In the latter half of the 19th century, man crossed the threshold into a realm he had been seeking for centuries. Ideas actually began to take a type of substance in the "real world". People without a common heritage or language were bound by the power of the intellect in a bond that could supersede race, religion, or the other obstacles that had for millenia torn rational men apart. Throughout the world one could find socialists, communists, anarchists, or philosophical romantics working with others of their group or even among groups. As in many things, the unforseen negative consequences of the ideological revolution in human life were horrific. Wars were fought with new technologies and with a level of committment that was unprecedented. For the first time, massive field armies could be filled with troops worked into an ideological fervor. For nearly five decades, the mightiest nations the world has ever seen faced off over a difference of ideology.
At the beginning of this era most of the intensity of this newfound power of ideas was directed in a hopeful manner. People organized themselves into societies for the discussion of ideas and political parties seeking to implement them. The largest of these to gain a foothold in the U.S. was the Socialist Party (SP). Over a century after this age of ideas began we are far less optimistic. We've seen what havoc can be wreaked upon this world by the power of an idea. Still, the third largest political party in the U.S. is a rigidly ideological party, the Libertarian Party (LP). It is these two parties and the Communist Party (CP), which formed as an SP splinter party, that I will be looking at.
Even though the libertarian and socialist movements' members would probably not admit to having much of anything in common, I have found many similarities in my research for this paper. I should say from the start that I am a libertarian. I was raised by a (self described) socialist, a professional labor union advocate. As my philosophies developed, I thought my views contrasted most of those that I was raised with. In spite of that fact, I am surprised to find the similarities in the histories of these movements. They faced similar obstacles, dilemmas, and tactics used against them. Their methods could not be further apart, yet they seem to me to have the same goal: a more equitable, just society reached through the application of a systematic set of ideas. This view is even expressed by those critical of the positions of both libertarians and socialists. It is not uncommon to hear conservative politicians speak of "dogmatic socialism"or "dogmatic leftists". In his critical look at libertarianism, Liberalism at Wits' End, Stephen L. Newman writes that
"Libertarianism attracts adherents from the left and right, from the establishment and the counterculture. It unites opposites-business people and hippies, pacifists and survivalists, male chauvenists and feminists-who can agree on their right to be left alone. Its intellectual appeal lies in its theoretical coherence and logical consistency. Equipped with a rigorous critique of state power, libertarians do not merely protest government policies; they question the fundamental legitimacy of government itself... ...libertarianism poses an ideological challenge. It comes at a time when most Americans are ideologically disarmed, angry at the status quo but lacking an alternative vision. The libertarian movement offers a dissatisfied a framework for utopia that many people find compelling. Though the libertarian alternative is gravely flawed, it deserves to be treated seriously, for its defects have implications that touch on the philosophical foundations of the American polity."1
As an advocate of one position, I see where the experiences of the Socialist and Communist Parties can be of value in our struggle not just as an alternative or fringe party, but in providing a practical alternative that reigns in its more utopian elements.
The socialist movement in the USA grew directly and indirectly out of the movement in Europe. Many of the ideas, of course, were originated in Europe. The socialist movement in this country did not just draw its ideas from Europe, many of its members and activists were European immigrants. In some areas of the country, such as in the New York garment district and Milwaukee, the membership was largely European.2 American socialism had an equally strong American nativist element, though. American socialism grew out of movements such as the farmer and labor based populism in the west and southwest. One of the strongest areas of the SP was Oklahoma where Eugene Debs picked up some of his largest percentages of the popular vote. These native American (non-immigrant) socialists were in fact some of the most radical. During WWI, when many socialist leaders were called traitors and tried under the Espionage Act, there was real sedition and armed resistance by socialists (though not the SP) in Oklahoma:
"The leftist Oklahoma Socialists had unanimously adopted in December 1914 a resolution stating that 'If War is declared, the Socialists of Oklahoma shall refuse to enlist; but if forced to enter military service to murder fellow workers, we shall choose to die fighting the enemies of humanity in our ranks rather than to perish fighting our fellow workers.'
