Opinions on Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party of America?

[red-winter]

It's the time of year where in my US History class I am to write a term paper. We were given a long list of topics we can choose to write about and of course I chose "accomplishments of Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party of America" (as opposed to things like "1930s sports culture"), so I was wondering how he is viewed from various leftist perspectives.

[Atsumari]

Lots of leftists seem to like him but he would be called a liberal and reformist if he were alive today.

[#FF0000]

Lots of leftists seem to like him but he would be called a liberal and reformist if he were alive today.

I'm not so sure about that since he was pretty open in his views regarding revolution:


Moyer and Haywood are our comrades, staunch and true, and if we do not stand by them to the shedding of the last drop of blood in our veins, we are disgraced forever and deserve the fate of cringing cowards.
We are not responsible for the issue. It is not of our seeking. It has been forced upon us; and for the very reason that we deprecate violence and abhor bloodshed we cannot desert our comrades and allow them to be put to death. If they can be murdered without cause so can we, and so will we be dealt with at the pleasure of these tyrants.
They have driven us to the wall and now let us rally our forces and face them and fight.
If they attempt to murder Moyer, Haywood and their brothers, a million revolutionists, at least, will meet them with guns.


...


Get ready, comrades, for action! No other course is left to the working class. Their courts are closed to us except to pronounce our doom. To enter their courts is simply to be mulcted of our meager means and bound hand and foot; to have our eyes plucked out by the vultures that fatten upon our misery.
Capitalist courts never have done, and never will do, anything for the working class.
Whatever is done we must do ourselves, and if we stand up like men from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Canada to the Gulf, we will strike terror to their cowardly hearts and they will be but too eager to relax their grip upon our throats and beat a swift retreat.
We will watch every move they make and in the meantime prepare for action.
A special revolutionary convention of the proletariat at Chicago, or some other central point, would be in order, and, if extreme measures are required, a general strike could be ordered and industry paralyzed as a preliminary to a general uprising.
If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it.



https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1906/arouse.htm

[#FF0000]

Either way, Eugene Debs is one of those rare figures that virtually everyone on the Left likes, even center-left liberals. He's definitely an interesting figure and was involved in a lot of Big Moments in American labor and leftist history. That being said I think a paper on his "accomplishments" would be difficult since he, as a revolutionary anti-capitalist, ultimately lost. Though, I guess you could try to connect him to some of the gains made by the American labor movement, if you really tried.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Debs was the leader of one of the most advanced sections of the old, prewar social-democracy, but to be honest, that was all he ever was. Undoubtedly he was an effective orator, and compared to pond scum like Ebert and Dan, Debs seems like a giant, but at the same time he was never able to, like Lenin or Liebknecht, to break with the pacifism and the democratic delusions of social-democracy.

It is also important to note that, while Debs made noises sympathetic to the left wing of the SPA, in practice he threw his support behind the right-wing led by Germer, often attacking the left wing for causing "factional squabbles" (does this sound familiar?) while keeping quiet about the behaviour of the Credentials Committee dominated by the right wing, for example. In this, he in a way inadvertently saved American communism, because the new communist party was able to decisively separate itself from the gangrene of the pacifists and the sewer socialists.

Of course, it's mildly offensive to compare our "socialist" liberals and reformists to Debs, or even to the worst of the sewer socialists, as the former group is completely in thrall to the racist, anti-worker Democratic Party, the same party who threw Debs into prison.

[red-winter]

With the paper I've made a point to talk about his union activities and support of racial and gender equality rights. He was president of the American Railroad Union and led the Pullman strike. While obviously not too successful in the area of progress towards Socialism, I suppose one could argue (for the sake of the paper) that his actions somewhat helped out the working class?

[red-winter]

Wow I actually had no idea about his right-wing support. You'd think after running for president on the SPA ticket for so many years he'd get a clue :laugh: You make an interesting point, I've never actually looked at it that way.

Though I agree with you, I can't help but somewhat have sympathy for Debs for being known as one of the biggest names in American Socialism. Though evidently not as radical as one such as William Z. Foster of the CPUSA, I feel as though he left his mark. I still wonder how the US would be today if he somehow had won; he did get several hundreds of thousands of votes in his favor.

