from the world's big
What was socialism like in the United States during the 20th century?
Think America would never elect a socialist? Think again.
- While America seems like a haven for capitalists, socialism has a long and often successful electoral history here.
- Milwaukee had socialist mayors until 1960.
- Today's resurgence of interest in socialism has nothing on the red tide of 1912.
Socialist candidates are cropping up all over the country. In Texas, they are being elected to judgeships. Two of them serve in Congress, and another one works in the Senate. Chicago has a Socialist alderman and the city council of Sommerville, Massachusetts is controlled by an alliance of left-wing members.
While it may seem like reds are all around us, this isn't anything new or even all that impressive. After all, there was a time when a Socialist got 6% of the vote for president, and more than 1000 of his comrades held elected office all over the country.
1912: A red dawn?
About 100 years ago, Socialist candidates were doing rather well all over the United States. None were more visible than Eugene Debs, the perennial candidate and labor organizer.
Debs helped to found the American Railway Union and the Industrial Workers of the World. He saw unionization as every bit as important, if not more important, than political work in improving the lives of the working class. His excellent speaking ability and national fame after leading the Pullman Strike made him a natural choice for a presidential candidate. He ended up running five times.
In the 1912 election he got nearly a million votes, which was roughly 6% of all votes cast. This was more than double what he got just four years before and prompted some to foresee a Socialist president in a mere eight years. They would have to settle with about the same number of votes in 1920, though this represented only 3.4% of the vote in that election.
While he ran for president repeatedly and once for Congress, he was only ever elected to be a clerk in Terre Haute and once served in the Indiana General Assembly. Despite this, he has remained an icon of the American left. Bernie Sanders kept a portrait of him in his Burlington office when he was mayor.
Deb's vice presidential candidate in 1912, Emil Seidel, was the mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which also had a majority of Socialists on the city council and county board. A conservative "sewer" Socialist, his administration focused on an active and effective government rather than the overthrow of capitalism. His administration created a public works department, the city park system, and closed down many casinos and brothels. He hired a young Carl Sandburg to be his secretary.
Milwaukee would have two more Socialist mayors governing for a combined 38 of the first 60 years of the 20th century. It remains the only major American city to elect a socialist to its highest office. That was just one elected official though; in 1912, more than 1000 Socialists were elected to offices all over the country, including aldermanic, mayoral, legislative, and administrative offices.
This would be the high-water mark for the Socialist Party, however. Later attempts to reach the heights of the 1910s fell short. An attempt to create a coalition party with progressives and populists did well in 1924 and then collapsed. Norman Thomas worked as hard as he could to nab just 2.2 percent of the vote for president in 1932. When Upton Sinclair, the author of The Jungle, ran for Governor of California in 1934 he ran on a socialist platform called End Poverty In California but ran as a Democrat because of how toxic the word "socialist" had become.
Was there something in the water? How could there be so many of them?
A great deal of the success of the Socialists at the dawn of the 20th century can be attributed to the spirit of the age. The Progressive Era was filled with reform movements that called for changes to society and institutions in the name of progress. Many reforms that shaped modern America were implemented during this time. The spirit of reform reached every level of governance and had a significant impact on one presidential election in particular.
In the 1912 election there were four noteworthy candidates: the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson, Republican president William Howard Taft, progressive candidate Teddy Roosevelt, and the Socialist candidate Eugene Debs. Wilson and Roosevelt ran on progressive platforms and took 68% of the popular vote between them. If Deb's total is added to that, a full 74% of the voters were behind progressivism and socialism that year. President Taft, running as the conservative option, won a mere two states and got 23% of the vote, earning him third place.
Roosevelt's performance was extraordinary and telling. Running with a newly created party – the Progressive Party or Bull Moose Party – after he was denied the Republican nomination, he won 25% of the popular vote and came in second in the electoral college. This remains the best performance by any third-party candidate to this day. However, his entry into the race split the Republican vote and likely gave the election to Wilson.
Different platforms, similar planks
President Theodore Roosevelt working in 1905. His 1912 campaign centered around a bold, progressive platform called the New Nationalism. While his defeat prevented its implementation, its core ideas would later be implemented by his cousin FDR during the New Deal.
Credit: Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Nowhere was this desire for reform more evident than on the platforms of the Socialist and Progressive parties. While they differed in their fundamental philosophies, major themes of the progressive era reforms can be seen in their platforms.
Consider the similarities between these points of the Socialist platform:
- "shortening the work day in keeping with the increased productiveness of machinery."
- "a rest period of not less than a day and a half in each week."
- "forbidding the employment of children under sixteen years of age."
- "equal suffrage for men and women."
- "a non-contributary system of old age pensions, a general system of insurance by the State of all its members against unemployment and invalidism and a system of compulsory insurance by employers of their workers, without cost to the latter, against industrial diseases, accidents and death."
- "The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power… further conservation and development of natural resources for the use and benefit of all the people."
- "The adoption of the initiative, referendum and recall and of proportional representation, nationally as well as locally."
And these points on the Progressive platform:
- "The eight hour day in continuous twenty-four hour industries."
- "One day's rest in seven for all wage workers."
- "The prohibition of child labor."
- "equal suffrage to men and women alike."
- "The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."
- "Natural resources, whose conservation is necessary for the National welfare, should be owned or controlled by the Nation."
