Why did not socialism take off in the United States?

[Zor]

This is not mudslinging, but trying to understand the Historic and Sociological reasons why the US is the way it is in regards to socialism.

One big thing about the United States is, that compared to the rest of the world, it's people tend to put more cultural Emphasis on the Individual than on society as a whole than other nations. Today, most developed democratic nations (Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the UK and Canada to name a few) have more social programs such as universal healthcare and more developed social programs, providing services to their populations. The question is this, why did not the United States go down the same road in terms of social development?

Zor

[Dominus Atheos]

This is not mudslinging, but trying to understand the Historic and Sociological reasons why the US is the way it is in regards to socialism.

One big thing about the United States is, that compared to the rest of the world, it's people tend to put more cultural Emphasis on the Individual than on society as a whole than other nations. Today, most developed democratic nations (Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the UK and Canada to name a few) have more social programs such as universal healthcare and more developed social programs, providing services to their populations. The question is this, why did not the United States go down the same road in terms of social development?

Zor

Do you want the long version, or the short version? The short version is that there are a lot of stupid people in the United States ready to be lead like sheep, and a lot of rich people eager to lead them like sheep, and ensure that they don't lose their money.

The long version explains why the US has more stupid people then the rest of the developed world, and more rich people.

[Battlehymn Republic]

The U.S. has always had a strong strain of individualist, anti-governmental sentiment that dates before Jeffersonian days. The Federalist debates and all that. Planter gentry in the South and free-minded settlers in the West. Even the great reformers- TR, FDR, LBJ, and so on, were all about reforming the system to save it from socialism, than bringing about socialism. The U.S. has always had its suspicions about the European-styled welfare state even before the 1900s.

[Srynerson]

This doesn't immediately answer your question, but if you are interested in a book-length analysis of the subject check out It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States by Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Wolfe Marks (W. W. Norton & Company 2001).

[Gigaliel]

This is not mudslinging, but trying to understand the Historic and Sociological reasons why the US is the way it is in regards to socialism.

One big thing about the United States is, that compared to the rest of the world, it's people tend to put more cultural Emphasis on the Individual than on society as a whole than other nations. Today, most developed democratic nations (Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the UK and Canada to name a few) have more social programs such as universal healthcare and more developed social programs, providing services to their populations. The question is this, why did not the United States go down the same road in terms of social development?

Zor

Have you ever read up on the first Red Scare where prominent socialist leaders were imprisoned for saying bad things about the government during war time (1917 was it?). Blasted Russian revolution and all that. The socialists were quite gutted by arrests allow by Woodrow Wilson's Sedition(?) Acts. Fun times.

Then there was that Cold War thing where we the enemy called itself and its allies socialist over and over again so the propaganda factor there doesn't help matters. Yes I am aware that Western Europe did the same thing minus dictatorship, hush.

I'd also point out the rural versus urban factor as the U.S.A has one of the lowest overall population densities? For some strange reason when people spread out into tiny communities they tend to be drawn to rightwing politics for some odd sociological reasons.

Honestly, liberalism in general has either had to coddle with big business or religion to get any of its agenda (civil rights(Lincoln) or economic reform(FDR)).

Trying to use labor syndicates worked for a while during those crazy 60/70s years (Democratic congress), but I believe funding has been falling from those sources compared to business? Not sure on that one.

Although I believe it has been stated that FDR was pretty much a socialist in everything but name. Later Democrats would have to deal with infighting between the 'socialists'/liberals vs 'blue dog'/populist wings when they didn't have the Japanese to rally behind. That's why their hands (see: LBJ) were probably tied.

[Darth Wong]

The mythology of American individualism seems more like advertising than reality. Just look at how eagerly they rush to regulate personal activity; Americans put up with more regulation of their private sex lives than most first-world citizens; how can this be reconciled with the "individualist" meme?

I'd say that Americans are just as enamoured of the idea of being "part of something greater" as anyone else, and possibly more so. It's just that for Americans, this "greater" entity has to be a religious or militarist idea rather than a social one.

[K. A. Pital]

I'd also point out the rural versus urban factor as the U.S.A has one of the lowest overall population densities? For some strange reason when people spread out into tiny communities they tend to be drawn to rightwing politics for some odd sociological reasons.

Interesting fact. It would be illuminating if there were a study which shows the correlation between the density and the voting habits/political agenda.

