Why did a viable socialist or workers party not develop in the United States, and did its failure reveal political consensus?

Karl Marx confidently believed that socialism would first emerge in the most advanced capitalist nations and at the time of the first successful socialist revolutions, the most advanced capitalist state was the United States of AmericaCITATION Kle92 p 2 l 2057 (Klehr Haynes, 1992, p. 2). This raises the question as to why there has been no successful socialist party in the United States. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have dominated the American party system since the 1860s, winning every Presidential election up to the present day, but neither of them is a socialist party, nor has ever claimed to be. In October 2015, Donald Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for President, called Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a candidate on the Democratic side a socialist-slash-communist CITATION Din15 l 2057 (Dinan, 2015). Contemporaneously, Sanders competitor for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, vociferously denied that she was a socialist and reminded her audience of the values of capitalismCITATION Kir15 l 2057 (Kirkland, 2015). In the same year, Gallup released a poll showing that only 47% of Americans would ever consider voting for a candidate who called themselves a socialist, including only 59% of DemocratsCITATION Daa15 l 2057 (Daalder, 2015). Socialism remains unpopular amongst the American public, although the success of Senator Sanders suggests that this may be a state of affairs which could shift. This essay will outline the reasons given by scholars for the absence of a viable socialist or workers party from American politics and aim to provide an assessment as to whether this reveals a political consensus in America.

In Eric Foner s article, Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? , he cites several reasons for the lack of socialism in the United States CITATION Fon84 l 2057 (Foner, 1984). Perhaps one of the most interesting is the idea that the very ethos of American life is inherently hostile to class consciousness, socialism, and radicalism of any kind CITATION Fon84 p 61 l 2057 (Foner, 1984, p. 61). This is a development, in a sense, of the concept of American exceptionalism, which holds that the United States is a unique political society , a special case in which assumed historical norms and development paths do not applyCITATION Buh92 p 20-21 l 2057 (Buhle, et al., 1992, pp. 20-21). Louis Hartz argued that America lacked a genuine radical tradition because they were born equal and didn t need to launch a revolution to gain democratic rightsCITATION Klo01 p 460-461 l 2057 (Kloppenburg, 2001, pp. 460-461). There was no feudalism in America and so, Hartz argues, there is no socialism, because the class boundaries and class consciousness within American society were less distinct than in Europe. The nation s political culture is dominated by a hegemony of liberal thought that pushes socialism outside of the mainstreamCITATION Kaz11 p 112 l 2057 (Kazin, 2011, p. 112). Foner, however, argues that this grand narrative does not account for the challenges to the establishment that have demonstrated serious, albeit fleeting, potential such as the Socialist Party, Populism and the Knights of LaborCITATION Fon84 p 63 l 2057 (Foner, 1984, p. 63). Moreover, Hartz s thesis ignores the quasi-feudal experience of the South before the abolition of slavery, which has been no more receptive to socialism than the rest of America and, tied in with this, the historical experience of minorities and women. There were extreme differences in economic development between states and, as Lowi points out, it would be reasonable to assume that there would be greater advances in the development of socialist parties in the states which experienced a type of feudalism than in other statesCITATION Low84 p 371 l 2057 (Lowi, 1984, p. 371). This has not been the reality.

Foner also dismisses the idea that the socio-economic factors affecting the United States has divided the labour force along gender, racial and ethnic lines, preventing the development of a working class with class consciousnessCITATION Fon84 p 65-66 l 2057 (Foner, 1984, pp. 65-66). Similar divisions are present in other nations with developed socialist or workers parties such as the United Kingdom or Australia. However, on the point of race, this is disputed by Diggins. In his view, the reason for the failure to establish class consciousness was the inability of left intellectuals to instil it in workers because they were in another world when discussing racism, nationalism, culture, religion and genderCITATION Dig92 p 46 l 2057 (Diggins, 1992, p. 46). There are many examples of immigrant groups and nativist being mobilised for political purposes during the nineteenth century and the failure of socialist intellectuals to mobilise these constituents must be seen as evidence that the ethnic pluralism of the United States is not reason enough to explain the absence of a socialist party from the stateCITATION Low84 p 373 l 2057 (Lowi, 1984, p. 373).