[#FF0000]

Wow I actually had no idea about his right-wing support. You'd think after running for president on the SPA ticket for so many years he'd get a clue :laugh: You make an interesting point, I've never actually looked at it that way.

Right-wing in this context refers to the reformist, "evolutionary" wing of the Socialist movement. That is, the wing of the socialist movement that sort of evolved into modern Social Democracy. We don't mean "right-wing" as in "conservative".


I feel as though he left his mark. I still wonder how the US would be today if he somehow had won; he did get several hundreds of thousands of votes in his favor.

Well he was definitely all over the place. One of the founders of the IWW on top of his work with the SPUSA. The angle you could take with it is talk about his accomplishments within the labor and socialist movement in the US and the impact those movements had on the US.

And I imagine things would have had to have been massively different if Debs ever had a chance of winning. I imagine the IWW would've had far more members in this alternate timeline.

[red-winter]

Right-wing in this context refers to the reformist, "evolutionary" wing of the Socialist movement. That is, the wing of the socialist movement that sort of evolved into modern Social Democracy. We don't mean "right-wing" as in "conservative".

Ahh that makes more sense now! Still a newbie to the forum lingo.



Well he was definitely all over the place. One of the founders of the IWW on top of his work with the SPUSA. The angle you could take with it is talk about his accomplishments within the labor and socialist movement in the US and the impact those movements had on the US.

That's exactly the angle I'm taking! It's the only way I really see about presenting the argument really.



And I imagine things would have had to have been massively different if Debs ever had a chance of winning. I imagine the IWW would've had far more members in this alternate timeline.

Alas but we can only dream

[Vogel]

Perhaps all Debs needed to win was to live to the Great Depression and run then.

[Brutus]

Perhaps all Debs needed to win was to live to the Great Depression and run then.

And then what? Either fuck over the working class or get shot like Allende?

[#FF0000]

Perhaps all Debs needed to win was to live to the Great Depression and run then.

I doubt that'd help much. The US left was in tatters post-WW1 and most organizations had just started rebuilding themselves by the time the Depression started. The SPA itself was embroiled in it's own internal factional struggles even though its numbers started to grow as the Depression went on. Even if Debs was around I don't think he'd get elected, let alone have the mandate to push anything even close to a "minimum programme" or something like that. There's got to be a movement, and it really just wasn't in a good state at that time.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As far as accomplishments go, Debs ran for POTUS while he was in prison and got a million votes at a time when the US population and voting base was much lower.He got about one tenth of the vote, pretty amazing for a socialist third party candidate. He forced Woodrow Wilson to move somewhat to the left which led, among other things, to giving women the vote.

He was one of the main creators of the US Socialist Party, which for a time was a mass party.

Deb's tragedy though was that he didn't or couldn't build a radical working class core to the SP and was tossed around by its various competing factions.

The classic biography of Debs is Bending Cross by Ray Ginger.

[VivalaCuarta]

The best political review of Debs is James P. Cannon's essay, available here:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1956/debs.htm

There is much good to be said about Debs, but in order to learn from him we have to get to his shortcomings, so I will quote the section where Cannon summarizes them:

Debs believed that all who called themselves socialists should work together in peace and harmony in one organization. For him all members of the party, regardless of their tendency, were comrades in the struggle for socialism, and he couldn’t stand quarreling among comrades.



This excellent sentiment, which really ought to govern the relations between comrades who are united on the basic principles of the program, usually gets lost in the shuffle when factions fight over conflicting programs which express conflicting class interests. The reformists see to that, if the revolutionists don’t. That’s the way it was in the Socialist Party. Debs held aloof from the factions, but that didn’t stop the factional struggles. And there was not much love lost in them either.


Debs’ course in the internal conflicts of the party was also influenced by his theory of leadership, which he was inclined to equate with bureaucracy. He deliberately limited his own role to that of an agitator for socialism; the rest was up to the rank and file.