By the time of America's entry into the war, there were several thousand Oklahoma poor farmers, almost entirely native Americans who were so bitterly opposed to entering the war that they regarded the socialist position as too tame. They organized themselves into secret societies, one of them called the Working Class Union. A smaller one called the Jones Family, in August 1917 gathered about a thousand people in eastern Oklahoma to engage in armed resistance. Expecting similar insurrectionary moves to occur elsewhere in the Southwest, they were sadly disappointed upon discovering their isolation. One participant in what later came to be called the Green Corn Rebellion explained their motives: ' We decided we wasn't gonna fight somebody else's war for 'em and we refused to go. We didn't volunteer and we didn't answer the draft.'..."3 The Socialist Party began as a coalition of working class political movements. The party was formed at a unity convention in Indianapolis in 1901. It was formed from the Social Democratic Party and the "kangaroo" wing of the Socialist Labor Party.4 It retained this character through the entire period where it was a player in American politics. At times this was a great strength, at other times a terrible weakness. It allowed an enormous amount of flexibility for local leaders to adapt to their political environment. It also allowed groups with very little in common to work together without forcing too much specific doctrine on each other. The unifying force behind the SP in its heyday was Eugene Debs. His charismatic personality and genuine devotion to the cause allowed him to say things that might seem suspect or insincere if said by others, such as the quote from his statement to the judge in his trial under the Espionage Act before sentencing, " I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class I am in it, while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison I am not free".5 When Debs made this kind of statement, it was not just rhetoric. In a story told by Debs biographer, Nick Salvatore, one particular die hard activist is quoted as saying that much socialist rhetoric was just "sentimental flummery... the funny part of it is that when Debs says 'comrades' it is all right. He means it. The old man with the burning eyes actually believes that there can be such a thing as the brotherhood of man. And that's not the funniest part of it. As long as he's around, I believe it myself."6 .
Under Debs' leadership, the SP grew at an amazing rate. Debs was never able to capture a share of the electoral college vote, but he drew nearly 1 million votes in 1912, which was roughly six percent of the popular vote. The SP had its greatest success at the local level. It was able to elect dozens of people as city councilmen, mayors, and state legislators. In 1910, the SP managed to get Victor Berger elected to Congress. Even though the SP never received the approval of the AFL hierarchy, they considered themselves to be the working man's party. They had an active presence in the AFL. At many AFL conventions, dozens of delegates were SP members. The SP was not, however, just limited to certain enclaves where the workers were well-organized.
"Yet the SP was not only a successful electoral vehicle. Millions read its publications. In 1913, the socialist press had a circulation of 2 million readers...
Tens of thousands of people joined the SP as the socialist message spread throughout the country. By 1904, there were 20,000 members, which meanth the party had quadrupled in size in over four years. By May 1912, the party's high point, membership had increased to 150,000 making the SP a truly mass party. The SP not only grew in numbers, but it became a genuine national party.."7
The Communist Party, on the other hand, never really had anyone with the charisma of Debs. They didn't have the type of loose organization that the SP had. They lacked a base in traditional American culture. Their one defining element was also at times both a blessing and a curse. They were viewed as the arm of the Soviet Union in the United States. They were the arm of the Soviet Union in the U.S. They followed the directives of the Communist International (Comintern) to the letter. Through the 1920s and 1930s. the Soviet Union was looked on very favorably by many elements of the American left. They were still believed to be the one state where the workers had attained control. Through the time of their significance, the CP's fortunes rose and fell with the American left's perception of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union was perceived well, the CP's membership rose, regardless of whether or not their policies were electorally smart. However, by the same token, even if they took popular stands on the issues, their membership decreased when the Soviet Union fell out of favor with the American left.
... the Communist party had made drastic and unpopular shifts in policy before, such as backing the Stalin-Hitler pact and the purging of Browder... however, the overall context had changed. The CP had flourished despite its failings because millions of people saw the Soviet Union as a bulwark of the global antifascist alliance and an island of economic stability in the midst of the Depression. With the ...advent of the post-war boom in the United States, illusions about the Soviet Union began to crumble, especially after the permanent occupation of Eastern Europe. In this setting and with the rising waveof anti-communist hysteria, the party could not overcome the shocks generated by its rapid shifts in basic policy."8
The CP suffered from an inability to construct policies that could translate into electoral success or even popular sympathy because of their ties to the Soviet Union. During the second "red scare" of the 1950's, it became very dangerous to be or to ever have been a member of the communist party. Senator Joe McCarthy's House of Representatives committee on unamerican activities persecuted the communists unmercifully, in spite of the supposed constitutional guarantees against such behavior. From this time on, the CP has never existed as a real force in American politics.
By most traditional standards, the Libertarian Party and libertarianism in general are classified as being a right-wing movement. In my opinion, this is an incorrect classification. Many libertarian social positions are what most people would consider very liberal. While its economic positions would be considered right wing or conservative, its attitude toward government and its views on how to implement its policies are not very conservative. In fact, many libertarians consider themselves to be anarchists, or (as some call themselves) anarcho-capitalists.
The roots of the modern libertarian movement go back to the early 1960's. There were many people within the Republican Party whose views on some social issues were left of Republican center and whose views on economics were right of Republican center. Many of these people were dubbed neo-conservatives or neo-cons. There was another contingent that was devoted to the Objectivist philosophy of author Ayn Rand. The third main group in the formation period of the movement were economists trained in the Austrian school such as Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek. The primary influence of this group was Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises. Throughout the 1960's, these groups became more and more active in youth groups in the Republican party. By the end of the 1960's, they began to talk of splitting off.