This was made worse by the splits with un ion leaders, who espoused conservative principles about social mobility and opportunity instead of challenging the capitalist system. This is important because the United Kingdom, which has a similar economic tradition and a long-established workers party formed out of solidarity between big unions and their decision to work together to increase working class representation in politics, replacing the more radical wing of the established Liberal Party. The fact that at a time when socialist and workers parties were seeing success elsewhere in the world, the American un ion leadership, most notably Samuel Gompers, were more concerned with forging a unionist movement that gave greater priority to the immediate needs of members than driving the reconstruction of society perhaps demonstrates the important residual effects of critical junctures in a nation s politicsCITATION Hea90 p 26 l 2057 (Heale, 1990, p. 26).

Moreover, many writers have suggested that the unions in the United States were particularly docile in fighting for their workers interests and have preferred accommodations with capital to prolonged class struggle CITATION Fon84 p 68 l 2057 (Foner, 1984, p. 68). This seems to be a convincing argument in the failure for the emergence of a workers or socialist party in the USA because in Great Britain, for example, the trade unions were the driving force behind the creation of a party platform more accepting of socialism. If the British trade un ion movement had been less willing to enter electoral politics there perhaps would not have been the development of a mainstream left-wing party in the United Kingdom at a later date. This business unionism could not have been the only factor, though, because, as Lowi notes, there needs to be an explanation of why the unions were moderate in the first place when they were not elsewhere in the worldCITATION Low84 p 371-372 l 2057 (Lowi, 1984, pp. 371-372). One reason could be the difficulty of a new party to break through in the presidential election due to the presence of the electoral collegeCITATION Fon84 p 69 l 2057 (Foner, 1984, p. 69). This has entrenched the two party system and was not a factor in the UK. However, this would not have applied in other elections and, indeed, insurgent parties such as the Know-Nothings had been able to dominate local politics and statehouses for periods during the nineteenth century. To a degree the later submissiveness of even unions with histories of radicalism, such as the United Automobile Workers, can be explained by government repression during red scares, this does not explain the reticence of the earlier periodCITATION Buh92 p 804-805 l 2057 (Buhle, et al., 1992, pp. 804-805). Nonetheless, it is convincing as a contributing factor in the absence of a socialist or workers party from the political arena in America.

Theodore Lowi s thesis is that the federalist nature of the United States was the most important factor in the failure for an electorally successful socialist party to emerge. The power in American politics, particularly before the growth of the federal government after the Second World War, can be characterised as being quite diffuse. The balkanization of the federalist system prevents prevailing interests from affecting the interests of other statesCITATION Low84 p 375 l 2057 (Lowi, 1984, p. 375). In addition to this, the Constitution curtailed the influence of the national government, with many laws affecting individuals being drawn up at state level. This meant that there was no national pattern of law, legitimation or repression to confirm a socialist critique CITATION Low84 p 377 l 2057 (Lowi, 1984, p. 377). This prevented the development of a national critique of capitalism because workers experience of capitalism varied widely from state to state. Socialists were also faced with the strength of the local party machine which required very effective organisation to be defeated. This is plausible as a factor in the lack of a viable socialist party on the national stage. However, Robin Archer argues that the multiplicity of access points to challenge the status quo electorally ought to have produced successful experiments by socialism because of the wealth of opportunityCITATION Lab07 p 474 l 2057 (Archer, 2007, p. 474). Archer suggests that, in fact, it is more likely that the development of a labour party was prevented by a factor such as the strong party loyalty of American workers and the presence of party machines because these were unique to the United States and were certainly important in party politicsCITATION Lab07 p 477 l 2057 (Archer, 2007, p. 477). Moreover, as Lowi himself notes, there needs to be an explanation as to whether the vast changes that have occurred in American federal system, with the federal government increasing its power relative to the states, have had any impact on the development of socialist electoral challenges. The success of Bernie Sanders, an independent democratic socialist Senator perhaps feeds into this as he can be seen to capitalise upon a grand and now national narrative which can be drawn against the capitalist establishment. As Diggins notes, as well, there has, since the 1960s been a very vocal socialist movement in American academiaCITATION Dig92 p 290 l 2057 (Diggins, 1992, p. 290). This may provide a theoretical platform necessary for socialist advance.

