What do you think?
Rate this book
The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition... Socialism
A fascinating history of socialism and a short, sharp, irreverent rejoinder to right-wing red-baiting
“A chilling reminder of how much rich American history has been erased by shallow messaging.” —Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine
During the Cold War, it became a dirty word in the United States, but “socialism” runs like a red thread through the nation’s history, an integral part of its political consciousness since the founding of the republic. In this unapologetic corrective to today’s collective amnesia, John Nichols calls for the proud return of socialism in American life. He recalls the reforms lauded by Founding Father Tom Paine; the presence of Karl Marx’s journalism in American letters; the left leanings of founders of the Republican Party; the socialist politics of Helen Keller; and the progressive legacy of figures like Chaplin and Einstein. Now in an updated edition, The “S” Word makes a case for socialist ideas as an indispensable part of American heritage. A new final chapter considers the recent signs of a leftward sea change in American politics in the face of increasing and historic levels of inequality.
Today, corporations—like other rich “individuals”—pay fewer taxes than they did in the 1950s, while our infrastructure crumbles and the seas rise. The “S” Word addresses a nation that can no longer afford to put capital before people.
“A chilling reminder of how much rich American history has been erased by shallow messaging.” —Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine
During the Cold War, it became a dirty word in the United States, but “socialism” runs like a red thread through the nation’s history, an integral part of its political consciousness since the founding of the republic. In this unapologetic corrective to today’s collective amnesia, John Nichols calls for the proud return of socialism in American life. He recalls the reforms lauded by Founding Father Tom Paine; the presence of Karl Marx’s journalism in American letters; the left leanings of founders of the Republican Party; the socialist politics of Helen Keller; and the progressive legacy of figures like Chaplin and Einstein. Now in an updated edition, The “S” Word makes a case for socialist ideas as an indispensable part of American heritage. A new final chapter considers the recent signs of a leftward sea change in American politics in the face of increasing and historic levels of inequality.
Today, corporations—like other rich “individuals”—pay fewer taxes than they did in the 1950s, while our infrastructure crumbles and the seas rise. The “S” Word addresses a nation that can no longer afford to put capital before people.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
140 people are currently reading
1790 people want to read
About the author
John Nichols
314 books65 followersJohn Nichols (2 February 1745 – 26 November 1826) was an English printer, author and antiquary.
He is remembered as an influential editor of the Gentleman's Magazine for nearly 40 years; author of a monumental county history of Leicestershire; author of two compendia of biographical material relating to his literary contemporaries; and as one of the agents behind the first complete publication of Domesday Book in 1783.
His son, John Bowyer Nichols continued his father's various undertakings, and wrote, with other works, A Brief Account of the Guildhall of the City of London (1819).
John Gough Nichols (1806–73), John Bowyer Nichols's eldest son, was also a printer and a distinguished antiquary. He edited the Gentleman's Magazine from 1851 to 1856 and The Herald and Genealogist from 1863 to 1874, and was one of the founders of the Camden Society.
He is remembered as an influential editor of the Gentleman's Magazine for nearly 40 years; author of a monumental county history of Leicestershire; author of two compendia of biographical material relating to his literary contemporaries; and as one of the agents behind the first complete publication of Domesday Book in 1783.
His son, John Bowyer Nichols continued his father's various undertakings, and wrote, with other works, A Brief Account of the Guildhall of the City of London (1819).
John Gough Nichols (1806–73), John Bowyer Nichols's eldest son, was also a printer and a distinguished antiquary. He edited the Gentleman's Magazine from 1851 to 1856 and The Herald and Genealogist from 1863 to 1874, and was one of the founders of the Camden Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews
August 8, 2012
Nichols, a journalist who has written for The Nation and The Wisconsin State Journal as well as for other progressive publications, has several goals in writing The "S" Word. One is to blow off some steam regarding his frustration with the state of public discourse in the US (which he describes as being at its lowest point ever), with right-wing commentators who have used their bully pulpit to drag the term "socialist" through the mud and with the left-wing politicians and media who have let them, as well as with Obama and the other high-profile Democrats who continued to move the party further and further to the right over the past few decades. As a reader who shares many of the same points of frustration, I was not turned off by Nichols' goal. He doesn't purport to be unbiased.
On the other hand, Nichols' main goal in writing The "S" Word is to present a counter history of the US, one which shines a light on the myriad ways that American writers (Thomas Paine and Walt Whitman), US Presidents (particularly Lincoln and FDR, but also JFK and others), and local politicians, especially in Milwaukee, presaged or incorporated some of the tenets of socialism in their writings, platforms, and political initiatives. Nichols' main argument and frustration with 21st-century politicians is that, by buying into the idea that socialism is an evil, un-American ideology, these political leaders have weakened their effectiveness by limiting the political stances from which they could draw solutions for current problems.
The book read as a series of long articles in The Nation. Nichols has done his research, providing supporting passages from letters, speeches, newspaper columns, and interviews, some of which he conducted himself. Academics and others wanting to delve deep into political history should view this book as a platform for further research.
My rating is probably closer to a 3.5, but I bumped it up to a 4 largely on the strength of new-to-me information that Nichols presented in a few chapters: the chapter on Abraham Lincoln, Horace Greeley, and Marx; the chapter on free speech fights conducted by newspaper editor and elected Congressman Victor Berger during the Red Scare of 1917 and after; and the chapter on the sewer socialists in Milwaukee and other municipalities in the US. I also found interesting Nichols' discussion of the role of socialism in fighting segregation in trade unions, and in helping to lay the groundwork for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963. At times, I got frustrated by some of Nichols' digressions, and I wanted more detailed information about some particularly interesting events and people. However, Nichols has shone a light on aspects of American history that are not taught in high school history classes or referenced in our public discourse. For this reason, reading The "S" Word seems like a small but significant contribution to trying to effect change in the current state of US politics.
On the other hand, Nichols' main goal in writing The "S" Word is to present a counter history of the US, one which shines a light on the myriad ways that American writers (Thomas Paine and Walt Whitman), US Presidents (particularly Lincoln and FDR, but also JFK and others), and local politicians, especially in Milwaukee, presaged or incorporated some of the tenets of socialism in their writings, platforms, and political initiatives. Nichols' main argument and frustration with 21st-century politicians is that, by buying into the idea that socialism is an evil, un-American ideology, these political leaders have weakened their effectiveness by limiting the political stances from which they could draw solutions for current problems.
The book read as a series of long articles in The Nation. Nichols has done his research, providing supporting passages from letters, speeches, newspaper columns, and interviews, some of which he conducted himself. Academics and others wanting to delve deep into political history should view this book as a platform for further research.
My rating is probably closer to a 3.5, but I bumped it up to a 4 largely on the strength of new-to-me information that Nichols presented in a few chapters: the chapter on Abraham Lincoln, Horace Greeley, and Marx; the chapter on free speech fights conducted by newspaper editor and elected Congressman Victor Berger during the Red Scare of 1917 and after; and the chapter on the sewer socialists in Milwaukee and other municipalities in the US. I also found interesting Nichols' discussion of the role of socialism in fighting segregation in trade unions, and in helping to lay the groundwork for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963. At times, I got frustrated by some of Nichols' digressions, and I wanted more detailed information about some particularly interesting events and people. However, Nichols has shone a light on aspects of American history that are not taught in high school history classes or referenced in our public discourse. For this reason, reading The "S" Word seems like a small but significant contribution to trying to effect change in the current state of US politics.
Read
June 4, 2018If you (like me) joined the Democratic Socialists of America in a fit of rage and confusion after November 9, 2016 and then quickly realized you were slightly in over your head, this book is for you. It gives a good, brief (if incomplete) overview of the American tradition of socialism and the moments in history where it had the ear of presidents and those in power.
