Note in this piece I had not yet recognized the problem with progressivism. (comment: July 3, 2024)
The United States is a capitalist country. This means that the state is a capitalist, or bourgeois state. The two major political parties—the Democratic and Republican—are bourgeois parties and, for the most part, represent the interests of the capitalist class and its cadre of managers, as well as the capitalist system as a whole.
As a socialist, neither one of these two major parties represents my interests. Moreover, since most citizens are working people, neither one of the two major parties represents the interests of the majority of persons living in the United States. Working people have political parties representing their interests, but these parties are small and working people for the most part are falsely consciousness of their interests. This is because of capitalist and nationalist ideologies.
However, within the constraints of the system, there are differences between these two major parties. Usually, one of the two major parties is worse for working people. During the second half of the nineteenth century, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln was relatively better for working people mainly because of its work in limiting the spread of slavery and, ultimately, winning the war against the slaveowners that freed the slaves. This was good for the working class because it created the structural conditions for building a mass-based working class movement. Later, the Democratic Party took up the mantle of progressivism and the Republicans became the more troublesome enemies of the working class.
Third parties have a rich tradition in the United States. In 1892, the Populist candidate polled 1,026,595 votes, or 8.5 percent of the total vote. in 1904, the Socialists won 402,810 or 3.0 percent. In the next election cycle, the socialist won 420,793 (2.8 percent). They did even better in 1912, taking 901,551 votes, representing six percent of the total. The Progressive party did even better, coming in second (ahead of the Republicans) with 4,122,721 (27.4%). The Socialists took 590,524 3.2% in 1916 and 913,693 3.4% in 1920. In 1924 the Progressives took 4,831,706 16.6%. In 1932, Socialist 884,885 2.2%. In 1944 Progressive/American Labor 1,157,328 2.4%.
Progressives are told that if they vote for progressive politicians and parties they will help elect the regressive candidate. They are instructed to vote for the party that is more progressive in contrast to the party that is least progressive. If you vote for a third party, you are throwing your vote away. Were people in 1892 or 1912 told this? Did not those voting for the Socialist Party vote their conscious and their principle? They had good reason to know that their man wouldn’t win. So why did they cast their vote in a way that would weaken the relatively more progressive candidate?
Is it not curious that the more we have been swayed by the don’t throw away your vote by voting on principle and conscience argument the fewer and smaller the opportunities to vote for those who represent your principles? Is it not curious that the more we are told to work within the confines of the two party system the more conservative the relatively more progressive party becomes? Does is not keep the Democrats interested in working class interests for workers to vote for socialists? It is in the interests of Democrats to do this, obviously, since they need votes to win. If they can count on progressives to reflexively vote for Democrats, then what incentive do they have to address working class and progressive citizens? Clearly, they have very little, since they have move steadily rightward with the decline of third parties.
freedom and reason 