[Darth Wong]

I'd also point out the rural versus urban factor as the U.S.A has one of the lowest overall population densities? For some strange reason when people spread out into tiny communities they tend to be drawn to rightwing politics for some odd sociological reasons.

Interesting fact. It would be illuminating if there were a study which shows the correlation between the density and the voting habits/political agenda.

That falls apart when you look at Canada, which has a much lower population density than the US and is still more liberal.

[K. A. Pital]

That falls apart when you look at Canada, which has a much lower population density than the US and is still more liberal.

This means it's a cultural and education thing. Countless years of anti-socialist propaganda in America have done everything to make the idea completely alien to the common man. I mean, America even devised it's own Labour Day just so that the May 1 events which led to the 8 hour day never get commemorated (they still did all over the world - but not in America...)

[Dominus Atheos]

I'd also point out the rural versus urban factor as the U.S.A has one of the lowest overall population densities? For some strange reason when people spread out into tiny communities they tend to be drawn to rightwing politics for some odd sociological reasons.

Interesting fact. It would be illuminating if there were a study which shows the correlation between the density and the voting habits/political agenda.

That was was my long explanation.





With the exceptions of Florida, Ohio, and Oregon, it matches up almost perfectly. Florida and Ohio are both swing states, and Oregon has 2/3rds of it's population in one city/metro.

[Beowulf]

That falls apart when you look at Canada, which has a much lower population density than the US and is still more liberal.

This means it's a cultural and education thing. Countless years of anti-socialist propaganda in America have done everything to make the idea completely alien to the common man. I mean, America even devised it's own Labour Day just so that the May 1 events which led to the 8 hour day never get commemorated (they still did all over the world - but not in America...)

That's a great theory. Too bad the first Labor Day observance in the US came before May Day started being celebrated (1882 vs 1887). Here's your sign.

[Dominus Atheos]

I'd also point out the rural versus urban factor as the U.S.A has one of the lowest overall population densities? For some strange reason when people spread out into tiny communities they tend to be drawn to rightwing politics for some odd sociological reasons.

Interesting fact. It would be illuminating if there were a study which shows the correlation between the density and the voting habits/political agenda.

That falls apart when you look at Canada, which has a much lower population density than the US and is still more liberal.

Yes, but Canada has it's population much more tightly packed. It's largest provinces are Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, collectively holding almost 2/3rds of it's population, and the largest cities/metros (Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, respectfully) of each province all holding one half of that provinces population.

[K. A. Pital]

Too bad the first Labor Day observance in the US came before May Day started being celebrated (1882 vs 1887).

Wikipedia might be wrong, but i thought this is common knowledge that:

The Knights of Labor organized the original parade on Tuesday, September 5, 1882 in New York City. In 1884 another parade was held, and the Knights passed resolutions to make this an annual event. Other labor organizations (and there were many), but notably the affiliates of the International Workingmen's Association, many of whom were socialists or anarchists, favored a May 1 holiday. In 1886 came the general strike which eventually won the eight-hour workday in the United States. These events are today commemorated as Labor Day in virtually every country in the world, with the notable exceptions being the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. With the Chicago Haymarket riots in early May of 1886, President Grover Cleveland believed that commemorating Labor Day on May 1 could become an opportunity to commemorate the riots. Thus, fearing that it might strengthen the socialist movement, he quickly moved in 1887 to support the position of the Knights of Labor and their date for Labor Day.

[Beowulf]

Too bad the first Labor Day observance in the US came before May Day started being celebrated (1882 vs 1887).

Wikipedia might be wrong, but i thought this is common knowledge that:

The Knights of Labor organized the original parade on Tuesday, September 5, 1882 in New York City. In 1884 another parade was held, and the Knights passed resolutions to make this an annual event. Other labor organizations (and there were many), but notably the affiliates of the International Workingmen's Association, many of whom were socialists or anarchists, favored a May 1 holiday. In 1886 came the general strike which eventually won the eight-hour workday in the United States. These events are today commemorated as Labor Day in virtually every country in the world, with the notable exceptions being the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. With the Chicago Haymarket riots in early May of 1886, President Grover Cleveland believed that commemorating Labor Day on May 1 could become an opportunity to commemorate the riots. Thus, fearing that it might strengthen the socialist movement, he quickly moved in 1887 to support the position of the Knights of Labor and their date for Labor Day.