It’s about Thomas Paine, denounced by his fellow founders but embraced by generations of socialists who gravitated to his vision of the rights of man and his early conceptions of economic equality. It’s about Charles Dana, who worked in the administration of Abraham Lincoln and who also recruited Karl Marx as a correspondent for The New York Tribune— a newspaper Lincoln read avidly. It’s about Victor Berger, who was prosecuted for writing against World War I and denied his rightfully-earned seat in Congress— but whose spirited defense of a First Amendment right to free speech prevailed. It’s about A. Phillip Randolph, the grandfather of the civil rights movement, who took on the corporate titans and the segregated labor unions of his day to form the first black union and then leveraged that grassroots power to pressure the federal government into desegregating the defense industry and the United States military. It’s about the “sewer socialists” of Milwaukee, who built parks, public housing, a public health system, a scrupulously honest, and (surprise!) a fiscally conservative government that was the envy of the nation. It’s about Michael Harrington, founder of the DSA, whose book The Other America prompted presidents like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to wage a real, all-out war on poverty. “We must recognize the socialist threads that have been woven into our national tapestry,” Nichols says, and he makes a clear case for it.
These are snapshots of moments in history— not a complete picture by any means. The book leaves out Students for a Democratic Society; it refers often to the most popular socialist presidential candidate in history, Eugene Debs, but doesn’t devote a full chapter to his work. And the book was published in 2011, at a very low point in socialist cultural caché, before the democratic socialist revolt of 2016-2018. (The most well-known democratic socialist figure of today, Bernie Sanders, gets a couple cursory mentions). Ultimately, Nichols makes a modest argument: “One need not embrace socialism ideologically or practically to recognize that public policy discussions ought to entertain a full range of ideas— from right to left, not from far right to center right.”
In a new moment of socialist fervor— when we can perhaps dare to dream beyond that modest ask— it gives the newbie socialist a lot to think about. Could socialists put forth a vision that captures local voters, like Milwaukee “sewer socialists” did? Can we link the ideals of socialism to the promise of the American Constitution, like Victor Berger did when we he argued Congress should “put teeth into the First Amendment.” Can we build a movement that faces head-on the brutality of racism while connecting the interests of all working people, as Randolph did? Is it possible to work within the Democratic party, as Harrington hoped? And how can we paint a vision of the future that fully faces the pain and despair of this political moment but also paints a hopeful vision of what could be?
On that note, let me close with a word from Emil Seidel, “sewer socialist” mayor, who articulates socialism at its simplest: “We wanted our workers to have pure air; we wanted them to have sunshine; we wanted planned homes; we wanted living wages; we wanted recreation for young and old; we wanted vocational education; we wanted a chance for every human being to be strong and live a life of happiness. And, we wanted everything that was necessary to give them that: playgrounds, parks, lakes, beaches, clean creeks and rivers, swimming and wading pools, social centers, reading rooms, clean fun, music, dance, song and joy for all…. There was but one way to get all of that—- GO AFTER IT AND GET IT.”
It’s about Thomas Paine, denounced by his fellow founders but embraced by generations of socialists who gravitated to his vision of the rights of man and his early conceptions of economic equality. It’s about Charles Dana, who worked in the administration of Abraham Lincoln and who also recruited Karl Marx as a correspondent for The New York Tribune— a newspaper Lincoln read avidly. It’s about Victor Berger, who was prosecuted for writing against World War I and denied his rightfully-earned seat in Congress— but whose spirited defense of a First Amendment right to free speech prevailed. It’s about A. Phillip Randolph, the grandfather of the civil rights movement, who took on the corporate titans and the segregated labor unions of his day to form the first black union and then leveraged that grassroots power to pressure the federal government into desegregating the defense industry and the United States military. It’s about the “sewer socialists” of Milwaukee, who built parks, public housing, a public health system, a scrupulously honest, and (surprise!) a fiscally conservative government that was the envy of the nation. It’s about Michael Harrington, founder of the DSA, whose book The Other America prompted presidents like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to wage a real, all-out war on poverty. “We must recognize the socialist threads that have been woven into our national tapestry,” Nichols says, and he makes a clear case for it.
These are snapshots of moments in history— not a complete picture by any means. The book leaves out Students for a Democratic Society; it refers often to the most popular socialist presidential candidate in history, Eugene Debs, but doesn’t devote a full chapter to his work. And the book was published in 2011, at a very low point in socialist cultural caché, before the democratic socialist revolt of 2016-2018. (The most well-known democratic socialist figure of today, Bernie Sanders, gets a couple cursory mentions). Ultimately, Nichols makes a modest argument: “One need not embrace socialism ideologically or practically to recognize that public policy discussions ought to entertain a full range of ideas— from right to left, not from far right to center right.”
In a new moment of socialist fervor— when we can perhaps dare to dream beyond that modest ask— it gives the newbie socialist a lot to think about. Could socialists put forth a vision that captures local voters, like Milwaukee “sewer socialists” did? Can we link the ideals of socialism to the promise of the American Constitution, like Victor Berger did when we he argued Congress should “put teeth into the First Amendment.” Can we build a movement that faces head-on the brutality of racism while connecting the interests of all working people, as Randolph did? Is it possible to work within the Democratic party, as Harrington hoped? And how can we paint a vision of the future that fully faces the pain and despair of this political moment but also paints a hopeful vision of what could be?
On that note, let me close with a word from Emil Seidel, “sewer socialist” mayor, who articulates socialism at its simplest: “We wanted our workers to have pure air; we wanted them to have sunshine; we wanted planned homes; we wanted living wages; we wanted recreation for young and old; we wanted vocational education; we wanted a chance for every human being to be strong and live a life of happiness. And, we wanted everything that was necessary to give them that: playgrounds, parks, lakes, beaches, clean creeks and rivers, swimming and wading pools, social centers, reading rooms, clean fun, music, dance, song and joy for all…. There was but one way to get all of that—- GO AFTER IT AND GET IT.”
March 30, 2013
Nichols has written a persuasive case that socialism is as American as apple pie. From the forgotten radical economics of founding father Thomas Paine and the utopian socialists who founded the Republican Party to Victor Berger, the socialist Congressman from Milwaukee, who opposed WWI, to Michael Harrington it is a great read.
The subtitle is a little misleading. Nichols leaves out some important topics that even a short history should contain: the Populist movement of the 1890s and the most successful Socialist Party of the Debs era--the Oklahoma socialists, discussed brilliantly in Jim Bissett's Agrarian Socialism in America: Marx, Jefferson, and Jesus in the Oklahoma Coun tryside,1904-1920. Agrarian Socialism in America: Marx, Jefferson, and Jesus in the Oklahoma Countryside, 1904-1920
The subtitle is a little misleading. Nichols leaves out some important topics that even a short history should contain: the Populist movement of the 1890s and the most successful Socialist Party of the Debs era--the Oklahoma socialists, discussed brilliantly in Jim Bissett's Agrarian Socialism in America: Marx, Jefferson, and Jesus in the Oklahoma Coun tryside,1904-1920. Agrarian Socialism in America: Marx, Jefferson, and Jesus in the Oklahoma Countryside, 1904-1920
Still, if there is one book to read or recommend about American socialism, this is it.