It can be argued that the failure to establish a viable socialist or workers party from the US political scene is due to a political consensus in that American politics has been very receptive to red scares. Lowi describes the fear of socialism as the American disease which has been influential despite the fact that the nation is not receptive to itCITATION Low84 p 379-380 l 2057 (Lowi, 1984, pp. 379-380). This may be linked to what Richard Hofstadter calls the paranoid style that has driven a fervent anti-communist message on the right, fanning the flames of anti-communismCITATION Hof65 p 3-4 l 2057 (Hofstadter, 1965, pp. 3-4). This, in addition to a strong tradition of anti-intellectualism has damaged the socialist cause from within. Hofstadter argues that at times even the Socialist Party suffered from the cult of proletarianism with factional fights being conducted between proletarians and intellectual spokespeopleCITATION Hof64 p 289 l 2057 (Hofstadter, 1964, p. 289). By the 1950s, an anticommunist consensus had settled on American public life CITATION Hea90 p 167 l 2057 (Heale, 1990, p. 167). The unpopularity of socialism today and the continued two-party hegemony points to an anti-socialist consensus. However, this is at least to a degree a result of the structural factors discussed in this essay. The dominance of the single-member first-past-the-post electoral system discourages voting for third parties as they are considered unlikely to winCITATION Low84 p 374-375 l 2057 (Lowi, 1984, pp. 374-375). As such, the fact that a viable socialist party does not exist does not necessarily mean that there is no appetite for radical left-wing politics in the United States. The history of the United States is not one of consensus, with the Populist movement and the Socialist Party launching challenges to the establishment.

In conclusion, the spirited challenge of Senator Sanders in his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2016, with polling showing the Senator defeating Republican rivals by more comfortable margins than establishment Democrat Hillary Clinton suggests that radical left is not politically impotentCITATION Eas16 l 2057 (Easley, 2016). It cannot be argued that one of the above factors alone has prevented the emergence of an electorally viable socialist or workers party in the United States. However, the combination of moderate labour un ion leadership, poor socialist organisation, the influence of local party machines and loyalty to established parties seem most convincing as contributing factors.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archer, R., 2007. Labour Politics in the New World: Werner Sombart and the United States. Journal Of Industrial Relations, 49(4), pp. 459-482.

Buhle, M. J., Buhle, P. Georgakas, D., 1992. The Encyclopedia Of The American Left. Chicago: University Of Illinois Press.

Daalder, M., 2015. Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist. [Online]
Available at: http://inthesetimes.com/article/18106/americans-socialism-bernie-sanders
[Accessed 10 January 2016].

Diggins, J. P., 1992. The Rise And Fall Of The American Left. London: W.W. Norton.

Dinan, S., 2015. Donald Trump: Bernie Sanders is a communist. [Online]
Available at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/14/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-communist/
[Accessed 10 January 2016].

Easley, J., 2016. Poll Finds Bernie Sanders Does Better Against GOP Than Hillary Clinton In Iowa and NH. [Online]
Available at: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/10/poll-finds-bernie-sanders-gop-hillary-clinton-iowa-nh.html
[Accessed 15 January 2016].

Foner, E., 1984. Why Is There No Socialism in the United States?. History Workshop, Issue 17, pp. 57-80.

Heale, M., 1990. American Anticommunism: Combating the Enemy Within, 1830-1970. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hofstadter, R., 1964. Anti-Intellectualism In American Life. London: Jonathan Cape.

Hofstadter, R., 1965. The Paranoid Style In American Politics And Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kazin, M., 2011. American Dreamers: How The Left Changed A Nation. New York: Vintage Books.

Kirkland, A., 2015. Hillary Clinton: I`m No Socialist Like Bernie. [Online]
Available at: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-debate-capitalism
[Accessed 10 January 2016].

Klehr, H. Haynes, J. E., 1992. The American Communist Movement: Storming Heaven Itself. New York: Twayne Publishers.

Kloppenburg, J. T., 2001. In Retrospect: Louis Hartz`s "The Liberal Tradition in America". Reviews In American History, 29(3), pp. 460-478.

Lowi, T., 1984. Why is there no socialism in the United States? A Federal Analysis. International Political Science Review, 5(4), pp. 369-380.