Wuth a rapidly expanding industrial economy in the second half of the 19th century, why weren't there as many adherents to early Communist political ideals, if not more, than in Europe?
Question: Why didn't Marxism enjoy growth in the US like Europe did?
- Thread starter Harald Sigurdson II
- Start date
the sheer size and scale of it all? There were plenty of places to go/move to, lots of opportunities in all kinds of businesses. Apparently, Americans were one of the most mobile nations around, in terms of people uprooting themselves from their birthplaces and going somewhere else where prospects seemed better. To be sure, American industry ruthlessly exploited its workers as much as any other modern nation, but there was nothing tying down those workers either...
First, because Americans were much better off than say the Russians and the US had a huge middle class even then. There have been several studies that show nearly everyone in the US considers themselves middle class economically no matter whether they're poor or rich. Who would want to over throw the bourgeoisie when you consider yourself one of them? And right or wrong people believe there is a lot of social mobility in the US. Why work hard to overthrow the system and make everyone equal when you can work hard and get rich?
Secondly because the US places a much higher value on property and self reliance. There is a heavy dose of social Darwinism in American culture, even more so a century ago. The poor are poor because of their own actions. Help them all you want but few people are going to overthrow society and lose their own property to help people who are considered failures.
In American society the individual comes first, not the greater good.
Secondly because the US places a much higher value on property and self reliance. There is a heavy dose of social Darwinism in American culture, even more so a century ago. The poor are poor because of their own actions. Help them all you want but few people are going to overthrow society and lose their own property to help people who are considered failures.
In American society the individual comes first, not the greater good.
Imperator Maximilianius
Banned
Another part of it is because American political parties would take care of their members. Therefore, Marxist groups didn't have as much appeal.
Even if social and economic mobility in the US is a myth for most people its a reality for enough people, the sort of people that in Europe would become agitators, that it was a safety valve for these societal pressures. As others have said, it was reasonably easy for smart, motivated people to escape an oppressive job and find opportunities in a rapidly expanding and developing country.
Several reasons:
(1) As noted, Americans were relatively better off than Europeans and social mobility was higher.
(2) Race and ethnic diversity: the US had a large black underclass and also experienced heavy immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. Because of racism, middle-class and working-class established white Americans did not desire social equality with peoples they viewed as "lesser." This limited the ability to make appeals to working class solidarity.
(3) The US political system is systemically and structurally biased against third parties: FPTP plus presidentialism combined make two-party politics a structural default, and heavy federalism further limits the ability of third parties to rise nationally.
(4) The vote; in Europe, unions obtained a lot of influence in fighting for the vote. And of course many of the unions took on a very radical character plus a large membership. The US already had universal white male suffrage and this was actually a lost opportunity for unions, and by extension Marxism, to spread influence.
Even so, socialism was actually a fairly influential strain of progressivism in the late 19th and 20th Century. By absolute numbers, the US Socialist Party was the largest socialist party in the world in the early part of the century, though of course proportionately smaller. Socialist movements had a lot of strength in heavily Jewish and German urban centers as well as in much of the rural Plains and Upper Midwest (the Dakotas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota). The party was destroyed by infighting over WWI, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Wilson-era crackdown. It's possible that absent these factors, Socialists could have remained influential and could either have been absorbed into one of the two major parties (creating a heavy socialist influence) or united with other progressive groups to displace one of the two major parties.
(1) As noted, Americans were relatively better off than Europeans and social mobility was higher.
(2) Race and ethnic diversity: the US had a large black underclass and also experienced heavy immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. Because of racism, middle-class and working-class established white Americans did not desire social equality with peoples they viewed as "lesser." This limited the ability to make appeals to working class solidarity.
(3) The US political system is systemically and structurally biased against third parties: FPTP plus presidentialism combined make two-party politics a structural default, and heavy federalism further limits the ability of third parties to rise nationally.
(4) The vote; in Europe, unions obtained a lot of influence in fighting for the vote. And of course many of the unions took on a very radical character plus a large membership. The US already had universal white male suffrage and this was actually a lost opportunity for unions, and by extension Marxism, to spread influence.