October 15, 2018
This past six weeks or so in Clare Making Good Decisions, we have the following: Decide to do a DSA presentation on American history right when I get back from Vegas. Wait three weeks before putting in a request at the library for Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Pick it up from the library and panic that it's like 700 pages long. Remember that you picked up a shorter book on American socialist history from Verso at one of their ebook sales last year. Then, even though it is less than two weeks to the presentation and you only have it blocked out and not fully drafted, procrastinate on finishing the slides by reading all of John Nichols's The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition... Socialism first — much of it in the bath, with the Kindle in a plastic bag, in order to panic less.
Anyway. The "S" Word is pretty much the right book for the job here, although I should have started reading it at least a week earlier than I did instead of reading all kinds of Thomas Paine that wasn't Agrarian Justice. At about 300 pages, it's short enough to be readable but long enough to give a decent treatment to the figures it discusses and the stories it tells.
This book is very definitely Of Its Time, and in this case, its time was the year 2010, given its January 2011 publication date. While the history it covers is presented more or less chronologically, the framework for the whole book is basically Glenn Beck Is Wrong About Barack Obama Being A Socialist (and about Thomas Paine being a right-libertarian, and about... well, everything). It's a very strong reminder of the particular flavor of bananapants stupid the political discourse was at a particular political moment, and man, there is basically nothing I miss about 2010. I graduated college that year, and it sucked. (To be clear: I loved college. The 2010 job market, not so much.)
The author himself is not quite a socialist; he identifies with the Midwestern progressive populist tradition, which has a strong history of socialist influence but is not always explicitly anti-capitalist. The book is also not necessarily pitched toward socialists; Nichols is very clear that his purpose in writing the book is, besides dunking on Glenn Beck, to give Americans of any political stripe a better appreciation for the actual history and influence of socialism in America so that we can broaden the political discourse and not be a bunch of idiots. The book is somewhat implicitly aimed at the liberal-left half of the political spectrum; it is full of values assumptions that would not necessarily speak to American conservatives, like that slavery was bad and helping people is good, not to mention the notion that it would be a positive development to broaden the political discourse and not be idiots.
I was pleased to see that the chronology of this book kicks off with lots of appreciation for Thomas Paine, the most left-wing of the Founding Fathers, and contains much about both his politics in life and his influence on later generations of American, French, and British radicals. Paine, obviously, was not actually a socialist, since socialism wasn't a thing back then, but he was a definite intellectual precursor to it, and many of the 19th-century early socialists were referred to as "Paineites," which is a great term that we should start a caucus for.
Moving on from Paine, Nichols discusses figures as diverse as the poet Walt Whitman, labor activist Fanny Wright, Tribune editor Horace Greeley, a radical young lawyer called Abraham Lincoln (who was in correspondence with Karl Marx during the Civil War), and Socialist Party heads Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas. A big chunk of the book is dedicated to Victor Berger, the first Socialist elected to Congress, who was blocked from taking his seat by the rest of Congress, TWICE, because he was elected at the height of the First Red Scare, and then launched a bunch of high-profile lawsuits to "put teeth" into the First Amendment. Nichols also discusses the "sewer socialists" of the early 20th century and the few holdouts that continued electing Socialist leadership well into the 20th century, such as Milwaukee.
Another chapter is dedicated to A. Philip Randolph, mentioned in many high school history books in passing as the founder of the first majority-black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. It turns out that organizing that particular union was a massive 10-year endeavor, and somehow Randolph still had time to do like 50 other awesome things that nobody ever told me about. He stared down FDR into desegregating the defense industries and Truman into desegregating the armed forces. Later, he mentored a young Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was lead organizer of the March on Washington in '63. From this, Nichols segues into the role of socialists in the "new left," and the occasionally strained relationship between the "old left" and the "new left."
Toward the end of the book there's some very interesting stuff about the career of Michael Harrington, which should be of especial interest to DSA members, particularly new ones who might not know anything about Harrington other than that he founded DSA (and that people occasionally try to use him as a club for or against their comrades in poorly defined sectarian infighting). I've never read any Harrington but everything I've read about Harrington makes him sound like a very interesting character, so I should maybe read some of his books one of these days (I have been saying this since I joined DSA, though, so what really needs to happen is for somebody else to run a Harrington reading group and I may or may not attend).
In terms of actionable lessons that current-day socialists can take from the book, there are some, although they're probably a bit open to interpretation, since we're already a) not afraid of the word "socialism" and b) aware that Glenn Beck is a twit who doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Leaning on constitutional redemption rhetoric seems to be a good idea, one that's not always effective immediately but which can eventually make inroads in a way that straight anti-Americanism generally doesn't. Another lesson is that socialists can get quite a lot of stuff done when they can convince non-socialists to back them up on a specific issue or policy, but this often has the effect of eventually disempowering them as a unique voice — it is never really the socialists or socialism itself that goes entirely mainstream. Also, we really need to get louder about claiming the memory of activists who have been watered down into respectable single-issue reformers in the public memory.
Anyway. I need to finish this presentation, don't I? Aaaaaaaahhhhh.
Originally posted at A spectre is haunting the U.S.
Anyway. The "S" Word is pretty much the right book for the job here, although I should have started reading it at least a week earlier than I did instead of reading all kinds of Thomas Paine that wasn't Agrarian Justice. At about 300 pages, it's short enough to be readable but long enough to give a decent treatment to the figures it discusses and the stories it tells.
This book is very definitely Of Its Time, and in this case, its time was the year 2010, given its January 2011 publication date. While the history it covers is presented more or less chronologically, the framework for the whole book is basically Glenn Beck Is Wrong About Barack Obama Being A Socialist (and about Thomas Paine being a right-libertarian, and about... well, everything). It's a very strong reminder of the particular flavor of bananapants stupid the political discourse was at a particular political moment, and man, there is basically nothing I miss about 2010. I graduated college that year, and it sucked. (To be clear: I loved college. The 2010 job market, not so much.)
The author himself is not quite a socialist; he identifies with the Midwestern progressive populist tradition, which has a strong history of socialist influence but is not always explicitly anti-capitalist. The book is also not necessarily pitched toward socialists; Nichols is very clear that his purpose in writing the book is, besides dunking on Glenn Beck, to give Americans of any political stripe a better appreciation for the actual history and influence of socialism in America so that we can broaden the political discourse and not be a bunch of idiots. The book is somewhat implicitly aimed at the liberal-left half of the political spectrum; it is full of values assumptions that would not necessarily speak to American conservatives, like that slavery was bad and helping people is good, not to mention the notion that it would be a positive development to broaden the political discourse and not be idiots.
I was pleased to see that the chronology of this book kicks off with lots of appreciation for Thomas Paine, the most left-wing of the Founding Fathers, and contains much about both his politics in life and his influence on later generations of American, French, and British radicals. Paine, obviously, was not actually a socialist, since socialism wasn't a thing back then, but he was a definite intellectual precursor to it, and many of the 19th-century early socialists were referred to as "Paineites," which is a great term that we should start a caucus for.
Moving on from Paine, Nichols discusses figures as diverse as the poet Walt Whitman, labor activist Fanny Wright, Tribune editor Horace Greeley, a radical young lawyer called Abraham Lincoln (who was in correspondence with Karl Marx during the Civil War), and Socialist Party heads Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas. A big chunk of the book is dedicated to Victor Berger, the first Socialist elected to Congress, who was blocked from taking his seat by the rest of Congress, TWICE, because he was elected at the height of the First Red Scare, and then launched a bunch of high-profile lawsuits to "put teeth" into the First Amendment. Nichols also discusses the "sewer socialists" of the early 20th century and the few holdouts that continued electing Socialist leadership well into the 20th century, such as Milwaukee.
