On page 216 of his biography on six-time Socialist U.S. Presidential candidate Norman Thomas, entitled Norman Thomas: The Last Idealist, W.A. Swanberg quotes a New York Times article that said the following:
"Norman
Thomas has proved an eye-opener to European Socialists. Wherever he
has stopped...he has been eagerly questioned on the differences between
the American and European brands of Socialism. Europeans have been
astonished by his view that the hope of American Socialism lies in the
farmers, and perhaps more astonished by his belief that in some farming
areas it has already taken root. To most of his questioners, Socialism
has been a growth in the industrial areas; and his admission that
American factory hands usually vote for the old parties rather than the
Socialist Party has aroused a good deal of respect for his frankness."
From
what I can see, at least in what I have read in Swanberg's book so far,
Swanberg does not address why Norman Thomas believed that the hope of
American Socialism rested in the farmers rather than the industrial
workers. But, based upon what I read in this article,
my guess is that a number of small farmers in the United States did not
like having to take out loans to pay hefty sums of money for farming
equipment, only to lose their farms when they could not pay off their
debts; it cost a lot of money for small farmers to produce and then to
distribute their products, and they were dependent on the capitalist
system for this, a system that charged them high prices. It's not
surprising, therefore, that at least some small farmers would be drawn
to systemic change. Many industrial workers in the U.S., on
the other hand, were satisfied with the Democratic Party, especially
during and after the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, because it
championed labor unions, which helped provide them with a decent
standard of living. Why would they want to vote Socialist, when they
were doing well under the Democrats?
One question that I have had
concerns the extent to which Socialists believe in private property. Do
they support abolishing it altogether, or are they for allowing private
ownership in some (maybe even many) areas? In his 1962 book Six Crises,
Richard Nixon discusses Polish resistance to Communism: "The Polish
farmer loves his land and his horses, as his father did before him[, so
he] refuses to be moved into co-operative farms on the inflexible
Communist design." Does Socialism try to force farmers into
collectivism?
From what I read in the Socialist Party USA's platform
(and this may be the most recent one), it appears that the Socialist
Party supports farming co-operatives and public ownership of corporate
farms, as well as "socially owned enterprises in the areas of transportation, storage, and processing of agricultural goods, controlled by boards comprised of farmers, farm workers, and community members." (The idea
is probably that this would eliminate small farmers' vulnerable state of
dependence on capitalists for the transportation and processing of
their products.) Yet, it also supports the family farm. It states that
"We call for family farmers whose land was taken in foreclosures to be given their land and equipment back, or be given comparable land and equipment or monetary compensation." This implies private ownership by small farmers of their land.
Another
question that I have had is whether Norman Thomas seriously believed
that he could win when he ran for President, or if he was simply trying
to make a statement. The New York Times quote with which I
opened this post indicates that Thomas looked to the American farmers
for hope that Socialism would triumph in the U.S., and Thomas said that
Socialism was taking root within some farming communities. In 1939,
however, Norman's wife Violet remarked to a reporter that her husband
would never become President of the United States! But, prior
to that point, it seems to me that Thomas thought that it was plausible
that Socialism could win in the United States. He expected for people
to become disenchanted with the New Deal and how corporate profits
increased 36 percent in 1935 while employment only went up by 2 and 1/2
percent. But divisions within the Socialist movement did not help it
politically, as Socialists debated and parted company over such issues
as whether Communists should be allowed into the movement (Thomas
initially said yes and hoped that they might grow up, while the Old
Guard Socialists said no), and whether Socialists should support U.S.
entry into World War II (Thomas said no, whereas a number on the Left
supported the U.S. entering it to defeat fascism abroad).
(On
the issue of war and pacifism, what's interesting is that Thomas
supported assisting the defense of the Spanish Republic, which was under
assault from Franco, who was backed by Hitler and Mussolini.
Thomas supported the Spanish Republic, even though he recognized that it
was far from pure and itself had violent elements, for he thought that
it was preferable to Franco. Swanberg says that Thomas moved
away from pacifism after he lost his faith in God. Yet, Thomas still
opposed U.S. intervention into World War II, one reason being
that he feared it would result in Fascist policies in the U.S. Thomas
may have had in mind the repression of civil liberties in the United
States during World War I.)