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%.
But an implicitly socialist candidate won the election! How about that!
Sorry – the New Age Donkey party is totally explicitly socialist – communist.
See the party’s platform.
That’s great, but the Democrats, Greens, and Republicans are more socialist than not.
Of course the totals are low. Obama is a Socialist.
I would expect Libartarians vote totals to be low if Ron Paul was running in the general election.
I always thought a socialist was someone who wanted the government to own the big manufacturing corporations. But it’s a mark of how messy our common political vocabulary is that there is no consensus that my definition is the right one.
Robert wrote: “Of course the totals are low. Obama is a Socialist.”
The only people that propagate this line of rubbish are people who know nothing about Socialism.
Care to refer us to any quote or writing penned by Obama advocating government owned and run manufacturering capability over private industry Robert ?
I am and strong supporter of Ralph Nader but he is wrong when he characterizes the ongoing Financial Bailout Program as “Socialism for the Rich” The correct term is STATE SUBSIDIZED CAPITALISM. Socialism implies benefit for all. The ongoing bailout for Finance and Industry is nothing more than a powerful elite using the coersive power of the state to rip off the citzenry’s tax dollars in order to prop up a handful of business owners for their exclusive benefit.
Richard is right, of course. This is a very very bad result for the classic Left. Moore even appeared on cable tv a few times this election.
Now, what is the greatest result for socialist candidacies in any U.S. Presidential election. Without checking, I’m guessing 1912 as a percentage of the vote and 1948 in absolute total votes, if you count the Progressives that year, which was formed with the support of the CP.
I wish the hardcore Gloria La Riva types would just go ahead and get a Socialist Liberation Party on the ballot in CA, so the rest of us could do something a bit more effective with the Peace and Freedom ballot line.
Did you include the California Peace & Freedom party in these totals? While it doesn’t have any of your code words in its name, its platform is unambiguously socialist. This year’s candidates for President and Vice President were not, but that’s a completely different story.
Saying that a socialist is “someone who wanted the government to own the big manufacturing corporations” is at best half a definition. Among other problems, it leaves unanswered the question of who “owns” the government.
Put most simply, socialists believe in democratic control of the economy as well as the government. This means ownership of large-scale capital by the people as a whole rather than private owners, so that major investment decisions are the result of a democratic process in which everyone can participate. It also means the replacement of wages and salaries by guaranteed incomes. Government control of investment (e.g. banking) or manufacturing is not socialist without democratic, popular control of the state.
But Richard is right about vocabulary — the number of people who will agree with my definition is about the same as the number who agree with his.
Wow, you guys (except for Richard) have no idea what socialism actually MEANS. The Democrats are a completely 100% capitalist party, as are the Greens. They have no intention of letting the workers take control of the state. People love to say that a bigger government is socialism. But it’s not. It’s fascism. Socialism paves the way for communism, which is a system with no government and nobody telling you what to do. You simply do everything for the good of everybody without having to be told.
Richard,
If the Peace and Freedom Party’s (which describes itself as a movement-oriented socialist party) totals from California and Iowa (Nader appeared on Iowa ballot with label) were to be added in how would this change the overall percentage of the vote received by “Socialist” parties?
What about the Liberty Union Party were there totals also included? There nominee was the Socialist Party USA candidate Brian Moore.
Please include the Peace and Freedom Party of California in your vote tabulations, Richard. The Party is explicitly socialist, as stated in the platform.
The Democratic Party is a capitalist party, like the Republican Party. By the year 2012, the GOP will be a minor-sized party (per my predictions of the last few years); that will create more room for a growing socialist party to oppose the capitalist Democratic Party.
Richard wrote: “But it’s a mark of how messy our common political vocabulary is that there is no consensus that my definition is the right one.”