Another chapter is dedicated to A. Philip Randolph, mentioned in many high school history books in passing as the founder of the first majority-black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. It turns out that organizing that particular union was a massive 10-year endeavor, and somehow Randolph still had time to do like 50 other awesome things that nobody ever told me about. He stared down FDR into desegregating the defense industries and Truman into desegregating the armed forces. Later, he mentored a young Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was lead organizer of the March on Washington in '63. From this, Nichols segues into the role of socialists in the "new left," and the occasionally strained relationship between the "old left" and the "new left."
Toward the end of the book there's some very interesting stuff about the career of Michael Harrington, which should be of especial interest to DSA members, particularly new ones who might not know anything about Harrington other than that he founded DSA (and that people occasionally try to use him as a club for or against their comrades in poorly defined sectarian infighting). I've never read any Harrington but everything I've read about Harrington makes him sound like a very interesting character, so I should maybe read some of his books one of these days (I have been saying this since I joined DSA, though, so what really needs to happen is for somebody else to run a Harrington reading group and I may or may not attend).
In terms of actionable lessons that current-day socialists can take from the book, there are some, although they're probably a bit open to interpretation, since we're already a) not afraid of the word "socialism" and b) aware that Glenn Beck is a twit who doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Leaning on constitutional redemption rhetoric seems to be a good idea, one that's not always effective immediately but which can eventually make inroads in a way that straight anti-Americanism generally doesn't. Another lesson is that socialists can get quite a lot of stuff done when they can convince non-socialists to back them up on a specific issue or policy, but this often has the effect of eventually disempowering them as a unique voice — it is never really the socialists or socialism itself that goes entirely mainstream. Also, we really need to get louder about claiming the memory of activists who have been watered down into respectable single-issue reformers in the public memory.
Anyway. I need to finish this presentation, don't I? Aaaaaaaahhhhh.
Originally posted at A spectre is haunting the U.S.
January 5, 2021
This book is an important revisionist history of the United States that isn't as broad and sweeping as Zinn's People's History, but rather chooses specific characters and episodes to make the point in its subtitle - that socialism is a homegrown American tradition, despite the contradictions presented by genocide, slavery, and everything else terrible that is in our rear-view mirror. The chapter on A. Philip Randolph is particularly good, and worth reading for that alone - but the rest of the book is quite well-written too, and it's been a nice way to finish 2020/start 2021 reading about some inspirational figures to take up the mantle of (even if our aims are not quite the same, like with Michael Harrington or Victor Berger or Abraham Lincoln).
July 23, 2019
Yeah yeah yeah, I know what you're thinking. Another white dude studying political economy who loves socialism. Just what our country needs. ACTUALLY, if you took the goddamn time to read this stupid book you would REALIZE that the American socialist tradition goes WELL BEYOND this Warby Parker wearing, Bernie Sanders supporting, Laundry ignoring 21 year old leftist. Ya ever heard of the ARMY????? What about MEDICAID you fucking IDIOT! Anyway, good book. Read it if you want to be inspired and hopeful about our country (for once).
June 20, 2012
“One need not embrace socialism ideologically or practically to recognize that public-policy discussions ought to entertain a full range of ideas.”
Add this book to those that seek to deliver “what they didn’t tell us in school.” Or at home. Or anywhere, except maybe good old Socialist hideouts like…Milwaukee? This book is a great accounting of the history of socialist thought in America, even when it might not have been called “the ‘S’ word.” John Nichols recounts the story of “A Very American –Ism,” from Tom Paine to Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman to Frank Zeidler.
Frank Zeidler? He was one of America’s most successful mayors, running Milwaukee for three terms in 1950s & ‘60s. Although the word “socialism” has been turned into an epithet by some, the U.S. has a rich history of debating socialism’s merits and borrowing its ideas (with the exception of our time). In fact, the author points out that we owe WWI-era socialists a great debt for standing up for and strengthening our nation’s recognition of the right to free speech, even in wartime. Many Socialists of the time were against the war, and their anti-war speeches led to many of them being wrongly imprisoned. Court cases successfully challenging their convictions helped provide successive generations with less to fear from speaking our mind.
It is often pointed out that many Americans dislike government in the abstract, but love it in the practical, close-to-home applications (roads, bridges, schools, libraries etc.). Nichols does a great job of illustrating that same dichotomy with regard to socialism (like many of those “social” institutions I just mentioned, based on democratic-socialist philosophies). He also gives an encyclopedia-like accounting of the people and events that help the reader better appreciate what socialism really is. “There are, after all, many socialisms.”
The author’s first hand experience with the Wisconsin political world is priceless. His personal acquaintance with Frank Zeidler and others leads to a lot of rich detail. How wonderful to hear this successful Midwestern practitioner of Socialist politics in his own words:
“Socialism as we attempted to practice it here believes that people working together for a common good can produce a greater benefit, both for society and for the individual, than can a society in which everyone is shrewdly seeking their own self-interest…. And I think our record remains one of many more successes than failures.”--Frank Zeidler
If there was one negative to the book, it was that it was a demanding read—like taking a class and studying every time I read, just to keep track of all the info. I would rate it a “4” for content and a “2” for readability. Densely packed with information. A must-read resource, however, for anyone wanting a better understanding of just what is meant by “the ‘S’ Word.”
Add this book to those that seek to deliver “what they didn’t tell us in school.” Or at home. Or anywhere, except maybe good old Socialist hideouts like…Milwaukee? This book is a great accounting of the history of socialist thought in America, even when it might not have been called “the ‘S’ word.” John Nichols recounts the story of “A Very American –Ism,” from Tom Paine to Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman to Frank Zeidler.
Frank Zeidler? He was one of America’s most successful mayors, running Milwaukee for three terms in 1950s & ‘60s. Although the word “socialism” has been turned into an epithet by some, the U.S. has a rich history of debating socialism’s merits and borrowing its ideas (with the exception of our time). In fact, the author points out that we owe WWI-era socialists a great debt for standing up for and strengthening our nation’s recognition of the right to free speech, even in wartime. Many Socialists of the time were against the war, and their anti-war speeches led to many of them being wrongly imprisoned. Court cases successfully challenging their convictions helped provide successive generations with less to fear from speaking our mind.
It is often pointed out that many Americans dislike government in the abstract, but love it in the practical, close-to-home applications (roads, bridges, schools, libraries etc.). Nichols does a great job of illustrating that same dichotomy with regard to socialism (like many of those “social” institutions I just mentioned, based on democratic-socialist philosophies). He also gives an encyclopedia-like accounting of the people and events that help the reader better appreciate what socialism really is. “There are, after all, many socialisms.”
The author’s first hand experience with the Wisconsin political world is priceless. His personal acquaintance with Frank Zeidler and others leads to a lot of rich detail. How wonderful to hear this successful Midwestern practitioner of Socialist politics in his own words:
“Socialism as we attempted to practice it here believes that people working together for a common good can produce a greater benefit, both for society and for the individual, than can a society in which everyone is shrewdly seeking their own self-interest…. And I think our record remains one of many more successes than failures.”--Frank Zeidler
If there was one negative to the book, it was that it was a demanding read—like taking a class and studying every time I read, just to keep track of all the info. I would rate it a “4” for content and a “2” for readability. Densely packed with information. A must-read resource, however, for anyone wanting a better understanding of just what is meant by “the ‘S’ Word.”
January 1, 2019
Effective polemical history aimed at combating the amnesia surrounding America's radical and socialist traditions. Particularly interesting on the relationship between Marx and the radicals who created the Republican Party as well as on "sewer socialism" in Nichols's Milwaukee. But reading the afterword, published in 2015, it occurred to me that it's a bit odd for Nichols's to have written a book about socialism that focuses mainly on prominent individuals -- a "great man" history of American socialism (literally men, with one or two exceptions). I realize that a narrative history framed around a series of mini-biographies is easier to read (and easier to sell) but I feel like this book could have used a bit more focus on who has embraced the "socialist" label at different times in history. Not just the famous individuals, but the voters, activists, and volunteers.