Beginning of September. Changed to Monday to make it part of the weekend. Still, it was observed (sort of) first.

[Zor]

Interesting fact. It would be illuminating if there were a study which shows the correlation between the density and the voting habits/political agenda.

That falls apart when you look at Canada, which has a much lower population density than the US and is still more liberal.

Yes, but Canada has it's population much more tightly packed. It's largest provinces are Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, collectively holding almost 2/3rds of it's population, and the largest cities/metros (Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, respectfully) of each province all holding one half of that provinces population.

Still, one thing that one has to remember is Mantoba, which despite being a low population province (about a million people in an area larger than California) is very strongly left wing, either going to the NDP or the Liberals quite reliably.

Zor

[Dominus Atheos]

Yes, but Canada has it's population much more tightly packed. It's largest provinces are Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, collectively holding almost 2/3rds of it's population, and the largest cities/metros (Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, respectfully) of each province all holding one half of that provinces population.

Still, one thing that one has to remember is Mantoba, which despite being a low population province (about a million people in an area larger than California) is very strongly left wing, either going to the NDP or the Liberals quite reliably.

Zor

Manitoba, pop. 1,182,921. Largest city: Winnipeg, Population: 633,451

Still one half.

[Dominus Atheos]

Fuck, hit submit instead of preview

What I meant to add was that Right vs Left leaning really can be boiled down pretty nicely to population density, though there are of course other factors.

[Skylon]

The mythology of American individualism seems more like advertising than reality. Just look at how eagerly they rush to regulate personal activity; Americans put up with more regulation of their private sex lives than most first-world citizens; how can this be reconciled with the "individualist" meme?

Mostly because the 18th/19th century idea of American individualism assumes people with pretty common values (ie: Protestant Christian, Catholics at this point would be accepted in this mold).

And America's had a long enough history of substantial portions of it's people going into panic mode whenever someone new comes in who doesn't conform/fit into that ideal. It's an ideal of individualism so long as everyone holds the same core values, and the government doesn't take your property and keeps the mail running (though lately...)

Again, this is an ideal. I'd never attribute it to reality at any point, but its a strong one that has been hijacked by corporate interests to keep their asses in power.

I've yet to feel any regulation of my private sex life honestly, but, I live in New York which is about as far from the mainstream pulse of America as you can get. I know my girlfriend can get an abortion if she so chose and we have access to contraceptives. As far as gay couples, that's another story...

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but Canada has it's population much more tightly packed. It's largest provinces are Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, collectively holding almost 2/3rds of it's population, and the largest cities/metros (Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, respectfully) of each province all holding one half of that provinces population.

Still, one thing that one has to remember is Mantoba, which despite being a low population province (about a million people in an area larger than California) is very strongly left wing, either going to the NDP or the Liberals quite reliably.

Zor

Manitoba, pop. 1,182,921. Largest city: Winnipeg, Population: 633,451

Still one half.

So? Alberta has more than 2 million of its 3.3 million population in two cities: Calgary and Edmonton. It's also Canada's most right-wing province.

[Patrick Degan]

The Progressive Party presented a very serious danger of displacing the Republican and Democratic parties in the late 19th and early 20th century period. There were very strong socialist and progressive strains in American society in that period thanks to the excesses of the Gilded Age. Woodrow Wilson snuffed that out by ramping up the war hysteria against Germany and used many of the emergency measures passed by Congress —especially the Sedition and Espionage Acts— to initiate a wave of repression Bush and his puppeteers can only dream about bringing to America. The Red Scare of the 1920s is directly a result of Wilson's enforced patriotism against the American people. Socialist newspapers and publications were simply seized outright by the Postmaster General, and the IWW labour union was smashed.

When the Depression hit, however, the GOP and the plutocrats were discredited thoroughly. But FDR and his New Deal programme faced it's biggest challenge from Huey Long and his socialist Share Our Wealth movement, which actually posed a very significant threat to Roosevelt's chances of reelection and his party's control of Congress. But Long had made SOW a cult of personality and when he got gunned down by his own incompetent bodyguards trying to shoot would-be assassin Carl Weiss, the movement lasted only a little longer than he did. The New Deal started to kick in, then World War II occurred and everything changed. It was after the war that paranoia about the Soviet Union was used to discredit what was left of the socialist movement in the United States. However, for as long as the threat of Communism remained, it was in the interests of the power structure in this country to keep its bargain with the American people forged by FDR and Truman to prevent Communism and socialism from becoming attractive ideologies.