Richard that is a function ignorance. Believe it or not your definition sounds closest to the truth. The fact of the matter is Socialism isn’t given cursory treatment if any at all in institutions of higher learning and none to speak of in high schools. What the word Socialism does have is a negative stigma as byproduct numerous wrongheaded vicious smear campaigns. The word is now used in popular discourse as a punctuation mark to disparge people, groups and ideas that some deem unfit for public discussion. And the ranks of the uninformed transcend socio-economic strata all the way to the top which include John McCain and Michelle Bachmann. Congressman Joseph McCarthy was revered as a hero for conducting his hearings of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) that ruined the lives of numerous hardworking Americans. These were people who came from all walks of life and most from modest means. McCarthy’s committee was exposed an empty fishing expedition when Ole Joe had the stupidity to focus his self-righteous vengeance on Generals in the US Military. It was then the American Public saw the vaccuous nature of the whole charade and branded McCarthy a nut ! Just like Michelle Bachmann. To bad the voters of Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District couldn’t figure that out before they went to the poles.
If there is ever a situation that cries out for Nationalization of the Finance and Automotive Industries in this country they are certainly present today.
We have just witness the most empty and shrill political campaigns that I can remember. Nothing of substance was discussed just cat calls and slander after slander. All of it coming from one side while the other just stood there and took it like a punching bag in the gym with the exception of the odd occasion where they poked fun at their attacker. And when attacks like that go unanswered others of similarly mentality take license from these episodes and perpetuate the phenomenon. And as you can see Richard the same thing is happening here.
I don’t include the Peace & Freedom Party. Not one Californian in 1,000 has read the PFP platform. I’m talking about what the voter sees on his or her ballot. If the party name says “socialist”, then the voter thinks, that’s a socialist party.
Also, PFP has nominated many presidential candidates in its history who were not socialists. Libertarians felt at home in PFP in 1974, when PFP nominated a libertarian for Governor.
I wouldn’t include the 1948 Henry Wallace Progressive Party either. Wallace was clear that he was not a socialist. Robert La Follette in 1924 also was very public about not being a socialist, even though he accepted the presidential nomination of the Socialist Party. I wasn’t counting those two presidential candidates. The 1924 Socialist Labor and Communist Party votes alone were .24% of the presidential vote.
Socialism is where the workers/community own the means of production, or where most or all property is communally owned.
Government is one way to attempt to create socialism, anarcho-socialism is another.
Government does not even have to exist for there to be socialism.
Obama is certainly not a socialist. He advocates a mixed economic system with nominal private ownesrship, 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.
test
Socialism is where the workers/community own the means of production, or where most or all property is communally owned.
Government is one way to attempt to create socialism, anarcho-socialism is another.
Government does not even have to exist for there to be socialism.
Obama is certainly not a socialist. He advocates 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.
We should keep in mind that SPUSA is not a Marxist party – it, more or less, represents the left-wing of social-democracy (i.e. ‘democratic socialism’). However, for Marxist parties, the combined vote of SWP and PSL in 2008 (17,305) is higher than the combined vote of SWP and WWP in 2004 (12,441). It was SPUSA that lost over 4,000 votes compared to 2004.
Richard,
Couldn’t the same thing be said about parties with the word “workers” in them? I mean, who in theory is against workers?
Both McCain and Obama are socialists.
I wrote a blog piece for a friend on the mis-use of the word socialism, as in Obama is not a socialist neither is the bailout.
Go to- http://cripsyduck.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/guest-editorial-two-cents-from-a-real-socialist/#more-224
it might help
ps, the vote totals here don’t include official write-in status votes, which likely won’t be known for another month for most of the parties mentioned.
This call is quite premature. The vast majority of SP Moore-Alexander ticket’s write-in votes have yet to be counted and the SP vote totals in ballot qualified states continues to increase each day. Florida’s totals are also completely off the wall right now for numerous offices. The SP could still quite possibly exceed its vote totals from 2004. In just North Carolina alone in 2000, the SP presidential ticket received over twelve-hundred write-in votes.
see also http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/2008/11/michigan-socialists-score-well-in-2008.html … seems that (real, not imagined) socialist candidats scored much better in some races on state or regional level
Such as the Workers World Party: The WWP had its own presidential and vice-presidential candidates in 2004 (this year the WWP endorsed the Green Party ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente).