July 17, 2020
I am embarrassed and ashamed to admit that I just read this book, which I first obtained and began reading when it was published in 2011. Nichols is an efficient guide. The “S” Word is a clear, accessible, abridged survey of significant socialist figures and developments in the history of the United States, full of facts and details that would have made me a far more powerful advocate for socialism during the past 10 years if I had possessed them. After reading this book, I am more confident in my understanding of socialism and have more faith in its prospects in the United States, if we simply go out and get it.
October 10, 2015
"'Ignorance alone stands in the way of socialist success. The capitalist parties understand this and use their resources to prevent the workers from seeing the light. Intellectual darkness is essential to industrial slavery. The very moment a workingman beings to do his own thinking he understands the paramount issue, parts company with the capitalist politician and falls in line with his own class on the political battlefield.'" - Eugene V. Debs
April 11, 2017
This is an interesting and important topic, and this book is fundamentally a worthy endeavor. But I cannot in good conscience recommend it. The style and writing, the frequent run-on sentences, and the overuse of (overly long full- or multi-page) block quotes makes reading the book far too much of a struggle for what little fresh insight it offers. A pity, really.
December 10, 2017
When I was in college, a friend let me borrow a copy of Zinn’s people’s history. In those pages I learned about Columbus treating the Arawak Indians worse than his dogs, but I also learned hope in the words of Eugene Debs and the millions that voted for him over several years.
It was part of history that just wasn’t part of the history they teach, the gloss over where in high school I wrote dates of things in my notebooks from sheets on the wall, or projections on the overhead. There was less about history as a dynamic process but a procession of dates that led to the end of history about 1993. Of course, I graduated high school in 2000 so there was triumphalism – the only global conflicts were based on figuring how to break apart the Soviet Bloc.
There is another history, and they have been deliberately forgotten from the pages of the history books that we use to teach the kids in school. Books like Zinn’s and Nichols’ are remedies for the History of the Victors. This book is for all the kids who look around and see injustice and inequality and ask what they can do to make it better. This book gives heroes that you may have read about on one line of text. Or you may even have spent a week with Tom Paine’s “Common Sense” in school, but you never knew he was a true revolutionary and his influence has ebbed and flowed, waxed and waned, and been misappropriated by those who want to grab his name and hide behind it. This book also gives you new heroes Like Victor Berger standing up for real free speech in times of fear when dissent was punishable by imprisonment. It also shines new light on heroes like Lincoln, and we can trace how his party went from a radical party of the people to receding to being a party of the powerful.
The only real drawback is that the book feels as if it was written for a time of socialism in ascendancy – Bernie Sanders gets positive notice here, but it predates the 2016 election and Bernie’s ultimately unsuccessful run for the presidency and Trump’s eventual election. This puts the movement on a different, more defensive footing reacting to the whims of the Tweeter-in-Chief. No matter. For every dusk there is dawn. We can look for hope in the rise of the DSA and leftists in real opposition and not quited by uncomfortable support of the capitalist party that is closer to the ideals of the left.
It was part of history that just wasn’t part of the history they teach, the gloss over where in high school I wrote dates of things in my notebooks from sheets on the wall, or projections on the overhead. There was less about history as a dynamic process but a procession of dates that led to the end of history about 1993. Of course, I graduated high school in 2000 so there was triumphalism – the only global conflicts were based on figuring how to break apart the Soviet Bloc.
There is another history, and they have been deliberately forgotten from the pages of the history books that we use to teach the kids in school. Books like Zinn’s and Nichols’ are remedies for the History of the Victors. This book is for all the kids who look around and see injustice and inequality and ask what they can do to make it better. This book gives heroes that you may have read about on one line of text. Or you may even have spent a week with Tom Paine’s “Common Sense” in school, but you never knew he was a true revolutionary and his influence has ebbed and flowed, waxed and waned, and been misappropriated by those who want to grab his name and hide behind it. This book also gives you new heroes Like Victor Berger standing up for real free speech in times of fear when dissent was punishable by imprisonment. It also shines new light on heroes like Lincoln, and we can trace how his party went from a radical party of the people to receding to being a party of the powerful.
The only real drawback is that the book feels as if it was written for a time of socialism in ascendancy – Bernie Sanders gets positive notice here, but it predates the 2016 election and Bernie’s ultimately unsuccessful run for the presidency and Trump’s eventual election. This puts the movement on a different, more defensive footing reacting to the whims of the Tweeter-in-Chief. No matter. For every dusk there is dawn. We can look for hope in the rise of the DSA and leftists in real opposition and not quited by uncomfortable support of the capitalist party that is closer to the ideals of the left.
May 9, 2020
Four years ago (2016), I fell hard for the Senator Bernie Sanders political campaign, touting its brand of democratic socialism. I'm relatively new/late to the "socialist party" though, if you will, so I really wanted to learn more about its history within the United States. Despite being a tough read in many respects, "The 'S" Word" accomplished that goal for me.
Basically, author John Nichols takes a look at how certain tenets of socialism have been woven into the fabric of American democracy. From Thomas Paine to Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King Jr. to the FDR, Kennedy and Obama Administrations, socialist principles have actually played a pretty active role in the government we currently reside in today. It isn't nearly as black-and-white as "capitalism is good because it's the American Way and socialist is bad because it is borne of the Soviet Union". Different governmental setups have their own pros and cons, and here Nichols looks at how socialism (mostly the non-Soviet, democratic-leaning kind) did exactly that in the USA.
"The 'S' Word" is certainly no breezy summer read. It is filled with deep concepts that will take a lot of thought to get through. But rarely did I ever feel like it "wasn't worth it" and powering through the tough materials was always the right approach overall. You just have to make sure to be engaged while reading and not just skimming.
Right now, democratic socialism is talked about more than perhaps any time in the country's history. Unfortunately, much of that is alarmist rhetoric. This read was very much needed for me to start untangled the political angles of the matter and really dig into what socialism as a government system is all about. If you are at all confused about the matter or want to do the same, this is a good start (again, just remembering that it will take some time to get through).
Basically, author John Nichols takes a look at how certain tenets of socialism have been woven into the fabric of American democracy. From Thomas Paine to Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King Jr. to the FDR, Kennedy and Obama Administrations, socialist principles have actually played a pretty active role in the government we currently reside in today. It isn't nearly as black-and-white as "capitalism is good because it's the American Way and socialist is bad because it is borne of the Soviet Union". Different governmental setups have their own pros and cons, and here Nichols looks at how socialism (mostly the non-Soviet, democratic-leaning kind) did exactly that in the USA.
"The 'S' Word" is certainly no breezy summer read. It is filled with deep concepts that will take a lot of thought to get through. But rarely did I ever feel like it "wasn't worth it" and powering through the tough materials was always the right approach overall. You just have to make sure to be engaged while reading and not just skimming.
Right now, democratic socialism is talked about more than perhaps any time in the country's history. Unfortunately, much of that is alarmist rhetoric. This read was very much needed for me to start untangled the political angles of the matter and really dig into what socialism as a government system is all about. If you are at all confused about the matter or want to do the same, this is a good start (again, just remembering that it will take some time to get through).
October 16, 2017
Who said this? “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.” a) Marx b) Debs c) Lenin d) Lincoln e) FDR
The correct answer is Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. Lincoln also said, “Labor is prior to, and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” Those are sentiments no longer shared by the party Lincoln.
