Why doesn't the US have a major socialist party?

Question

any ideas?

By the way, this is a serious question and it's so disgusting that people take this oppritunity to bash each other's politics. Did you all forget 9/11 or are you just mean spiteful people who are arrogant and can't see the other side of an argument? Jeez - get over yourselfs.

Thanks, rightwing, but I'm not going to hold much credit to someone who defines their profile as their political spectrum. And I don't particularly like Clinton and right now I think the Democratic party is pretty much useless. But what's worse, being nonexistant or being all wrong?

Answer 1

Because then voters would know them for who they are. Calling them Democrats is sneakier.

Answer 2

The first three answers apply to any third parties in the United States:

(1) Single-member districts with first-past-the-post balloting strongly discourage third parties.

(2) Primaries encourage groups which organize within the established parties.

(3) Ballot-access restrictions penalize third parties.

The 2-party system wasn't as solid in the 19th century as in the 20th and (so far) the 21st. But other considerations delayed the development of socialist parties:

(4) The United States had no one economic system going into the 19th century. The cities were mercantile centers and then industrial ones as well. Most of the north and parts of the south had free, smallholding, agriculture. Other parts of the south had slavery and plantation agriculture. The United States developed four different movements where many European countries developed only one: (a) The labor movement focused on labor rights and the homestead movement focused on opening land to small farmers. (b) The cooperative movement focused on cooperative communities. (c) The abolitionist movement focused on ending slavery - some of the more radical abolitionals also focused on land reform (possibly breaking up the plantations - which was politically impossible - and possibly granting land in the west. - which clashed with the homestead movement).

(5) The socialist movement split in the 1860s and 1870s, between the libertarian socialists (anarchists) and the democratic/state socialists (e.g. Marxists). This occurred everywhere, but, at the time, the socialist movement in the United States was pulling together from the various movements above, and afterwards, the socialist movement in the United States took in immigrants on both sides.

(6) Like most other countries, the anarchists focused on organizing labor unions instead of organizing political parties. Unlike many other countries, the Marxists did the same.

Answer 3

Because the last pretender to that throne, the Communist Party, sold out on one issue after another.

Some examples:

They refused to try to organize poor southern whites and unite them with blacks, by pushing the ridiculous "separate black nation in the south" theory.

Instead of endorsing black and radical whites' LEGAL efforts towards armed self defense against the KKK, they called for gun control -- and still do!

They pretended that the Nazis were legitimate allies against the west with the Hitler-Stalin pact, rather than being honest and saying "we hafta cut a deal with these guys because we're not ready for a war with them yet, but that doesn't mean they're good -- beware of the Nazis!"

They attacked unions that were struggling to defend industrial workers, on the grounds that "strikes hurt the war effort (WW2), and endangers the USSR." They opposed the attempts to organize black workers in fighting for their rights on grounds of "national unity."

They kissed Roosevelt's behind, endorsing his neutering of the union movement, and applauding his camps for Japanese Americans.

A few years later, they actually applauded the A-bombing of Japan.

They endorsed the elimination of historic liberties, supporting the Smith Act when that was used to attack leftist dissidents like the Trotskyists (Trotskyist leader Jim Cannon was sent to federal prison) and then whined when the same legal doctrines were used to attack THEM.

They ignored the evils of zionism and endorsed creation of Israel, and then did an about-face and endorsed the crudest anti-semitism.

They caved in to the right-wingers, calling McCarthyism "fascism" and going underground, thus throwing away the best political weapon -- the ability to speak publicly.

They refused to acknowledge the obvious problems with Stalinism, and allowed the right wing to firmly identify that perverted fake socialism with the struggles of the workers.

They declared that the New Left were on the side of capitalism rather than slightly confused kids, and then made an about-face and pretended that every New Left fallacy was the gospel truth.

Later, in the 70s and 80s, they actually endorsed the political descendants of the "Cold War liberals" who had attacked them in the 50s, on the grounds that "we need to support ANYONE against the conservatives, because conservatives are really fascists."

They have NEVER endorsed sexual freedom, are against gay rights, and wanted to "go slow" on women's rights for fear of offending workers, who they saw as "backward" and in need of FOOLING into doing the right thing.

At every opportunity they threw away the hard-earned credibility won at great cost by union organizers who bled and struggled and died in this country, putting interests of party factionalism above the well-being of the working class.

With behavior like this, they went from major support in many U.S. cities and grudging admiration, at least, in many rural areas, to a tiny, despised, hunted (and then IGNORED) minority.

A mass communist labor party COULD have been formed in the U.S. at several points in the last 75 years -- it is the entirely the fault of the CPUSA that it didn't happen.

As far as a socialist party, like a European social democratic or "Labour" party goes? That will never happen. Americans are so firmly brainwashed against socialist concepts that if they ever throw off the mind control, they WON'T stop halfway and support such a party.

If Americans ever manage to go left, we'll make the Soviets look like Reaganites!

Answer 4

Because it has 2 major socialist parties. Welfare is increasing year after year - no matter who's in. GWB created the prescription drug benefit for medicare; HRC seeks to give $5k to every newborn...

If the current $9 trillion debt isn't an indicator that both of these clans are altruists / socialists, I don't know what does.

Answer 5

1) Two Party System keeps all other parties out.

2) Ever since the 1950s, conservatives have been very effective at demonizing socialists as anti-American. They don't realize that it is possible to be a socialist, a christian, and a patriot all at the same time.

The guy who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance was all of the above.

Answer 6

Rio, you view the comments as bashing. The fact is, the Democratic party is more of a socialist party than anybody realizes. It's scary to listen to Hillary talk. What's even scarier is that people actually think she's intelligent....this chick has socialist written all over her.

Answer 7

Because Americans have too much pride. Socialism is nothing more than jealousy dressed up as an economic system. If I'm smarter than the next guy, I should be able to use my skills and intelligence to make more money than he does. Most Americans agree with that. It's too much a part of our national identity. You ever hear of the "American Dream?" It's to get rich. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Answer 8

Because Americans hate socialism.

Answer 9

cue Republicans to say:

"We do, it's called the Democratic party"...

sigh...

but the reason is simply that America has had a decent economy (which a poor economy is always fertile soil for socialism) and that it was demonized during the red scare... and still is to some degree...

if you look at the great depression... it was MUCH more popular than it is now even...

Answer 10

Probably because that's one thing that Republicans and Democrats can agree on whole heartedly -- we're not Socialist.

Answer 11

It does. The Democrats.