with its use in common political activities in the West. The list of Demands was silent on elections, nominees for office, conventions and campaign speeches, and voting. The goal, it made abundantly clear, was “the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.” And, there was to be no confidence in “bourgeois laws.” Much was said about the need for infiltration and control of trade unions.

It is vital to say again at this point that the Socialist Party of the United States “rejected membership in the new International reluctantly but nonetheless decisively.” The Soviet Union, in theory, was to be considered a noble experiment to be wished well (more or less), but the means that had brought it into being were to be totally rejected here at home. Before long (1923) Lenin himself seized an opportunity to uphold the Demands (during the Third Congress), just ignoring vigorous protests from delegates from Italy, Germany, and other nations who said that doing that was certain to inhibit growth of their new parties. The Communist Party that emerged in America in the years after 1920 “came and went” in name from time to time, following opportunism and expediency. Many know of its going underground in World War II as the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. jointly fought Hitler, for example. Less known is its vote much earlier, on April 7, 1923, to dissolve.

For several years it had a new “front” organization called the Workers Party of America, a name it used in the election of 1924. Meanwhile, by the end of the decade there had been organized a Pittsburgh based Socialist Labor Party and a Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party. It is the Socialist Party of Norman Thomas and its doctrines over the years that have undoubtedly been absorbed and espoused by Bernie Sanders. He has several years to go as the Socialist United States Senator from Vermont. The election of 2016 has made him famous as a Socialist stereotype. Yet other leaders of that party should be at least mentioned. Four are Morris Hillquit of New York City, James H. Maurer of Reading, Pennsylvania, and Daniel W. Hoan and Victor Berger of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Two ran for mayor of their cities and won, and served in office. Hillquit and Norman Thomas before him had little chance of carrying New York, but they tried anyway. This writer had Hillquit’s personal papers broken out of a wooden box for their first use in the Wisconsin State Historical Society in spring, 1952 and found them pleasant going. (Since the Party sold its papers to Duke University; I used them there.)
Victor Berger of Milwaukee served in Congress four terms, taking the floor 29 times, introducing both bills and resolutions. One of his wisecracks was: “The average man does not know the difference between socialism, anarchism, nihilism, communism, and rheumatism. They are all fearful and wicked ‘isms’ to him.”

Anyone who seeks strong, unequivocal, public statements from Socialists about their “fundamental beliefs” may be a bit disappointed. Blending in to run as a Democrat requires careful tact. Socialist author Upton Sinclair, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in California, once gave campaigning a shot. The Socialist goal, said he, was the gradual transformation of natural wealth resources and basic industries to public ownership. A “socialist state,” of course, is bound to be the goal. The best vehicle for getting there is, it is hoped, is with the help of the trade union movement—or at least it might be if “the despoilers” (a dated categorization) can be thwarted. Considering the handsome and constructive leader for decades, Norman Thomas (of Princeton and Union seminary), a worker for welfare groups, and supporter of many a worthy voluntary organization, one finds his “socialism” (though ardent) carefully proclaimed. Its nature was usually buried under prose devoted to his generally praiseworthy life as an American, urbane man of affairs. (As a boy he delivered to neighbors the newspaper published by future President Warren Harding. As an adult, even William F. Buckley respected him.)

Often, Thomas did try to tell repeatedly why he was a socialist. He said he favored freedom and justice for the individual, a free press and free speech. Achieving these things, and socialism too, would have to come through the ballot. That totally ruled out Communism. His idealistic vision was for a world wherein a fellowship of free men might live in peace. As for him, he publicly and consistently opposed the involvement of the United States in World Wars I and II and Vietnam as well. Well, good. But it is capitalism that is the major enemy. Another is ownership of property in private hands. Reading Socialist speeches and documents of yesteryear, it can be hard to find declarations that, though pertinent and practical, are very offensive to a welfare capitalist property holder in America. Using diplomatic speech when pushing their doctrine seems somehow de rigueur.