Lincoln is not the only famous American who helped to shape the American credo and espoused ideas that can be called “socialist.” They include Thomas Paine, Emma Lazarus, Walt Whitman, Carl Sandburg, Francis Bellamy (author of the Pledge of Allegiance), Teddy Roosevelt, Upton Sinclair, A. Philip Randolph, and Martin Luther King, Jr., albeit their socialist views are rarely get much attention. John Nichols, who is Washington correspondent for the Nation, wants to change that. His book spotlights what these American icons had to say about the “S” word.
Why does this matter? To correct the faulty narrative coming from the Limbaughs and Hannities, who insist the USA “was founded as a capitalist country, that socialism is a dangerous foreign import,” and that Obamacare was “shredding the Constitution.” (Ironically, it was Obama who took the single-payer option off the table when negotiating the Affordable Care Act.) “The United States is a country,” writes Nichols, “that has always been and should continue to be informed by socialists, socialist ideals and a socialist critique of public policies.”
One of America’s most popular authors during the American Revolution was Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense, the pamphlet that justified and inspired the American Revolution. He is frequently quoted by conservatives, like Glen Beck, who contend the founders wanted a capitalist country. But Paine was a “forefather of socialism.” An early advocate of the abolition of slavery, Paine argued for progressive taxation and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as one of the first great advocates of a program for retirement security. His rejection of tradition and embrace of liberty, equality and fraternity was a key part of his philosophy. Considered a founding father of the political left, Paine was a favorite author of Lincoln, Debs and other reformers.
Alvan Bovay was a radical agrarian reformer in the Paine tradition. One of the main founders of the GOP, “Bovay named the party Republican because it was synonymous with equality,” states the US Senate Republican Conference history of the GOP. “It is indisputable,” writes Nichols, “that the Republican Party had at its founding a red streak.”
The first Republican President gave away “land to the landless” when he signed the Homestead Act of 1862, which awarded 160-acre parcels to people who agreed to farm them. As President, Lincoln also urged workers to “combine” into unions, “uniting all working people, of all nations, and tongues, and kindreds.”
Open socialists won elections early in the Twentieth Century, but the success was at the local level. Though Eugene Debs never came close to winning the presidency, he got 6 percent of the vote in 1912, and Socialists elected 34 mayors around the country. His running mate, Emil Seidel, was the Socialist mayor of Milwaukee, which was governed for decades by Socialists. The first Socialist congressman came from Milwaukee, and served on and off from 1911-1929.
Though Debs lost in four presidential elections, the Socialists nonetheless had influence shaping the policies of the Democratic Party, and even with some Republicans, such as Robert LaFollette, who ran for president in 1924 endorsed by the Socialists. LaFollette garnered 16.6 percent of the vote, and is called one of the five greatest senators in history by a Senate committee chaired by JFK.
In 1932, FDR ran a cautious campaign with vague promises about change. By contrast, the Socialist candidate, Norman Thomas, had a specific platform that included old-age pensions, public works programs, unemployment compensation, and legal protection for union organizing. Once in office, FDR adopted all of those proposals and more from the Socialist platform. (So the GOP critics who decried the New Deal as socialist weren’t wrong.)
As Roosevelt coopted the Socialist platform, the Socialist Party lost electoral appeal, and former Socialists turned Democrats, such as Paul Douglas, who was a U.S. Senator from Illinois for 18 years. Other Socialists became labor leaders, including Walter Reuther of the UAW and A. Philip Randolph, who founded the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.
For almost half a century, Randolph was the most prominent African American labor leader, and a powerful voice against segregation and discrimination. An unabashed socialist, Randolph persuaded FDR to issue and executive order to end racial discrimination in the defense industry, and Truman to issue his executive order integrating the armed forces. Randolph was also a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr.
While conservatives today selectively quote King, they rarely pay attention to his views about the need for wholesale economic reform. “Something is wrong with capitalism,” King said in 1966. “There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”
LBJ enacted Medicare, a limited form of socialized medicine that remains highly popular. His War on Poverty was inspired by Michael Harrington, a former Socialist, who wrote a best-selling book on poverty in America. Harrington believed democratic socialists should work within the Democratic Party to push it leftward. Though President Obama’s critics assailed him “as the world’s best salesman of socialism,” Nichols and others on the left were disappointed by his cautious and compromising approach.
Since 2010, polls have found surprising levels of support for socialist ideas, particularly among the young. The record-setting 2017 hurricane season reminded us that everyone’s a socialist after a natural disaster. Socialism “is the one word that still has to power to frighten, inform and inspire Americans,” Nichols writes. The incredible enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders in 2016 suggests Americans have a growing interest in the socialist alternative to the status quo of wage stagnation, widening economic inequality, and a shrinking middle class. ###
The correct answer is Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. Lincoln also said, “Labor is prior to, and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” Those are sentiments no longer shared by the party Lincoln.
Lincoln is not the only famous American who helped to shape the American credo and espoused ideas that can be called “socialist.” They include Thomas Paine, Emma Lazarus, Walt Whitman, Carl Sandburg, Francis Bellamy (author of the Pledge of Allegiance), Teddy Roosevelt, Upton Sinclair, A. Philip Randolph, and Martin Luther King, Jr., albeit their socialist views are rarely get much attention. John Nichols, who is Washington correspondent for the Nation, wants to change that. His book spotlights what these American icons had to say about the “S” word.
Why does this matter? To correct the faulty narrative coming from the Limbaughs and Hannities, who insist the USA “was founded as a capitalist country, that socialism is a dangerous foreign import,” and that Obamacare was “shredding the Constitution.” (Ironically, it was Obama who took the single-payer option off the table when negotiating the Affordable Care Act.) “The United States is a country,” writes Nichols, “that has always been and should continue to be informed by socialists, socialist ideals and a socialist critique of public policies.”
One of America’s most popular authors during the American Revolution was Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense, the pamphlet that justified and inspired the American Revolution. He is frequently quoted by conservatives, like Glen Beck, who contend the founders wanted a capitalist country. But Paine was a “forefather of socialism.” An early advocate of the abolition of slavery, Paine argued for progressive taxation and is recognized by the Social Security Administration as one of the first great advocates of a program for retirement security. His rejection of tradition and embrace of liberty, equality and fraternity was a key part of his philosophy. Considered a founding father of the political left, Paine was a favorite author of Lincoln, Debs and other reformers.
Alvan Bovay was a radical agrarian reformer in the Paine tradition. One of the main founders of the GOP, “Bovay named the party Republican because it was synonymous with equality,” states the US Senate Republican Conference history of the GOP. “It is indisputable,” writes Nichols, “that the Republican Party had at its founding a red streak.”
The first Republican President gave away “land to the landless” when he signed the Homestead Act of 1862, which awarded 160-acre parcels to people who agreed to farm them. As President, Lincoln also urged workers to “combine” into unions, “uniting all working people, of all nations, and tongues, and kindreds.”
Open socialists won elections early in the Twentieth Century, but the success was at the local level. Though Eugene Debs never came close to winning the presidency, he got 6 percent of the vote in 1912, and Socialists elected 34 mayors around the country. His running mate, Emil Seidel, was the Socialist mayor of Milwaukee, which was governed for decades by Socialists. The first Socialist congressman came from Milwaukee, and served on and off from 1911-1929.
Though Debs lost in four presidential elections, the Socialists nonetheless had influence shaping the policies of the Democratic Party, and even with some Republicans, such as Robert LaFollette, who ran for president in 1924 endorsed by the Socialists. LaFollette garnered 16.6 percent of the vote, and is called one of the five greatest senators in history by a Senate committee chaired by JFK.