However, I do see what you mean, Richard.
Like Phil, I think Richard’s operational definition — what the voter sees printed on the ballot — makes sense for his purpose. At least it can be uniformly applied over time. But I think it should be stated up front. In retrospect, Richard probably did that adequately in his original post.
I guess Obama and McCain are both Socialists since they both voted for the “bailout” bill. A bill that is causing the government to buy and OWN a share of banks and other financial institutions instead of letting them fail.
Banks did not have a choice if they were going to take money for ownership either.
The government owned Chrysler and may end up owning GM soon.
The important thing is to compare ‘like with like’ and Richard’s method is the best way of doing that for these purposes.
‘Socialism’ is a VERY broad church running all the way from the mildest Social Democrats to the most hardline Maoist and Stalinists sects (did someone mention the Workers World Party). That is a political distance about as broad as that between Ted Kennedy and the Constitution Party.
Some points from the discussion – from a European viewpoint.
1) Anyone who thinks your President-Elect is a Socialist (or even a socialist) is fundamentally ignorant on either what socialism is or what Obama stands for.
2) PF in California is clearly a socialist party but its nominee this year for President was not. We could go back in time on this one. Was the old Citizens Party or the old Peoples Party ‘socialist’. LaFollette would never have called himself ‘Socialist’ but he definitely followed a brand of ‘municipal socialism’ – as in its early days did the old Populist Party. What about the Farm Labor Party of the 1920s-30s – where do they fit in?
3) Hitler had an outfit called the National Socialist German Workers Party – just as well he didn’t run in US elections because he was so much of a socialist he put them all in concentration camps!
4) It might be useful if Richard could do a similar job for ‘left of the Democratic candidate’ – a possibly less problematic category in most years. This year for instance the ‘left’ were far more likely to be voting Nader or Green than for Moore (who did his best but wasn’t a good candidate) or the 2 branches of the Fidel Castro Fan Club.
I will make similar calculations for all the minor parties when the official results are known.
It’s true every presidential candidate’s vote total is continuing to go up, as more ballots are counted; but that shouldn’t make the percentages go up, because obviously the Obama and McCain totals are also going up.
additionally, Jerome White and Bill Van Auken of the “Socialist Equality Party” tried to run as write-in candidates, see http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/elec-s13.shtml
I think it’s time for third parties to take action. If the possibility of uniting all third parties, left, right and center, doesn’t seem feasible, I think there should be consideration of creating an alternative alliance on the left and right to compete with the Democrats and Republicans. The left would have the Greens, Socialists and all left-leaning parties together, the right would have the Libertarians, Constitutionalists and right-leaning parties together. If nothing else, keep all the third parties and just run under a single banner.
Statists and statism is what has been going on in the U.S.A. since Oct. 1929 — for any body who is brain dead ignorant of political reality.
Goal of the statists and statism — everybody becomes a slave in the state (regime) except the statist leftwing / rightwing elites.
It would be great if “Robert” would do some research as to what socialist means to socialists and academics.
He would then understand that Obama is not a socialist, and neither is the bailout.
The bailout is socialism in reverse, or neo-fascism.
Regular folks saw how wrong the bailout is, so instead of letting them get notions about true socialism, the power structures called their own misdoings socialism on purpose so as to give the word a bad name, once again.
Well, it has been a long time since I have been in college, I admit. However, what I was taught was that the economic system in this country is considered to be mixed capitalism. Since the two (current) “major parties” support the established system, I think that it is fair to describe them as capitalist parties.