On December 11th, 1971, the Libertarian party was formed after a disaffected group of Young Republicans left the party after President Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls. The electoral rise of the LP in terms of raw numbers has been very similar to that of the SP. Within a decade of its formation, the LP was the third largest political party in the U.S. It reached the one million popular vote mark within a few presidential elections.9 It has never made a big splash on the national scene, but it consistently elects city councilmen and state legislators in several areas of the country. That part of its influence so far, has grown with nearly every electoral cycle. Its direct impact in electoral terms may be less significant than the SP's was, but in terms of how it has influenced the process and rhetoric of its chief rival within the traditional two-party system, its influence has been as great, maybe greater. It is far more likely to hear a Republican describe himself as "libertarian" than it is or was for a Democrat to describe himself as a "socialist".
One of the greatest differences between the LP and SP was the lack of a charismatic spokesperson for the LP. Ayn Rand's novels could be very inspiring to certain readers, but she was harsh and dogmatic as a person. She was just as able to alienate as inspire. She also never ran for elected office. However, one of the great similarities between the LP and the SP is their appeal to a disaffected fringe and the ability to appeal on a general message. For the SP, it was "socialism". This, for the average socialist, never translated into much more than a general call to alleviate the plight of the workers by ending the state-capitalist monopoly on power, even though the intellectuals of the American socialist movement wrote volumes of detailed ideology.
For the LP, it has been a strong dislike of government. The average libertarian fits a very different social profile than the average socialist. They are more likely to be college educated and white collar. They may be better read on the philosophy of their movement, but there is really little broad agreement beyond the belief that a radical reduction of government is necessary to restore and protect freedom.
"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat...At least the highwayman does not claim that he acts for the benefit of those he robs." Lysander Spooner, mid 1800's10
"...For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it 'taxation' ...if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." Murray Rothbard, mid 1900's 11
Many leading libertarians are fond of quoting John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. In this regard, it is fair to say that the ideological roots of libertarianism go back to the enlightenment, but to classify them as rehashers of Enlightenment philosophy would be as inaccurate as to classify American socialism as a rehash of Karl Marx.
The core constituency of the SP was the workers. However, they were never able to form a real alliance with the largest union of their time, the AFL. There were many reason for this. Samuel Gompers, head of the AFL, claimed that his primary interest was making the day to day life of the workers better. He claimed that to him, this war far more important than ideology. Some labor historians claim that Gompers was really something of a "snob". He felt that he, and the membership of the AFL were better than the unskilled masses that formed CIO and IWW unions. He felt no class solidarity to these other workers and was happy to sacrifice their interests for the interests of the AFL.12 However, the inability of the SP and the AFL to form an alliance, and the AFL's eventual assimilation into the Democratic Party coalition was an important contributing factor in downfall of socialism as a movement in this country. In all of the countries of western Europe, the socialists have been able to forge this bond with organized labor. The electoral success of this coalition has lead the type of government in many western European countries to be called social democracy. I have seen arguments that state that this type of coalition would not have been successful in the U.S. because of its winner take all, single-member district political structure. I believe this argument falls flat in light of the example of England. While its system is parliamentary, the basic structure of England's elections paralells that of the U.S. In spite of this fact, the Labour Party was able to supplant the Liberal Party as one of the two major parties.
The LP's natural constituency is composed of two fairly diverse groups, small businessmen and civil libertarians. However, the LP seems to be failing just as badly at forming an alliance with these groups as the SP did at forming one with the unions. In the case of businessmen it seems that this is mostly based on the LP's inability to convince small business that it is serious about getting into the electoral process and making a difference. In the case of civil liberties activists, it is probably the fact that many civil liberties activists have been trained to believe that the government is the guarantor of civil liberties more often than it is the violator of civil liberties. At this time, it is probably more prudent for the average small business, or any type of business organization to devote its resources to the Republican Party. Given the above stated view of many civil liberties organizations, they seem to feel more comfortable within the Democratic Party.