In 1932, FDR ran a cautious campaign with vague promises about change. By contrast, the Socialist candidate, Norman Thomas, had a specific platform that included old-age pensions, public works programs, unemployment compensation, and legal protection for union organizing. Once in office, FDR adopted all of those proposals and more from the Socialist platform. (So the GOP critics who decried the New Deal as socialist weren’t wrong.)
As Roosevelt coopted the Socialist platform, the Socialist Party lost electoral appeal, and former Socialists turned Democrats, such as Paul Douglas, who was a U.S. Senator from Illinois for 18 years. Other Socialists became labor leaders, including Walter Reuther of the UAW and A. Philip Randolph, who founded the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.
For almost half a century, Randolph was the most prominent African American labor leader, and a powerful voice against segregation and discrimination. An unabashed socialist, Randolph persuaded FDR to issue and executive order to end racial discrimination in the defense industry, and Truman to issue his executive order integrating the armed forces. Randolph was also a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr.
While conservatives today selectively quote King, they rarely pay attention to his views about the need for wholesale economic reform. “Something is wrong with capitalism,” King said in 1966. “There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”
LBJ enacted Medicare, a limited form of socialized medicine that remains highly popular. His War on Poverty was inspired by Michael Harrington, a former Socialist, who wrote a best-selling book on poverty in America. Harrington believed democratic socialists should work within the Democratic Party to push it leftward. Though President Obama’s critics assailed him “as the world’s best salesman of socialism,” Nichols and others on the left were disappointed by his cautious and compromising approach.
Since 2010, polls have found surprising levels of support for socialist ideas, particularly among the young. The record-setting 2017 hurricane season reminded us that everyone’s a socialist after a natural disaster. Socialism “is the one word that still has to power to frighten, inform and inspire Americans,” Nichols writes. The incredible enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders in 2016 suggests Americans have a growing interest in the socialist alternative to the status quo of wage stagnation, widening economic inequality, and a shrinking middle class. ###
December 16, 2024
I am generally of the opinion that journalists who write "history" books often don't do a good job. Nichols is no exception to this. I would not recommend this book as a historical text, other than maybe as a glimpse into what the American left in 2009-2011 was thinking of. Even still, Nichols suffers from attempting to write historically, but fundamentally misunderstanding the events, people, and ideas he depicts. Worse still, it seems that sometimes he might have even been intentionally loose with the truth, obfuscating more complex narratives in favor of his primary aim: writing socialism into the narrative of American history.
Not to say he doesn't succeed, or that parts of this book don't excel (the chapters on the Wisconsin Sewer Socialists + Lincoln were my favorite). Unfortunately, Nichols seems too caught up in the present to fully understand the past.
Not to say he doesn't succeed, or that parts of this book don't excel (the chapters on the Wisconsin Sewer Socialists + Lincoln were my favorite). Unfortunately, Nichols seems too caught up in the present to fully understand the past.
July 4, 2020
Nichols argues that some of the greatest figures throughout American history have grappled with socialist ideas and we are better off for it. From Tom Paine to Walt Whitman, from Abe Lincoln to MLK, with a lot of Michael Harrington worship towards the end. (Apparently the way forward for socialists, if they can’t get elected themselves, is to have the ear of someone in power.) A better book might have focused on the actions of working people themselves to fight for civil rights and justice on the job, but this book had some interesting factoids nonetheless. For example, why didn’t I already know that Milwaukee was run by socialist mayors for over half of the twentieth century?
October 7, 2023
Centers around some prominent folks, Walt Whitman, Thomas Paine, Karl Marx, Eugene Victor Debs, Victor Berger, Philip Randolph, & Martin L. King Jr.. It’s slightly informative, basically making the case that socialism is being taken way too far out its actual meaning & import, and has been vilified and treated as a boogeyman in such extremes that genuine discourse on economic equality & prosperity has been stifled and done a disservice. The author’s pretty sensible and does seem to be neither Left nor Right. Indeed he keeps a clear head, sticking faithfully to the issues, focusing on the ‘governing’ aspect instead of the ‘campaigning’ aspect whereby promises are customarily made but rarely fulfilled. There’s a lot of heat thrown at Glen Beck—this was mildly entertaining. Didn’t like the ending, it so abruptly concluded w/those two grievous assassinations in the 1960s. The chapters are full of names and it can be disorienting at times when the author leaps back & forth across decades. On the whole, it’s like a 230-page political commentary on jobs and the economy w/socialist sympathies.
May 31, 2020
This book deepened my understanding of the influence of socialist thought on American history. Through accounts of academics, politicians, religious leaders, labor organizers, & civil rights icons instrumental in the advancement of socialist policies and ideas, my former concept of socialism gave-way to the reality and the history of the movement. I highly recommend this enlightening and inspiring book.
July 6, 2021
As a long-time lefty, I was shocked how much there was in this remarkable book that I had never heard of, from the founding of the Republican Party, to the extent of the prominence of the "sewer socialists," to the full astonishing list of achievements of A. Philip Randolph.
June 25, 2020
A must read for any folks interested in American history
July 2, 2020
Superb, necessary literature to read. Establishes what the socialist platform in America has pursued for centuries. Equality
Want to read
July 28, 2019And yet,
"Lincoln never took up the mantle of socialism."
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/histo...
"Lincoln never took up the mantle of socialism."
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/histo...
June 22, 2021
The American left often gets tarred with labels like 'upatriotic' and it surely doesn't help that its leaders like Bernie Sanders spend a lot of time talking about Denmark and Norway and not nearly enough reaching back into American history. John Nichols provides a solution to that dilemma, a book giving leftists a treasure trove of forgotten history to draw on. Nichols highlights the forgotten radicals, socialists, and communists who influenced American society over the past few centuries. Nichols' work is very well researched (including interviews with Frank Zeidler, who was one of the line of 'Sewer Socialists' in Milwaukee).
"The 'S' Word" reaches throughout American history, addressing different figures based on how they interacted with leftist currents. Thomas Paine, often cited by the Tea Party right (as Nichols hilarious discusses), proposed progressive taxation and a universal basic income, many years before George McGovern and then Andrew Yang ran on it! I've read a bit about Paine's populism before; after all, Christopher Lasch puts him in America's small-r republican tradition.
That same small-r republican tradition bore fruit with the founding of the Republican Party, which today is the last place you'd expect to find vestiges of leftism. The author shines a light on the GOP's founders, skeptics of capitalism in some cases influenced by Karl Marx himself (Charles Dana being one example). Horace Greeley figures heavily in this chapter with his newspaper, "The New York Tribune" serving as a voice for radicals of the era. The chapter leads right to Abe Lincoln himself, who tied together economic and political freedom. Lincoln's legacy is hotly debated and this is a fascinating look at his political economy. Interestingly, I've read descriptions of Lincoln as a distributist--no matter what you call it, he was more of an enigma than most modern scholars give credit to.
From Lincoln, he moves to the local leaders who defined American socialism. In cities like Milwaukee, Bridgeport, and Reading, socialist administrations ran surprisingly efficient and effective municipal administrations. They often expanded healthcare, education, and recreation on the local level while running a tight fiscal ship. This chapter effectively builds on the analysis of Southeast Kansas in When Sunflowers Bloomed Red: Kansas and the Rise of Socialism in America. Today, socialists have returned to local politics, from Seattle to New York, perhaps an implicit acknowledgment of this history.
After that, Nichols touches on the WWI-era attacks on free speech, analyzed through the lens of Wisconsin Congressman Victor Berger, who was elected and not seated for a significant amount of time, and socialist newspapers who faced repression. After long-fought battles, the leftists (and our constitution) prevailed. The left catches a bad rap on free speech issues today, while the right gets away with banning "CRT" from school curricula. The American left needs a more muscular defense of the First Amdnemtn, and Victor Berger is a perfect example.
