Timeline 31

TL31 Focus: The Socialist Schism

Socialism is a word with a lot of concepts attached to it. For some, it’s seen as a gateway to communism, while others see it as “communism lite”, and others see socialism and communism as separate entities entirely. Naturally, like any ideology, there are debates and different schools of thought, but that isn’t the concern here. Instead, what will be discussed is what is considered by some to be the “Catholic-Orthodox Split” of socialist thought: that of the divergence between the North American School of Socialism and the European School of Socialism, and the driving forces behind the schism in these two schools of thought: Abraham Lincoln and Karl Marx.

Karl Marx, ca. 1875 

Karl Marx, born in what would one day become the German Empire, is considered by some to have been the founding father of modern socialist thought (various forms existed prior to him, but his works crystallized much of the modern dogmas). In 1848, at the peak of the liberal revolutions sweeping across Europe, he and his partner Friedrich Engels published a small pamphlet named the Communist Manifesto, intentionally written in simple terms and with a short length to appeal to the working class, rather than intellectuals. Stateless for many years because of his publications, Marx lived in London for much of his life, and it was in the British Museum that he wrote many of his works, including the three-volume text Das Kapital in 1867.


Abraham Lincoln was born on the American frontier in Kentucky, but lived most of his life in the US state of Illinois. Entering politics in the pro-business Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln served as the 16th and final president of the United States from 1860 to 1866, when he was deposed in a coup that led to the rise of Freedonia. Between 1866 and 1884, Lincoln was also stateless, traveling across much of North America and forming his own thoughts on socialism, which were crystallized into a seminal work of American political thought, New Common Sense. The pamphlet was effectively the main work that broke North American and European socialism apart, and became a foundational work for many North American socialist movements.



The split was already in the making by then, however. Between 1869 and 1871, Lincoln and Marx, who had already been in contact by then, began to exchange a series of letters while Lincoln lived in Toronto, Ontario that are appropriately called the Lincoln-Marx Letters, often used as a corollary to New Common Sense. The letters began as a discussion of the present state of socialism, but soon the two began to diverge in their arguments. Lincoln was, as he had always been, pro-business, and had created several monopolies in his time in office by legislative fiat. As part of this, Lincoln’s view on the matter was not simply to abolish corporations and create worker’s communes, but instead to adapt the existing system and strengthen the workers through means such as collective bargaining rights, a national minimum wage, and other means such as state pensions.



This was where the schism began. Marx saw the rise of industrialism as making communism’s rise inevitable, and a revolution would overthrow the existing social order to create an entirely new one. Given that Marx lived in Europe at a time when aristocracies and absolute monarchies were the norm, this is to be expected. Lincoln, by contrast, did not see a revolution as inevitable or even necessary. Instead, his view on the matter was that a gradual shift in the system through existing means (namely, democratic governments) could bring about a system that could have things such as private businesses in a world where workers and their rights were still guarded. It is in these letters that Marx and Lincoln truly diverged from each other, as their opinions started fairly similar but eventually separated over the course of their letters.



In the 1870s, socialism was still largely dominated by Marxist thought, and the general opinion of socialism was that of red banners in the streets, bomb-throwing anarchists, and generally undesirable effects on society. It was the letters that inspired Lincoln to begin going on speaking engagements across the continent, where he continued to develop his theory of socialism independently from Marx. Lincoln partook in several debates and discussions, and gave several speeches to slowly rebuild his influence in the now extinct United States, and began to write the first draft of New Common Sense around the early 1880s. It was in New Common Sense that Lincoln took a different inspiration: Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet Common Sense (from which the title of Lincoln’s work was derived) was seen as a foundational document for American democracy.



New Common Sense was, much like Common Sense and the Communist Manifesto before it, a fairly short pamphlet of about 45 pages. Indeed, it was arranged similarly to Common Sense, being split into 4 sections: How We Got Here, Here And Now, Where We Can Go, and a short afterword. How We Got Here was Lincoln’s analysis of the 90 year history of the United States through a quasi-Marxist perspective, discussing the “class struggles” as they pertained to various conflicts such as the American War for Independence, the Indian Wars, the War of 1812, and finally the War of Dissolution. Here And Now went on to describe a viewpoint of the modern political landscape of the 7 Post-American Nations, describing that a common theme among all of them were various failings in their governments and the weakness of the people subject to those governments. Where We Can Go described in detail what Lincoln believed should be implemented and the effects they would have, and the afterword drew an analogy that will be repeated here:


“The current state of the common man’s affairs is much like an old boiler, corroded and weakened. Many in the present day have seen fit to simply patch it over again and again, trusting that it will hold. Others hold that the boiler is destined to explode. It is instead possible that the boiler can be properly repaired and restored to working order, provided that the necessary methods are used.”


