Why no American Labor Party?

[archaeogeek]

What's that, Lassie? You say that militias were used in the crackdown of the 1877 strikes? You say that National Guard units, not the army, were the ones with the itchy trigger fingers at Kent State? What's that, girl? You mean that governors and state legislators can be bought out just as easily as congressmen in DC? "States' Rights" is right sometimes, but we've got to be honest and admit that states can abuse power just as much as municipal governments or the federal government? Timmy fell down the well? Golly!

With less interrogation that was pretty much my point
I was actually hunting for examples in my head besides Kent State though (the only other example I had in mind was Blair Mountain but that strike was broken by the US Army, not the WVNG).

Also I never quite got this weird disconnect where municipalities are assumed to be corrupt, the feds are assumed to be corrupt but for some undisclosed reason the states are magically clean (unless they're doing things the states-righters-uber-alles don't like)

 

[Green Shadow]

Question for you all.

Why did the US not experience the rise of a major socialist/labor party? It seems the first decade of the 1900's would be ripe for such a scenario

As Nader demonstrated in 2000, third parties are self-harming. The socialist party in 2012 had a similar impact on Roosevelt's candidacy(he wouldn't have won if it's voters had backed him, but he'd have a come a damn sight closer)-with the socialist votes added to his vote he would have won Illinois, Oregon, North Dakota, Nevada, Montana, Maine, Kansas and Idaho. The most leftwing mainstream candidate would always be crippled by an effective socialist party, and this was surely clear to them.

 

[Hawkeye]

Debs got 6% of the popular vote in 1912. That's pretty significant for a third party.

As Nader demonstrated in 2000, third parties are self-harming. The socialist party in 2012 had a similar impact on Roosevelt's candidacy(he wouldn't have won if it's voters had backed him, but he'd have a come a damn sight closer)-with the socialist votes added to his vote he would have won Illinois, Oregon, North Dakota, Nevada, Montana, Maine, Kansas and Idaho. The most leftwing mainstream candidate would always be crippled by an effective socialist party, and this was surely clear to them.

Not to nitpick but I think there was a bit of a mix up here.

 

[Georgepatton]

Not to nitpick but I think there was a bit of a mix up here.

God, now that'd have been a hell of an election!

"My fellow Americans, you can vote for the old man, and get old politics, or vote for the young Negro, and get new nonsense politics, or you can vote for me, Theodore freaking Roosevelt!"

 

[Wendell]

To me, the question isn't why didn't the U.S. develop a labour party, but rather why the Europeans did. This question has a simple answer; feudalism. The American experience, slavery in the South and indentured servitude aside, had no experience with feudalism. The space and political culture of the country was thus more egalitarian, populist, and democratic from the start than the top-down societies of Europe and Latin America.

To be clear, the United States have had many problems in their history, most notably racism, but with public participation as a hallmark of American civil society from the start, there was never a desire for revolution, and therefore never a desire for workers' parties to work for change within the system. By the twentieth centuries, it's like the others have said. The Roosevelts, Wilson, and, arguably, Hoover, effectively undermined the prospect for revolution and viable democratic left-wing parties through coopting when the greats possibilities for it existed.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Riding into congress on the Farmer-Labor Train?

A difficult one as Labour parties formed in most of the UK dominions i.e Australia and New Zealand although in South Africa it formed an alliance with the Nationalists after the Rand Rebellion was crushed and emreged in a different format in the coloured population and has disappeared. The Canadian NDP has only really gained power in British Columbia and Ontario. It never really got off the ground in Ireland being largely an urban based party despite Connoly. Was there a Newfoundland Labour Party?

The United States has a different history from the Dominions. In the early stages there was a great deal of direction of the forces of the state against the emerging Socialist Party. Not on the extent mentioned in Iron Heel but red scares and Debb's anti war stance lead to it being harassed. The primary system made life difficult for small parties in the costs involved. Also the trade unions were able to have some influence in the major parties. In the UK they had initially supported the Liberals.