Just how do we convert to Socialism? Officially, this should be spelled out to be the exact way: The Constitution is to be modified in a convention with one omnibus major goal: the nationalization of coal mines, water sites, industrial power systems, railroads … and communications “to recover the rightful heritage of the people.” Continuing: All sorts of activities are to be shifted to operation by government (as has been tried and partly achieved in the New Deal and LBJ years). It is tempting to say that all the reforms one ever heard of were sought in the late 1920s Socialist platforms and key speeches. The preferred tone is normally proposals—not demands.

Reading masses of Socialist literature of the 1920s and 1930s, it is hard for those familiar with the New Deal and the Democratic Party speeches of later years to avoid the conclusion that the political figures of the Socialist Party “urged all that” years earlier. The words of Norman Thomas, as a public figure on display in the late 1920s, read in retrospect as one quite prescient. The subjects he discussed do sound like predictions of things to be debated and enacted.

Today’s reader does come to realize—if at all alert—that this group of Marxists is preparing hopefully to convert resources and industries to government control and ownership, and that incalculably large units of private property with stockholders are somehow to have their ownership transferred from where it is to, well, everybody probably except its owners. That is to be done somehow or other.
There can be pride in being a Socialist. The New Leader, the party organ, editorialized once about a recent Convention: it had been enough “to make you hold up your head and stick out your chest and be all-fired proud of the fact that you are a Socialist.”

One thing that intellectuals should bear in mind about Socialist lingo. They speak of “workers of the mind” and “workers of the hand.” A special target has long been, they admit, teachers, ministers, artists, and writers; that is, articulate leaders among us. Success has been considerable.
Names of famous persons show up in lists of authors speaking kindly of Socialism. The writings of allegedly Socialist editors, columnists, and others who write to persuade are full of cheerful acceptance. I am reluctant to offer names, for maybe they weren’t Socialist. Many by reputation are considered merely “reformers.” Finally, I don’t even know when or if they quit being party members—if they ever were. The truth is that a vast array of smart persons with solid educations have “flirted” with Socialist preaching.

Socialists in earlier decades did sometimes have to endure caustic critics. Said Arthur Garfield Hays, author of Let Freedom Ring of Socialists then: “Your socialism has become a religion. You have a pattern. Economics must fit into that pattern. You have a philosophy. You have a dogma. … You forget that any system of society is a means, not an end.” (New Leader, Nov. 3, 1928.)
Some years ago when coming to the end of a considerable written discussion of Socialism, I ventured to summarize—in conclusion—the nature of Socialist politicians in action, leaders who spent vast amounts of time enthusiastically making appeals to American citizens. My conclusion was that Socialists displayed “a naïve but enthusiastic mixture of the realistic and the unrealistic; the idealistic and the opportunistic; the enduring—and the ephemeral.”

Marxist leaders “dreamed dreams of perfectionism and thought they could see just over the horizon a better land and a better world.”

In the mid 1960s this non-Socialist summed up the thinking of true believers:
“The Socialist Party was a threat to private ownership of property, to the continuing existence of a balanced two-party system, and to the continuation of a society more interested in opportunity than class consciousness. It did not, on fundamentals, deserve the support of the American electorate.” Moreover,

“No amount of admiration which some may want to give to individuals, reformist program, or occasional idealism of individual expression should wave aside these plain and altogether vital facts.”
At the same time I ventured to summarize my convictions on the value of the overall American electoral system: “The election,” I observed, “had been a political contest—not a battle, struggle, or ideological war.” *

*Quoted from Vaughn Davis Bornet, Labor Politics in a Democratic Republic (Wash., D.C., Spartan Press, 1964), pp. 320, 322. A detailed analysis and summary of the Demands appears on pages 268-281 of my lengthy microfilmed doctoral thesis, Labor and Politics in 1928 (Stanford University, 1951, 520 pages). Domestic Communism in the U.S. is summarized from that work in Bornet, “The Communist Party in the Presidential Election of 1928,” Western Political Quarterly, XI, no. 3 (Sept., 1958), pp. 514-538.

- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162566#sthash.9AQ7WNfh.dpuf

Such nonsense! Sanders has unequivocally described himself as a Scandinavian-style social democrat. If you want to know what agenda he'd pursue for the U.S., look to Sweden.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Such nonsense! Sanders has unequivocally described himself as a Scandinavian-style social democrat. If you want to know what agenda he'd pursue for the U.S., look to Sweden.

Grow the fuck up will you.

Its not nonsense and how about taking on the points

What is it with you yanks, that you continually spout gibberish?

Sanders' name is mentioned five times in the OP yet I'm not taking on the points?

Bernie Sanders seems virtually mute on Socialism these days as he asks Democrats to help him get the nation’s top office. We should know more than we do about his professed ideology.

And yet I'm not taking on the points?

Sanders' own words: “I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden, and Norway and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.”

Why is that somehow not good enough?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sanders' name is mentioned five times in the OP yet I'm not taking on the points?

Bernie Sanders seems virtually mute on Socialism these days as he asks Democrats to help him get the nation’s top office. We should know more than we do about his professed ideology.

And yet I'm not taking on the points?

Sanders' own words: “I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden, and Norway and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.”

Why is that somehow not good enough?

Is that all the article said?

For fuck sake, grow the fuck up?

didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sanders' name is mentioned five times in the OP yet I'm not taking on the points?

Bernie Sanders seems virtually mute on Socialism these days as he asks Democrats to help him get the nation’s top office. We should know more than we do about his professed ideology.

And yet I'm not taking on the points?

Sanders' own words: “I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden, and Norway and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.”

Why is that somehow not good enough?

Is that all the article said?

For fuck sake, grow the fuck up?

No, the article said, "Don't believe what Sanders says about his vision for America. Instead, trust my drawn-out timeline of socialism in the U.S., much of which is completely outdated or irrelevant, to tell you what Sanders really believes in."

More parroting of far-right, pro-corporate hacks from Didge, the Tory who wants us to believe he's "progressive"

Ben_Reilly wrote:

didge wrote:


Is that all the article said?

For fuck sake, grow the fuck up?

No, the article said, "Don't believe what Sanders says about his vision for America. Instead, trust my drawn-out timeline of socialism in the U.S., much of which is completely outdated or irrelevant, to tell you what Sanders really believes in."

More parroting of far-right, pro-corporate hacks from Didge, the Tory who wants us to believe he's "progressive"

This is about history, or had you not realised that

So you now claim the author is far right?



based on what evidence?

This should be fun

Didge, all you need to know this is a far-right author is a few phrases -- one, that socialists try to blend in as Democrats (repeated for decades by Republicans) and the false charge that the socialist left in the U.S. seeks to nationalize scores of major industries.

Why can't he just ask Sanders or a spokesperson whether Sanders seeks to nationalize, say, the mining industry? No, other U.S. socialists might have had this agenda 70 years ago, so sure, Sanders must be for it as well.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Didge, all you need to know this is a far-right author is a few phrases -- one, that socialists try to blend in as Democrats (repeated for decades by Republicans) and the false charge that the socialist left in the U.S. seeks to nationalize scores of major industries.

Why can't he just ask Sanders or a spokesperson whether Sanders seeks to nationalize, say, the mining industry? No, other U.S. socialists might have had this agenda 70 years ago, so sure, Sanders must be for it as well.

Please show the evidence that proves he is far right?

Not any of your gibberish above

What far right views did he make above?

Zero
You really are the best of idiots at times Ben

There has never been a US socialist American President

Has that point not sunk in yet

didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Didge, all you need to know this is a far-right author is a few phrases -- one, that socialists try to blend in as Democrats (repeated for decades by Republicans) and the false charge that the socialist left in the U.S. seeks to nationalize scores of major industries.

Why can't he just ask Sanders or a spokesperson whether Sanders seeks to nationalize, say, the mining industry? No, other U.S. socialists might have had this agenda 70 years ago, so sure, Sanders must be for it as well.

Please show the evidence that proves he is far right?