His repeated declarations – often quoted approvingly by thoughtless people – that he was not a leader and did not want to be a leader, were sincerely meant, like everything else he said. But the decisive role that leadership plays in every organization and every collective action cannot be wished away. Debs’ renunciation of leadership created a vacuum that other leaders – far less worthy – came to fill. And the program they brought with them was not the program of Debs.


Debs had an almost mystic faith in the rank and file, and repeatedly expressed his confidence that, with good will all around, the rank and file, with its sound revolutionary instincts, would set everything straight. Things didn’t work out that way, and they never do. The rank and file, in the internal conflicts of the party, as in the trade unions, and in the broader class struggle, can assert its will only when it is organized; and organization never happens by itself. It requires leadership.



Debs’ refusal to take an active part in the factional struggle, and to play his rightful part as the leader of an organized left wing, played into the hands of the reformist politicians. There his beautiful friendliness and generosity played him false, for the party was also an arena of the struggle for socialism. Debs spoke of “the love of comrades” – and he really meant it – but the opportunist sharpers didn’t believe a word of it. They never do. They waged a vicious, organized fight against the revolutionary workers of the party all the time. And they were the gainers from Debs’ abstention.


Debs’ mistaken theory of the party was one of the most costly mistakes a revolutionist ever made in the entire history of the American movement.



The strength of capitalism is not in itself and its own institutions; it survives only because it has bases of support in the organizations of the workers. As we see it now, in the light of what we have learned from the Russian Revolution and its aftermath, nine-tenths of the struggle for socialism is the struggle against bourgeois influence in the workers’ organizations, including the party.


The reformist leaders were the carriers of bourgeois influence in the Socialist Party, and at bottom the conflict of factions was an expression of the class struggle. Debs obviously didn’t see it that way. His aloofness from the conflict enabled the opportunists to dominate the party machine and to undo much of his great work as an agitator for the cause.


Debs’ mistaken theory of the party was one of the most important reasons why the Socialist Party, which he did more than anyone else to build up, ended so disgracefully and left so little behind.

[red-winter]

I doubt that'd help much. The US left was in tatters post-WW1 and most organizations had just started rebuilding themselves by the time the Depression started. The SPA itself was embroiled in it's own internal factional struggles even though its numbers started to grow as the Depression went on. Even if Debs was around I don't think he'd get elected, let alone have the mandate to push anything even close to a "minimum programme" or something like that. There's got to be a movement, and it really just wasn't in a good state at that time.

In addition I feel as though FDR's New Deal programs didn't help much either. They gave the people a false idea that Capitalism will work, care for their needs, and that there is no need for more radical ideas; big daddy FDR will just take care o' everything! If it wasn't for these reforms and programs (which one could say were desperate attempts to preserve Capitalism) I think the American populace would have been more revolutionary in nature. After Hoover, when the economy was in tatters, the leftist parties (SPA and CPUSA) were collectively getting millions of votes. There are just so many different things that prevented America from going left enough.

[VivalaCuarta]

In addition I feel as though FDR's New Deal programs didn't help much either. They gave the people a false idea that Capitalism will work, care for their needs, and that there is no need for more radical ideas; big daddy FDR will just take care o' everything! If it wasn't for these reforms and programs (which one could say were desperate attempts to preserve Capitalism) I think the American populace would have been more revolutionary in nature. After Hoover, when the economy was in tatters, the leftist parties (SPA and CPUSA) were collectively getting millions of votes. There are just so many different things that prevented America from going left enough.

I can't believe I'm defending FDR, but here we go.

Most of the "New Deal" was not "reforms" in the sense of concessions to the workers. As the depression progressed, the workers in the U.S. started to get a lot more militant. 1934 was the turning point, with the "big three" strikes in Minneapolis, Toledo and San Francisco. After these strikes the federal government passed the Wagner Act, which "legalized" what the workers had already done, and added a bunch of restrictions to hogtie the unions in the future. Many workers had illusions in Roosevelt -- but they weren't waiting for the president to do everything for them.