For the most part, it worked and the deal was kept for a long time. But it also effectively nullified and marginalised the left, and periodic mini-witchunts against "radicals" (especially McCarthyism in the 50s) pushed them further and further to the fringe in American politics.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Progressive Party presented a very serious danger of displacing the Republican and Democratic parties in the late 19th and early 20th century period. There were very strong socialist and progressive strains in American society in that period thanks to the excesses of the Gilded Age. Woodrow Wilson snuffed that out by ramping up the war hysteria against Germany and used many of the emergency measures passed by Congress —especially the Sedition and Espionage Acts— to initiate a wave of repression Bush and his puppeteers can only dream about bringing to America. The Red Scare of the 1920s is directly a result of Wilson's enforced patriotism against the American people. Socialist newspapers and publications were simply seized outright by the Postmaster General, and the IWW labour union was smashed.

When the Depression hit, however, the GOP and the plutocrats were discredited thoroughly. But FDR and his New Deal programme faced it's biggest challenge from Huey Long and his socialist Share Our Wealth movement, which actually posed a very significant threat to Roosevelt's chances of reelection and his party's control of Congress. But Long had made SOW a cult of personality and when he got gunned down by his own incompetent bodyguards trying to shoot would-be assassin Carl Weiss, the movement lasted only a little longer than he did. The New Deal started to kick in, then World War II occurred and everything changed. It was after the war that paranoia about the Soviet Union was used to discredit what was left of the socialist movement in the United States. However, for as long as the threat of Communism remained, it was in the interests of the power structure in this country to keep its bargain with the American people forged by FDR and Truman to prevent Communism and socialism from becoming attractive ideologies.

For the most part, it worked and the deal was kept for a long time. But it also effectively nullified and marginalised the left, and periodic mini-witchunts against "radicals" (especially McCarthyism in the 50s) pushed them further and further to the fringe in American politics.

This sounds almost like something that happens in S. America from time to time or maybe even in China right now.

[Battlehymn Republic]

What are you talking about the Progressive Party was but one player during a rise of progressive thought- hence, the name Progressive Era. In actuality, the Party was a one trick pony- it only did so well because a very popular former president was its candidate, and even though TR did better than most third party runners can even dream of, in the 1912 elections they won relatively few state and local offices- Debs' Socialist Party did better.

And Teddy, like Wilson who followed him, were in actuality very anti-socialist, despite the progressivism. They were men and movements who wanted to capture the progressive spirit to reform society, protect capitalism, and prevent what they thought of as socialist unrest from taking hold of the populace. And Wilson snuffing out the progressive strains? Hardly. It was under his administration that the Federal Income Tax amendment was passed. He also pushed for pro-union and antitrust bills, as well. In fact, except in perhaps racial relations, Wilson was about as progressive as they came in the U.S. at the time.

American progressivism at that time, and it can be argued FDR's New Deal, were all about co-opting socialism. It was about preserving the general structure of the system, while implementing social policies that kept the people happy. But outright socialism? That was relegated to third parties and movements away from the mainstream.

[Guardsman Bass]

He beat me to it; I was going to point out that a lot of the recent strong anti-socialism sentiment ("recent" being in the last century) was because the United States ended up on the other side of the ideological divide from Communism, and decided to define themselves as such. Hell, I've actually had a person call me a "Communist" when I got into an argument with them over welfare.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not an expert on American history, so all I can speak to is recent times, and it seems to me that Americans have built up a certain self-image (whether it is accurate or not) that is partially defined by their history of opposition to socialism.

In other words, their self-image is threatened by any concession to socialism, because they've built up this image in their minds of themselves as enemies of socialism. It's a self-sustaining phenomenon, whose ludicrous nature only becomes truly obvious when you realize that it basically boils down to "we're against socialism because we're against socialism".

[Starglider]

It's a self-sustaining phenomenon, whose ludicrous nature only becomes truly obvious when you realize that it basically boils down to "we're against socialism because we're against socialism".

So the solution is to rebrand socialism as something that sounds superficially different but is actually the same?