My old dictionary, here at home, describes socialism as “1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. … ” Or to put it another way, the means of production and the methods of the distribution of goods are in the hands of the proletariat, rather than the bourgeoisie. Those are the definitions that I accept.
I left the Green Party and I have no intention of being shoved back into it under some imposed “alternative alliance” of anything. McKinney’s campaign was a total embarrassment, I mean 9/11, 5,000 bodies from Katrina, etc.?? Total conspiracy theory moonbat lunacy, and I want nothing to do with it, and neither do any other Nader voters.
Well, Charles is incorrect on his assessment of “Nader voters.” My second choice for the presidential nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party of California was Cynthia McKinney. I had said and written that many times and I was prepared to vote for her at our Party’s State Presidential Nominating Convention, last August, had Ralph Nader not been able to obtain the nomination. I had also said and written that many times. I would love to see Ms. McKinney change her registration to the Peace and Freedom Party of California and become one of our candidates for a prominent position in state or federal office. At the Convention, Ms. McKinney stated that she is in complete agreement with our whole platform.
I would basically agree with the point Richard was making. While we can debate a proper term for something like communist, socialist, anarchist, libertarian, capitalist etc. the average voter is probably going to go with overt labels.
Given that political theory is rarely taught until the undergraduate or graduate level and even then it can be avoided.
In my own State of Minnesota I noticed that their was no Socialist-Communist party on the ballot, just as write-ins. I founds this to be a bit curious, but then again Richard, if I may put something into his mouth, might just be trying to get around to making a ballot access point;
I suspect that their was a time when their was only one Socialist and one Communist party. Today, their are probably over a dozen.
I tried to have a self-described Socialist friend of mine explain why these factions existed, given that they seem to agree on policy, but he could not do so. Then again, we are now seeing this factionalism with the Libertarians.
Richard might just argue that because of harsh ballot access laws, parties are more likely to become splits into factions. Thus the notion that harsh ballot access rules are needed to avoid a clutter ballot of splitered parties would be challenged.
As theories go, I am not sure its a bad one. If a party cannot expect to get on the ballot or even into the debates, it may become more likely to focus on ‘purity’ and ‘litmus’ tests internally.
You really think McKinney’s campaign was anything but an embarrassment?
In my opinion, the Green Party did the best that it could do under such difficult circumstances. I think that Ralph Nader (my candidate) took a lot of votes that otherwise would have gone to Ms. McKinney – just as Senator Barack Obama took a lot of votes that otherwise would have gone to Mr. Nader. There are only so many “progressive” votes in any given election. Our task is to keep up the registration drives and the party building. That is where most of the action should be.
In the meantime, the Republican Party is packing its bags. That can only be a good thing. My prediction is that the GOP will be a minor-sized party by the year 2012 – and that it will never again win an election on the national level. The Republican Party can thank the Bush-Cheney Administration for much of that.
Phil Sawyer wrote: “In my opinion, the Green Party did the best that it could do under such difficult circumstances.”
Phil I have to agree with Charles on this one. The Green Party-McKinney was disgraceful to say the least. Ralph’s first preference was to run on the Green Party Ticket and he made numerous speaking engagements at a number of Green Party functions in 2007. In January 2008 the Greens held a debate in San Francisco amongst their declared candidates. Nader appeared separately after the main event because he was not a declared candidate and was prohibited under FEC rules. At the end of the debate one of the participants, Jared Ball, got up and announced that he was withdrawing from the race and was throwing his support behind McKinney and would do anything to support her race. After the event Ball made a number of public statements supporting McKinney. As February drew to a close Nader announced that he would not seek the Green Party Nomination and for all intents and purposes ceeded the race to McKinney. A few days later in a gesture of brazen disrepect towards Nader Ball publicly called on Nader to run as McKinney’s Vice Presidential running mate. After that Jared Ball dropped of the face of the earth and was never heard from again despite his prior statement of commitment for McKinney.