It was the CPUSA and the social democrats who helped U.S. capitalism get out of its increasingly precarious position by rallying to the flag in the second imperialist war. The fact that a few reforms were granted wasn't what tamed the labor movement. It was the war, and the support of the workers "radical" leadership for its own imperialist rulers, that put the movement for workers power and black freedom on ice and set the stage for the Cold War. The genuine communists (Trotskyists) were sent to prison for opposing the war, like Debs had been in the first.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

It was the CPUSA and the social democrats who helped U.S. capitalism get out of its increasingly precarious position by rallying to the flag in the second imperialist war. The fact that a few reforms were granted wasn't what tamed the labor movement. It was the war, and the support of the workers "radical" leadership for its own imperialist rulers, that put the movement for workers power and black freedom on ice and set the stage for the Cold War. The genuine communists (Trotskyists) were sent to prison for opposing the war, like Debs had been in the first.

Well aren't you a clever Trotskyite. What do you think the workers of USA, UK, etc. should have done? Gone on strike, wrecked their countries, and give the fascists a golden opportunity to conquer the world? Yeah I know I know. "The Allied workers should have overthrown their governments and the Axis workers should have overthrown theirs." Unfortunately that is not how it would have happened. Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. had destroyed their labor, peace, and other leftist movements so thoroughly that Trotskyite pleas would have fallen on deaf ears. The Fascist invaders would have been laughing all the way to their victory parade if the Trotskyites had their way in the Allied countries.

This brings me to one of the things I despise most about Trotskyites. They have the exact same solution for every problem. They think that a revolution will solve every problem no matter the time or the place. A hammer might be good for a nail, but it is of little use for a water faucet. Likewise, the best solution for WWII was for the communists to form a temporary alliance with the capitalists against the foe of humanity, fascism. Such things as civil rights for minorities were obviously important, but they would have done those same minorities little good if they had all been exterminated by racist, genocidal dictators.

I also hate how Trotskyites have this self-righteous purity demands and persecution complex. Going to jail does not make your cause just. Both Rosa Parks and Ted Bundy were imprisoned, but I believe everyone here would say that only the former was persecuted. Likewise, just because you are an ultra-leftist who is more "radical" than the other Marxists does not make you a better communist. It could also mean you are a moron who does not understand world events.

[#FF0000]

^ don't post like this, kids ^

[Futility Personified]

I feel so edgy now....

[Brutus]

So, Stalin-kiddie, we should support the democratic imperialist camp over the fascist imperialist camp even though both will display the same levels of violence when the chips are down?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well aren't you a clever Trotskyite. What do you think the workers of USA, UK, etc. should have done? Gone on strike, wrecked their countries, and give the fascists a golden opportunity to conquer the world? Yeah I know I know. "The Allied workers should have overthrown their governments and the Axis workers should have overthrown theirs." Unfortunately that is not how it would have happened. Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. had destroyed their labor, peace, and other leftist movements so thoroughly that Trotskyite pleas would have fallen on deaf ears. The Fascist invaders would have been laughing all the way to their victory parade if the Trotskyites had their way in the Allied countries.

This brings me to one of the things I despise most about Trotskyites. They have the exact same solution for every problem. They think that a revolution will solve every problem no matter the time or the place. A hammer might be good for a nail, but it is of little use for a water faucet. Likewise, the best solution for WWII was for the communists to form a temporary alliance with the capitalists against the foe of humanity, fascism. Such things as civil rights for minorities were obviously important, but they would have done those same minorities little good if they had all been exterminated by racist, genocidal dictators.

I also hate how Trotskyites have this self-righteous purity demands and persecution complex. Going to jail does not make your cause just. Both Rosa Parks and Ted Bundy were imprisoned, but I believe everyone here would say that only the former was persecuted. Likewise, just because you are an ultra-leftist who is more "radical" than the other Marxists does not make you a better communist. It could also mean you are a moron who does not understand world events.

No, no, you've forgotten your lines, Mr. Stalinist.

You should be advocating that American workers should have made a deal with Hitler to carve up Europe, not go to war against Hitler himself. Wait for him to get to New Jersey before that happens!