The pamphlet was a smash hit across North America, though its distribution was banned in Freedonia and restricted in the Confederate States of America. The chief measure of its success was, much like the Communist Manifesto, that it was written in short, concise terms that were intentionally made accessible for the common man, while not going so far as to alienate those wealthy individuals who were most likely to be hostile to the kind of arguments made in the Communist Manifesto. However, one place that it was not successful in was Europe. In Europe, many Marxists were unswayed by the pamphlet’s assertions, and even Marx himself argued shortly before his death in 1886 “How can Lincoln truly expect such change to come through the ballot box, when vast swathes of this continent are denied such a luxury? Does he perhaps expect the German Kaiser to disrobe some of his power willingly? Or perhaps for the Tsar to eagerly give his citizens the right to vote? His naivete comes from his assumption that such methods can be applied universally.”



And so, the final nail in the schism came. Between North America and Europe, the lines were drawn and the largest schism in socialist thought was finally manifested. Some political scholars and historians have described the split between Lincoln and Marx as so significant that Lincolnism couldn't accurately be called "socialism", but should have its own term applied to it, one of the most common being "social liberalism" or "market socialism" or "social democracy", the latter term of the three being the most common in the modern day. Regardless, the influence of this ideology cannot be overstated, laying a foundation for the American Left that continues into the modern day.

Part 6: Rise of the Progressives (1885 - 1892)

On 9 September 1885, Robert W. Waterman gave a speech from the steps of the Grizzly Hotel in Sacramento, in which he gave a scathing critique of President Gorham, the Freedom Party, and Californian politics in general, in what became known as the "New Era of Progress" speech, an excerpt is given here:

"As we march toward the future, we can either embrace the course that history is guiding our country or resist it. If we resist, then much like the ship caught in a storm, we will be torn asunder just as the country once called the United States was torn asunder. If, however, we can turn our sails into the wind, we may be propelled into a bright and shining future, where we may indeed bear true faith to the very first article of our constitution, that all men and women are by their natures free and independent, and have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness."

With the speech delivered, the Progressive Party of California soared into existence, rapidly absorbing support from across the country. Its platform rested on three key planks: breaking down the legal barriers between the ethnic groups of California, creating protections for workers in California, and securing the right of women to vote. In one bound, this secured them a large base of support centering around immigrants, Hispanic-Californians, and Asian-Californians, along with the more progressive Anglo-Californian men, as well as support from women who could not yet vote, immediately launching them to national prominence in a political climate where their supporters felt alienated and disenchanted with Californian politics. This also had the side effect of crippling the Freedom Party beyond repair, and seeing the situation unfolding many of the more conservative wing of the party also deserted and joined with the Bear Flag Party, thus leaving only a handful of support for the Freedomites. They quickly faded from the national scene, not even putting up a candidate for the oncoming 1886 election, while the Progressives quickly nominated Waterman as their candidate for the election at the beginning of the campaign in October.

Thank you for pointing that out. And as far as I know,both "put" and "pumped" would be appropriate, since I'm typing as a Californian with a very mixed vocabulary in terms of slang phrases and the like.

Well, it can also mean that in the United States too, depending on the context you use it in.

Oh yeah, he was super important in getting the environmentalist movement off the ground in the United States. He actually spent time with President Theodore Roosevelt in Yosemite to help push him further toward getting it preserved as a national park.

Part 7: The Early Waterman Years (1892 - 1895)

Immediately after his inauguration on 14 February 1892, Robert Waterman set about following through on his campaign promises with a vigor, stating "What we do in these first hundred days sets the course for the next 6 years." As such, the government immediately introduced the new Omnibus Reform Bill of 1892, which primarily concentrated first on civil rights. Among them were explicitly outlawing poll taxes, grandfather clauses, or literacy tests as illegal blocks to voting, outlawing segregationist housing policies, and asserting that all citizens were in fact equal, and outlawing discrimination based on race in the federal government. Despite a Progressive majority in both houses of Congress, the BFP opposition managed to put up enough of a challenge to keep it from immediately passing, followed by a legal challenge in the Supreme Court in the form of Sullivan v. Waterman, which used the principal of "separate but equal" in an attempt to block the Reform Omnibus. However, in the arguments presented in favor of the bill, evidence was provided to showcase that the "separate but equal doctrine" was not being upheld, and moreover that it was intentionally not being upheld, thus effectively rendering it moot, and declaring that segregation based on race was unconstitutional. It should be noted, however, that this was not long after Waterman announced plans to "stuff" the court with pro-Progressive justices, as many as 7 to double the number, and not long afterwards the court ruled in its favor.