Next comes a great section about A. Phillip Randolph and Martin Luther King Jr. Randolph is a figure you hear mentioned in history class, but a cursory explanation doesn't do him justice. Randolph's labor organization skills led him to create the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, finding a way to fight for economic and racial justice. Randolph broke down many racial barriers in organized labor, which ended up helping all workers. His ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands precipitated desegregation efforts and laid the groundwork for people like MLK Jr. and Bayard Rustin, who realized the necessity of economic *and* racial justice.
Only in the final major chapter does Nichols stray from his historical lens, and this is where he goes wrong. It starts out fine, covering the history of DSA and other leftist groups through the modern-day (albeit weirdly not talking much about McGovern '72). But when he gets to then-President Obama, Nichols has a lot of harsh criticism. Interestingly, Obama had the DSA and New Party endorsements when he first ran for office! I get the sense that Nichols is disappointed he ended up as more of a pragmatist and feels disillusioned at his turn. This sometimes leads him to unfair criticism, like suggesting that the Democratic Party is "so conservative that Jimmy Carter ... is today seen by party bosses as an ideological outlier" (256). And then he says that American liberalism is nothing like that one espoused by John Lindsay and Lowell Weicker, two prominent (sorta) Republicans in the 1960s and 1980s. Even under Obama, when they were decidedly more centrist, Democrats were never that conservative. This chapter was a bit haphazard with phrasing, an issue that pops up here and there in the book.
Nonetheless, it's back to thoughtful, nuanced Nichols in the afterword, which ponders the impacts of automation and technology. He connects his narrative to the future here, but readers should notice various lessons for the left throughout, some of which I've noted.
Nichols does not shy away from discussing the ills of our past and present. From entrenched racism to sexism to attacks on free speech, injustice has been all too common in America. However, he lays a foundation for DSA's and others on the left to find models in American history. These figures come from the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Socialist Party. The left will need creative coalitions to get things done, which means embracing this country. People like Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas were not anti-American; they were actually patriots, whether or not you agree with their politics. Building off the fights waged by A. Phillip Randolph, Victor Berger, and various others, the American left can reclaim patriotism and build new alliances.
"The 'S' Word" reaches throughout American history, addressing different figures based on how they interacted with leftist currents. Thomas Paine, often cited by the Tea Party right (as Nichols hilarious discusses), proposed progressive taxation and a universal basic income, many years before George McGovern and then Andrew Yang ran on it! I've read a bit about Paine's populism before; after all, Christopher Lasch puts him in America's small-r republican tradition.
That same small-r republican tradition bore fruit with the founding of the Republican Party, which today is the last place you'd expect to find vestiges of leftism. The author shines a light on the GOP's founders, skeptics of capitalism in some cases influenced by Karl Marx himself (Charles Dana being one example). Horace Greeley figures heavily in this chapter with his newspaper, "The New York Tribune" serving as a voice for radicals of the era. The chapter leads right to Abe Lincoln himself, who tied together economic and political freedom. Lincoln's legacy is hotly debated and this is a fascinating look at his political economy. Interestingly, I've read descriptions of Lincoln as a distributist--no matter what you call it, he was more of an enigma than most modern scholars give credit to.
From Lincoln, he moves to the local leaders who defined American socialism. In cities like Milwaukee, Bridgeport, and Reading, socialist administrations ran surprisingly efficient and effective municipal administrations. They often expanded healthcare, education, and recreation on the local level while running a tight fiscal ship. This chapter effectively builds on the analysis of Southeast Kansas in When Sunflowers Bloomed Red: Kansas and the Rise of Socialism in America. Today, socialists have returned to local politics, from Seattle to New York, perhaps an implicit acknowledgment of this history.
After that, Nichols touches on the WWI-era attacks on free speech, analyzed through the lens of Wisconsin Congressman Victor Berger, who was elected and not seated for a significant amount of time, and socialist newspapers who faced repression. After long-fought battles, the leftists (and our constitution) prevailed. The left catches a bad rap on free speech issues today, while the right gets away with banning "CRT" from school curricula. The American left needs a more muscular defense of the First Amdnemtn, and Victor Berger is a perfect example.
Next comes a great section about A. Phillip Randolph and Martin Luther King Jr. Randolph is a figure you hear mentioned in history class, but a cursory explanation doesn't do him justice. Randolph's labor organization skills led him to create the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, finding a way to fight for economic and racial justice. Randolph broke down many racial barriers in organized labor, which ended up helping all workers. His ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands precipitated desegregation efforts and laid the groundwork for people like MLK Jr. and Bayard Rustin, who realized the necessity of economic *and* racial justice.
Only in the final major chapter does Nichols stray from his historical lens, and this is where he goes wrong. It starts out fine, covering the history of DSA and other leftist groups through the modern-day (albeit weirdly not talking much about McGovern '72). But when he gets to then-President Obama, Nichols has a lot of harsh criticism. Interestingly, Obama had the DSA and New Party endorsements when he first ran for office! I get the sense that Nichols is disappointed he ended up as more of a pragmatist and feels disillusioned at his turn. This sometimes leads him to unfair criticism, like suggesting that the Democratic Party is "so conservative that Jimmy Carter ... is today seen by party bosses as an ideological outlier" (256). And then he says that American liberalism is nothing like that one espoused by John Lindsay and Lowell Weicker, two prominent (sorta) Republicans in the 1960s and 1980s. Even under Obama, when they were decidedly more centrist, Democrats were never that conservative. This chapter was a bit haphazard with phrasing, an issue that pops up here and there in the book.
Nonetheless, it's back to thoughtful, nuanced Nichols in the afterword, which ponders the impacts of automation and technology. He connects his narrative to the future here, but readers should notice various lessons for the left throughout, some of which I've noted.
Nichols does not shy away from discussing the ills of our past and present. From entrenched racism to sexism to attacks on free speech, injustice has been all too common in America. However, he lays a foundation for DSA's and others on the left to find models in American history. These figures come from the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Socialist Party. The left will need creative coalitions to get things done, which means embracing this country. People like Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas were not anti-American; they were actually patriots, whether or not you agree with their politics. Building off the fights waged by A. Phillip Randolph, Victor Berger, and various others, the American left can reclaim patriotism and build new alliances.
February 18, 2019
I think I might be a socialist.
October 24, 2015
This book should be required reading for everyone in our country. If more people understood the true meaning of Socialism and it's long and dramatic effects in the USA, then we could move away from the state of fear associated with the word and have a more constructive conversation about our options now and in the future.
March 2, 2019
I do not like John Nichols' sentences. Probably more my ADD. When I finish a sentence in this book I can't remember what it was actually about. Plus he goes off on tangents on the paragraph level too. I thought this book would be more history of socialism then what it is. I think the book would have benefitted from an occasional thesis statement.
June 22, 2012
Americans who consider themselves to be progressive are foolish to continually cast their lot with the very entrenched Democratic party. This book details a period of time when the Socialist party was very influential in US politics and makes a case for going there again. Highly readable too.
May 18, 2020
Docked two stars because my interest kept waning. There were sections where he told the history of socialism like he really enjoyed the topic and gave it to us as a fascinating narrative, but then there were sections where he just listed factoids and numbers and I wanted to stop reading.
February 1, 2012
An excellent book. It covers a lot of the successes of socialism and how many of the good things about America we take for granted have their roots in various socialist movements.
June 24, 2016
Abe Lincoln wrote a letter to Karl Marx.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews