INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. Universify Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD„ ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 8215787 Gens, Stephen M ark PARANOIA BORDERING ON RESIGNATION: NORMAN THOMAS AND THE AMERICAN SOCIALIST PARTY, 1939-48 The University of Oklahoma Ph.D. 1982 University Microfilms I ntern sti O n el300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106 Copyright 1982 by Gens, Stephen Mark All Rights Reserved THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE PARANOIA BORDERING ON RESIGNATION: NORMAN THOMAS AND THE AMERICAN SOCIALIST PARTY, 1939-48 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillm ent of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY STEPHEN MARK GENS Norman, Oklahoma 1982 PARANOIA BORDERING ON RESIGNATION: NORMAN THOMAS AND THE AMERICAN SOCIALIST PARTY, 1939-48 APPROVED BY l(À DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was made possible in large part by a research grant from the University of Oklahoma Graduate College. My thanks to all involved. The staffs of various libraries facilitated much of the research contained herein, especially the Interlibrary Loan staff of the University of Oklahoma Bizell Memorial Library, the research staffs of the New York Public Library, 43rd Street Annex, and the Tamiment Institute of the New York University. All were very helpful, even to the tune of showing a westerner around New York City. To my committee I owe a debt of gratitude for editorial sug­ gestions and massive doses of patience. Especially to my chairman, H. Wayne Morgan, for his support and ideas, and to David W. Levy for his excellent editorial suggestions. While I must (sometimes reluctantly) take responsibility for the ideas contained herein, many of them occurred to me in discussions with various members of my committee. To ex-SP members Judah Drob and H. L. Mitchell, a special vote of thanks for their indefatigable memories and willingness to answer questions of all shapes and sizes. Their insights were invaluable. Finally, to my family and friends each and all dear, a special acknowledgment for their patience and love. Especially to Mark, Martha, Cheryl, Salliann, David, Steven, Martha and Duncan. Thanks to you a ll. I l l TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I. The Socialists Debate W a r....................................................................26 I I . Diminishing Alternatives: The SP War Stand, 1939-42 . 52 I I I , C ritical Support: The SP and World War I I .................................................................................... 105 IV. Catch 22: Reform, American Politics and the SP, 1939-48 .........................................................................147 V. Discipline and Theory: The Elastic S P........................................... 198 VI. Paranoia Bordering On Resignation: The SP Faces The Cold War, 1939-48 ...........................................223 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................266 BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY............................................ 282 IV INTRODUCTION Eugene V. Debs, Victor Berger and Morris H illq u it united their supporters in 1901 to form the Socialist Party of America (SP). Each man had different views of the organization and its purpose, but not of its goal, a socialist America. Debsians were mid-western and western radical industrial unionists from the recently broken American Railway Union, mixed with ex-populists and utopian communitarians. Berger led a strong electoral machine centered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His forces favored evolutionary socialism. They were rhetorically marxist. So was H illq u it's "Rochester" faction of Daniel DeLeon's Socialist Labor Party. Hillquit led a marxist group against DeLeon's dictatorial rule and his all-or-nothing philosophy of p o litics, union work and rev­ olution. Hillquit's forces were doctrinaire European socialists, Berger's were European social democrats, and Debs's were a mixture of budding syndicalists and grass roots populists.^ The SP was an interesting and volatile organization which allowed i t wide theoretical and practical boundaries before the First World War. The American political tradition imposed a certain struc­ ture on the new Socialist Party, but except for that, the early SP was free to pursue its goal by any means. The SP flourished in an atmo­ sphere which matched its elastic personality. The intense reform opti­ mism of the progressive era nutured idealism. The intellectual climate of the period also permitted a disparity of groups to function fa irly effectively within a single organization. Idealism was the party's glue; much seemed possible. An SP marxist probably considered Debsian communitarians unbalanced, but could point to no one recent incident as proof. All options were open, none trie d , a ll perhaps true. Time and experience was to close some doors, and appear to open others. The prewar optimism allowed the SP's goal to obscure the prob­ lem of the means by which the socialists expected to prevail. Not that the question of means was absent. I t caused many fights between evolu­ tionary and revolutionary socialists. The battles culminated in 1912 with the passage of an anti-violence, pro-political action amendment to the SP constitution, and the National Executive Committee (NEC) deci­ sion to expel William "Big B ill" Haywood for his advocacy of direct action. The oft-acclaimed inclusive nature of the prewar SP would not have been possible i f the question of means were as significant as i t was later to become. I t was much less important before the war because a ll roads to socialism appeared open. The party's final goal seemed 3 merely a matter of patience. Socialism was just around the corner. But the world would not stand s t i l l . As i t changed, so did the SP. Socialists were the consummate adherents of the doctrine of progress. Change was inevitable and necessarily good. I t could only mean progress for socialism, either evolutionary, through increased working class political consciousness, or revolutionary, through increased working class reaction to capitalist oppression. One thing few socialists expected was that change, instead of liberating, would ensnare radicals in positions which, while seemingly dictated by objec­ tive analysis, were to close many theoretical passageways to socialist liberation. And rarely would i t open any new doors. The era of the Great War for Democracy did just that. Govern­ ment and popular repression during World War I broke the back of the SP in the west. The populists' traditional nativism and patriotism sur­ faced rapidly and the government fe rtilize d i t abundantly. The party's anti-war St. Louis Declaration (1917) made i t prey for government repression, along with the semi-syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). During and after the war, American society and government set limits on the means the party could use to invite socialism into American society and culture. Political agitation and education were acceptable only i f neither seriously challenged the popular w ill, whether i t was truly popular, or government fomented. The party grew during the war, and by 1917 i t had over eighty thousand members/* New eastern and foreign-born members enthusiasti­ cally replaced lost western adherents. The party attracted new members because of its anti-war stand, and la te r, its support for the Russian Revolution. But many, impatient with Debs, Berger and H illq u it, and fired by the visions of the Russian Revolution, s p lit from the party to form the first communist parties. The split translated into a sixty 5 thousand member loss in SP membership between 1917 and 1921. The war severely affected radicals who remained within the SP. Repression c ir­ cumscribed the party's actions and dictated restraint. The postwar conservative popular mood necessitated retrenchment and a fu lle r exami­ nation of means. Could the SP alone gain power, or should i t seek alliance with residual elements of other prewar reform groups? Before the war this question had l i t t l e importance.