In every presidential election starting in 1888, at least one socialist party has participated. The Socialist Labor Party ran a slate of unpledged presidential electors in 1888 in New York state.
If one adds together the presidential vote of all the parties with these words in their party name: “Socialist”, “Communist”, “Socialism” and “Workers”, and calculates the percentage of the vote cast for such parties for president, one finds that the lowest percentage in history was in 2000, when such parties polled less than .02% of the vote. 2008 appears likely to be the second such presidential election. The combined vote in 2008 for the Socialist Workers, Socialist, and Party for Socialism and Liberation presidential candidates appears to be just barely under .02% (specifically, .019%). The worst year for such parties for president was 2000, when it was only .017%. In 2004 the percentage was .021%.
One caveat from the comments: the Peace and Freedom Party, which ran Ralph Nader in California and Iowa, is a self-identified socialist party. However, since Ralph Nader does not identify himself as a socialist, it is not included in this calculation.
Anarcho-socialist and Anarcho-capitalist can agree on politics (the elimination of the state) and just disagree about morals and what one SHOULD do after the state is eliminated. I think, much like free-market capitalism, socialism is both political and moral.
There is little appeal to the socialist parties, as they aren’t sufficiently different from Republicans and Democrats.
It depends on your perspective. From theirs, they are vastly different from Ds and Rs, and Libertarians aren’t.
Socialism, I believe, is about murdering and stealing and raping and torturing, but doing so for the state so you can get away with it. In these things it is very similar to Republicanism or Democratism.
That’s statism, or authoritarianism, or totalitarianism. It overlaps with socialism, but they are different things. There’s also non-socialistic statism and non-statist socialism.
Did anyone else notice that the Socialist Workers Party got the highest number of votes this year, even though (in my opinion) they didn’t run a very good campaign? The campaign didn’t even have a website.
A lot of this will depend on the write-in votes, most of which have not been reported yet.
there wasn’t a sincere communist alive after 1960 or so…
My grandmother was one to her dying day, in the late 1990s.
oops I meant to say, all of which are mainstream stuff for Democrats and Republicans….in this day and age. However, even as late as the 1980’s, the U.S. really looked different than socialist countries. Not so much any more.
I love the discussion about definitions.
Nevertheless, I think it misses the main point, which is still valid.
There is little appeal to the socialist parties, as they aren’t sufficiently different from Republicans and Democrats.
I didn’t see anythign in this discussion to dissuade me from that opinion.
Eugene Debs, of course, was the most popular socialist, getting nearly 6 percent of the vote.
I don’t think anyone thinks of socialism as a cult of personality, but it really did its best under Eugene Debs….and probably due to the cult of personality around him at the time.
However, I also think it did better, because it was so much different, in those days, from the mainstream parties. In these days, mainstream parties will nationalize banks, partially nationalize healthcare, maybe even completely nationalize it. We have all kinds of social welfare programs unheard of in the early 1900’s.
nevermind Karl Marx.
I guess its because I study Russian so much, its where my perspective lies….but Russians didn’t give a crap about communism, there wasn’t a sincere communist alive after 1960 or so…
but where they really did believe they were special was universal healthcare, retirement for pensioners, public housing.
All of which, are mainstream stuff for both Democrats and Republicans, which lowers the real appeal for socialist type candidates…who left to hawking, not real differences, just ethereal philosophical differences that joe 6pack will never get.
I meant of the socialist parties in #7
Socialism, I believe, is about murdering and stealing and raping and torturing, but doing so for the state so you can get away with it. In these things it is very similar to Republicanism or Democratism.
On #4 above, “Major Strasser has been shot!”
=exchange of looks=
“Round up the usual suspects!”
– from the film “Casablanca”
Did anyone else notice that the Socialist Workers Party got the highest number of votes this year, even though (in my opinion) they didn’t run a very good campaign? The campaign didn’t even have a website.
Looks like we’ll disagree about definitions here. A “system where workers control the means of production†is a Marxist sophistry. If THAT is your definition of socialism, I have to say it is incomplete. And, workers never DO control the means of production in Marxism/communism/international socialism. The party elite do.
Socialism, in this man’s definition, is where the government confiscates and redistributes the wealth of the productive citizens, varying in degree according to Keynes, Mussolini or Marx.
How does your definition account for anarcho-socialism? I don’t see the existence of a state as an essential element of socialism. A group of hippies or religious communalists can be socialistic, yet voluntary.
I would agree that the workers do not control the means of production in allegedly socialist states. That is their proclaimed goal, not the reality.
Which connects better: “Workers of the world, unite!†or “Be proud to be German!†(or Italian, or fill-in-the-blank with your preferred race, nation or culture)?
It depends on who you are talking to.
But to deny that fascism is not socialist, despite any Wikipedia revisionism, is too much of a stretch for this freedom-loving man.
What incorrect revisionism did you find in the linked article? If you haven’t read it, it is not very long, and worth reading in a discussion like this.
Looks like we’ll disagree about definitions here. A “system where workers control the means of production” is a Marxist sophistry. If THAT is your definition of socialism, I have to say it is incomplete. And, workers never DO control the means of production in Marxism/communism/international socialism. The party elite do.
Socialism, in this man’s definition, is where the government confiscates and redistributes the wealth of the productive citizens, varying in degree according to Keynes, Mussolini or Marx.
National socialism certainly does that, to a lesser degree than international socialism, but it is only illusory and temporary.
Illusory because, any time the citizen [who is supposedly guaranteed his private property in small business, land or savings] aggravates the state, he quickly finds the property confiscated and likely his freedom as well.
Temporary because all socialist systems “run downhill” towards totalitarianism.
Fascism, as the fake antidote to communism, seemed plausible to frightened Germans in the 20s and 30s [see: millions of dead and starved kulaks in nearby Ukraine, which despite that intrepid Pulitzer-winning NYT reporter Walter Duranty, Europeans actually knew was happening].
Which connects better: “Workers of the world, unite!” or “Be proud to be German!” (or Italian, or fill-in-the-blank with your preferred race, nation or culture)?
But to deny that fascism is not socialist, despite any Wikipedia revisionism, is too much of a stretch for this freedom-loving man.
My compliments.
Note on the name: I ain’t no Mr. Cannoli. It’s a nickname. The second part is chosen due to rhyming with the first part.
Now to your post: the “socialism” in national socialism is inoperative. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism
for details.
The “mixed economic system†of Keynes has morphed, as all socialist systems must do, into something increasingly sinister.
On that, we can agree. But it is hardly a system where the workers control the means of production, whether through the state or not.
The increasingly totalitarian state operates on behalf of the oligarchy and the bureaucracy intertwined in a kleptocratic death-embrace.
I would hope that Mr. Cannoli is more informed than he appears with his last comment. One of the alternative names for “fascism” is NATIONAL SOCIALISM. Please note the operative 2nd word. To maintain that the 2 major-party candidates are not socialist bespeaks a need to go back and visit Keynes (Democratic SOCIALISM), Mussolini (National SOCIALISM) and Marx (International SOCIALISM). The “mixed economic system” of Keynes has morphed, as all socialist systems must do, into something increasingly sinister. Eventually, we will all be sitting fat-and-happy with TOTALITARIANISM.
Neither is a socialist. Both Obama and McCain advocate a mixed economic system with nominal private ownersship, but with more heavy government control than at present. This can be described as the economic system of fascism, although there are more elements to fascism than just economic.
That’s because the two major socialist candidates McLame and Obambya got 99% of the vote.