- "we urge on the States the policy of the short ballot, with responsibility to the people secured by the initiative, referendum and recall."
Several, similar points could be found on the New Freedom platform that Woodrow Wilson took to the White House and implemented.
Of course, progressivism and socialism aren't identical, and there is much they disagreed on. For instance, Roosevelt would have merely regulated large corporations while Debs would have nationalized them. Both platforms still manage to reflect a dedication to improving the condition of everyone, making institutions work better, and a sincere belief in the ability of reform to improve life – all hallmarks of progressive era reform.
The recent spike in interest around socialism and the increasing number of socialist office holders is nothing new, and it might be more surprising if we didn't see it today. Whether this interest is driven by an ideological shift towards public ownership of the means of production or a more general desire for progressive reform of any kind remains to be seen.Until then, we should be in for a few exciting years of American politics.
Join us at 2 pm ET tomorrow!
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Coronavirus layoffs are a glimpse into our automated future. We need to build better education opportunities now so Americans can find work in the economy of tomorrow.
- Outplacement is an underperforming $5 billion dollar industry. A new non-profit coalition by SkillUp intends to disrupt it.
- More and more Americans will be laid off in years to come due to automation. Those people need to reorient their career paths and reskill in a way that protects their long-term livelihood.
- SkillUp brings together technology and service providers, education and training providers, hiring employers, worker outreach, and philanthropies to help people land in-demand jobs in high-growth industries.
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis [PDF]<p>Work in understanding the skills at the heart of the new digital economy is leading to novel assessments that allow individuals to prove mastery to faithfully represent their abilities—but also to give weight and stackability to the emerging ecosystem of micro-credentials that make education more seamless across time and education providers. And we are seeing the beginnings of a renewal in the liberal arts, focused on building human skills in affordable ways that are accessible to many more individuals and far more effective.</p><p>Amidst these dark times, there is much opportunity to refresh the nation's education and training solutions to support the success of individuals and society writ large.</p>
Do we really know what we want in a romantic partner? If so, do our desires actually mean we match up with people who suit them?
- Two separate scientific studies suggest that our "ideals" don't really match what we look for in a romantic partner.
- Results of studies like these can change the way we date, especially in the online world.
- "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there," says Paul Eastwick, co-author of the study and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology.
Do we really know what we want in love or are we just guessing?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="204859156383d358652fda6f7eadda0f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQgfx2iYlso?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>More than 700 participants selected their top three qualities in a romantic partner (things like funny, attractive, inquisitive, kind, etc). They then reported their romantic desire for a series of people they knew personally. Some were blind date partners, others were romantic partners and some were simply platonic friends.</p><p>While participants did experience more romantic desire to the extent that these personal connections of theirs (people they knew) had the qualities they listed, there was more to the study. </p><p>Paul Eastwick, co-author and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-romantic-partner-random-stranger.html" target="_blank">explains</a>: "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there." </p><p>The participants also considered the extent to which their personal acquaintances possessed three attributes nominated by some other random person in the study. For example, if Kris listed "down-to-earth", intelligent and thoughtful as her own top three attributes, Vanessa also experienced more desire for people with those specific traits. </p>
Does what we want really match up with what we find?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NDA4Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjM3NzY5OX0.gdUo-UbjYhKUDOL39BDZseRynbwaK2H5dfJtbV0nw8Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="ff376" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7c1e3a1bb9d576872ef5dce39b2e8e80" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="illustration of a man and woman matching on a dating app" />
What we claim to want and what we look for may be two separate things...
Image by GoodStudio on Shutterstock<p>So the question became: are we really listing what we want in an ideal partner or are we just listing vague qualities that people typically consider as positive?</p><p>"So in the end, we want partners who have positive qualities," Sparks explained, "but the qualities you specifically list do not actually have special predictive power for you." </p><p>In other words, the idea that we find certain things attractive in a person does not mean we actively seek out people who have those qualities, despite saying it's what we want in a love interest. The authors of this study suggest these findings could have implications for the way we approach online dating in the digital age. </p><p>This isn't the first study of its kind to suggest that what we find in love isn't really what we were looking for. The evidence suggests that we really are consistent in the abstract of it all: when asked to evaluate what you want on paper, you are more likely to suggest overall attractiveness in accordance with what you've stated are important ideals to you. But real life isn't so similar. </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201506/when-it-comes-love-do-you-really-know-what-you-want" target="_blank">Psychology Today,</a> who covered a 2015 study with similar results, initial face-to-face encounters have very little effect on our romantic desire. "When we initially meet someone, our level of romantic interest in the person is independent of our standards."</p><p>While you might have no immediate interest in John, he may fit your criteria of being kind, loyal, and intelligent. Similarly, someone may be attracted to Elaine even though she doesn't have any of the qualities they originally said were important to them. </p><p><strong>What does this all mean? </strong></p><p>The authors of both the 2015 and 2020 studies say the same thing: give someone a chance before writing them off as a poor match. If your initial attraction is independent of the standards you've set out, the qualities which you've listed as important to you, the first time you meet someone may not give you enough information to make an informed decision.</p><p>"It's really easy to spend time hunting around online for someone who seems to match your ideals," said Sparks, "But our research suggests an alternative approach: Don't be too picky ahead of time about whether a partner matches your ideals on paper. Or, even better, let your friends pick your dates for you." </p>