McKinney locked up the Green Party California Ballot Line at their convention in mid July. Despite that McKinney makes a stop out to the P&F Convention two weeks later to secure their ballot line even though she was only on the ballot on 21 states at the time ? After Balls’ earlier outburst this curious decision left me with the impression the McKinney Campaign was more about stopping Ralph Nader than it was running Cynthia McKinney.
When it came down to the actual McKinney/Green Party Campaign the ineptitude defied belief. They failed to properly file the paperwork for Federal Matching Funds. McKinney and the Greens barely raised any money worth speaking of. Less than 200,000 dollars. Nader raised 4 Million and received 889,000 dollars in matching money. McKinney said nothing during the campaign to indicate she knew anything about Green Party Policy or articulate Green Party Principles. If she were a Green she would have been out front challenging Barack Obama’s plan to escalate the military conflict in Afghanistan. She spoke nothing of Green Party Tax Policy after it became clear that financial markets were tanking. Late in the campaign it was all the Nutty Stuff that Charles has already addressed.
Phil I don’t know how anyone can consider McKinney a credible candidate despite what she says about the party’s platform when she conducted such a minimal campaign. Nader raised 8 Million Dollars in 2000 running as a Green. Nader raised 4 Million dollars running as an independent this year while McKinney couldn’t raise 200 grand. Does that tell you who had the heavy end of the log 2000 ? The only items of value in the Greens are their ballot lines which are dwindling with each and every election.
Phil, I, like Charles have had my fill with the Greens. I was there in the beginning and put in substantial effort to found and grow the party. But since it’s initial successes the party has become very good at saying what it’s not rather than sying what it is. The resultant sectarian infighting has lead it to a state of paralysis which outside groups are more than willing to exploit. P&F and other state party’s need to know that they can no longer can expect to survive on a sustained basis as a small political party at the margins. Your comment about the Republicans fading is quite correct. The Capitalist Centers of Power in this country pumped cash into the Democrat Party on a scale that towered over anything they kicked in to the Republicans. It will be interesting to watch what happens in 2010 and 2012 but if they keep up that trend the Repubs won’t be around, at least as a major party, for long. The key questions then are when will the American Citzenry at large recognize this and what will they do when the realization hits.
Thank you for your long and thoughtful message, Bob. I like Cynthia McKinney and I like the Green Party of the United States. As a matter of fact, I am a card-carrying member (also of the Communist Party USA), even though I am registered to vote and am active with the Peace and Freedom Party of California (and active with CPUSA also). Evidently, the Green Party made some mistakes this year and it has much, much, work to do. I am sorry that you are so disappointed with the Party.
Regarding your comment about Ms. McKinney seeking the Peace and Freedom Party’s presidential nomination (even though she was already on the ballot in California as the Green Party nominee), I will mention that Barry Commoner attempted to obtain our nomination, in 1980, even though he was already on the ballot as an independent candidate for president. He did not recive the PFP-CA nomination. By the way, I was part of the delegation for Gus Hall at that convention. We did not receive the nomination either.
I would argue that the Libertarian and Green Party both did a similar thing; picked a former Congressman (or woman) hoping that he or she might bring greater visibility and or legitimacy to their respective campaigns.
The problem seems to be that neither candidate wanted to run an aggressive campaign that would help build the party, much less create some sort of movement for electoral reform. They were running to raise money or generate publicity or stroke their own ego.
Re #40 Bob: Did McKinney even qualify for matching funds? She would have needed to raise $5,000 each from at least 20 different states. By July 24, she had only reached that goal in 10 states. I haven’t found any later updates.
A new lie about Ralph Nader is flowing around the web.It’s source is a Washington, DC PR release. It states, Nader got .33% of the vote, apparently including the 5 states where his name did not appear on the ballot like Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina. His actual percentage was .63% on 45 states and his vote total, subject to correction by Richard Winger on this site, was 724,947. Not bad considering his opposition and its funding. He beat every other thid party candidate except in one state.