Even so, socialism was actually a fairly influential strain of progressivism in the late 19th and 20th Century. By absolute numbers, the US Socialist Party was the largest socialist party in the world in the early part of the century, though of course proportionately smaller. Socialist movements had a lot of strength in heavily Jewish and German urban centers as well as in much of the rural Plains and Upper Midwest (the Dakotas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota). The party was destroyed by infighting over WWI, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Wilson-era crackdown. It's possible that absent these factors, Socialists could have remained influential and could either have been absorbed into one of the two major parties (creating a heavy socialist influence) or united with other progressive groups to displace one of the two major parties.
I remember an article in Foreign Affairs concerning that very question. The chap who wrote it was a total leftist but he had some very valid points. One of the key ones was that the so-called working class became the so-called middle class and as such became property owners. Those are the people less likely to buy into a philosophy that shuns private property and those who had to earn their property the hard way are least likely to give it up to benefit those who they do not see as trying.
Gaius Julius Magnus
Gone Fishin'
I'd also add co-opting of social liberal ideals by the two parties (One party over the other at times) to mitigate the excesses of the Gilded Age capitalism did a good job at sapping whatever advantage socialist or Marxist parties had. Why risk voting for a small-radical party that probably won't get elected when you can vote for a major party that supports similar, but tempered, solutions that has a good chance of winning?
SlideAway nailed it.
Socialism as a movement really was the form that politics took in the late 19th, 20th century to sweep away the vestiges of the ancien regime. In the English-speaking world that wasn't so necessary, especially in the US.
Socialism as a movement really was the form that politics took in the late 19th, 20th century to sweep away the vestiges of the ancien regime. In the English-speaking world that wasn't so necessary, especially in the US.
Congressman
Banned
Because Americans have always been better off then Europeans in economic life
And, there are so many ways to succeed in life here. There was never a need for a Marxists Revolt.
Plus it's a democracy. If something was wrong, we could always vote for people to change that. People in Russia had it bad, and had no way to make their lives better.
Plus, most people in the us have had some education. The idea of a class less society doesn't seem so realistic
And, there are so many ways to succeed in life here. There was never a need for a Marxists Revolt.
Plus it's a democracy. If something was wrong, we could always vote for people to change that. People in Russia had it bad, and had no way to make their lives better.
Plus, most people in the us have had some education. The idea of a class less society doesn't seem so realistic
Race really undermined the possibility for even a strong, independent labor party a la Britain.
I would also not underestimate the strength and patronage of Democratic political machines set up in urban centers for immigrants, which existed very early.
I would also not underestimate the strength and patronage of Democratic political machines set up in urban centers for immigrants, which existed very early.
Anglo labour parties (non-Marxist, only ambiguously socialist) versus Marxoid Erfurtian social democratic parties is actually an interesting dichotomy: the latter never managed to gain ground anywhere in the English-speaking west, but the Socialist Party Of America was the most successful of the attempts to do so. Which of course is not saying much. Farmer-Labor could only gain regional support.
In a word? The American Dream.
In Europe, you had these entrenched noble classes that had remained so for centuries in most countries, and social mobility was difficult.
In the United States, you could come here with nothing but the clothes on your back and die one of the richest men in history. There was able opportunity for those who worked hard to make a better life for themselves, and that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the birthright of every American.
While one can debate how true or not that was or is today, that ideal has always been one of the fundamental things about America or being American. As long as the American Dream lives, socialism can't find fertile ground.
In Europe, you had these entrenched noble classes that had remained so for centuries in most countries, and social mobility was difficult.
In the United States, you could come here with nothing but the clothes on your back and die one of the richest men in history. There was able opportunity for those who worked hard to make a better life for themselves, and that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the birthright of every American.
While one can debate how true or not that was or is today, that ideal has always been one of the fundamental things about America or being American. As long as the American Dream lives, socialism can't find fertile ground.
I have a suspicion that the fact that Americans were the wealthiest people in the world up until the 1960s played a bigger role than racism. The timing is off if you want to blame race, as well; the Great Migration (the move of southern blacks to northern urban centers) really only took off in the 1920s, but it's not like the Socialist Party was booming before then.
Not sure who said it (Steinbeck?) but there's a quote stating that Americans are but temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Imperator Maximilianius
Banned
Not necessarily. There was racism against a lot of peoples we'd consider "white" today. Ask an Italian-American.
Or Irish-Americans for that matter. Basically you had to be the "right" kind of white (i.e. Protestant)
Imperator Maximilianius
Banned
And even then it wasn't a guarantee. Look at the anti-German sentiment during World War I.