Re: Small family farmers have more economically in common with urban blacks than rich white Texas millionaires. Wonder how long it will take for that to become obvious?
Review: "It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States"
by Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks
****************************
Last time you voted, did you consider the Socialist candidate? "What Socialist candidate?" you're thinking.
Exactly.
Socialism is a non-force in American politics, which is a bit surprising considering how influential it has been in many Western democracies (such as Britain, Scandinavia, Canada, and post-WWII Germany). In fact, at first glance, you might think that America would have one of the strongest socialist movements because it is the most overtly capitalist country. (Indeed, there was a time about 150 years ago when socialism was considered "inevitable" in America by many European scholars).
This is the question that Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks begin with in "It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States." I happen to think the question is poorly framed (after all, why isn't feminism the strongest in Afghanistan, which is one of the most overtly misogynistic countries in the world?). But it turns out that the analysis does not suffer for having approached this issue from a slightly strange direction. Lipset and Marks offer a thorough, logical, and well-researched explanation for socialism's failure in America, which is a very interesting issue. This book gets a solid "+".
It turns out that about a zillion historians, political scientists, economists, and nameless grad students have written everything from short essays to ponderous treatises about the lackluster performance of the Socialist party in the US. For those of us who are intrigued by the question but don't want to read all of this, Lipset and Marks have done a fine job summarizing many of the main arguments that have been advanced and critiquing their effectiveness. They have their own opinions, of course, and I'm sure many would take issue with their dismissal of some arguments, but nonetheless, I felt that I got a fairly global view of the literature and don't need to read ten more books on this subject just to get a balanced perspective.
Whether you love or hate socialism, there is no doubt that it failed in America, and probably isn't coming back. In fact, it's worse than that-- socialism never even got off the ground in America, despite a couple of prime opportunities (just before WWI and during the Depression of the 1930s). There has never been an explicit Socialist representation in Congress, much less the Presidency (although there have been Socialist leaders at the city, county, and state levels). Why?
There is not one single reason. Lipset and Marks' thesis is that socialism failed due to the convergence of many factors, each of which alone would not have been enough to kill the movement. These factors include the two-party political structure of the United States, the largely immigrant population, and some strategic blunders of the Socialist movement leaders such as not forging strong connections to labor unions. These factors are woven together into a coherent and plausible story. One factor that is often cited as important-- political repression-- is shown to be of insignificant consequence.
The US voting system hindered socialism because of the winner-take-all electoral system. Votes for third-party candidates are often perceived as "wasted"; people who don't like either major party candidate prefer to vote against the one with whom they disagree most. However, this does not explain why the Socialist Party did not grow to become one of the two dominant parties, as would have happened if socialism had significant support. Although the explanation based on political structure is important, it can't be the whole story.
Most of the rest of the arguments come down to the fundamental fact that class consciousness is simply not very strong in the United States. Immigrants preferred to identify with their own ethnic, religious, or racial group rather than with other "working class" people. Labor unions never connected well with socialism because workers did not see themselves as a class but more as a group of people sharing similar working conditions. There was never a sense that capitalism was evil, just that employers should treat workers with more respect and give them better pay and benefits. Socialists in the US tended to be very dogmatic and ideological, which alienated those who preferred a more diplomatic approach (who were then accused of "capitulating" or "selling out" by the socialists).
Lipset and Marks look toward the future at the end of the book. In many ways, socialist influence is waning in other Western democracies where it used to be a powerful force. Is the world coming to resemble America in its worship of the free market and blindness to class as a political category?
The authors will not go this far. They note that the US has one of the least equitable partitions of wealth among Westernized countries, as well as the greatest fraction of citizens living in poverty. They cite opinion polls showing that US is still exceptional in its rejection of such statements as, "The government should provide everyone with a guaranteed income" (only 12% of wealthy Americans and 33% of poor Americans agreed with this, compared to, for example, 53% of wealthy Italians and 80% of poor Italians). They assert that the presence of viable Green parties in many other Western democracies points to the continued legacy of social democratic politics.
So in the end, the conclusion is that the historical non-influence of socialism in America will continue to shape its present, while the heritage of strong socialism in other countries has also left its indelible mark. When the paths of the US and other countries forked at the decision to reject or accept socialism, there was no hope of completely coming back together again.
True enough. I'm happy with the overall picture of this issue that the authors present.
But I have to add a couple of personal comments. I'm no red-blooded capitalist, but I am far more a capitalist than a socialist. I'm an American, actually, and I guess I fit right into the authors' analysis. When Lipset and Marks talked about America's lack of class consciousness, my gut feeling was, "...and isn't that a good thing??"
What's so great about proudly identifying as a "prole"? About believing in your heart that you are "lower class" and plan to stay that way, so you'd better vote for the political party that represents you? One of the great strengths (I guess socialists would say myths, but they'd be wrong) of America is that you can move into a higher social class with hard work and some luck. Yeah, you really can. And that's precious. (Ironically, the political party that I most associate with rigid class structure is the Republican party, about as far from socialism as you can get, but that's a whole other story).
Anyway, socialism didn't happen in the US, and it ain't going to anytime soon. This is an interesting book about why not, worth reading no matter what your political affiliations are.
Copyright © Kim Allen 2001
mindspring.com |