There was a Farmer Labor Party in Minnesota that won the governorship in 1936 and controlled the state Hubert Humphrey was a Farmer- Labor mayor but in the rest of the US the unions tended to back new deal candidates which included some Republicans i.e Dewey, La Guardia and even recently they gave donations to Nelson Rockerfeller.
When governor Oslen died the Republicans won the by-election but the state kept its welfare provisions. The Farmer-Labor party merged with the Democrats whose state party still bears the name.

The name was revived in the 1948 election to back Henry Wallace nationally but it was precieved as a front for the CP and the unions backed Truman. Bsically the unions thought they could influence the major parties but mainly the Demcorats

 

[Workable Goblin]

With less interrogation that was pretty much my point
I was actually hunting for examples in my head besides Kent State though (the only other example I had in mind was Blair Mountain but that strike was broken by the US Army, not the WVNG).

Also I never quite got this weird disconnect where municipalities are assumed to be corrupt, the feds are assumed to be corrupt but for some undisclosed reason the states are magically clean (unless they're doing things the states-righters-uber-alles don't like)

I woulda mentioned Jim Crow, since that was all-state--the federal government was only involved insofar as it wasn't involved, and all the stuff that let it happen involved the feds not getting involved.

 

[The Red]

It never really got off the ground in Ireland being largely an urban based party despite Connoly. Was there a Newfoundland Labour Party?

Well to be fair they've been in power more times then either Gael or Fail (albeit always being the minority coalition party) and the last poll I saw put them ahead of both of said parties.

 

[Shevek23]

Shevek23: nice analysis.

Thanks. However, I tend to think with my mouth open, and I wonder if I am overlooking something.

I've obviously convinced myself that size (between certain ranges anyway) has little or nothing to do with how much socialism a nation might have in its political culture. (Consider the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, then compare to Cuba.) But I wonder what Wolfpaw meant and whether if they or someone else who agrees would spell it out, I might see something I am overlooking.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Thanks. However, I tend to think with my mouth open, and I wonder if I am overlooking something.

I've obviously convinced myself that size (between certain ranges anyway) has little or nothing to do with how much socialism a nation might have in its political culture. (Consider the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, then compare to Cuba.) But I wonder what Wolfpaw meant and whether if they or someone else who agrees would spell it out, I might see something I am overlooking.

I thought that the idea was, given an electoral system, that a Labor Party in Canada or Australia simply needed to persuade fewer people (in absolute, not relative terms, of course) to agree with them to be a viable party. It's probably instructive to note that the US Socialist Party achieved its best result prior to the institution of the female vote, although of course that happened at the same time as a lot of other activity that would have tended to reduce Socialist Party support.

 

[Thande]

Well to be fair they've been in power more times then either Gael or Fail (albeit always being the minority coalition party) and the last poll I saw put them ahead of both of said parties.

I always find it mildly amusing, especially since the use of the word has become ubiquitous in internet culture, that the Republic of Ireland's most successful party is abbreviated to "Fail".

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Well to be fair they've been in power more times then either Gael or Fail (albeit always being the minority coalition party) and the last poll I saw put them ahead of both of said parties.

No to any great effect as junior parties in fairly right wing governments. Probably their greatest impact was to provide constitutional opposition to the emergency powers during the Civil War and to ease De Valera into power but failing to curb him in the long run. They probably only survived because of STV which is an argument in its favour. There was Mary Robinson but she was an individual and a head of state rather than government although her election paved the way for change.The late Conor Cruise O Brien brought in some quite repressive legislation in the 70's maybe they will become a majority government if the poll is correct after the public delivers its verdict on the draconian cuts.

 

[Paul Spring]

In a lot of ways, the Democrats between the 1930s and the 1970s played a role similar to a moderate social democratic or labor party, before the general political trends in the USA started moving somewhat to the right.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

According to John Keegan in his history of the American Civil War, the experience of the Civil War played a major role in putting people off ideas of class conflict and there was a strong individualist element so that trade unionists saw no need for their own party

 

[Fearless Leader]

Wasn't a major factor in the failure to form a "Labor Party" within the USA due to the decision by the American Federation of Labor to pursue a non-partisan, non-political approach?

This apparently also influenced Canadian politics as Canadian labour organizations pursued a similar approach.