Not any of your gibberish above

What far right views did he make above?

Zero
You really are the best of idiots at times Ben

There has never been a US socialist American President

Has that point not sunk in yet

If your entire debating style is going to continue to be calling people stupid for disagreeing with you, I've got better uses for my time. I value you disagreeing with me, Didge, but if you're not going to treat me with the respect I treat you with, then I'm done with you.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

didge wrote:


Please show the evidence that proves he is far right?

Not any of your gibberish above

What far right views did he make above?

Zero
You really are the best of idiots at times Ben

There has never been a US socialist American President

Has that point not sunk in yet

If your entire debating style is going to continue to be calling people stupid for disagreeing with you, I've got better uses for my time. I value you disagreeing with me, Didge, but if you're not going to treat me with the respect I treat you with, then I'm done with you.

Well when you make idiot claims to the historian being far right, then I am, not going to take you seriously
Remember that next time when you jump in making a tit of yourself

Well this thread went well.

Didge you were really quite rude on this thread - is that how you want debates to go.....
That you swear and call people idiots, and then they leave the debate?

It's you that needs to grow up. The way you spoke to Ben was shit.

eddie wrote:Didge you were really quite rude on this thread - is that how you want debates to go.....
That you swear and call people idiots,  and then they leave the debate?

It's you that needs to grow up. The way you spoke to Ben was shit.

WTF

Ben made idiotic claims to the historian being far right

First of all do you agree with that?

Second, please back that up

Third,. you are the last person to preach on attacking people as you do this daily because you are that warped and idiotic

He wasn't being rude to you.

You can't debate without being abusive - how many times do you need to be told this by everyone?

eddie wrote:He wasn't being rude to you.

You can't debate without being abusive - how many times do you need to be told this by everyone?

This coming from you is hilarious, as what are you doing now


Anything else shit stirrer?

eddie wrote:Didge you were really quite rude on this thread - is that how you want debates to go.....
That you swear and call people idiots,  and then they leave the debate?

It's you that needs to grow up. The way you spoke to Ben was shit.

Didge is feeling rejected of late...and not highly enough regarded for his his intellectual contributions. As compensation he lays into everyone, both to prove himself, and to punish someone else for his own lowered self-esteem.

It's not Ben's fault. Didge needs to get his own act together. Leave him alone and when he 'gets it' he'll come around. In the meantime, his c&p's are too long anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Didge you were really quite rude on this thread - is that how you want debates to go.....
That you swear and call people idiots,  and then they leave the debate?

It's you that needs to grow up. The way you spoke to Ben was shit.

Didge is feeling rejected of late...and not highly enough regarded for his his intellectual contributions.  As compensation he lays into everyone, both to prove himself, and to punish someone else for his own lowered self-esteem.

It's not Ben's fault.  Didge needs to get his own act together.  Leave him alone and when he 'gets it' he'll come around.  In the meantime, his c&p's are too long anyway.

Another woeful post attacking the poster and not making comments on the thread

Ben was being an immature dick by claiming the author was far right

In other words he only jumped in here to mock and take the piss

Again you act like this when as seen yesterday I give you a lesson in history

So if you want to bitch about me, that is fine, it just shows you cannot best me in debates, you are left to slagging off instead

Enjoy that if that is what pleases a very simple mind

NOBODY will have to worry about "nationalising" America's coal mining industry...

THEIR two biggest coal producers are currently in so much strife  --  shareholders seeing stock prices crashing through the floor, losing around two-thirds to three-quarters of their investments over the past year or two; and late last year both announcing that they will be laying-off around 60-70% of their worldwide workforces over the next couple of years..

GIVE them another year or two, and they will likely be begging the guvm'nt to bail them out, on the basis of supposedly being "essential" services. Remember GM, Chrysler, banks and finance companies screaming out for government handouts after the GFC..

(Typical Corporatist/Republican 'supply side' parasite economics - "Socialising debt while Privatising profit"..).

Yes.  And what is worse, socializing risk while guaranteeing profit.