The major parties seem to have very similar ways of handling these ideological fringe parties. As the SP gained electoral success, the democrats began to use more of the SP's rhetoric. The Democrats also began to expropriate the less radical portions of the SP's agenda. These portions of the SP agenda were easier to "sell" to the public and took away a valuable electoral tool for the SP. The democrats also enticed some of the less radical socialists to work within the democratic party. The ability to actually implement policy and affect change was a strong incentive. Once within the democratic coalition, many of these activists felt the need to abandon and criticize the SP in order to strengthen their own position. The SP, as well, criticized these former members and began to ban its members from dual membership or dual activism within the democratic party. Over time, factional shifts changed the official policy in regard to dual activism on several occasions. During the 1960's, the SP's view was that if they worked within the Democratic Party they could move it continually left until in practice it was a socialist party if not The Socialist Party. The proponents of this view were called realignment socialists. During this time period, the SP was no longer running its own candidates for national office. Factional differences were becoming intensified. Eventually, differences within the SP lead to its split, primarily, into two groups. The realignment socialists became the Social Democrats USA. The more leftist socialists, who had been calling themselves the Debs Caucus, reconstituted the Social Democratic Party. Both groups have a legitimate claim to the mantle of socialist leadership in the U.S. However, the continued infighting has decimated the already weakened movement over the last thirty years. At this time there really isn't any type of mass movement which calls for their leadership.
The Republicans seem equally adept at drawing libertarians into their party and expropriating libertarian rhetoric and the milder portions of the Libertarian agenda. In general, the more radical libertarians and those working within the mainstream political parties have had friendly relations. This is beginning to change. The Republican party has gained power with the help of many co-activists within the Christian right. In many instances, these activists in the Christian right have taken over state and local party organizations. It has become necessary for the party organization to use more libertarian rhetoric in order to keep its so-called economic conservatives as well as attract and keep its libertarian members. One of the big areas of contention within the libertarian movement is what the socialists called dual activism. Factions within the LP wish to prohibit its members from having dual membership in the Republican Party or any of its libertarian organizations, primarily the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC). There are also members of the RLC who conclude that there is no chance of significant electoral success for the Libertarian Party. In the light of that conclusion, they now criticize the Libertarian Party for running candidates in some elections. The following quote demonstrates that:
"A third party, such as the Libertarian Party, must spend a majority of its resources simply getting onto the ballot. Registering to vote as a member of a third party disqualifies one from voting in primaries in most states. There are also self-imposed barriers to the ascendancy of the Libertarian Party... Taking actions like running a Libertarian candidate for Congress against Ron Paul, as is apparently happening, will do nothing but ensure that good ideas... remain undiscussed by larger audiences."13
I happen to know the author of that particular quote. In spite of his attack of the LP, he is a former member and therefore, at one time, a believer in the viability of the LP. One can definitely draw paralells to the co-opted socialists who became strident attackers of the SP. Many members of the RLC are former LP members. It would seem that the Republican party is having some success at convincing libertarians that the "realignment" strategy can be a successful one. The fact that the primary libertarian organization in the Republican party is so strongly embraced by the party establishment might be a cause for suspicion to those who are familiar with the SP's fortunes with the Democratic party.
It is impossible to tell what the future holds for either of these movements. Right now, many are quick to claim that socialism is dead. Perhaps. There was a time when many were quick to claim that socialism was inevitable. I once heard a quote which I would give its proper source if I had any idea where it came from. It was a reply to the well known statements in regard to the fate of those who fail to learn the lessons of history. It went something to the effect that those who learn the lessons of history only teach themselves how to make new mistakes. Perhaps it is foolish to try and draw too much from the experiences of a party on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum that had been rendered impotent before many of the leaders of the libertarian movement were even born. The parallels between them are quite striking to me, though. If one looks at them from a standpoint wherein the specific ideology of the party involved is irrelevant, then there are more similarities than differences not only in the parties themselves, but in how they were received by the public and how they were treated by the major parties.
working source page
1. Liberalism @ wits end
2. Socialism and America, P. 6 or 62?
3.Socialism and America or Socialists at the
4.downloaded material from Democratic Socialist Party
5. Socialism & America P.44
6. Socialism & America P. 17
7. Socialism & America or Socialism @ ballot box ???
8.???
9. LP download or Lib @Wits End
10. Liberalism @ Wits End
11. Liberalism @ Wits End
12. Dad
13 RLC Newsletter Jan 1996
THINGS I NEED liberalism at wits end,book other socialism in u.s.
book full titles, etc for citation page numbers, etc Bibliography
Blumel, Philip, editor. Republican Liberty: The Newsletter of the
Republican Liberty Caucus. Washington, D.C.: Republican Liberty
Caucus.
Chester, Eric Thomas. Socialists and the Ballot Box A Historical
Analysis. New York, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1985.
Howe, Irving. Socialism and America. United States of America:
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1985.
Lipow, Arthur. Authoritarian Socialism in America. Los Angeles
and Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1982.
Newman, Stephen L. Liberalism at Wits' End. Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1984.
Libertarian Party Homepage: WWW.lporg.org
Socialist Party Homepage: WWW.sunsite.unc.edu/spc